Advertisement
by San-Silvacian » Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:04 am
by Aelarus » Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:28 am
No, I wanted to point out that the Soviets actually designed a DMR, but didn't really use designated marksmen and referred to them as snipers.San-Silvacian wrote:You just killed your own argument.
And the Browning does sort of function in a sniper role. They have an extremely heavy round, a solid weapon build and can hit targets very far away. Simply because a weapon wasn't originally intended to be used in a role doesn't mean it can't be, I never said that only bolt action precision rifles can be used by snipers.The Akasha Colony wrote:The M2 Browning was never meant to perform in a "sniper" role. That was no obstacle to Carlos Hathcock.
The point is that any rifle with sufficient accuracy can function as a "sniper rifle," whether it's semi-automatic or select fire, or classified as a battle rifle, marksman's rifle, sniper rifle, LMG, GPMG, etc.
The point of a sniper is to be able to provide accurate, long-range fire. As long as the weapon he uses is suitably accurate, he can achieve this mission.
Properly sighted and used, M27 can hit targets at twice that distance as well. The AI AWM has a "listed" effective range of 1,500 m, but has recorded kills at nearly 2,500 m.
And? Until relatively recently the standard sniper rifles for the US Army and USMC were modified versions of the civilian Remington 700. What does being purpose-built have to do with anything? The current SR-25 is a combination of the AR-10 and AR-15, both of which were assault rifles.
There is really nothing special that makes a rifle a sniper rifle aside from have reasonable accuracy, but even this is a rather fuzzy criterion. Reasonable accuracy depends on the expected mission at hand. If range were all that mattered, snipers would carry nothing but .50 BMG rifles, none of this weaksauce 7.62 NATO.
by Triplebaconation » Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:33 am
Aelarus wrote:
Purpose built doesn't have to do with anything, I wanted to simply point out that WW2 era sniper rifles weren't really sniper rifles.
by Aelarus » Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:38 am
You know, you could always say something constructive instead of sarcastically insulting my opinion.Triplebaconation wrote:Amazing.
by Immoren » Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:43 am
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Triplebaconation » Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:56 am
by Aelarus » Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:06 am
A fair point to be sure, many DMRs are effective at some longer sniper ranges, but you need to remember what this argument is about, and that's using LMGs as standard sniper weapons. Shooter is a good read detailing snipers in urban conflicts, and the main narrator uses bolt action snipers for the majority of the book, and he operates independently of standard fireteams and literally had a fireteam tasked around him as security.Triplebaconation wrote:"Designated marksman" is a dumb neologism that the US Army came up with when they realized their rifle training sucked and they needed special snowflakes to "supply rapid accurate fire on enemy targets at ranges up to 500 meters," but the typical DMR is far more capable than the shooter and perfectly adequate for the vast majority of sniper engagements - most of which occur within 500 meters any because when a sniper's shooting a lot he's typically attached to an infantry unit in a role indistinguishable from a "designated marksman."
There's literally no difference between a semiautomatic or selective-fire DMR and a semiautomatic or selective-fire sniper rifle - snipers use DMRs routinely, and a typical recent DMR is as good or better than all but hyper-specialized sniper rifles.
by The Akasha Colony » Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:30 am
Aelarus wrote:And the Browning does sort of function in a sniper role. They have an extremely heavy round, a solid weapon build and can hit targets very far away. Simply because a weapon wasn't originally intended to be used in a role doesn't mean it can't be, I never said that only bolt action precision rifles can be used by snipers.
Yes exactly, and the M27 can shoot targets at ranges which snipers will engage but can't function as well at more extreme ranges. Sure it can hit targets at longer ranges but it still uses 5.56 NATO which isn't that great for retaining kill power at range.
As a norm I expect combat conditions to allow the M27 to reliably hit targets (provided with a competent user) out to 750m, farther than that is a bit iffy IMO. Good shots can get long distance kills, while someone can kill another man farther away than anyone expected, it's a bit more important to look at the mean and not the few outriders.
Purpose built doesn't have to do with anything, I wanted to simply point out that WW2 era sniper rifles weren't really sniper rifles. They can still be used as snipers, but that's just like saying the M2 can be used as a sniper rifle, it isn't one but it can get the job done.
Range isn't all that matters, range is simply the thing that keeps the M27 from being a suitable sniper. It shoots a bullet with good muzzle velocity and functions in most ways that any gun would as well as being reasonably light, those criteria are already filled, but that doesn't mean they don't matter. .50 cal ammunition is large and cumbersome and frankly provides high risk of collateral damage, it's why many of those caliber rifles are anti-material.
Aelarus wrote:A fair point to be sure, many DMRs are effective at some longer sniper ranges, but you need to remember what this argument is about, and that's using LMGs as standard sniper weapons. Shooter is a good read detailing snipers in urban conflicts, and the main narrator uses bolt action snipers for the majority of the book, and he operates independently of standard fireteams and literally had a fireteam tasked around him as security.
by Triplebaconation » Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:48 am
Aelarus wrote: Shooter is a good read detailing snipers in urban conflicts, and the main narrator uses bolt action snipers for the majority of the book, and he operates independently of standard fireteams and literally had a fireteam tasked around him as security.
by Inyourfaceistan » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:38 am
by Imperializt Russia » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:39 am
Inyourfaceistan wrote:Is there any way to mask a fleet from satellite surveillance?
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Allanea » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:42 am
Triplebaconation wrote:" but the typical DMR is far more capable than the shooter and perfectly adequate for the vast majority of sniper engagements
by Allanea » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:51 am
.50 cal ammunition is large and cumbersome and frankly provides high risk of collateral damage,
by Gallia- » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:57 am
by Hasmonea » Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:02 am
Inyourfaceistan wrote:Is there any way to mask a fleet from satellite surveillance?
Overhead systems are in known orbits, are predictable, and their sensing capabilities known. So the track is varied, weather is sought out to hide in when vulnerable, blending into sea lanes (while staying out of visual detection range of ships) and such techniques. Deceptive lighting is used at night so that the obvious "blacked out warship" is instead thought to be a merchant or cruise liner.
by Inyourfaceistan » Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:38 am
Hasmonea wrote:An excellent read on hiding naval forces at sea.Inyourfaceistan wrote:Is there any way to mask a fleet from satellite surveillance?
To quote the article:Overhead systems are in known orbits, are predictable, and their sensing capabilities known. So the track is varied, weather is sought out to hide in when vulnerable, blending into sea lanes (while staying out of visual detection range of ships) and such techniques. Deceptive lighting is used at night so that the obvious "blacked out warship" is instead thought to be a merchant or cruise liner.
by The Kievan People » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:06 am
New Vihenia wrote:
This better options needs metric to define because i haven't seen Long range SAM's dead out.. They just spawn better engagement radar, even longer ranging missiles and more sophisticated ECCM techniques.
Terrain hugging flight and perhaps doppler notch maneuver however attack fundamental weaknesses of radar which somewhat not really countered to date, same goes for low altitude supersonic penetrator which make tracking difficult.
by Kouralia » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:16 am
Triplebaconation wrote:Aelarus wrote: Shooter is a good read detailing snipers in urban conflicts, and the main narrator uses bolt action snipers for the majority of the book, and he operates independently of standard fireteams and literally had a fireteam tasked around him as security.
Ah. It all makes sense now. It's an awful book and he wasn't a sniper.
by Santa Agua » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:41 am
by Imperializt Russia » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:08 am
Santa Agua wrote:North Korean Koksan artillery, yes or no? I don't have a specific role or goal for it in mind, just as general artillery.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Purpelia » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:11 am
The Kievan People wrote:New Vihenia wrote:
This better options needs metric to define because i haven't seen Long range SAM's dead out.. They just spawn better engagement radar, even longer ranging missiles and more sophisticated ECCM techniques.
Terrain hugging flight and perhaps doppler notch maneuver however attack fundamental weaknesses of radar which somewhat not really countered to date, same goes for low altitude supersonic penetrator which make tracking difficult.
To borrow an argument from something I read a long time ago in a USAF magazine: Modelling of air defense has historically vastly overstated the lethality of SAMs and the actual achievements airpower in breaking through air defenses has consistently exceeded model predictions. In both Vietnam and Iraq USAF modellers predicted heavy attrition losses from enemy SAMs that utterly failed to materialize. Or as the author argued (and I would agree) air defense modelling fails to capture the reality that the combined effects of effective technology and tactics (all tactics, not just individual counter-SAM tactics) is far greater than the sum of it's parts.
But even looking at the purely technical side: Conescan radars were susceptible to jamming from the beginning. Monopulse radars are much less susceptible, but were essentially a non-entity on the battlefields of the Cold War. Now monopulse radar is widespread but so are towed decoys and crosseye jammers. And crosseye jammers in particular have defied predictions by being easy to build (one university team built a working retrodirective cross eye jammer using COT equipment in a few months), highly reliable in operation (skin returns are much less important than was believed) and effective against all existing radar fire control systems (and also contrary to some predictions, it can produce pointing errors much larger than the width of the beam to achieve total break-lock and huge miss distances). It isn't a red queen race because radar has improved a lot, especially against support jammers and natural clutter, but self-protection jammers remain an extremely powerful tool against radar fire control.
Retrodirective crosseye jamming may actually have caused fire control radar to loose ground against jammers because there is nothing in the traditional ECCM toolkit which can defeat it. Right now IRL an aircraft protected by a crosseye jammer effectively cannot be engaged successfully by existing radar-guided weapons except in the aspects not protected by it. Which can usually be covered by a towed decoy.
And then there is stealth. And hacking.
by Spirit of Hope » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:17 am
Purpelia wrote:The Kievan People wrote:
To borrow an argument from something I read a long time ago in a USAF magazine: Modelling of air defense has historically vastly overstated the lethality of SAMs and the actual achievements airpower in breaking through air defenses has consistently exceeded model predictions. In both Vietnam and Iraq USAF modellers predicted heavy attrition losses from enemy SAMs that utterly failed to materialize. Or as the author argued (and I would agree) air defense modelling fails to capture the reality that the combined effects of effective technology and tactics (all tactics, not just individual counter-SAM tactics) is far greater than the sum of it's parts.
But even looking at the purely technical side: Conescan radars were susceptible to jamming from the beginning. Monopulse radars are much less susceptible, but were essentially a non-entity on the battlefields of the Cold War. Now monopulse radar is widespread but so are towed decoys and crosseye jammers. And crosseye jammers in particular have defied predictions by being easy to build (one university team built a working retrodirective cross eye jammer using COT equipment in a few months), highly reliable in operation (skin returns are much less important than was believed) and effective against all existing radar fire control systems (and also contrary to some predictions, it can produce pointing errors much larger than the width of the beam to achieve total break-lock and huge miss distances). It isn't a red queen race because radar has improved a lot, especially against support jammers and natural clutter, but self-protection jammers remain an extremely powerful tool against radar fire control.
Retrodirective crosseye jamming may actually have caused fire control radar to loose ground against jammers because there is nothing in the traditional ECCM toolkit which can defeat it. Right now IRL an aircraft protected by a crosseye jammer effectively cannot be engaged successfully by existing radar-guided weapons except in the aspects not protected by it. Which can usually be covered by a towed decoy.
And then there is stealth. And hacking.
This sounds like it would kill the idea of using BVR radar guided weapons from stealth platforms to destroy enemy aircraft before you are even seen as a concept. So why has it not done so?
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by The Kievan People » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:19 am
by Purpelia » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:21 am
Spirit of Hope wrote:Because you are missing the point. These technologies don't stop long range SAMs, they just make them less dangerous. Similarly BVR weapons are probably not as dangerous as some people think, however they will still achieve kills and pose a threat to enemy planes.
If you can strike the enemy at a longer range you get an advantage, which is why despite these technologies long range SAMs and BVR combat will still be a thing.
by Novorden » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:23 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Current "sniper rifles" in the West are modernized, accurized versions of older semi-automatic or select fire rifles with equipment to mount an optic , bipod, and a few other bells and whistles (e.g. SR-25, Mk. 14 EBR). There are again some purpose-built weapons, especially in heavy calibers, but conversions of legacy rifles are still extremely common (e.g. XM2010).
Lineart
Old designs
Newer Designs
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Card Cleaver, Resaaria
Advertisement