Jackass in military uniform

Instead of an epigraph
1941 year, the defense of Moscow.

“When I got there, I went down the wet steps to the dungeon of the command post.
- Ah, comrade Momysh-Ula, please come ...
It was a familiar hoarse voice.
I saw General Ivan Vasilyevich Panfilov.
- You, Comrade Momysh-Ula, could hear how we are today? - he squinted, he asked with a smile.
It is difficult to convey how pleasant at that moment was his calm, affable voice, his crafty squint. I suddenly felt not alone, not left alone with an enemy who knows something, a mystery of war unknown to me — a man who had never experienced a fight. It was thought: her, this secret, is also known by our general - the soldier of the last world war, and then, after the revolution, the commander of the battalion, regiment, division.
Panfilov continued:
“They beat it off ... Phew!” He caught his breath jokingly. - I was afraid. Just do not tell anyone, comrade Momysh-Ula. Tanks because they broke through ... Here he is, - Panfilov pointed to the adjutant, - was with me there, saw something. Well, say: how did you meet?
Jumping in, the adjutant happily said:
- They met us with a breast, comrade general.
Strange, steep kink, black panfilov eyebrows raised with displeasure.
- Breast? He asked. “No, sir, you can easily pierce your chest with any sharp thing, not just a bullet.” Eka said: breastfeed. Now entrust a company to such an eccentric in military uniform, and he will lead her to the tanks with her breast. Not breast, and fire! Guns met! Did not see what?
The adjutant hastened to agree. But Panfilov once again caustically repeated:
- Breast ... Go, see if they feed the horses ... And after half an hour they started to saddle.
The adjutant, waving, confusedly left.
- Young! - Panfilov said softly.
Looking at me, then at the captain unfamiliar to me, Panfilov drummed his fingers on the table.
“You can't fight breast infantry,” he said. - Especially, comrades, to us now. We have here, near Moscow, not a lot of troops ... We must take care of the soldier.
Thinking, he added:
“To protect not with words, but with action, fire.”
[Alexander Beck, Volokolamsk Highway, §2, One Hour with Panfilov].

1877-78 Russian-Turkish war.

Before the Russian-Turkish war, new rifles appeared in the armies of the world, which sharply increased the range and the probability of hitting the target. In addition, the new rifles were rapid. But in the Russian defense ministry, these innovations could not be assessed, according to the combat regulations, the combat formations of our troops remained closed and dense.

October 12 Our Life Guardsmen attacked Turkish redoubts near the villages of Gornij Dubnjak and Telish. The infantry regiments, according to the regulations, went on the attack “in battalion columns, in perfect order, as in a parade ... According to eyewitnesses, the commanders of the guards were walking at the head of their regiments with their balaclavas. Another - an eyewitness to the onset of the Izmailovsky regiment - wrote that "... the head companies were walking in an extended front, the officers in their places beat time:" Keep up! Left! Left! "[1877].

And the Turkish troops were already armed with new Winchester rapid-fire infantry rifles and Peabody-Martini rifles. And their artillery learned how to efficiently fire a canister.

Twice our Izmailovs, Finns, Pavlovians, Muscovites and arrows turned up to the attack, but the strong return fire from the Turks did not allow it to be successfully completed. The losses were heavy ... So, the Pavlovsky regiment (who started the attack) lost 400 lower ranks, Izmailovsky - 228 ... In the ranks of the attackers was the head of the 2-th Guards Division count Shuvalov. By the end of the battle, only two of the ranks of his staff remained in the ranks ... This is what the eyewitness recalled from the Russian side about this fight: "... fell in piles; without exaggeration, in two and a half - three arshins were heaps of wounded and killed ... [1]" .

From 9 o'clock in the morning to 5 o'clock in the evening, the Guardsmen followed the requirements of the outdated, not revised in time, charter. The total losses of those killed and wounded during the taking of the redoubt near the village of Gorny Dubnyak amounted to 3 general, 126 officers, 3410 lower ranks. Of these, 870 people were killed [1,2].

The village of Telish in the same ceremonial manner attacked the Leib-huntsman. Their attack was also repulsed, and the Egersky regiment lost 27 officers and 1300 of the lower ranks [1] of which nearly a thousand [2] were killed. The officer and artist Vasily Vereshchagin, who was a part of the Russian army, showed the results of these attacks in the film “The Defeated. Requiem for the fallen soldiers. "

Figure 1. Vasily Vereshchagin. “The vanquished. Requiem for the fallen soldiers "

Redut near the village of Gorniy Dubnyak on October 12 was still possible. But not because "they filled up the enemy with corpses." Losses in general not only do not bring victory, but put it off: with our great losses, the enemy affirms his strength, becomes bolder and more stubborn. Redut Gorni Dubnyak was taken because they changed tactics. And the Guards sappers were the first to do this, since "they were poorly trained in the infantry battle formation." Here is what the eyewitness of this fight wrote:

"... Soon, Captain Pavlovsky, a regimental adjutant of the Grenadier Regiment's Life Guards, approached them and asked for help. The Guards grenadiers suffered heavy losses and are no longer able to move to the big Turk redoubt.
When two companies of guards sappers came to the edge of the forest, they saw a large mass of soldiers of the guard infantry lying between two Turkish redoubts under fire.
Lieutenant Rengarten turned his sapper into a rare chain and threw a small redoubt at a throw, being beyond the reach of artillery fire. Guards sappers quickly dug in, as the Turks began to fire at them with rifle fire. In this case, the company lost only two soldiers. It was about October 13-00 12 "[1].

By evening, the infantry pushed aside the ceremonial training, which led to losses and failures. Contrary to the requirements of the statute, having scattered on the ground in small groups, the infantry went on the attack, which was begun by the commander of the 2 Battalion of the Izmailovsky Regiment, Colonel Kshivitsky with three companies. One by one, in groups, from the shelter to the shelter, the guards sappers, Izmailovs, Muscovites, Pavlovians and Finns leaked onto the shaft and already in the dark with a cry of “Hurray!” broke into enemy trenches, where they entered into bayonet fighting. The Turks could not stand the melee and surrendered to the morning of October 13 [1].

“Mountaineer Dubnyak, in essence, was to be the last attack in the“ good old youth style ”, when at a fortified height, defended by an adversary armed with modern rapid-fire weapons, the best armies of the empire — the personal guard of the emperor — were thrown into a bayonet attack by closed ranks.

Due to the huge losses of the brilliant guard during the battle of local significance, Much Dubnyak was written and talked a lot after the Russian-Turkish war, but in practice they didn’t learn any lessons. In August, 1914 near the village of Zarashov, in June 1916 on the South-Western Front near the Stokhod River - the Guard repeated everything first ... For the last time ... "[1].

1942, the Battle of Stalingrad, the battle for Mamaev Kurgan

Do not be embarrassed by the fact that we are talking about a company and a battalion in the book of Viktor Nekrasov, and the number of personnel is like in a squad and platoon: it's just not their first battle.

“Major sniffles pipe. Coughs.
- Not a damn thing suppressed ... Not a damn ...
Abrosimov calls in the second, in the third battalion. Same picture. Zalegli. Machine guns and mortars do not give the head to raise. The major departs from the embrasure. His face is somehow swollen, tired.
- One and a half hours rumbled, and do not take ... survivors, devils. Kerzhentsev, the major says very quietly. - Nothing you do here. Go to your former battalion. To Shiryaev. Help ... - And, snoring a pipe: - There you have the Germans still dug the message. Shiryaev invented how to capture them. Put machine guns and pitch them in the flank. In the forehead, we still will not take.
- Take! - Abrosimov screaming unnaturally somehow - And we'll take it in the forehead, if we don't hide in the pits. ... Fire, you see, strong, does not allow to rise.
Usually his calm, cold eyes are now round and bloodshot. The lip is all trembling.
- Raise them, raise! Stale!
“But you do not boil, Abrosimov,” says the major calmly, and he waves his hand to me, go, they say.
...
Half an hour later, everything is ready at Shiryaev. In three places our trenches are connected with the German ones - on a hill in two and in a ravine. Each of them has two mined dam. At night, Shiryayev, with attached sappers, extended detonating cords to them. Trenches from us to the Germans checked, shot about a dozen minutes.
Everything is good. Shiryaev slaps his knee.
- Thirteen Gavrikov crawled back. We live! Let them rest for now, watch out. The rest of the ten people on the passage empty. Not so bad. BUT?
His eyes sparkle. A hat, shaggy, white, on one ear, hair stuck to his forehead.
...
We are standing in a trench at the entrance to the dugout. Shiryaev's eyes suddenly squint, his nose wrinkles. Grabs my hand.
- Fir-stick ... Climbs already.
- Who?
Across the ravine, clutching at the bushes, Abrosimov clambers. Behind him is connected.
Abrosimov shouts from afar:
- What the hell did I send you here? Lyasy sharpen, or what?
Out of breath, unbuttoned, there is foam in the corners of the mouth, eyes round, ready to jump out.
- I ask you - do you think whether to fight or not, your mother ...
“We think,” Shiryaev calmly replies.
- Then fight, damn you take ...
“Allow me to explain,” everything is just as calm, restrained, only the nostrils are trembling, says Shiryaev. Abrosimov reddens:
- I'll explain those ... - Grabs the holster. - Step march to attack!
I feel something boiling in me. Shiryaev breathes heavily, bowing his head. Fists clenched.
- Step march to attack! Have you heard? I will not repeat again!
He has a gun in his hands. The fingers are completely white. No bloodshed.
“I will not go to any attack until you listen to me,” gritting his teeth and uttering terribly slowly uttering every word, says Shiryaev.
For a few seconds they look into each other's eyes. Now they mate. Never have I seen Abrosimov like that.
- Major ordered me to seize those out trenches. I agreed with him ...
“They don't agree in the army, but carry out orders,” interrupts Abrosimov. “What did I order you in the morning?”
- Kerzhentsev has just confirmed to me ...
“What did I order you in the morning?”
- Attack.
- Where is your attack?
- I choked, because ...
“I don’t ask why ...” And, suddenly angry, he waves a pistol in the air. - Step march to attack! Shoot like cowards! Order not to perform! ..
It seems to me that he will fall down and be convulsed.
- All commanders ahead! And go ahead yourself! I will show you how to save my own skin ... Some trenches were invented by myself. Three hours as an order given ...
...
Machine guns put us almost immediately. The fighter running next to me falls down at once, flat, with his arms spread wide in front of him. I start up a fresh, still-smelling, crater funnel. Someone jumps over me. Sprinkle with earth. Also falling. Quickly going over and over, crawling somewhere to the side. Bullets whistle above the ground, hit the sand, squeal. Somewhere near a mine is torn.
I lay on my side, curled up in a ball, my legs tucked up to my chin.
No one shouts "Hurray!"
German machine guns are not silent for a second. It is quite clearly possible to disassemble how a machine-gunner turns a machine-gun - like a fan - from right to left, from left to right.
I cling to the ground with all my might. The funnel is quite large, but in my opinion, the left shoulder still looks out. Hands digging the ground. From the gap it is soft, gives in quite easily. But this is only the top layer, clay will go on. I frantically, like a dog, scrub the ground.
Tr-rah! Mine. I just sprinkle the earth.
Tr-rah! The second. Then the third, fourth. I close my eyes and stop digging. They noticed, probably, as I was throwing out the ground.
I lay there with bated breath ... Nearby someone groans: "Aaaaaa ..." Nothing more, just "aaaaaa ...". Evenly, without any intonation, on one note. ...
The machine gun starts firing intermittently, but still low, just above the ground. I absolutely can not understand why I am intact - not injured, not killed. Fifty meters to climb a machine gun - sure death. ...
The wounded man still groans. Without a break, but quieter.
The Germans carry the fire into the depths of defense. Breaks are heard already far behind. Bullets fly much higher. We decided to leave alone. ...
I make a small roller out of the ground in the direction of the Germans. Now we can circle back and look, I do not see it.
The fighter who ran beside me still stretches out his arms. His face is turned towards me. Eyes open. It seems that he put his ear to the ground and listens to something. A few steps from him - the other. Only legs in thick cloth windings and yellow boots are visible.
I count fourteen corpses altogether. Some, probably, from the morning attack remained. ...
Wounded all moans. He lies a few steps from my funnel, prone, head to me. Cap next. Hair black, curly, terribly familiar. Arms bent, pressed to the body. He crawls. Slowly, slowly crawling, not raising the head. Alone on the elbows crawling. Legs dragging helplessly. And all the while groaning. Quite quiet already.
I do not take my eyes off him. I do not know how to help him. I don't even have an individual package with me.
He is very close. Hand can reach.
- Come on, come here, - I whisper and stretch my hand.
The head is rising. Black, big eyes, already covered by the death thunder. Kharlamov ... My former chief of staff ... Looks and won't find out. On the face no suffering. Some kind of dullness. Forehead, cheeks, teeth in the ground. The mouth is ajar. The lips are white.
- Come on, come on here ...
Resting his elbows on the ground, he crawls to the funnel itself. Stuck his face into the ground. I put my hands under his arms, dragging him into the funnel. He is all kind of soft, boneless. Knocks head first. Feet completely lifeless.
With difficulty I stack it. Two closely in the funnel. I have to put his legs on his. He lies, his head thrown back, looking at the sky. Hard and rarely breathes. The gymnast and the upper part of the pants in the blood. I unzip his belt. Raise my shirt. Two small neat holes in the right side of the abdomen. I understand that he will die. ...
So we are lying - I and Kharlamov, cold, sprawling, with snowflakes in their hands. Clock stopped. I can not determine how much time we lie. Feet and arms go numb. Again seizes cramp. How much can you lie like that? Maybe just jump and run? Thirty meters - five seconds, at most, until the machine gunner remembers. Thirteen people ran out in the morning.
In the neighboring funnel, someone tosses. Against the background of white snow that is beginning to melt, a gray patch of earflaps is stirring. A head appears for a second. Hiding. Shown again. Then suddenly a man immediately jumps out of the funnel and runs. Quickly, quickly, pressing his hands to the sides, bent over, throwing his legs high.
He runs three-quarters of the way. There are some eight to ten meters to the trenches. His mowing machine gun. He takes a few more steps and falls straight forward with his head. So it remains to lie in three steps from our trenches. For some time, the overcoat darkens in the snow, and then it turns white. Snow is coming and coming ...
Then three more run. Almost all three at once. One in a short sweatshirt. The overcoat must have thrown off to make it easier to run. Kills him almost on the parapet. The second is a few steps away. The third manages to jump into the trench. On the German side, the machine gun for a long time puts a bullet after a bullet in the place where the fighter disappeared. ...
A small lump of clay strikes me in the ear. I shudder. The second falls near, near the knee. Someone throws at me. I raise my head. From a neighboring crater looks cheeked, unshaven face. ...
- Let's run. - Also could not resist.
“Come on,” I reply.
We go for a little trick. The previous three killed almost at the parapet. It is necessary, without reaching our trenches, to fall. By the time of the queue we will lie. Then with one jerk straight into the trenches. Maybe lucky.
- Go!
- Gone.
Snow ... Funnel ... Killed ... Snow again ... Falling onto the ground. And almost immediately: "Ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta ..."
- alive?
- Alive.
Lying face in the snow. Hands spread out. Left leg under the belly. It will be easier to jump up. There are five steps to the trenches or six. Out of the corner of my eye I devour this piece of land.
We must wait a minute or two to calm the machine gunner. Now he will not fall into us, we are too low.
You can hear someone walking in the trenches, talking. Words are not heard.
- Well - it's time.
“Get ready,” I say, not lifting my head into the snow.
“Yes,” replies on the left.
I'm all tense. In temples knocks.
- Come on!
Pushing off Three jumps and - in a trench.
We sit for a long time later, right in the dirt, at the bottom of the trench and laugh. Someone gives a cigarette butt. ...
In all, the battalion lost twenty-six people, almost half, not counting the wounded. ...
...
I'm late for the trial. I come when the major is already speaking. In the tube of the second battalion, this is the most spacious room on our site — it's so full of smoke that there are almost no faces. Abrosimov sits at the wall. The lips are compressed, white, dry. Eyes - in the wall. ...
Turning his head, the major looks at Abrosimov with a long, heavy look.
- I know that I am guilty. I am responsible for the people, not the chief of staff. And for this operation I am responsible. And when the divisional commander shouted at Abrosimov today, I knew that he was screaming at me. And he is right. - The Major runs his hand through his hair, gives us a tired look. - There is no war without casualties. That's the war. But what happened in the second battalion yesterday is no longer a war. This is extermination. Abrosimov exceeded his power. He canceled my order. And canceled twice. In the morning - by phone, and then myself, driving people to the attack.
“It was ordered to attack the tanks ...” Abrosimov interrupts with a dry, wooden voice, without taking his eyes off the wall. - And the people did not go on the attack ...
- You're lying! - The Major punches the table so that the spoon in the glass rattles. But then he restrains himself. Sips tea from a glass. - People went on the attack. But not the way you wanted it. People walked headlong. What did you do? Did you see what the first attack led to? But there could not be otherwise. We were counting on artillery preparation. It was necessary immediately, without letting the enemy recover, to hit him. And it did not work out ... The enemy turned out to be stronger and more cunning than we thought. We were unable to suppress his firing points. I sent an engineer to the second battalion. There was Shiryaev - a guy with a head. From the night he was still preparing everything to capture the German trenches. And cleverly prepared. And you ... And what did Abrosimov do? ...
They say a few more people. Then I. For me - Abrosimov. He is brief. He believes that the tanks could be taken only by a massive attack. That's all. And he demanded that this attack be carried out. Combat cherish people, so do not like attacks. Buck could only take an attack. And he is not guilty that people in bad faith reacted to this, chickened out.
- chickened out? .. - is heard from somewhere in the depths of the pipe.
All turn around. Awkward, head and shoulders above all those around him, in his short, ridiculous little overcoat, squeezes himself towards Farber's desk.
- chickened out, you say? Shiryaev chickened out? Karnaukhov chickened out? Are you talking about them?
Farber gasps, blinks with short-sighted eyes - he smashed his glasses yesterday, squinting.
“I saw everything ... I saw it with my own eyes ... How Shiryaev walked ... And Karnaukhov, and ... everything went as it is ... I can't speak ... I know them recently ... Karnaukhov and others ... As you only turn your tongue. Bravery is not about to climb with a bare chest on a machine gun. Abrosimov ... Captain Abrosimov said that it was ordered to attack the tanks. Not to attack, but to master. The trenches invented by Shiryayev are not cowardice. This is a reception. The correct reception. He would save people. Saved so that they could fight. Now they are not. And I think ... - His voice breaks down, he is looking for a glass, he does not find, waves his hand. - I think such people cannot be, they cannot be commanded ...
Farber finds no words, goes astray, blushes, looks for glass again, and suddenly he immediately blurts out:
- You yourself are a coward! You did not go on the attack! And they kept me still. I saw everything ... - And, having twitched his shoulder, clinging with the hooks of the overcoat to the neighbors, he squeezes back. ...
...
In the evening comes Lisagor. Slam the door. Peeps into the pan. Stops near me.
- Well? - I ask.
- Demoted and - in the penalty area.
We don’t speak about Abrosimov anymore. The next day he leaves, without saying goodbye to anyone, with a bag over his shoulders.
I never saw him again and never heard of him. ”
[Victor Nekrasov, "In the trenches of Stalingrad"].

1991-2003 US wars against Iraq

"The so-called tactics of actions used by Iraqis, as if" taken from Soviet textbooks of the Second World War era, were surprisingly surprising. In their case, the Iraqi generals, in the opinion of the emerging favorable conditions, threw their infantry into a frontal attack under the destruction of all powerful living fire of American means of destruction [3].

Note that Iraq lost the war with an incredible loss ratio - according to various estimates, from 75: 1 (lost 150 thousand killed) to 300: 1 (lost more than 600 thousand killed) against about 2 thousand losses of the Americans and their allies.

February 2013 of

“The modern dynamics of close combat requires a high combat rate of fire on massive, high-speed targets, therefore modern AK-74 (AKM) automatic rifles are fired from the constant“ P ”sight ...”
[Conclusion FGKU "3 Central Research Institute" of the Ministry of Defense of Russia, ref. No.3 / 3 / 432 from 08.02.2013].

Since the battles near the villages of Gorny Dubnyak and Telish, 125 years have passed, the destructiveness of the “massive attack” has not yet been proven in blood. In foreign armies, such tactics have long caused only amazement, it is considered “complete insanity and self-destructive fanaticism that does not bring any benefit in battle” [3] and their combat regulations are not provided for. But, as we see, our Ministry of Defense invented a convenient enemy for itself, who is still attacking with a "massive, high-speed" crowd under our automatic fire.

And if this invented enemy still has to lie down, then he is not hiding behind any parapet, but always lies down in an open place so that he can be quickly killed. Our Ministry of Defense is so confident in this that the sights of Kalashnikov’s machine guns and machine guns of all models, as well as instructions (guides) on them, are optimized for a direct shot at targets with a height of 0,5. The target with a height of 0,5 m (chest target) simulates an arrow lying on a level place and shooting with elbows set shoulder-width apart. The position “P” of the sight of our automatic rifles is equal to the range of a direct shot precisely at the chest target.

The Russian Defense Ministry has assigned a pectoral target to the machine gun, and does not want to know anything else:

"The main targets hit from the machine are targets similar in size to the height and chest (and not the head) figure of a soldier."
[Conclusion FGKU "3 Central Research Institute" of the Ministry of Defense of Russia, ref. No.3 / 3 / 432 from 08.02.2013].

But common sense, stories of veterans, photographic documents suggest the opposite: each fighter seeks to hide behind the parapet. Whether created, natural, just to hide. Therefore, in combat, there are mostly head targets.

Figure 2.

And the shooter behind the parapet is not a chest target, but a head target (the height of the whole 0,3 m).

Figure 3. [3, Supported fighting position], "Manual for planning and executing training on the 5.56-mm M16A1 and M16A2 rifles".

And when our submachine gunners with a sight for the chest figure shoot at a lower head, then at distances from 150 m to 300 m, the average trajectory of bullets goes above the target. Because of this, the probability of hitting the head - the most common and most dangerous (it is she firing) - the target is extremely small: it drops to 0,19 [4].

Figure 4.

Since our submachine gunners practically cannot reach the head target, these targets in our “Shooting Course” only a sniper learns to hit - one barrel from the entire branch. But SVD alone cannot win a fight. The machine gunners must and, most importantly, are likely to hit head targets if the AK-74 is to be fired with a direct shot not with the “P” or “4” sight, but with the “3” sight. Then the probability of hitting each machine gunner in the most common goal in battle - the head one - will increase on average 2 times, and at a distance of 250 m - 4 times! If we take into account the number of automatic weapons in the armed forces, then the significance of such a change in the firing of an automaton can be compared with the significance of tactical nuclear weapons.

All of the above, I proved in the work "The submachine gun must and can hit the head figure." The work was published by the Academy of Military Sciences in its edition “Vestnik AVN” No. 2 for 2013, the updated version of the work is posted on the Academy's scientific forum site: www.avnrf.ru (http://www.avnrf.ru/index.php/forum / 5-nauchnye-voprosy / 746-avtomatchik-dolzhen-i-mozhet-porazhat-golovnuyu-tsel # 746).

2013 October, the

And I re-sent my proposals, already supported by this work, to the Ministry of Defense. The answer came from the commander of the military unit 64176 (Main Rocket and Artillery Directorate):

“The analysis of the materials presented by you with the involvement of specialists from FSUE“ 3 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ”showed the following:
1. The proposals set forth in the materials “The machine gunner should and can hit the head figure” are of no interest to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. ... I recommend you to contact the FSUE “TsNIITOCHMASH”, Klimovsk, for an independent opinion.
[Ex. No. 561 / 7467 from 16.10.2013].

November 2014, XNUMX

The media is discussing a competition for a new machine. The tests are AEK-971, in which the dispersion of shots in 1,5 times less than the AK-74. The developers of the other tested automaton - AK-12 - also declare the small dispersion of their offspring. It is understood that a small dispersion of shots (bullets) is good.

However, small dispersion is good only when the average trajectory of shots did not go beyond the contours of the target. Then, narrowing the sheaf of trajectories, more bullets are sent to the target and fewer bullets go beyond the dimensions of the target. The likelihood of hitting is growing.

If the average trajectory of the shots is beyond the contours of the target, then reducing the dispersion (narrowing the sheaf of dispersion) leads to the fact that more bullets go past the target, and less bullets hit the target. Chance to hit is reduced.

As shown in Figure 4, with a direct shot with “4” or “P” sights at distances from 150 m to 300 m, the average trajectory is above the head target. This means that if the “P” sight on the chest target remains on the new machine, then the combat (on the head target) effectiveness of firing the new machine will be significantly worse than the AK-74.

If we adopt a new assault rifle with a “P” sight on the pectoral target, then we will get an even lower probability of hitting the most common and most dangerous target in battle - the head one.

The output is elementary: on the new machine gun, the “P” sight must be made appropriate to the range of a direct shot at the head target - around 350 m. Then the average trajectory of the shots will not rise above the upper edge of the head target, remain in the contours of the target. And because the smaller dispersion of the new machine gun really will significantly increase its combat effectiveness.

I indicated all this in my appeal to FSUE TsNIITOCHMASH, and, as recommended by Grau, I sent an appeal to Klimovsk.
Conclusion TSNIITOCHMASH says (out. No. 597 / 24 from 05.02.2014):

Why, this is exactly what I have been offering for more than a year! So what? Now, scientists from TsNIITOCHMASH will propose to change the method of firing at AK-74, and do the developed machine gun recommend to immediately install the “P” sight of the appropriate range of a direct shot at the head target? No, scientists from TsNIITOCHMASH are not like this:

This means that the new machine gun is being developed not for combat, but for a shooting range where the target situation does not correspond to the battle.

So, since the fighting near the villages of Gorny Dubnyak and Telish, 125 years have passed, and the destructiveness of the “massive attack” has been proven more than once in blood. All our probable opponents have been fighting for a long time in dispersed orders, necessarily hiding behind the parapet.

But the people currently occupying responsible posts in our Ministry of Defense are still preparing to fight only with a “massive, speedy goal” and do not want to hear anything about the need for the machine gunner (by the way, the machine gunner too) to hit a low target. And scientists from the 3 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense and from TsNIITOCHMASH are not worried about what a soldier needs in a battle, but about how not to cause anxiety to officials from the Ministry of Defense. But you have to redo the regulatory documents!

For some reason, I am sure that General Ivan Vasilyevich Panfilov would call such officials of the Ministry of Defense, and such military scientists, “eccentrics in military uniform”!

References:
[1] "The assault of Mountain Dubnyak 12-13 October 1877 of the year." Ladygin I.V., Anatomy of the Army website, http://army.armor.kiev.ua/.
[2] “Gambit on the Sofia highway (October 12 1877). Part II. Shikanov V.N., the site of the Military-Historical Club “Fatherland”, the Life-Grenadier Regiment, http://leibgrenader.clan.su/.
[3] "Pyrrhic victory of the American troops." Pechurov S., site http://nvo.ng.ru/, 09.11.2013.
[4] "The submachine gun must and can hit the head piece." V. Svateev, “Bulletin of the Academy of Military Sciences” No. 2 for 2013, the updated version is available on the website of the Academy of Military Sciences at: http://www.avnrf.ru/index.php/forum/5-nauchnye- voprosy / 746-avtomatchik-dolzhen-i-mozhet-porazhat-golovnuyu-tsel # 746.

Comments

[Zapasnoy]

Maybe the author is right. While our bureaucratic apparatus is swinging to introduce amendments to new tactics of warfare, how many people may die. It is very reminiscent of the author's cry of the words of a blacksmith from the tale of N.S. Leskov about the Tula Lefty: “- Tell the emperor that the British do not clean their guns with bricks: even if they do not clean them here either, otherwise, God save war, they are not good for shooting,” Lefty pronounced, crossed himself and died. ... the sovereign was never told, and the purge continued until the Crimean company itself ... "

[Max_Bauder]

I absolutely agree with the author of the article. Technique is nothing in itself, you have to be able to manage it. And people rule (Arab-Israeli). The same goes for weapons. Whoever shoots well and wins even in small numbers (Anglo-Boer). I would also add the words of the American General Patton (although the enemy spoke cleverly): "The goal of a soldier is not to die for the country, but to force the enemy UBLYUDKA to do it."

[jjj]

End of the seventies of the last century. They shot from the AKS-74 always at a sight of 300 m. We were told that this is the "correct direct shot". They hit targets closer than 150 meters, not even aiming for sure. It worked itself out. True, then there were cartridges, which are now prohibited.
I believe that the machine should disperse the bullets fired by the queue. So the likelihood of getting into it increases and the affected area rises. In quick skirmishes at short range it helps

[Svateev]

Quote: Max_Bauder

the words of the American General Patton (though the enemy spoke cleverly): "The goal of the soldier is not to die for the country, but to force the enemy UBLYUDKA to do it."

“The truth of war is not in the word“ die. ”The truth of war in the word“ kill ”is from the same book“ Volokolamskoe Highway. ”I strongly advise those who have not read it. There, from discipline, through overcoming fear, to the art of tactics, and all this is documentary a story about a real battalion of Panfilov's division. ”At the school, this book was given almost like a textbook.

[Zapasnoy]

Quote: Svateev

“The truth of war is not in the word“ die. ”The truth of war in the word“ kill ”is from the same book“ Volokolamskoe Highway. ”I strongly advise those who have not read it. There, from discipline, through overcoming fear, to the art of tactics, and all this is documentary a story about a real battalion of Panfilov's division. ”At the school, this book was given almost like a textbook.

I confirm, a cool book. Read in one go. Much becomes clear in the defense tactics of Moscow in the fall-winter of 1941. As in the absence of a continuous defensive line (I generally keep quiet about separation), with a small amount of strength exhaust the enemy on the way. How to organize the independent work of the unit in the absence of constant communication with the headquarters. Great book and great tutorial.

[Turkish Granite]

Well, where there, it’s altering so many instructions, and introducing them into the BP system, requiring execution, checking. Combine armaments to alter ... It is better to introduce a new form.

[omsbon]

The number of fools in the Moscow Region depends on the volume of their stomachs, the larger the abdomen, the greater the obesity of the brain!

[MahsusNazar]

Right, author, right!
All the time I remember how, during the inspection, the inspector set the task for our company to demonstrate actions in the attack, and when I didn’t drive everyone head-on, he ordered to stop and try again, while telling how to lead people into the attack, being behind the advancing chain and giving orders not to "stale".
We are still attacking at full height and are shooting at the tank with a machine gun.
With any of my initiatives, I received comments and penalties, as - this is not according to the charter.
All the same, I taught what can be useful in battle. I am proud that I had no losses.

[SLX]

Quote: Svateev V.I.

So, 125 years have passed since the fighting near the villages of Gorniy Dubnyak and Telish, and the destructiveness of the “massive attack” has been proved more than once by blood.

Whose blood and harm to whom? For example, in Afghanistan on Khost and in other "lands of unafraid idiots" stoned warriors of Allah tried to go full-length attacks on "armor" and "cornflowers". There was really a lot of blood and corpses.

For over 125 years, the weapons system has changed more than once. Namely, the weapon system, and not just the machine guns alone, create the fire system of the units. And in this fire system there is someone to deal with dangerous small-sized goals.

Quote: Svateev V.I.

All our probable opponents have long fought in dispersed orders, always hiding behind the parapet.

Our probable opponents, hidden behind the parapet, will shoot not only from machine guns. Therefore, the defeat of such targets should be considered in the holistic picture of modern combined arms combat, and not in the form of separate fire duels "submachine gunner against submachine gunner".

Quote: Svateev V.I.

If we adopt a new assault rifle with a “P” sight on the pectoral target, then we will get an even lower probability of hitting the most common and most dangerous target in battle - the head one.

The combat effectiveness of weapons is calculated and tested in practice at all distances and for all targets. Low combat effectiveness in some "ranges" is not fatal and may well be compensated for by other weapons included in the unit's weapons system or given to this unit to change tactical capabilities.

Specifically for the machine, an increase in combat effectiveness at certain distances should not entail a deterioration thereof at other distances, and if this happens, the improvement should significantly compensate for this deterioration. And the optimal solution to this problem for such a massive weapon as an assault rifle is not as simple as it seems at first glance. And it must be justified by serious theoretical research and confirmed by practical shooting and experimental exercises.

In addition, the author for some reason forgets or does not want to take into account that the installation of the correct sight is the direct responsibility of the shooter and is one of the basic knowledge necessary for this shooter. And the control of these installations and the timely return of commands to change them are the responsibilities of junior commanders, which so far no one has removed from them, and these responsibilities are one of the components of the process of controlling fire on the battlefield.

Therefore, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel, but it is necessary to teach a soldier to shoot live ammunition under various conditions a lot and regularly, and not like in an SA.

[Max_Bauder]

I agree with your suggestions, I would add, or rather correct it. The world of armaments does not stand still, and every time it is necessary to change, no, it is better to adjust the charter, those parts where the tactics of defense and attack are described.

For example, you talked about Afghanistan, there and then in Chechnya, you used RPGs against infantry, perfumes against SAs, when his appointment was completely different, and you know the effectiveness was good. But as you know, RPGs in a motorized rifle platoon are not many. True, then bumblebees appeared, but it is desirable that there be more of them, because now the war is often urban, and you need to smoke it somehow.

recently saw a photo of the barricades in Slavyansk, Lugansk (Ukraine), I thought: why, you can blow it with an RPG shell or just a large-caliber crumbling basalt in the sand.

Have you also watched the movie "Turkish Gambit"? one moment is also described there, the Russian troops went on a campaign in battalions in columns, here shrapnel shells burst from above right over their heads, also a new invention of that period, like the Winchester rifle, the effectiveness of shrapnel before buckshot is that buckshot immediately flies from the cannon, and if the infantry over the hill, it will not reach it, but the canister will get it, the projectile flies over their heads and then explodes. This is how the Turks, shooting from afar, destroyed almost a whole regiment. Well, this is an okay movie, but the real application is:

"The most significant in terms of efficiency case of the use of shrapnel shells is considered to be the battle that took place on August 7, 1914 between the armies of France and Germany. The commander of the 6th battery of the 42nd regiment of the French army, Captain Lombal, during the battle, discovered at a distance of 5000 meters from their positions, German troops leaving The captain ordered to open fire from 75-mm guns with shrapnel shells at this concentration of troops. 4 guns fired 4 rounds each. As a result of this shelling, the 21st Prussian Dragoon regiment, which was being rebuilt at that moment from the marching column into battle formation lost about 700 people killed and about the same number of horses and ceased to exist as a combat unit. "(Wikipedia-Shrapnel)

Now the American army has a unique automatic grenade launcher, just for firing enemy soldiers hiding behind parapets, the uniqueness is that it uses a shrapnel system, a projectile flies up and then explodes, the difference is the value at which firing range the projectile itself sets. That is, now it’s not possible to hide if such grenade launchers are used in large quantities by each soldier, if they encounter hiding or lying down in battle.

PySy. It is always necessary to adapt to the appearance of modern types of small arms and apply countermeasures, write down in the charters immediately.

[Morgan]

So the cartridges of money are worth it. Military economists strangle themselves. I am an archer and with a heavy arrow at 250 m (the approximate equivalent of AK at 500-600 m) you start to hit stably after 2000 shots. And this is in simple weather. Saving on training soldiers is a crime.

[Droid]

The author was fixated on P.'s sight. We already argued with him about this. Explaining to him something is useless. I just don’t understand why he didn’t cling to the sight 10, what kind of hysteria could be thrown about this.
The whole essence of the author’s suffering can be expressed in one sentence - we drew the letter P on the aiming bar - we will all die !!! And if we erase this letter we will probably live.

[Svateev]

Quote: Droid

We argued with him about this

And Droid lost this dispute outright. He managed to make such arguments that only confirmed my conclusions. This can be viewed on the same site in the discussion of the article "The submachine gunner must and can hit the head piece."

Quote: Droid

The whole essence of the author’s suffering can be expressed in one sentence - we drew the letter P on the aiming bar - we will all die !!! And if we erase this letter we will probably live.

Droid, as always, did not understand anything. The author does not propose to completely remove the installation for a direct shot from the sight. The author proposes to make this installation on new assault rifles for a direct shot not at the chest target (440 m), but at the head target (approximately 350-370 m, the range of the direct shot at the head target must be established by experimental shooting). On existing machines, the author suggests using the "3" sight instead of "P" or "4" for a direct shot.

I note that for all the absurdities in the comments of the Droid, he can not be called an incongruous person. After all, the comment that I am criticizing now, Droid left two days after the publication of the article, when more than a dozen comments accumulated and the Droid comment should have been the last. But Droid figured out how to raise his comment in the top ten comments. That is, when the Droid wants to understand something - it is quite smart.

[svp67]

For some reason, I am sure that General Ivan Vasilyevich Panfilov would call such officials of the Ministry of Defense, and such military scientists, “eccentrics in military uniform”!

Yes, I would call ... but what would he call his 28 soldiers who got in the way of German tanks?
I don’t know how, now, we were previously taught that the charter is not a dogma and that it must be applied according to the prevailing conditions ...

And when our submachine gunners shoot at the lower head with an aim for the chest figure, then at ranges from 150 m to 300 m the average trajectory of bullets goes above the target. Because of this, the probability of hitting the head - the most common and most dangerous (it fires) - the target is extremely small: it drops to 0,19

Is such a concept as shooting adjustment familiar to the author? At such a distance, it is pretty clear where the bullets hit, and adjusting the shooting is not very difficult. Do not transfer the scope, but take the aiming point a little lower. All this is achieved by intense fire training

[Svateev]

Quote: svp67

but what would he call his 28 soldiers who got in the way of German tanks?

General Panfilov tried to meet tanks with cannons, did you read the very beginning of the article? And for those areas where there were not enough guns, they were specially trained - they were trained from specially selected personnel - a platoon of tank destroyers with anti-tank grenades and Molotov cocktails. You apparently do not have a military education and have not even read Volokolamskoe Shosse. I recommend that you read this book in some military schools used along with textbooks.

Quote: svp67

Is such a concept as shooting adjustment familiar to the author? At such a distance, it is pretty clear where the bullets hit

Firstly, I do not recommend you hoping that a modern adversary will give you the opportunity to shoot a second (adjusted) time. Most likely, a modern adversary will kill you after your first shot.
And secondly, did you think about how you will see where the bullets hit in the case considered in the article? Bullets go ABOVE the target. And you can only see where these bullets go when the wall of the house or similar obstacle is directly behind the target.
And I do not advise you to recall that it is recommended that shops be equipped with tracers through the 3-4 conventional cartridge (PS).

[svp67]

Quote: Svateev

You apparently do not have a military education and have not even read Volokolamskoe Shosse. I recommend that you read this book in some military schools used along with textbooks.

Thanks for the recommendation. I read a book and received a military education, back in Soviet times. That is why I ask the question, how would Panfilov call his 28 soldiers who fought with tanks using almost "improvised" means?

Quote: Svateev

Firstly, I do not recommend you hoping that a modern adversary will give you the opportunity to shoot a second (adjusted) time. Most likely, a modern adversary will kill you after your first shot.

What is "outdated", that "modern" enemy, first of all - a man with his own fears and feelings of self-preservation. And the war is often won by the one who is simply more fortunate, but training in such luck plays a HUGE role, visual determination of range, mental development of initial attitudes, muscle reaction and weapon guidance - all this in fire training classes is brought to automatism and increases the chances of winning in battle...

Quote: Svateev

And I do not advise you to recall that it is recommended that shops be equipped with tracers through the 3-4 conventional cartridge (PS).

At such a distance, the bullet fountains are perfectly visible, so there is no problem to quickly correct the shooting. I always taught the soldier, when shooting, to take installations that allow for undershooting than flying, firstly, the "fountains" are visible better, and secondly, the moral factor of the impact on the enemy, not everyone can calmly aim at the moment when he sees death approaching him ...

[Svateev]

Quote: svp67

how Panfilov would call his 28 soldiers who fought with tanks with almost "improvised" means

If you have read Volokolamskoe Shosse, then you know that it was impossible to block every country road with artillery. Therefore, platoons of tank destroyers were prepared on the orders of Panfilov himself. And that the commander of one of these platoons, again on the orders of Panfilov, trained specially selected fighters - tank destroyers - in the battalion of Baurzhan Momysh-uly to fight tanks with grenades. So why is your question, how would the general call the soldiers who stopped the tanks with what was at hand at that moment - grenades ?! Panfilov called them heroes!

Quote: svp67

in war, the one who is simply luckier often wins

In war, of course, sometimes lucky. To the one who is lucky. If you shoot hoping for an adjustment in the second shot, and I am in my own way, only I will be lucky.

Quote: svp67

"fountains" from bullets are perfectly visible

For the first time I saw fountains from bullets in the tenth year of my service, when I was replaced in the German Democratic Republic and only there at old German shooting ranges with bullets - a mountain of sand behind targets - one could observe fountains. No fountains are visible in the field. And to shoot specifically at short-range to see the fountains and adjust the fire ... I have no censorship comment.

[svp67]

And here is a question for you.
According to your recommendations, the fighter, seeing that the enemy approached a distance of 300 meters, spending a couple of seconds, moved the aiming bar to "3" and started a fire fight with the enemy's arrows. Suddenly he notices that behind the chain, somewhere at a distance of 400-450 meters, a grenade launcher appeared and prepared to fire from behind cover. What should our fighter do in such a situation? Waste time again flipping the aiming bar or remembering the rules for adjusting shooting?

[Svateev]

Quote: svp67

at a distance of 400-450 meters a grenade launcher appeared and made ready for firing due to cover

Yes, you need to rearrange the bar. Because in this situation, to adjust the fire without rearranging the sight, you need to move the aiming point above the center of the target. And how much higher? A quarter of a figure, half a figure? How much? It is necessary to recall the excess (or rather, the decrease, since the minus sign) of the 3 sight at a range of 400m. Do you remember him? Hardly. And I do not remember. And no one remembers. For your sake, I opened the AK-74 Exceeding Table: at a range of 400m - 43cm, but for a range of 450m there is simply no more data.
That is, if the grenade launcher (height 0,5m) is at a distance of 400m, then from its middle it is necessary to shift the aiming point by 0,43m, that is, above its upper edge by 0,18m = 0,43-0,5 / 2. It is IMPOSSIBLE to aim with a sector sight above the top edge of the target, since the entire target is blocked by the aiming bar and you do not see where you are aiming at all.
If you have a sector sight (like on the AK-74), then whatever kind of sight you have (at least 3, even 4 at least any other) for the target located closer, you can still aim with a bunch of calculations, but for the target located further - not possible.

[rereture]

Or maybe TSNIITOCHMASH is not fools, and they better know what is best for their product and where it will be used, what types of ammunition it will use.

[svp67]

Quote: rereture

Or maybe TSNIITOCHMASH is not fools, and they better know what is best for their product and where it will be used, what types of ammunition it will use.

This is also not the correct point of view. The customer of this weapon is the military - they will determine the parameters of the technical assignment, but how designers and industrialists are able to fulfill them is already determined during tests. "Abakan" - in terms of accuracy, was an excellent machine gun, but its operational properties ... caused a lot of criticism and as a result, it did not appear en masse in the troops.

[1536]

Previously, they taught to shoot from school. At the lessons of the NVP (initial military training, who does not know), they gave the theory, and then reinforced them in practice by firing a small-bore TOZ-8 rifle in the shooting range. Particularly advanced military leaders drove their students to shoot from AK or SKS to sponsored military units. This I mean that shooting is a science, which, like any other science, must be comprehended by learning various shooting techniques, tactics and methods of its conduct. It seems to me that the "hit" on scientists who are developing new types of small arms and ammunition today, as well as the methods of its use, is not justified. Another example, during the Battle of Stalingrad, the military service regulations were rewritten in relation to the conditions of combat in urban conditions directly in these combat conditions. And this is to the fact that life forced the commanders, in order to save the lives of soldiers, to bring into combat training in the use of weapons the knowledge that was obtained at the cost of the lives of the dead soldiers. I will not betray military secrets if I say that today a lot is modeled mathematically in order to avoid wasting time for testing and irrecoverable losses in the future. Of course, much is not being introduced into combat practice, but this is not a question for scientists. But when it comes to shooting small arms, no theory can replace shooting practice. Yes, and Suvorov's "Hard in training - easy in battle" has not yet been canceled.

[decanter]

Isn’t it easier to teach fighters to aim the bar of the sight and not to remake everything in the world ???

[svp67]

Quote: grafin

Isn’t it easier to teach fighters to aim the bar of the sight and not to remake everything in the world ???

In battle, no one will do this, since these are "seconds of life", but to be able to adjust shooting - you need to learn and train, it is not difficult and effective

[Igor39]

Each AK should have a sight with a scale and a laser range finder, 21 century in the yard.

[Gray 43]

In the memoirs of a veteran, he once read how they had to take the village. The company’s headquarters commander hurries on the phone, and the Germans, who occupy more advantageous positions, pressed our fire to go on the attack, it means to bear senseless losses without fulfilling the order. Everything was decided a little later, when neighboring units made a fuss, the Germans were distracted by it, this became the key to a successful throw, there were losses, but not the same as they could. The conditions for fighting are constantly improved and instructions on them are often late, in such cases, preparation is of particular importance commanders, their initiative and ability to make innovative decisions

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

not only machine guns, create a fire system of units. And in this fire system there is someone to deal with dangerous small-sized goals

The author is familiar with the fire system and indicated that we are now learning to hit small-sized snipers. One of the whole branch. And machine gunners can also hit - also 5-7 trunks (depending on the state). And for some reason you do not want this. Why?

Quote: SLX

Low combat effectiveness in some "ranges" is not fatal and may well be compensated by other weapons included in the unit's weapons system or given to this unit to change tactical capabilities

While "other weapons" for our submachine gunners "decide" their opponents, little remains of our submachine gunners. This habit is not to look for ways to accomplish the combat mission itself, but to wait for someone to "strengthen" you and win for you and outrages the author.

Quote: SLX

the author for some reason forgets or does not want to take into account that the installation of the correct sight is the direct responsibility of the shooter and is one of the basic knowledge necessary for this shooter. And the control of these installations and the timely return of commands to change them are the duties of junior commanders

You do not know the requirements of the AK-74 Manual. There, Article 155 requires up to a range of 400m, as a rule, to shoot with sights "4" or "P", aiming at the lower edge of a low target. That is, a direct shot. And the direct shot itself is recommended correctly - there is no time to set the exact sight. But the target - chest - was chosen incorrectly. It is necessary to shoot a direct shot from the sight installation "3" or "3 and a half" - a direct shot at the head target.
The author gives in this article a link to his original article, where all this is explained! Read before you criticize. By the way, that article was also published here, on "Military Review".

[svp67]

Quote: Svateev

You do not know the requirements of the AK-74 Manual. There, Article 155 requires up to a range of 400m, as a rule, to shoot with sights "4" or "P", aiming at the lower edge of a low target. That is, a direct shot. And the direct shot itself is recommended correctly - there is no time to set the exact sight.

Everything has already been invented and worked out before us ...
Keeping and correcting fire

Even with careful preparation of the initial data and accurate aiming from a stable position, each shooting is inevitably accompanied by errors, because of which the target on the initial settings of the sight and rear sight in some cases may not be affected. This is due to the fact that as a result of inevitable errors, the average trajectory under given shooting conditions can pass somewhat away from the target.
When conducting aimed fire from stable positions, the main reason for the deviation of the average trajectory from the center of the target is, as a rule, the inaccuracy of determining the distance to the target and the neglect of corrections for deviation of the shooting conditions from the table.
When firing directional fires, the main reason for the deviation of the average trajectory from the target is errors in the aiming of the weapon. It is possible to achieve the most complete combination of the average trajectory with the target in all cases by adjusting the fire based on observation of the shooting results.
When firing small arms at close distances, and especially within the range of a direct shot, the solution of the firing task is greatly simplified, since errors in shooting do not usually exceed the depth of the affected space. In these cases, hitting the target with proper aiming is achieved with one or two bursts and, as a rule, without adjusting the fire.
When firing at ranges greater than the direct range, especially under adverse observation conditions, target damage from the first stage is usually not achieved. In these cases, the ability to make adjustments to the scope or to the aiming point, according to the results of shooting, becomes important for the fulfillment of the assigned task.
Monitoring the results of fire is carried out by bullet ricochet on the ground in the target area, by the position of the bullet trails relative to the target, as well as by the behavior of the target being fired.
To correct the fire along the tracks, cartridges with ordinary and tracer bullets are used in the ratio: for three cartridges with ordinary bullets, one cartridge with a tracer bullet.
To introduce corrections in shooting, it is necessary to take into account not the results of observations of individual bullets, but the center of the grouping of rebounds or tracks. The dispersion of bullets, especially in range, can be very significant - 60 m or more in each direction from the average trajectory. Taking the position of an individual ricochet or track as the center of dispersion, a significant error can be made when adjusting the fire, sometimes more than the one that was made in the preparation of the initial data for firing. Therefore, the adjustment of fire in range should be done only after assessing the position of the center of the grouping of at least two or three ricochet or bullet tracks.
In the lateral direction, fire adjustment is usually carried out by removing the aiming point by the amount of deviation of the bullet tracks or rebounds from the target.

[svp67]

In the lateral direction, fire adjustment is usually carried out by removing the aiming point by the amount of deviation of the bullet tracks or rebounds from the target.
These deviations are measured in figures of the target or in thousandths. The shooter, having noticed the place of falling bullets or the place of passage of bullet paths, measures the deviation value and puts the aiming point at the measured value in the direction opposite to the deviation (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11. Correction of fire in the direction of the removal of the aiming point

Range adjustment of fire is carried out by changing the aiming point in height or by changing the setting of the sight. It is simpler and faster to adjust the fire in range by changing the aiming point in height: for under-flying, aiming point is chosen higher (Fig. 12), for flights — below the initial aiming point.

Figure: 12. <Adjusting fire by range by changing the aiming point by height

When shooting at low targets, especially at long ranges, when the removal of the aiming point in height is difficult to carry out, and also when the bullets deviate in range of more than 100 m, it is better to correct the fire by changing the setting of the sight by one division. For example, having received the flight paths of the bullet queues, they reduce the sight by one division and produce another queue, pointing the weapon to the previous aiming point. Calculations and practice of firing show that, on average, two long lines are spent to hit a target with this method of adjusting fire. The change in the sight in a jump in one division is explained by the fact that at firing ranges of 500-800 m, where this method of correcting fire is most appropriate, the most likely deviation in the distance of the average trajectory from the target due to errors in shooting is on average 75-120 m, which roundly corresponds to one division of the sight.
When firing directional fire, the main way to correct shooting is to combine bullet trails with the target. The shooter, continuously observing the target and the bullet tracks and smoothly changing the position of the weapon, combines the position of the bullet tracks with the target. The fire in this case, as a rule, is conducted in long bursts.
In all cases of firing, signs indicating the reality of their fire are: visible losses of the enemy and defeat of the target being fired; the transition of enemy manpower from running to crawling; dismemberment and deployment of columns; weakening and ceasing fire of the enemy; the enemy’s withdrawal or his withdrawal into various types of shelters or into the folds of the terrain, where our fire is less effective. Based on these signs, one should judge the correctness of the preparation of the initial data and firing, and if necessary, make a decision on changing the method of shooting or the type of fire.

[Svateev]

Quote: svp67

You are not responding to my arguments. I will repeat taking into account your examples.
In your drawing, where the head target, the places where bullets fall are indicated in the void. Can you see these places where bullets fall when there is no wall of a house, a car, or some other obstacle that these bullets hit directly behind the target? You can’t. And how will you be adjusted?
And what about the fact that your opponent will simply not let you shoot the second time?

[svp67]

All the issues discussed apply equally to shooting at both stationary and emerging targets. Living targets most characteristic of small arms will, as a rule, not be stationary. but appearing. The time of firing on them will be determined by the duration of their appearance. Therefore, the speed of opening fire for these purposes has a decisive role. From this, the speed of determining data for firing and preparing for firing is of particular importance. A successful fight against emerging targets is possible only if the shooters have solid skills in targeting, determining distances to targets, and in quickly and dexterously performing all the tricks and actions with weapons necessary to open fire.
When firing at a target that appears several times, it is necessary to remember the place of its appearance, quickly make preparations for firing, and at the next appearance of it, aim and open fire. If during preparation for firing the target disappeared, then upon its subsequent appearance, the aiming is refined and the firing is repeated. It is advisable to hit the emerging target with short bursts of fire, quickly following one after another, while making the necessary corrections by changing the aiming point both in height and in direction.
When shooting at a target that repeatedly appears, you need to monitor whether it has changed its position and whether it has appeared in a new place. Therefore, shooting at an emerging target requires special care when observing and the ability to quickly transfer fire.
The rules for firing at stationary and emerging targets are essentially the same. However, shooting at emerging targets requires more skill than shooting at fixed targets, both in preparing data and in performing shooting techniques. These skills are developed in soldiers by systematically and sequentially complicating the conditions of exercises and daily training in performing shooting techniques with the wide use of small-caliber and pneumatic weapons for practicing exercises specially prepared by the commander.

[SLX]

Quote: Svateev

The author is familiar with the fire system and indicated that we are now learning to hit small-sized snipers. One of the whole branch.

No, the author indicated that for submachine gunners at a distance of 150-300 m, the head figures became the most dangerous and now only a sniper can effectively deal with them, but not submachine gunners.

At the same time, the author forgot to mention how submachine gunners came to such a life and how often they reach such a life, as well as what prevents them in this situation from rearranging the sight from P to 3. This is not even considering the options to whistle for machine gunners, zhahnut from "Fly" or from shotgun ...

Quote: Svateev

And machine gunners can also hit - another 5-7 trunks (depending on the state). And for some reason you do not want this. Why?

And for this Happiness they just do not have a permanent sight at 300 m? Oh well. And I don’t want just because I can’t understand in any way what prevents the machine gun from rearranging the sight. For, for example, my personal experience says that a competent soldier at the entrance to the NP will throw the bar on himself in two (or three, or even one), he will figure out where to aim with an established sight - like a sawn-off shotgun, etc. d.

In addition to the problems with setting the sight and choosing the aiming point, taking into account the range, there are also problems of taking into account the elevation angle of the target, which in many cases, for example, in the mountains or in high-rise buildings, have at least no lesser significance.

And these problems must be solved in a complex, first of all without saving on fire training. And changing P without it is like a dead poultice.

Quote: Svateev

While "other weapons" for our submachine gunners "decide" their opponents, little remains of our submachine gunners. This habit is not to look for ways to accomplish the combat mission itself, but to wait for someone to "strengthen" you and win for you and outrages the author.

This is a very useful habit for motorized rifles in which ramps are rare. And for the machine gunners to have other habits, they need to be taught a lot and regularly, again without saving on combat training.

Quote: Svateev

You do not know the requirements of the AK-74 Manual. ...

And the NSD, Manuals and even the Combat Manuals are not a dogma in battle. They are a dogma when the fat-bellied inspectors from the upper headquarters in peacetime expose. But even in your comment, the keyword is "usually".

Therefore, you already decide what you are talking about: improving combat effectiveness or changing guidelines and guidelines for compiling them. And if you are talking about the first, then justify carefully that the changes you are proposing are appropriate. And practitioners will quickly realize what they need - your suggestions or outdated directions. And they will find a way to get around the unnecessary.

Quote: Svateev

The author gives in this article a link to his original article, where it is all explained! Read Before Criticizing.

I read, and even much earlier - how not to read interesting material. But, alas, I can not find your article, albeit interesting, for the ultimate truth.

[SLX]

Quote: Svateev

You do not know the requirements of the AK-74 Manual. There, Article 155 requires up to a range of 400m, as a rule, to shoot with sights "4" or "P", aiming at the lower edge of a low target.

I have to admit that you either are cunning, or you yourself do not know the requirements of the Guide.

We open the Guide to the 5,45 mm Kalashnikov assault rifle and the 5,45 mm Kalashnikov machine gun (published though 1976, but still stereotyped). And what do we see in Article 155 of this Guide?

Chapter IX. The rules of firing from a machine gun (machine gun).

<...>

The choice of sight, aiming points and rear sight.

155. To select a sight, aiming point and rear sight, it is necessary to determine the distance to the target and take into account external conditions that may affect the range and direction of the bullet. The sight, rear sight and aiming point are selected so that when firing the average trajectory passes in the middle of the target.

When firing at ranges of up to 400 m, fire should be conducted, as a rule, with a P or 4 sight and a whole 0, aiming at the lower edge of the target or in the middle, if the goal is high (running figures, etc.).

And do not put a shadow on the wattle fence.

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

When firing at a range of up to 400 m, fire should be conducted, as a rule, with a P or 4 sight and 0 as a whole, aiming at the lower edge of the target

That's it! It is such an aim that does not allow to hit the head target. This is what the author writes about.
It is necessary to shoot to a range of 300m with an 3 scope, and on a new machine should make an 3,5 scope, since the range of a direct shot at a head target is about 350m.
So where is the "shadow on the fence" ?!

[SLX]

Quote: Svateev

That's it! It is such an aim that does not allow to hit the head target. This is what the author writes about.

No, the author does not write about this. The author once again writes that st.155 of the Manual obliges the submachine gunner to aim at the lower edge of the target with a P or 4 sight.

And to prove this his thesis, the author once again cuts off the essential and very significant details from this article, which uniquely describe the conditions for aiming when aiming P or 4 at the lower edge of the target - if the goal is high.

Accordingly, if the target is low (the head figure), then according to it the same article 155 defines earlier some other rules for choosing the sight and aiming point:

The sight, rear sight and aiming point are selected so that when firing the average trajectory passes in the middle of the target.

Therefore, you should not engage in such verbal balancing act.

Quote: Svateev

It is necessary to shoot up to a range of 300m with a scope of 3, and on the new machine gun, a sight of 3,5 should be made, since the range of a direct shot at the head target is about 350m. So where is the "shadow on the fence" ?!

Again:

No one denies that it is more effective to shoot at a head figure of 300 m with an aim 3. The fact that this is chewed in modern statutory documents, to put it mildly, not in the best way, is bad. But this other side of the coin, which has nothing to do with the design of the rifle scope, for the change of which you are so actively advocating.

But more effective - this does not mean at all that it is impossible to shoot at the target P or 4. If the shooter understands the theory, has solid skills and knows how to move the aiming point to the right place, then changing the design of the rifle scope is completely unnecessary.

The introduction of a permanent sight at 350 m is all the more unnecessary, because it is good only for head figures and only in a very narrow range of distance - i.e. such a change does not solve the problem of competent aiming, and nobody needs a gift to improve the efficiency of illiterate shooters.

And if you want to prove the appropriateness of the new values ​​of the Sight P, then for a start you need not to water those who disagree with you, but to prove conclusively that it is the head and not the chest figures that are fundamental in all types of modern combat and what exactly them defeat at maximum distances (and 300 m is the maximum effective distance for hitting such targets from a machine gun) by machine gunners is a modern urgent requirement and appropriate. And this is a very serious study, requiring the processing of a huge amount of material.

The evidence you cite in the article is very, very controversial. So, for example, WWII tried to clean their heads. And after WWII, in many countries they analyzed a lot, but for some reason they did not consider the head figures at a distance of 300 m as the main goals for machine gunners.

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

details from this article that uniquely describe the conditions for aiming when aiming P or 4 at the lower edge of the target - if the target is high. Accordingly, if the target is low (the head figure), then on it the same article 155 determines earlier several different rules for choosing the sight and aiming point

You have confused everything even from your own quotation of Article 155! Read it again: a low target is recommended to aim at the bottom edge (in common parlance - "under the bleed"), and a tall figure - at the center. It can not be in any other way. It is necessary to aim at the lower edge of a high (running) target not with sight 4 or P, but with sight "6" - the range of a direct shot at it.

[SLX]

Quote: Svateev

You have confused everything even from your own quotation of Article 155! Read it again: a low target is recommended to aim at the bottom edge (in common parlance - "under the bleed"), and a tall figure - at the center. It can not be in any other way. It is necessary to aim at the lower edge of a high (running) target not with sight 4 or P, but with sight "6" - the range of a direct shot at it.

Open the Manual ed. 1976 and finally take the trouble to first read Art. 155. and then reflect on what the condition "if the goal is high" means. Well, I can't help you anymore.

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

finally take the trouble to first read Art. 155. and then reflect on what the condition "if the goal is high

Dear SLX! What is meant by "high goal" is explained in the very same article 155 - running figures, etc. You yourself gave this quote above:
"When shooting at a distance of up to 400 m, fire should be fired, as a rule, with a P or 4 sight and completely 0, aiming at the lower edge of the target or in the middle if the target is high (running figures, etc.)."
And how do you interpret this formulation?

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

the author forgot to mention how the submachine gunners got to such a life and how often they get to such a life, and also what prevents them in this situation from rearranging the scope from P to 3.

The author "mentioned" it. And more than once. The requirement of Article 155 of the AK-74 Manual interferes.
Of course, you can learn to shoot a chest target from P’s scope all your life, and in battle, spit on this requirement, rearrange the scope on 3 and learn how to hit the main target. But the author is sure that it will be smarter to change Article 155 of the AK-74 Manual and to teach troops to shoot accurately before the battle.
Or do you want every new fighter to find the best way to shoot himself again? That way we will turn into an army of Papuans. Although, I’m afraid that I offended the Papuans, because their father always teaches his son to shoot.

[SLX]

Quote: Svateev

The author "mentioned" it. And more than once.

Aha. Only for some reason, on the examples of the time of the Tsar Pea. And where are the modern examples in which the presence of a permanent sight at 400 m interfered with the performance of fire missions and / or defeat of head targets at 300 m?

Quote: Svateev

The requirement of Article 155 of the AK-74 Manual is in the way.
Of course, you can learn to shoot a chest target from P’s sight all your life, and in battle, spit on this requirement, rearrange the sight to 3 and learn to hit the main target.

Really bothers? First, I have already shown you that you are misinterpreting this guideline article. Secondly, as early as in the emergency, in the early 80's, I was taught to actually shoot at the same Guide, but for some reason the fathers-commanders attached great importance to the timely change of the aim settings depending on the situation. Probably Art. 155 interpreted differently than you.

Quote: Svateev

But the author is sure that it will be smarter to change Art. 155 of the AK-74 Manual and even before the battle to teach troops to shoot accurately.

Your confidence, in my opinion, is very far from the realities of combat and fire training in both the SA and modern RA.

Quote: Svateev

Or do you want every new fighter to find the best way to shoot himself again? That way we will turn into an army of Papuans. Although, I’m afraid that I offended the Papuans, because their father always teaches his son to shoot.

Do you have Claes's ashes knocking on your warm heart? So write the popular science brochure "Helping the Commander Father" about shooting training. And when it is at the level of scientific pop of Stalin's times, it will become a reference book for all fathers-commanders, for contract soldiers and even for conscripts who wish to serve, and not serve a number.

And there will be more sense from this than attempts to achieve something on a foreign field.

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

And where are the modern examples

Well, yes, modern bullets do not fly as they did under King Pea. Waving their wings ...

Quote: SLX

I have already shown you that you are interpreting this article of the Guide incorrectly

You have not shown anything. Article 155 is not required to be interpreted, it is enough to read it calmly, everything is clearly and very clearly written there. But your "interpretation" contradicts the text of Article 155.

Quote: SLX

Your confidence, in my opinion, is very far from the realities of combat and fire training in both the SA and modern RA.

And here you are right. Indeed, the realities of fire training in both the SA and the RA are the same as your views: we learn to shoot at the chest target and we hope that in combat the soldier himself will learn to shoot at the head. I suggest redoing it. You finally got it!

Quote: SLX

Do you have the ashes of Klaas beating in your warm heart?

Have you got it cold?

Quote: SLX

So write the popular science brochure "Helping the Commander Father" about shooting training

So these articles on the Internet are "science pop".

Quote: SLX

attempts to achieve something in a foreign field

Did I understand you correctly that the "foreign field" is the normative documents of our native Russian Ministry of Defense? It is still dear to me, like the entire Russian state. And "nauchpop" must change the regulations of the Ministry of Defense! To set a smaller task, to be limited to "science-pop" means to bury the idea of ​​teaching a submachine gunner to hit the main target.

[SLX]

Quote: Svateev

Well, yes, modern bullets do not fly as they did under King Pea. Waving their wings ...

The experience of the Second World War and the experience of modern military conflicts vary greatly. Of course, I personally cannot lay claim to a comprehensive knowledge of this experience, but on the basis of my experience I believe that:

1). Targets a la head figure are not the most characteristic for machine gunners on the modern battlefield.

2). Goals are not always necessary to hit, much more often they are quite enough to suppress. And for this, the whistling of bullets over his head is often enough for this goal to draw appropriate conclusions.

3). My personal experience of shooting and controlling fire of machine gunners at such and similar targets says that the presence of a P-sight at 400 m is not only not an obstacle to the effective suppression / defeat of such targets, but it does not even make it difficult to do this.

4). Your suggestions are interesting, but have no practical value in a normally built process of fire and combat training.

Quote: Svateev

You have not shown anything. Article 155 is not required to be interpreted, it is enough to read it calmly, everything is clearly and very clearly written there. But your "interpretation" contradicts the text of Article 155.

Yes, I noticed that at first you stubbornly "forgot" about the additional condition. Probably, I am not the only one who interprets this article in conversations with you?

Quote: Svateev

Have you got it cold?

I have long been able to find the best application for my talents.

Quote: Svateev

So these articles on the Internet are "science pop".

Aha. Only the modern level of "science pop", and only in the entornet. And to the level, for example, of Colonel Nikiforov, these articles are like cancer before the Moon, excuse my frankness. Although you, with your perseverance and your knowledge of the theoretical base, could make a sweet. But first, you need to do something with your own pride and author's vanity a little bit. ;)

Quote: Svateev

Did I understand you correctly that the "foreign field" is the normative documents of our native Russian Ministry of Defense?

Aha. Enthusiasts should not be engaged in such monumental things. And for enthusiasts, Senka’s cap is not.

Quote: Svateev

It is still dear to me, like the entire Russian state. And "nauchpop" must change the regulations of the Ministry of Defense! To set a smaller task, to be limited to "science-pop" means to bury the idea of ​​teaching a submachine gunner to hit the main target.

Well, to each his own. You have the right to believe that without your suggestions the machine gunners will not be able to hit the head targets. And I, like many commentators, have the right to continue to believe that machine gunners can be taught without your suggestions about changing the design of the rifle scope.

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

1). Objectives a la head figure are not the most characteristic for machine gunners on the modern battlefield

True, they are not. Because when shooting with P or 4 sights, machine gunners cannot get into the main targets. And it is necessary that they appear, so that machine gunners fall into the main goals.
I note how bureaucratically impeccably you have formulated your phrase. If desired, it can be interpreted as a denial of the need to hit the main goals, or it can be as simple as stating a fact, as I did.

Quote: SLX

the whistle of bullets overhead is often enough for this goal to draw appropriate conclusions.

I am increasingly asserting that you are related to the 3 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense. It is only at the 3 Central Research Institute that they hold the enemy for a fool and a coward: the whistle of bullets over the enemy’s head is enough for the 3 Central Research Institute to defeat him.
The enemy must be killed, not scared!

Quote: SLX

At first you stubbornly "forgot" about the additional condition. Probably, I am not the only one who interprets this article in conversations with you?

What condition?
And believe me, you are the first person who is thus trying to distort the meaning of Article 155. All Armed forces shoot at chest targets with a P target aiming at the lower edge. And you opened your eyes to everyone that st.155 requires so to shoot at a high - growth (running) figure.

Quote: SLX

Enthusiasts should not be engaged in such monumental things. And for enthusiasts, Senka’s cap is not.

Positive, you are related to the 3th CRI. You cannot hold back the offended pride and arrogance. You better stop the controversy.

[SLX]

Quote: Svateev

True, they are not. Because when shooting with P or 4 sights, machine gunners cannot get into the main targets. And it is necessary that they appear, so that machine gunners fall into the main goals.

Once again: no one bothers them to put the sight 3. And this is easier to teach than to remake the sight of the machine.

Quote: Svateev

I note how bureaucratically impeccably you have formulated your phrase. If desired, it can be interpreted as a denial of the need to hit the main goals, or it can be as simple as stating a fact, as I did.

I formulated the phrase in full accordance with the methods of evaluating the effectiveness of small arms.

Quote: Svateev

I am increasingly asserting that you are related to the 3rd Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense.

You are mistaken. In such structures, I did not go out to serve as a snout. For not only did I not graduate from academies, but I also have no higher education.

Quote: Svateev

It is only in the 3rd Central Research Institute that they hold the enemy for a fool and a coward: the whistle of bullets above the enemy’s head is the 3rd Central Research Institute enough to defeat him.

Well, yes: all retrogrades, you alone are d'Artagnan and all in white.

Quote: Svateev

The enemy must be killed, not scared!

Nothing that my practice is slightly different from your theoretical knowledge?

Quote: Svateev

What condition?
And believe me, you are the first person who tries to distort the meaning of Article 155 in this way.

So you need to know the Russian language. Firstly, there is "as a rule", but you are still in no hurry to notice this. Secondly, it is a high target that is struck when aiming both at its lower edge and when aiming at the middle. And a low goal is the very exception that is outside "as a rule".

Quote: Svateev

All Armed forces shoot at chest targets with a P target aiming at the lower edge. And you opened your eyes to everyone, that st.155 requires so to shoot at a high - growth (running) figure.

Yes, fullness! Even here, practitioners have already talked about zeroing weapons with a "3" scope, and about much more.

Quote: Svateev

Positive, you are related to the 3th CRI. You cannot hold back the offended pride and arrogance. You better stop the controversy.

And again: learn Russian. "Not for Senka a hat" or "Not on the shoulder of bitches" does not contain any insults or arrogance. But I nevertheless take my leave, because further polemics are really meaningless.

[Droid]

You do not know the requirements of the AK-74 Manual. There, article 155 requires up to a range of 400m, as a rule, to shoot with sights "4" or "P", aiming at the lower edge of a low target

No need to lie, it’s this does not require. And they correctly told you about the commanders.
And learn the Russian language. “As a rule” is not a requirement and does not mean that this should always be done.

[Svateev]

Quote: Droid

Do not lie,

Droid! Yes, in your picture it is written in black and white "at ranges up to 400m, a submachine gunner (machine gunner) fires with a sight of 4 or" P ". And the expression "as a rule" is not even used, that is, in your picture, they are unambiguously required to do this and only this way.
By the way, from what document did you copy this? Out of respect for your opponents, you should indicate the source of your quotes.
And the aiming point in accordance with Article 155 of the AK-74 and RPK-74 Manual, the machine gunner (machine gunner) should choose this way: for the low target - to the lower edge of the target (direct shot), and for the high target (running figures, etc. .) - to the center of the target. Is this not indicated in the next paragraph and in that document, where did you get your picture?
So you are once again trying to refute me in fact, confirmed my findings. I don’t already know to criticize me or thank you.

[Droid]

Droid! Yes, in your picture it is written in black and white "at ranges up to 400m, a submachine gunner (machine gunner) fires with a sight of 4 or" P ".

Did you learn Russian at school? It says that "sight and aiming point can not be indicated. " This means at the discretion of the commander. May or may not be indicated. It also says that the aiming point is automatic chooses independently.
And the source is the same - AK74 Manual.
Not only have I told you that the leadership is not the only document, and soldiers and junior commanders are required to learn to determine the distance and establish the right sight, and commanders are required to indicate to the soldiers the installation of the sight in accordance with the situation.

Because 1. Learn Russian to correctly understand what is written in the documents.
2. After that, finally open, at least, the textbook of the sergeant-motorized rifle and read.

[Svateev]

Quote: Droid

It says that "the sight and aiming point may not be indicated."

And further it is written: "At this command, the submachine gunner (machine gunner) fires with a sight of 4 or" P "... Thus, when the commander did not indicate the sight, then 4 or "P" and no other options.
Now, can the commander specify a different sight? Theoretically, it can, because Article 155 specifies "as a rule" to shoot with 4 or "P". And which sight is better for the commander to indicate? Sight 3 is better, because the probability of hitting the main target is on average 2 times higher, and at a distance of 250m - 4 times!
So the question is, Why teach the troops "as a rule" to shoot with scopes 4 or "P" if with scope 3 it turns out to be 4 times more effective ?!

Quote: Droid

and soldiers and junior commanders are taught to determine the distance and set the right sight

Let's move on from your general words to the specifics.
What sight do you think is correct at ranges up to 400?

[Svateev]

Quote: rereture

Or maybe in TSNIITOCHMASH not fools are sitting

The author TSNIITOCHMASH is not fools. TSNIITOCHMASH, on the other hand, confirmed that it is better to shoot as the author suggests (the article quoted TsNIITOCHMASH). But TSNIITOCHMASH adapts to the prevailing ineffective practice of shooting at the chest target and does not even want to offer the Ministry of Defense to change it.

[svp67]

Quote: Svateev

But TSNIITOCHMASH adapts to the prevailing ineffective practice of shooting at the chest target and does not even want to offer the Ministry of Defense to change it.

What can be changed only when TsNIITOCHMASH will offer a cartridge with higher ballistic qualities, in which the flight path will be even more gentle ...

[Svateev]

Quote: svp67

What can be changed only when TsNIITOCHMASH will offer a cartridge with higher ballistic qualities, in which the flight path will be even more gentle ...

You confuse cause and effect.
When a new cartridge with a flatter trajectory appears, TsNIITOCHMASH will again optimize the sight for shooting at a chest target - it will simply make the position "P" of the sight equal not to 440m, but to a new direct shot range at a chest target, say, 500m. As a result, the submachine gunner will not hit the main target again, only then not in the range from 150 to 300m, but somewhere from 200 to 400m.

In the history of Kalashnikov assault rifles, the transition to a flatter trajectory has already occurred - from 7,62mm to 5,45mm. For AK and AKM (7,62mm), the range of a direct shot at a chest target is 360m. If the AK-74 had left the "P" position at the same range, the AK-74 would have hit the main target, as I now propose! But the task was to shoot at the chest target, and therefore the "P" position of the AK-74 was made equal to 440m and the submachine gunner still does not hit the main target.

[Zomanus]

Unfortunately Russia always fights with soldiers. not weapons. Always chest on the machine guns, always ahead. All the same, in some cases, a "soldier's tribunal" is a perfectly acceptable thing.

[svp67]

Quote: Zomanus

Unfortunately, Russia is always fighting with soldiers. not a weapon.

The last "Crimean case" is especially significant in this ...

[mango68]

I recalled an old and bearded anecdote when Private Pupunkevich the political commander asked what he was thinking when he saw a brick and the private replied that he was thinking about a woman, since he only thought about women. the author seems to have touched on one problem (in my opinion it is very topical), but then it turned out that it was an eyeliner to his fixation on one outlier.
Personally, I am not at all sure that the incompetence and idiocy of the commander can be compensated for by the correct installation of the sight of personal small arms. I would like to know the opinion of comrades who have a rich practice of real shooting firefighting, and not armchair theorists (no matter how they cheer for the cause). From my shooting practice (not a single shooting battle, only a shooting range, I saw the enemy except on the IKO), in the event of a miss, I adjusted the aiming point and is not at all sure that the "head" target is well distinguishable at a distance of more than 100 meters (unless it is, of course, a giant football field)

[Svateev]

Quote: mango68

it was an eyeliner to his fixation on one bzik

The author of this. Takes a specific problem and leads it. And bring to a decision. No matter how someone puffed.

Quote: mango68

in case of a slip corrected the aiming point

How was a miss determined? How did you manage to see how much higher and to the right or left of the target the bullets fly? Above there is a picture in which "bullet drop spots" are drawn in the void. Bullets do not "fall" near the target at shoulder level, but fly there. And how to see it ?! And how to see if the bullets went above the target and how much higher? Share from your personal experience.

[mango68]

How was a miss determined? How did you manage to see how much higher and to the right or left of the target the bullets fly? Above there is a picture in which "bullet drop spots" are drawn in the void. Bullets do not "fall" near the target at shoulder level, but fly there [/ i]

How did you solve this problem, when the bullets fly at shoulder level at the "head" target. And how does the correct aiming fight against career idiocy? I ask you to answer, this is important to me, because I feel you are a great specialist in this matter. Thanks.

PS: I read the article with great pleasure, but still cutlets and flies are better separately from each other.

[Svateev]

Quote: mango68

How did you solve such a problem when the bullets fly at shoulder level at the "head" target?

Well, we have agreed that when there is no fender behind the target, then it is impossible to see the magnitude of the miss and adjust the shooting. You can only shoot right at once, having taught this to the troops in advance, even in peacetime at the shooting range.

Quote: mango68

And how is the correct installation of the sight struggling with career idiocy?

Unfortunately, no way. It even happens the other way around. A competent commander who taught the unit to shoot accurately, then easily, without loss, wins the battle. And the higher command regards it as follows: "The enemy is weak."
And an eccentric in military uniform with exactly the same enemy loses his entire company and is considered a hero: "In such a heavy battle, he did not give up the height!"

“Our proud“ Varyag ”does not surrender to the enemy, it affects emotions more strongly than the competent actions of the gunboat commander“ Koreets ”, who before the battle shortened the mast of his gunboat and painted part of the nose, which visually reduced its size and misled the Japanese rangefinders. Not a single shell hit the Koreets, they all flew over! And the Varyag commander refused to do the same on his ship. Therefore, the Varyag was disabled by Japanese shells and flooded by the crew.

[Yozhik]

1- you need to be able to shoot, which is achieved only by training, including in conditions as close as possible to combat
2- it is necessary to be able to determine in each specific combat situation both the method of shooting (including aiming) and priority objectives for each soldier, both as a commander and a soldier independently. Alone, they fight either in the cinema or in such awesome specialists that they themselves can write dissertations on these topics.
3- ALL army manuals, charters and manuals are written not just like that, but adapted for the average in all respects military personnel and tested by life. And they really are not dogma.

[Svateev]

Quote: Jozhik

And they really are not dogma

How is it connected with you? Leave an erroneous recommendation in the manual and wait for the "average serviceman in all respects" to spit on it and find the correct method of shooting himself?
Nice and simple! But it will not work.

[Wheel]

Quote: Svateev

How is it connected with you? Leave an erroneous recommendation in the manual and wait for the "average in all respects" serviceman to spit on it and find the correct method of shooting himself? But it won't work.

I read the article.
And the thought immediately came to mind that the author was "terribly far from the people."
I'm sorry.
Having at the disposal of a "average serviceman in all respects," it is almost unrealistic to expect that he will hit the target in a real battle. "On the run from 200 meters into a light bulb above the door" (c) (Strugatskys), this is always please, but in reality, 1-2 fighters from the squad are capable of really aimed shooting, the rest provide noise support.
It is sad for a "average serviceman in all respects" that moving P to a different distance will not help in any way, and for those who are really aimed at shooting, it makes no difference, because they promptly make adjustments depending on the situation at an intuitive level.
Therefore, the invention of bicycles is a thankless task.
The only thing that can increase accuracy is practice. Shoot, shoot and shoot another 333 times.
There is no other way.

[Svateev]

Quote: Wheel

“For a serviceman average in all respects,” sadly, moving P to another distance will not help in any way

And you try! You will be pleasantly surprised. I tried with mine.

[deman73]

of course, the author did a fine job of everything well and made the conclusions as a whole, but only for myself, in my opinion, now I’ll say my thoughts - 1 all the military manuals of the methodology are not dogmas and which must be sacredly performed, but only generalized experience which can be adhered to in each in a combat situation, the commander must be able to fantasize and move away from dogma, in other words, work with your head and be smart not to follow the pattern; 2 training personnel especially sergeant even in combat conditions than we sin for the worse, 3 combat coordination and unit interaction is also important take into account the moral and psychological state of the personnel and the most important thing in my opinion is the combat qualities of the unit commander

[22642441]

Our own many years of experience convinces us that the FIRST turn of the fighter must be taught to shoot! A lot and in any conditions.
It is customary for "specialists" to shoot an AK at 100 meters with a "3" sight under the edge of the chest figure so that the bullets would fall 5 - 6 centimeters BELOW the center. Then, with the sight "P" or "4" and the aiming point UNDER THE CUT-OFF of the "head", it is perfectly struck at a distance of 250 to 400 meters, if the first shot lies below the target, you can always adjust the aiming point by aiming at the center of the target.
And second, firing bursts of aimless expenditure of cartridges, with the exception of the "Point Blank" battle 15 - 35 meters. The submachine gunner must conduct high-quality single fire. its density is somewhat lower, but the efficiency is an order of magnitude higher!

[Victor Demchenko]

I agree! my "Kalash" was ALWAYS shot like that, I didn't move the rear sight, but just shot, that's why I'm still alive. Glory to Kalash! cool car!

[Svateev]

Quote: 22642441

It is customary for "specialists" to shoot AK at 100 meters with a "3" sight under the edge of the chest figure so that the bullets would fall 5 - 6 centimeters BELOW the center

With such a "sighting" (leading to a normal battle, it cannot be called the tongue), the excess was 50 cm / 2- (5 or 6) cm = 20 or 19 cm.
According to the table of excesses during normal machine-gun combat at a range of 100m, the excess for the 3 sight should be 13cm, and for the 4 sight - 24cm.
That is, for "specialists" sight 3 was reduced to a range between 300m and 400m, approximately to 360m. This is, according to my estimates, the range of a direct shot from an AK-74 at the head target. It was this range that I suggested to TsNIITOCHMASH to do on new machines at position P instead of the current 440m.
That is, WHAT THE COMMENTATOR WRITES "22642441" COMPLETELY COINCIDES WITH MY PROPOSALS.
Dear "22642441", So not only "specialists", but all aircraft should shoot! But you saw in my article the answers of our military institutions. These "scientists" and officials of the Ministry of Defense must be persuaded. I suggest we coordinate. Please contact me at [email protected] If you can't, then maybe send a description of this "shooting" to the Main Directorate of Combat Training of the Ministry of Defense? They are just considering my proposals and I'm afraid they will again declare them "not interesting for the Ministry of Defense."

[Alex 1977]

Quote: Svateev

Firstly, I do not recommend you hoping that a modern adversary will give you the opportunity to shoot a second (adjusted) time. Most likely, a modern adversary will kill you after your first shot.
.

There is such a well-known, as it seems to me, a study conducted at the dawn of testing a brand new and promising at that time M 16. It has already been sucked a thousand times, but still give an excerpt.

Comparative graphs of the theoretically maximum possible (technical) effectiveness of the M16 rifle in comparison with the real capabilities shown by American soldiers during the tests. As can be seen, even in the most ideal conditions, for the most experienced soldiers, the combat potential of the M16A2 rifle remains completely unused.

The upper curve shows the technical accuracy of the M16A2 rifle when shooting at a growth target - that is, in conditions where the rifle is precisely aimed at the target and rigidly fixed on a special machine, it guarantees 100% hit of the target with one shot at a distance of 350 m. At a distance of 700 m, the probability of defeat the target is about 70%, that is, out of 10 fired bullets on average 7 will hit the target.
Then the same rifle was given into the hands of the soldiers and fired from different distances and from different positions. The average graph shows the best result obtained during the shooting. Conditionally, it can be called the result of a sniper shooting under ideal conditions (from a stable position, in the absence of stress from return fire, etc.). And even in such conditions, such a well-aimed shooter absolutely hit the target only at a range of 150-170 m
At a range of 300 m, its effectiveness dropped to 70% (7 hits per 10 shots), and by 500 m to 40% (4 hits per 10 shots). The worst result showed that under stress and difficult shooting conditions, the average soldier, even when firing at minimum ranges, cannot provide 100% target destruction with one shot. At a distance of only 100 m, the probability of hitting a growth target was only 20%...
I emphasize that this is not about the head, but about the standard growth target.

[Svateev]

Quote: Alexey 1977

under stress and difficult shooting conditions, the average soldier, even when firing at minimum ranges, cannot provide 100% of the target’s destruction with one shot

All right. The stress of the battle, fatigue, enemy return fire greatly reduce the effectiveness of the fire.
But what conclusion do you propose to draw from this? Do not bother with the defeat of machine gunners of the head target? But when shooting with 4 or P sights even a psychologically stable submachine gunner who had a rest in defense and does not have a single bullet whistling over his head does not get into the head! Nobody gets this way because such an aim is WRONG!
It is necessary to aim correctly, and then they will start to hit.

[nsws3]

At one time, tactical teachers at the school told us this: a charter (meaning a combat charter) is not a dogma, but a guide to action. As you teach your soldiers, so they will fight. Just as you teach how to shoot, they will shoot, because the 18 summer boy gets into the army - it’s plasticine, you want to blind him from it: if you want a good soldier, you blind and you’ll be calm, everything will be fine in battle, but if you want to, don't do it and there will be cannon fodder, with a mark on the military ID card that served. And to all shooting courses, etc. all the time methodological recommendations were issued on how to make training better and better, and this is called the educational process or combat training.

[Alex 1977]

Quote: Svateev

Quote: Alexey 1977

under stress and difficult shooting conditions, the average soldier, even when firing at minimum ranges, cannot provide 100% of the target’s destruction with one shot

All right. The stress of the battle, fatigue, enemy return fire greatly reduce the effectiveness of the fire.
But what conclusion do you propose to draw from this? Do not bother with the defeat of machine gunners of the head target? But when shooting with 4 or P sights even a psychologically stable submachine gunner who had a rest in defense and does not have a single bullet whistling over his head does not get into the head! Nobody gets this way because such an aim is WRONG!
It is necessary to aim correctly, and then they will start to hit.

Then you need to look at the problem more broadly. Do not rearrange the beds, but damn ... uh girls to change.
That is, small arms must be equipped with small-scale optical sights.
Which in turn will dramatically increase the effectiveness of targeted shooting. The Germans have already done this and seem not to complain.
In general, my position is somewhere in the middle. Like Mulder, the truth is somewhere nearby.
On the one hand, efficiency should be raised, a fighter must not only shoot, but also hit,
and on the other combined arms battle - he is on that and combined arms.
The task of the infantry in defense, in fact, is not to destroy one hundred percent of the attackers, but just to cut them off from the equipment and make them lay down. Actually, it’s not for me to explain this with my modest knowledge.
And then let go AGSY with PKMs and other Trays with Acacia provide an "unacceptable level of losses".

[Svateev]

Quote: Alexey 1977

small arms must be equipped with small-scale optical sights

Certainly! And our main manufacturer of rifle scopes, the Novosibirsk Instrument-Making Plant (recently renamed Shvabe Protection and Security), has developed a whole line of optics, including for the AK-74.
But do you know what reticle the refinery put into these scopes? There are no aiming marks less than 4 (400m) in the reticle! That is, the refinery "sewed" a direct shot at the chest target into the optics. Note that if you can still put 74 on the AK-3 sector sight and hit the main target, then in the optics this is impossible - there is no mark 3, shoot only with 4!

[Yozhik]

Quote: Svateev

Quote: Jozhik

And they really are not dogma

How is it connected with you? Leave an erroneous recommendation in the manual and wait for the "average serviceman in all respects" to spit on it and find the correct method of shooting himself?
Nice and simple! But it will not work.

The average soldier does not learn instructions by heart. He reads them (if he does) in order to have at least some idea of ​​where and how to shoot (as one conscript with a higher education said "to shoot"). And thus, in modern realities, his task is not so much to bring down the enemy in batches with well-aimed fire, but to create to suppress him with fire, as a result of which, according to the theory of probability, he will hit someone. But this requires a competent commander who can properly set tasks and set goals.
And what is not dogma is for sure, they are nothing more than approximate algorithms that are verified in reality.
Again, I repeat: we are talking about the average in all respects a soldier passing the draft service in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, who right now have really become workers and peasants in all respects.

[Svateev]

Quote: Jozhik

The average soldier does not LEARN the instruction by heart. ... in modern realities, his task is not so much to shoot down vzvinin packs with well-aimed fire, but to create to crush him with fire

Jozhik! If you shoot with 4 or P sights higher than me, and I shoot with 3 sights at you, then who will crush anyone faster?

Quote: Jozhik

But this requires a competent commander who will be able to properly set tasks and determine goals.

I will tell you a military secret, only you do not tell anyone!
All commanders in all military schools study the same AK-74 Manual. Moreover, they are taught to strictly follow this Guide, although they say with a tongue twister that it is not a dogma.
Instructions, manuals, etc. - This is a collection of military experience, and before breaking them, you must acquire your own experience.
It’s good if you get your own experience at shooting ranges in the form of ratings for your platoon or company. Worse, when you have to get this experience in the form of 200 cargo.
The AK-74 Manual must be corrected so that it does not have to be violated!

[Yozhik]

And yet, dear Comrade Svateev, do you have an idea to engage in targeted shooting precisely on the enemy’s head?

[Svateev]

Quote: Jozhik

you have the idea of ​​a fix to engage in aimed shooting precisely at the head of the enemy

Dear Comrade Jozhik!
If you had read not only this article devoted to eccentrics in military uniform, but also the first one - "The submachine gunner must and can hit the main target", to which the reference is given and in which my proposal is actually explained, you would see what I offer the submachine gunner hit not only the head target, but from the head and all the others that are higher. It's just that now the head submachine gunner does not hit, therefore the conversation revolves around her.

[Yozhik]

Dear Comrade Svateev. I read your first article. There is something in this, but I will probably remain of my opinion, because my experience of military service does not allow me to completely agree with you. But in any case, thanks for the workout for the brain, there is something to think about.

[fitter71]

I'm certainly not a big specialist in the charter, and indeed in the military sciences, but ... let's not forget about the strength of a person’s habits and inertia. if it is prescribed in the charter to keep the bar on P - check the weapon - how is it installed? the last time they shot. But how often do they shoot?
the unit entered the battle - will they rearrange? come on! rather - into the white light as a pretty penny at first. and for how many will this "sighting" be the last? training, say shooting ranges ... so in fact they are aimed at developing a habit, bringing it to automatism. and the current automatism - for some reason I believe the author - just reduces the likelihood of defeat at the very first moment. further - here they say that having received the skill, a person will independently determine the correct sight ... but if there is a war? and I once knew how to determine, but was it 25 years ago? even faster - but study again ...
the simpler and more correct the initial installation of the sight — the less additional movements the soldier needs to make — that is how I understood the author. and I totally agree with that. it’s how I have it with an alarm on my phone: it is, it works, I like the melodies, but to turn it on I need to be a couple of clicks daily more than I’m ready to put up. but because - I get up under the howling of a terrible Chinese alarm clock ... the author proposes to reduce these spurious clicks - after all, a soldier has no alternative - unlike me with alarm clocks?