My Sniper/AWP Thread =D

[Lexington_Steele]

However 30mm PGU-14 shells seem to be able to take tanks out when used in combination with a certain 7 barrel gatling gun.

[NARF]

I'm just going to ramble about the real world implications of firearms (not the mathematic or counterstrike formulas, neither one accurately models real combat conditions) and thier effects on the human body.

In the real world, a sniper shot to the head (the prefered method of hitting, not only because it provides an instand and painless death {save for the rarest circumstances} but for the bragging rights) brings an instand death. In most cases, not even a kevlar PAS-GT helmet can provide adequate protection from a 7.62mm NATO standard match grande round, it most often prevents the bullet from coming in contact with the skull, but in all likelyhood, the high power of sniper rounds will break the skull and/or cause severe brain damage. Assuming that military technology develops in the same fashion, the effect of a sniper round will be much the same. Someone came up with a round that could penetrate the helmet that someone came up with that would protect from the previous round. This continues, well, forever, and for the sake of balance, the two just happen to be matched. Some of the few things that protect from a sniper round are:

1)Bushes (only if the sniper cant see you, if he cant see you, he cant hit you)
2)a tank or APC
3)a building, and even then its not a sure thing.

So I'm saying, the ENTIRE point of a sniper is surgical fire at a distance, surgical fire entails taking out the most threatening targets with one shot, thereby disrupting the enemy's chain of command and operation, namely mortars and operators of radio equipment, of course, the role of snipers in planetside is someone different, but one shot, one kill is still the point. If a person has a helmet, they may survive, but they will be close to death, unless they are in an actual armored, thing.

U.S. Marine Corps Defenition of a scout-sniper translated into civvy-speak by yours truly, NARF.


Oh wait, did I mention a 50 cal can take out an APC, and can SOMETIMES disable a tank, depending on what parts of the tank happen to be exposed, a 50 cal can sufficiently damage the drive system of a tank if shot from 'below', so if the sniper is lower than the tank, and puts a round, essentially up its ass, the tank can be seriously slowed down or completely stopped.

[JohnClark]

I think we've gone off on a realism tangent. PS is a sci-fi game, and therefore all concepts of realism are right out the window. So, the devs ought to focus on enjoyment, and I think if you have a rifle that does one shot kills and is not easily counter-detectable (and I mean easy like tribes easy) then you take away from the enjoyment of most players, since snipers will enjoy a huge advantage over anyone not wearing one of the heavier armors.

[NARF]

this is the reason there are only two damage regions, and only for sniper rounds, head and not head. Then you have the scope wobble (I think the rifles are gyro supported tho) and a few other factors they might put in to balance it. Just because it's oneshot one kil doesnt mean its going to be an easy shot or kill, otherwise the military would consist of a mass of burlap covered marines.

[SandTrout]

I wasn't reffering to the M1 Abrams, I was refering to lighter tanks. But anyways, I still agree with snipers being unable to take out even a lightning.

The 7.62mm NATO round is not used as a sniper round because of its power. It is used because it has a high mussle velocity and is less affected by wind than 5.56mm which is used by most assault rifles.

However, just about any high powered rifle round will go through a steel helmet. Only some pistol rounds and some shrapnel(sp?) are stoped by body armor.

However, all this has no bareing to the game unless you want to have increased damage for hiting someone in the head vs the leg. I think this is a point that would be enjoyed because you can snipe with assault rifles via the magnifire implant, and sense you will be takeing picked shots, a shot to the head should still do some more damage than one to the leg.

At least we can agree that CS is not the pinicle of realism.

[Lexington_Steele]

I do wonder how effective a .50 caliber depleted uranium round would do against a tank.

[JohnClark]

Originally posted by NARF
this is the reason there are only two damage regions, and only for sniper rounds, head and not head. Then you have the scope wobble (I think the rifles are gyro supported tho) and a few other factors they might put in to balance it. Just because it's oneshot one kil doesnt mean its going to be an easy shot or kill, otherwise the military would consist of a mass of burlap covered marines.

Then you make skill even less a part of the game if the scope is wobbling all over the place. I think sniper's should be stable but should not be one shot one kill.

[Warborn]

I do wonder how effective a .50 caliber depleted uranium round would do against a tank.

Given that the M1 Abrams has depleted uranium inserts along with high grade steel for armor. You'd mess up the paint job, but that's about it.

... and can SOMETIMES disable a tank...

I've been reading "if a tank gets shot in the armor dead on it'll go right through", so let's not second guess ourselves here. The .50 cal machine gun isn't doing jack to a tank. Technically speaking, a big metal pole could also take out a tank if you stuck it in the right place, but that's not something that you're going to see in a combat situation, and neither is shooting a tank in the "right place" with a machine gun.

Warborn is right (mostly) about the M1...

I was reading a lot of conflicting stuff. Some guys said it was a 150mm cannon, others a 120mm. The 150mm seemed reasonable though, so I didn't bother changing it, because I don't drive the tank, so I know as much as these sites tell me.

PS, a 0.50 cal couldn't even do squat to a WWII-era MBT.

Even anti-tank shells had a tendency to be deflected or break up on the armor of WW2 MBTs. A solid slug would just plink and leave a nice lead pancake on the ground for passing soldiers to remark at.

[Sputty]

That's why sometimes in WWII allied tanks would try to hit an are where it would deflect down into the weaker armor above the driver. Heh, someone is going to say that's too hard but because of the weakness of the Sherman they would try to make precision shots like that. CRAP! Mentioned something about history in these forums. Well, I guess the world is ending....Too bad. Also, not gun designed for AI like the sniper could affect tanks in the slightest. And in PS they're going for gameplay so saying it should happen in the game because of realworld physics is useless. And there is no headshots. If they add them in then it will be everquake with massive spary death fests.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Warborn
Given that the M1 Abrams has depleted uranium inserts along with high grade steel for armor. You'd mess up the paint job, but that's about it.

I am not sure about that. Why couldn't depleted uranium go through depleted uranium?

The GAU-8 Gatling gun firing 30mm rounds that contain depleted uranium and are often used as anti tank weaponry.

[Hamma]

Where are my dead horse images when I need them.

[Warborn]

I am not sure about that. Why couldn't depleted uranium go through depleted uranium?

Because there's a hell of a lot more depleted uranium in the path of the bullet, along with steel, than you realize. Hell, you'd be lucky if you could even get the bullet to not simply ricochet away harmlessly. Believe it or not, but these tanks are made to be fairly durable and able to withstand a lot of punishment. I don't know whether to laugh or hang my head in dismay when I read you guys saying that some joker with a machine gun is going to take out the most sophisticated battle tank on the planet.

The GAU-8 Gatling gun firing 30mm rounds that contain depleted uranium and are often used as anti tank weaponry.

Oh really? And I suppose they have Ahnuld Schwarzenneger look-alikes to man the weapons, right?

Sarcasm aside, no respectable nation in the world uses a minigun as an anti-tank weaponry. I doubt the minigun is even a standard piece of hardware in virtually any modern military. The whole "preservation of life" thing, you know. Much safer to fire off a disposable LAW or some such, or rely on your own tanks, rather than give some guy a slug-thrower and tell him to start plinking away. [Hello, my name is A-10 Warthog. Had someone told you that it was my fuselage that this weapon was mounted on, you wouldn't have even bothered. Ah, the wonderful world of people who don't have a clue what they're on about spewing conjecture around like it makes a difference...]

[Incompetent]

Uh, no, actually they have an A-10 pilot pulling the trigger. The difference is that A.) those rounds are a helluva lot bigger B.) there are a helluva lot more of them and C.) they move a helluva lot faster.

[Ludio]

Do you know how hard it is to find a picture of a dead horse Hamma?

http://www.trib.com/~phxcon/DEADHORSE.html

Well I do wish everyone would stop beating it...poor thing.

Seriously people, we understand that there are lots of interesting debates about modern weaponry, too bad planetside is set in the future. Suffice to say anything but an anti-vehicle weapon will do little or no damage to vehicles, especially tanks. Of course considering there are pistols that are anti-vehicle weapons and AP bullets for assault rifles there wont be any shortage of them. Although the true anti-vehicle weapons (Decimators etc...) will be the most effective.

Anyway, I do appreciate DiosT's efforts to give us mathematical models for sniper rifles, but that doesn't help alot. I agree with most of his ideas about how many hits it should take to kill someone with the bolt driver, and hopefully some of it will be cleared up in AGN interview with SmokeJumper (like if there will be head shots).

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Incompetent
Uh, no, actually they have an A-10 pilot pulling the trigger. The difference is that A.) those rounds are a helluva lot bigger B.) there are a helluva lot more of them and C.) they move a helluva lot faster.

Glad that someone mentioned the thing was strapped to a tank-buster jet when they first brought it up. Obviously what I said is totally invalid given that rather critical detail that was so thoughtfully left out. Anyway, in light of the tanget this conversation has taken again... let's follow his advice and drop it.