While some closed sights are nice and useful:
Others are terrible:
I suggest rear ironsight rework for these guns:
Enfield 17 (align)
FG 42-2 (align)
Carbine M1, M1A1, M2, M2A1 (align + move camera away)
Garand (move camera away)
Thomspon M1, M1A1 (move camera away)
STEN Mk.II (scale down + move camera away)
AuSTEN, STEN Mk.II S (move camera away)
Bren Mk.I, Mk.II (scale down + move camera away)
Type 96 (scale down)
Vickers-Berthier (scale down + move camera away)
you know its funny. I get what you mean realistically.
But I much prefer all the ones you have listed as terrible. soooooo much easier to track targets lol
The sight of the type96 is already terrible because it is hard to track enemy with its sight due to the small sight. Now you want the sight become smaller？
Rear ring, not front
Its thick
Then you should reduce the thickness of the ring, not scaling down the whole ring.
Wait what’s wrong with the Sten sight?
Hate the P14 and SMLE 4 sights tho
No.
It’s ALREADY reworked. When it was first released in Tunisia, the rear sight was so tiny, metal covered 75% of the screen, so nobody used it. Devs artificially enlarged the hole to make the gun usable…
Same as sten, and pretty much all the guns you noted.
Devs also put the camera CLOSER to the rear sight.
Otherwise, those weren’t usable. The reason is that Enlisted goes at arcade fast call of duty battlefield esque game pace. Smaller, more precise sights are fine in real life for accuracy… But not for Enlisted zergs.
Where’s logic?
smaller sight = easier to spot enemy
I cant play effectively with sight, that cover 50% of my screen
Maybe on large distanced it would be helpful, but regular firefight distance is 5-30 meters
In CoD as well as in any arcade fps sights are nice and small and camera is where it should be, not inside the gun
You mustn’t remember how those were before, to ask this…
On which guns? And how long ago?
Most of those you listed, truly.
You probably weren’t playing before those got tweaked by devs.
As a good example, the para Vickers. You were playing so you must remember that one. Remember the dev blog about them? Ppl complained the sight would make the gun entirely unusable, because it would cover the target too much, and only have a tiny precise rear sight hole to aim thro.
Devs tweaked it. They did the same for all (most of) the guns up… They ALREADY tweaked those! Ppl complained! Think the carbine is bad now? You merely don’t remember how it was before…
(What footage?)
Oops, added it
Yes, that kind. The infamous thumb 
What I’m trying to say is, iron sights got tweaked a lot over the last 2 years, at the demand of the playerbase, to satisfy the very arcade style of Enlisted.
Even thought what you ask is way more realistic (some sights got artificially enlarged for gameplay) and aesthetic… It sadly wouldn’t fit with the pace and gameplay style Enlisted is at now.
In another type of game, Red Orchestra or the like, those iron sights would fit perfectly.
Now:
The only difference I see is not with the alignment, but with the recoil kick…
I certainly wouldn’t mind such low recoil with the carbine, thought. It would become a powerhouse, like it should.
Edit: I get what you tried to say, it’s the “eyeball” being a bit further from the rear sight ring. I wouldn’t mind. As long as things like Vickers keep it’s artificially enlarger rear ring, or we wouldn’t see what we shoot at due to recoil…
Idk why sights position changes visual recoil, but this is how it works. And if visual part doesn’t make difference for you, why are you against this change?
