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.
There certainly was a subjective element of variation between riflemen in world war two, but saying that the large quantity of evidence I have brought in throughout several threads just somehow goes away b/c there's slight variation due to subjectivity is ludicrous.
We have a good bit of evidence suggesting that not even the top tier riflemen are as consistiently accurate as the people are in this game, and if the top tier isn't as accurate as the people in the game, the average sure as heck isn't going to be that accurate. And it's a more likely scenario that you can't find concrete data to back up what you say because you are wrong. Yes all rifles are perfectly accurate, were you to put them in a vice and aim with with a laser pointer they would hit every time, but I've gathered a large body of evidence saying that people are not capable of firing like this. I could retrieve them from the previous thread i made if you like.
Onto your next point about skill, yes you're correct this does put a big reliance on skill, that is certainly true, but it puts reliance on the wrong kind of skill. It's the skill that counterstrike players, and call of duty players have. The skill to overcome any situation by being fast enough. There are hundreds if not thousands of game that already cater to people with that kind of skill. And what emphasizing that kind of skill does is essentially say "no matter how smart or clever your positioning was, or how good your tactics were, or how good your team work was, you will lose b/c you weren't as fast as the other guy"
If an MG player sets up in a great spot that is just totally and awesomely tactically sound, I mean ideal placement, if he faces against 2 soldiers of the same aiming skill, the two soldiers will win the majority of the time. Assuming he isn't able to kill both at the same time b/c they were lined up so one bullet would kill 2 ppl, it will always go either shoot soldier A but be shot dead by soldier B or shoot soldier A and take cover and be forced to leave b/c soldier B has a bead on your head. This means 2 > 1 no matter how smart the one was. This is bad b/c it makes for a very linear game of binary outcomes. Putting focus on that sort of skill is essentially the difference between a game of chess, and a game of Bopit!. We have enough Bopits on the market and we need more tactics in our shooters
Also the basketball metaphor is a terrible metaphor. For metaphorical equivalences saying the hoop size would be more akin to the objective areas on the different maps. Considering that the hoop, and objective areas are the goal, the crescendo to that battle or play. A better metaphor would be like 2 basketball pros arguing about the weight of the basketball, since the ball is the primary focus of the game, and since shooting is the primary focus of a shooting game. You saying that the basketball should be far heavier, and me saying that it should not. To prove that the basketball should not be heavier I bring in professional basketball players who say that this should not be so, sports casters who say that this should not be so, and psychologists who analyze what makes the game of basketball appealing to be watched who say that this should not be so. And then you retort with "when I play basketball with a heavier ball it is more fun, but it's all totally subjective so I guess we'll never know lol"
Additionally let's go ahead and assume that it is indeed a wash and that it's totally subjective or that you are right and that everyone can just shoot that awesomely all the time. Well let's go ahead and look at the game as a study of what makes a good and fun videogame. What is good game design?
Good game design ensures a level playing field, ups and down, rewards for skill, different ways to play the game and a certain ability to make comebacks and enough variation to avoid staleness. The way the shooting mechanics work hinder this. The playing field between the germans and the russians is not even. This is in large part due to the maps and equipment, but the fact that defenders have little to no advantage and that tactics mean nothing in the face of the fastest gun just inflame that same problem. I covered the skill thing previously, and sadly the perfect aim makes the game far too binary. If someone sees you first, you usually die. Also I'd go so far as to say that the perfect aim even gos so far as to almost completely invalidate two the classes from the game. The MG gunner, and the sniper. I know that if someone plays the MG gunner they can get kills, and sometimes they can even top the scoreboard, but my contention is if they put the same effort into using a semi automatic rifle they would get far more kills as the rifle excels in every single area over the MG. The only thing the MG would be superior at is holding a hallway, which can even be overcome easily by good grenade use, also most of the time the MG class is empty in favor of playing riflemen so it's quite obvious that the ppl have spoken. You may raise your eyebrow when I say sniper, but fact is that every riflemen or semiriflemen can countersnipe a sniper. This is like 20 people of 35 able to countersnipe you, this means that on the whole snipers are relatively useless to their team only ever able to usually get a paltry number of kills, and would probably get more kills playing as a rifle men class or playing the sniper class like a riflemen would.
Also looking at other games as empirical evidence, all realism games have had rifle sway, insurgency, darkest hour, RO1, Arma, flashpoint, and project reality. Every single developer or mod team who has gone about to create as realistic a shooter as possible has opted to make their guns have sway and be rather inaccurate unless they are poised to shoot. Why would it possibly be that so many developers who focus on realism have opted to make their game the way that Red Orchestra 1 was but not red orchestra 2? Why is it that Call of Duty and counter strike are more akin to the aiming in this game than the red orchestra game before this one? Could is possibly be because sway and inaccurate guns on the fly are realistic?
Also your entire contention against the argument seems to come strictly from the "the guns wont' feel right" the guns will play exactly like they do now and will be totally unaffected as long as your are prone, in cover and to some extent crouched. The guns will not change as long as you are in a tactically superior position, why is that so bad?