How can the hit probability be improved at longer ranges in combat (i.e., over 100m)?
We will discuss what it takes to hit targets at ranges between 100 and 600m and how to improve the hit probability.
The most important point to hit targets at a longer range is the coordination of the sight picture (eye-sights-target alignment) and the trigger squeeze! Also, the difficulty and time to hit the target will increase with the range (e.g., it's more difficult and takes more time to hit a target at 400m versus 100m). I don't need to mention that those are the fundamentals of shooting, and they need training. There is also some external ballistics involved, but more about that later.
In the last decades, combat optical sights have facilitated the acquisition of the sight picture by removing the need to align the front and the rear sight. I will not discuss here the other well-known advantages of combat optical sights. The last decade has seen a proliferation of so-called LPVO (low-powered variable optic) for combat applications. People tend to forget that such LPVOs are not red-dot optics and need some "alignment" (eye relief, eye box) to hit the target.
What about ballistics? With a standard 5,56x45mm assault rifle and a combat zero at 200m, you will theoretically be able to hit a 55cm (21in) height and 45cm (18in) wide target from 0 to 300 m while sighting in the center and with side winds up to 3-4m/s (6-9mph). At longer ranges, you will need to compensate for elevation, and the effects of wind will increase exponentially and must be considered (e.g., the wind drift at 600m is ca. five times more than at 300m). For the regular infantry soldier, who doesn't have a range finder, it's all about guessing/ estimating the distance and the wind. Without lots of practice quite a hopeless task 😉. That's why the U.S. Army has decided to introduce the XM157 Fire Control (NGSW-FC) with their new XM5 Assault Rifles. This fire control measures distance, angle and atmospheric conditions, and calculates the ballistic solution. However, the soldier still must guess/ estimate the wind! We now have a correct elevation…, but it changes nothing to the (difficult) coordination of the sight picture and trigger squeeze!
Do we forget something?! We are talking about combat, no?! Therefore, we must add to the equation the stress/ fatigue of the shooter and that the targets are generally not still but moving and not visible for a long time. Is the soldier capable of guessing/ estimating the speed and direction of the wind and the wind drift and, simultaneously, the speed and direction of the moving target and the lead, and adding or subtracting the results? And, of course, all under a time constraint! Not very realistic.
How can we, therefore, improve the hit probability in combat? One solution is to facilitate the sight picture and trigger squeeze coordination process with the help of computing sights. One such example is the SMASH sights family from SMARTSHOOTER. How does it work? You select your target in your optical sight (press the control button); through advanced image processing, SMASH recognizes the target and can predict its movements. If you decide to engage a target, you lock it (release the control button); SMASH will stay locked on the target even when you or the target move; then, it will show you the lead (where to aim). Once the target is locked, pull the trigger, and SMASH will do the rest, making sure you hit the target (the trigger will be released when the reticule crosses the aiming point). The process on paper may sound complicated, but it is simple and fast in practice.
Advanced shooters will hit static targets at distances over 100m more rapidly and with fewer rounds with SMASH than without. Where the systems shine, however, is engaging moving targets. Advanced shooters will increase tenfold the hit probability. Average shooters, who are generally unable to hit surprise moving targets with their rifles, will hit like advanced shooters. Except for the combat optics that simplify the sight alignment, infantry soldiers have the same problems hitting targets as their forefathers more than 100 years ago.
Today's technology still needs a lot of guessing and challenging coordination activities to hit a target in combat. The fact is that average soldiers are not good marksmen. Computing sights that address the primary weaknesses of marksmanship in combat should be considered, as they would immensely increase combat effectiveness.
Comments