Having spend almost a decade in the Army, as well as nearly 2 decades playing first person shooters, I was compelled to respond to the OP. While I agree with some of what you said, alot of the things you stated are either inaccurate, or completely made up.
First of all, if you think hitting a target using an m4 equipped with an optical sight is difficult in combat, you are correct.
If you think that hitting a target with an m4 equipped with an optical sight is difficult under all conditions, you are arguably one of the world's worst marksmen.
The Army's rifle qualification range involves shooting at a series of 40 targets at ranges that vary from 50 meters to 300 meters. In some infantry units, Soldiers practice at the range a few times each week. In non-combat units, Soldiers shoot their weapons maybe two or three times each year. If you are in the combat unit, you are pretty much required to qualify as a sharpshooter(30+ hits) and your life will be alot easier if you can qualify as an expert (36+ hits). Fortunately the m4 is a toy in comparison to older weapons, and most soldiers, infantry or not, are able to shoot sharpshooter or expert. When you add an optical sight into the equation, it is trivial to hit your target at least 95 percent of the time.
The m4 is a relatively accurate weapon, but it isn't as accurate as the moisin nagant and k98 bolt action rifles. There are many shooting enthusiasts who still choose to build rifles based on the k98 action, and moisin nagants are highly valued by collectors as one of the best bolt actions rifles ever created.
You also stated that weapon malfunctions were more prevalent in wwII. This statement doesn't make much sense to me because the average soldier had a bolt action rifle, and it is exceedingly rare for a bolt action rifle to suffer a malfunction. On the other hand most of the assault rifles in common use today are notorious for their rates of malfunction. The m16/m4 style rifles in particular have been known for their unreliability since the prototypes were fielded in vietnam.(Soldiers were initially told that they wouldn't have to clean them at all, ooops)
Now for the game itself. Personally one of the things I disliked about the original was that you can be lying still, in the prone position, and have a perfect sight picture on a stationary enemy that doesn't even see you, yet when you fire you still miss him completely pretty often. I don't know whether or not this was the result of poor hit detection, or an intentional gameplay mechanic. Either way, it almost ruined the game. One of the best parts about red orchestra 2 is that when your aim is true, you tend to hit your targets more reliably.
Now you stated that it shouldn't be like this, because you don't like getitng shot from a kilometer away. While I know that you were only exagerating the distance, I want to mention the actual distance at which most red orchestra engagements take place. 100-150 meter kills are common, nearing 200 is fairly rare, and anything over that is something to truly be proud of. The important thing to take away from this is that hitting a target at 200 meters is ridiculously easy in real life, even for those of us who only go to a range twice a year. 300 meters is only marginally more difficult.
While I disagree with most of what you said, I do agree that it sucks that the game is has degraded into a sniping contest. I think that a possible solution would be to remove the ridiculous fog that all first person shooters seem to love these days. At 150 meters It shouldn't be so hazy that I can barely see enough to aim at a person. If the fog was removed, other rifleman would actually have a fair chance at engaging the snipers and machinegunners, and the game might stop being a camp-fest.
