Military Review

The gunner must and can hit the head piece (Part of 2)

113
Annotation: The AK-74 Guide recommends a direct shot at the chest figure, but there are no chest targets on the battlefield. Fire duel must be waged with a head goal. Therefore, it is necessary to fire to the range of 300 with a direct shot with an “3” sight, which will allow the machine gunner to conduct a fire duel even with the help of a standard mechanical sight.



The scientific version of this article was published in the edition of the Academy of Military Sciences "Bulletin of the Academy of Military Sciences" No. 2 and 2013.

Part of the 2 Gunner may hit the head piece.

The first part of the article shows that the armies of the whole world teach their soldiers to take up a firing position “high enough to observe all targets, but remain as low as possible.” Therefore, in firing duels, the submachine gunner with the Kalashnikov practically never sees breast targets. Only head figures No. 5 or No. 5 from our “Shooting Course” [4]:

The gunner must and can hit the head piece (Part of 2)
Figure 11. Targets number 5 and number 5 [4, application 8].


And it is precisely in such - head - targets that our submachine gunner shoots with a direct shot for the chest figure.

Consider what this leads to.

The head figure has a height of just 0,3. Therefore, the average trajectory of "4" at distances from 150 to 300 meters passes above the upper edge of the head figure, as can be seen from the "Table of firing at ground targets from rifle weapons 5,45 and 7,62 mm gauges ”(hereinafter referred to as GRAU Tables) [5, table 11, sight line“ 4 ”]. At sight "P" (440) the trajectory is even higher, and the excess is even greater.

For a head figure, the direct shot range is between the “3” sight, the height of the trajectory of which is 0,2 [5, table 1] and the sight of “4”, the height of the trajectory of which is 0,4 [5, table 1]. Therefore, a direct shot at the head of the figure must be made with an "3".

Based on the above considerations, we will compare four ways to choose the most effective method of shooting at the head: direct shots with the “P”, “4” and “3” sights, as well as a shot with a target corresponding to the target range - an “exact” sight.

To assess the effectiveness of each method of shooting, the author calculated the probability of hitting at different ranges for the best shooters. The calculation was made according to the methodology described in the monograph “Efficiency of firing from automatic weapons” [2, formulas 3.3.4, 4.2.4, 4.6.1], the mean deviation of dispersion is taken from the GRAU Tables [5, table 27], the dimensions of the head figure are from the Shooting Course [4] , trajectories exceeding the aiming line - from the GRAU Tables [5, 11 table] depending on the sight and distance for which the calculation is made.

Moreover, since the full data on the excess of the trajectory above the aiming line are not presented for the “P” sight, for this sight, the calculation was performed only at three ranges:
• 100m, where the excess of the trajectory above the aiming line is taken to be 0,29m = exceeding the sight “4” + (exceeding the sight “5” - exceeding the sight “4”) / 100м * 40м = 0,24м + (0,37мmm XNXXмm XMNMXm * 0,24м * 100м = 40м + (XNUMXмм XNXXмм XMNMМм * XNUMXм)
• 250м, where approximately the top of the “P” trajectory is located, therefore, the excess there is equal to the height of the chest target = 0,5м;
• 440, where dispersion characteristics are applied for the 450 range.

From the result of the calculation it appears that the probability of hitting the first (single) shots is noticeably lower than the probability of hitting bursts on the 3 shot. That is, firing bursts saves the main resource - time to hit the target, so further analysis of the effectiveness of our methods of firing will be carried out only in queues at the 3 shot.

Figure 12.


The 12 picture fully confirms the basic postulate: “The degree of combining the midpoint of hits (STP) with the center of the target determines the accuracy of shooting” [2, section 3.5.]. In our case, the probability of hitting is inversely proportional to the deviation of the average trajectory from the center of the target: the greater the deviation, the less likely the hitting. Thus, at the 250 range, the probability of hitting 4 in the highest trajectory “P” is less than that of the “3” trajectory (0,77 / 0,19) closest to the center of the target. At the 300 range, the STP of the “exact” sight coincides with the center of the target, and the STP of the “3” sight is located on the lower edge of the target, because the probability of hitting the “exact” target is greater there.

Calculate the average number of turns on 3 cartridge, necessary for the defeat of the head figure according to the formula:
N = 1 / P1,
where N is the average number of turns on the 3 cartridge,
P1 - the probabilities of hitting a cartridge with different sights with the 3 burst, indicated in Figure 12.

The results are rounded to the tenths:

Figure 13.


So, the best and closest in terms of the probability of hitting and the number of required queues are at the exact shot and the direct shot with the 3 sight. But an accurate shot with a mechanical sight when you change the distance to the target takes time to rearrange the sight.

Therefore, with the mechanical sight, the most effective up to the 300 range should be considered a direct shot with the “3” sight.

In fact, at ranges 150 ÷ 300, one machine gunner using a direct shot with an “3” sight, according to the number of head targets hit during the same time (number of queues), is equivalent to 4 ÷ 5 machine gunners using the “P” sight ( 5,3 / 1,3) or 2 ÷ 3 to machine gunners using the “4” sight (2,3 / 1,1).

With the “P” sight, the 3 burst chuck’s target number 5 located at 250 range is so small (0,19) that such a target can only be hit with 5 ÷ -6 bursts. And with each extra turn, our submachine gun unmasks itself and is substituted for counter-fire. The enemy leading the fire duel with our submachine gun in a more efficient way simply leaves no time for the production of these 5 ÷ 6 queues on him. That's where the ratio of losses is not in favor of "Kalashnikov" in real combat.

Moreover, such a low efficiency of fire with “P” and “4” sights is for the best shooters, that is, it is impossible to improve this efficiency with any training of shooters. Medium shooters have worse performance.

The low effectiveness of shooting with “P” and “4” sights on the head figure has long been established in practice and is de facto recognized. Back in the shooting course of 1985 of the year [4, Chapter Five, Shooting exercises from a machine gun, a carbine, a sniper rifle, a light machine gun and a Kalashnikov machine gun], there were no exercises where machine gunners fired at a head target - it’s useless, with a direct shot with sights "4" and "P" still do not fall.
But recognizing the low effectiveness of this method of firing from AK, for some reason we did not find an alternative, but simply gave the range to 150 ÷ 300 to the enemy. For which we pay the catastrophic ratio of losses in the battles against M-16.

Modern American ACOG riflescopes (Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight) on M-16, M-4 and other small arms make it possible to quickly set an “accurate” sight (find the right crosshair), and therefore have the maximum chance for a discrete sight. Moreover, due to the multiplicity of the optical sight, target detection is faster, and aiming errors become less.

Shooting with an ACOG sight is shooting with an “accurate” sight, the most effective method of shooting discussed above. Therefore, replacing a direct shot with “P” or “4” sights with a direct shot with an “3” sight, we will only get closer to the effectiveness of M-16 shooting with ACOG, but will not reach it. Our gunner urgently needs a better ACOG sight.

To check the calculations performed in this article, we also calculate the number of cartridges needed to hit a target with different sights and is comparable to similar data from the GRAU Tables [5, table 52]. The calculation will be done using the same formula that was applied by GRAU [5, section 6.9.]:
N = 3 / P1,
where N is the number of rounds
3 - the number of shots in the queue (three)
P1 is the chances for the 3 to hit a cartridge with various sights, as shown in Figure 12.

According to the meaning of the indicator, the results are rounded to the nearest larger integer. We get:

Number of cartridges needed to hit a target

Scope \ Range, m.

100

200

300

400

Sight "3"

3

4

6

 

Sight "accurate"

3

4

5

7

Sight "4"

4

7

6

7

Sight "P"

4

16

8

Figure 14.


The following numbers of rounds are required in the tables of the Grau [5, table 52], which are required to defeat the head piece when firing bursts at an 3 shot:

Extract from table 52 GRAU

Range, m

100

200

300

400

The number of cartridges lying with emphasis

3

4

5

7

Figure 15.


As you can see, the number of rounds from the 52 GRAU table (Figure 15) completely coincides with the number of calculations for this article (Figure 14) for the “accurate” sight; and in no way coincides with the "4" or "P" sights. Therefore:
1) the calculations in this article are performed correctly, so the results coincide with the data of the GRAU;
2) when troops use the 52 GRAU table to calculate the required quantity of ammunition, and shoot in accordance with the AK-74 Manual with “4” or “P” sights [1, Art.155], there is always not enough ammunition;
3) if you shoot with the “3” sight, you can base the required amount of ammo on the 52 GRAU table.

Final conclusions and proposals
1.
It is necessary to teach our machine gunners to conduct a fire duel not with pectoral, but with head goals.
2.
An error is the recommendation to shoot AK-74 at ranges up to 400 with a direct shot with an “4” or “P” sight. This recommendation leads, in firing duels, to a catastrophic loss ratio not in favor of the Kalashnikov.
3.
With AK-74 with a standard sector sight to the range of 300, it is necessary to shoot with the “3” sight: aiming at low targets at the lower edge of the target, and at growth targets - at the center. This method will ensure the defeat of any target, including the head, one or two turns. Only such a tactic (shot - hit) will allow to win in a fire duel and in battle in general.
At ranges from 300 to 600, it is advisable to shoot only at growth (running) targets with the “6” sight while aiming at the lower edge of the target.
It is necessary to make appropriate changes as soon as possible in the AK-74 Manual [1, Art.155] and in the Course of Shooting with Small Arms.
4.
It is necessary to develop for the Kalashnikov assault rifle only such optical sights, in which the aiming marks start at least with "3" (300м). The AK-74 must not be equipped with optical sights that have no target marks less than “4” (400); such sights doom our machine gunner to defeat in a fire duel.

References
[1] “The 5,45-mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK74, AX74, AK74H, AX74H) and 5,45-mm Kalashnikov machine gun (RPK74, RPXXNNXX, RPK74H, RPXXXUM, RPX74H, PCXX74, RPXXNNXX, RPX1982H, PCXXXNUMX, RPXXNNXX, AKXNUMXH, RPXXNUMX, RPXXNNXX, RPKXNUMXH, RPXXXNUMX, AKXNUMXH) XNUMX
[2] "The effectiveness of firing from automatic weapons", Shereshevsky, MS, Gontarev, AN, Minaev, Yu.V., Moscow, Central Research Institute of Information, 1979,
[3] M5.56A16 and M1A16 rifles Manual for planning and executing training on 2-mm, FM 23-9, 3 JULY 1989, Distributing: Active Army, USAR, and ARNG.
[4] “The rate of shooting from small arms (COP-85)” of the USSR Ministry of Defense, commissioned by the order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces of 22 in May 1985, No. 30, Military Publishing House, Moscow, 1987.
[5] “Shooting tables at ground targets from small arms of caliber 5,45 and 7,62 mm” MO USSR, TS / GRAU No. 61, Military Publishing House MO USSR, Moscow, 1977


The author of the article is Viktor Svateev, reserve officer.
E-mail: [email protected]
Articles from this series:
The gunner must and can hit the head piece (Part of 1)
The gunner must and can hit the head piece (Part of 2)
113 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rex
    Rex 23 October 2013 09: 45
    +3
    Frustrated by the sequel. And not convinced.
    The shooter himself is quite average, but from 100 m into a static target the size of a head, even if not in the top 10, but hit. Why do I really need a queue? .. And how will it help me in the fight against deviations of 300-400 m? Ie I’ll miss 5-7 shots with single shots, but 2-3 rounds of 3 rounds and solved the problem?
    Some kind of garbage, at the level of calculating the "average salary" and "consumer basket" ...
    1. Lesnik
      Lesnik 23 October 2013 10: 27
      0
      Yeah, and statistics and garbage constructors _ormosa. Give a three-line!
      1. Rex
        Rex 23 October 2013 10: 38
        -1
        Quote: Forestman
        Yeah, and statistics and garbage constructors _ormosa. Give a three-line!


        "There is a lie, there is a big lie, and there is statistics."
        The author in the first part manipulated the data a little, and in the second already with might and main.
        This is work at the level of a secondary student diploma - nothing.
        And the author clearly has no real practical experience of shooting not "at targets".
      2. Pablo_K
        Pablo_K 23 October 2013 19: 02
        +1
        Quote: Forestman
        Give a three-line!

        By the way, the initial bullet speeds from the three-line and AK74 are about the same and the first 150-200m along the trajectory almost do not differ
    2. Svateev
      Svateev 23 October 2013 17: 23
      +2
      Quote: Rex
      from 100 m to a static target the size of a head, even if not in 10-ku, but hit

      Naturally, they did. Let's see the numbers in Figure 12. At 100m, even with the "P" scope, the probability is quite decent - 0,84. Anyone will hit. But at a distance of 250m with a "P" sight, the probability is only 0,19, and not because of "deviations", but because of the excess of the trajectory over the aiming line - the bullets are already flying above the target.
      Quote: Rex
      Why do I really need a queue?

      Less time will be spent on hitting the target. I indicate this in the article.
      Quote: Rex
      Some kind of garbage, at the level of calculating the "average salary"

      Rex! Hitting the target is probabilistic. Even taking aim, you can definitely not get into because of a gust of wind, a substandard cartridge, etc. etc. The average number of queues calculated in the article does not mean that exactly so many queues will be spent on each goal.
      For example, with scope 3 at a distance of 300m, the first target can be hit with the first burst, and the second target with only the third burst. 2 queues are on average "per hospital", that is, for a large number of targets. And no one can guarantee you defeat in exactly 2 rounds. Understand this - learn to shoot and further 100m.
  2. Tommygun
    Tommygun 23 October 2013 10: 52
    +6
    But it seems to me that on 300 - 400 you will not see the main target.
    Nevertheless article +.
    I consider the article not a guide to action, but a serious reason to understand for specialists.
    1. Rex
      Rex 23 October 2013 11: 03
      +2
      Quote: Tommygun
      But it seems to me that on 300 - 400 you will not see the main target.
      Nevertheless article +.
      I consider the article not a guide to action, but a serious reason to understand for specialists.


      Correctly spotted at 300-400 a target the size of a basketball in a wooded area or in an urban environment must still be detected (it is assumed that "she" does not want this). And if more than one shoots, yes, they beat you "under the ear" from everything that was found, whistles and thumps around ..
      Having already found this bush, stone, window - you will find time to estimate the distance and rearrange the sight, and still have time to think about whether to try to get it out of the GHG ..
      1. Massik
        Massik 23 October 2013 11: 29
        0
        Having already found this bush, stone, window - you will find time to estimate the distance and rearrange the sight, and still have time to think about whether to try to get it out of the GHG ..
        if any, at least some experience, the shooter is not just picked up the machine, this case takes from 1 whole to 0,3 seconds figuratively ...
      2. Svateev
        Svateev 23 October 2013 17: 42
        +2
        Quote: Rex
        on 300-400 a goal the size of a basketball in a wooded area or in urban areas must still be found

        Rex! In the comments after the first part of the article, I answered this argument: the low probability of hitting with scopes 4 and "P" starts already from 150m. At 150m, the main target is quite possible to detect and aim at it. Didn't we discuss this with you?
        Quote: Rex
        you will find time to estimate the distance and rearrange the sight

        That is unlikely. A competent target will either have time to hide or kill you. You will succeed only when the goal is the North Caucasian Wahhabi, trained according to our Guide for AK, who needs to make 4-6 queues for you. Only against such an enemy will be in time.
        You need to use a direct shot - at ranges up to 300 from the 3 sight, always aim at the lower edge of the target, without wasting time on determining the range and rearranging the sight. And you’ll even get to the head. Well, at 300 range, only two bursts (on average), but optics are needed for a higher probability of hitting.
    2. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 23 October 2013 12: 46
      +3
      Quote: Tommygun
      But it seems to me that on 300 - 400 you will not see the main target.

      Even if you see it, then at such a distance the fly completely covers the target (the author writes about an open sight), and for some reason it incorrectly compares shooting from the M-16 with optics and shooting from the AK-74 without it, enthusiastically substantiating that both AK can hit the head.
      1. Svateev
        Svateev 23 October 2013 17: 51
        +1
        Quote: Vladimirets
        at such a distance the front sight completely covers the target (the author writes about an open sight),

        True, closes. If you need to point to the center of the target. And in order to prevent it from closing in the AK Manual, I suggest a direct shot, that is, aim at the lower edge of the target so as not to close it.
        Quote: Vladimirets
        incorrectly compares shooting from M-16 with optics and shooting from AK-74 without it

        In order to compare, to show that one transition to a direct shot with an 3 sight is not enough to confront the M-16 equipped with ACOG. That AK needs an optical sight. The same is indicated in the article, read it carefully.
      2. Dezzed
        Dezzed 23 October 2013 20: 31
        0
        Quote: Vladimirets
        at this distance the front sight completely covers the target


        In principle, for this there is shooting with an aim under the target. (you need to adjust the sight before shooting)
    3. Ascetic
      Ascetic 23 October 2013 18: 54
      +5
      Quote: Tommygun
      I consider the article not a guide to action, but a serious reason to understand for specialists.


      In general, you must initially have a concept for what exactly you need a machine gun or an assault rifle. The basis for the use of any automatic weapon besides the destruction of enemy manpower and firepower is the main task - to create the necessary density of fire in modern combat with small units in urban or defensive conditions in order to block the enemy at the identified lines and achieve tactical superiority for maneuvered assault groups. Something like this from memory, For that he is an assault rifle, and not a carbine or SVD cabinet whose task is to fire on the principle of one shot, one target. By the way, in UUS for them there are also head targets as far as I remember. For the machine gun - in urban combat the main thing is speed, surprise, dense fire on the front and sectors , The main thing is to catch a grenade under cover of automatic and machine-gun fire and throw it, and then a shoulder blade or knife for those who still move. Here it’s not up to the fire of sniper guns, especially from an assault rifle. Approach the enemy in trenches; move crawl, use funnels and ruins; a swarm of trenches at night; mask them for a day; accumulate to throw in an attack stealthily, without noise: take the machine by the neck, grab a complete discharge with grenades, then time and surprise will be on your side.
      Let the commander have a heroic assault group, but if the attack is not prepared, it is in vain to wait for successful results. only corpses only. The main thing here is not to flip a grenade with bread and immediately comb through it automatically, There is no time to set sights and aim for the modern warfare is not in the trenches and not by the masses of troops going on the attack (or lying under fire) where such skills are needed but in small units in limited urban battle conditions.
      In principle, one can agree with the author that the combat manuals reflect only the essence of the classic combined arms battle, in which the actions of any unit are supported by artillery, armored vehicles, aviation, which in fact is already outdated, and therefore I see no obstacles for learning sniper shooting skills and for machine gunners in at least it won’t hurt the head targets. Again, just as addition to the skills of modern combat. Simply put, then modern battle in which the machine gunner is actively involved melee usually in closed areas (in the mountains, forests, jungles, settlements), where the warring parties are usually only a few tens of meters, not hundreds.Draw conclusions as they say.
      1. Svateev
        Svateev 23 October 2013 21: 35
        0
        Quote: Ascetic
        I don’t see any obstacles for learning sniper shooting skills or for machine gunners on head targets

        Here is how "the main target - this is already a sniper shooting"! Yes, this is normal shooting at such short ranges - up to 300m! Every submachine gunner should be able to.
  3. Lesnik
    Lesnik 23 October 2013 10: 53
    0
    Yeah and MOTR too garbage wassat
  4. Massik
    Massik 23 October 2013 10: 56
    +2
    Like everything is on probability theory, but when he fired a burst of 300 rounds at 3 meters, the 3 round already went up half a meter above the target, scattered in the best case with deuces that still didn't go 10-15 cm. It was easier for everyone to set the scope at 100 and remember the excess of the trajectory ...
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 23 October 2013 18: 09
      +2
      Quote: Marssik
      3 cartridge already went half a meter higher from the target, the twos still did not go

      At AK-74, the second bullet of the queue always goes to the right, above the aiming point, the third bullet is again approximately to the aiming point, and the subsequent bullets of the queue disperse randomly. This is indicated in the AK Manual. And I personally checked: when shooting at a chest target at a range of 100, the second bullet of the line always lies above the left shoulder of the target, and the third is again at the target. Therefore, the most effective queue is the 3 cartridge (2 / 3 hits), and not the 2 cartridge (1 / 2 hits).
      This dispersal of shots in the AK-74 lineup is very clearly visible in the commercials of the Baryshev assault rifle. They show the dispersion of Baryshev and AK-74 assault rifles.
      Quote: Marssik
      It was easier for everyone to put the sight on 100 and remember the excess of the trajectory ...

      The simplest and quickest way is to set up the 3 scope and not remember anything, not count and not determine, and aim always at the lower edge of a low target.
    2. Dezzed
      Dezzed 23 October 2013 20: 34
      +1
      it’s not clear why shoot a 3 round of cartridge.

      I remember they used FN MAG and it was decided that the machine gunner could shoot solo.
      1. Svateev
        Svateev 23 October 2013 21: 43
        +2
        Quote: DezzeD
        it was decided that the machine gunner could shoot solo

        Very useful information for those who stubbornly hope to create such a density of fire that will not have to worry about accuracy.
  5. Lesnik
    Lesnik 23 October 2013 11: 01
    +1
    Let me remind you that AK (any AK) was created with clearly defined goals. And it’s not strange that sniper fire is not included in these goals. wink
    1. Rex
      Rex 23 October 2013 11: 24
      0
      Shooting the ball at a distance of 300 meters does not pull on sniper. And AK (like any assault) can provide this.
      And their (army) working distance from 300, and more often 500-800.
    2. Svateev
      Svateev 23 October 2013 18: 12
      +1
      Quote: Forestman
      sniper fire is not included in these goals

      But that’s why Kalashnikov is good because he can! Are you upset by this ?!
  6. Lesnik
    Lesnik 23 October 2013 11: 34
    +1
    Well let's say you're right! then answer me and first of all to myself why does the AK have an automatic fire mode? A simple question is not it? From what such a hangover did the designers bring him there?
    1. Tommygun
      Tommygun 23 October 2013 11: 40
      +1
      Automatic fire is necessary to create a high density of fire at close range.
    2. Rex
      Rex 23 October 2013 11: 57
      +1
      Quote: Forestman
      Well let's say you're right! then answer me and first of all to myself why does the AK have an automatic fire mode? A simple question is not it? From what such a hangover did the designers bring him there?


      He did not call for the abolition of automatic fire. In a number of situations, it will be preferable - when it is required to create a high density or when shooting at a group target. If the target is 5-10 armed people in an area of ​​2-3 meters, then why not choose a long line, especially at "pistol" distances
      For a single target farther than 100 m, it makes no sense to spend 3 rounds, and the further the target and its smaller size, the less sense.
      And if there are only 210-330 of them, and 20-30 km to the warehouse - yes "let them lie down" .. If this "friend" from 300 m does not greatly interfere with life - but figs would be on him at all.
    3. Svateev
      Svateev 23 October 2013 18: 23
      +1
      Quote: Forestman
      why does AK have automatic fire mode?

      Even when firing at the main target (and only snipers are shooting at them according to our shooting course), the probability of an 3 round getting hit by a cartridge is noticeably higher than with a single fire. I indicate this in the article.
      And when shooting at group targets or in close combat, automatic fire is indispensable. That's for this, and not "from a hangover" he was "introduced there."
      1. lordinicus
        lordinicus 23 October 2013 21: 10
        0
        The cartridge 7,62x39 was created as a response to the German 7,92x33.
        That is, you need to remember what the Germans fought for. In those assignments for the creation of weapons for a new cartridge, the Germans had: Provide single fire at a range of up to 500 meters at the level of a standard rifle with a sliding bolt and ensure at a range of up to 50 meters of fire density at the level of machine guns.
        The fact that there is a need to shoot in small bursts, by the way, not only in the AK but also in the M16, is already a shortcoming of weapons, with such recommendations they try to increase the probability of hitting the target in a minimum time.
        In the terms of reference, the 5 mm mm caliber cartridges introduced that it was necessary to increase the wearable ammunition of the fighters. The British and Germans generally sculpted 4,7mm cartridges.
        In comments above it was written that modern combat is not shooting as in a dash, but fighting at the closest distance (at a grenade throw distance). The Germans in World War II gave birth to a figure in the 50th. The Americans in Vietnam gave birth to the same 50th in which a fighter hits the target with personal weapons.
        1. Svateev
          Svateev 23 October 2013 22: 05
          +1
          Quote: lordinicus
          modern combat is not shooting as in a shooting range, but fighting at the closest distance (at a grenade throw distance).

          Modern combat can be very different. And it depends on the ratio of the fire capabilities of the parties.
          If we are not able to conduct a fire duel with the entire squad, then our sniper will be destroyed from the 600 range with the very first shots of the ACOG-equipped squad, and then our machine-gunners will be shot as if in close proximity. Nobody will let you come up to throw a grenade.
          What kind of battle always depends on the capabilities of the parties.
  7. Lesnik
    Lesnik 23 October 2013 11: 53
    0
    Quote: Tommygun
    Automatic fire is necessary to create a high density of fire at close range.

    5 points hi
    The second simple question is why do I need a high density of fire?
    Please forgive me for the mentoring syllable. I do not want to offend anyone wink
    1. Rex
      Rex 23 October 2013 12: 14
      0
      Quote: Forestman
      Quote: Tommygun
      Automatic fire is necessary to create a high density of fire at close range.

      5 points hi
      The second simple question is why do I need a high density of fire?
      Please forgive me for the mentoring syllable. I do not want to offend anyone wink


      Well, actually it’s not only on the neighbors.
      At a short distance, "high density" will allow you to quickly destroy (or greatly reduce) the group target - before it had time to return fire or take cover. All the more relevant if their number is 2-3 times more
  8. Alekseev
    Alekseev 23 October 2013 12: 06
    +3
    "It is necessary to teach our submachine gunners to conduct a fire duel not with chest targets, but with head targets."
    It is necessary to teach our machine gunners to shoot at any goals, and chest, and head, etc. Of course, in the aisles of the range of effective fire from AK! smile And, if the submachine gunner shoots a lot, can adjust the fire, then the head piece will get hit and "must and can."
    Something the author was too clever in his "shooting" reasoning ...
    Say, it is not suitable to shoot at 300-400 m at the head figure with a constant sight, aiming "under the edge", they say, they will go above the bullet. Yes, this is clear to the horse.
    Take not a bit, but the figure below ... Either rearrange the scope, or make it on the bar P1-for chest and P2- for the head! lol
    But, actually, an AK-assault rifle, a carbine for firing bursts, often offhand, from a relatively short distance.
    For shooting at "heads" in each MSO there is a sniper, armament of a combat vehicle with powerful optics.
    And the main losses of the infantry, even from the time of Napoleon (artillery, go ahead!), Were not at all from infantry weapons. I imagined such a duel between machine gunners! smile
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 23 October 2013 18: 39
      +1
      Quote: Alekseev
      Say, it is not suitable to shoot at 300-400 m at the head figure with a constant sight, aiming "under the edge", they say, they will go above the bullet. Yes, this is clear to the horse.

      But the AK Manual recommends just that. And the position "P" on the AK sight is made for a direct shot at the chest, and not at the head target. That's why AK turns into
      Quote: Alekseev
      a carbine for firing bursts, often on a vantage point, from a relatively short distance.

      and for
      Quote: Alekseev
      shooting at the "heads" in each MSO there is a sniper, armament of a combat vehicle with powerful optics.

      But it’s necessary that every submachine gun can beat the head one at least until 300m.
      Why are you against it?
  9. Igor39
    Igor39 23 October 2013 12: 18
    +2
    In real combat conditions, the most effective fire from the AK is conducted at a distance of 150-200 meters, further, a waste of ammunition.
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 23 October 2013 18: 45
      +1
      Quote: Igor39
      In real combat conditions, the most effective fire from the AK is conducted at a distance of 150 - 200 meters, further, a waste of ammunition

      Right! This is exactly what the probability of hitting with scopes 4 and "P" in Figure 12 shows.
      That is why it is necessary to shoot a direct shot with an 3 sight. Then the effective fire range will be up to 300m for real targets in battle (head).
  10. Lesnik
    Lesnik 23 October 2013 12: 24
    0
    You respected poured from empty to empty!
    I advise you to figure out why AK confessed and for whom it is primarily intended as an individual weapon! And if you don’t want to understand it and then have a conversation, I consider it a waste of time.
    With great respect.
    1. Rex
      Rex 23 October 2013 12: 36
      +1
      AK was created as a massive, most universal individual weapon for all categories of military personnel.
      Universality has its limits and minuses, but in general, with good training, it satisfies these goals.
    2. Svateev
      Svateev 23 October 2013 18: 48
      +1
      Quote: Forestman
      I advise you to figure out why AK admitted

      Whatever it is created, it criminally refuses the opportunities that it actually provides.
  11. _KM_
    _KM_ 23 October 2013 12: 30
    +1
    Our soldiers shot the first Chechen one during the storming of Grozny with P.'s sight. As a result, bullets whistled over the heads of the militants without harming them.

    I agree with the author of the article. With a scanty amount of ammunition allocated, it is necessary to teach the main thing - shooting at the head target and the use of shelters.
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 23 October 2013 17: 38
      +2
      More ammunition than to hell!
      Forgot how many million tons were disposed of?
      We need order in the troops and sensible officers and sergeants. but they don’t even exist ... request
      Perdyukov somewhere fused the latter, replaced by cunning women. smile

      Quote: _KM_
      As a result, bullets whistled over the heads of the militants without harming them.

      And in the first Chechen war, many of our soldiers from the detachments gathered from the forest, from the pine tree did not really know how to shoot. Neither, you know, with the "P" sight, nor with M, nor with B.
      1. Svateev
        Svateev 25 October 2013 19: 23
        0
        Quote: Alekseev
        Quote: _KM_ As a result, bullets whistled over the heads of the militants without harming them.
        And in the first Chechen, many of our soldiers from the pine forest, from the pine detachments in general did not really know how to shoot.

        Yes, the fact is that it is the ability to shoot in strict accordance with Article 155 of the AK74 Manual that leads to the fact that bullets whistle over the enemy’s head, only occasionally (accidentally, due to dispersion) getting into it.
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 23 October 2013 17: 40
      +5
      Quote: _KM_
      Our soldiers shot the first Chechen one during the storming of Grozny with P.'s sight. As a result, bullets whistled over the heads of the militants without harming them.

      Maxim, please:
      When you write about THIS, refer to some SOURCE or say that this is YOUR experience, or somehow ...
      You can’t write about this without any proof. Do you agree?

      No offense, okay?
  12. _KM_
    _KM_ 23 October 2013 12: 31
    0
    Quote: Alekseev
    And the main losses of the infantry, even from the time of Napoleon (artillery, go ahead!), Were not at all from infantry weapons.


    In modern local conflicts, the main losses from mines and gunners.
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 23 October 2013 17: 44
      +1
      Quote: _KM_
      In modern local conflicts, the main losses from mines and gunners.

      Not sure.
      If there were no heavy weapons (and aircraft), it would be impossible to conduct successful military operations neither in Afghanistan, nor in Georgia, nor in Chechnya.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 23 October 2013 17: 53
      0
      Yes. Because their own aviation and artillery have learned to effectively suppress the enemy. And if not, https://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/Home/losslist

      At the same time, the other side of the conflict is still not suffering from small arms.
      1. Svateev
        Svateev 23 October 2013 19: 02
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        all the same, the main losses are not from small arms

        And now, do not need to learn to shoot accurately from AK? From each weapon it is necessary to squeeze the maximum that it can give.
  13. alex-cn
    alex-cn 23 October 2013 14: 04
    +5
    Well, the author ... started for health, finished after peace ... It is not necessary to install optics, but to train shooters, including for small-sized targets, the shooter who fired 6 rounds for service even though a ballistic computer on his ass is still "in the house with ten steps will not fall. " And on what basis the shooter is likened to a stupid robot in which the shooting tables are laid. The question in the article is posed correctly - the answer is fundamentally wrong. I don’t want to give more detailed objections.
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 23 October 2013 22: 25
      0
      Quote: alex-cn
      need ... train shooters

      It is useless to train as recommended in the AK Manual (with scopes 4 and "P"). When the STP is higher than the main (head) target, you can shoot zinc cartridges, but you still won't hit.
      Quote: alex-cn
      Do not put optics

      And optics must be installed! Otherwise, we will not pull against NATO.
  14. _KM_
    _KM_ 23 October 2013 15: 31
    0
    One other does not exclude. It is a pity that it is not so simple to put optics on a standard AK-74 - there is no base or bracket.
  15. Sobol
    Sobol 23 October 2013 15: 52
    0
    Quote: alex-sp Do not put the optics necessary, and train shooters, including for small targets [/ quote

    But high-quality optics will never hurt. And at the expense of training - I completely agree. It is absolutely unacceptable when 3 rounds before the oath of office for the entire service.
  16. akm8226
    akm8226 23 October 2013 16: 00
    +2
    From the AK-74 with a regular sector sight to a range of 300 m, you need to shoot with a “3” sight: aiming at low targets at low targets, and at center targets at the center. (End of quote)

    Also me, Newton’s bin ... I’ve been taught to shoot this way all my life, and not from AK-74 5,45 mm, but from 7,62 mm AKM. Exactly as it is written - at 300 meters, under the edge, sight 3. Read the manual on the small business ... can we, right now, a new one? But I personally shot my AKM according to the Manual in the target, it seems, 400x250 mm in size. In this case, the angular size of the target coincides with the angular size of the front sight and the target, in the form of a black rectangle, is, as it were, a continuation of the front sight. Maybe I'm confusing something?
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 23 October 2013 22: 40
      +1
      Quote: akm8226
      Also me, Newton’s binom ... I’ve been taught to shoot this way all my life, and not from AK-74 5,45 mm, but from 7,62 mm AKM. Exactly as it is written - on 300 meters, under the edge, the scope of 3. Read the manual on small business

      But I didn’t just quote the AK-74 Manual, but I inserted a scanned copy of Article 155 into the article! In the same place in black and white: up to 400m - with a "P" or 4 sight!
      I myself began my service with AKM, but I don’t remember what recommendations were for him. Perhaps the recommendations for AKM were the same as now for AK-74, but you were just lucky with the commanders - they were smart and taught how to fight.
      That's why I am trying to make changes to the AK-74 Guide so that not only smart ones, but everyone shoots like that.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 23 October 2013 23: 59
        +1
        Quote: Svateev
        so that not only smart ones, but everyone shoots like that.

        In addition to my point of view, which I have already described, I, the red maiden, are a little confused by this:
        He sets “3” and we bring down the target in the amount of “head” on 300 with an ordinary, classic aiming.
        All clear.
        But if on 300m. If a chest target or a running one appears, then with this sight and aiming method we only hitch it, and with little efficiency due to the small foot area.
        It is so ? So.

        Victor, explain, please:
        Those. in other cases, if this is not the “main” goal, we either do only wound the lower leg or ...
        Again, you need to adjust the correction of the aiming itself or change “3” to “P”.

        Nepoyma, what's the trick?
        Constantly change the sight due to a changing environment or anyway (in both cases, “3” and “P”), adjust the aiming?
        You have to do all kinds of corrections ...

        The goals are different in area and different in distance. If we sharpen our shooting for "firebrand" at a distance of up to 300m, then in other cases, adjustments are still needed.
        request

        ps And not at the range ... shooting up to 150 meters with AK ...
        I almost don’t remember that they would use the sight (not about specialists).
        1. Svateev
          Svateev 25 October 2013 18: 41
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          But if on 300m. if a chest target or a running one appears, then with this sight and aiming method we only hitch it

          Not certainly in that way:
          Starting from the head up to the waist, inclusive, and even leaning out "to the most I can not" bring down without problems: well, bullets will not hit the chest, but the stomach - is it not enough?
          Only with a growth purpose do we act as it is now recommending Article 155 of the AK-74 Manual (see article): we aim at it in the center. You can consider it an adjustment. But:

          firstly, this shift of the aiming point from the bottom edge is the only one in my method; and with your method - for each range you need to remember your offset;

          secondly, the center of the target is easy to find, and with your method you need to measure gaps (different for different ranges) between the lower edge of the target and the front sight, say it yourself: you need to train a lot;

          thirdly, the troops and all the vaults are already accustomed to my displacement (it is already in the AK-74 Manual).

          And finally, with your aiming method, you don’t even think about getting into your chest and not your legs. Do not even set such a task. Where it gets.
        2. Svateev
          Svateev 25 October 2013 20: 14
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          And not at the range ... shooting up to 150 meters with AK ... I almost do not remember what would be used with a scope

          And that's why you don't shoot because you don't hit the way you were trained - with "P" or 4. Try it with 3! You will get there! I promise!
      2. Svateev
        Svateev 25 October 2013 19: 01
        0
        Quote: Svateev
        I’ve been taught to shoot this way all my life ... from 7,62 mm AKM

        I looked at the recommendations for AKM. He has less bullet speed, steeper trajectories, fewer direct range shots. At AKM, the range of a direct shot at the BREAST figure is 360m. Therefore, the next smaller sight is 3 (and not 4, like AK-74). For AKM, a direct shot with 3 is a shot at the BREAST, and not at the head figure. For AKM, you need to set the 2 scope on the head figure.
  17. Exististor
    Exististor 23 October 2013 16: 15
    0
    Article plus. The author absolutely rightly pointed out the need to adjust shooting teaching methods. In addition, the lack of the required number of modern sighting devices in the military also reduces the effectiveness of motorized rifle units. But what I really don't understand is stubborn sectarianism in the opinion that motorized riflemen do not need modern sights, they say, "conscripts, what to take from them." Bullshit! What difference does it make to how the enlisted personnel are recruited, each soldier MUST be a professional according to his soldier's duties. The whole question is only in training and equipment. Therefore, every soldier needs modern weapons, equipment, communications, sights and everything else. But no! In our country, it is believed that if a soldier got into a unit by conscription, then he does not need anything, he threw him the old stuff and spin as he likes. It is not necessary to consider young animals coming to the infantry as imbeciles by default.
  18. alex-cn
    alex-cn 23 October 2013 16: 37
    0
    Optics ... optics, of course, this is also necessary, but it’s a narrower field of view, an increased risk of damage, additional unmasking and a lot of trouble, why doesn’t anyone think about it ... We must learn to shoot with and without optics, and without - more!
  19. MAG
    MAG 23 October 2013 16: 50
    +4
    I’ll write how we were taught, the first distance is 50 meters (the target is ALWAYS the head one) 4 rounds for each miss 500 meters run uphill but did not cover then 100 meters then 200 and for 200 there was a maximum of 1 slip then 300 and 5 rounds and so on up to 400. Shooting It was carried out only with a permanent sight because in the green or shooting from a slope to a slope will not give time to transfer the sight to other distances. After such firing, everything was done on the machine with regards to the firing position, they started from the rack, then in a half-squat (like from a foreign legion), then from different knees and lying down. In a week, 3 days at a shooting range for a rifle 200 rounds of ammunition for zinc. Shooting 95% single at different rates if on the machine it is for retreat or for covering the grenade launcher.
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 23 October 2013 23: 35
      0
      Quote: MAG
      (the target is ALWAYS the head one) ... Shooting was conducted only from a constant sight ... until 400m

      I know this technique from the 80 of the last century. She has minuses:
      1) To get at ranges from 150 to 300, you have to shift the aiming point below the bottom edge of the target by about 1 / 2 the height of the head target. If we do not shift the aiming point, then at these ranges we will get one turn from 5, and single shots - one out of seven or eight.
      2) And in order to determine whether it is necessary to already shift the aiming point, it is necessary to determine the distance to the target before each shot. Of course, with good preparation, this can be done according to the cover value of the front sight: how many targets fit on the front sight. But it takes one or two seconds of time, even with very good preparation of the shooter.
      3) And most importantly. You could not continue 300m to make only one miss of 5 cartridges. The dispersion of shots at such a range, even among the best shooters, is such that half of the bursts in the 3 cartridge goes past the target. Single shots will go by, apparently, 2 / 3. And this is the best of very well trained shooters.
      As you can see, this technique did not take root: it is not in the AK-74 Manual, and in the Firing Course, machine gunners do not shoot at their head targets.
      Therefore, I also offer a direct shot, but from the 3 scope to 300m. It is not necessary to determine the range and shift the aiming point, which is a great blessing for training in a combat unit. And the probability of hitting is still quite acceptable. And aim faster for 1-2 seconds.
      1. MAG
        MAG 24 October 2013 16: 50
        0
        1 yes it’s necessary to shift the sight but for that they train at different distances and on the smallest target in order to hit both the thoracic and the growth target 2 about the measurement of distance-contact can be sudden and there they’ll just hit the opponent’s side and focus on the hits if we first noticed that is time for preparation and deployment if they were ambushed then the first horn on the machine gun in the direction of the enemy 3 about misses - I have written about 200 meters and 1 miss and I indicated that shooting at 95% SINGLE read carefully. I forgot to indicate that the constant sight was set at 200 meters, because in Zelenka the distance is minimal
        1. Svateev
          Svateev 25 October 2013 19: 45
          0
          Quote: MAG
          contact may be sudden

          But the technique described in the article proceeds from the fact that the appearance of a goal is ALWAYS sudden and always short-lived. That is why we do not measure anything, do not remember and do not calculate: once. The 3 sight is set in advance (always standing), and as soon as you see the target, take aim at the bottom edge and shoot.
          Quote: MAG
          and I pointed out that shooting at 95% SINGLE read carefully

          Yes, I realized that. That is why I show that the bursts in the 3 cartridge need fewer than single shots. And this means the bursts of the target are struck FASTER - with fewer aiming-descents of the trigger (although more ammunition is spent than single shots).
          Quote: MAG
          the constant sight was set at 200 meters - because the distance is minimal in green

          It’s quite reasonable. But a shot with an 3 scope is better, because it will give the same accuracy, but further up to 300m. Suddenly, in the green fall into the clearing?
          1. MAG
            MAG 26 October 2013 11: 07
            0
            Everything that I wrote is confirmed by practice in combat conditions and specialists work according to the same methodology (our squad is accurate).
            1. Svateev
              Svateev 1 November 2013 12: 45
              0
              Quote: MAG
              All that I wrote is confirmed by practice in combat conditions

              Of course, before abandoning the proven methodology, the innovation must be checked. For starters - at the training ground.
              The technique from the article is simpler than yours. If you want to try it out, please contact me at the e-mail specified in the article. I will send detailed recommendations for experimental firing.
  20. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 23 October 2013 17: 31
    +4
    Good day, Victor.
    Again with interest I read your calculations.
    That's right, no doubt ...
    But you come too narrowly to the topic of ALL fire training.

    I repeat the same as I said yesterday:
    There should be MASS training, and not narrowly focused (specialists are generally a separate issue).
    In the USSR, training was conducted at universal range - a “direct shot."
    For 7,62 - 525м, for 5,45 - 625м., If I am not mistaken.
    Those. the fighter must be able to hit the target both at close range and at long range (up to 400-450m).
    Almost all CCSs were imprisoned for this.
    Yes. Versatility is not always useful, and the “P” sight gives dead zones when shooting at medium distances with a head figure ...
    And at the other ranges? And for the rest of the targets?
    Or do we have canceled different ranges and canceled zone and growth goals?
    QUALITY in MASS training is the main criterion.

    But this is not the point, but in another:
    I repeat - A fighter does not have to think a lot before shooting. It’s harmful.
    What turns out:
    1. Determined the distance, 2. Lowered the weapon, 3. Corrected the scope, 4. Threw up the weapon, 5. Aimed, 6. Shot ....
    And the enemy is kindly waiting. Polygon bullshit comes out.
    Better in another way:
    1. Determined the distance, 2. Aimed at correction (!!!), 3. Shot.

    It is amended.
    After all, a hedgehog is understandable that from 200 meters with an “P” sight must be aimed at the soles, and at 400 meters with an “P” sight, aim above the middle (according to the growth figure).
    When developing a certain shooting skill with a PERMANENT scope (for example, on “P”), the fighter begins to “feel” the range and, based on the distance and size (!!!) of the target, change the corresponding aiming point on the target.
    Permanent sight means ANY (at least “3”, at least “4”), but it must be CONSTANT for all shooting options, regardless of the range and size of the target.
    If the fighter does not “feel” the weapon and the ballistics of the bullet’s flight, the khan will be outside the training ground.

    I will give an example:
    On the plain, the skill of offhand shooting with the “P” sight was developed at different distances for various targets with AK “attached” to the left hand (standard belt).
    In the mountains, repeated training. According to the instructions lowered the sight by one division and ...
    They began to smear together.
    They spat. Put "P". We adjusted the amendment taking into account the pressure of the height of the mountains and ... everything is in order, the developed shooting skill again began to "work".

    And more:
    Who told you that with an “3” scope they don’t shoot at ranges of up to 300 m?
    Quote from "Manual on the shooting of 7,62mm AK. 1960"
    The choice of sight and aiming points
    Article 137.
    P.2 "When choosing a sight for hitting ground targets, be guided by the following. When firing up to 300 m, fire is usually conducted with an 3 or "P" scope. "
    «The aiming point is usually the middle of the bottom edge of the target.»

    Those. your wishes about “3” seem to be taken into account in the instructions ...
    But the goals are, nevertheless, different. And not only the "head".
    Although I, again, am not a supporter of constantly “pulling” the aiming bar.

    But…
    Everyone has their own habits and "flaws" ...
    I have such.
    wink
    It was nice to read your articles. At least some serious army theme. Of course, plus an article.
    Thanks for the stuff, Victor.
    hi
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 24 October 2013 02: 29
      0
      Aleks! The site does not accept long comments, so I tear it into several.
      Quote: Aleks tv
      at universal range - a “direct shot."

      There is no universal direct shot range.
      The range of a direct shot is the range at which the height of the trajectory is equal to the height of the target. Each type of target (target height) has its own range of direct shot. AK-74 has a direct shot range for a growth target near 600m, for a chest target = 440m, for a head target it is not indicated anywhere, but as shown in the article, it is between 300m and 400m (I think about 365m).
      Quote: Aleks tv
      the fighter must be able to hit the target both at close range and at long range

      Gold words! This is exactly what the methodology described in the article gives.
      Quote: Aleks tv
      Sight "P" gives dead zones when firing at medium distances on the head figure ...

      Right. And precisely these dead zones are eliminated by the methodology described in the article - a direct shot with the 3 scope.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 24 October 2013 02: 52
        0
        Quote: Svateev
        Direct Shot Range -

        The tanker knows well the concept of "direct shot range"
        wink
        Quote: Svateev
        And precisely these dead zones are eliminated by the methodology described in the article - a direct shot with the 3 scope.

        Right. But with a scope of 3, there will also be quite a few dead zones for other shooting options, and even more than with "P".
        This is only one of the shooting techniques, not the BASIC system.
        I do not mind that the soldiers knew her, but do not give her primary importance.
        Something like this.
        And I already laid out my approach to training.
        1. Svateev
          Svateev 24 October 2013 03: 54
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          with a scope of 3, there will also be quite a few dead zones with other shooting options, and even more than with "P".

          For example?
    2. Svateev
      Svateev 24 October 2013 02: 57
      -1
      Quote: Aleks tv
      And for the rest of the targets?

      A direct shot has a peculiarity: if it is designed for the lowest figure, then we will definitely get into higher figures.
      Therefore, up to 300 from the 3 sight we get a direct shot not only at the head, but also at all other figures, if they suddenly appear. With one clarification: if you also point to the lower edge (to the soles of the shoes) according to the growth figure, then the STP will not rise above the knees. The legs are not the most effective place to hit the target, and you can miss between the legs. Therefore, as in the AK-74 Manual, with the 3 scope, we are aiming at the growth figure in the middle.
      Quote: Aleks tv
      And at the other ranges?

      Further 300m in the head figure, the probability of hitting is already small due to scattering of shots. There are no chest and waist targets in battle. Therefore, from 300 to 600 with an 6 sight, we shoot only at a growth target with a direct shot. Also quite effective.
      If you are lucky enough to see a group growth target - you can shoot further 600m, setting the exact distance to the target.
      That's all you can get from an AK-74 without optics. But this is much better than what we have if we shoot with "P" or 4, as recommended by the AK-74 Manual.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 24 October 2013 03: 28
        +1
        Quote: Svateev
        then STP will not rise above the knees.

        Yes, that’s what I meant.
        Quote: Svateev
        Therefore, as in the AK-74 Manual, with the 3 scope, we are aiming at the growth figure in the middle.

        Here.
        So we are making an amendment. And without it in any way. I spoke about this.
        We change the awl for soap and vice versa about "3" and "P".
        The main question is one - at what ranges are we going to fight? That "P" should be installed on machines for recruits with 3 classes of education.

        Victor, your suggestions are clear. And this is not news, I already did the calculation from the manual of 1960.
        This, of course, needs to be explained to the fighters, but as an addition to the general technique.

        Nevertheless, there are different goals, and growth and waist and chest and head.
        And all this at different ranges.
        In my experience, the best thing is not to pull the scope and shoot at corrections, so you feel better weapons.
        I am convinced of this.

        The following should be noted in your favor:
        The method of shooting from AK in the USSR involved firing up to 400-450 mm. Based on this, more universal shooting calculations were built.
        But in a number of local collisions of the times of the Russian Federation, it was often necessary to "work" at shorter ranges.
        This is so.
        1. Svateev
          Svateev 24 October 2013 04: 09
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          So we are making an amendment. And without it in any way.

          Well, firstly, you can without it, then we’ll get into our feet. With other methods of shooting this is not even thought about.
          And secondly, the same is recommended in the Manual for AK-74 with "P" or 4 sights. Because with these sights STP too, ... just above the knees.
          Therefore, there is no exchange of awl ("P" or 4) for soap (3). Yes, this "amendment" remains, but the probability of hitting the main target with scope 3 increases immeasurably!
          And taking this amendment is easy: it runs - to its center, lies - to the lower edge. All the problems then.
          Quote: Aleks tv
          this is not news, I have already done the calculation from the instruction of 1960.

          We work with you in parallel and do not have time to evaluate the arguments. In another comment, I already showed that 3 for AK is a direct shot at the BREAST, and not at the head target.
    3. Svateev
      Svateev 24 October 2013 03: 14
      -1
      Quote: Aleks tv
      A fighter does not have to think a lot before shooting. It is harmful

      I completely agree. Therefore, in my method, he thinks only about one thing: is the target not further than 300? All, there are no other questions.
      Quote: Aleks tv
      What happens: 1. Determined the distance, 2. Lowered the weapon, 3. Corrected the scope, 4. Threw up the weapon, 5. Aimed, 6. Shot .... And the enemy is kindly waiting. Polygon bullshit comes out.

      With my method, such garbage does not work.
      It is you who described the process of shooting with a "precise" scope. I point out in the article that such shooting is not suitable for combat precisely because of these manipulations.
      Quote: Aleks tv
      Better in another way: 1. Determined the distance, 2. Aimed at the amendment (!!!), 3. Shot.

      No, not better. To find the correction, you must first accurately determine the distance to the target, which is difficult and takes time. And you need to remember the corrections for distances.
      The article proposed a simpler method - a direct shot: once set the 3 scope and before the 300m you always aim at the lower edge of the target. No need to measure range, no need to remember and take the amendment. Less mistakes. And faster by 1-2 seconds. And every second is the answer to the question: are you his or is he you?
    4. Svateev
      Svateev 24 October 2013 03: 34
      -1
      Quote: Aleks tv
      the fighter begins to “feel” the range and, based on the distance and size (!!!) of the target, change the corresponding aiming point at the target

      "Feelings" are often deceiving. And you give an example yourself. Let's analyze it:
      Quote: Aleks tv
      In the mountains, repeated training. According to the instructions, they lowered the sight by one division and ... They began to smear together.

      Have you reduced it according to the instructions? In the mountains, you need to lower the sight in two cases:
      1) at high altitude, at temperatures above zero and at low atmospheric pressure, then the bullet flies further and this must be compensated for by lowering the sight. But as far as I remember, this is required only at decent heights, where you are unlikely to climb.
      2) if the elevation angle of the target is significant. That is, if the target is not on the same horizontal as the arrow, but significantly higher or lower. Then gravity is directed at an angle not of 90 degrees to the direction of fire, but less, and therefore the trajectories of bullets become more gentle. The size of the elevation angle of the target at which it is necessary to lower the scope is specified in the AK-74 Manual. If you are approximately at the same level with the goal, then you do not need to lower the sight even in the mountains.
      As you can see, you need to know this, feeling here will not help.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 24 October 2013 03: 49
        +1
        Quote: Svateev
        But as far as I remember, this is required only at decent heights, where you are unlikely to climb.

        We practiced on ... one of the passes near Dzhan-Tugan. I can’t name him, but he is more than 3000 m.
        wink
        This technique VERY helped me.
        I still don’t think when I shoot from AK.
        You just need to develop the skill of amendments without jerking the scope.

        Victor, I was glad to talk on an interesting topic.
        Unfortunately we have 6 in the morning. It is necessary to suppress the "mass" a little.
        Tomorrow (i.e. already today) I’ll look into the topic.
        hi
        1. Rex
          Rex 24 October 2013 10: 00
          +1
          I wanted to answer the author, but in general, Aleks said everything - he just put up the pros.

          The article increased a rather "private" clause of one instruction to the size of a national disaster (if not a global one). Although there is nothing new and no disaster.
          1. Svateev
            Svateev 25 October 2013 19: 54
            0
            Quote: Rex
            Article sufficiently "private" clause of one instruction increased to the size of a national disaster

            Yeah. Sleep well, the people of Baghdad!
    5. Svateev
      Svateev 24 October 2013 03: 52
      0
      Quote: Aleks tv
      "Manuals on shooting 7,62mm AK. ... When shooting up to 300 m, fire, as a rule, with a sight 3 or" P "."

      Do you think this is head target shooting? Weren't you embarrassed that sight 3 is indicated next to "P" and not 4, as in the AK-74 manual?
      I started the service with AKM. 7,62-millimeter AK and AKM bullet speeds are significantly lower than AK-74. Therefore, all trajectories are higher than that of the AK-74. And therefore, all ranges of a direct shot are less than that of the AK-74. The direct firing range at the BREAST target of AK and AKM is 360m (compare: for AK-74 it is 440m).
      Your quote from the Manual on AK is shooting at the CHEST, not at the head target. The recommended sight for it is "P" = 360m and the closest smaller sight, which is 3 for AK.
      Having developed the AK-74, they left the same logic: shooting at the chest target with the "P" sights, but here already = 440m, and the closest smaller sight to it, which is 74 for the AK-4.
      Therefore, unfortunately, in no other instruction does the submachine gunner shoot at the head target, only at the chest target.
  21. I think so
    I think so 23 October 2013 17: 48
    0
    An article at the level of a cry: "Tell the sovereign that the British do not clean their guns with a brick ...". When a country has forsaken its NUCLEAR shield, changes in some charter will not solve the problem ... But the author is certainly a plus ... for a hopeless attempt to save something ...
    1. alex-cn
      alex-cn 23 October 2013 18: 19
      0
      Are we going to throw ABs to Chechnya?
    2. Svateev
      Svateev 24 October 2013 04: 24
      0
      Quote: I think so
      An article at the level of a cry: "Tell the sovereign that the British do not clean their guns with a brick ...".

      You can’t even imagine how close you are to the truth!
  22. washi
    washi 23 October 2013 18: 26
    0
    Or maybe he just learns to "feel" the weapon. It's cheaper, but the psychology needs to be changed.
    To do everything correctly (in the West) will not work. much more depends on the cartridge (weight of gunpowder, bullet weight, etc.).
    How many first shot always at 10. From any weapon.
    1. Dezzed
      Dezzed 23 October 2013 21: 54
      +1
      Quote: Vasya
      just learn to "feel" the weapon

      I strongly support.

      true shooters whose shooting is good from the first steps (i.e. potential snipers) is quite small.
      The task consists in my opinion in worthy preparation of those who are not a sniper. no more. in combat conditions, still few soldiers shoot to kill when the enemy is in sight. (lack of presence of psychopathy)

      he fired a couple of times, a large part of the firing on both sides was like double scarecrows.
      after say 40 minutes of the battle, a cloud was squandered with an ammunition trailer and the result is a slight shock and they have 1 killed +2 wounded. that's all.
      1. Svateev
        Svateev 24 October 2013 04: 21
        0
        Quote: DezzeD
        and the result is a light shock and they have 1 killed + 2 wounded

        So your opponent, apparently, were the Arabs armed with Kalashnikovs? And they fired according to our AK Manual - with the "P" sight. Therefore, you only had a slight shock and not a single one was even wounded. That is, the ratio of losses of AK versus non-AK is 3: 0. This is what I am writing about in the article!
        1. Rex
          Rex 24 October 2013 10: 46
          0
          Who cares who the enemy is? It should not be underestimated in any case. It’s better to overestimate.
          If you think that the enemy is 300-500 meters away from you, then turning yourself into a "head target" is harmful to your health. In addition to shooters with a machine gun / assault rifle, there may be a sniper
          It is another matter that one may need to become a "growth target" in the same situation.
          In your opinion, the level of rifle training of an average NATO soldier with their rifles is many times higher than the level of a mujahideen with AK and many years of experience?
          In one report, I noticed how two Syrians fired from AK - a hole in the wall 2x20-20-20, simple optics and single ones.
          1. Svateev
            Svateev 25 October 2013 20: 24
            0
            Quote: Rex
            Embrasure in the wall 20X20-20-30

            20 * 30 is practically the main target of No. 5. The direct shot proposed in the article from the 3 sight can hit such a target.
            Quote: Rex
            AK, simple optics and single.

            Yes, I write about this in an article: a direct shot with an 3 sight is necessary, but it's time for AK to do optics. The Syrians understood this in their own skin. Do we also need to wash ourselves with blood in order to understand?
  23. leonardo_1971
    leonardo_1971 23 October 2013 22: 03
    0
    the guys in our special forces were attacking the convoy. You jump out and shoot the entire store in the direction of intense firing in continuous action without taking aim. You take cover and change the store. in range. you take it lower or higher. AKM-74 is a wonderful barrel. in skilled hands. low bow to Kalashnikov!
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 23 October 2013 23: 41
      +2
      Quote: leonardo_1971
      AKM-74

      ??
      Leonid, explain, please.
      1. Rex
        Rex 24 October 2013 10: 49
        0
        Confused the campaign. Felts AKS-74, felts AK-74M
  24. projdoha
    projdoha 23 October 2013 22: 11
    +1
    Of course, the AK was not designed for solitary targets over 300 meters, but time and the enemy make their own adjustments, and the AK itself became more accurate, respectively, and the requirements for the soldier increased.
    The author raised a good topic, in general it is better than a flight, there is a chance of a rebound from the ground, deterioration of the enemy’s visibility as a result of a fountain of dust raised by a bullet, I put a plus for the article.
    By the way, there is a similar jamb in artillery tables, because of the assumption in the formula, jambs of 30-50 meters can occur, but this is a mathematical topic.
  25. uhjpysq1
    uhjpysq1 24 October 2013 10: 50
    -1
    ) I have not read or seen any manuals. they gave a machine gun and fucked as you want. If you want to survive, you will learn how to get into a fly on the fly. the main thing is that they do not sting the cartridges. practice and practice again. and there is no need to say that the AK has nothing to do with the barrel, just someone’s hands grow out of the wrong place and the eyes are there)))
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 1 November 2013 13: 04
      0
      Quote: uhjpysq1
      I haven’t read or seen any manuals. gave the machine and fuck as you want


      This is a classic situation for a significant number of those armed with Kalashnikovs.

      That is why SIGHT "P" SHOULD BE SHARPENED NOT FOR BREAST, BUT FOR HEAD PURPOSE. So that even taking a machine gun for the first time in the last five years, a person intuitively starts shooting exactly as a real battle requires.
  26. _KM_
    _KM_ 24 October 2013 10: 52
    0
    In modern conditions, often clashes occur in the city. Therefore, we consider a mathematical problem. The distance between neighboring five-story buildings, for example approx. 60 m. This is an average. Therefore, we take 60-80 m. Now suppose that the conditional fighter shoots a burst of AK-74 with the P-scope at the head figure in the window. Now we look at the plate and share the result.
    1. Rex
      Rex 24 October 2013 11: 22
      +1
      I agree. Yes, not only in the city such distances. And in the "middle" forest?
      In many situations, lying down from 300 (even 100) meters, you simply will not notice anything.
      A prone shooting duel of "head targets" assumes an almost flat surface without vegetation and other interference. Options - both in the windows (then not easier from the PG?), One in the window - the second from the street (again, options for "dead zones" and visibility) .. in general, a lot ..
    2. Svateev
      Svateev 25 October 2013 20: 41
      0
      I look in one window of the apartment - 150m to the house opposite (over the roof of the 2-x kindergarten), in another window - from 200m to 300m to the houses opposite (over the roof of the 3-x school). Typical buildings of a good half of our city. Just for a direct shot with an 3 scope.
  27. Droid
    Droid 24 October 2013 14: 21
    +1
    The author in his repertoire. The only true statement is that a direct shot at the head with a sight of 3, for AK74.
    The author doesn’t seem to know that on the subject “Basics of Shooting” trajectory elements pass, they are taught to determine the distance of a direct shot and the depth of the affected space from the tables of excesses ...
    For example...
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 25 October 2013 15: 47
      0
      Droid, thanks! Once again, you, wanting to cheat the author, actually supported him.
      The author just speaks in his article about the depth of the affected space, but does not use this term. And the author calculates both the range of a direct shot and the depth of the affected area exactly as recommended in the excerpt from the "Basics of Shooting": by the excess of the trajectories over the aiming line. Haven't read the articles?
      But the author also offers something new - to shoot with a direct shot not for the chest (with sights 4 or "P"), but for the head target (with scope 3). Basics of Shooting doesn't have that! And the author proposes to do so precisely so that the entire range of a direct shot was the affected space.
      Well, now is it clear?
      1. Droid
        Droid 25 October 2013 16: 02
        +1
        Once again, you, wanting to cheat the author, actually supported him.

        You do not seem to understand why I brought this excerpt.
        But the author also proposes something new - to shoot with a direct shot not for the chest (with sights 4 or "P"), but for the head target (with scope 3).

        There is nothing new in this.
        Basics of Shooting doesn't have that!

        There is. Only you do not want to see it.

        And now in detail what is not pleasant in this article.
        You hold people for idiots! It directly follows from your article that all officers and soldiers are such stupid people that they are not able to understand why on the machine gun sight 3. They are also not able to understand the sign of excesses and determine the sight for a direct shot at a target of any height.

        What you offer in the article has long been chewed in the basics of shooting. It is enough to open the corresponding pages of the “Basics” or the textbook of the sergeant-motorized rifleman and make sure that there they teach with examples to determine the scope for a direct shot on target of any height. Or do you need to have a head in the example?
        1. Svateev
          Svateev 25 October 2013 16: 31
          0
          Quote: Droid
          There is. Only you do not want to see it.

          Where?
          Quote: Droid
          It directly follows from your article that all officers and soldiers are such stupid people.

          It follows from my article that the "AK-74 Manual", approved not by anyone, but by the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, makes officers and soldiers shoot a direct shot at a target that is not on the battlefield. But at the target, which is (head), such shooting is ineffective.
          And so I propose to correct the AK-74 Manual. And what do you suggest, "all officers and soldiers" do not care about the guiding document approved by the Commander-in-Chief, and independently determine the method of shooting ?! And independently change the "Course of Shooting" - the target situation at the ranges ?! Tell you what such amateur performance leads to, or can you guess? Did you serve in the army? And by whom?

          Even after the publication of this article in the "AVN Bulletin" I cannot persuade to conduct at least experimental shooting: they are afraid without an order from above! And they are not afraid of the shooting themselves, but the fact that I will use their results for a petition to the Commander-in-Chief. And how he will look at such a proposal is unknown.
          The boss’s order is not overwhelming me now; I’m in reserve. And those who serve will become brave and start firing from the 3 scope at all targets only in battle. If they survive the first half hour of the battle.
          1. Droid
            Droid 25 October 2013 17: 30
            +1
            It follows from my article that the "AK-74 Manual", approved not by anyone, but by the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, makes officers and soldiers shoot a direct shot at a target that is not on the battlefield.

            It doesn’t.
            Because there is also a provision that the sight should be installed in accordance with the range to the target, as well as the provision that “If the conditions of the situation do not allow changing the setting of the sight depending on the distance to the target, then within the range of the direct shot range should be conducted with an eye, appropriate direct range (not the sight of P, my comment) aiming at the lower edge of the target. "

            So, choose the position that is best for the moment.

            You pulled out of the point only about the sight P, but kept silent about the rest.
            1. Svateev
              Svateev 25 October 2013 21: 05
              0
              Quote: Droid
              the sight must be set in accordance with the range to the target

              I quoted this in the article. And everyone knows that this is already unacceptable at medium distances - for a long time. Therefore, in the next paragraph, at ranges up to 400m, the Guide recommends a direct shot with "P" or 4.

              Quote: Droid
              fire should be carried out with an aim corresponding to the range of a direct shot

              And these ranges and these sights are clearly indicated:
              with trailers "P" or 4 up to 440 m chest,
              and with the sight of 6 to 600m in height.
              Everything. No other ranges and sights are indicated. Therefore, you offer the troops to arbitrar. And I propose to correct the erroneous recommendation.
              1. Droid
                Droid 25 October 2013 21: 12
                +1
                And these ranges and these sights are clearly indicated:
                with trailers "P" or 4 up to 440 m chest,
                and with the sight of 6 to 600m in height.

                It's not funny. You are already fixated on one sentence from the manual and do not want to know anything else.
                The sergeant’s textbook opens and the tablet that shows some examples of DPA for different purposes. Just after the paragraph where it is said how to determine the scope for a direct shot at the excess table any purpose.
                1. Svateev
                  Svateev 1 November 2013 13: 13
                  +1
                  Quote: Droid
                  The sergeant’s textbook opens and the tablet looks

                  Yes, look at your tablet, finally! There is NO head goal in it !!!
                  The lowest goal of your plate is (0,5-0,55м) chest.
                  Will you think about what you write ?! This is really not funny anymore.
  28. Droid
    Droid 24 October 2013 14: 27
    +1
    But recognizing the low effectiveness of this method of firing from AK, for some reason we did not find an alternative, but simply gave the range to 150 ÷ 300 to the enemy. For which we pay the catastrophic ratio of losses in the battles against M-16.

    This is when those who are armed with M16 (US soldiers) have absolute dominance in the air, at sea and on land, and any hotbed of resistance is carried out with heavy weapons? But spirits except riflemen, grenade launchers and IEDs have nothing?
    1. Rex
      Rex 25 October 2013 12: 25
      +1
      [quote = Droid] [quote]
      This is when those who are armed with M16 (US soldiers) have absolute dominance in the air, at sea and on land, and any hotbed of resistance is carried out with heavy weapons? And spirits except riflemen, grenade launchers and IEDs have nothing? [/ Quote]

      Even technology sometimes does not help.
      There was a story a few years ago in Africa - in one day, American special forces and the marines trying to pull it out lost more than 100 people killed. Plus some technique.
      And a bunch of irregular fighters with AK interrupted them.
      1. Svateev
        Svateev 25 October 2013 16: 03
        0
        Quote: Rex
        There was a story a few years ago in Africa - in one day, American special forces and the marines trying to pull it out lost more than 100 people killed

        When where?
        1. Rex
          Rex 26 October 2013 12: 12
          0
          I will not specifically look for material - if you are interested, you will find it.
          A long history - I’ll write that I remember.
          Location - possibly Somalia (I don’t remember exactly).
          The essence of the matter:
          The task force was tasked to capture the roofing felts, toli to eliminate one of the leaders.
          Landed from helicopters (seemingly without landing) in the city block.
          Almost immediately came under heavy fire. There was no chance to complete the task, they requested evacuation.
          For some reason, the helicopters did not work. Maybe because of the density of fire (maybe there were downed cars - again I don’t remember).
          As a result, marines moved to the rescue along the city streets (I don’t remember whether there were armored personnel carriers, "Hamers" - they were definitely and some of them were destroyed).
          The Marines were also surrounded and accepted the battle.
          Conditions did not allow to notice art-air support by fire.
          For more than a day (well done guys!) They fought surrounded, as a result of which they were actually exterminated.
          I don’t remember exactly - maybe there were wounded, who were captured.
          The Americans were able to break through to the battlefield only after 2 or 3 days.
          The story is clearly silent on the number of deceased Afers.
          The Yankees themselves recognized those events as one of the most unfortunate and tragic in the history of special forces.

          If you are such a serious specialist, then you will find the information and exact data.

          There was also a story in Afghanistan, when, on a similar assignment, the "seals", having come under fire, immediately requested an evacuation, and did not compete with the Taliban in shooting.
          Cited "inaccurate intelligence" as the reason for the failure. There were no killed people.
          1. Rex
            Rex 27 October 2013 02: 44
            0
            I ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR ERROR.
            I looked for data - yes, quite a while ago. Already 1993
            This is when I still subscribed to things like Zarebezhnoye Voennoye Obozreniye, Technique and Armament, and others like them ..
            Over the past years I have forgotten much.

            Here is an article on the topic. Who cares

            http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/57]
    2. Svateev
      Svateev 25 October 2013 16: 00
      0
      Quote: Droid
      This is when those who are armed with M16 (US soldiers) have absolute dominance in the air, at sea and on land, and any hotbed of resistance is carried out with heavy weapons?

      Unfortunately, not only when the NATO Allies are fighting with all their might, but also when there are small arms on both sides. For example, the battles in the famous operation in Somalia were fought mainly with small arms. Yes, the Americans had machine guns in light helicopters, but the Somalis had not only machine guns, but also RPG-7 and LNG-9. And the losses are still not in favor of our weapons: from 17: 1, if you count only the killed Somali fighters, to 30: 1 if you count all the dead Somalis. The commander of the Somali militants is a graduate of our military academy.
      Stop hiding your head in the sand! We need to shoot in order to hit!
      1. Droid
        Droid 25 October 2013 16: 11
        +1
        For example, the battles in the famous operation in Somalia were fought mainly with small arms. Yes, the Americans had machine guns in light helicopters, but the Somalis had not only machine guns, but also RPG-7 and SPG-9.




        The strike group, consisting of 2 MH-60 (callsign "Super 61" and "Super 62") and 4 MH-6 (callsign "Star 41-44") landed Delta fighters at and on the building, after which "Black hawks" provided cover with the help of the remaining snipers and mounted machine guns on board.
        The landing group - 4 MH-60 ("Super 64-67") landed the rangers of the cover group, and then were in the air in the operational reserve.
        The strike group consisted of 4 AN-6 (callsigns “Barber 51-54”), equipped with machine guns and blocks of unguided missiles.
        One helicopter MH-60 (“Super 68”) carried on board a group of specialists of the search and rescue squad
        The MH-60 helicopter of the special operations combat control group (“Super 63”) was used as the headquarters helicopter (it contained the Delta commanders and rangers).
        Air reconnaissance, as well as broadcasting video from the scene, was provided by the US Navy P-3 Orion reconnaissance aircraft and three OH-58 reconnaissance helicopters.


        The detachment (rescue convoy) left the UN peacekeepers base only at 23:11. In its composition there were 4 tanks and 24 armored personnel carriers, as well as the Humvee and trucks, the manpower of the detachment consisted of two companies of light infantry, as well as up to 50 fighters of the Ranger group.

        All night time, the pilots of the AN-6 cover helicopters continued to fly, each made 6 sorties, during which they spent 70 - 000 rounds and 80-000 unguided missiles.
        1. Svateev
          Svateev 25 October 2013 17: 40
          0
          Quote: Droid
          "Black hawks" provided cover with the help of the remaining snipers and mounted machine guns on board.

          And on these helicopters, snipers also fired from the ground (with SVD), also machine gunners (up to the DShK) and even grenade launchers with RPG-7. And two helicopters were shot down at the beginning of the operation, several more were damaged and barely stumbled to the airfield. After which the remaining helicopters were forced to rise to such a height where they were not reached. But even from there they were ineffective, although they spent ammunition and unguided missiles.
          Why don't you remember that?
          And that the ground group of Americans was left face to face with the Somalis and fought with small arms. At the same time, the Americans did not have grenade launchers. But then everyone had a collimator and (if not too lazy to take with them) night sight. Plus, everyone was trained to beat the head target. Therefore, their rifle fire was extremely effective.
          And the Somalis, shooting as we taught them, could not stop and destroy the columns of NOT armored vehicles in the city (!). One fact is that the next morning, during the evacuation, a group of Americans ran away for several quarters in the city under the fire of Somalis (not all fit into Pakistani armored personnel carriers), again firing only with small arms, and RUNNING, said that the Somalis were completely ineffective.
          Somalis, having a total numerical superiority, the full range of our small arms, were able to suppress the resistance of only very small groups of Americans - a wounded pilot of a downed helicopter plus two rangers, etc. .. Somalis could not do anything with larger groups of Americans precisely because the Americans suppressed them in a fire duel.
          The Somaisky constantly lost fire duels in which they suffered heavy losses, therefore they began to evade them - they simply hid behind the parapet. And the fire began to lead aimlessly, jumping out for a second over the parapet and shooting simply towards the target (the density of fire was created, as we taught them). Naturally, the attacks of Somalis on such an (unsuppressed) system of American fire simply choked in blood.
          This is the main reason for this ratio of losses in the "Ebon Hawk", and not the helicopters of the Americans.
          When one side is not able to hit the enemy who has taken up defense (the main target), then it strengthens the battlefield. This happened in Somalia.
        2. Svateev
          Svateev 25 October 2013 17: 46
          0
          Quote: Droid
          4 tank and 24 armored personnel carrier

          These Pakistani forces did not take part in the hostilities, they only covered the evacuation. At the same time, one of the groups of Americans was abandoned, and they fled under the fire of Somalis.
  29. akm8226
    akm8226 25 October 2013 20: 49
    0
    Well, in general, so. All conversations and calculations are good. But the thing is different - in order to emerge victorious from any clash, regardless of the distance, IT IS NECESSARY TO TRAIN PERSONAL COMPOSITION! During the battle, no one will think what and where to deviate. And even more so there is no time to set the desired sight. All this should be done on reflexes, as we have been taught. Fire - almost every day. After six months of such extreme sports, you even don’t really aim and adjust the scope without moving the whole thing - just move the aiming point. I don’t consider myself a sniper, but tell me - did you have to shoot at night at night? From AKM 7,62mm? And all my life I shot just that night SPU. Without any nozzles - practice, practice and practice again. So only shooting, comrades, only shooting. And no tricky bells and whistles are needed. We will leave the bells and whistles for snipers. That's it.
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 25 October 2013 21: 31
      0
      Quote: akm8226
      IT IS NECESSARY TO TRAIN PERSONALITY!

      The whole question is how to train: as recommended now, or still teach to beat the main goal.

      Quote: akm8226
      During the battle, no one will think what and where to deviate.

      Exactly! Therefore, we must think about it now in order to find the best solution.
      That we are doing everything here.

      Quote: akm8226
      Fire - almost every day. After six months of such extreme, you get even not particularly aiming

      After half a year of daily fire training! Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who is in the Armed Forces, Explosives (etc., etc.) is armed with a submachine gun, abandon all other things and just do what to learn to shoot from a submachine gun "on reflexes" ?!

      Do you still have "reflexes" now? Now you will get to transfer the aiming point? Can you instantly determine the range and shift the aiming point to the required value? Let's bet you can't.

      But to set the 3 scope and aim at the lower edge of the target, never forget how, all your life.

      This is the difference between these shooting methods.

      Sights, after all, exist in order to quickly learn to shoot accurately without doing a waste of time.
      1. akm8226
        akm8226 25 October 2013 21: 39
        0
        The most interesting thing is that last summer I tried the same reflexes ...))) it turns out they are all alive.)) And the habit of shooting always with a belt is also alive. But 36 years have passed already. What a fight we had! And in the tail and mane!)))
        1. Svateev
          Svateev 1 November 2013 13: 30
          0
          Quote: akm8226
          The most interesting thing is that last summer I tried those same reflexes

          Actually very interesting:
          What was the frequency of hitting the main target at a range from 150 to 300m last summer? How many targets from how many bursts (single shots) hit?
  30. Nick
    Nick 22 March 2019 21: 02
    0
    In general, the machine should provide a high density of fire, and for shooting at a range of 300-400 m. It is better to use SVD
  31. Vadim Borisov
    Vadim Borisov 18 February 2020 23: 48
    +1
    Very interesting work. But questions arise:
    1. Where did it come from that the third bullet in the queue "returns approximately to the midpoint of the first bullet hit"?
    According to the experience per 100 m, the second 5,45 mm bullet really goes above the N4 thoracic target. But the third bullet goes even higher than the second! Especially with the AKS-74U. When you charge 100% with tracers, it is clearly visible from the side even without inspecting the targets.
    At 200 meters and beyond, isn’t it pointless to shoot bursts at ordinary targets?
    2. Where does it come from that the greatest probability of defeat in a limited time is in bursts of 3 rounds? In the time that is needed for 4 aiming bursts of 3 rounds can be 5 accurate single shots? In this case, in the first case, 4 targets will be hit, and in the second - 5. And this ammunition consumption will be 12/5.
    3. It is necessary to clearly determine for what cases generally need automatic fire from AK (RPK) -74 and in what mode.
    4. Flying, as was rightly noted, is better than flying, quite often when hit in front of the target, it is still amazed (by the principle of billiards).
    In addition, often even at firing range, for some reason, the arrows begin to aim not at the edge, but in the center of the target, while of course there are even more flights and misses.
    But, a paradox, but also a fact: targets N 4, 5 at 150-250 m, for example, some shooters are clearly better hit by the "P" sight than "3". Maybe this is due to the fact that for better visibility of the target, the shooter takes not just a bleed, but a bleed? At the same time, the average maximum excess of trajectories from 40-50 cm decreases to 20-30 cm? And then it goes the sight "P" not at 440, but at 340 meters, with a maximum excess of 30 cm, isn't that what you need for a firefight? At the same time, the growth target N 8 with the "P" sight without rearrangement can be shot not at the middle of the target, but lower (which also improves the visibility of the target) "on the hips", count from 0 to 0,5 km?
    5. The short size of the front sight (for the average normal application) is 74 cm per 30 m for the AK-100, 74 cm for the RPK-25, and 74 cm for the AKS-35U. Accordingly, the horizontal dimension of the target will fit into the front sight for the AK- 74, AKS-74U at about 150 m, for RPK-74 - at 200 m ...
    Is the reticle PSO-1 not fully compatible for the AK-74 trajectories at working distances?
    6. It was clearly noted that after a normal shooting of a weapon from a stable position (lying, with an emphasis of the correct hardness), the STP, when firing, for example, lying with its elbows or standing, comes out 300 meters below centimeters by 20 (by 100 meters - by 7 centimeters) ! Maybe this also needs to be taken into account in manuals?