US Sniper rifle???

[evan]

Don/Andy please be aware this is meant as a joke.

Why don't RAF aircraft spot better than others as the RAF looked very hard and trained colour blind people for recon work because they weren't fooled by camouflage?

Well it make more sense than some of the things I've read from ...... and .......... .
Evan

[Mobhack]

They also trained their night fighter pilots by feeding them lots of carrots, so they would see better in the dark .

Cheers
Andy

[Marek_Tucan]

And found out matte white or light grey is the best colour for night fighter

[PanzerBob]

Well said and done DRG, while sometimes from an historical view these threads on technical details are interesting. I wonder just how far some people would like the details to go. Maybe we'd like to take into account whether they've eaten for 24 hours, or whether vehicle crews are conserving fuel.

This game is excellent as is especially with all programmes to affect so many changes to so many aspects of the game.

Bravo Zulu to DRG and the Team.

[Deputy]

PanzerBob said:
Well said and done DRG, while sometimes from an historical view these threads on technical details are interesting. I wonder just how far some people would like the details to go. Maybe we'd like to take into account whether they've eaten for 24 hours, or whether vehicle crews are conserving fuel.

This game is excellent as is especially with all programmes to affect so many changes to so many aspects of the game.

Bravo Zulu to DRG and the Team.

I'd take the details as far as I possibly could. And I WILL.
And the fact remains that there WERE NO US Sinper rifles in the US inventory until the 1903A4 showed up. And the 1903A4 was ordered into production by Remington by Production Order S-1066 on 18 January 1943. Anyone who knows anything about manufacturing will know that the rifle didn't magically appear in rifleman's hands on 19 January 1943.
The first rifles completed were delivered in February 1943.
The US HAD NO sniper training program as some other countried (notably Germany) had.

There's a fascinating discussion of snipers at this location:
http://www.1944game.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2285

Dep...doesn't play "games".

[Marek_Tucan]

For example Czechoslovakian independent battalion in Africa didn't have sniper programme but did have capable marksmen. Likewise it didn't have artillery training but was able to crew and use captured Italian 100mm howitzers to great effect.
It was proven US armed forces DID use scoped bolt action rifles in WW1 and that they did use scoped bolt action rifles before M1903A4.
By the way, USMC sniper school was founded in 1942. What did they shoot if the US had no sniper rifles prior to 1903A4 as you insist? And Russians you seem to use so much as muster also have any official sniper schools organised centrally. Some units organised them privately and there was kinda sniper manual, but generally most of Soviet snipers were just marksmen if you insist, hardly better than US/USMC marksmen attached to squads. Many of them professional hunters - I seem to recall those of US also often had pretty good hunting background Heck, most of the famed snipers of WWII DIDN't have any sniper school and just figured it themselves. The same goes for Japanese or Brits.
The only centralised, say official sniper schools were established by Germans and USMC. This didn't prevent "not-sniper-schoold" units to utilise scoped rifle assigned to them. And the sniping back then also wasn't usually hitting enemy at extreme ranges, but harrassing at extreme range and hitting accurately crucial enemies at combat range. It definitely didn't prvent our troops on both Western and Eastern front from employing effectively sniper rifles and selected shooters, for example sniper (or marksman, if you like) was accompanying recon patrols as a rule.
So... You have two options here. Disband snipers for anyone except Germans (yes, the Germans had legions of snipers, nobody else did) or you can rationalise that the high end sniper units just represent some really gifted shooter. The same way you have to rationalise that mortar crew can hardly hump their weapon plus 50 81mm mines, but those mines get distributed among "their" company and dumped once the mortar position is established.

As far as the game goes, I'm afraid you'll find that the high-end snipers are of little use except scenarios. Their cost is prohibitive compared to their effect.
Btw weird you don't complaint about say Brandenburgers who occupy a good space in German OOB or about the cost of Tigers or Panthers or abut unrealistically strong (number-wise) German opponent. Or Maus and Sturmtiger and all kinds of small-series stuff. All of these should be much more troubling to you as they influence game on basic settings much more than a question whether that US grunt with good shooting skills is carrying M1903A1 with Unertl scope or M1903A4 with its assigned scope.
Anyway, if you don't like US snipers, there is simple solution. Don't use them. When playing PBEM, get an agreement from your opponent that he won't buy them (he won't anyway most likely but what the...). If you think AI would ruin you by buying them, use MOBHack to set their radio code to x3 so that the AI doesn't buy them. Or if you really can't stand their existence in OOB, delete them using the same MOBHack and use your OOB set when playing PBEM.

And as far as game goes, you might notice that you're actually the only one who finds snipers to be such a crucial problem, over as long as I can remember (and I do play - and privately mod and mutilate - SPMBT and SPWW2 since SPMBT came, that's quite plenty of years already). Ad there were people *****ing about all sorts of even miniscule stuff re. reality. So it apparently for most people isn'tthat a big issue.

EDIT: And for not plying "games", what's that with you and WaW? Or that isn't a game? What it is, then?

[Deputy]

Marek_Tucan said:
For example Czechoslovakian independent battalion in Africa didn't have sniper programme but did have capable marksmen. Likewise it didn't have artillery training but was able to crew and use captured Italian 100mm howitzers to great effect.
It was proven US armed forces DID use scoped bolt action rifles in WW1 and that they did use scoped bolt action rifles before M1903A4.
By the way, USMC sniper school was founded in 1942. What did they shoot if the US had no sniper rifles prior to 1903A4 as you insist? And Russians you seem to use so much as muster also have any official sniper schools organised centrally. Some units organised them privately and there was kinda sniper manual, but generally most of Soviet snipers were just marksmen if you insist, hardly better than US/USMC marksmen attached to squads. Many of them professional hunters - I seem to recall those of US also often had pretty good hunting background Heck, most of the famed snipers of WWII DIDN't have any sniper school and just figured it themselves. The same goes for Japanese or Brits.
The only centralised, say official sniper schools were established by Germans and USMC. This didn't prevent "not-sniper-schoold" units to utilise scoped rifle assigned to them. And the sniping back then also wasn't usually hitting enemy at extreme ranges, but harrassing at extreme range and hitting accurately crucial enemies at combat range. It definitely didn't prvent our troops on both Western and Eastern front from employing effectively sniper rifles and selected shooters, for example sniper (or marksman, if you like) was accompanying recon patrols as a rule.
So... You have two options here. Disband snipers for anyone except Germans (yes, the Germans had legions of snipers, nobody else did) or you can rationalise that the high end sniper units just represent some really gifted shooter. The same way you have to rationalise that mortar crew can hardly hump their weapon plus 50 81mm mines, but those mines get distributed among "their" company and dumped once the mortar position is established.

As far as the game goes, I'm afraid you'll find that the high-end snipers are of little use except scenarios. Their cost is prohibitive compared to their effect.
Btw weird you don't complaint about say Brandenburgers who occupy a good space in German OOB or about the cost of Tigers or Panthers or abut unrealistically strong (number-wise) German opponent. Or Maus and Sturmtiger and all kinds of small-series stuff. All of these should be much more troubling to you as they influence game on basic settings much more than a question whether that US grunt with good shooting skills is carrying M1903A1 with Unertl scope or M1903A4 with its assigned scope.
Anyway, if you don't like US snipers, there is simple solution. Don't use them. When playing PBEM, get an agreement from your opponent that he won't buy them (he won't anyway most likely but what the...). If you think AI would ruin you by buying them, use MOBHack to set their radio code to x3 so that the AI doesn't buy them. Or if you really can't stand their existence in OOB, delete them using the same MOBHack and use your OOB set when playing PBEM.

And as far as game goes, you might notice that you're actually the only one who finds snipers to be such a crucial problem, over as long as I can remember (and I do play - and privately mod and mutilate - SPMBT and SPWW2 since SPMBT came, that's quite plenty of years already). Ad there were people *****ing about all sorts of even miniscule stuff re. reality. So it apparently for most people isn'tthat a big issue.

EDIT: And for not plying "games", what's that with you and WaW? Or that isn't a game? What it is, then?

There's a distinct difference between untrained "Marksman"
(you can put Sgt. York of WW2 fame in that catagory) and trained snipers. That's WHY the German snipers were so effective. I get my 1903 information mainly from two books...."The Model 1903 Springfield Rifle and it's Variations" by Joe Poyer, and "The Springfield 1903 Rifles" by Lt. Col. William S. Brophy. Both books and authors are recognized among 1903 colletors and shooters (BTW...I fired my 1903 Remington today...great fun!!!) as being excellent authorities on the history, production, and distribution of the 1903 rifle. The rifles used in WW1 were all decommissioned or sold off by the time WW2 came around. THERE WERE NO scoped sniper rifles in the US inventory at the start of WW2. Heck, there weren't enough STANDARD 1903 or M1 rifles at the start of the war. That's WHY compaines like Smith Corona (a famous US typewriter company) were contracted to produce 1903A3 Springfields. People seem to think that the sniper rifles the US used 20 years prior were kept in the US inventory. They weren't. ALL sniper rifle development CEASED in the US after WW1. That's a shame, as the scopes they had toewards the end of the wear were far superior to the crap the put on the 1903A4 or M1C rifle. But then, WW1 was supposed to be the "war that ends all wars". So why keep all those horrible weapons anyway? Ever see pictures of US troops training prior to WW2? They used WOODEN rifles and PLYWOOD tanks. Ever wonder WHY???? Because they DIDN'T HAVE REAL ONES to spare for training!!!!!

I tried adjusting the OOB for US snipers from a starting date of 1930 to Feb, 1943. Tried to do it over and over again, but every time I went back in it was back to 1930. No idea why it won't accept the change.

SP:WAW, WinSPWW2, and WinSPMBT are SIMULATIONS. Games = DOOM, Call of Duty and all the crap that is made for Nintendo and Playstation.

Dep

[evan]

Deputy said:


SP:WAW, WinSPWW2, and WinSPMBT are SIMULATIONS. Games = DOOM, Call of Duty and all the crap that is made for Nintendo and Playstation.

Dep

Simulate: 1 to reproduce the conditions of (a situation) for study or testing: 2: to pretent to have or feel; 3: to imitate the form or condition of.. ///

From the Oxford English dictionary.

DEPUTY get a perspective on things; it's a game; any hex based turn based wargame is that; a game. A Simulation would require realtime activity; and a whole raft of factors that just aren't possible on a PC.

Why would you want a battle simulation after you've been in the real thing anyway??

Evan

[Deputy]

evan said:

Simulate: 1 to reproduce the conditions of (a situation) for study or testing: 2: to pretent to have or feel; 3: to imitate the form or condition of.. ///

From the Oxford English dictionary.

DEPUTY get a perspective on things; it's a game; any hex based turn based wargame is that; a game. A Simulation would require realtime activity; and a whole raft of factors that just aren't possible on a PC.

Why would you want a battle simulation after you've been in the real thing anyway??

Evan

If you've never been in a war, it's impossible to explain.
Ever see the movie "Apoclypse Now"? There's a line Martin Sheen says..."When I was here (at home), I wanted to be there; when I was there, all I could think of was getting back into the jungle."
War brings out the best (and worst) in man. Plus it's the "ultimate high" you can get without taking drugs.

Anyway, I found a more acceptable definition of simulation...
A simulation is an imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or process. The act of simulating something generally entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected physical or abstract system.

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

Given the choice, I'll take that definition of simulation and leave the games to children.

Dep

[Mobhack]

SP:WAW, WinSPWW2, and WinSPMBT are SIMULATIONS. Games = DOOM, Call of Duty and all the crap that is made for Nintendo and Playstation.

Nope, they are wargames.

Now, I have worked on computer-based train drivers simulators - for the London Underground (Northern Line I think it was), Hong Kong Lantau line etc. These happen to have a real drivers cab, with circuit breakers that can be removed and so on, with a CGI view of the track. They ran in real-time, and have a physics model behind them, for brake dynamics and so forth. The trainers can script or inject real mishaps, and score the driver on the responses.

I have run a section and a platoon in the field in the TA, and have been attached to Co HQ as an officer cadet to learn the ropes. This game has nothing to do with the real-world activity of running any sort of military formation, unlike the train driver simulator, which is used to train real drivers in their real-world tasks. Like real flight simulators are used to teach piloting procedures, or the "pro" version of Steel beasts is used by some militaries.

The various real-time squad level games are still simply that - they do not teach any sort of useful procedures, and are really only an exercise in "buttonology". A game of paintball will teach you more real fieldcraft than any "squad level" press-F8 to throw the grenade stuff.

Civilian wargames have a role in teaching interested civilians something about tactics in general. They are used as such by some militaries, to teach the general concept of tactics in say officer training schools. But real military-grade simulations will concentrate on what is to the casual civilian "boring" stuff, like proper voice radio procedures, formulation of orders to that militaries standards, and so on. These military simulations can be done with telephones and radios in barracks, or out in the field as exercises, with or without real troops.

Cheers
Andy