Actual Squad vs Squad combat at over 300m+?

[LegioX]

Has there ever been any? weapons start to lose damage after around 200-350m, but rarely combat takes place that far away. Every squad vs squad i've fought was around 50-250m. There was a 250m engagement once, and that was due to sniper fire and I took him out with one well placed grenade. I mean, is it even possible to hit something from 300m with cqb sights?

[Rudd]

yes it is, though it only generally is common on maps where one or both sides gets skylined alot, like Jabal. (as it makes aiming easier)

But if you have a CQB sight and don't think you can hit a target at 300m, just throw lots of ammo downrange, if you don't hit something you're still putting the fear of God in them so that your scoped squadmmates or marksmen can take their time aiming.

[RELEASE_THE_KRAKEN]

I encounter 300+m engagements every once in awhile on maps like Jabal, Archer and the bunkers of Kashan. Seemed like 300m engagements were the bread and butter of 7 gates.

[pfhatoa]

Yea, Jabal gives some nice long range action.

[Wh33lman]

i actually find red dot sights extremly effective at long range. up untill .95, a red dot offered a huge field of view compared to magnified optics. i felt i could hit targets at the same range as you would with an acog.

then of course theres ironsights. i cant hit s*** with them at over 50 meters. but at long range, your still throwing lead downrange, and its going to suppress your target.

[Psyko]

the greater the distance the less successful you'll be to kill. this is like, the biggest rule in PR. why the heck would you want to give away your position at that distance when communication is so successful? if your engaged from a squad in a certain quadrant you just tell your buddies who are close to that area and they can organise a flanking manouver or a firemission.

having saying that, for the squads that i have joined for the longest time, the least successful engagements have been the ones that are close up. engagements at 100-200 are more succesful for some reason. maybe people dont feel threatened when the feel they can move away a few yards to find more creative cover.

[Spec]

Long range engagements do happen, they just don't end with total squad wipeouts often. You'll usually not see the whole enemy squad and the squad that loses more men / takes more fire will probably reposition or retreat.

[Celestial1]

Engaging at long range is a rarely used but really, really powerful 'tactic'. In quotes, because it should be common sense. But apparently common sense is a super power these days.

Take for example, Logging House on Silent Eagle. You have a friendly squad getting close to the objective, but the enemy squad(s) at the objective are covering most of the angles of entry. If you are at Central Village, you can move South West where there is a nice, slightly hilly, slightly forested area. Post your squad up on a ridgeline, and prepare to put a lot of fire on the objective area. Make sure your squad knows not to aim for killshots, but to get a lot of bullets out at first.
When the bullets start flying, the enemy will either move their asses into cover, or start engaging right where they are. Once you've got them behind cover, slow down your rate of fire and have a marksman (not necessarily a marksman kit, just someone with a rifle and scope who can take accurate shots) take his time to get the kill shots, starting with those still in the open, then those with heavy weapons (LMGs, Grenadiers, etc). Your job is to soften the enemy, so keeping them dispersed and under fire is much more beneficial than having everyone go for headshots.
This can help your friendly squad get a clear entry up to the objective, where they can engage the enemies from close up, and flush them out of cover, finishing up the job.

Since people generally rush headlong into the objective without considering this sort of thing, you don't get a whole lot of long range firefights.

[Riflewizard]

It can happen, but as said it's rare for a squad to die from that kind of contact. If they take too much fire they can easily retreat and the medic will 99 percent of the time insure that they don't lose a single man.

More effective is engaging at long range while a flanking force causes there demise.

[dtacs]

I've found that longer range engagements - IE squad on squad - are simply pointless as the deviation is so random that you can't guaranteed hits. Unless the enemy is in the open with little to no chance of getting to cover

Sending in separate teams to get up and close gives more chance of kills, while it has a higher risk of taking casualties. Either way, its usually to cap a flag or destroy a firebase/vehicle/cache so its usually worth it.

The longest engagement I've had is with an Z-point G3 on Iron Eagle in the city, firing two shots and hitting killing a sniper on the hotel from about 400m away, don't know if it was complete luck or what.

[Mellanbror]

Luckiest shot I ever made was on Silent Eagle. I just came out of the woods east side of lake. Saw an nme up on hills west side, beyond the lake. I knelt down and waited 5 seconds while following his movement and fired once. Tracerround. Headshot. Ironscope m-16! Either it was 468 m or 648 m. My memory fails me. Anyways, my SL and the rest of the guys were on west side of lake below the nme and witnessed it. Got alot of cheers for that one =)

300 m ingame-kills with ironscope happen regulary. The suitability of engaging targets that far off though, vs to flank em or stalk em to a more advantaging position, is a different question.
But yes squad fights over 300 m happen (probably mostly instigated by the less tactical or more eager player in squad) and results vary. Have had several succesful long distance firefights taking out whole squads.
Yes, hitting targets at 300 meters with CQB-sights is possible and done quite alot.

Afaik there is no difference in accuracy on rifles. Just how clearly you see the nme.
I almost always have the ironscope (medkit). One learns. And if my squad is firing at targets, so do I. Someone wrote that just putting lead down range is good. True. You help giving the nme blurry (supressed) vision so your SM's can take that more accurate shot. This applies not just for long ranges. You step out on a street with your buddy and encounter an nme at 70 m start shooting rapidly with ironsight and your buddy takes the slow shots. You will win this fight as a rule.

/ the constant medic

[boilerrat]

Yes it seems to happen quite often on Archer and Jabal.

On maps like Silent Eagle and other thick forest maps, I have never seen any infantry really... You end up walking for 10 minutes then die suddenly without ever seeing anything.

[BenHamish]

Pointless due to medics and patches.

[mosinmatt]

yes it is, though it only generally is common on maps where one or both sides gets skylined alot, like Jabal. (as it makes aiming easier)

But if you have a CQB sight and don't think you can hit a target at 300m, just throw lots of ammo downrange, if you don't hit something you're still putting the fear of God in them so that your scoped squadmmates or marksmen can take their time aiming.

I have pegged many a person with the open sights enfield at 300 meters.

It all depends on the map really. A city map, you may literally be fighting 10 meters from each other.
More open maps? yea, you will get 300 meters. This is where your scoped rifles and AR guys come in handy.