ALL BUSINESS IN THE DETAILS
We begin our analysis with the fact that, in accordance with the proposals of V.A. Svateev increase the effectiveness of firing from a machine gun should be achieved by correcting the value of the sight "P". In his opinion, the AK74 machine gun’s “P” sight should provide a direct shot not at the target height of 0,5 m, but at the target height of 0,3. Moreover, as the author of the publications points out, these are the smallest targets that need to be fired in combat and the height of which is necessary and to assign the sight "P".
In support of his proposals, Viktor Alekseevich cites calculations in which he proves that shooting at a head piece with an existing “P” sight and with a target point under the lower edge of the target is ineffective. But with the proposed "P" sight with the height of the 0,3 trajectory and the shooting will be effective. So by simply changing the value of the “P” sight, in his opinion, it is possible to significantly increase the effectiveness of automatic firing.
At first glance, the author started a really good thing - to increase the efficiency of its use. weapons and lower costs to defeat the enemy! Such suggestions are welcome. Where was the whole military science before? Why no one thought of such a simple solution? But not everything is as simple as it may seem at first.
Let's start with the sight “P” of the AK74. According to V.A. Svateev, the value of the “P” sight of the AK74 submachine gun corresponds to the 440 distance m and provides a “direct” shot at the chest figure.
Sight "P" - the constant installation of the sight. This is the extreme rear position of the bite of the sight, in which it must reside until combat. Such a sight is convenient to use when the enemy suddenly appears at close range. The “P” sight is a relatively universal sight for shooting at short distances. It is convenient to use them in tense moments of the battle, since there is no need to be distracted and lose time on changing the sight.
It should be noted that the "P" sight is not always correctly interpreted as a sight with a range of a direct shot at the chest figure. So, for example, for the AKM assault rifle, the direct shot range at the target with a height of 0,5 m (chest figure) is 350 m, and the height of the trajectory with an “3” or “P” sight is 0,34 m. This is 16 cm lower than target No. 6, but 4 cm higher than the target number 5.
For AK74 and AK74M, the direct shot at the chest figure is 440 m, and the trajectory height with an “4” or “P” sight is 0,4 m. This is 10 cm lower than target No. 6, but 10 cm higher than the target No. 5. But there is one nuance. The AK74 manual says: “Art. The 13 ... "P" is a constant sight setting, roughly corresponding to the 4 sight (440 m firing range). " The appeal of the author of this article to the manufacturer of the machine gun clarified this question: at the AK74, the “P” sight corresponds to the “4” sight.
Thus, you can make the first conclusion. In the AK74 machine gun, the “P” sight, contrary to the statement of V.A. Svateev does not correspond to a direct shot range, but to an 4 sight. The height of the trajectory when shooting with the "P" sight from AKM and AK74 assault rifles allows you to confidently hit various, including small-sized targets. The only question is how to choose the right aiming point.
The variety of types and types of targets on the battlefield, their size and visibility, depending on the composition and weapons of the enemy, the method of his actions, as well as the relief, vegetation and climatic conditions, is very large. That is, the size of real targets can be both smaller and larger than the head figure, especially when conducting combat in special conditions. The size and shape of targets that mimic different goals and are used for training cannot exactly correspond to the enormous diversity that can exist on the battlefield. That is why the types and sizes of targets indicated in the Course of Shooting approximately correspond to real targets on the battlefield.
Special studies are conducted to determine the most characteristic targets, their size and visibility, as well as the firing range, the frequency of appearance in various types of combat, in various theaters of military operations. Their results are reflected in the tactical and technical requirements for weapons.
In support of their proposals on the need to shoot precisely on the main goal V.A. Svateev cites several shooter drawings in a trench and behind various shelters taken from the field manual of the US Army on the M16А1 automatic rifle, and some arguments about the size of targets on the battlefield. I believe that considering two or three pictures from manuals and manuals as “scientific evidence” to substantiate weapon requirements seems “slightly superficial”, and choosing the head figure as the main one is unreasonable.
AUTOMATIC NOT AUTOMATED
An assault rifle is a universal type of small arms that provides for the destruction of quite specific targets at certain ranges. Nevertheless, the machine can not ensure the performance of all tasks assigned to small arms in battle. From the machine gunner can not be required to perform the tasks of the machine gunner, and the more so the performance of sniper tasks. To solve the entire set of fire tasks in any subdivision, a system of samples of small arms is created. In turn, the practice of training shows that the existing targets of the Course of Shooting are quite sufficient for training, and the size of the target number 6 fully corresponds to the basic course of training with automatic shooting.
Having decided on some fundamentals, one can proceed to the consideration of the method of proof chosen by V.A. Svateev on changing the sight “P” of the AK74 assault rifle. As mentioned above, he proposes to assign a new “P” sight based on the height of the 0,3 m trajectory, justifying his proposals with the results of calculations of the probability of hitting the head figure. The calculations were carried out when shooting at different ranges for the values of the 3, 4 sight, with the imaginary sight P, which has the height of the trajectory 0,5 m, in comparison with the shooting with the proposed sight P, with the height of the trajectory 0,3 m .
It is quite natural that when shooting a head figure with a “P” sight at distances where the average trajectory passes in the upper part of the target or higher than the target, the probability of hitting was lower than when shooting with the proposed “P” sight with a trajectory height 0,3 m. But exactly the way it should be. To prove the obvious truth, it was not necessary not only to carry out calculations or experimental firing, it was not even necessary to think about it.
What you need to pay attention to. In the calculations, Viktor Alekseevich considers only one aiming point, namely, in the middle of the lower edge of the target, while ignoring other options for aiming the weapon. In addition, the shooting options with precise sight settings are not considered at all. Moreover, the calculations were carried out only for the best shooters. And, judging by the presented results, the calculations were carried out in relation to the position for firing "lying with the stop" and without taking into account the errors of the preparation of firing. That is, such results were deliberately selected that worked for the version of V.A. Svateeva. From a scientific point of view, such a selective approach in proving one’s case is completely unacceptable. And then, what kind of combat situation did the author of the proposal consider, simulating shooting at the head target at a distance of about 300 m from the “prone to stop” shooting position?
The most remarkable thing is that as a result of the calculations carried out by the author of the "rationalization offer" it has been convincingly proven that shooting with a scope that exceeds the range to the target is ineffective. But this is an axiom! This does not even require elementary reasoning. Moreover, the cited evidence completely ignored the requirement of Art. 155 Manuals AK74: "... the sight and aiming point are chosen so that when firing the average trajectory passes in the middle of the target." In other words, as applied to the case under consideration, the aiming point was chosen incorrectly and cannot be used for guaranteed target destruction.
However, V.A. Svateev does not pay attention to this requirement and cites the second paragraph of Art. 155 Manuals: “When firing at a distance of up to 400 m, fire should be fired, as a rule (highlighted by me. - VK), with an 4 or“ R ”sight, aiming at the lower edge of the target ...” And further he claims that he is taught to shoot soldiers today, this is how he was once taught to shoot at the Kurgan military-political school, just so he taught to shoot his soldiers, being the commander of the aerodrome guard company. And this is done ostensibly because this is exactly what the AK74 Automatic Manual requires to shoot.
But the second paragraph of Art. The 155 Guidelines merely expand the guidelines listed in the first paragraph, but do not cancel them. All those who are familiar with the methods of fire training, with the arguments of V.A. Svateeva can not agree. Documents regulating fire training, clearly require commanders to conduct classes with subordinates on the rules of firing in specific conditions of the situation. During these sessions, trainees must be taught to determine the distance to the target and select the required sight. Also, depending on the distance to the target, the movement of the target, the direction and speed of the wind and the surrounding temperature, the aiming point is chosen. At the same time, depending on the shooting conditions, the aiming point can be located outside the contour of the target. Shooting with a “point of sight removal” that takes into account shooting conditions is a common practice in shooting training.
Firm conviction V.A. Svateev in that shooting in the army, including a small-sized target, is taught only with the “P” sight with aiming only at the edge, is either intentional forgery in evidence, or complete ignorance of the fundamentals of the methodology and practice of fire preparation. Thus, the time has come to draw the following and, perhaps, the main conclusion: for effective firing from a machine gun, one should not carry out experiments with a sight, but teach people to shoot!
What, then, can the proposed V.A. In Swateev, the change of the value of sight “P” for the AK74 assault rifle from the height of the 0,4 trajectory to the height of the 0,3 trajectory of m? First, to completely unnecessary costs of finance and time. Secondly, to the elementary confusion in the knowledge by the servicemen of the significance of the “P” sight for various types of weapons. And this is despite the fact that there will be no increase in the effectiveness of shooting! I believe that after the above arguments, the conclusion about the proposal of V.A. Svateeva can be unambiguous: it is not necessary to do so.
What do they think about in the ministry
In trying to improve something, a person may honestly be mistaken, may be mistaken because of ignorance, may show elementary stubbornness in defending his point of view, may even commit a certain forgery in order to prove his rightness. All this is human error. But can publishers review our proposals publishing houses that position themselves as magazines for military professionals? I believe that the editors of such publications were simply obliged to receive reviews of the publications planned for publication. Even if this is an article to start a discussion.
By the way, reviews of their publications V.A. Svateev wanted to get in various organizations, but after the publication of articles. The answer was negative. However, V.A. Svateev, showing perseverance in achieving this goal, demanded that everyone who gave a negative review on his proposals change it to a positive one.
At one time, an article in the journal of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR was regarded as a guide to action. Even today, according to rumors, there were “experts” who found rational in the proposals of V.A. Svateev. So the publications under discussion have had an effect on the fragile minds of some "young military scientists."
But there is another question that does not want to get round. Articles published. Amateurs expressed their opinions on forums on the Internet and specialists of organizations in the written answers of V.A. Swateev. And where is the printed word of professionals? As if having collected water in their mouths, they are persistently silent. The Main Directorate of Combat Training of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the Directorate of Combat Training of the Ground Forces, the Main Rocket and Artillery Directorate, the Combined Arms Academy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the Department of Fire Training of Universities power departments. Silence is a sign of agreement with what VA declares. Svateev and publishes in magazines of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation?
Or maybe everything is much simpler? As you know, in the course of the relatively recent reform of military education, the “Shot” courses were eliminated, the department of combat effectiveness of weapons in the Combined-Arms Academy was destroyed, the management of combat training and the management of military education underwent reorganization and optimization, and the military training department of the Army where there were also fire training specialists. Are there any firemen in our fatherland? What is the current state of fire in the Armed Forces of Russia?