What is wrong with the snipers?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm in two minds.

It's hard to tell the difference between a 'magic bonus' and role specific training enhancing a snipers basic skill.

At this point I'm open to the suggestion that the snipers should be given a lengthy 'deploy' option that boosts accuracy and spotting. Especially spotting wise I'd hope for more of a bonus as you only get to spot from long range if the opponent obliges by moving his troops.

[ChrisND]

I'd say this highlights the incredible in-game difficulty of spotting infantry in buildings. If they don't open fire, it is just about impossible to have a clue they are there, no matter what optics and technology are looking at the building.

[YankeeDog]

I'm in two minds.

It's hard to tell the difference between a 'magic bonus' and role specific training enhancing a snipers basic skill.

At this point I'm open to the suggestion that the snipers should be given a lengthy 'deploy' option that boosts accuracy and spotting. Especially spotting wise I'd hope for more of a bonus as you only get to spot from long range if the opponent obliges by moving his troops.

I think a better solution, especially for units like Snipers, would be to tie spotting fidelity to the size of a cover arc.

That is, if a sniper is assigned a relatively narrow cover arc (say, 150 mils or less), it would be much more likely to spot something within that arc, but much less likely to spot anything outside the arc. To my mind, this would accurately simulate two guys looking through high-powered scopes, watching a specifically assigned area for enemy activity, which AIUI is what snipers often do in combat situations.

I'm not sure how simple this would be to code, though. Like so many other seemingly good ideas, it may just not be a significant enough improvement to be worth Charles' coding time any time soon...

Cheers,

YD

[Redwolf]

Did anybody consider verifying Pillar's/Adam's claims about 1.20 spotting in a controlled experiment? Maybe that would improve some of the tone in these threads and put Charles' comments into the right light.

It would require the editor, though, doing it on the demo would be too much of a waste.

[GSX]

Let's remember sniper capabilities work for both sides. If sniper shots were really the guaranteed easy kill that some people claim the U.S. casualty rate in Iraq would have been exponentially higher. The variable are many and accumulative. No carelessly exposed enemy plus low light levels plus firing from an exposed position plus a 'weakend' sniper team (after driving cross-country all night) - they all add up.

That assumes a lot, firstly it assumes Snipers abound in iraq and there are plenty of well calibrated sniper weapons to go round, with the added advantage of trained snipers too.

Secondly, do CMSF scenarios take into account that snipers have been travelling all night?

I never gave that much thought to snipers in the game, but reading this makes me wonder. Oh, if you want to know about Brit snipers I would recommend reading 'Sniper One'. Not only a good read but highly informative too.

[Fūrinkazan]

well, i think it's time to take another approach. That's why i decided to make some tests.

First, history :

If i remember well, there was a similar problem when cmbo came out with AT guns. They couldn't spot tanks at very long range. It was a problem to reproduce shots at 3000 meters that were reported by germans and allieds.

After modification by BFC, i made a test with 10 shermans at 3200 m and two 88mm guns. The first tank was destroyed at 3100 m and the last at 2900. I think the results were quiet "right" compared to real life.

I did the same test in cmbb with the stuka equipped with 37 mm gun to compare to what Rudel did in real life. With 4 Elite stukas, i only obtain one immobilized tank. Conclusion : or Rudel was a liar, or The 37 mm was under powered in the game:).

I made a test with vehicules and infantry against a sniper team of veterans

marines. The map was more than 2000 m long, no wind, at 12 o'clock, very good visibility. The marines were split in two teams in the third and second floor of a building.

Since a Marine destroyed a Bmp at 1100 m in real life i took this distance for my first test against vehicules.

-Against an mg pickup, on the flank :

detected in 2 seconds 10 shots with 50 cal = 2 missed and 2 casualties (driver each time) the vehicule was functional.

- Same but on the front :

11 shots with 50 cal to destroy the vehicule. 3 shots missed and two casualties. I saw at least 5 shots in the engine area and the vehicule was destroyed at the last of the 11 shots.

Each time, the gunner decided to disembark and was out of sight after a few seconds.

Against a bmp 1 always with the 50 cal : detected after 2 to 6 seconds at 1100 m

flank : 10 shots 3 missed light damage only to optics

rear : 10 shots 5 missed light damage only to optics

front : 10 shots 2 missed light damage only to optics

I never had armor penetration. It seams that the marines who destroyed the bmp used ap/incendiary ammo and maybe they are not modelled in the game. It seams at least that the power of the 50 cal is not what it should be

especially against the pickup.

against infantry :

I took an hq of 7 men at 1100 m same condition of weather and visibility.

in five minutes without moving they took 3 deads but i didn't count how many shots it took.

i made them run at 1400 m and they were spotted after 40 secs. They took 14 shots and only 3 hit the target. the result was 3 lightly wounded soldiers.

At long distance they disappear when they stop moving.

I did a last test with the same team, moving slowly at 1600 m.

They were spotted at 1360 m by the snipers.

I guess it's impossible to spot and shoot with snipers at very long distance at infantry (2430 m for the shot made in afghanistan by the sniper of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry).

Maybe the equipment of real life snipers team is not completely modeled in the game. I saw that in the united states marine corps snipers were instructed to use the Marine Air Ground Task Force Secondary Imagery Dissemination System (MSIDS). They use a computer and specials cameras that can take images night and day to help snipers in reco and target spoting.

I will try to make other tests when i will have the time, but i think we can say that against vehicule, the 50 cal is not very efficient in the game at 1100 m and it's difficult to spot infantry at more than 1500 m with sniper teams.At 1000 m or less i think the results against infantry were good and the target did not vanish. My snipers were never detected by infantry or vehicules.

[permanent666]

I think a better solution, especially for units like Snipers, would be to tie spotting fidelity to the size of a cover arc.

That is, if a sniper is assigned a relatively narrow cover arc (say, 150 mils or less), it would be much more likely to spot something within that arc, but much less likely to spot anything outside the arc. To my mind, this would accurately simulate two guys looking through high-powered scopes, watching a specifically assigned area for enemy activity, which AIUI is what snipers often do in combat situations.

I'm not sure how simple this would be to code, though. Like so many other seemingly good ideas, it may just not be a significant enough improvement to be worth Charles' coding time any time soon...

Cheers,

YD

This is not a bad idea, but sometimes i don't want that my unit engage a spotted enemy

in my opinion it would be good, if you get at least some more ?-contacts when observing buildings

[Other Means]

I think spotting is already tied to cover arcs in this way.

[Schmoly War]

I think a better solution, especially for units like Snipers, would be to tie spotting fidelity to the size of a cover arc.

That is, if a sniper is assigned a relatively narrow cover arc (say, 150 mils or less), it would be much more likely to spot something within that arc, but much less likely to spot anything outside the arc. To my mind, this would accurately simulate two guys looking through high-powered scopes, watching a specifically assigned area for enemy activity, which AIUI is what snipers often do in combat situations.

YD

When I started playing the campaign when the game came out, I ISTINCTIVLY put out area arcs for snipers without even knowing if that changed anything.

Very sad to know they dont make a difference in the spotting department. Seemed pretty obvious they should.

Im all for putting in the extra effort into employing recon forces the proper real life way. but..

we shouldnt have to quote articles and put up youtube clips of snipers in training to emphasize that these units should have certain fieldcraft and spotting bonuses.

[SlowMotion]

I think spotting is already tied to cover arcs in this way.

But what if you want the unit just to observe, but not use weapons? A new command?

[YankeeDog]

I think spotting is already tied to cover arcs in this way.

If so, very cool.

I haven't had a chance to play with 1.20 yet, but under 1.11 I really had no complaints about Snipers in the game; as long as they're of good experience level I've found them to be quite effective. But I've never done a really close study of who's doing the spotting... it may be that teams I have in closer proximity to the enemy are doing the spotting of the enemy, and the info is getting relayed to the sniper.

Some folks here are talking about 1000m + shots, and there certainly have been verified cases of these from Afghanistan and Iraq. But one thing to keep in mind is that the really long range shots you hear about are usually after the sniper team has set itself up in a carefully selected hide and observed the target area for a long period, and the target is often against an enemy that is not in "combat stance." The bullet flight time alone at that range means need a pretty much stationary target (or at least target moving at a predictable speed and direction) to hit at that range.

I think CM is intended to model situations where both sides are aware that enemy forces are in the area, and contact is imminent, if it hasn't happened already. In this type of situation, I would expect that visual sightings would be more fleeting, making it difficult to set up a 1000m+ shot. And yes, I know that the soldier animations in CM don't move around that much unless they're actually firing or executing a movement order. But I've always assumed that this is somewhat abstracted, and IRL there would be more effort to avoid prolonged exposure, even when not moving or firing. That is, soldiers would actually be peeking occasionally out of the window, over the parapet, etc. to avoid giving an easy, stationary target.

[Other Means]

But what if you want the unit just to observe, but not use weapons? A new command?

Ah - no, no way to do it - although I can see the utility. But then, there must be a hundred specific commands you could introduce.

[Paper Tiger]

Did anybody consider verifying Pillar's/Adam's claims about 1.20 spotting in a controlled experiment? Maybe that would improve some of the tone in these threads and put Charles' comments into the right light.

It would require the editor, though, doing it on the demo would be too much of a waste.

If someone posts about a bug or some irregular game behaviour on these boards, the Beta testers are very happy to get a save game from them and do some testing. I haven't done any further testing since Adam posted his observations because in all my time playtesting v1.20, I didn't see what he saw in his own limited time playtesting v1.20. Perhaps I didn't see it because I do almost all my work on my own stuff and I prefer to play on large maps where the two forces come into contact at ranges much longer that 500m. It's bloody hard spotting the heavy weapons on rooftops or in brush at ranges in excess of 500m so I have no idea why you are talking about spotting these weapons unconditionally in v1.20. I also have a small scenario under consideration for inclusion in the Brit module called 'Sabres at Dawn' which takes place on a very small map and which would be a good test. If this were a real issue, I believe I would have spotted it there but it wasn't an issue. I found the opposite to be true actually. And please remember that my opinion is based on a very long series of playtests and not one or two playthroughs.

[Fūrinkazan]

I did another few testing today.

To help my snipers in spoting, i put 3 M707 humvee with them.

The Syrian infantry was at 1600 m. They were not spotted as long as they were not moving. They spotted de 3 M 707 at the first turn.

After 5 turns i made them move and they were spotted by the m707 at 1500 m and by the snipers at 1400 M. Snipers started to shoot and i had one lucky shot at 1300 m one badly wounded (red) and on lightly (yellow). When the Syrians stopped moving, after one turn they were not spotted anymore. The M707 could always see them but not the snipers. They moved again and as soon as they were close to 1000 m one was shot dead. They remained spotted when they were not moving.

I would say that the 0.50 cal can be dangerous at 1200 m and is efficient at 1000 m. The other sniper hit one syrian at 800 m in only one turn.

Against vehicule, i wasn't as successful.

against BRDM-2 i could only have light damage to tyres. At 500 m i didn't have armor penetration on the flank. But i must say that the shots were very accurate.

On a pick-up at 500 m the first shot killed the driver. Almost all shots hit the target and the second driver was hit just on minute after the first one. I saw at least 4 bullets hitting in the engine area but that did not destroyed the vehicule.

I had one infantry hq at more than 2000 m that was never spotted, but they didn't move.

I tried to find datas about the Barrett M82.

The maximum range is 6800 m.

It's efficient at 2300 m.

It can penetrate concrete obstacles, some type of armor, and destroy light vehicules.

I found an article about the french PGM Hecate II.

It was used up to 1800 m against vehicules and 1200 m against personel with good results.

French paratroops used it against 4x4 in Africa and they reported that one single shot in the engine was enough to stop the vehicule (Ivory Coast in 2003).

After all this, i would not say that snipers are not good since i hit 2 men in one shot at 1300 m:D. Maybe they should be able to spot infantry at longer range even if they can't shoot.

I think the 0.50 cal is not powerful enough against non armored vehicules. With sometimes 5 shots in the engine area i did not destroyed a pick-up.

As i don't know the power of penetration of those rifles, i can't say if this is "right" or not, but it seems that they are not as efficient in the game than in real life.

I could not destroy or damage a bmp 1. It seems that it's armor is 19 mm in the hull, 23 mm in the turret max. I tried in the rear and side and obtain no good results.

[dan/california]

Published data from an M2 AP round states that penetration falls off by ~45 % at 600 meters, and ~78% at 1500 meters. 1000 meters was not included in the table but obviously would fall somewhere in between. Given that its penetration at 200 meters is one inch(25.4 mm) of armor plate,or a little less depending on plate type, it probably shouldn't be killing the penetrating the BTR most of the time. especially when armor slope is considered.

The pick ups survival probably represents the round punching through without hitting anything absolutely vital. Have you tried it in hot-seat to see what the game thinks is happening to the pick up?

Information from link below.http://survivalmonkey.com/50info/50BMGammo.pdf

[Fūrinkazan]

Thanks a lot for the link Dan. Very interresting.

All my tests were made in hot-seat.

The pick-up had only light damage to tyres. As the driver was killed at the first shot and also the guy who took the place just after, maybe the ai is targeting men instead of the vehicule.

I will try at shorter range, but i'm afraid that the other member of the team might shoot too and make a wrong result.

But if the story of the marine who destroyed a bmp 1 during the first gulf war at 1100 m is true, i could'nt reproduce it in the game. Maybe a problem of ammo type. I saw in your pdf that there was an armor piercing incendiary (mk211 mod 0) and i think it was that type that was used.

The penetration table is for the ap ammo. Maybe it's better with the incendiary and the saboted light armor penetrator tracer can penetrate 34 mm at 500 m

and 23 mm at 1 200 m.

i found this on wiki :

he BMP-1's steeply sloped frontal armour can withstand artillery shell fragments, small arms fire and existing .50 calibre (12.7 mm) heavy machine gun AP and API rounds over 60° of the frontal arc from all distances.[12] The very high angle of the hull frontal armour increases the probability of ricochets, and the trim vane in the travelling position adds little additional protection. On most examples the front armor is immune to 20 millimetre Oerlikon KAD or HS820 auto-cannon fire from ranges greater than 100 metres, but armor quality varies quite significantly with the nationality of a factory. Examples of where the marks of factory certification firings are recognizable on all the major armor plates are usually better protected.

The side, rear and top armor protect the BMP-1 from 7.62 mm small arms fire from most distances as well as smaller artillery shell fragments but do not protect the vehicle against 12.7 mm heavy machine gun fire from close distances or larger artillery shell fragments. Nevertheless, ground tests demonstrated that rear doors with fuel tanks filled with sand withstood hits from standard 12.7 mm rounds. In Afghanistan and Chechnya armor-piercing 7.62 mm rounds fired from general purpose machine guns at ranges of around 30 - 50 m sometimes penetrated the rear doors and hatches. During the First Persian Gulf War the armor protection of the BMP-1 proved vulnerable to the armor-piercing rounds of the US M2/M3 Bradley's 25 millimetres (0.98 in) M242 Bushmaster autocannon. During the intense fighting in Chechnya, no penetration of the BMP-1/BMD-1 turret front armor were noticed because the turret made for a small target and had relatively thick frontal armor compared to other parts of the vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-1#Armor_protection

(I'm not sure that a bmp would survive the 25 mm of a bradley in si frontal arc but i would like to try )

For the pick-up i doubt that they would resist to those ammo. I guess that when you hit the engine area there is a lot of chance that you destroy it or at least the radiator. After at least 5 shots in that area there was nothing to the engine at 500 m. I destroyed a pick up at long range (1000 m) after more than 12 shots but there was nobody on it. The last men disembarked.

But maybe you are right and nothing important was hit.

That's when i regret all the details about armor thickness and ammo penetration that we had in the old cm1.

[dan/california]

I don't think the Barrett can use the saboted round. I'm not sure if that is due to recoil, or chamber design.

I don't think anyone questions that a Bradley's 25 mm will turn any Soviet AFV into Swiss cheese. Thats its job. It can penetrate some of the older tanks from the sides and rear.

In regards to specific historical case the game cannot possibly model every single rivet hole and bad weld. He may have hit an open hatch or gotten through a vision block. You need data from ten BMPs lined up side by side with many multiple rounds fired at each to get a sense of the probabilities involved. No one ever talks about the many, many times even the best snipers miss from a 1000 meters plus. Among other things at that range you are heavily dependent on wind conditions.