What's wrong with it?

I suppose that it might depend on what you are trying to do with it. If you are trying to aim off for windage and elevation, then mil-dot scopes would be better. The SUSAT, however, can be set for range and windage (though your average squaddie isn't going to be too worried with points of windage) which probably isn't modelled in whichever game is the reference.

Someone had written that Europeans prefer a single column post for their sights, which the Russians also had similar preferences to in the SVD sight, just a single cheveron column. So i guess the British despite all their efforts to be different are still very European at heart, as they literally stick to the definition of the letter and stick a post for their optical sights.

Conversely the same European author who happened to be erm :) British also wrote of the horrors (in his opinion) of the plain American cross sight (I guess that would mean the cross hairs, as for the springfield sniper scope had the plainest of crosses for the sight and perhaps in this argument the post is easier to acquire sighting than the cross).

But today it does seem the Susat sight seems to put some eye strain where a red dot would cut straight to the chase. Also the bottom half of the scope seems rather well blocked by the post though I can see that the middle portion is transparent. Perhaps a different colour for the post might help?

Though any scope is better than no scope espeacially when looking down those open iron sights of assaut trifles. Though I wonder if any red dot sight would make much of a difference on those eastern block AK 47s, since it is so inaccurate, would you get the same effect if you fired with both eyes open on the iron sights?

The post, AIUI, contains a tritium light source or prism reflecting the same, so it shows up in low light without the need for batteries. Not sure where eye strain would occur though. Focussing and the like is sorted by the optics.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it true that the British army originally made  some kind of Susat or Suit sight to be mounted on the GPMG, to aid long range MG auto shooting. So that there is an optical sight that can take full auto fire.

And that sight was mounted on the British version of the FN FAL???? Thus a universal sight that can be both used by the riflemen as well as the GPMG gunner?????

I have also heard that no matter how good or bad the past (FALs) or presently issued rifles are, the sights issued are very good, and often those are the only saving grace for the British army rifles.

So hard to acquire, like them or not, I have only heard praise for the British optical sights.

Now it's mentioned, the scope-sights for older rifles might well have been post-type.