Military Review

Commentary on A. Petrov's interview “Fire and Tactics in the Russian Army: Another Look”

Following the dictum of the famous satirist M. Zhvanetsky, "And you need to write, forgive, as well as write, when you can no longer", it was decided to comment on this author, as well as his "methodology". I submit to your court a critical comment, the main task of which is to show the inconsistency of the statements and methods of Petrova A.

The difficulty of understanding his articles and sayings lies in the fact that he is colorful and emotional, with references to great people, is "gag." And it is difficult for a person poorly versed in these matters to separate the wheat from the chaff.

As a material to confirm our critical point of view on the methodology and style of the author himself, quotes from various literature will be used (sources will be indicated in the text itself).

In an interview with Petrov A. journalist studio "Law of Time" ("Fire and tactics in the Russian army: a different look") at the very beginning the topic of the interview is defined, the brief content of which is approximately as follows:

- on the borders of Russia, the NATO bloc began to show activity;

- in the Baltic navy a series of high-profile layoffs of command personnel has passed;

- whether our army is ready to meet the enemy fully armed;

- are we able not to repeat the mistakes of the past (the analogy with the “purges” of 1937 of the year is drawn, which led to a weakening of the army. - Note. Auth.).

Immediately the question arises: can Mr. Petrov himself answer these questions? How do questions of this kind relate to his professional activities? Indeed, given the nature of the questions, it is assumed that they must be answered by a person who is well versed in:

- military strategy ("... an integral part of military art, its highest field, which covers the theory and practice of preparing the country and the Armed Forces for war, planning and conducting strategic operations and war in general. SV is closely related to the military doctrine of the state and is guided by its provisions in solving practical problems ... "(Dictionary of military terms. M .: Military. ed., 1988);

- operational art ("... an integral part of Soviet military art, covering the theory and practice of preparing and maintaining combined-arms (all-fleet), joint and independent operations (combat actions) by associations of various types of armed forces ..." (Glossary of military terms. M .: Military. Ed. , 1988);

- tactics ("... an integral part of military art, encompassing the theory and practice of preparing and conducting combat by subunits, units and formations of various types of armed forces, combat arms and special forces ..." (Dictionary of Military Terms. M .: Military. Ed., 1988).

After all, it is difficult to assume that a regional conflict with an adversary such as the NATO bloc can be resolved only by the forces of one unit, and even if so, at least knowledge of tactics will be useful. Does the person being interviewed have this knowledge? Let's try to answer this question further.

AI: And what could be the state of fire training in the army, if the leadership of its combat training believes that the main task of the army is to teach soldiers to fight as part of units? Can the garment factory as a whole produce quality products if each seamstress alone does not know how to sew?

From this passage it turns out that the fire training must be purely individual. However, it somehow misses the point that war is "collective entertainment." If they are firing two, then it is rather a shootout. The war is massive and, accordingly, involves the use of units, which in turn should be able to act precisely as units, and not a gathering of free shooters. In his statement, Petrov A. unequivocally hints at the lack of individual training in the army, which is either ignorance of the subject or a lie. This is what the book by I. Yu. Lepeshinsky, V. V. Glebov, V. B. Listkov, V. F. Terekhov says about this. "Fundamentals of military pedagogy and psychology. 2011":

"... the structural direction involves the construction of combat training" from the soldier. "That is, the first stage of training should be his individual training. Then, consistently, the coordination of departments (calculations, crews), platoons, companies (batteries, battalions, divisions), regiments, brigades and divisions ... "

It turns out that individual training not only exists, but is the first step in training a soldier. In principle, such chewing is not necessary for people who have an idea of ​​what KMB is (the course of a young fighter. Approx. Auth.), But is necessary for the reason that it gives an idea about the author of a new shooting technique and his knowledge of military affairs. .

Next, Petrov continues in the same vein:

In the elite units and divisions of the country's law enforcement agencies, fire and tactical training today is formally on paper, and in fact is largely under American influence - Practical shooting, various types of "tactical shooting."

For a better understanding of the position of A.P. On this issue, this quotation can be added as follows:

At present, the real individual training of a soldier is in complete uncertainty ...

It turns out that in the elite units there is a complete profanation of combat training and, in addition, criminal activity, which is expressed in ignoring the regulatory framework. As well as combat training, as an initiative, took the path of Americanization. Accordingly, they are received in all other parts and subunits or in a similar way, being in complete uncertainty about their training (fire training, special tactical training are parts of combat training. - Auth. Note).

But after all, all this activity is clearly defined by the relevant documents:

"Combat training in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is organized on the basis of the requirements of:

- laws of the Russian Federation;

- Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation concerning issues of military construction and the functioning of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation;

- resolutions and orders of the government of the Russian Federation, defining (specifying) certain issues of the activities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation;

- orders and directives of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation concerning the preparation of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the fulfillment of their tasks for the intended purpose;

- general military regulations of the RF Armed Forces;

- military regulations and manuals ... "(I. Yu. Lepeshinsky, V. V. Glebov, V. B. Listkov, V. F. Terekhov. Foundations of military pedagogy and psychology, 2011).

And it becomes clear that Mr. A. Petrov, apparently, believes that the whole army and all the country's power departments are completely disregard for the basic documents that the country's leadership develops and accepts. In this case, it can be assumed that the officers of these or other security agencies absolutely do not care about the opinion of the supreme commander and his generals. This is a very bold statement. Moreover, a statement of uncertainty and conducting combat training only on paper is a kind of insult to the entire officer corps. Let me explain also with a quote, why officers and why everyone:

"The leader of combat training is the commander (commander). The commanders (chiefs) of all degrees are supervised by combat training personally, through subordinate headquarters (services) and combat training organs" (I. Yu. Lepeshinsky, V. V. Glebov, V. B. Listkov, V.F. Terekhov. Fundamentals of military pedagogy and psychology, 2011).

It turns out that the officers do not make plans for classes, do not approve them, but they must:

"When planning combat training, the following are developed:

- in the battalion - a combat training plan for the period of training with a thematic calculation of hours;

- in a company - class schedule for the week ... "(I. Yu. Lepeshinsky, V. V. Glebov, V. B. Listkov, V. F. Terekhov. Fundamentals of military pedagogy and psychology, 2011).

It turns out that either at the highest level, no one has any idea about how to build combat training of personnel, or subordinate officers and commanders are engaged in subversive activities in this area, or Alexander Petrov is insulting nonsense. In principle, the general level of knowledge of this author already becomes clear, but in order to understand the full depth of his thought, it is necessary to continue.

In the formations and units of the armed forces stationed at a distance from Moscow and St. Petersburg, the typical course of shooting is basically based on the good old principle: breath holding, level front sight, smooth descent. Why kind? And allows you to do nothing.

In a strange way, it turns out that, in addition to tactical and practical shooting with uncertainty in combat training, there is also a course for firing, which is a guiding document determining the order and content of firing training of personnel. How can we be in uncertainty when we have guidelines that define how and how to prepare us? After all, on the implementation of the exercises of the course of shooting, grades are also given and records of the progress of the personnel are kept. Well, okay, Petrov A. self-denial is inherent.

It turns out that the fundamental tenets of small art, allow you to do nothing. That is, working out - the positions of shooting, aiming, setting the breath and lowering the trigger - this is all that requires no training at all. Probably, according to Petrov A., the leading shooters are engaged only in hanging around from competition to competition and anyone who wants can weaponshow the highest result. After all, it sounds more than crazy. What is this? Failure to understand the basics, an attempt to manipulate the opinion of those who do not understand this issue, or just stupid? Apparently, the author of the methodology is not aware of what the Shooting Course is, why it is needed, etc.

Instead of fundamentally starting to change something precisely in the organization of combat training, a soothing tale is told that modern combat operations are carried out exclusively by technical means and the role of a soldier with portable weapons in modern combat is extremely small. I will gather the courage to object: earlier and now aviation, navy, ground forces equipment and missile forces of any purpose are used to ensure the performance of a soldier with a machine gun. Today we are investing tremendously in technology and high technology, which is certainly correct. It remains only to understand what we will do with the seamstresses?

This is how it means that we must hastily change the organization of combat training, which should begin with a change in the strategy of the military, making changes in the operational art and tactics. Why and why should it be done? Because Petrov decided so, based on his assumptions about the lack of combat training in security agencies? To put it mildly, it is not very modest of him. Especially considering the fact that, as shown above, he poorly imagines the general structure of combat training and the tasks that it solves. Not to mention the fact that he himself does not represent any significant authority in this area.

Regarding the fact that the Navy, the Air Force, as well as the equipment of the ground forces are used to provide a soldier with a machine gun, I would like to object, with certain reservations. Naturally, the personnel of motorized rifle troops (along with tank troops), is the main striking force, but without the support of the Air Force (VKS), artillery, missile troops and other equipment - he will not be able to fulfill the tasks assigned to him. Moreover, depending on the situation, the military personnel (personnel) of motorized rifle units can carry out only a secondary role. For example, when breaking through the enemy’s defense line with tank units, who will play the leading role and who will play a secondary role? As an example, the opinion of General Guderian - "Fleet Heinz":

“Tanks should play a leading role in formations consisting of different types of troops; all other branches of the army are obliged to act in the interests of tanks” (Heinz Guderian, Memories of a Soldier).

I would also like to recall the recent history and to cite as an example the striking, mainly of the Air Force, against Yugoslavia. Ground forces there were not involved, however, managed to achieve defeat of the country. This is what the doctor of military sciences, full member of the Academy of Military Sciences, Major-General Sergey Pechurov wrote in his article "The War in Yugoslavia 1991-1995, 1998-1999. Inter-ethnic war in Yugoslavia and NATO aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia": " NATO used 900-1200 high-precision naval and air-based cruise missiles to attack 1500 objects of the Yugoslav economy of NATO.The first phase of the operation destroyed the oil industry of Yugoslavia, 50% of the ammunition industry, 40% of the tank and auto abundant industry, 40% of oil depots, 100% of strategic bridges across the Danube.From 600 to 800 daily sorties. In total, 38 was operating thousands of sorties, about 1000 air-launched cruise missiles were deployed, more than 20 thousand bombings were deployed and guided missiles. 37 of thousands of uranium shells were also used, as a result of explosions of which 23 tons of depleted uranium-238 were sprayed over Yugoslavia. " The result of all this is known. In modern conditions, with the current development of technology, it is not always necessary to use L / C motorized rifle units, sometimes it is enough to launch a missile-bombing attack on the enemy’s infrastructure in order to weaken it or completely withdraw it from the war. And this is not to mention the fact that WMD (weapons of mass destruction) can be used, the use of which can inflict incredible losses in its quantity and not just destroy the infrastructure of the enemy, but plunge it into the "Stone Age".

Therefore, it is unequivocal to assert that only motorized rifle troops are the only ones and the rest of them only serve - it is impossible. All armed forces, all types and types of troops, operate in a close relationship, and only this can give the opportunity, having repulsed the attack of the enemy or having attacked him, to ensure defeat to him.

... the focus is on the deployment of "state-of-the-art test sites" (Mulino, Nizhny Novgorod region) with "virtual" training on simulators and "programs for the development of weapons and equipment for the soldier of the future." Such a path in the armies of the West led to the complete degradation of combat training and, accordingly, the almost complete inability to conduct combat operations with conventional weapons.

Apparently, new technologies also do not like the innovator in the field of rifle techniques. Abstracting from Petrov’s personality, why are modern testing grounds that use new technologies for training l / s law enforcement agencies bad? That is, we need to abandon the possibility of using various kinds of simulators in the training of military personnel? But they, simulators, allow to save considerably, give the opportunity to carry out initial training, releasing to the exercises and preparatory exercises people who are able to competently use weapons and equipment. Instead of explaining to the soldier the purpose of various levers and buttons directly on the combat vehicle, you can first prepare him in the classroom. Moreover, it is possible to introduce and this is done, in the preparation of various kinds of complications, for which to prepare a soldier again in the classroom, without wasting motorcycle resources and ammunition in vain. And only after a clear mastery of the basic techniques and actions to bring l / s to practical exercises. What is bad here? On the contrary, this is a very useful direction and it should be expanded and introduced in every possible way.

Regarding the complete degradation of combat training in the armies of the "West". And where is this degradation and how is it expressed? The peculiar manner of communication Petrova sometimes just amazing. He puts forward a thesis, but does not confirm it. Soldiers of the "West" armies have forgotten how to shoot, drive armored vehicles, control planes, etc.? As the teachings and wars they carry out show, they are quite well prepared, and to think about them in the key of "hats" means to make the same mistake that some leaders of the Soviet Union were exposed to before the start of World War II.

Next, Petrov continues:

We have anti-terrorist operations in the North Caucasus, when 20-, 50- and more than multiple superiority in forces and means, including the newest ones, against poorly trained militants with ordinary, often outdated and worn out Kalashnikov assault rifles and often only by the federal forces.

It would be nice to give examples in such statements, but this is apparently difficult. However, there were similar situations, a summary and an explanation of what happened and why it happened can be found at the following link:

But this is too little to draw conclusions, much less to suggest a complete change in combat training. A fight is a fight, any mistake, including delay in actions, can lead to losses. It would be better and more useful for Petrov to respond to this statement by those who directly participated in these operations or were answered.

Now there is a tendency of a sharp increase in the rigidity of fire contacts and a significant increase in the professionalism of the participants in the illegal armed groups, which, in my opinion, requires not just a change in the approach to fire and tactical training, new methods of combat training, but the development of a new strategy for the training of law enforcement agencies directly involved in combat actions.

So, before that there were no hard fire contacts? Apparently, the fighting of the times of the first and second Chechen wars was of a milder character, and before that they were generally sluggishly overfired. It is also interesting, but what is the expression of the increase in professionalism of the participants in an illegal armed formation? Anyone can view footage of fights from virtually any hot spot in the world, through Youtube video hosting, where you can see all the professionalism without embellishment. It is impossible to call a professional who does not know how to use shelters, has no idea about the rules of firing from small arms, but there is no reason to talk about tactics. But, nevertheless, all this should lead, according to Petrov, to the development of a new strategy for the training of law enforcement agencies. Nothing more. In fact, I would like to recommend Alexander Ivanovich to use the phrase “road map” in the future, since the words tactics and strategy in such numbers in his speeches give birth to a picture of Bonaparte sitting on a drum in his imagination.

ZV: Have you ever been engaged in practical shooting yourself? Your opinion, is it a sport or a combat training?

A.I .: I have the right to give any marks to practical shooting, since I started practicing it in the 2003 year, when everything was just beginning. My sports achievements in it are the twice won championship of Russia (this is today's master of sports). And gold in the team at the European Championships in 2006, in Greece, and within the team I was third. By the way, it was the first major victory of the Russian national team at international competitions of this level.

This statement is just to remember, then it will be useful to us.

The way I answer your second question is my opinion, but it is quite definite - this is not exactly a sport, and not a combat training at all. How sport Practical shooting metrologically untenable.

In practical shooting at the 3 level match, I scored 85% of the shooter's results, who took the 1 place - you are the Master of Sports. And the result that this shooter scored is not tied to anything. What is the hit factor (the ratio of points by time), he scored, so scored. Now, at the next 3 level match, where the newly created “master of sports” will perform in his class, everyone who scores at least 85% of the 1 ranked results will also become Masters of Sports. The point is that the result of 1 who occupied the place is also not tied to anything, which hit factor he scored will be the starting point for the rest of the “masters”. And no matter what level the shooter showed, who took the first place - 85% of it, and you are the master.

In my opinion, there is nothing to even comment on, everything speaks for itself. This is about the subject of self-incrimination, which is inherent in A. Petrov, well, or alternatively, the inability to follow what he says. At the end of the comment will be given a link to an earlier interview with Petrov, where he expresses opposite opinions.

This is followed, apparently, by the element of modesty.

Yes, now almost all of them represent the arrows of the FPSR to one degree or another use the weapon control elements offered by me during high-speed shooting.

Without going into the history of the variety and the differences of hooks, racks, etc., that exist in practical shooting, one would still like to hear such confessions from the FPSR shooters who "represent something".

This is followed by the “myths” that some practical shooting shooting lobbyists spread in order to integrate it into combat training. We will skip the first myth due to the fact that the PS (practical shooting) really does not have a technique. And we will begin immediately with the second one, which, in the opinion of A. Petrov, is that in practical shooting there is no possibility to simulate self-defense situations, police and military. Further quotation:

Omitting a lot of reasoned arguments against, I’ll dwell on at least one thing: take an exercise that simulates the so-called "combat" situation, shoot at 32, put a practical shooter with a pistol or a carbine at the source, and face it back against the targets in terms of their number military personnel, or employees, with similar weapons (do we simulate a firefight?), the readiness of weapons is the same for everyone ... Question to you - who are you putting on? Well, how many seconds, or fractions of a second, will practical shooter live after the timer signal? Then what kind of "real" situation are we talking about, what are the security forces preparing for?

An example of their stupidity is just enchanting. Let's modify the situation somewhat. 32 shots, given the need to hit one target with two shots (we assume that we have standard targets, no poppers, etc.), we must have opponents 16. Now we take Alexander Ivanovich and put him against 16 armed opponents. Attention, the question: who will you put on? Such examples are the level of kindergarten, moreover, if it is his method that is better, then he is able to withstand such a number of opponents in such a situation and become a winner? Very doubtful. Now imagine another situation, if we introduce smoke into the exercise, explosions, conduct it at night, punish severely for every mistake, etc., will it be close enough to the modeling of a “fight”?

Even the worst technology can take the best if the state of consciousness allows, and at the same time only the worst can be taken from the most magnificent technology.

Next, the third myth:

Practical shooting was based on the most advanced foreign combat experience. "I argue convincingly that there is no foreign combat experience worthy of adopting it. There is a tactic of actions from their various units that we must learn to face. do.

Well, firstly, not advanced and not fighting, but to preserve the rifle skill that has been gained in previous years, including during wars. Secondly, what is the reasoning of the statement? Where is the argument? Thirdly, foreign countries are very large and wars are fought in different parts of the world, in different climatic conditions, with different adversaries, as a result of which experience is accumulated. But we do not need it.

Further criticism continues PS, and very original:

“By default, in a couple of days the soldier shot the cartridges more than the entire service. And after a short time, everything returned to normal. Neither the system, nor the theory is present, respectively, but there was nothing to maintain stable skills.

Stop! So what is this:

Here we are surprised to find out that Alexander Ivanovich is conducting intensive courses in shooting, where in two days it is proposed to shoot 900 cartridges. Probably it is from the area that the log is not visible in your own eye?

Further criticism of the PS continues, but with links and arguments, which is highly commendable:

I want to note that a year before the practical shooting in the magazine “Soldier of Fortune” in Russia in 1999, if I remember correctly, in the number 11 for 1998, the book “Israeli pistol shooting” by Yevgeny Sorokin, instructor was published in combat shooting, who served in the Israeli army, in which he wrote: “the use of Practical Shooting techniques in real combat is the best way to suicide,” and the Israeli school of shooting was then considered the most advanced.

Pay attention to the time of the appearance of this book. This is exactly the time when Israeli shooting gained momentum in the CIS countries and the former Soviet Union. And quite understandable is the desire to downplay the dignity, or simply not to mention other types of shooting. However, this quotation is incomplete and does not convey the whole meaning said by Sorokin, therefore we will give what was said in full, for a better understanding: "The principle is the unification of training. In training you should do what and only what you will have to do in real stress conditions Avoid anything that can contribute to the assimilation of incorrect motor stereotypes, such as sports or "practical" shooting ("Practical shooting" appeared a few decades ago under the influence of combat shooting, however, today it is a sport in the worst sense of the word. Applying "practical shooting" techniques in real combat is the best way to commit suicide). "

That is, the use of shooting techniques as the current sports discipline, but what techniques? Again, it is possible in any direction to find the best and adopt, or you can pass by. In the open press more than once cited the words of the CSF FSB officers that they use PS elements for their training, collecting the best and adapting them for their tasks. This is the correct, reasonable way to prepare. Regarding the same sport and sporting achievements in shooting, in relation to training, the words of Mark Lonsdale from his book "Storm" should be cited: "This is such a level when a man has already shot so much that the weapon becomes a continuation of his body, muscular memory makes the weapon in the right direction, the eyes automatically monitor the situation, and the finger pulls the trigger only under the most optimal conditions. These are the same coordination, level of skill and reflexes that any sportsman of the highest class possesses. continuously is what distinguishes champions from the crowd. "

If to argue in a somewhat abstract manner, who will achieve great results: an athlete showing high results in shooting and trained in combat tactics, or a fighter trained in an army combat training program? There is no opportunity for a soldier to spend as much time and money as an athlete can afford. The experience gained during the war, just says about it. Who were the best snipers of the Great Patriotic War? From whom did they try to recruit and to whom was the preference given? And in their preparation and preparation of the rest of the shooters, too, lay the "good old principle": breathing, even front sight, smooth descent.

Continuing the attacks on the SS, Alexander Ivanovich continues to give examples, this time this is a quote from Jeff Cooper from his book The Art of a Rifle:

A little later, in 1999, a book by the founder of Practical Shooting, former American marine J. Cooper, "The Art of a Rifle" was published in Russian magazine "The Gun", in which there are such words: "... the formalization and special specifics of shooting sports knocks down practitioners true - almost the same as sports fencing leveled the art of owning a sword.

Perhaps this should be the final stage of exposing the PS and sports in general. What should push us to the correct way of electing only combat training for shooting. However, Cooper, in the same book, says something else, which apparently remained beyond attention or was inconvenient, namely: "... One can only argue that shooter-athletes certainly shoot better than soldiers and better than those hunters who get once a year your weapon to shoot a deer ... "

Very strange it turns out. So we need a sport, do athletes shoot better than the military? Since Petrov cited Jeff Cooper's quotation as an argument, I cannot fail to add a couple of quotes from the same: “The modern armed forces have almost stopped taking the rifle seriously. There are many reasons for this and not the last of them is that mastery of rifle is discipline requiring special knowledge, and in fact can not be distributed in the mass army. "

How do we use the “unique technique” to train all soldiers, reservists and young people to be excellent shooters?

Also, Cooper refutes Petrov’s statements as an example: “... Today’s battles use personal weapons purely conditionally, and the weapon itself changes from year to year. Thus, although the soldier must know how to hold a weapon, he does not have time to learn it ...”

The strange choice of the source to confirm his words, when there all the stated "postulates" of Alexander Ivanovich are refuted.

And at the end of the theme of exposing Practical shooting - a great example:

By the way: in June of this year, employees of the police special forces of one of the countries of Latin America were trained at the center for advanced training of riot police and SOBR of the Stavropol branch of the Krasnodar State University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. Quite serious guys. So, to the question of the present instructor of a special unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of one of the republics of the North Caucasus: "Do you use Practical shooting techniques in your police training?", A brief answer was given: "No, because the staff who used practical shooting techniques in their training very quickly died.

This is the mystery that this is one of the countries of Latin America? If you believe news The official site of the Stavropol branch of KSU MIA, then these are representatives of Argentina. It is possible that this dialogue took place, and maybe not. There is no actual evidence. But there is a video where officers of the federal police of Argentina are engaged in practical shooting and hold competitions. Apparently, this is from their "special department for suicidal employees."

Finally, we will find out why or because of what Alexander Petrov so disliked the PS, with which he himself began his shooting activity:

ZV: Why were so many copies broken between you and the Practical Shooting Federation?

A.I .: Yes, there were no broken copies. Once I suggested that its leadership develop two directions at once — civil and military. The manual made it clear that he is not interested. Then, when the press made a noise about 20 trillions up to 2020, for defense, apparently something has changed. In December, at the invitation of the institute management, I held a three-day seminar with various categories of servicemen at the St. Petersburg EIFC, in which I received an invitation to the event of the Department of Physical Training of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in March, 2009, and it turned out that I had no right to do that. as a monopoly on shooting in our country belongs to the Federation of practical shooting.

Give the floor to Mikhail Degtyarev. Magazine "Kalashnikov" №6, 2010 g .: "... at the beginning of March 2010, a seminar was organized on the basis of the Military Institute of Physical Culture (EIFC) in St. Petersburg with the involvement of military specialists from various districts.". “From the FPSR, the chairman of the Central Council of the Federation Anatoly Kondrukh was in charge of holding the seminar. At the site, in St. Petersburg, a group of local instructors led by Yevgeny Yefimov was involved in the shooting. And they were all very surprised by the appearance of Alexander Petrov in the VIFK, whose participation was coordinated with someone from the institute ... "

That is, there was a chance to be, but what happened there is much more interesting, for some reason Petrov is silent, apparently out of modesty. Evgeny Efimov, who was a direct witness of this action, says this: “Almost without any explanation, Petrov began to demonstrate his unique skills right in front of the barrels lying on the table, along with a bunch of already equipped shops. First, firing was carried out from PM at the right and the left hand over the whole shop in the position of a deep musketeer attack with a sword. Acceptance of such a make and production of the first shot took from 4 to 7 seconds, and then quick fire on the pectoral figures at a distance of 4,5 m. After each “approach”, without discharging a weapon, Alexander Petrov turned to the audience with the question: “Is the meaning clear?”, breaking the safety angle and reloading the pistol, holding several shops in his hand at the same time ”(ibid. - Note auth.)

As a matter of fact, there is nothing surprising in this, everyone who has ever seen Petrova’s speeches, will agree that this is exactly what is happening. And the question “The meaning is clear?”, Causes some confusion because it is not clear from the beginning - the meaning of which should be clear.

Further: “Then the shooting began with long bursts of XPS on the same range of 20 shots. During one turn, there was a delay in shooting. Petrov disconnects the magazine and tries to remove the cartridge from the chamber, twitching the shutter several times, not removing the delay and not unloading the weapon, he puts the gun on the table with a cartridge in the chamber (!) and cocked with a hammer ... the barrel directed towards the trainees (!), takes another gun and, as if nothing had happened, continues the demonstration. Seeing this, an experienced shooter and instructor FPSR Sergey Spivak, cl who, incidentally, was a senior lecturer in physical training at the Mikhailovsky Artillery Academy, independently shielded the left pistol and, after a pause, realizing that no action was taken by colleagues from the VIFK and Petrov with this pistol was assumed to safely remove the weapon from the training place and discharged it aside for a few minutes. "

Probably, the faces of the representatives of the PS had a miraculous expression, as they are excluded from the ranks and removed from the competition for much smaller violations of the safety rules.

We continue: “The next program number was shooting continuous 30 bursts of AK74 shots in the above pose at a range of 5-7 m. When the target could not withstand such pressure, it fell along with the shield from the broken racks, arrows, without changing position, he transferred fire to the remaining right target, shooting at an angle of 60 degrees to the side bullet shaft. The first magazine shoots at the center of the target, and the bullets come to the top edge of the shaft. The second shop shoots at the right upper corner of the target (white square of the target number 4), while the whole line passes above the bullet shaft in the direction of the highway ... "

And there is nothing surprising, this is exactly how Alexander Ivanovich conducts his seminars, but then it is even more interesting, even, one might say, more epic: “In the end of the“ demonstration ”, shooting was shown in long bursts from 50 to 100 and more shots from PKM at a distance to 200 m. After the complete tape has been used up, Alexander Petrov puts the machine gun on the ground and takes the second one to continue shooting. I stopped the shooting and told me to unload the machine gun. After receiving the answer: “It’s discharged!” And I don’t interfere with an unequivocal hint, I just moved to As the apotheosis of the performance was a long line on the target on 200 m on the move. The shooting was carried out only by tracer bullets, so it was perfectly clear how as the arrow went, the bullets got to the target area, then to the ground on 50 -70 m, then flew 10-15 meters above the bullet shaft ... "

Without dwelling on the analysis of the process itself, I would like to say on my own behalf only the following. If Efimov was responsible for holding the event, then he should not have to withdraw himself, but be strictly removed from the shooting range of this specialist. The same person who was responsible for the holding of this seminar by the EIFC, had to think about the same thing, because these are all flagrant violations of safety rules and substations, and you shouldn’t shoot above the shafts and not control the positions of the loaded weapon.

Well, and then followed what was to be expected: "11 May 2010, Chairman of the Central Council of the FPSR, Anatoly Kondrukh signed an order to expel Alexander Petrov from the number of members of the FPSR for gross and systematic violation of the Charter of the OO" FPSR ", non-participation in the federation without respectful For more than one year’s reasons, actions that harm the image and reputation of the federation.Alexander Petrov has been removed from work as part of the Central Council of the FPSR, from the leadership of the regional branch of the AOOO "FPSR" in the Chelyabinsk region, from Mandership UNOS "the PDF" in the Ural Federal District and deprived of the status of the judge and instructor IPSC. ". (Mikhail Degtyarev "Kalashnikov" №6, 2010 g.).

But now it is more than clear what happened and why Alexander Ivanovich took a dislike to the FPSR.

Then Petrov switches, somewhat sparingly, to tactical shooting:

Z. V.: I heard that you consider different types of "tactical shooting" as a foreign project?

A.I .: You are an adult, the question for you: will the likely adversary share with you some knowledge and skills that, in the event of war, will allow you to defeat him more effectively? And even more so to train you? Answer yourself these questions, and then all other questions will disappear.

Let's sort in order. First, with modern video recordings that are accessible to almost everyone, it is not difficult to shoot a particular seminar, this or that training, after which such video material is laid out on the net. Accordingly, the video information about the individual elements of tactics that are used becomes available. Secondly, many security agencies involve civilian instructors in training their staff, whose techniques and tactics are available to anyone who can pay for their work. Thirdly, back in the old days, intelligence was engaged in collecting information on the training of troops of a potential enemy and in the form of movies, and now it is even easier to communicate to the personnel of its armed forces. We are adults, so we should be aware that the world has changed a bit since those times when everything was secret, and more often from our own people.

Then Petrov decided to criticize other, additional, possibilities of preparation, in this case, of a more tactical nature:

Z. V .: Various types of team games are being actively developed without the use of military weapons, in which representatives of power structures often take direct part. How do you feel about paintball and airsoft and what can you say about their place in combat training?

А.I .: The topic is so beaten up that I don’t even know how to respond more adequately ... Approximately as to non-alcoholic beer and rubber women - in any way. And as to the elements of combat training - extremely negative. So, those who for some reason could not or did not want to serve in the army self-affirm themselves (the percentage who served in the army there is very low), so they probably compensate for certain men's complexes with such games and, consequently, prove with obsession with themselves and to others, that this is exactly how hostilities take place, with quite predictable consequences for them in the case of real participation in these same hostilities. [1] To give significance to their "cool" arranged pastime, they kill the brains of military men in a vacuum of combat training ... And about those who run such processes and promote them as elements of fire and tactical training, we were able, told in the film "Science to win . Russian army: the choice of path [2].

This is from the same field as the uselessness of interactive computer programs in training and in general new technologies. Well, you can’t do this, it’s just for self-affirmation, and then where is the experience of shooting, fighting? It's one thing to shoot targets, another thing to shoot with a living person who has a mind and can bring something extraordinary into the conditions of a battle, to which we must react correctly and in a timely manner. How to achieve this result? After all, we cannot shoot each other with military weapons, and this is obvious. Accordingly, they come to replace military weapons, various substitutes. Proper use of them during training, provides an undeniable benefit, the only way to develop skills and gain experience in shooting. While Petrov argues on these topics from a negative point of view, in the “West” this direction is being improved. At the moment, manufactured ammunition type "Simunishn", allowing them to be used in military weapons with a minimum re-equipment of the latter. All this expands the possibilities of the educational process and as a result of such training there is an understanding of what you can encounter in reality and which should be given more attention during training. But, naturally, we do not need this, because some Chelyabinsk men are so harsh that they work out fire contact directly on military weapons.

Next, Petrov switches, thanks to the journalist’s question, to sports and physical training in the Armed Forces:

Z. V .: After Shoigu became the Minister of Defense, he began to actively promote various kinds of military martial arts in the army. Express, please, your attitude to the army sport?

A. I .: And what is it? The question itself is a double bottom. It cannot be viewed in a broad sense. To properly approach this topic, it is necessary to divide it into two parts: sport and physical training. Sport has long died, it does not carry anything new in the training methodology.

So, sport is dead and does not contribute anything to training? It turns out that all those innovations in sports, including those based on new technologies, which make it possible to most fully exploit the capabilities of the human body, mean nothing? Let's look at an example. Take the average person (soldier) and set the task to prepare him to a certain level of shooting skills for a certain period of time. If earlier this was done on the basis of experience gained empirically, now, with the modern development of sports and science, this is done on a scientific basis. Simply put, we can take a person and, examining his physiological and psychological data, taking into account what kind of weapon and how he should use - create a training program that will allow him to grow qualitatively, avoiding mistakes and injuries when building movements. And this can be done in the shortest possible time. Can this term be called dead?
As for army sports, it is easier to give the floor to the Military Encyclopedic Dictionary: "MILITARY-APPLIED SPORTS. Sports activities and competitions that contribute to the physical development of civilian youth and military personnel, their mastery of military specialties, the education of high moral, psychological. qualities and military service service; an integral part of the preparation of citizens for military service and the physical training of military personnel. For military applied sports cultivated in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, sports titles and ranks are assigned by the Sports Committee of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. sports are carried out by the Russian Defense Sports and Technical Organization (ROSTO). Below are the most popular sports "([email protected]).

But it is also subdivided into: aviation sports, automobile (motorcycle) sports, biathlon, helicopter sports, military-applied all-around, parachuting, radio sport, shooting sports, etc., etc. And it involves all categories of citizens, that is, what he wants Petrov, with the help of his "technique". But of course, sport cannot provide anything for combat training and training of the population.

Physical training is necessary and important, and it needs to be developed. Therefore, competitions should be, but they should not be at a level higher than a unit: when all servicemen of a unit participate in the competition - the benefits for each serviceman and the unit as a whole are obvious.

Apparently, Alexander Ivanovich’s misunderstanding of what is what is also present here. Applied military sport is one thing, but physical training is another. Physical training is not only competition, but basically it is a system of physical training of military personnel, which includes charging, overcoming an obstacle course, exercises, etc., physical training is necessary for proper training of l / c to endure military action, as well as allow them to recover faster after their injuries.

"PHYSICAL TRAINING - a set of measures aimed at the physical improvement of military personnel in order to ensure their physical readiness for combat missions; the subject of combat training of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. It is organized and carried out in accordance with the Manual on Physical Training and combat training programs, taking into account the purpose of the type and type In the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the forms of carrying out physical exercises are: morning physical exercises (duration 30-50 minutes), training sessions (2-3 hours a week), sports and mass work (2 times 1 hour on working days and 3 hours on weekends), physical training in the process of training and combat activities. The organization of the F.P. and control over its implementation are assigned to the com-ditch (chief officers), headquarters and bodies of educational work. , and the direct organizational and methodical work is carried out by the chiefs of physical training and sports of military units "([email protected]).

Further, A.I. gives an example, which will also be interesting to disassemble:

Interestingly, blaming me for the total propaganda of continuous automatic fire, although I consider it only as one of many elements of the rifle training, as the most extreme method of firing, demonstrating that with a certain retention of arrows, it controls the weapon, and not the gunner, point-blank they do not want to see victories of the army teams in classical shooting, prepared by our methods at the district championships and the championships of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. This year at the Games of the Higher Education Institutions of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Academy of Logistics and Transport. Khruleva presented interesting results for analysis.

Suppose the holding method is the same, which is reflected in the “2009 g method.” for the authorship of Petrov. But in this case, the other is more important, namely, the victory of the army teams at the Games. Again, neither the result nor other details are given. To help us will be an article written in a very messy, but you can find valuable information there. For example:
"Everything is reflected in the protocols - in some exercises it came to the fact that the cadets of the first 30 places fulfilled the standard of the first category according to the requirements of the ESCT, which became almost widespread at this Championship, which is in exercises AK1, AK3, and in exercises PM1, PM3" .

It can probably be concluded from this that the maximum that has been reached is the 1 bit. It is commendable, but the first rank is according to the standards of firing from standard weapons 280-286 points for PM-3, 95-96 points for PM-1. Consider the example of these two exercises, what it is in practice. Shooting is conducted on the target figure with circles №4. Ten has a diameter of 10 cm, 9 - 20 cm, etc. The shooting distance is 25 meters. As a result, in order to score this result, we need for PM-3, in the worst case scenario, get 20 once in 9-ku and 10 once in 10-ku or 15 once in 10-ku, 10 in 9-ku and 5 in 8 And so on. The result is not bad, but not outstanding.

Further: "The team included: two first-year cadets, two third, one fourth and one fifth-year cadet. During the championship, first-year students and third-year students showed the best results, which, in fact, is not surprising, since Starting from scratch is always easier than retraining. As a result, the team was in second place in the pistol exercises! "

Of the six team members, four were not newcomers. It is indicated that first-year students showed the best result, but it was unclear whether they were new to shooting or before entering university. And this is very important. Especially in the light of the following quotation: “So back to the techniques - the entire team took 60 days from 12 months, 60 training days 25% dry training, 15 shooting days and everything. Is it a lot or a little? This is exactly so much in order to make a serious healthy competition to the old classical school of training for Olympic shooting, which practically all military universities of our country are currently studying in ... "

Miracles, and only. There were 12 months to prepare, but spent two, of which there was a 25% “dry” workout, which are 15 days and 15 shooting days. The question arises, where did Delhi have another month? You can already create competition to the classical school of shooting - this is undoubted. It is terrible to think what will happen if, according to this system of training (AI Petrov), to train shooters for a whole year, there probably will not be such standards that could fit in the results shown.

The result of the competition as presented by the author of the article is as follows:
"The team of the Military Institute of Physical Culture (St. Petersburg) became the champions of the Spartakiad of high schools of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the military academy of the East Kazakhstan region (Tver) became the second, and the valiant paratroopers of the VVDKU (Ryazan). St. Petersburg) - Fifth. "

The fifth place out of 30 possible is a rather serious result, especially considering one month of preparation (

Let's go back to Petrov. The correspondent asks what was the rifle preparation for the end of World War II and where the accumulated experience had gone, since everything is so bad now. The question is interesting and you can answer it with a separate bulk work. But brevity is the sister of talent, and Alexander Ivanovich copes with this in one paragraph.

First, it must be said what rifle training was at the beginning of 1941: in the 30 of the twentieth century, on the eve of World War II, the USSR OSOAVIAHIM had a developed state system of shooting galleries and shooting ranges where, according to uniform methods of rifle training, civil society prepared for the defense of the country. By 1941, we had 9 million Voroshilov shooters.

First, it must be said that all uniform methods of shooting training were based on, allowing not to do anything principles, namely, smooth front sight and smooth descent, breathing and correct positions for shooting.

As one example. In October 1941 was reported to A. Hitler at a meeting about the huge losses in the personnel of the Wehrmacht’s armored forces from the accurate fire of small arms of the Red Army fighters who fired a salvo rifle fire on the manholes in various combat conditions, including coming out of the encirclement. march to the German tank crews, indicating a high level of infantry training of Soviet soldiers.

So the pictures come up in the imagination. The German invaders' tank corps are driving, but at this time our soldiers are mowing them with accurate fire of hand weapons. All this is wonderful and beautiful, but it is not clear why we then retreated all the way to Moscow, to Leningrad, to Stalingrad? Why were there so many losses in the initial period of the war, why were there so many "boilers" in Belarus and in Ukraine? Since everything was as Petrov tells us, why did they beat us? And they were beaten up until they managed to accumulate enough power, including in the form of T-34 tanks, airplanes, and artillery. As in previous cases, Alexander Ivanovich does not provide references to this kind of documents. But you can, I think, refer to the memories of our opponents in this matter. Namely, Guderian's “Memoirs of a Soldier”, since it was he who at that time was rushing at the head of the 2 tank group (hereafter 2 tank army), the Army Group Center to Moscow, through Brest, Yelnya, then to Kiev and again to Moscow through the Eagle and Tula. If such actions, especially such a volume, as Petrov describes, would take place, they would be reflected in his memories. However, instead of mentioning the well-aimed fire of our infantry, incapacitating the crews of the tank forces, we find something different. Namely: "A large number of Russian T-34 tanks were thrown into the battle, causing great losses to our tanks. The superiority of the material part of our tank forces, which has taken place so far, has now been lost and has now passed to the enemy ... About this new situation for us I wrote in my report to the command of the army group, in which I described in detail the advantage of the T-34 tank compared to our tank T-IV, indicating the need to change the design of our tanks in the future. I finished my report with a proposal to send immediately and our front commission, which should include representatives from the weapons department, from the ministry of armaments, tank designers and representatives of tank-building firms ... The commission arrived at the 2 November tank army of 20 November 1941 of the year. "

And not a single mention of the fact that the Red Army infantry inflicted irreparable damage to the personnel of the tank forces with small arms fire. Moreover, you can see the documentary shots of what the German offensive units looked like and where you can shoot. Why do we need such "examples", which, apart from the profanation of the heroism of the Soviet people and the demonstration of the level of Petrov's mental development, carry nothing?

Until 40-ies of the twentieth century, the shooting of military weapons in both the armies of the West and the USSR was based on unhurried aiming, which radically changed during the Second World War, and especially in its second half, when melee began to dominate. This made a significant adjustment to the post-war combat training of the armies of countries participating in the Second World War.

Again there is an allegation. And it may seem truthful to a person who has never been interested in this issue and did not go into details. Let's conduct a comparative analysis of exercises from the NSD (instruction on small business) of different countries in the prewar period. After this, we give an example of an exercise from the KS-66 (the course of 1966-year shooting). Let us find out for ourselves whether everything was really the case or Alexander Ivanovich again demonstrates the "deep" knowledge of the subject.

The first in our turn, as a representative of Western countries, will be the German instruction on shooting 1934 (publishing house M, 1940).

It should be immediately noted that in all the following instructions and courses of firing the main emphasis is placed on a smooth descent of the trigger. In the indicated instruction, exercise No. 5 of group A shooting practice, in the variant of the 2 rifle class, provides for shooting at a distance of 200 m (for a rifle), lying with his hand with five cartridges for 9 seconds. It is difficult to call this kind of shooting unhurried. This is followed by exercise No. 4 of the first rifle class, at the same distance, with the same conditions, but with a reduction in time to 8 seconds. The class of snipers provides for reducing the time to 7 seconds and increasing the number of points from 33 in previous exercises to 38. You can also please Alexander Petrov with the fact that this instruction provides for firing from a light machine gun on the move, so that in this area he is not an innovator and this is not an invention of the genius of the times of war or post-war time. A very indicative will be pistol shooting exercises. The second exercise of the 2 rifle class provides for shooting 25 meters at a figure target with five rounds, and no more than 2 seconds are given per shot, with 2 valid hits on the target (shooting is done from one hand). The second exercise of the 1 rifle class provides for shooting at the same distance with three rounds in 5 seconds, with one test hit. One can argue, especially watching modern competitions, that this is a slow shooting. In fact, it is quite fast, especially given the distance shooting.

Let's take a look at what the Soviet NSD-38 “Rifle mod. 1891 / 30 g. ”(M., 1941 g.). Even without taking into account the fact that this instruction deals with the defeat of emerging, moving, armor and air targets, including in conditions of limited visibility and on the go, one can draw attention to the following quote: "If it is impossible to foresee the place of the goal, the target appears destroy shotgun. " Strange, where is the slow aiming and shooting? Did those who came before us know and were able to not less, or even excel?

Further more interesting. For example, the instruction "Smith-Wesson Revolver 3 sample and shooting training for the lower ranks" (Kiev, 1888 g.). In it, one of the exercises, called continuous shooting, looks like this: the weapon is loaded and is in hand, the gun shoots a revolver at a signal and shoots 6 consecutive shots at the target (figure growth), the time limit is 30 seconds (do not forget that This is a single action revolver). Distances were 25 and 40 steps.

Now let's move on to the United States at the beginning of the 20 century as the most shooting country in which, as Petrov stated, we have nothing to learn. First consider the shooting guide for Small Arms Firing Manual 1913 Washington. Government priting office 1914. Chapter VI of Part II contains exercises from the rapid-firing course (Rapidfire) for a rifle, where the following distances and time for execution are provided:

1. 200 yards, 10 shots (Springfield M1903 rifle), position for shooting from the knee from a standing position, time for shooting 60 seconds.

2. 300 yards, 10 shots, prone position from a standing position, time for shooting 70 seconds.

3. 500 yards, 10 shots, prone position, shooting time 80 seconds.

But at the same time, Lieutenant Townsend Whelen in his book "Suggestions to Military riflemen" (Kansas City, 1909) indicates slightly different data for fast shooting, namely the time limit of five shots for 200 and 300 distances in 20 seconds, for 500 yards in 30 seconds.

Returning to the Small Arms Firing Manual, I would like to consider separately the exercises for pistol and revolver shooting. The following quick shooting exercise is proposed:
The distance 15 yards, 5 cartridges, the weapon in the lowered hand (shooting offhand), at a signal the target (half-length) turns to the shooter and opens fire. The time limit is 20 seconds.

At a distance of 25 yards all the same, the time limit is also 20 seconds.

The following exercise can be translated as quickfire. The distances are the same 15 and 25 yards, shooting is done on command, the target is turning (appearing) for 3-4 seconds with an interval between showing 3-5 seconds. The weapon for the first shot is in a holster in a charged position. Accordingly, 15 seconds are given for a shot from 3 yards, from 25 yards to 4 seconds.

There is also an Expert test Rapidfire exercise, where the distance is increased to 50 yards, with 5 cartridges for firing and a time limit of 30 seconds.

All this allows us to look at the combat training of the troops of the West and East in the prewar period from a slightly different angle. Especially instructive may be the exercise, which is proposed in the book "Small Arms Instructors manual" 1918 NewYork. Chapter VI of this book has an exercise called Automatic Fire, which consists of the following:

Distances - 10 and 25 yards. Target zone one for each shooter. The weapon (Colt 1911) is in the hand, charged and on the fuse. Position as in the production of slow shooting, that is, with one hand in the half turn to the target. On command, remove the gun from the fuse and shoot the entire gun shop in 7 seconds.

It is difficult to say that such exercises can be considered as unhurried shooting. But, apart from speed in all exercises, including preparatory ones, the main emphasis is on accuracy and on a smooth descent of the trigger, all speed is achieved by throwing up, aiming, reloading, but not to the detriment of descent and accuracy.

Now let’s look at what the 1944 infantry weapon course offered for the year. According to Petrov, it was from that time that cardinal changes occurred in the training of personnel, namely, in the part of the rifle training, which was reoriented to close combat.
So, COP 1944 of the year, envisaged a single rifle and carbine shooting (practice in fast shooting at an emerging target). Belt Target No. 13, appearing 4 times 7 seconds. The distance 300 meters, cartridges were issued 4 pieces, shooting was carried out, from a prone position with the 2 shot from the stop and lying with the 2 shot from the hand.
This is followed by an exercise in shooting at a moving target. Target #15 (running shooter), moving 30 meters for 10 seconds, i.e. 3 m / s.

Distance 200 meters, cartridges, too, 4 pieces, position for shooting lying down with your hands.

As you can see, these exercises are not much different from those discussed above, and it is rather difficult to call the 200 and 300 meters distances a melee, as understood by Petrov in this term.

This is followed by an exercise in shooting straight off the bat. Target number 14 (running shooter), at a distance of 150-50 meters. 3 cartridges, time no more than 2 seconds per shot, on the go with a short stop. This exercise is already more specific and adapted for firing training during an attack. But in the above sources, there is also an exercise called Skirmish, which is close to this exercise.

Let us pay special attention to the pistol and revolver exercises.

The first exercise involves the conduct of rapid firing with the transfer of fire on the front. The targets are the 3 targets 14 at the front in 8 meters, with a firing distance of 25 meters. Patrons issued 3 pieces, time is limited to 20 seconds for a revolver and 15 seconds for a gun. On average, we get the same 5 seconds per shot.

The following exercise is used to train an ambulance firing with the transfer of fire into the depth. Target number 12 (chest), 25 meters and 14 number 35 meters. Cartridges 4 pieces. Time 30 seconds for a revolver and 20 seconds for a gun.

A more interesting exercise for us under the number 4, which is used for practicing in fast shooting on the move, is the following: Goal # 16 (running shooter), 35-15 distance meters. Cartridges 3 pieces, time to complete 30 seconds. The order of execution is as follows: the shooter with a loaded weapon in a holster, is at the turn of 50 meters from the target, starts to move at a command with a quick step and a target appears at the 40 distance of meters from the target, after which the shooter takes the weapon and fires at short stops, the last The shot should be made no closer than 15 meters from the target.

This is a very interesting exercise, but it is nothing more than a Skirmish for a pistol, or an exercise that was known to us in the pre-war times under the name "Fussing." A more detailed description of this exercise can be found in PD. Ponomarev "Revolver and pistol" (Voenizdat, 1938 year). There you can also find a description of the exercises in fast shooting at the front and in depth.

Now let's go back to the interview with Alexander Ivanovich. This will allow us to review some exercises from the KS-66 and to complete a brief overview of the elements of combat training.

But after the coup in the USSR in 1953, in the armed forces, one of the combat training items, physical training, was separated from the Main Directorate of Combat Training into an independent structure, the Physical Training Directorate of the Armed Forces, which left an imprint on high-profile training. The basis of the training of the security forces was based on sporting methods of shooting, which actually supplanted the acquired combat experience.

Let us consider the example of the first exercise KS-66, how much the preparation for combat operations has changed and how exactly the combat experience has been superseded from the rifle training.

The first exercise of this course of shooting involves the destruction of three targets for the machine gun and carbine both at night and day.

With daytime firing, the first target “machine gun” is located in 300-350 meters and appears for 30 seconds, two breast targets appear at a distance of 200-250 meters for 15 seconds two times.

With night firing, the first target “machine gun” is located at a distance of 150-200 meters and appears for 40 seconds, two breast targets appear at a distance of 100-150 meters for 20 seconds two times.

The position for shooting in the afternoon from an automatic rifle and a carbine from behind the shelter, lying with hands.

The following exercises are more complex. Regarding the same pistol, remember about the exercises PM-4 and PM-6. Everything was and is, the whole question is why they do not train.

Are such exercises worsening compared to previous ones? Of course, yes, after all, there was a coup and, according to Petrov, the enemies came to power:

Now that the state archives have become more open, I think we will soon find out how, in the 50s, instructional and combat training manuals, which appeared on the basis of the experience of World War II, were destroyed in an orderly fashion. Sounds crazy? Why?

Rather, we have already learned that Aleksandr Ivanovich does not know about the existence of teaching and methodological manuals, especially since all the manuals given in this article can be found in free access and become familiar with them.

Further in his interview, Petrov begins to offer. Finally, we will begin to learn, and why was all this pathos and ignorance needed?

Today, nothing can be changed in the combat training of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation without carrying out its deep reform, which in turn should be inscribed in the concept of a unified training system that covers all stages of life for military citizens of Russia - from training pre-conscription youth to maintaining the general military skills of military personnel . To date, no imputed program on this issue has been announced. The proposals developed by our training center, provided with teaching aids, reform programs of fire training and tactics, the concept of a unified interdepartmental training, imply a systematic state approach to combat training, while they can, up to 2020, with 15-18 billion. attachments give up to 2 trillion rub. budget savings. But in the Ministry of Defense, I still do not see interested persons. One answer to all our appeals comes: "... your suggestions have been taken into account. Thank you for your active life position." Explain where you want to send, or so guess?

From here you can draw some useful conclusions. First, Petrov wants a deep reform of combat training. That is, in other words, he wants to destroy everything that already exists and works, and replace it with something that may not work. The development of a private "Polygon" can not be put at the head of the preparation of all the combat arms and types. This is not even considering the moment that, as shown above, Petrov does not understand the issues of military history, the training itself, etc. Secondly, the training of military personnel, military service and pre-conscripts was already carried out in Soviet times. In order to understand what it was all about, it is necessary to study the history of the issue, but this is more difficult than putting forward slogans. Much nicer to reinvent the wheel. We will discuss this question in more detail below. Third, and most importantly, 15-18 billion rubles are needed. Probably, this is the most important thing, for which for several years a literary battle has been going on and films have been made with the participation of Alexander Petrov. Especially if you pay attention to what Andrei Fedorov writes in his article “Do not miss the moment”, published in the magazine “Kalashnikov”, 6 / 2016: “To build the“ Polygon ”Alexander Petrov sold his business and invested everything he had by spending different estimates up to 5 000 000 dollars. "

But while Petrov is failing, and why it is impossible, we will answer him with words from this interview:

А.I .: The high conservatism of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and a number of other factors did not allow all that foreign “okoloboevy” nonsense to penetrate deep into the Russian army ... ”

Let's hope that the conservatism of the Ministry of Defense will continue to stand on protecting the country from this kind of "inventors." We now turn to the technical points of the interview:

Today we have developed a fundamentally new approach to basic infantry training from all types of portable weapons ... where the capabilities of modern domestic portable weapons are tightly strung by A.V. Suvorov, who during the Great Patriotic War was developed and tied to the capabilities of the assault weapons that were in service at that time in the 62 Army V.I. Chuikov, was used by the commander of the sea intelligence officers twice as Hero of the Soviet Union V.N. Leonov, was used by an outstanding pilot, three times Hero of the Soviet Union A.I. Pokryshkiny, etc.

Frankly, I would like to know in more detail how Suvorov’s tactics were used by Chuikov, and especially by Pokryshkin. Moreover, Suvorov in his "Science of Victory" offers to change tactics depending on the opponent, using squares against the Turks and columns against the French. Petrov often refers to this work by Alexander Vasilyevich, but such moments somehow remain outside his quotation or understanding. It is also very interesting, what is an assault weapon? The concept of an assault rifle appeared faster in the West than in Chuikov’s army.

Petrov also believes that he can contribute to the preparation of the newly created engineering and assault units:

"Today, in the Russian Army, Airborne Troops are reviving the ShISbr - assault engineering and sapper brigades ... We today have something to give them.

In general, it seems that there is an overwhelming desire to "shove" your "technique" in any way, if only it was accepted. At the same time modesty is not a strong character trait of Alexander Ivanovich, the following quotation is the quintessence of this virtue:

The tactical and fire training, developed by us, has its own approach to solving problems by airborne troops, marines, motorized rifle units, anti-terror units, law enforcement officers. The tactics developed by us allow us to quickly solve combat missions of varying complexity, no matter what the balance of forces.

That is, Petrov A. and his comrades are so well versed in the field of tactics and fire training, and this seems strange in the light of the above, that they are capable of "embracing the immense." And they want to pile up all the power departments and all directions. At the same time, they are assured that the correlation of forces in the conduct of combat is not important to them and the complexity of the combat mission is indifferent. Then there is the resulting sentence. Why keep the army and all security agencies? Let's assign Petrova and Polygon as responsible for the defense of the country and let them do it. How much can you save on this! As a test of strength, you can send them to Syria — let them bring order there. Moreover, they deserve close attention, however, it is not clear what kind of specialists, after the following phrase:

I think that we managed to gather into a single modern system the experience of the best Russian military leaders of different eras, and to create an offensive tactic created by them that had no defeat in the strategy of our army.

This is followed by the most important part of the interview, where Petrov tells what he offers and how everyone will become invincible from it. Moreover, the interview itself was built according to an excellent scheme, initially it tells how bad things are in the military training of law enforcement agencies. Then it is explained that all other areas of training in shooting and tactics, including those based on the introduction of new technologies, are evil and have no practical significance. After this, it is described how Petrov and his methodology can increase the combat capability of the armed forces, gently hinting at the required amount of finance. The following is a detailed account of why they are the best. In other words, having blackened everything and everything, Alexander Ivanovich leaves for us on a white horse. Well, let's look at what makes Petrov's method better than everyone else, using the example of his own words.

Those. According to our methods, a shot is made by quickly pressing the trigger at the moment when the sights are aligned with the point (area) of aiming with any phalanx of the index finger, at any angle to the axis of the barrel. Do you feel the difference? "

Not just felt, but even realized. In other words, we are offered to pull the descent at different angles. That is, to violate the rule that is essential for shooting. This is really an innovation. Nobody thought of this before. All shooters and coaches paid and pay close attention to the culture of handling the descent to get a high result. It is impossible to show a decent result of shooting, thus processing the descent. In any textbook on shooting you can find detailed explanations why you can’t do it and how you should do it.

Our methods teach how to lock the weapon at certain points so that it does not lead away from the aiming line either before or after the shot, or if the weapon leaves the aiming line after the shot was so short in time that it could be neglected.

This is exactly how it should be, but we must compensate for the twitching of the descent, and it can be compensated for by firmly holding the weapon. True, it will not be possible to compensate for this for a long time, since the muscles have a disgusting habit of straining and relaxing. And the more we strain them, the faster they will get tired and try to relax. But since we, through the nervous system, give them an order for tension, they relax briefly and immediately tense up. The result is that the gun in his hand the arrow begins to tremble, and sometimes even jump. If this is not noticeable for a short time, then it will be difficult not to notice during long-range shooting.

Let's look at a couple of points related to the retention of weapons according to Petrov on the basis of his patent taken on this technique (

"The basis of this method of holding a machine gun in case of high-speed single-shot and automatic fire shooting is the rigid attachment of the machine gun at the following points:

1) forearm enslaves with a hard grip of a weak hand brush;

2) butt butt plate rigidly pressed into shoulder;

3) the butt comb is crushed down the cheek below the cheekbone (while the eye is naturally located on the rear sight line - the front sight - the aiming point);

4) the pistol grip of the machine gun is firmly held by a strong hand. "

So, on the first two points, we see the need for a rigid fixation of the weapon for the forend and the butt in the shoulder. Rigid enslavement with the left hand will undoubtedly cause the weapon to shake after a long shooting (of course, this is almost not noticeable against the background of the line), muscle fatigue will also manifest itself in that the arm will periodically relax, eventually the weapon will go sharply down, after which it must be returned upwards, again by the tired muscles of the arm. As a logical result - vertical scatter of hits. On the third point, everything is generally wonderful. If you pay attention to the work of Itkis "Special training of the shooter-athlete" dedicated to rifle shooting, you can find there a recommendation not to strain even the muscles of the face so that it does not lead to the withdrawal and shaking of the weapon. Here is a targeted pressure cheek on the butt, down and to the right (for right-handed). Moreover, the head with such an emphasis is not perpendicular to the target, so the eye is forced to look frowningly, which is not for (most) people normal and natural. The last point provides for a firm hold on the fire control knob, which will also adversely affect the accuracy of shooting. It was a general review, let's now take a closer look at how to hold the machine, according to this patent.

But first, consider the phenomenon of bestowal. Without going into details, this movement of the weapon when fired in the direction opposite to the flight of the bullet. Since (by the example of the AKM), the stop point, in the form of a butt, is located below the axis of the bore, a pair of forces arise that create the toss of a weapon or its rotation around the stop point. This rotation is not only "parasitic force", as Petrov says, but it is also necessary so that the recoil momentum does not fully affect the shooter, but is extinguished due to the toss of the weapon. When we clamp a weapon when firing bursts, we thereby transfer the entire total recoil impulse "into the body", adding more pressure with our hands in the same direction and now we must resist this amount of forces by the body itself. This is what caused the bizarre shooting positions of Petrov.

"Counteraction of turning the automaton relative to its center of mass and tossing the barrel upwards by rigidly hammering the butt plate into the shoulder until it appears on the clothes and shoulder of the fossa allows firmly clamping the lower part of the butt plate butt without moving downward relative to the center of mass of the machine gun."

Note that the fixed stop of the butt already allows you to control the weapon and, according to Petrov, does not allow the downward movement of the butt during recoil. Thus, we are fighting both with recoil and with the throwing of weapons, preventing the butt-stock from going downwards, respectively, the trunk upwards.

"The hard pressure of the cheek face on the crest of the butt provides further resistance to throwing the barrel of the machine up (withdrawing the machine from the aiming line). the trunk upward is achieved by holding the machine for the forearm, tightly gripped by the hand of a weak arm, enslaved in the wrist, in the elbow joint and shoulder. "

Pay attention to the fact that we are already, pressing the butt in the shoulder, counteract its going down. Here we are recommended to top-down to press the butt cheek. That is, struggling with leaving the butt down, we have to push it down. Hindering themselves, since the left hand had already pressed the butt into the shoulder and now it has to do it even more so that the machine would not move from the impact of the cheek. It is all the more strange that we have a lever in the form of an automaton and, as we all know from a school physics course, it is simpler to hold onto the end of the lever, which is further from the stop. Next, we are advised to hold the handle with the little finger and the ring finger, which will lead to the stem falling down, recall that the muscles tend to relax during a long load. Moreover, if you try to squeeze the hand and bend and unbend the index finger, you will find increased effort in the index finger, compared with the same exercise on a relaxed hand. That is, you are preventing yourself from controlling the index finger, opposing yourself by pressing your cheek into the butt, which additionally will cause increased fatigue of the neck muscles, etc.

Then it is even more interesting: “Hard driving the“ membrane ”between the thumb and index fingers of the right (strong) hand into the back support of the base of the pistol grip of the machine provides a secondary resistance to recoil force, because the harder to press the“ membrane ”into the base of the pistol grip of the machine (to eliminate shock properties of the “membrane”), the less movement of the machine back inside the wrist of a strong hand. "

Recall that we have already pressed the butt into the shoulder, which counteracts recoil, now we have to press the hand into the handle, that is, create an effort that is diametrically opposite to the butt pressing into the shoulder and our left hand must compensate for all this, as shown above, still enslaved in all joints.

But the right hand does not lag behind it either: “In the horizontal plane, the machine is locked with the following two points: the joint of the base of the index finger of a strong hand, the joint of the base of the thumb and the second joint of the thumb of a strong hand tightly pressed to the receiver at the junction with the pistol the handle of the machine. "

Probably not worth explaining that the harder we enslave, the slower and less plastic we become. You can make a conclusion yourself.

And in conclusion, the most interesting of the patent: "The third force, arising from the extraction of the sleeve and leading the barrel of the machine to the right-up, is counteracted by a weak arm rigidly fixed in the shoulder, elbow and wrist joints, whose elbow is retracted to the left way down".

The awful power of extraction forces you to strain your left hand even more. But the worm of doubt creeps in, but is there this “power” and does it affect it in this way? Why does the same machine when shooting from the left hand picks up left-up? Maybe this is magic? Similarly, the magazine rifle from the right shoulder lifts up and to the right, and there is no automatic extraction at all. Perhaps the whole thing is that in addition to throwing the weapon up, the recoil force also rotates our body around the vertical axis. And she does this for the reason that we rest the butt in the extreme upper point of the body. But Alexander Petrov knows better, as he likes to express himself, "experts know what I am talking about."

We continue to consider the interview:

In other words, all the known methods of training go from the arrow to the weapon: "you have all the same guns and machine guns, but the physiological features - the length of the fingers, the width of the palms, weight, height, etc., are different. Everyone’s learning how to shoot is a process individual, taking into account your features.

And there are no contradictions in this, the main thing is to train the shooter, and then he will be able to apply the acquired skills on different weapons, with minimal time spent on mastering a new type of weapon. But Petrov offers an innovative approach.

We went from the weapon to the shooter: “here’s a gun (automatic, etc.), before the shot he can leave here or here, and after the shot - here. So that he will not leave the aiming line anywhere either before the shot or after it , you need to lock it in certain points. And it does not matter what your weight, height, sex and other features.

The main thing is to have stronger arms, otherwise it will not be possible to press the weapon wherever it is envisaged. But there is one nuance that Petrov forgets. His technique involves adapting to different weapons, we give an excerpt from his "2009 year manual": "It should be noted that when changing the type of weapon (with different handle ergonomics), the learner performs the same manipulations, training the muscle memory for another gun. And so every time you change the type of gun. "

And this is from the commented interview:

Our methods are universal and suitable for training in a single pattern of all types of small arms.

In other words, the technique involves training muscle memory, that is, obtaining sustainable skills for each new type of weapon. How long it takes to gain a skill can be answered by any athlete or coach (the sport here is not important). Perhaps this is its versatility.

Let's continue:

By the way, the 2009 training manual of the year posted without my knowledge on the Internet, which someone from the "experts" of practical shooting "edited", introducing this very practical shooting, has long been morally obsolete. Over 7 years, a lot of things in keeping a weapon are seriously improved. Now this is a teaching aid from 5 parts on 530 pages.

Probably, practical shooting experts secretly hunted down the training manual and edited it. Maybe it's easier? Alexander Ivanovich at the time of writing this training manual was in the ranks of the FPSR, and now he does not love her, rejecting it in every way, and, moreover, they are his competitors in the "training" of law enforcement agencies. Now, bearing in mind that the writing cannot be cut down with an ax, one can make an impartial conclusion about trying to dissociate oneself from one's words. Well, about the serious improvements in the retention of weapons, we can see from the above quotations that nothing has changed conceptually, the basis has remained the same.

These methods are currently the only methods of teaching automatic fire to fire in short, long and continuous bursts: from APS pistols without using a holster-butt, from any types and calibers of submachine guns, from all types and calibers of Kalashnikov assault rifles.

60 years Kalashnikov assault rifle - 60 years there was not a single technique for shooting from him with automatic fire. 60 years there is an automatic Stechkin pistol - 60 years there was not a single technique for shooting from him with automatic fire from the hands.

Again a modest and distant statement. During Soviet times, the Combat Training Directorate published books that were called “The Method of Fire Training”. In these manuals, namely methodological (as opposed to Petrov’s “2009 Yearbook”), it was told how to train and what the staff. The only thing that was not found is the training of shooting bursts from the MTA without a stock. Apparently, the authors of that time believed that shooting a queue at the store or short bursts at 7 meters, from a fixed position, is inappropriate. One of the reasons for inexpediency is the dispersion of bullets when firing bursts. In addition to one possible situation, which is considered in the NSD by the APS M: -1957 year, where in the article 115, it is indicated that the shooting in bursts from the hand can be carried out point-blank during a fight in trenches, message moves, etc. And, apparently, this did not imply the need to focus on this skill, because, being able to shoot, putting a queue at an emphasis was considered possible.

"Our techniques allow for single and automatic fire without degrading the effectiveness of firing results from all types of submachine guns and all types of Kalashnikov machine guns and machine guns when using backpacks and unloadings, body armor and helmets of any type without any modification of the weapon butt. They allow enough effective night shooting at close, middle and long distances without night sights and other additional equipment at open aiming fixtures with single shots and auto matic fire.

This is no longer a technique - it is a phenomenon. That is, the technique is so universal that it will still be on you 20 kg or 50. You will have a helmet with a visor or not at all. There will be a bulletproof vest with an anatomical slab or an old and kind BZ.

Effective shooting at night at close, medium and long distances without night sights is generally nonsense. I would like to know what these meanings in meters mean in Petrov’s understanding. If according to general military terminology, it turns out that we can calmly and effectively hit targets at night at distances up to 800 meters, which is simply phenomenal, as mentioned above. It is necessary to urgently introduce this technique and minimize the costly development of night sights of the new generation as superfluous.

Our developments increase the distance of confident use of the pistol to automatic rifles, the automatic complement the capabilities of the machine gun, and the machine gun adds the functions of a pistol and automatic rifle in melee combat, which makes both a single soldier and a unit as a whole more universal. Not to mention a fundamentally different approach to the production of a long-range accurate shot, or a series of shots at a group of targets, from a self-loading sniper rifle.

Apparently, this is just a stream of consciousness. Let's deal first with the distances. “Automaton” distance is a direct shot (as is commonly believed), that is, from 0 to 450 meters. “Machine gun” distance is up to 1000 meters. That is, the gun according to this method can be confidently applied at a distance of up to 400 meters. Individual arrows have shown this before, so that Petrov is also not an innovator here. Recall Ed McGivern in the US 30s, Bob Manden is already in modern times, which Petrov is still far away from. But you can not talk about confident use even by them. For this term implies the absence of the influence of meteorological conditions on the shooting. Simply put, this is the distance at which you can get about where the aim and for different weapons, this distance is different. So for pistols, this distance is 50 meters. When shooting at longer distances, it is necessary to amend or correct the shooting, which is no longer a confident use of a weapon. This also includes the punching ability of the bullet and the dispersal of the weapon, allowing you to hit a target with one or two shots.
As for the use of the machine as a machine gun, it is also impossible. The machine gun was not originally intended for maintaining the same mode of fire as a machine gun. Overheating of the barrel and the failure of automation - this is what you can get, trying to use it instead of a machine gun. No wonder invented various types of weapons, they are designed each for their tasks.

How can you add machine gun functions of the machine and the more pistol in the melee, it is generally incomprehensible. A pistol is a weapon with increased maneuverability compared to the other two. Simply put, you can shoot from a pistol faster and in different directions, which the machine gun and machine gun cannot provide with the same speed and convenience, but they, in turn, have a greater fire power and range. Therefore, it is impossible to replace the machine gun with a gun and a gun with a machine gun. How is it supposed to do in practice, according to Petrov, generally very interesting. Probably, this is a machine gun shooting at 5 meters on the front in short bursts, and even with aiming. We will leave the new approach to the use of the SVD without comment and on the conscience of the author; it is enough just to view their commercials, where they fire from the SVD to understand the absurdity of these statements. In general, you can pervert in any way, but just what does this have to do with combat training? Especially to deep its reform, and even on the basis of such areas here.

Methods of shooting "Range" are suitable not only for extreme firing modes, but also for high-precision shooting, including sports bullet in all its possible variants.

Apparently, in the near future it is worth waiting for Olympic gold, well, or attempts to impose a "technique" of the Olympic shooting team. Given the level of modesty of the authors, you should not think that this is impossible.

Shooting programs based on our methods allow us to conduct up to 50% of training and training without ammunition in the gymnasiums, barracks, classrooms and front parade ground, using mass-dimensional combat small arms models, and therefore the Polygon shooting methods do not require large ammunition consumption both at the initial stage of training, and at the stages of improving and maintaining shooting skills.

Yes, the ammunition consumption will start from the second part in 50%, otherwise how to explain the consumption of 900 cartridges per 2 of the day during the passage of the courses "Polygon", eh? (Mentioned above.).

Next, Petrov sets out his vision for the development of DOSAAF:

Accordingly, I can only repeat my words to your question: if the state does not adopt a program of a unified interdepartmental training system, where DOSAAF in its current form is either not present, or it is given quite specific functions, the program will not carry out military reform, and Particularly, the fire and tactical training in all the power structures of the Russian Federation, and the basis of all this will not be based on common methods - nothing good can be expected

We will omit the reform requirements. But here I want to stay at a single and interdepartmental training. What is it and how should it be done? Should we prepare all the departments for the same program? This means that to teach the Ministry of Internal Affairs to conduct the same shooting as the Ministry of Defense? Nothing that the Shooting Courses of these departments always differed and not just because they had nothing to do, but because of such trifles as various tasks. A single rifle training can only be at the initial, pre-conscription stage. Where the basics of gun ownership will be instilled. All the rest should be developed only within departments. Each agency must prepare for themselves the one who they need.

Next, Petrov is asked about the assessment of the state of training of reserve troops and this is what he thinks about this issue:

Its effectiveness, to put it mildly, is low. And so it will be if you continue to try to hang up the general military training of reserve troops on the armed forces themselves.

Consequently, it is necessary to entrust the responsibility of training "storekeepers" to private organizations. This is very "innovative", in the spirit of Petrov A. Probably, it is implied that he should do this. But the “vaults” is the reserve that will be called up specifically for the Armed Forces and, it goes without saying that they should know who they will receive as reservists. Their training must meet the requirements of the Ministry of Defense and it is he, as a representative of the state, who should do this, and not give it to private entrepreneurs. In Switzerland, which Alexander Ivanovich once recalled as an example in one of his videos, it is not an individual who is engaged in the retraining of reservists, but specifically the armed forces. And these are well-known truths, it is strange that you have to voice them.

Then comes the question of what threats the Russian army might face in the future, which is very strange, given the interview cap. The answer Petrova on this issue is simply amazing. If two words, then we are waiting for enemies, according to the description reminiscent of "zombies", and we will be able to destroy them effectively, using his technique. In general, fans of zomboapocalypse will be delighted.

Then he is asked about the attitude towards the armament of the Russian army and the arms and cartridge industry. The beginning of his answer does not fit in with the question somewhat, as he again begins to put forward slogans about the spirit of the fighter and so on. But there is an interesting point characterizing Petrov himself. Namely:

The words of Suvorov in his "Science to win": "Who knows the case, he does not know fear."

Frankly, having read Science to Win several times (Military Publishing House, 1987, Moscow), I did not find such words. And it evokes the idea that Petrov, who so often refers to this work, simply does not know him. To err is human, but not in all the questions that it touches?

Next, he touches the subject of collimator sights.

Well, for example, actively introduced ... collimator sights (exclusively foreign-made) were originally created for the weapons of the Euro-American conglomerate to increase the speed and accuracy of the first shot, since the main rifle weapons of NATO countries have a dioptric sight - it’s difficult to shoot at melee with the necessary efficiency offhand.

The exclusivity of foreign collimators largely depends on their effectiveness in comparison with Russian developments. Rather, they were originally created for the aviation industry, and later became widespread in sports and from there in the armed forces. Prior to this test collimators by the military were unsuccessful. With a diopter sight it is really difficult to shoot offhand, but not all dioptric sights, in the sense that we are investing in this concept. The same M16 has two types of rings, wide and narrow. Accordingly, for shooting offhand and for more accurate shooting. However, we will continue further:

On combat small arms of Russian, Soviet and Russian production, mechanical sights were originally designed for long-range accurate shots, as well as for quick and accurate shooting at random.

It’s hard to agree with that at all. On our weapons, sights are, approximately, universal. They allow you to shoot fairly quickly offhand, but inferior in speed to collimators. But the far accurate shot with the help of them is complicated and requires excellent vision and good training of the shooter.

"At the same time, the collimator sights installed on the Russian military rifle armament significantly reduce the quality of automatic fire, not to mention the creation of other equally serious problems that drastically reduce its combat effectiveness.

Here again, it is not clear how the collimator sight can reduce the quality of automatic fire? Provided that he, unlike other sights, does not require to adhere to the rule of precise alignment of the axis of aiming. Simply speaking, you can keep an eye a little to the left or to the right - this will not affect the quality of shooting.

Then follow again attacks on the representatives of the PS, who impose their own rules of fire and are present at senior positions in some weapons production.

“Their supporters in the power structures impose the shooting principle of shooting:“ I see - I shoot, I don’t see - I don’t shoot, but if I see - one aimed shot ”. Now there are losses from the fact that“ I don’t know how to shoot when I don’t see ... ” - in a sudden meeting with the enemy after one or three seconds, the shooting is no longer at the target, but at the place of its location. And here other rules begin - not the shooting rules, but the rules of firing, very far from the sport. And not with “watering” that way ", and with the required metrologically consistent efficiency.

The affected problem is much broader than it is presented here by Petrov. There was a kind of confusion of concepts. The principle of operation and firing of special forces is thoughtlessly copied and implemented. At the same time, there is no understanding that the tasks of different types and types of troops are different. Anti-terror spetsnaz is one training and it cannot be applied in general arms reconnaissance, especially in general arms units, in the same way and vice versa.

But A. Petrov offers us the other side of the coin. If you decipher the last sentence, then it is by metrological consistency (apparently this term is used to mislead the enemy) implies the rules of shooting, which are described in all unauthorized access. Namely, these are the rules for firing masks, in other words, a line on the front of an 2 bullet on an 1 running meter. But all this is also common, since the rules of firing cannot be rigidly tied to any reality. There are both tactical necessity and expediency of choosing the mode of fire, the rules of its conduct, etc. Otherwise, it turns out just watering in that direction. Moreover, taking into account what Petrov offers, in reality this will be the case when learning by his method. Since you will not see shooting at the front and in depth in his performance. With what he proposes, you can remotely view the commercials, with the participation of Alexander Ivanovich himself.

Next, Petrov focuses attention on the military industrial complex:

I don’t even want to talk about problems with ammunition, they are partially described in my article “On the Other Side of the Yarygin Pistol”.

This article can be found in the public domain. Its general meaning is that the manufacturers of ammunition in the Russian Federation are so bad that it is precisely because of this that almost all the problems arise in the pistol of Yarygin. I would like to give a personal example (this is not only modest, but I saw it). I have the opportunity to use the "Western" weapon CHZ-75, chambered for 9X19 Pair. Using Russian ammunition, mainly Barnaul, for the sake of economy, in my hands, not in anyone else's, this gun did not give a single misfire, not to mention more serious stops when firing. And this is not an isolated case. So maybe, if other samples of pistols normally work with the same ammunition, it is a weapon?

In general, my opinion is unequivocal - a change in the economic model of military-industrial enterprises producing weapons and ammunition, as well as the revival of GOSTs and the imposition of strict responsibility for their non-compliance.

Laurels of Comrade Beria do not give rest. And the change of the economic model of enterprises is, perhaps, a call for a revolution. I also suspect that the GOSTs remained from the USSR. And the responsibility should be simple, with a good salary and social package, dismiss for low-quality products. The quality and diversity of weapon models can not be achieved if there is only a state order. It is necessary to open a civilian market. So that enterprises should be oriented towards the end user, and not treat it like that. When there is competition in the civilian market, then the quality will start to grow. As an example, you can look at the same Czech Zbroevka, this company produces more models per year than the Russian industry in a decade. Samples of weapons of FZ are better made, you can compare the quality of manufacturing of FZ and Yarygin pistol. While production is focused only on state orders, nothing will be developed at the proper level. And in order to expand the market in terms of sanctions, it is necessary to change the regulatory framework, allowing citizens to easily acquire weapons and expanding the permitted types of weapons. This proposal is in full agreement with the creation and training of reservists, with the possible creation of a police institute.

We will not consider Petrov’s opus regarding outfits like the “Warrior”, etc. It is clear to any sane person that the better to equip a soldier, not to the detriment of reliability, the more effective his actions will be.

Consider in conclusion three questions, the first of which is Petrov’s view on the acquisition of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation:

My opinion on this issue is quite definite - the system of staffing the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation under the contract is unacceptable for Russia. I do not deny the need for contractual service as such, taking into account the specifics of some military specialties, but I believe that transferring the personnel of linear units and units of the Russian army to a contractual basis is an erroneous way ... and what will we do when in the event of a big war the contract soldiers end? After all, contract service is a voluntary thing, but there is no appeal. Will we train again in battle?

Casket opens simply. In order to complete the linear parts, it is necessary to create a militia (not in that sense), to carry out charges and train the assigned composition. As a result, while the contract army will solve the task of deterring the enemy, the already prepared reserve will be called up. But a mixed system is now operating in Russia, and it is not known when the army will become fully contractual, if at all.

And the most important thing in this paragraph is that he quotes how, in his opinion, the army should be properly staffed.

As it should be, I will quote from one of the conceptual works of the beginning of the 90-s in the chapter "Military Opposition".

It does not make sense to cite the whole quotation because of its delusionalness, but it is very useful for expanding the horizons to see what kind of “conceptual” work it is and who wrote it. And he quotes a book called Dead Water, volume 2, chapter 5. This book was written by the USSR Internal Predictor (Public Security Concept, etc.), is extremist in nature and is very funny in its content. Who is interested, can find their lectures in YOUTUBE and form their own idea of ​​them. Now you can think why and why, it was the representatives of this organization who attended to the reforms of combat training.

The second question that anyone who wanted to get a closer look at the works of Petrov asked himself was why it is impossible to download the book in free access. Here Alexander Ivanovich also answers:

... today, everything that gets into open sources is mercilessly torn by instructors of all stripes and is given out at seminars and classes at best taken out of context, at worst - in its interpretation. They also need to constantly put up for sale something new, creative. And we have a complete system from "A" to "I" and it is impossible to tear it up, everything separately causes misunderstanding and questions. I was faced with the fact that even employees of elite special-purpose units, not connected with us by any official commitments, are posting materials on the Internet. Therefore, we just closed the topic.

Naturally, the system is integral, but, apparently, I really want it to be not just integral, but come from one source, for obvious reasons. They are struggling with information leakage and it’s easier for them to “close the topic” than to share their work with the public. This is a word about the desire of gratuitous assistance to the armed forces in terms of training. If you have already created something worthwhile and want to share, then it would be wise to simply send your work to the appropriate institutions or units for review. But, apparently, the main goal is still different.

The third question or point is that Petrov and Polygon managed to do and what they plan in the future:

In April of this year, 10 turned years, as on the basis of our training center, we started research and development to create new approaches to fire and tactical training ... From 2006, we held 396 events - more than two and a half years in total were held in the field. In October, 2015 was actually completed an important part of the work - the training manual "Tactical and fire training."

So much time has been spent, but what is the result? Did you manage to go beyond the “circle” of problems and invent a new training system that would meet the requirements of the modern army and law enforcement agencies? Judging by the interview, not very successful.

The volume of work is very large, because only in the "Basic Infantry Training" section there are more than 460 photos. Practically ready methodological guide "The fire bases of melee." The development of the Concept of a unified interdepartmental training system and, within its framework, projects for the reform of fire and tactical training of the main security agencies, has been completed.

But the work is progressing and, judging by the declared volume, we are still waiting for repeated attempts to "push through" all this into the training of law enforcement agencies. Moreover, even the original premise itself is fundamentally wrong, as already discussed above. So the number of opuses, apparently, inexpressibly will increase.

Let's sum up this commentary or review based on an interview with Petrov. Having established a private company, Alexander Petrov began developing a shooting training system, and, as was shown above, he has no idea about it. In general, it seems that the Strategic Missile Forces (from which Petrov came out) are the richest troops in talent (let us recall Kadochnikov). All creation and development of methods is conducted on an empirical basis.

Naturally, Petrov does not have a profile education. Moreover, he decided that he was able to change the Strategy, tactics and, in general, carry out the reform of combat training, based only on the principle of holding weapons. What is simply absurd. His views on tactics can be seen in the commercial:

It is also possible to draw a conclusion about the general awareness of the tactics of this author. The passage about the movie "Patriot" is an indicator of general educational level. In the same way as the statement that Suvorov proved the superiority of the conscription army over the mercenary army. This is on condition that the conscript army was absent in Russia until the second half of the 19 century. Overcrowding of the word "concept" raises doubts in mental abilities. In another accessible video about weapons, he bears nonsense, talking about weapons, that is, about that subject, which he has been doing for decades. What is one of his statements about the complete identity of the Beretta 92 and Walter P-38. Or the passage about the location and operation of the fuse PM and Walter PPK. The statement that Browning was a Belgian, does not cause anything but laughter. And all this with the presence of the Internet with the ability to check oneself. Or the fact that the Spanish weapon has always been, like today's China, is simply a level of insanity and so on. A written comment on this video would take about the same amount. In addition, it makes no sense to comment on the nonsense of each "expert".

In any case, for any sane person it becomes clear the general level of those who decided to reform the armed forces.

Here you can see what was discussed above, pay attention to how the line leads in the hands of the inventor.

What to speak about the trainees? These exercises look much more practical:

The next two videos contain the “quintessence” of tactical thought, that is, this is exactly what Petrov A. offers to teach.

Now just put yourself mentally in the place of the enemy and think about what you can do and oppose this to the behavior of your opponent. And much will be revealed to you. Petrov A., as mentioned above, has no idea about tactics, nor general concepts about what it is and how it is transformed. Nevertheless, it is raising its mark on more serious steps of command and control of troops. His unwillingness to share his work, even with employees of law enforcement agencies, speaks of a desire to benefit, and not act in a blessing on an altruistic basis. Do not forget that he is a merchant and retired from the Armed Forces for reasons far from patriotic. In this interview ( you will be surprised to find a good attitude towards PS, moreover, statements that are now diametrically opposed. Draw your own conclusions.

And in conclusion, he, and this can be seen from the above videos, adheres to the views of the notorious KOB (Public Safety Concept). Ignoring the general educational level, which the leaders of this organization do not differ in, it is worth thinking about why and why the “sectarians” needed (otherwise it is difficult to consider them), to get into the training of the armed forces in such an assertive way.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. beeper
    beeper 4 February 2017 16: 25
    I liked the article "comments" hi , well, I didn’t read Petrovsky's “source” at all, I didn’t want to ... smile
  2. cap
    cap 4 February 2017 16: 46
    Ignoring the general educational level, which the leaders of this organization do not differ in, it’s worth considering why and why “sectarians” were needed (otherwise it is difficult to consider them), in such an assertive way to get into the training of the armed forces.

    The answer is nowhere simpler, do not take anywhere, go to the budget. The heat is light and the flies do not bite. Such cheeky ones achieve their stride over their heads, more talented, but less dodgy.
    It cost so much to write about this personality, it seemed to ache like a callus on a leg. laughing
  3. andrewkor
    andrewkor 4 February 2017 17: 04
    Phew !! Both Petrov and Seryogin were tired. And I actually for the "practical" shooting !!
  4. sa-ag
    sa-ag 4 February 2017 17: 21
    question on the photo, why do they wear glasses on the helmet, will they unmask them with glare?
  5. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 4 February 2017 17: 23
    Brave and uncompromising correspondence Petrova с Seregin - well, very informative. And let's add to you Kuznetsova с Ivanov help to collapse the planned peaks into a neat roll.
  6. Radikal
    Radikal 4 February 2017 17: 48
    A.I. Petrov - who is she at all? "Governor of the island of Borneo?" wassat Or in simple terms - "in which regiment did he serve, and from where was he called up?" Outwardly and in terms of vocabulary in general, it looks like a retired traffic cop, or a district policeman! bully
    1. Reserve officer
      Reserve officer 4 February 2017 21: 38
      "And what can be the state of fire training in the army, if the leadership of its combat training believes that the main task of the army is to teach soldiers to fight in units?"

      But is not this the main task for the fighter? And the achievement of this task does not at all preclude the individual preparation of a fighter, but this is the first stage. Without which there is no fighter at all. But the interaction within the unit is already the second. The interaction of units is the third.
      Something not interesting to me was A. Petrov. And, thank God, I did not have to meet.
  7. Victor Demchenko
    Victor Demchenko 4 February 2017 19: 35
    I saw that performance of this "guru" (Petrov), though in the record. I’ve been shooting myself for 40 years already, and if you count it with pleasure, then it’s all 55, and you know, men, for SUCH behavior on the firing line (read in the taiga) my grandfather would give me such an asshole that I would eat for a week standing! this is your pearl! throw Stechkin with a cartridge in the barrel on the table with the barrel towards the cadets ... well, that sucks! Now I’m doing practical shooting myself, before that I was engaged in sports, I have both categories and won prizes, but such behavior with weapons .... this alone puts all his nonsense in unacceptable conditions! for any such violation at competitions of ANY rank, the shooter is immediately disqualified and withdrawn from the competition! And the method of moving is generally without comment! so that...
  8. Glory1974
    Glory1974 4 February 2017 19: 56
    From the Petrovsky source:

    “Z.V.”: - And what is new in your tactical and fire training?

    A.I .: - Yes, there is nothing new there. Our developments, this is the further development of highly dynamic and highly manoeuvrable offensive and active defensive tactics based on the maximum use of the capabilities of modern, time-tested domestic portable weapons.

    NOT everything was told to us by the author of comments. I don’t know how much money he wants to earn on this, but in this sentence he admits that he hasn’t come up with anything new. It tries to systematize from its point of view what it has the right to.
    1. Sergey Seregin
      4 February 2017 20: 11
      Quote: glory1974
      Not everyone told us the author comments. I do not know how much money he wants to earn on it, but in this phrase he admits that he did not invent anything new.

      Explain in more detail what you wanted to say.
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 4 February 2017 20: 25
        Explain in more detail what you wanted to say.

        I do not know who Petrov is. After your article, there was a feeling that it was some kind. I read his interview, at your link. Yes, in some ways, I agree with you.
        But at the same time, it seems to me that you can’t cry out a person, because he does something, unlike many critics. In the above comment, I showed that Petrov did not come up with anything new. I watched the video: they shoot from different positions, at different distances. What's bad about it? Do not follow safety measures? Maybe, but in the video I did not see it.
        1. Sergey Seregin
          4 February 2017 20: 41
          Quote: glory1974
          I think it is impossible to decry a person, because something he does, unlike many critics

          I agree, but he climbs there, where with such knowledge it is impossible to climb (criminal). If he had conducted courses for additional training for those who wanted, there would have been no questions.

          Quote: glory1974
          In the above comments, I showed that Petrov did not invent anything new.

          And he can not think of. Moreover, the highly maneuverable tactic of the Second World War is not what it shows. The tactic of the Second World War is a barrage of fire, tank breakthrough and infantry chains. Find here the place of his method of holding and firing. He hides behind beautiful words, but does not turn his thought around.

          Quote: glory1974
          shoot from different positions at different distances. What's bad about it?

          The way they do it. The main question is where this can really be applied.
          1. Glory1974
            Glory1974 4 February 2017 21: 01
            The main question is where it can really be applied.

            All his exercises (by video) are laced with GRU special forces exercises. And then they probably know what they need to use in battle?
            You can find a video on YouTube. Fire training of special forces, Aksai brigade.
            1. Sergey Seregin
              5 February 2017 02: 06
              This is exactly what (according to the Aksai brigade) he criticizes. The similarity lies in the fact that they take the base from the same source. Namely, from the west. All his "technique" is a copy of Western developments. You can check the video from their instructors.
              In this video, there are also questions, but I did not set myself the task of proposing something new. I was interested in this author and his "works".
  9. Glory1974
    Glory1974 4 February 2017 20: 04
    Here is what I. Yu. Lepeshinsky, V. V. Glebov, V. B. Listkov, V. F. Terekhov say in the book. "Fundamentals of military pedagogy and psychology. 2011":

    As far as I know, there are guiding documents in the army. Is this a link to a textbook?
    Not equivalent things.
    1. Sergey Seregin
      4 February 2017 20: 12
      Quote: glory1974
      Is this a link to a textbook?
      Not equivalent things.

      All links are given to open sources.
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 4 February 2017 20: 28
        All links are given to open sources.

        It's clear. But, it’s not at all a fact that what is written in textbooks is present in the army.
        The fact that in our army not enough attention is paid to fire training is a fact.
        1. Sergey Seregin
          4 February 2017 20: 43
          This is not a regulatory issue. If there is no such thing on the ground, then someone on the spot does not modify it.
          1. Glory1974
            Glory1974 4 February 2017 20: 58
            This is not a regulatory issue.

            experience shows that there is never one reason. as a rule, a mistake has a complex character and a number of reasons, especially in such an immense system as "fire and tactical training."

            About the problem of the regulatory framework there were a number of articles on the VO website. For example (from memory: the machine gunner can and must hit the head figure.)
            Type in a search engine, read in particular comments.
            1. Sergey Seregin
              4 February 2017 21: 20
              1. Glory1974
                Glory1974 4 February 2017 22: 14
                Yes she. There, the author talks about the problems of shooting at the head figure in a real battle, and the error is laid down in the guiding documents.
                1. Sergey Seregin
                  6 February 2017 01: 03
                  Familiarized. In short, the author of the article "invented the problem," after which she heroically decided. Familiarize yourself with the US Army 2008 shooting manual, standing positions, lying down, from the knee. If you look from the front, the "pectoral" there in abundance.
                  The difference in exceeding the M16 and the AK74 with the 3 sight and the 300 distance is 2 centimeters. If you really want to shoot at the "head" on 300, you can put the sight 3. If you are lazy, you can shoot from 150 to 200 and from 200 to 350 to two “hands” below (called selecting the aiming point (this was taught)). Permanent sight, very, very handy thing. She must be able to properly use.
                  1. Glory1974
                    Glory1974 6 February 2017 11: 00
                    then the author of the article “invented the problem”, after which it was heroically solved.

                    You read the comments, there is a huge spread of opinions. Everyone has his own.
                    We need to talk about this and come to a common denominator.
                    Where do the different "gurus" of shooting come from, such as Petrov?
                    Because there is a problem, and everyone is trying to solve it to the best of their abilities. But the leading role of the Ministry of Defense, or other departments is not visible.
                    The fact that Petrov is shooting a lot and from different positions is very good.
                    Skill is developed.
                    Shooting from a mobile platform (on video), where they swing it with their hands and push it along a target field, this is not a new development, but useful. In the Airborne Forces shoot from such platforms, simulating a helicopter. SWAT imitates driving in cars, etc.
                    My only questions are continuous firing from a PC. But given that there is a tactical technique to “cut through” the enemy’s chain with fire and break through (for reconnaissance groups), if it is possible to give the machine gunner a little practice, there’s nothing wrong with that.
                    1. Sergey Seregin
                      6 February 2017 17: 26
                      Quote: glory1974
                      The fact that Petrov is shooting a lot and from different positions is very good.

                      This is not always good. Skill is developed not only by shooting. For this purpose, summing up exercises were invented. But the point is not that he has many or few shots (although this is very important from an economic point of view). And in how they shoot and where they are going to use it. I have laid out (hopefully) my point of view in some detail. Your right to think otherwise.

                      Quote: glory1974
                      Shooting from a mobile platform (on video), where they swing it with their hands and push it along a target field, this is not a new development, but useful. In the Airborne Forces shoot from such platforms, simulating a helicopter. SWAT imitates driving in cars, etc.

                      It was a long time ago. But again, where to use it, considering how they shoot from these platforms.

                      Quote: glory1974
                      But given that there is a tactical method of “cutting through” the enemy’s chain with fire and breaking through (for reconnaissance groups), if it is possible to give the machine-gunner to train, there is nothing wrong with that.

                      And how do you suggest it "cut through". The chain of the enemy will not (I hope) stand tall. Shooting a long line at the dead infantry is not rational. You can still bring a lot of factors, but it turns out "sheet".
                  2. Glory1974
                    Glory1974 6 February 2017 11: 03
                    Familiarize yourself with the US Army 2008 shooting manual, standing positions, lying down, from the knee. If you look from the front, the "pectoral" there in abundance.

                    We are not fighting the United States, but in Chechnya, the chest figures were shot back in 94 year. And the problem investigated by the author rose from the 96 year, after the hostilities in the Czech Republic, and we are still debating.
                    1. Svateev
                      Svateev 11 February 2018 19: 41
                      Quote: glory1974
                      the problem investigated by the author has been raised since the 96 of the year, after the hostilities in the Czech Republic, and we are still discussing it.

                      Uh, Vyacheslav! This problem was raised for the first time at the end of the 80's, because in Afghanistan there was a low probability of AK74 getting into the laid infantry. To shift the aiming point, as Seregin suggests, they suggested to me with my company back then. These suggestions are not vital. The submachine gun in corrections for the crosswind and sideways movement of the target is confused, and he is offered to take another amendment ... And all this with the sauce: "It is better to teach subordinates."
                      1. Glory1974
                        Glory1974 11 February 2018 21: 55
                        Hello Victor Alekseevich. I didn’t find Afgan, but I participated in the first company. The combat training directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation has repeatedly raised the issue of low effectiveness of firing from AK-74 in urban battles and in mountainous and wooded areas. But basically it all came down to the requirement to increase the training of l / s, to learn to determine the distance "by eye" and to put the appropriate sight. It got to the point that cadets of military institutes of the VV were forbidden to set the "P" sight at final exams on fire training.
                        Recently, an article was posted on the site, with opposition to your ideas, reprint from HBO.NG.RU. Have you read?
                  3. Svateev
                    Svateev 11 February 2018 19: 17
                    Quote: Sergey Seregin
                    there are standing, lying, knee

                    There is. But you missed the main requirement of US instruction - to take a position so as to be the lowest possible goal, to protect against enemy fire. "From the knee" is used only when you need to rise above the grass, and "standing" - to move, but not as a position for shooting, it is directly indicated there.
                    Both we and all other armies of the world are taught to take up positions in the same way - as low as possible, just to see the goal. A rare loser rises above the parapet (shelter) above the head figure and immediately becomes the primary goal.
                    Quote: Sergey Seregin
                    the author of the article "invented the problem",

                    This problem - shooting at the main target - was "invented" at the end of the 19-beginning of the 20-th century, when after the appearance of rifled weapons everyone began to take a position as low as possible and such targets had to be hit.
                  4. Svateev
                    Svateev 11 February 2018 19: 28
                    Quote: Sergey Seregin
                    If you really want to shoot at the “head” on 300, you can put the 3 sight on.

                    This is exactly what is proposed in the article you criticize. Do not read?
                    Quote: Sergey Seregin
                    from 150 to 200 and from 200 to 350 you can shoot two “hands” below (it is called to choose the aiming point (this was taught)

                    Not from 150 to 350m, but from 150 to 300m. There were such proposals at the end of the 80's, when Afghanistan showed a low probability of AK74 getting into an overloaded infantry in battle. But shifting the aiming point means giving up a quick and simple direct shot.
                    1. How can an automaton determine these ranges - from 150 to 300? Only specifically - how?
                    2. If we take this correction beyond 350m, then the STP will go below the target.
  10. vsoltan
    vsoltan 4 February 2017 21: 52
    The author, did not begin to read your long nonsense. ..
    1. Sergey Seregin
      4 February 2017 22: 15
      "I have been chasing you for three days to say how indifferent you are to me."
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. bunta
    bunta 6 February 2017 15: 11
    I agree with Petrov:
    I argue with conviction that there is no foreign combat experience worthy of adopting it. There is a tactic for the actions of their various units, which we must study in order to encounter them, to know what to do.

    Introduce the practice of "practical shooting" in combat training is wrecking.
    1. Sergey Seregin
      6 February 2017 17: 20
      Read the above instructions of the US Army. If after this, you do not have the desire to learn something, then that's right.
      1. bunta
        bunta 6 February 2017 17: 45
        It was after reading this “instruction” and watching hundreds of videos on both practical shooting and on the preparation of yus marina, that Petrov even more firmly established himself in the correctness of thought. With the exception of obvious flaws in the security of handling weapons, which of course are unforgivable, he is right in many ways.
        1. Sergey Seregin
          6 February 2017 18: 15
          Your right not to persuade. Thanks for the comment.
      2. Svateev
        Svateev 11 February 2018 20: 20
        Quote: Sergey Seregin
        Read the above U.S. Army manual. If after that, you don’t have a desire to adopt something

        It arose, even as it arose! To assign our submachine guns head objectives. In the M-16 manual that I quote in my work, for M-16 the goals begin with the head one. not chest.
  13. Sergey Seregin
    6 February 2017 17: 40
    Quote: glory1974
    Familiarize yourself with the US Army 2008 shooting manual, standing positions, lying down, from the knee. If you look from the front, the "pectoral" there in abundance.

    We are not fighting the United States, but in Chechnya, the chest figures were shot back in 94 year. And the problem investigated by the author rose from the 96 year, after the hostilities in the Czech Republic, and we are still debating.

    That is, in the woods and woods, in houses, etc., they moved exclusively by crawling? Many video and photographic materials, on the one hand and the other, suggest the opposite. The problem is that the author of the article expounded on the link, I do not see. Answer how many percent l / s, can the COP do for a "good" assessment? Maybe it is not in the governing documents, and not in the ability or unwillingness to bring these skills to the soldier? Not being able to perform elementary exercises, you propose to change the system of fire training (as well as Petrov). What will it give in the end? Exactly the same soldiers, with the new COP and so on, who in the same way will not be able to shoot. You do not need to reinvent the wheel, everything has already been studied and chewed up, you need to learn it and that's it.
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 11 February 2018 19: 54
      Quote: Sergey Seregin
      did they move exceptionally creepily?

      No, dashes. Therefore, the author (I) does not offer to change anything when firing from a constant sight at a height figure - we point it at the center.
      But a direct shot should be designed for the lowest target, and this is the main one. Because we get into any higher without problems. But when the line is not designed for the highest pectoral, then flights go through the lower head in the middle part of the trajectory.
      Quote: Sergey Seregin
      you suggest changing the fire training system

      On the contrary, it is you who suggest replacing the direct shot set by the 155 article of the AK74 Manual (we always aim at the lower edge of the target) it is not clear how to shift the aiming point. And I just propose to keep a direct shot, that is, DO NOT change the fire system of machine gunners.
    2. Svateev
      Svateev 11 February 2018 20: 06
      Quote: Sergey Seregin
      No need to reinvent the wheel, everything has already been studied and chewed up to us, you just need to learn it.

      I fully support.
      For AK and AKM, the height of the trajectory P is equal to 0,34m, that is, almost the head figure. It is only with the AK74 that the P trajectory is pulled up to 0,5. Forgot, everything that has been "studied before us and chewed." And then they got a low probability of getting into Afghanistan.
    3. Svateev
      Svateev 11 February 2018 20: 11
      Quote: Sergey Seregin
      Maybe the matter is not in the guiding documents, but not in the ability or unwillingness to bring these skills to the soldier?

      When the STP has gone beyond the contours of the target (at 150-300m ranges), then very good accuracy leads to a REDUCED probability of hitting.
      STP must be wound up in the contours of the target. but not by shifting the aiming point, but simply correcting P.'s sight
  14. Svateev
    Svateev 12 February 2018 09: 43
    Quote: glory1974
    Recently there was an article on the site, with the opposition of your ideas,

    Thank you, Vyacheslav, I saw, wrote the answer, I'm waiting for the Military Review to publish. Opponent Korablin V.V. not just a "veteran of the Armed Forces", as he modestly signed, but a leading researcher at TsNIITOCHMASH, not the last of those responsible for the shyness in developing the new Kalashnikov that we are observing.
    For the information about the ban at the Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to establish P thanks, this is new to me. Although the first structure that gave a positive answer was "Special equipment and communications" (STiS) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. that in my answer I indicate.
    When discussing my answer to VO, I think we will still talk.
  15. Pavel Amarok
    Pavel Amarok 17 March 2020 11: 58
    It remains to thank for the article. Quackery is a battle :)