HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!

Realistically though, if you aren't firing from a hide with a couple minutes between shot intervals you basically have similar target indicators to a LMG. At least with the LMG you are capable of firing fast enough to hit enough multiple people you are aiming at before they move to cover. Considering also that WWII snipers relied totally on emperical DOPE and holdovers, their effective range was limited to under 300-400 yards which is well within the effective range of a repeater.

sure thanks BAR-chan, they know where you are now XD

Take the Bipod Off Bar chan, It makes you look more like a rifleman and less of a target.
Like why officers use carbines instead of pistols.

79248cm/s said:

Realistically though, if you aren't firing from a hide with a couple minutes between shot intervals you basically have similar target indicators to a LMG. At least with the LMG you are capable of firing fast enough to hit enough multiple people you are aiming at before they move to cover. Considering also that WWII snipers relied totally on emperical DOPE and holdovers, their effective range was limited to under 300-400 yards which is well within the effective range of a repeater.

You might have a big target indicator over you, but how many people who haven't gone through modern military training, where you are utterly desensitised to shooting at man-shaped targets, are going to deliberately shoot to kill, or even to wound/maim? I don't know the numbers on the German side, but only 2% of allied soldiers interviewed post-war said that they intentionally shot to kill. The rest only shot in the general direction of the enemy to keep their heads down because it is not part of the human psychological makeup to kill someone you don't have a strong emotional attachment or reaction to.

sporked said:
...

I personally would find it easier to kill someone that I don't have a strong emotional attachment to. In contrast I would find it very hard to have to kill a friend or family member.

The report you are referring (by Marshall something if I remember) is very misleading as an extremely small amount of servicemen were interviewed. Not to mention I personally suspect the reasons for improvement were not due to the psychological effects but the trigonometric effects. Guns don't shoot straight, but curve vertically with a slight rise (due to angle of barrel relative to sights) and then a drop and so the point of impact (POI) will differ from your aiming point (POA Point Of Aim). Very few soldiers understood this concept at the time. As a consequence they would just aim at the target and fire, which leads to a lot of misses. When you aim at a silhouette on the other hand, its size relative to your POA shrinks the further out it is. This gives you an immediate clue to your range which allows you to hold over, estimate POI, and actually hit the target. This appearance method of rangefinding is easy to remember and leads to much better accuracy. This is a big reason most modern militaries have swapped out iron sights and red dots on rifles and use short range scopes like ACOG with a BDC (Battle Drop Compensator) which is a reticle with fine hash marks so you can rangefind a target (measure using the reticle) by height or width (I like using width since it works on those who are prone or standing, but height is more accurate) and know the distance of the target almost to the tenth of a yard accurate.

I have worked with people who never had a fist fight with anyone in their life, and trained them (in a non-military setting in a short period of time) well enough to where they could kill without hesitation. It isn't like I used drugs or anything invasive like what terrorists and other nuts use. I simply taught them skills (actually mostly just cardiovascular fitness training) and made sure they were sober to the fact of what they were fighting for and what their opposition was capable of. Modern media and movies give an unrealistic perspective of warfare, that somehow everyone in the field is scared to kill the enemy. In reality everyone is more scared to die. There are a lot of skills involved in something simple as a patrol, much less a raid. No one is thinking about philosophical musings when first contact is made. Real life skirmishes tend to be ridiculously fast and you don't have time to think about anything else other than fighting. Hesitate and you won't survive. Simple as that. Killing is very much a natural instinct in the human psyche, as it is in all animal's brains. We exist today because our ancestors were willing to kill when it was necessary, killing is not unnatural. Why we kill is what differentiates insane and rational men, not the ability to kill.

Few people I have trained have had remorse for who they killed. Instead afterwards they have a deep sense of pride and relief that their training and hard work paid off. And they aren't uncontrollable beasts either. They are very much capable of holding their fire and knowing the distinction between capture and kill. That control is part of the discipline in training. Even here in America and not just in some second or third world country, little old ladies, housewives, and children have been known to be able to take a gun and shoot a criminal who tries to assault them. These people typically have no combative training and have only shot round paper targets at most. Despite this, they are able to defend themselves.

IMO a mindset of pacifism is what drives people insane because it makes people blind to reality. If you tell yourself that you can't kill or are wrong to do so, you either won't or may do it instinctively in the face of danger and then tell yourself that you are somehow insane or out of control. This kind of backwards expectation is what I personally believe to be the cause of the cPTSD epidemic in veterans. When you come to terms with the realities of warfare beforehand, it is still scary but it isn't traumatic.

sporked said:

You might have a big target indicator over you, but how many people who haven't gone through modern military training, where you are utterly desensitised to shooting at man-shaped targets, are going to deliberately shoot to kill, or even to wound/maim? I don't know the numbers on the German side, but only 2% of allied soldiers interviewed post-war said that they intentionally shot to kill. The rest only shot in the general direction of the enemy to keep their heads down because it is not part of the human psychological makeup to kill someone you don't have a strong emotional attachment or reaction to.

For WWII where most soldiers were conscripts, that may be the reality of things.

In modern times with a professional army, the numbers might be going up.

79248cm/s said:
Few people I have trained have had remorse for who they killed. Instead afterwards they have a deep sense of pride and relief that their training and hard work paid off. And they aren't uncontrollable beasts either. They are very much capable of holding their fire and knowing the distinction between capture and kill. That control is part of the discipline in training. Even here in America and not just in some second or third world country, little old ladies, housewives, and children have been known to be able to take a gun and shoot a criminal who tries to assault them. These people typically have no combative training and have only shot round paper targets at most. Despite this, they are able to defend themselves.

IMO a mindset of pacifism is what drives people insane because it makes people blind to reality. If you tell yourself that you can't kill or are wrong to do so, you either won't or may do it instinctively in the face of danger and then tell yourself that you are somehow insane or out of control. This kind of backwards expectation is what I personally believe to be the cause of the cPTSD epidemic in veterans. When you come to terms with the realities of warfare beforehand, it is still scary but it isn't traumatic.

I don't know if there is any point arguing with a 2-year old comment, but while I am agree with some of your points, I would have to point this point out:

As I see it, a lot of Western military foster a false expectation of reality in their soldiers (for example, all the gross sexual violations being covered up, as well as torture and killing of non-combatants). There seems to be a lot of things a servicemen can do and get away with it. That is a dangerous mindset when you leave the military and become either a civilian or, more dangerously, a PMC. Just look at everything Blackwater and Silvercorps people have done, or an ex-Navy SEAL throwing pipe bombs (more like flashbangs/training grenades) at the Portland protestors.

Also, you say that if people can make peace to the fact that their killings are necessary, they can avoid being traumatized. While I can agree somewhat, PTSD in combatants seems more likely to be caused by the shock of transitioning into civilian life. It is like you are a string that has been stretched out for too long and then suddenly let go...

Furthermore, in midst of the ongoing War of Terror, can you really convince a large chunk of people that they have been killing for the right cause? In light of the lies of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.? Or, for a more recent example, look at the way the soldiers serving under Clint Lorance were traumatized after the guy was pardoned by Trump, after they had thought that justice had finally been served.