need glasses for the sharpshooters ....

[siffo998]

i rerun your test setup twice akd:

setup is the same as before, but now all us snipers (elite) are acutally marksman (sniper team at 50%)

note: in the test before only one team had a non marksman (with sniper rifle)

i use 8 lanes.

results after 2 X 5 minutes:

again no panther A mid tc was hit (range 100m) (facing the sniper with the right side)

my opinion:

i cannot reproduce a tc hit with sniper only (against sherman m4a3 or panther mid A)...but according to akd and savage it is possible...so it might be very rare (too rare for elite snipers ?). i can second that, like akd and savage said, most of the hits are actually hitting to low... !

[stoex]

I have not done any tests , but to me it appears that the snipers may be shooting at something that isn't the visual representation of what they should be shooting at. And I don't think this necessarily applies only to snipers, as akd indicated. It might also explain some of the gratuitous firing at TC's by other infantry. Does that make sense? I'll try to make it so by way of examples:

Maybe the code has them thinking they can see part of the TC they can't really see?

Maybe they are shooting at another member of the tank crew because they think they can see him (better than the TC)?

Maybe they just don't see the tank at all in terms of shooting at the exposed TC? Meaning they don't recognize him as being only partly exposed and are doing their best to shoot at 'visual center mass'.

Or any number of even weirder things....

[siffo998]

I have not done any tests , but to me it appears that the snipers may be shooting at something that isn't the visual representation of what they should be shooting at. And I don't think this necessarily applies only to snipers, as akd indicated. It might also explain some of the gratuitous firing at TC's by other infantry. Does that make sense? I'll try to make it so by way of examples:

Maybe the code has them thinking they can see part of the TC they can't really see?

Maybe they are shooting at another member of the tank crew because they think they can see him (better than the TC)?

Maybe they just don't see the tank at all in terms of shooting at the exposed TC? Meaning they don't recognize him as being only partly exposed and are doing their best to shoot at 'visual center mass'.

Or any number of even weirder things....

nice ideads...havent thought about that... but i think we could not verify this with tests... only someone with access to the code could proof it and hunt it down if its this way... nonetheless i think we have done some nice work and testing all together and provided a big ammount of info for the devs...

[IMHO]

actually at training conditions even without scopes, for a trained person aimed shots out of a kar98k at 100m are no problem (i`ve seen it my granddad used one at the range)...so why should shots at 100m with a scope fired by a elite sniper (not the average hanswurst, more like the russian Vasily Zaytsev) at a melon sized target be nearly impossible ? we are talking about 10 misses and more at a standing target !

by the way zaytsev had 242 veryfied kills according to wiki...

1. I don't comment on the tests - didn't read the results. So it's more like general remark.

2. There were so few Zaytsevs. So even when we're talking about elite snipers - these are not top 5 - more like top five hundred.

3. Again may be obvious. What goes for training shooting is normally a) known distance, no wind, c) known humidity and temperature, d) match grade ammo, e) more or less fresh barrel, f) long preparation time, g) no stress. I'd take biathlon shooting as more of a measure for real life sniping.

[stoex]

... I'd take biathlon shooting as more of a measure for real life sniping.

I agree, IMHO...but even average biathletes hit their targets more often than not, and though the targets are only 50 meters away, they are only 45mm across in the prone shoot - a lot smaller than a human head. Also, in terms of the tests here, we are talking about rested troops, not ones who are exhausted, and their stress levels should be comparatively low as there is no-one shooting at them.

[IMHO]

I agree, IMHO...but even average biathletes hit their targets more often than not, and though the targets are only 50 meters away, they are only 45mm across in the prone shoot - a lot smaller than a human head. Also, in terms of the tests here, we are talking about rested troops, not ones who are exhausted, and their stress levels should be comparatively low as there is no-one shooting at them.

1. I think we're talking about more or less the same thing Headshots at TCs should not be one shot one kill exercise. Should it be three shots per kill or five shots per kill I don't know as I don't have WWII real life statistics (probably no one has). As an example, to derive an approximation we can get WWII sniper range training standards and compare them to the current range training (or regular troop training if there are no available WWII sniper data). This will give us the difference in technology. Then apply this coefficient to the current sniper shots per kill data (we can ask on "real" military forums) and I believe we will have a good approximation for the WWII stats.

2. As for biathlete - it's not so obvious. Hundreds of range training shots each month for a biathlete vs. (my guess) 10-30 per month even for an elite WWII sniper. .22LR with extremely low recoil vs. full power cartridges. Match grade ammo vs. mass production ammo. Custom filling vs. factory filling. Fresh barrels vs. hundreds/thousands rounds wear.

But anyway both sublines of discussed exhausted itself due to the lack of stats

[siffo998]

Regarding data: Here is a snippet i`ve found in an wiki article about: Snipers of the Soviet Union

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipers_of_the_Soviet_Union)

"Such snipers were estimated to have a 50% probability of hitting a standing, man-sized target at 800 m (1/2 mile), and an 80% probability of hitting a standing, man-sized target at 500 m. For distances not exceeding 200 m the probability was estimated to be well above 90%. To attain this level of accuracy the sniper could not engage more than two such targets per minute."

(the text is about post ww2 snipers using the dragunov, but the regular ones not elite)

the text is reffering to: ^ Isby, David C. (1981). Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army. Jane's Information Group. ISBN 0-531-03732-0.

will try to find some further data regarding ww2 us and german rifles

[siffo998]

us rifle springfield m1903a4 with scope:

Effective Range 600 yards (550m)

Maximum effective range 750 yards (690m)

source:

http://www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_rifle_m1903a4.php

Kar98k

800+ m (875+ yd) with telescopic sight

"Karabiner 98k sniper rifles had an effective range up to 1000 meters (1094 yards) when used by a skilled sniper."

source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karabiner_98k

My opinion:

sorry but according to this data a "elite" ingame sniper should nearly one hit one kill a melon sized target at 100m otherwise i would say:

go back to the line infantry...

at least when he has a supression level of "0" like in our test conditions...

[akd]

Still running tests with this, but I am running into extreme variability in outcomes. Playing real time, I've seen 3 TCs hit with the first shot in one run and in another run all 10 TCs untouched after 15 minutes (all of sniper's ammo expended). In another run, no TCs were hit for over 5 minutes, then all 10 were hit in the following 10 minutes.

I also conducted a few runs of this test range using turn-based play (all my previous tests were real time), and I am yet to see a single TC hit at 100m. This hints there may be a divergence between real-time and turn-based outcomes, but as I note above, I have had one instance in real time play where there were also no hits at all, so I can't really draw that conclusion yet. I also did one turn-based run at 50m instead of 100m and did see hits on TCs, so there is no categorical "impossible" to hit here either.

Here are my 100m and 50m test ranges:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/36437512/800m_10lanes_snipertest_elite_panthers_100m.btt

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/36437512/800m_10lanes_snipertest_elite_panthers_50m.btt

[Thin Red Line]

Remember the Beta AAR ? The sniper had something like a 30 casualties score.

[ClarkWGriswold]

Remember the Beta AAR ? The sniper had something like a 30 casualties score.

Were any of those hits against tank commanders? I don't remember any. Perhaps snipers are effective at standing infantry but not so good against TCs, prone men, etc. due to the way they target?

[Bastables]

sure ... tell me where you where ?

lets share our experiences and maybe you can tell me, why infantry sharpshooters lost all their knowledge about aiming, when in a conflict area ?

did you ever heard that in real situation the senses will get sharpen ? thats for example a reason, why you feel that the rocket needs hours to reach the target and not hit after the usual 40 seconds f.e.

reading what you wrote and also look at the way you wrote it, im sure you are only a senior expert internet soldier. but maybe im wrong and how the life goes, we where at an almost same palce and then we can share much memories

E1002860 Pte

1RNZIR Support coy then Victor coy

East timor 2001

Personal experiences and the vast literature shows that hit rates go down during actual stressful situations like combat and police shootings, good things to look for are trained NY police men managing to miss a poor chap in a hallway plus my own experience in wide open hillsides.

Tell me about the number of people you've killed at 300metres, mate.

Because in my experience we're not even sure who actually hit the TNI soldiers and we were right there. But hey as a helo pilot you know that 300 metre range work is the same as actual combat.

My very last word on the matter, as it is never congruent to a game attempting to simulate on PC WW2 combat.

And sorry to everyone else who is properly testing the situation in game.

[Battlefront.com]

Sounds like JG11Preusse needs to keep in mind that we have a LOT of combat veterans here. And many keep their service quiet except when necessary to cite it.

Bastables is, of course, completely correct. There are many studies which show the negative effects of adrenaline and other stress conditions on breathing, hearing, short term memory, and fine motor control. When a police officer is asked how many shots he fired he often states a much smaller number than he actually shot. Often this is not because he's lying, but because he literally couldn't hear the shots being fired, couldn't feel the trigger being pulled, and didn't remember the details of the seconds inbetween shots.

Only the top end of CM's Experience ratings, under favorable combat conditions (good Morale, not Suppressed, etc.) should be close to a guarantee of a hit at decent ranges. Lower Experience levels should be, of course, even less optimal.

But we should not be seeing the sort of variation in the tests we're seeing. A sniper blowing through all his ammo and not landing a hit? Unless that guy is a Conscript the results certainly look like some sort of bug to me.

Steve

[siffo998]

Still running tests with this, but I am running into extreme variability in outcomes. Playing real time, I've seen 3 TCs hit with the first shot in one run and in another run all 10 TCs untouched after 15 minutes (all of sniper's ammo expended). In another run, no TCs were hit for over 5 minutes, then all 10 were hit in the following 10 minutes.

I also conducted a few runs of this test range using turn-based play (all my previous tests were real time), and I am yet to see a single TC hit at 100m. This hints there may be a divergence between real-time and turn-based outcomes, but as I note above, I have had one instance in real time play where there were also no hits at all, so I can't really draw that conclusion yet. I also did one turn-based run at 50m instead of 100m and did see hits on TCs, so there is no categorical "impossible" to hit here either.

thx for all your effort akd. your estimated difference between realtime play and wego would be supported by my experience that i`ve never seen a sniper hit against a tc at those ranges because i allways tested and played in wego (iron).

[siffo998]

Remember the Beta AAR ? The sniper had something like a 30 casualties score.

if you look at my test at page 5 regarding a elite sniper against infantry squad your number of 30 casualties during a game seems manageable. the problem is this just refers to infantry casualties not to tcs. (at least we could not reproduce it in those numbers it is estimated to... )

[JG11Preusse]

E1002860 Pte

1RNZIR Support coy then Victor coy

East timor 2001

Personal experiences and the vast literature shows that hit rates go down during actual stressful situations like combat and police shootings, good things to look for are trained NY police men managing to miss a poor chap in a hallway plus my own experience in wide open hillsides.

Tell me about the number of people you've killed at 300metres, mate.

Because in my experience we're not even sure who actually hit the TNI soldiers and we were right there. But hey as a helo pilot you know that 300 metre range work is the same as actual combat.

My very last word on the matter, as it is never congruent to a game attempting to simulate on PC WW2 combat.

And sorry to everyone else who is properly testing the situation in game.

so you are from new zealand.

why are you fixed on 300 meters ? my tests also talk about 43 meters, 140 meters and 170 meters. 300 meters was an example without a scope at a training yard, to show that maybe with a scope 140 meters should more easy.

btw ... i didnt shot with a helicopter at 300 meter distance at humans.

[siffo998]

i think we have to keep in mind that it was preusse who brought this thread up...maybe without him nobody would have experienced and reported this "maybe bug" in the next month - years . so i think we have to thank him that he was so stubborn in showing us his experiences at the start of this thread. even though they were not very scientific or reproduceable at first... !

[Vanir Ausf B]

He does deserve a lot of credit, but this behavior was noted previously.

[siffo998]

yep thx vanir... i also did a test in the thread and posted a link to it at the start of this thread... but back in that time it didnt pulled that much attraction than these one... nobody listened to us back then...(we always told you but you wouldnt want to hear... )

[JG11Preusse]

He does deserve a lot of credit, but this behavior was noted previously.

what i wrote (see topic) is what i saw at many qb-games. i dont invent thing, only to write something, even if some dont want to hear it.

it happened not only one time, and for each of my test i spent 45 minutes and try to look at what happens on this tiny map.

if the problem doesnt exist, i would never have written about it and i guess i own the same game with the same patch as all others, wich use a pc.

i also said several times, that i will send exact data and savefiles after being back from asia in arround 2 weeks, so then you can look yourself what goes on.

i also dont talk about tank commanders only, this was only 1 example i described. all other things happend without any tanks.

for exampled i watched yesterday at 2 elite snipers, wich shot at arround 170 meter distance at an enemy observer wich hooked beside a bush. good visible with no obstacles in the line of fire.

because the 1. sniper wasnt able to hit, i ordered a second one to his place, so that 2 together tried to hit, but without success. after the 45 minutes szenario was end, the observer still hokked there and bith snipers had no ammu left.

same thing happened with a soldier at 140 meter distance. he was giving first aid in the open field and no sniper was able to hit him. because battlecom admin said that the grade of the sniper is very important (green, regular, veteran and so on) i always use a mixe of elite and one step lower.

so ... tried to explain in english as good as i can, if something is wrong but understandable, then keep it as it is, i cant write better and it wont change if raised fingers point at me to tell me whats wrong

[siffo998]

to see if i can reproduce the sniper vs. infantry behaviour that preusse has experienced i ran another test:

this time (opposing to my first sniper (german) vs. infantry (us) ) i ran it in the follogwing setup:

8 lanes

Us snipers (full headcount, spotter (with garand) and marksman) "elite" in foxholes at ground level.

8 German Grenadier Squads (headcount 9) moving ("move") towards them.

1 sniper team vs. 1 infantry squad per lane. (total 8 tests)

this time no sniper squad can fire in another lane due to the ground level placement.

Initial Range 300m+

Results after one minute (one turn):

Us Side:

No casualties

no panic

German SIde:

Team 1, 4 KIA, 0 Injured, 5 OK, Shaken

Team 2, 3 KIA, 0 Injured, 6 OK, Shaken

Team 3, 4 KIA, 2 Injured, 3 OK, Panic

Team 4, 2 KIA, 1 Injured, 6 OK, Rattled

Team 5, 3 KIA, 0 Injured, 6 OK, Shaken

Team 6, 3 KIA, 1 Injured, 5 OK, Shaken

Team 7, 3 KIA, 1 Injured, 5 OK, Shaken

Team 8, 4 KIA, 0 Injured, 5 OK, Shaken

Sidenote: i wanted to exclude the mp40 fire of the spotter but on the other side i wanted to prevent a spotterless sniperteam because the spotter fullfills a vital role in the team so i used us sniperteams with a garand as spotter weapon. second i expanded the range to 300m. third i placed all teams at ground level.

additional note: during testing i experienced that all spotters are not fulfilling their role as spotter (with binoculars) but use their garand to fire at the enemy (maybe that should be changed because in a sniper team the spotter has the job to provide information for the marksman with his binoculars, at least in my opinion) But it could be that they simply feeled under immidiate pressure because of the distance of 300m and used their weapon for that reason...dont know...

My opinion:

the test results showed no real difference to my first test at page 5. all squad except one were shaken or worse. sorry preusse but i cannot reproduce your "my sniper hits nothing against infantry" experience. i think we will have to wait until you are back from asia and can pprovide some save games.

[JG11Preusse]

to see if i can reproduce the sniper vs. infantry behaviour that preusse has experienced i ran another test:

this time (opposing to my first sniper (german) vs. infantry (us) ) i ran it in the follogwing setup:

8 lanes

Us snipers (full headcount, spotter (with garand) and marksman) "elite" in foxholes at ground level.

8 German Grenadier Squads (headcount 9) moving ("move") towards them.

1 sniper team vs. 1 infantry squad per lane. (total 8 tests)

this time no sniper squad can fire in another lane due to the ground level placement.

Initial Range 300m+

Results after one minute (one turn):

Us Side:

No casualties

no panic

German SIde:

Team 1, 4 KIA, 0 Injured, 5 OK, Shaken

Team 2, 3 KIA, 0 Injured, 6 OK, Shaken

Team 3, 4 KIA, 2 Injured, 3 OK, Panic

Team 4, 2 KIA, 1 Injured, 6 OK, Rattled

Team 5, 3 KIA, 0 Injured, 6 OK, Shaken

Team 6, 3 KIA, 1 Injured, 5 OK, Shaken

Team 7, 3 KIA, 1 Injured, 5 OK, Shaken

Team 8, 4 KIA, 0 Injured, 5 OK, Shaken

Sidenote: i wanted to exclude the mp40 fire of the spotter but on the other side i wanted to prevent a spotterless sniperteam because the spotter fullfills a vital role in the team so i used us sniperteams with a garand as spotter weapon. second i expanded the range to 300m. third i placed all teams at ground level.

additional note: during testing i experienced that all spotters are not fulfilling their role as spotter (with binoculars) but use their garand to fire at the enemy (maybe that should be changed because in a sniper team the spotter has the job to provide information for the marksman with his binoculars, at least in my opinion)

My opinion:

the test results showed no real difference to my first test at page 5. all squad except one were shaken or worse. sorry preusse but i cannot reproduce your "my sniper hits nothing against infantry" experience. i think we will have to wait until you are back from asia and can pprovide some save games.

can you do me a favor and download the 11 quickbattlemaps and use the tiny open map please.

maybe a map problem ? i use this map for most tests, because it is small and practicable.

you maybe also can tell me, what kind of map you use and i will do same tests there then.

btw. to stay fair ... i never said my sniper hit nothing. maybe you read my posts again and examine exact what i described.

i gave some detailed explanations about what i saw in the game while shooting from 43 meters to a unbuttoned tank, from arround 140 meters to an observer..shooting with 2 elite snipers at him, also the 170 example to the one who gave first aid in the open field.

dont generalize everything please. if you want to show that you have different experiences, please look at what i wrote and observe such behavior in the game.

some time ago i sent a savefile because a bridge eats all my tanks. here you also can not drive abouve different bridges and say that everything is wrong what i saw. the battlefront people saw my savefile and recognized a problem, so i also wasnt wrong there.

[siffo998]

for exampled i watched yesterday at 2 elite snipers, wich shot at arround 170 meter distance at an enemy observer wich hooked beside a bush. good visible with no obstacles in the line of fire.

because the 1. sniper wasnt able to hit, i ordered a second one to his place, so that 2 together tried to hit, but without success. after the 45 minutes szenario was end, the observer still hokked there and bith snipers had no ammu left.

same thing happened with a soldier at 140 meter distance. he was giving first aid in the open field and no sniper was able to hit him. because battlecom admin said that the grade of the sniper is very important (green, regular, veteran and so on) i always use a mixe of elite and one step lower.

actually as far as i can tell these two examples of yours say that your snipers hit nothing... i was reffering to them...

i use a selfmade testlane... flat ground about 2000m long and 1000m wide. each 100m i used a big wall to divide one lane from another... you can easily build it in the editor and modify it the way you like.

sorry but i cannot use the repository because it allways says my account or password is unvalid... (i use the same as here)... what is this map like ? is it just open ground without any elevation or vegetation ? as soon as there are bushes, trees or elevation etc. the test scenario has to many variables in it and is very hard to reproduce. this is why you should use test lanes (according to steve) to eliminate as much variables as possible.

[siffo998]

and please dont call me generalising ... if you do not want to know what my opinion is simply dont read this part of my result. it is clearly marked as my opinion. and the rest of the statistical stuff is separated from it.

and all i said was i cannot reproduce it... i never said that there is no problem at all for sure.

[JG11Preusse]

actually as far as i can tell these two examples of yours say that your snipers hit nothing... i was reffering to them...

i use a selfmade testlane... flat ground about 2000m long and 1000m wide. each 100m i used a big wall to divide one lane from another... you can easily build it in the editor and modify it the way you like.

sorry but i cannot use the repository because it allways says my account or password is unvalid... (i use the same as here)... what is this map like ? is it just open ground without any elevation or vegetation ? as soon as there are bushes, trees or elevation etc. the test scenario has to many variables in it and is very hard to reproduce. this is why you should use test lanes (according to steve) to eliminate as much variables as possible.

i can send you the map via email if you want and i also will be glad if you can send me your selfmade one.

if you want to, you can send me your emailadress via pm. the map is only 154kb size and i guess this i can handle also with this bad internetconnection wich i have to use at the moment.