The controversy in the media about the directions of development of our small arms does not stop. The "Military Review" recently published a landmark article "On the conceptual uncertainty in the development of military small arms in the Russian Federation."
The essence of the controversy boils down to the question: is it necessary to follow the foreign - NATO - path and create weapons with low dispersion of shots, or the Kalashnikov assault rifle and Dragunov sniper rifle, which do not differ in small dispersion, "will remain the main small arms for combat units of the Russian security forces in the next 50 years." …
The ratio of losses in fire duels depends on the answer to this question, and the behavior of a soldier in battle and, in fact, victory or defeat in a war, depends on the ratio of losses. Therefore, this issue requires detailed and thorough consideration.
Proponents of large dispersion point out that "amazing accuracy can play a cruel joke when not a single bullet hits the target in case of omission or inaccurate determination of the initial data for shooting." This is indeed the case, and it has long been known:
Long live the big dispersion?
Let's figure it out.
First, the greater the dispersion of shots, the lower the density of fire, that is, the number of bullets per unit area of dispersion. Therefore, the greater the aiming error we want to compensate for by scattering, the lower the density of fire and the lower the probability of hitting the target (Fig. 1, option B).
Secondly, even in the case when there is no aiming error, and the STP coincides with the center of the target, a large scattering leads to the exit of a part of the scattering area beyond the contours of the target (Fig. 2 ~ 469m). That is, large dispersion with proper aiming reduces the likelihood of hitting the target.
So, the graphical method for determining the probability of hitting shows that the large dispersion of the AK-74 with correct aiming significantly reduces the probability of hitting already at the range of a direct shot.
And how do we benefit from the large dispersion of the AK-74?
We get the probability of hitting the head target with a direct shot at a distance of 150 to 300 m. The fact is that the (average) trajectory "P" at ranges from 150m to 300m above the head target - Table of excess trajectories from [2] or [3], line for sight "4". Therefore, aiming like this is a mistake. With such an error, a small dispersion would cause all bullets to pass above this target. A large dispersion gives a chance to hit.
Hooray?
But let's calculate what it is, the probability of hitting the main target at a distance of 200m with a direct shot from the "P" mark (corresponds to the "4" mark - 400m):
For target No. 5a, a rectangle with a width of 0.22 m and a height of 0.29 m (EF) will be equivalent, and the calculation is performed using EF in order to get rid of the figure of target No. 5a.
STP deviated from the center of the EP upwards by:
"The height of the trajectory" 4 "at a distance of 200m" - 0, 5 * "Height of the EF" = 0, 38m - 0, 5 * 0, 29m = 0, 38m - 0, 145m = 0, 235m.
Ф + в = Ф (("STP deviation in height" + 0.5 * "EF height") / "Vertical mean deviation at a distance of 200m for the best shooters") = Ф ((0.235m + 0.145m) / 0, 08) = Ф (4, 75)
F-v = F (("STP deviation in height" - 0, 5 * "EF height") / "Vertical mean deviation at a distance of 200m for the best shooters") = F ((0.235m - 0, 145m) / 0, 08) = Ф (1, 125)
We believe that there is no lateral deviation of the STP from the center of the target, therefore:
Fb = F (0, 5 * "Width of EP") / "Mean lateral deviation at a distance of 200m for the best shooters") = F (0, 5 * 0, 22m) / 0, 04) = F (2, 75)
We find from the table the values of the reduced Laplace function:
Ф (4, 75) = 0.99863
Ф (1, 125) = 0, 552
Ф (2.75) = 0.93638
We calculate the probability:
P = (Ф + в - Ф-в) / 2 * Фб = (0, 99863 - 0, 552) / 2 * 0, 93638 = 0, 209 ~ 0, 2.
So, with a single fire, we hit one bullet out of every five.
If we shoot at a target at the range, then it is acceptable, you can try your luck five times. But if we are conducting a fire duel with an enemy who has a well-designed ACOG sight, then with the crosshair "2" of his sight he will hit us in the forehead with his first bullet, which will stop our attempts to hit him with the help of large dispersion.
Thus, by the large dispersion of single shots of the AK-74, we reduced the probability of hits with correct aiming and did not get the opportunity to get ahead of the enemy with an aiming error.
Shoot in line? But the dispersion of subsequent shots of the AK-74 burst is several times greater than the dispersion of the first (single) shots. This is indicated in the AK-74 Manual [2]. And I personally checked this at one time: from a distance of 100 m on a chest target from a prone position:
- the first bullets of all bursts fall in a heap - in the area of the center of the target in a circle of no more than 5 cm;
- the second bullet of each turn misses the target - over the left shoulder of the target, the dispersion area of the second bullets is greater than the dispersion area of the first bullets;
- the third bullet of each burst hits the target again, but the third bullets are scattered over almost the entire target;
- all subsequent bullets of the burst scatter chaotically in the target area and their probability of hitting the target is extremely small. So from a whole store (30 rounds), fired in one burst, from 4 to 6 bullets hit the target. That is, minus the first and third bullets from the remaining 28, only 2-4 bullets fall.
The situation is similar for the M-16. Therefore, the Americans have long ago made (and we are still swinging) a fixed burst of 3 shots - in this mode, 2/3 of the bullets go to the target area, and only 1/3 is lost on a deliberate miss.
But let me remind you that these are the results at a distance of 100m. With an increase in the range, the dispersion increases proportionally, that is, already at a distance of 200m, the dispersion is twice as large and few of the third bullets of bursts will hit the target.
Therefore, firing a burst noticeably increases the probability of hitting only at short ranges - fighting in a building, in a trench, etc.
Supporters of large dispersion answer that it is simply necessary to fire more bullets and then the density of the fire will increase. They live in their own world, where the storage capacity is limitless, and new cartridges can be delivered to the firing position in the loud voice of the commander. They do not want to know about the real battles in the North Caucasus, when with such firing cartridges very quickly ran out, and then our company commanders had to call in artillery fire, covering the retreat of the remnants of the company.
And if we recall the law of dispersion of trajectories - 25% near the STF and a sharp drop in density with distance from the STF:
then it will become clear that as the STP goes beyond the contours of the target, the probability of hitting falls rapidly, and to compensate for the aiming error, the number of required shots must grow exponentially from the value of the STP going beyond the contours of the target.
With this approach, in principle, there will not be enough ammunition reserves. In addition, as shown above, an enemy with a modern sight simply kills the shooter with an AK before he has time to fire the required number of shots.
Conclusion: large dispersion is not a good way to compensate for aiming errors. Large dispersion gives an extremely insignificant, useless in battle probability of hitting a target when aiming error, and reduces the chance of hitting when aiming correctly.
But there are situations when it is necessary to cover a large area with scattering? Yes, there are. And these situations have also been described for a long time in the manuals on shooting: shooting at a moving target, at a group target, etc. In these situations, the shooter himself creates scattering by the angular movement of the barrel of the weapon during the turn - Manual on AK-74 [2] Art. 169, 170, 174, etc.
That is, the supporters of the large dispersion "forgot" that the large dispersion of arrows can be created on purpose. They forgot that there are two kinds of dispersion: natural and intentional.
Natural dispersion depends on the design of the scope and weapon and does not depend on the will of the shooter. The shooters cannot get rid of the natural dispersion of the arrows, no matter how hard they try. It is this - natural - dispersion that was discussed earlier in this article, and it is such a large dispersion (dispersion of an obsolete design) that its supporters advocate.
With a low natural dispersion, the shooter himself - according to the situation - chooses whether to deliberately create a larger area of dispersion than to reduce the density of fire, or leave all the bullets in the area of small natural dispersion and get the maximum density of fire on it.
And with a large natural dispersion, the shooter cannot do anything with it and becomes hostage to the low density of fire. For example, in Fig. 2, it can be seen that starting from ~ 313m, even the best shooters have some of the bullets escaping from the sides of the target. And there is no way they can prevent it.
How great is the dispersion of our weapons?
Referring again to Fig. 2. It can be seen that the scattering ellipse at a distance of 625m is approximately twice as wide as a tall figure, and at a distance of ~ 313m it is approximately twice as wide as a head. Therefore, in order to obtain the maximum probability of hitting with a direct shot, the dispersion of single shots of the AK-74 must be at least halved.
But the rejection of the "sacred cow" - a direct shot will give a much greater effect. You should have noticed that above I was talking only about those bullets that go away from the sides of the target, and did not touch the bullets that go above and below the target.
This is because the loss of the bottom half of the scatter ellipse at straight range and the loss of the top half of the scatter ellipse at about 1/2 of the straight range will be at any scatter. These losses are fatal, “generic” disadvantages of a direct shot. When firing a direct shot, at these ranges, we ourselves deflect the STP from the center of the target to its very contours, which is what we bring half of the bullets into milk.
And for the maximum probability of hitting the target, it is required that the average of the trajectory sheaf passes in the middle of the target.
This rule has also been known for a long time. The Main Directorate of Combat Training of our Ground Forces in the AK Manual [2] formulates it as follows: "Article 155 … The sight, rear sight and aiming point are chosen so that when firing, the average trajectory passes in the middle of the target."
It is more succinctly formulated in the monograph "The effectiveness of firing from automatic weapons" [1]: "The degree of alignment of the STP with the center of the target determines the accuracy of shooting."
But the same AK-74 Manual [2] recommends a direct shot?
Yes. And for the AK mechanical sight, this is justified, because with this sight:
- it is difficult to measure the distance to the target, let it be constant;
- setting the exact range to the target, you will have to look at the aiming bar and therefore lose sight of the target and the entire battlefield;
- the time to rearrange the range is long, the target has time to hide.
That is, the design of the mechanical (standard) AK sight is such that it is better to shoot with a direct shot with a low probability of hitting, than not have time to shoot at all.
So our scopes are the main obstacle to accurate shooting?
Yes, and this has also been known for a long time. Back in 1979, in the monograph "The Efficiency of Firing from Automatic Weapons" [1], it was indicated that aiming errors for AK are 88%, and for SVD with PSO-1 - 56% of the total dispersion of shots.
That is, by improving the sights, in principle, it is possible to increase the firing accuracy of the existing assault rifles up to 6 (!) Times, and the SVD - twice. Compared to these prospects, the benefits of improving the quality of the cartridges, which are now the focus of everyone's attention, look insignificant.
An accurate sight that allows you to keep the STP in the contours of the target, plus a small dispersion of shots - this is the path that NATO countries' weapons are currently developing along. And to dismiss the laws of ballistics just because our "potential friends" are guided by them is a sabotage against our army.
The sights and weapons currently being developed by NATO members have dispersion “most hits on a target from a distance of 1000 yards (914 m) are within the width of one palm,” that is, into the head of our sniper. And the deviation of the STP from the center of the target is practically excluded, since the aiming mark is formed by a ballistic computer.
And our supporters of large dispersion "have conceptually decided" and demand to replace the AK-74 with … AK-103 caliber 7, 62mm. In which the dispersion is obviously greater. Whoever fired from the AKM imagines this chaotic pouring fire over the target's surroundings, but not the target itself. Let's fight something against the M-16 equipped with ACOG sights! The ratio of losses will be like the Somalis in the "Black Hawk Down" ~ 30: 1 or the Iraqis in the "Desert Storm" ~ 120: 1. Not in our favor.
Our "potential NATO friends" over the past 20 years have bypassed our weapons in shooting accuracy by an order of magnitude. This is proved not only by theoretical calculations, but also by the catastrophic ratio of losses in real hostilities, where our weapons are opposed to NATO's. And our supporters of "doing nothing" seemed to have gone blind and deaf!
Sights! This is where we fail. For the last 20 years, the manufacturers of our scopes have been designing some ballistic outrages, the Ministry of Defense buys them, but the troops do not use them. Look at the footage of the chronicle of the 2008 war with the Hero of Russia Major Vetchinov. He has an AK-74N in his hands on which the PSO-1 is installed. The ballistics of the PSO-1 is designed for the SVD, and it is generally impossible to work with it on the AK-74. But nothing was better then, and still is not!
In one thing, the supporters of the large dispersion are right: the Ministry of Defense has lost the ability to assess the state of the small arms business in the world and to work out a concept for its development in our country. It does not set tasks for the industry, but waits for someone to propose something. And the Ministry of Defense will hold a tender and, perhaps, it will buy something. And whoever was left without orders - let him go bankrupt. And when all our manufacturers go bankrupt, the Ministry of Defense will go to buy from “potential friends”.
Bad politics. I, like the supporters of the big dispersion, are against such a policy. Hopefully this policy is in the past.
But the concept of the development of small arms in our country will have to be worked out by us with supporters of large dispersion. There is no one else.
Now we have developed a new sight, intended primarily for the assault rifle. This sight can change the role of the assault rifle in combat and the requirements for it. But these are already real serious orders for Izhmash (or the Kalashnikov concern).
If only they are willing to work to reduce the dispersion of their products.
Bibliography:
[1] "Efficiency of firing from automatic weapons" Shereshevsky M. S., Gontarev A. N., Minaev Yu. V., Moscow, Central Research Institute of Information, 1979
[2] "Manual for 5, 45-mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK74, AKS74, AK74N, AKS74N) and 5, 45-mm Kalashnikov light machine gun (RPK74, RPKS74, RPK74N, RPKS74N)" Main Directorate of Combat Training of the Ground Forces, Uch. - ed., 1982
[3] "Tables of firing at ground targets from small arms of calibers 5, 45 and 7, 62 mm" USSR Ministry of Defense, TS / GRAU No. 61, Military publishing house of the USSR Ministry of Defense, Moscow, 1977
