Important: Way too accurate aim for every soldier!
- Thread starter ptx
- Start date
Deadliest Warrior is a SHOW, they don't give a crap about historical accuracy. It's all scripted, I bet even the missed shots were part of the script to make the show more exciting.
Upvote
0
![2Lt.Horvath [6th AB]](/data/avatars/s/36/36264.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
2633.33% accuracy with the Kar98. Beat that
Nah on a serious not these weapons are far too accurate as i've previously said and those youtube videos are a better way to compare things than wikipedia or other text sources. Theys how you the recoil of the weapons, there's a lot of the Mkb / StG which shows it kicks a lot more than the one in Ro2 does. The G41 should have a lot more recoil and should it's ruksy counterpart. But really they shouldn't there in the first place, at least in those numbers.
Upvote
0
If you can throw a grenade 100-150 yards/meters, then you are right.
Russian lines were a grenades throw distance from the German line, so the Luftwaffe couldn't give airsupport.
Read a book about Stalingrad, any book, and you will read about Chuikov's order 166.
Anyway.
If a "beer bellied nab" can hit a target with a frontloaded, blackpowder gun, standing and unsupported at a range of 100m then I think a trained soldier can do it with a better gun.
You can hear the bullets hit.
.72cal double accuracy at 100m - YouTube
I'm just thinking here.
And from memory:
When I was in the army we had to do competence tests at firing ranges every 6 months.
Dressed in full gear and after a round on the obstaclecourse we still had to be able to hit 7 out of 10 shots on the 100m firing range. Standing, unsupported. Otherwise we would not even be allowed to carry our FN FALs
Upvote
0
I've served a solid 4 years in the army and I've even fought in the war against terrorism in afghanistan. In a tense fire fight the adrenaline is pumping through your body, bullets are whizzing around, explosions, it's all chaos. All these factor in to affecting how well you can aim your gun, as a sniper or a rifleman at long range you should be able to hold your gun rather steady because you are REASONABLY safe from enemy fire. All those people who are saying they test fired guns at a shooting range do not know what firing a gun is like in a real battle, so many psychological factors are present in such scenarios, fear, morale, varying degrees of confidence and mental stability. Basically these things affect your combat performance, if you're going to be sitting back, knowing you're in cover and well out of enemy fire then you're probably going to have little trouble aiming your gun, but if you're under the nerve rattling surpression of enemy rifle or machine-gun fire, then you're combat capability will be hampered, one of such would be how well your aim is. Personally I found it very hard to get accurate shots off when in a firefight.
tl;dr the supression system needs improvements; the more supressed you are, the harder it is to aim. This would mean that supression fire on snipers and other long range targets would be a lot more effective.
tl;dr the supression system needs improvements; the more supressed you are, the harder it is to aim. This would mean that supression fire on snipers and other long range targets would be a lot more effective.
Upvote
0
This is basically what I was referring too a few pages ago, the whole point is that after running around and after being fired at you're not going to be in a fit state to shoot like you're in a shooting range with a can of ice cold coke and a nice comfortable seat or what ever. I haven't been in a fire fight, i'm a student after all haha but i've been in 'fights', punch ups and as much as they don't really compare at all, i'm still left shaking afterwards. Shock and adreneline is something you can't really control unless you're a battle hardened vetran of pain and suffering. The Germans sorta were but the Russians were mostly conscripts forced into battle with a rifle and told to die for your leader.
Just seems odd that they can run and fire like they've been doing it for years and years. Oh and take a bullet to the leg and shrug it off, but that's a different story.
Upvote
0
The Russians fought in desperation while the German infantry only had "cleaning up after the Panzer/Lufwaffe attack" duties before Stalingrad.
Russians had less problems adapting to the face to face fighting in Stalingrad because of their desperate situation.
"13 September. A bad date, our battalion was very unlucky. The katyushas (Soviet rocket launchers) inflicted heavy losses this morning: 27 killed and 50 wounded. The Russians fight with the desperation of wild beasts; they won't allow themselves to be taken prisoner, but instead let you come up close and then they throw grenades. Lieutenant Kraus was killed yesterday, so we have no company commander."- German soldier Willi Hoffman, 94th Infantry Division, on the battle for the grain elevator.
"16 September. Our battalion is attacking the grain elevator with tanks. Smoke is pouring out of it. The grain is burning and it seems the Russians inside set fire to it themselves. It's barbaric. The battalion is taking heavy losses. Those are not people in the elevator, they are devils and neither fire nor bullets can touch them."- German soldier Willi Hoffman, 94th Infantry Division, on the battle for the grain elevator.
This Willi Hoffman was fighting for atleast 3 days, with the same 40 guys defending the grainelevator. Doesn't sound like the Russians were "green/rookie" soldiers to me...
Most quotes from German soldiers about the Russian soldiers depict them as beasts with no regard for their own lives. This says something about the will to fight of the German soldier as well.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/deadliest-warrior-my-arse/
http://www.cracked.com/funny-4511-deadliest-warrior/
Just Google "Deadliest Warrior is bull****" and "Deadliest Warrior expert actor".
Upvote
0
I'm afraid this doesn't work like you think it works, mate. That's like saying that Enemy at the Gates is an accurate proof that Russian Officers shot retreating soldiers with a machine gun or that Samurai Jack is an accurate depiction of swordsmanship techniques. Just because it's on film, print, or television does not make it true.
Their very methodology in the show is absolutely flawed for anyone who knows anything about research or the scientific method. Their "experiments" are often wildly different for weapons of the same tier. They might gather data on the katana by cutting through a stack of pigs, and the Norse longsword by attacking a gel torso. Then they all say what "looked" deadlier to them and issue an arbitrary "edge" to the side they like most. I mean shoot, they fabricate "experiments" to try and compare spear throwing to archery, two entirely different techniques with entirely different equipment and entirely different mechanics behind them. That's like comparing the lethality of jumping off a building to the lethality of getting hit by a train. They both leave big splats, but the mechanics of the splats and physical damage are very different.
The show is full of horrid pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo that makes anyone who knows the first thing about history or science cringe with every word.
Come to think of it, it's basically if the Red Orchestra forums had their own timeslot on Spike, with two groups who really have no idea what they're talking about posturing up and showing each other bull**** references and data to try and bully the other side into admitting defeat, which they'll never, ever do.
Upvote
0
Deadliest warriors: Vampires vs Zombies...
http://www.spike.com/video-clips/n5...he-deadliest-warrior-pits-vampires-vs-zombies
http://www.spike.com/video-clips/n5...he-deadliest-warrior-pits-vampires-vs-zombies
Upvote
0
Deadliest Warrior is an entertaining show, and nothing more. If you've seen the SS vs Vietcong episode you will know how much of a farce the show is. They gave the SS the MP-28 or some such POS. So yeah, historical accuracy is not Deadliest Warrior's strongsuit. The fieldtests and labtests where they examine the effectivness of different weapons is possibly the only realible aspect of the show, and even that is questionable sometimes.
Anyhoo, I don't think accuracy is the issue here, but rather the size of the maps. While it is easier to hit a target in RO2 vs RO1, remember that a lot of what made RO1 so difficult was the result of being unrealistically difficult.
Anyhoo, I don't think accuracy is the issue here, but rather the size of the maps. While it is easier to hit a target in RO2 vs RO1, remember that a lot of what made RO1 so difficult was the result of being unrealistically difficult.
Upvote
0
Waffen-SS was pretty notorious for using anything they could get their hands on until '41 - '43 (very rough idea, varying on the division and some other things itself) when they tended to get supply priority to step into the more famous military elite part of their reputation instead of having to use old weapons, captured old weapons or downright super old weapons.
Upvote
0
Uhm if it's so easy to find I shouldn't have to google it you should be able to link to it, and have a post that is backed up by someone who is certifiable expert like a military historian with a college degree etc. Also your source is an opinion article on cracked and a blog run by some dude. Like I literally tried to find the name of the guy running the blog to look for any credentials and everything is just listed as "TheBShistorian" so that's a rousing good source there.
apparently you've never once written a research paper, thesis, or even scholarly debate in your entire life. Thats how it works. If you did claim that enemy at the gates was an accurate portrayl of ww2, or that samurai jack was accurate, the other person would retort with a historical account of samurai warfare in the edo period of japan, or a historian with a bachlors or masters in the eastern front of world war 2, or even world war 2 in general saying that it was not accurate. Or even footage of the warfare itself to prove that it is wrong or soldier journals. If it is indeed wrong then it should be easy to PROVE that it is wrong. If the only thing a person can bring is some opinions from blogs and comedy writers then that is not credible. If the only evidence someone can bring to bear is strictly anecdotal evidence which consists entirely of stories where "they did it better when they did it" then that is not credible
Also "OH NO HE'S USING ACTUAL PROVABLE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP WHAT HE SAYS, WHAT A BIG MEAN BULLY" lol
In short, credible source to back up what you say or STFU and GTFO
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The show is quite different from what you describe now, as it was woefully inadequate in the earlier years. But since "Mac" has come in as the host, there are a lot more considerations into the effectiveness and accuracy of what is portrayed. The tests are no longer varied, adopting a unified scenario for everything in question (ie: no more testing a grenade on dummies in the open, and then testing the other side in a 5x5 space).
If you watch that episode, it's one of the newer ones, and it seems you did not watch it, but cast it off as an absurdity. Although I wouldn't recommend watching from that site, as it gave me a whole host of spy and malware, I think you'll be surprised at the renovation they've done with the show.
That is not to say I think it is "accurate." The media will always purport what they want, so I take my information from mostly traditional sources, university press publications and primary sources.
Upvote
0
Yes, but the MP-28 is hardly the pinnicle on German SMG design, and hardly the most "realistic" choice of weapon to depict which was my point. The point of the show is to showcase the best possible example of a warrior, not necessarily what they started out as.
Upvote
0
One of the issues in many FPS games that never gets addressed is that aiming down the sights is always too quick. It should take more time to line up the irons perfectly (maybe as part of the shift+right click?), giving you the choice to take more time to align the posts perfectly, or go immediately into IS and start shooting, which would lead to improper alignment of the sights and therefore bullets not going to where the sights point. The effect wouldn't be too drastic, but enough to visibly impact your accuracy at ranges over 100m, and maybe heroes can align the sights even faster.
In addition, firing the weapon should mess up your sight alignment for a moment, preventing lightning fast back-to back headshots.
This all applies to unsupported firing of course.
In addition, firing the weapon should mess up your sight alignment for a moment, preventing lightning fast back-to back headshots.
This all applies to unsupported firing of course.
Upvote
0
Alright, you're right on that account. Unfortunately, despite several days of searching nobody seems to want to demonstrate shooting from a standing position at 50m, as you can't calculate ballistics data from such an unstable platform and it really boils down to individual skill more than any sort of weapon performance. I do a fair bit of target shooting inside of 50m, but I'm not narcissistic enough to upload it to the internet, and now that I'd like to reference it I'm not in a position to gather the data in question. So no, I don't have any statistics demonstrating rifle accuracy inside of 50m because most gun enthusiasts aren't interested in something that is entirely skill based. It's up to the individual shooter, not the weapon. You have managed to produce a video (which admittedly, I haven't watched simply because that website screams of adware and spyware, and I don't want to disable noscript and risk it) that seems to back up your statement, but the source has had some very poor credibility for the reasons I described above.
Long story short, we're arguing something with no concrete data. It took me a while to realize why I wasn't finding anything to support my argument when it's something that I do all the time, but the fact of the matter is that that's entirely based on my skill with the weapon and not the performance qualities of the weapon itself. Someone with no skill in rifles would do far worse than I, and someone with more experience will do far better. It's too abstract to argue properly.
However, I've also realized that this reliance on skill is exactly what's present in the game. Bad players will have trouble hitting targets, and good players will have less trouble based on their individual skill. Just because it's a different set of muscle memories doesn't mean there isn't a significant skill curve required to hit targets in RO. The problem is that you and I are already well up there on the skill curve, and we can hit targets with relative ease as we already subconsciously compensate for the small amount of sway, the motion and elevation of the target, and the distance. A new player wouldn't know -what- to do with the sight elevation in game, and they wouldn't know how to lead targets at the different ranges, and they would have a lot of trouble figuring out how to get the best firing position, something that vets like ourselves do instinctively. They've taken out a lot of the artificial difficulty things that we had to learn like sway and spread and because of that it feels too easy for people who are used to struggling with unrealistic and clunky gun controls.
tl;dr, we're like two professional basketball players arguing that increasing the diameter of the hoop by a few centimeters has made the game too easy. It might be too easy for the vets and pros, but the new players are still trying to figure out all the mechanics, and it's very difficult for them.
The game can't account for player skill.
I did not watch it. I haven't watched any of the new seasons simply because the first one was so laughably bad, so yes, I admit I was biased against the source right off the bat.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
It's a game, there is no realism. None what so ever. Arma2, RO2 ect aren't realistic.
How ever to make the game balanced (or what i like to call realistic in game) yes the weapons are very accurate, how ever the M1garand, Mousim, Kar98 were very accurate weapons, In fact the British army's SA80 can only effectively engage a target up to 300 mtrs in a single rifle man role, At a section level it can engage targets up to 600mtrs effectively, only through sheer rate of fire and rounds in the air.
The rifles used during WW2 were accidentally designed on today's marksman level weapons, Engaging and neutralising threats at 600mtrs in a single rifleman role and at section level 900mtrs (suppression)
So it's not so much accuracy you want to change its the velocity (power at distance) or the accuracy of each player class, Not to mention skill set.
Yes a lot of these suggestions wouldn't work in game, and couldn't be implemented, or wouldn't be used effectively by members of the game, how ever custom games be it CLAN, or MODDIFIED GAME it could be implemented, Mainly by the latter.
So! strap in it's a long one.
Rifleman: per say would be extremely proficient with his standard issue weapon, In both accuracy, Rate of fire and reload ammunition carried would usually be around today's equivalent of 4 bandoleers (spelling?) witch would be around 320 rounds, two grenades, 1 smoke.
Machine gunner (bipod): would be proficient at suppression, so dispersion on his MG would need to be increased and velocity reduced, to give accurate suppression and not marksman capabilities. The SS MG (bipod) on single mode can be used as a sniping weapon in game, but in reality the single shot was mainly used for ranging a target of opportunity 3+ men, In the CQB element of warfare the Single shot would be used to suppress opportune points windows/doors mouse hole (hole in wall roughly the size of a man depending on ordnance that made it) even vehicles, from soft skin to armoured hulls (believe it or not, as a machine gunner in todays army your told to engage a tank to kill it's means of viewing hatches, rangers, glass ect), as to not waste to much ammo into a small areas. (Bar shooting tanks, how ever the gunner would equip efficiently for such a task before hand.)
Assault class: This is tricky, the main thing for assault would be not to change the weapons ROF and velocity (rate of fire) but to bring back the amount of ammunition carried by the unit, It was standard for most SS troops to carry 3 magasines when assaulting a building, and 3 grenades 2 smoke and 2 signal smoke, once the initial (knock) - Entering and securing at least 2-3 rooms had happened, a guy like Uppem from saving private Ryan would bimble up with more magazines for him, Not to mention the efficiency of grenades would be increased, Mainly on speed of equipping, but accuracy would be vastly improved due to narrow deployment in buildings as well as distance.
Squad leader: Carrying a little more ammo than the assault troop due to being stationary for long periods of time, and usually behind his assault class his ammo would increase, the accuracy of a Squad leader would be tricky, as many Squad leaders during ww2 would have been the most experienced veteran in his section at that time (stepping up when the current leader was killed.) so efficiency with his weapon would diminish due to lack of usage. Tactical awareness would be increased from the T1 + T2 + T3 view in game, Assault here, Defend here to the deployment of small Mortar barages, usually 3 - 4 rounds FRAG for troops, Not only that Ammunition states would come from his men regularly to know when a re-sup would be needed, This how ever is more for clan matches and serious team workers. This class is ok.
Commanders: Believe it or not weren't efficient with any weapon bar their side arm, The basic marksmanship was there to maybe effectively use a weapon at a range of 300mtrs in single role, this means he shouldn't be able to shoot through a window over this distance. Officer training back then consisted of protocols, map usage, usage of men machine and tactics, shooting was employed but no to the same level as a Squad leader downwards. How ever his situational awareness would be vastly increased, more so over his current level in the game, It was known that a good commander could call in artillery on a single trench system (around 100mtr sq), You might not think this is amazing, but for those times it was a very rare skill on both commander and gunner operator behind the front line. The knowledge of troop positioning would be increased (maybe he could call a hint in, the game quickly sums up players positions after a UAV and shows a nice big arrow on best line of assault only suggestion i got), as well as danger zones (zones of high enemy activity) The employment of deffencive posture would need to be improved, maybe key personnel (squad leader mainly) would have more of an effect on a lock down as opposed to the grunts, due to the squad leader being able to asses the situation beyond the target and draw up a plan.
I don't make games, or pretend to know the best way to improve them, I'm a current serving soldier of 6years and various tours of duty, when it comes to soldiering it's all i know.
Tell me what you think, sorry if it bores you.
How ever to make the game balanced (or what i like to call realistic in game) yes the weapons are very accurate, how ever the M1garand, Mousim, Kar98 were very accurate weapons, In fact the British army's SA80 can only effectively engage a target up to 300 mtrs in a single rifle man role, At a section level it can engage targets up to 600mtrs effectively, only through sheer rate of fire and rounds in the air.
The rifles used during WW2 were accidentally designed on today's marksman level weapons, Engaging and neutralising threats at 600mtrs in a single rifleman role and at section level 900mtrs (suppression)
So it's not so much accuracy you want to change its the velocity (power at distance) or the accuracy of each player class, Not to mention skill set.
Yes a lot of these suggestions wouldn't work in game, and couldn't be implemented, or wouldn't be used effectively by members of the game, how ever custom games be it CLAN, or MODDIFIED GAME it could be implemented, Mainly by the latter.
So! strap in it's a long one.
Rifleman: per say would be extremely proficient with his standard issue weapon, In both accuracy, Rate of fire and reload ammunition carried would usually be around today's equivalent of 4 bandoleers (spelling?) witch would be around 320 rounds, two grenades, 1 smoke.
Machine gunner (bipod): would be proficient at suppression, so dispersion on his MG would need to be increased and velocity reduced, to give accurate suppression and not marksman capabilities. The SS MG (bipod) on single mode can be used as a sniping weapon in game, but in reality the single shot was mainly used for ranging a target of opportunity 3+ men, In the CQB element of warfare the Single shot would be used to suppress opportune points windows/doors mouse hole (hole in wall roughly the size of a man depending on ordnance that made it) even vehicles, from soft skin to armoured hulls (believe it or not, as a machine gunner in todays army your told to engage a tank to kill it's means of viewing hatches, rangers, glass ect), as to not waste to much ammo into a small areas. (Bar shooting tanks, how ever the gunner would equip efficiently for such a task before hand.)
Assault class: This is tricky, the main thing for assault would be not to change the weapons ROF and velocity (rate of fire) but to bring back the amount of ammunition carried by the unit, It was standard for most SS troops to carry 3 magasines when assaulting a building, and 3 grenades 2 smoke and 2 signal smoke, once the initial (knock) - Entering and securing at least 2-3 rooms had happened, a guy like Uppem from saving private Ryan would bimble up with more magazines for him, Not to mention the efficiency of grenades would be increased, Mainly on speed of equipping, but accuracy would be vastly improved due to narrow deployment in buildings as well as distance.
Squad leader: Carrying a little more ammo than the assault troop due to being stationary for long periods of time, and usually behind his assault class his ammo would increase, the accuracy of a Squad leader would be tricky, as many Squad leaders during ww2 would have been the most experienced veteran in his section at that time (stepping up when the current leader was killed.) so efficiency with his weapon would diminish due to lack of usage. Tactical awareness would be increased from the T1 + T2 + T3 view in game, Assault here, Defend here to the deployment of small Mortar barages, usually 3 - 4 rounds FRAG for troops, Not only that Ammunition states would come from his men regularly to know when a re-sup would be needed, This how ever is more for clan matches and serious team workers. This class is ok.
Commanders: Believe it or not weren't efficient with any weapon bar their side arm, The basic marksmanship was there to maybe effectively use a weapon at a range of 300mtrs in single role, this means he shouldn't be able to shoot through a window over this distance. Officer training back then consisted of protocols, map usage, usage of men machine and tactics, shooting was employed but no to the same level as a Squad leader downwards. How ever his situational awareness would be vastly increased, more so over his current level in the game, It was known that a good commander could call in artillery on a single trench system (around 100mtr sq), You might not think this is amazing, but for those times it was a very rare skill on both commander and gunner operator behind the front line. The knowledge of troop positioning would be increased (maybe he could call a hint in, the game quickly sums up players positions after a UAV and shows a nice big arrow on best line of assault only suggestion i got), as well as danger zones (zones of high enemy activity) The employment of deffencive posture would need to be improved, maybe key personnel (squad leader mainly) would have more of an effect on a lock down as opposed to the grunts, due to the squad leader being able to asses the situation beyond the target and draw up a plan.
I don't make games, or pretend to know the best way to improve them, I'm a current serving soldier of 6years and various tours of duty, when it comes to soldiering it's all i know.
Tell me what you think, sorry if it bores you.
Upvote
0