Super Sniper

[Monte Carlo]

^ Yes, and those are both anti-materiel rifles, like I said with computers you are basically emulating a small-scale, extreme precision arty piece. The guy we're discussing here was using a more modest L115A3, a sniper rifle.

[Amentep]

I'll readily put my hands up to reckless patriotism. But that doesn't alter my central point, which I feel you aren't addressing. To hit a target at that range with less than national lottery winner odds IS the definition of a top flight shooter. Or are you actualy suggesting any top class shooter would be able to make these shots given a few weeks of attempts?

 

I think his argument is that any top class shooter - including those who've already made such amazing shots - would only be able to make those shots as a product of skill, environmental conditions at the time of the shot and blind luck.

 

To use Grom's metaphor, a PGA tour champion will make a hole in one with greater odds than a casual weekend golfer, but give them both enough time and the right conditions both will be able to hit a hole in one - eventually. Give them the wrong conditions and neither will ever. This doesn't negate the skill level to be a champion PGAer, but it recognizes that some feats are as much luck (and situation) as they are ability.

 

You mention the national lottery, so is a person who wins the national lottery better at winning lotteries than the people who didn't? Or was there luck at play?

Edited May 4, 2010 by Amentep

[Gfted1]

^ Yes, and those are both anti-materiel rifles, like I said with computers you are basically emulating a small-scale, extreme precision arty piece. The guy we're discussing here was using a more modest L115A3, a sniper rifle.

 

 

Well, the M200 was designed for soft targets but take a few minutes to read up on its specs, it ridiculous what can be done with the complete system. Hell, even the host of Futureweapons was able to put 3 of 6 round into a human size target at 2530 yards!

[Thorton_AP]

You mention the national lottery, so is a person who wins the national lottery better at winning lotteries than the people who didn't? Or was there luck at play?

 

No. But I'm not sure your point. Are you saying it's just as likely for you to pull off the long range shot as the sniper?

 

The article comments that the wind was pretty much a non-factor as it was a calm day. I dunno, I'm pretty impressed that he could hit 3 targets at that range

[Amentep]

You mention the national lottery, so is a person who wins the national lottery better at winning lotteries than the people who didn't? Or was there luck at play?

 

No. But I'm not sure your point. Are you saying it's just as likely for you to pull off the long range shot as the sniper?

 

The article comments that the wind was pretty much a non-factor as it was a calm day. I dunno, I'm pretty impressed that he could hit 3 targets at that range

 

No I'm saying that skill and luck combine. Wals seemed to be indicating that skill was the only factor in determining success rate.

 

And what Grom seems to be saying is that while its more likely for the skilled guy to hit the shot than the unskilled guy, there's luck, chance, unpredictable elements that can't be accounted for in such success.

[Gromnir]

^ Yes, and those are both anti-materiel rifles, like I said with computers you are basically emulating a small-scale, extreme precision arty piece. The guy we're discussing here was using a more modest L115A3, a sniper rifle.

 

 

Well, the M200 was designed for soft targets but take a few minutes to read up on its specs, it ridiculous what can be done with the complete system. Hell, even the host of Futureweapons was able to put 3 of 6 round into a human size target at 2530 yards!

 

the biggest obstacle, until recently, were actually the ammo. cartridges have effective ranges too. max current is something like 2400 meters, which is considerably better than previous cartridges.

 

in any event, it is our understanding that the reason the U.S. military doesn't even bother tracking accuracy beyond 1500 meters (the approximate max range o' the weapon the British corporal utilized?) is 'cause genuine battlefield conditions make shooting at such distances a matter of luck, as much, if not more than skill. max range is based on ideal wind and temp conditions and at sea level. once again keep in mind that the Canadian and British gentlemen were not using a cheytac intervention... no military currently does.

 

*shrug*

 

as noted above, the Canadian gentleman, a fellow by the name o' Furlong, couldn't replicate his feat under similar conditions.

 

a hole in one. cheers. applause, but is not an accurate measure o' skill if you cannot do again... not that such is a criticism, 'cause nobody with similar weapons has pulled off same trick twice.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

You may wish to amend your hole in one analogy, because I would point out that the variations over greater range weaken it considerably. The question on your terms is can a regular golfer get a hole in one in their lifetime against a hole which is three holes away from where they would normally aim, while they are potentially being shot/mortared and having undergone the severest physical hardships to get to the course.

 

Incidentally, i found out last night that the White Death chap killed 200 of his 700 with a sub machinegun. Apparently. He also used iron sights on his rifle.

[Gromnir]

You may wish to amend your hole in one analogy, because I would point out that the variations over greater range weaken it considerably. The question on your terms is can a regular golfer get a hole in one in their lifetime against a hole which is three holes away from where they would normally aim, while they are potentially being shot/mortared and having undergone the severest physical hardships to get to the course.

 

you realize that you is increasing the seemingly necessary luck factor?

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

You may wish to amend your hole in one analogy, because I would point out that the variations over greater range weaken it considerably. The question on your terms is can a regular golfer get a hole in one in their lifetime against a hole which is three holes away from where they would normally aim, while they are potentially being shot/mortared and having undergone the severest physical hardships to get to the course.

 

Incidentally, i found out last night that the White Death chap killed 200 of his 700 with a sub machinegun. Apparently. He also used iron sights on his rifle.

 

Walsh, I personally don't see what is wrong with this analogy. The conditions in the golfing field vary as do those of the battlefield, but if your bother is that soldier have more stressful conditions than golfer then let me assure you that no one is saying that. It is simply a good example as to why a 1 in a millionth shot can't be pulled by just anyone.

[Monte Carlo]

He also used iron sights on his rifle.

 

That's nails. What sort of stud thinks scoped rifles are for girls?

[Raithe]

He also used iron sights on his rifle.

 

That's nails. What sort of stud thinks scoped rifles are for girls?

 

Using a scope meant raising his head up... putting a more visible outline on view of the soviets.. by using the iron sights he got to keep his head down and stay more concealed... Plus the possibility of sunlight reflecting on the lens and such like..

 

That's the reason he gave.. We are talking 1939 - 1940 for that old White Death...

[Walsingham]

You may wish to amend your hole in one analogy, because I would point out that the variations over greater range weaken it considerably. The question on your terms is can a regular golfer get a hole in one in their lifetime against a hole which is three holes away from where they would normally aim, while they are potentially being shot/mortared and having undergone the severest physical hardships to get to the course.

 

Incidentally, i found out last night that the White Death chap killed 200 of his 700 with a sub machinegun. Apparently. He also used iron sights on his rifle.

 

Walsh, I personally don't see what is wrong with this analogy. The conditions in the golfing field vary as do those of the battlefield, but if your bother is that soldier have more stressful conditions than golfer then let me assure you that no one is saying that. It is simply a good example as to why a 1 in a millionth shot can't be pulled by just anyone.

 

I think I've managed to get confused. As I understand it the sides are:

 

Mock Goblin: Pfah. Pulling a shot at that distance is a 1000 to one so it's just luck.

 

Me: To get to the point where the odds are merely a 1000 to one means you have to eliminate all the human factors which would otherwise make the shot 10 million to one.

[Raithe]

The other question is.. Just how much skill does it take to get the "random luck" features to the point where you can get three "holes-in-one" in a row?

 

Tango 1. Tango 2. Weapon.

 

I'm not discounting the amount of fluke and luck in that sort of extreme range shooting. But three consecutive shots. That has to be a touch more then just "fluke".

[RPGmasterBoo]

The problem is there are always three Taliban.

[Walsingham]

Very crudely, Raithe, you take

 

p hit^3

 

So if his chance of hitting was 2%, then it is 0.02x0.02x0.02 = 0.000008

 

EDIT: Or a 0.0008% chance.

 

REDIT: Or, to put it another way, to have a 2.7% chance of pulling off three in a row his accuracy on each individual shot would have to be 30%

 

So I'd say you were right.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Walsingham

[Monte Carlo]

More Brit super-sniper madness. More rounds down, but more baddies too.

[Orogun01]

Very crudely, Raithe, you take

 

p hit^3

 

So if his chance of hitting was 2%, then it is 0.02x0.02x0.02 = 0.000008

 

EDIT: Or a 0.0008% chance.

 

REDIT: Or, to put it another way, to have a 2.7% chance of pulling off three in a row his accuracy on each individual shot would have to be 30%

 

So I'd say you were right.

So how many skill points he had in his small arms skill?