Firstly, I note that Korablin modestly signed an article “a veteran of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation” to create the appearance of an outside independent view of the problem. Meanwhile, he works as a leading researcher at TsNIITOCHMASH. As is known, TsNIITOCHMASH is responsible for the development of combat equipment “Warrior” and machine guns, as an integral part of this equipment. And Viktor Vasilyevich Korablin is not the last of those responsible for the shyness and blunders when developing new Kalashnikov assault rifles that we have been witnessing in recent years. So no, he is not an independent expert, but an extremely interested party.
Secondly, I do not understand the reasons why Korablin brought this discussion to the media. I have never refused to discuss the topic directly with TsNIITOCHMASH, on the contrary, this TSNIITOCHMASH did not respond to my proposals to correct the annoying errors in their generally positive conclusion.
TsNIITOCHMASH and Korablin agreed
Ways of aiming from AK74 are set out in article 155 of the Manual:
Fig.1 - The 5,45-mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK74, AX74, AK74H, AX74H) and 5,45-mm Kalashnikov machine gun (RPX74, RPX74, RPK74H, RPXXXUMXXUMNXXXUM, RPX74H, RPXXXUMXXXUMNXXXXNUMXH).
As you can see, in the first paragraph of Art. 155 an exact shot is described, in the second paragraph - a direct shot, in the third paragraph - when which of these shots to use. In the article 155, the axioms of the small business are set out, which are given in any textbook or instruction on shooting and which “as our Father” must be known by any officer.
Indeed, the degree of combining the midpoint of hits (STP) with the center of the target determines the accuracy of shooting. And for an accurate shot it is necessary: 1) to determine the distance to the target, 2) to set the corresponding target range, 3) to direct to the center of the target.
But in battle, goals want to live and therefore appear for a short time. The shooter does not have time to perform these three operations. Therefore, military science has a hundred years since it came to a direct shot, at which it is not necessary either to measure the distance, nor to change the sight. As we set the sight for a direct shot, so we work with it within the direct shot, always aiming at the same point - at the lower edge of the target (Fig.1, second paragraph).
It is important to remember that with a direct shot, the STP moves along the target depending on the distance:
Figure 2. Scheme of the author. The ellipses of dispersion are depicted in scale to the figures based on the median dispersion deviations for the AK-74 mechanical sight of the best machine gunners - the table “Characteristics of dispersion for the AK-74” in the AK-74 Manual  or in the document “Grade tables ...” 3].
As we see in Figure 2, the STP coincides with the center of the target only at ¼ and at ¾ of the range of the direct shot. At ½ of the range of the direct shot, the STP rises to the upper edge of the target, and at the range of the direct shot and point-blank it drops to the aiming point - to the lower edge of the target. Naturally, if the STP does not coincide with the center of the target, the probability of hitting decreases. Where the STP is at the upper or lower edge of the target, at least half of the bullets knowingly go above or below the target, that is, the probability of hitting single shots will be no higher than 0,5. But we deliberately go to reduce accuracy for the sake of simplicity and speed of aiming a direct shot. And the probability of hitting the raise queue.
With a direct shot, the trajectory should not be above the target, this is how a direct shot is determined. In addition, a direct shot must be counted on the lowest possible target, because we will hit all the higher targets with a direct shot without any problems. But when a direct shot is designed for a high target, then over the lower target there will be a flight. Present in Figure 2 instead of a growth, for example, a pectoral target that is lower in 3. What will happen? That's right, in the middle part of the trajectory it will be impossible to get - the trajectory goes above the chest target. Therefore, it does not occur to anyone with the 6 sight (approximate range of a direct shot at a growth figure) to shoot straight at the chest figure. But to make a “P” sight on the AK74 for a direct shot at a not-low-chest shot — someone came into his head.
In AK74, the 4 trajectory has a height of 0,4 m, and when aiming at the lower edge of the head target, the height of which is 0,3 m, the trajectory at distances from 150 m to 300 m goes higher than the head target, at the distance of the top of the trajectory - by 0,1 m above:
Fig.3 Scheme compiled by the author.
The “P” trajectory is even higher - 0,5 m (chest figure), that is, it is higher than the head target on 0,2.
Moreover, when the STP is behind the contours of the target, then improving (reducing) the accuracy of shooting, we can not improve, but decrease the probability of hitting, which is shown by calculations for A-545 (AEK-971) and can be seen in Figure 3.
STF need to get in the contours of the head target. So I suggested to return AK74 and all 5,45-mm automata the height of the trajectory of the direct shot of 0,3 m, that is, to bring a direct shot into line with its definition.
It is difficult to argue with the axioms and TsNIITOCHMASH confirmed:
“Using the“ P ”unit with a direct shot at a chest figure with a height of 0,5 m or a sight“ 4 ”under a cut on the head figure at near ranges (100 ... 300 m) is really inefficient due to the large values of STF exceedances (32 cm on 300 m, 37 cm to 250) ... At the same time there is a simple and effective way out of this situation - you must use the "3" sight
[Conclusion of TSNIITOCHMASH on the proposal of V.A. Svateeva, ref. X597 / 24 from 05.02.2014].
So after all, I suggested exactly that for already manufactured AK74 - shoot with a direct shot from "3," and not from "4" or from "P" ["The machine gunner should and can hit the head figure", Svateev V.A., "Herald Academy of Military Sciences "№2 for 2013 g., P.127-131].
And on the new machines being developed, the “P” label should be immediately done with the height of the 0,3 m trajectory. But this order-bearing TsNIITOCHMASH was frightened:
“For the developed automaton, the installation of the“ P ”sight with ABS for the purpose of 0,5 height m ... it is advisable to keep it, given that in the course of shooting ... the main number of targets falls on these targets and personnel training is carried out in accordance with these provisions.”
[Conclusion of TSNIITOCHMASH on the proposal of V.A. Svateeva, ref. X597 / 24 from 05.02.2014].
Indeed, it was necessary to convince the Ministry of Defense to return the course of firing to the real battle. But the matter is worth it: our submachine gunners will return the opportunity to hit the same submachine of the enemy, which lies with emphasis weapons on the parapet. And I had to convince all instances of the Ministry of Defense alone. A few months ago, experimental firing conducted at the direction of the Military Scientific Committee of the Ground Forces confirmed: the probability of hitting a trajectory with an altitude of 0,3 m is significantly better than with “4”, and even more so with “P”.
It would seem that the debate is in the past, it is necessary to correct the error. And suddenly - an article by V.V. Korablina, where he is against and appeals to all possible instances, which "are silent, as if by typing water in the mouth."
I would like to note that TSNIITOCHMASH signed the conclusion quoted above by V.V. Korablin. Therefore, when he writes in the article that the reviews of my articles "were negative," he is obviously disingenuous. He personally signed the conclusion about the correctness of my article. And when below I will compare the “arguments” of Korablin’s article with the conclusion of TSNIITOCHMASH, I’ll be comparing Korablin with him.
I will not linger on the numerous theatrical sighs in Korablin’s article on the impact of my proposal “on the immature minds of some young military scientists.” I will consider the few factories of Korablin’s article.
The choice of the head target as the “main”, allegedly, is not justified.
The lowest goal is the head and therefore a direct shot should be designed for its height.
And before AK74 it was. It was the head figure that was shot straight from the beginning of the 20 century from the three-lane (the head figure was “planted on the fly”) and to the AKM inclusive, with the height of the “P” trajectory equal to 0,34 m, almost the height of the head. In Shooting courses starting from at least 1915 on at least 1947 shooting on a course approved by Marshal I. Konev, not only snipers, but all shooters learned to hit all targets starting from the head. The same thing happened abroad, for example, in the German course of shooting. Now in the instruction on M-16 and, apparently, in all of NATO, the targets for machine gunners begin with the head.
Why is it necessary to hit the headache?
Because the head figure indicates the arrow behind the parapet with the focus of the forearm on the parapet. In the battle, everyone wants to live and take a position behind the parapet - by some kind of shelter. And all the armies of the world are taught to take a position that way. Therefore, the head figure - the most numerous in the battle of the lay infantry. Do not fall into the head - it means not to hit the enemy.
Both in my articles and in appeals to TsNIITOCHMASH these facts are stated repeatedly. But Ph.D. Korablin himself cannot analyze these facts, he cannot draw conclusions from them - moreover, he called them “pictures”. Requires a piece of paper - "special studies." So I personally gave him the results of a special research project “Lightness”, where the main goal is indicated in all types of combat! Here is the chest, on which the "P" sight is now being made, in an offensive battle is completely absent, and the head one is in all types of combat. During the discussion in the military-scientific committee, I twice read the results of the R & D project “Lightness” to Korablin and indicated that the former head of the TsNIITOCHMASH VN department referred to this R & D in his book. Noblemen, and the current specialist TsNIITOCHMASH Korablin for some reason is not familiar with it. After that, Korablin turned red as boiled crab and left the room where the discussion was going. But less than a year and Korablin forgot how I brought him this research and again requires what he has long been granted.
Although, what kind of events there are to remember a year ago, Korablin in the middle of the article does not remember what he wrote at the beginning! At the beginning of the article, he states that it is impossible “by simply changing the value of the sight P to increase the shooting efficiency,” and the entire first half of the article proves it. And in the middle of the article with aplomb gives: "It is natural that when firing at the head figure with the" P "sight ... the probability of hitting was lower than when shooting with the proposed" P "sight with the height of the 0,3 m trajectory. That is how it should be. To prove the obvious truth, it was not necessary not only to carry out calculations or experimental firing, it was not necessary to even think about it. ”And even a little lower without blinking an eye again changes his mind to the opposite:“ there will be no increase in the effectiveness of shooting! ”
It is simply amazing: in one article - directly opposite statements, porridge, a stream of consciousness that contradicts itself. And this person plays a certain role in the development of new Kalashnikovs! What is surprising about throwing when developing these machines?
Apparently understanding the price of his “arguments”, Korablin goes on the offensive - accuses me of the fact that I “selected such results that worked for my version”. This statement of Korablin is a lie. I did the calculation for the middle shooters and sent it to TsNIITOCHMASH, the middle shooters have the same advantage “P_0,3” over “4” and “P”, like the best ones. The aiming point at the lower edge of the target is not because I wanted to, but because this is how it is fired with a direct shot, see the second and third paragraphs of article 155 of the AK74 Manual (Figure 1). And why should we consider shooting options with accurate aiming, because we are talking about improving the direct shot? To confuse matters?
At AK74, allegedly, “sight“ P ”corresponds to sight“ 4 ”
Korablin himself quotes the AK74 Manual: "St. 13 ..." P "is a fixed sight, approximately corresponding to the 4 sight (440 m firing range)." The manual was developed for more than one year by the Main Directorate of Combat Training of the Ground Forces and put into effect by order of the Commander-in-Chief Ground Forces This manual is obligatory not only for the Ground Forces, but for all law enforcement agencies that have AK74 in service. And in the Manual in black and white: "P" is equal to 440 m. On what basis Korablin claims that "P" equal to 400 m ?!
It turns out that Korablin’s appeal to “the manufacturer of the machine gun clarified this question: for the AK74, the“ P ”sight corresponds to the“ 4 ”sight. The name of this manufacturer Korablin is silent.
So, if you believe Korablin, then the manufacturer of the machine gun substituted our soldiers. After all, all troops follow the AK74 Manual and are confident that with the “P” sight they will fall from 440 m. And the manufacturer, it turns out, made it impossible to get in the range from 400 m to 440 m, the sight is not at this distance!
I sent a request to the Kalashnikov Concern, and they responded very promptly:
“Concern“ Kalashnikov ”JSC did not make a change to the CD on the sector sight of the AK74 and AK74М assault rifles in order to change the dimensions of the sector curve, including the position of the“ P ”position. Concern “Kalashnikov” JSC does not have information about applying to the company of the author of the article “One person’s error or system failure?” On the above question. ”
[Answer “Concern“ Kalashnikov ”JSC to V. Svatiyev from 08.02.2018].
Thus, the manufacturer of the machine not only did not change the “P” to the range of 400 m, but V.V. Korablin did not even contact the manufacturer on this issue! Korablin came up with his appeal, and the manufacturer's explanation? It looks like it.
I note that the manufacturer’s letter, Korablin, proves that the “P” sight is equal to “4” and, therefore, with it, it is allegedly possible to “confidently hit various, including small-sized targets”. Korablin forgot that he signed the conclusion, which correctly stated: "Using ... the sight of" 4 "... is really ineffective." Korablin also forgot about the similar conclusion of the Institute "STIS" of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, and about the shooting of the manufacturer of the oil refinery sights. Korablin also forgot about the results of recent shooting at the direction of the military-scientific committee of the Ground Forces, which showed the likelihood of hitting with “P_0,3” is significantly better than with “4”.
Therefore, even if you align the “P” sight with the “4” sight, this will not solve the problem. The “4” trajectory is too high for the head figure and the probability of hitting is insufficient, it can be significantly increased only by reducing the “P” trajectory to 0,3 m.
The failure of Korablin’s offer
What does Korablin suggest instead of correction “P”? He proposes to ignore the indication of Art. 155 to aim at the lower edge of the target, and instead “choose the correct aiming point” so that the trajectory passes along the center of the target.
But for this the machine gunner should: 1) somehow measure the exact distance to the target; 2) remember what the excess according to the table of exceedances at this range for the sight with which he is now taking aim; 3) measure the excess with an eye from the lower edge of the target 4) and only now, instead of the lower edge of the target, direct to this point. So does a sniper from an ambush, when time allows to measure, calculate and measure. But this is impossible in that battle, which is usually conducted by a machine gunner, where targets appear unexpectedly, at different ranges, for a few seconds.
Thus, Korablin proposes to abandon the experience of all the preceding military science, concluded in Art NNXX, which did not just come to a direct shot. If a machine gunner had a car of time, then in the Guide he would not be advised to, until 155 m, always shoot with a constant sight while aiming at the lower edge of the target, not measuring anything, not calculating and not shifting.
By the way, if the submachine gunner has time to make an accurate shot to the 400 range, m, then he should not listen to Korablin with his shift of the aiming point, but rather, as indicated in 155, just set the exact target range and aim at target center. It will be more reliable and accurate.
Not relevant references Korablin and the "system of models of small arms" in each unit, which (the system) affects all targets. Even formally speaking, the capabilities of any system are made up of the capabilities of its component parts, therefore, by increasing the capabilities of machine guns, we will increase the capabilities of the entire system of small arms. And in detail, in our course of shooting, only snipers from the SVD are learning to hit head targets. Sniper in the squad one. And he must hit the entire enemy unit, since all the enemy soldiers are trying to lie down so that to be the lowest goal in battle - the head. If we reduce AK74 "P" to 0,3, then all our submachine gunners will confidently start hitting the enemy’s detached branch. Let me remind you once again that this was the case before AK74. Why Korablin against it is impossible to understand from his article.
By the end of the article, Korablin arrives at the usual premise for unscrupulous weapons developers: “For effective shooting, you need not to carry out experiments with a sight, but to teach people to shoot.” How familiar! Guilty for the wrong sight “P” has already been assigned “Vanka-Rotny”, which is trying to teach submachine gunners to “choose the correct aiming point”. Pay for the wrong "P", in fact, a long time ago, from Afghanistan, machine gunners pay. With their lives. And Korablin V.V. left with nothing ?! I will not allow it!
More precisely - not allowed. Because I was able to convey to the core structures of the Ministry of Defense, and not only, the essence of the error with the "P" gun sight. That is why Korablin’s article appeared - an attempt to justify and slow down the correction of an error.