Small Arms Thread

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 914
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ParGha » 23 Jun 2009 04:00

Sanjay wrote:However, isn't part of the purpose of a section level MG to be compatible with rifle ammunition? Is there any way the Bren can be adapted to take a larger capacity magazine ?


There is no hard-and-fast rule that the section/squad support weapon must fire rounds compatible with the individual rifle's ammunition. But streamlined logistics is obviously a desirable characteristic - hence the initial conversion of Bren from .303 to 7.62mm (NATO) to be compatible with the SLRs, and now its gradual replacement altogether with the INSAS LMG.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 914
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ParGha » 23 Jun 2009 04:11

RayC wrote:Equipment changes as per the tactical requirement of the times.


Sir, out of curiosity, has the Sterling now disappeared from the battalion TOE completely? I don't see it with the army these days, and I had heard many complaints about for a while now. Plus the trend now seems to be that field and company grade officers almost all over the world (especially those involved in COIN) are abandoning their handguns and pistol-caliber carbines in favor of the standard individual rifles.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 23 Jun 2009 23:15

ParGha wrote:
Sanjay wrote:However, isn't part of the purpose of a section level MG to be compatible with rifle ammunition? Is there any way the Bren can be adapted to take a larger capacity magazine ?


There is no hard-and-fast rule that the section/squad support weapon must fire rounds compatible with the individual rifle's ammunition. But streamlined logistics is obviously a desirable characteristic - hence the initial conversion of Bren from .303 to 7.62mm (NATO) to be compatible with the SLRs, and now its gradual replacement altogether with the INSAS LMG.


It is an important issue that weapons should have the same calibre since it assists interoperability, logistics, stocking etc.

LMGS, MMGs, rifles and such weapons should be of the same calibre since there are time when the ammunition is running low and one would like to fire a weapon with a higher rate of fire to keep the enemy at bay.

If, let us say, the LMG or MMG was of a different calbre, then one could not pool the rifle ammunition to give to the LMG or the MMG.

nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 378
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby nikhil_p » 24 Jun 2009 23:49

Is it possible to have a Multi caliber (5.56,7.62,0.50) M/HMG?? I mean you swap the breech and barrel. Ready to fire a different round chambered...I have heard of pistols like this, but then never heard of a mach gun.

Sandipan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Sandipan » 25 Jun 2009 04:05

I have a question for RayC, I being a civilian has a feeling that our army is very ill equiped as far as Personal Defence Weapons are concerned. Our Soldiers in 21st century still use an INSAS rifle which is not a full auto rifle and with parts made of wood. Whatever we may say about it, still it is weapon of the last century. When we see armies around the world are equipped with latest rifles with scopes etc. even if you take China, the regular soldier is equipped with QBZ95 with bullpup design, autofire, less bulkier. I saw our soldiers going to China for Indo-China exercise and there we could see the difference in attire, weapons the two armies are equipped with.

You being a veteran, dont you think we need to pay lot of attention in equipping our jawans with a good gun, which is having an autofire capability, scope etc. All this stories of FINSAS, I dont know when it will really come into being becasue any program in our country takes decades.

Personally, I feel giving a proper gun o our soldiers should be top priority of Defence planners. Tanks, Fighter planes, Ships are hardly used on daily basis and last proper war we had was in 1999 Kargil. But, Jawans are dying or put to disadvantage on daily basis due to lack of a proper gun.

Though, Iam a newbee but your response would be highly appreciated

Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Srivastav » 25 Jun 2009 04:17

here we go agian

As Rayc has said before, (correct me if iam wrong) one of the reasons we dont use full auto is so that our soldiers dont waste ammo, also one doesnt need to be like John Rambo to be effective.

The pics you saw of chinese soldiers are pretty much for PR and the bullpup design is not as widely used in their army as you think. Ive never heard before of our soldiers dying because of having bad Assault tifles, winter clothing etc might be an issue but its highly fallacious to say that we are losing soldiers because of a bad gun.

As for scopes, we use scopes as and when required, ther have been pics posted on BRF before which showed INSAS with scopes on them. Furthermore, INSAS as is a damn good gun and why do you think that parts being made of wood is a problem.

that being said, i agree with you that our soldiers deserve the best of equipment but please done get confused by looking at brochures of other guns/armies out there. In the end what really matters is experience and our soliers have oodles of that, ofcourse for that experience to work that need competent equipment and i think INSAS is a very competent gun.

Vinito
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 18:33

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Vinito » 25 Jun 2009 04:55

nikhil_p wrote:Is it possible to have a Multi caliber (5.56,7.62,0.50) M/HMG?? I mean you swap the breech and barrel. Ready to fire a different round chambered...I have heard of pistols like this, but then never heard of a mach gun.


With regards to rifles,although not in production the magpul masada was capable of being configured for 5.56 & 7.62 use by changing the breech & barrel. Another not so well known gun was the OTS-14 Groza which has been configured for 5.45, 5.56, 7.62 & 9mm. This weapon is mainly used by the Russian Spetsnaz squads.

With regards to machine guns the American SSW(Squad Support Weapon) has the abilty of being converted from 30mm grenade launcher to a 0.50 calibre machine gun.

Sandipan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Sandipan » 25 Jun 2009 07:03

Srivastav - Nothing Personal, From your words it seems, you are taking an extreme position. First of all, I believe if given an option all soldiers will prefer a full auto gun. It does not mean they want to spray bullets like John Rambo. And moreover, I have heard this reason before is that INSAS is designed to be semi-auto because army does not want soldier to waste bullets. If this is really the reason then we have the dumbest army in the world. {Ah, General Napoleon Zhukov Manekshaw has passed judgement on the IA ! There can be no arguments after this !}Sorry for the profanity but the reason looks like a lame duck excuse. We have to come out of this socialist mindset of "Bit of extravagance amounts to luxury". It is the life of soldiers we are talking about.

Moreover, I have been in this site before and read number of links of stories where BRFites and journalists have interviewed soldiers who have said that given an option they would prefer AK47 over an INSAS due to AK47 being more reliable and it is fully auto. So what more do u need, AK47 which is a 50 year old technology is considered a better gun then INSAS.

I am not a expert on guns but INSAS may be good weapon for war but it is not at all a good weapon for counter-insurgency. As far as statement like "Our soldiers have oodles of experience". This kind of statement I am afraid to say does not help anybody specially our Jawans. In case of real combat, the enemy soldier is not going to give a quarter to our soldiers and they too would be equally experienced, so giving our jawans edge in terms of better equipment specially a gun is utmost importance. Thank you
Last edited by Rahul M on 25 Jun 2009 12:28, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: added an exclamation !

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 25 Jun 2009 07:37

Sandipan wrote:I have a question for RayC, I being a civilian has a feeling that our army is very ill equiped as far as Personal Defence Weapons are concerned. Our Soldiers in 21st century still use an INSAS rifle which is not a full auto rifle and with parts made of wood. Whatever we may say about it, still it is weapon of the last century. When we see armies around the world are equipped with latest rifles with scopes etc. even if you take China, the regular soldier is equipped with QBZ95 with bullpup design, autofire, less bulkier. I saw our soldiers going to China for Indo-China exercise and there we could see the difference in attire, weapons the two armies are equipped with.

You being a veteran, dont you think we need to pay lot of attention in equipping our jawans with a good gun, which is having an autofire capability, scope etc. All this stories of FINSAS, I dont know when it will really come into being becasue any program in our country takes decades.

Personally, I feel giving a proper gun o our soldiers should be top priority of Defence planners. Tanks, Fighter planes, Ships are hardly used on daily basis and last proper war we had was in 1999 Kargil. But, Jawans are dying or put to disadvantage on daily basis due to lack of a proper gun.

Though, Iam a newbee but your response would be highly appreciated


At the outset, may I say that there is never the question of ‘personal defence’ and so there is no such weapon? We are a team, a group and everything is aimed towards the success of that team or group.

Every weapon is designed for the task it is supposed to do. A rifle is for an attack and for defence.

Let us see how an attack is mounted.

The attacking troops go in to a Concentration Area, where all those who are to participate in that attack concentrate, marries up and understand each other.

Then the go into the Assembly Areas, where greater coordination is done.

Finally, they go into the FUP (Forming Up Place) and the forward edge is known as the Start Line (the crossing of which at a specific hour is the datum for coordination of specific tasks like the Fire Plan etc) and then the assault. The FUP is normally on the forward edge of the minefield laid by the defender and it could be as far as 1000 yards or even as close as 300 yards, depending upon the tactical and terrain requirements.

Therefore, in the classical tasks of attack and defence, is there any requirement to have weapons that have arty ranges?

Does the infantry have to engage the defender from the Concentration area or when he is assaulting and when the victory means capture of the objective? Or as a defender, it is essential to have infantry weapons which can take on the attacker at the Concentration Area? If indeed, what is the requirement of the Arty and the Air Force?

One cannot explain warfare in a post. I hope you will appreciate my limitations.

Why is the INSAS archaic? It is a unique weapon that has borrowed the best from many weapons. The only issue is the world wide debate over the 7.62 and the 5.56 calibre and its effectiveness. The rationale for each is different!

Automatic fire is not advocated in the IA because it is a waste of ammunition. It adds to the replenishment problems and adds to the logistic tail when we talk of reducing the teeth to tail ratio. Further, it goes against the basic principle of ‘Shoot to Kill’ and “Ek Goli, Ek Dushman’. I agree that a great volume of fire is comforting, but that is Dutch Courage. What is required is Courage and not Dutch Courage!

What is wrong in what is the current ‘attire’ of the IA. We are to fight a battle. We are not models on a ramp indicating a Versace wear.

Have you noticed the Chinese have no hair on their face and look almost like girls? We have Sikhs who have a whole lot of hair and more than what one would think necessary. Don’t you think they are great ones to take them on? :)

I assure you we are OK and doing fine!

Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Srivastav » 25 Jun 2009 07:43

Srivastav - Nothing Personal, From your words it seems, you are taking an extreme position. ....... We have to come out of this socialist mindset of "Bit of extravagance amounts to luxury". It is the life of soldiers we are talking about.

iam just stating the reason given for non full auto. Since ive never fought in a war, i have no idead if this a good or bad idea. Also no offence taken and thanks for keeping this a constructive discussion.

So what more do u need, AK47 which is a 50 year old technology is considered a better gun then INSAS.
Well its not considered a better gun than INSAS persay but definately considered better suited for CQB kind of ops our soldiers are engaged in these days. FWIW, i read a littlel while back that some soldiers also miss their SLR's. Anyways only an experienced person can answer this.

This kind of statement I am afraid to say does not help anybody specially our Jawans. In case of real combat, the enemy soldier is not going to give a quarter to our soldiers and they too would be equally experienced, so giving our jawans edge in terms of better equipment specially a gun is utmost importance. Thank you


I think you have misunderstood me here, what iam trying to say that due to our soldiers experience they are better suited to fight a war with competent weapons than say for eg a country which has a lot of gizmos but its current generation of soldiers have hardly seen any real combat. Training excercises etc are good and serve their purpose but theres nothing like the real thing.

I totally agree whith you when it comes to getting new AR's/carbines for counter insurgency.
Last edited by Srivastav on 25 Jun 2009 10:01, edited 2 times in total.

Sandipan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Sandipan » 25 Jun 2009 09:38

RayC & Srivastav, thanks for your informative writeups. I have no wish to engage you in a lengthy debate on a subject on which lot of analysis i think might have happend in the past. So it may amount to paralysis of analysis. But, I am reminded of words of Dr Abdul Kalam, he said something like India was ruled by invaders for majority of its recent history becasue when invaders came with guns we were fighting with swords. When invaders came with canons, we were fighting with bows and arrows. The fact of the matter is being a peace loving nation, we rarely in history gave importance to warfare, there are exceptions like Shivaji offcourse.

Bringing the discussion to perspective, what i mean is that our armed forces always seem to be in a catchup mode in terms of technology. take the example of AK47, it is being made in numerous sweat shops in pakistan and over the world maybe. But when our OFB tried to copy it and made AK7, they did such a horrible job hat army rejected it altogether. Same case with the recent carbines and all made by us. Why a country with such defence giants who can construct aeroplanes, ships cant make a decent gun. Now, we had to import the Tavor from Israel instead.

Instead of rejoicing we should be asking ourselves why a tiny nation like Israel can do and we cant. Coming back to our army as RayC has explained that INSAS has definite use in case of conventional warfare where you know where your enemy and you strategise before attacking. in that scenario I guess INSAS is an excellent weapon. But, in current times when 365 days a year our army is fighting an unseen enemy who can spring surprise anywhere, we need a weapon which can produce a wall of lead but our defence planners and experts are best judge. But looking at INSAS, it appears to have a bulky and unwieldy frame. But, RayC's words do assure us that we are in safe hands and our jawans with their raw courage can maybe overwhelm the enemy.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 25 Jun 2009 11:17

Let's look at some of the front line weapons of troops around the world:
FN-FAL = Originally capable of full auto, many of the countries that use it though use the L1A1 variant which fires a 3 round burst, an innovation pioneered by the Brits.
M16 = Original M16A1 had full auto mode, but is now practically extinct in the US military inventory. M16A2 only has burst mode, after US military experiences in Vietnam (this is what is being used by US Army currently). During Vietnam, many soldiers would use up their ammo spraying into the bushes, so the U.S. Army did a bunch of research and concluded that three-shot groups provide the best balance of accuracy and firepower, along with conserving ammo. M16A3 retains a full auto mode, but is only issued to SEAL and SeaBee units. M16A4 is used by US Marines on the frontline and some army units (some army units still use M16A2 but they will all transistion to M16A4 gradually). M16A4 also has no auto mode and only a burst mode, like the M16A2.
SA-80 = Semi auto in the infantry version, auto in the LMG version.

So it isn't just India that is going with a semi-auto assault rifle.

As for mounting scopes, not everyone in a US military team has scopes, only designated marksmen and snipers have them. Same with most other countries. Telescopes are too expensive to justify everyone having them, especially if half the squad can't hit anything beyond 350 metres or so anyway.

And as for the legendary copies of rifles made in Darra, they make great conversation pieces to hang on walls and such. Just don't try firing them with normal high powered ammunition though.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 25 Jun 2009 11:59

Sandipan,

I appreciate your sarcasm in reply to my post with the tongue in cheek - India is a peace loving country, we rarely in history gave importance to warfare.

Are you suggesting that the Indian Armed Forces are poodle faking? And we are earning our pay playing marbles?

I have taken time out to explain the classical role and indeed it is disappointing to find that a Bullpup design is all that we feel will win wars!

Please understand India maybe peace loving and all that, but when my life is at stake, I sure would like to have the best - because peace loving country or otherwise, if I am to defend that peace with my life, I will be damned if I am equipped only with the weapon of say, satyagrah!

That said, we are not enamoured with every little toy that the world produces. They maybe good. They maybe the best. Yet, what my country produces, if it meets my need, is fine by me.

One must also understand the nuances of war fighting to realise what one wants and what one does not want.

India maybe peace loving, but then India can also be nasty and shrewd. Don't underestimate India. We are not all Mahatma Gandhi or Jesus Christ!

It is not raw courage that sustains us. It is just courage and equipment that are not too bad to take on the adversary. Of course, the moon would is what is required, but we also realise that our country cannot give us the moon!

Between you and me, I want Air Force One for every officer.

And the damned govt made me walk and no Air Force One!!!!

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby KiranM » 25 Jun 2009 12:10

Sandipan wrote:Coming back to our army as RayC has explained that INSAS has definite use in case of conventional warfare where you know where your enemy and you strategise before attacking. in that scenario I guess INSAS is an excellent weapon. But, in current times when 365 days a year our army is fighting an unseen enemy who can spring surprise anywhere, we need a weapon which can produce a wall of lead but our defence planners and experts are best judge. But looking at INSAS, it appears to have a bulky and unwieldy frame. But, RayC's words do assure us that we are in safe hands and our jawans with their raw courage can maybe overwhelm the enemy.


If the bolded section refers to counter insurgency, then it will be in the midst of non-combatants when especially you will not want the so called 'wall of lead'. Of course, collateral damage is not an issue for you then it is a different argument.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 25 Jun 2009 12:15

KiranM wrote:
Sandipan wrote:Coming back to our army as RayC has explained that INSAS has definite use in case of conventional warfare where you know where your enemy and you strategise before attacking. in that scenario I guess INSAS is an excellent weapon. But, in current times when 365 days a year our army is fighting an unseen enemy who can spring surprise anywhere, we need a weapon which can produce a wall of lead but our defence planners and experts are best judge. But looking at INSAS, it appears to have a bulky and unwieldy frame. But, RayC's words do assure us that we are in safe hands and our jawans with their raw courage can maybe overwhelm the enemy.


If the bolded section refers to counter insurgency, then it will be in the midst of non-combatants when especially you will not want the so called 'wall of lead'. Of course, collateral damage is not an issue for you then it is a different argument.


Thank you.

That apart, when the magazine of lead is finished and all the magazines of lead carried in the pouches, who the name of Christ is to replenish them so that the insurgents, who have stocked up, do not draw us in their wall of lead?

One should not just look at the lethal power of auto weapons, one should also look at the replenishment system and what it takes!

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17016
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Rahul M » 25 Jun 2009 12:16

Sandipan wrote:Bringing the discussion to perspective, what i mean is that our armed forces always seem to be in a catchup mode in terms of technology. take the example of AK47, it is being made in numerous sweat shops in pakistan and over the world maybe. But when our OFB tried to copy it and made AK7, they did such a horrible job hat army rejected it altogether.

:rotfl: :rotfl:
hey don't think that IA would have passed the sweat shop AK's either.
the quality of such AK's are atrocious. don't even compare it with the A-7 !
Do remember that IA is very very strict when it comes to weapon procurements, more so when it comes to desi ones.
Same case with the recent carbines and all made by us.

same reason above and the fact that even a good weapon may not satisfy the particular needs.
Why a country with such defence giants who can construct aeroplanes, ships cant make a decent gun. Now, we had to import the Tavor from Israel instead.

US navy SEALS use (or used to) the MP-5 and berreta, made by a german and italian manufacturer respectively.
Should we say "why the sole super-power in the world can't manufacture a decent gun for its SF ? " :lol:

POint is there is no small arms that can fill every role, and a force has to pick and choose to suit its operational mandate.
That means you need a heavy hitter with full auto in COIN scenarios. The trade-offs are low accuracy at long distances and no bullet economy. IOW, the AK-47 and variants.

For conventional warfare you need a more accurate gun at larger distances with better bullet economy. 5.56 mm as against 7.62 mm means more can be carried. we arm chair generals think full-auto is cool and macho but the people who actually fight also have to think of real and boring things like re-supply and the actual number of bullets being carried by a soldier.

Unlike a video game, the number of times you can fire is unfortunately limited by the number of bullets one carries, you can't just re-load using some cheat !! :P
Also, the semi-auto mode is supposed to make soldiers better shooters. supposed to be a psychological thing.

So, everything said and done, INSAS fits the bill as an assault rifle for IA perfectly. What was your point again ? (BTW, there's no wood on INSAS)

Coming back to our army as RayC has explained that INSAS has definite use in case of conventional warfare where you know where your enemy and you strategise before attacking. in that scenario I guess INSAS is an excellent weapon. But, in current times when 365 days a year our army is fighting an unseen enemy who can spring surprise anywhere, we need a weapon which can produce a wall of lead but our defence planners and experts are best judge.

so you are saying that we should no longer prepare for a conventional war ?
transform the whole IA into a COIN force ?
may be sell off the tanks, fighters and warships too, while we are at it ? heaven knows we don't need any of those, we need only worry about "an unseen enemy who can spring surprise anywhere". anything that isn't related to fighting the unseen enemy has to go, it's worthless.
But looking at INSAS, it appears to have a bulky and unwieldy frame.

:roll:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17016
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Rahul M » 25 Jun 2009 12:19

That apart, when the magazine of lead is finished and all the magazines of lead carried in the pouches, who the name of Christ is to replenish them so that the insurgents, who have stocked up, do not draw us in their wall of lead?

Sir ji, there are computer games in which players play the role of SF fighting terrorists and using something called cheat the player can have unlimited bullets at his disposal !!
bring out the terrorists I say, I have all the bullets to fire full auto till kingdom come !! :mrgreen: :twisted:

too bad the real world is so un-cool ! :wink:

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 25 Jun 2009 12:29

Rahul M wrote:
That apart, when the magazine of lead is finished and all the magazines of lead carried in the pouches, who the name of Christ is to replenish them so that the insurgents, who have stocked up, do not draw us in their wall of lead?

Sir ji, there are computer games in which players play the role of SF fighting terrorists and using something called cheat the player can have unlimited bullets at his disposal !!
bring out the terrorists I say, I have all the bullets to fire full auto till kingdom come !! :mrgreen: :twisted:

too bad the real world is so un-cool ! :wink:


One has to see warfare to realise the nuances and so I am not uneasy with what anyone for what they feel or say as they have not seen the real McCoy and because I am sure they have the best intentions at heart!

Ammuntion replenishment and casualty evacuation are two huge hassles!

Sanipan,

i appreciare your concern, do suggest what you feel we shoud have - the whole array.

The Chief is my coursemate and so maybe I can advise him. Après moi le déluge.

Sandipan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Sandipan » 26 Jun 2009 08:08

Reading the posts above,I feel disected like a frog on a wax tray. I guess RayC appreciates my sincerity. I have been reading his posts for months and years now. He responds to queries and tries to answer to the satisfaction of the member asking, without bothering about their hierarchy. I gathered courage to ask this question as this was nagging in my mind for some time now.Too much of military, discovery and History channel maybe. I appreciate the responses from ArmenT, RayC and Rahul, though few of the comments from Rahul were bit personal, but i guess i led him to it.

I have been following the cutting edge discussions on the BR forums for some time now and have been a committed BR newbee (lurker in the words of Rahul). I accept most of the reasonings which have cleared many of the misconceptions in my mind. But i do disagree on some points. As RayC was saying whatever the country is producing and it meets the demands, is good for him and do we require the whole array of weapons, but RayC why not!. I have been to the OFB website, the choices they have can be counted on the fingers of my hand. Indian army does not have much choice as far as OFB produce is concerned. IF INSAS is so good, why no country other than Nepal bought it.

Secondly, Rahul says do we transform the army into a COIN force.But isnt it a reality. I am not saying that we sell tanks, planes and ships to buy guns. In last 3 decades, our army has been reduced to a COIN force. So, doesnt the common sense demands that we prepare and majorly arm ourselves according to what we do day in day out instead of something which happens in rarity.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 26 Jun 2009 08:26

Sandipan wrote:
I have been following the cutting edge discussions on the BR forums for some time now and have been a committed BR newbee (lurker in the words of Rahul). I accept most of the reasonings which have cleared many of the misconceptions in my mind. But i do disagree on some points. As RayC was saying whatever the country is producing and it meets the demands, is good for him and do we require the whole array of weapons, but RayC why not!. I have been to the OFB website, the choices they have can be counted on the fingers of my hand. Indian army does not have much choice as far as OFB produce is concerned. IF INSAS is so good, why no country other than Nepal bought it.



I thought I explained the the mechanics of the infantry in its classical role.

What weapons do you feel we are lacking in?

Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Srivastav » 26 Jun 2009 08:38

Sandipan wrote:I have been to the OFB website, the choices they have can be counted on the fingers of my hand. Indian army does not have much choice as far as OFB produce is concerned. IF INSAS is so good, why no country other than Nepal bought it.


2 reasons (my personal opinion.)

Case 1- Nations which can afford INSAS generally have thier own assault rifles (AR's) program or are gettin AR's in bakhsheesh(charity ?) from massa,uncle, aunty etc. So why buy it from India when they can make AR's for their own forces and use in house resources. Also They dont need to get INSAS rifles when they can get same calibre/capabilty weapon from powerful political entities (think of brownie points) like USA, UK, Russia,etc.

Case 2- Poor nations cant really afford it unless we give them INSAS for free, highly discounted or on credit. Also they can buy an ak-47 copy from china or former eastern block dirt cheap. Thats why you see most of the militias/armed forces in african and other asian countries using AK clones. You also have to remember the forces in most of these poor countries are not well trained and a simple/sturdy gun like AK-47 is liked for its ruggedity, ease of use etc. Also because millions of ak/clones are in circulation, its easy to acquire and repair/refurbish them, thus further decreasing their cost.

Countries where India does have some political influence are using INSAS e.g. nepal, bhutan.

Therefore, the countries in the Case 1 will never by the INSAS because they dont need to. Whereas countries in Case 2 will prefer buying cheap, suspect quality, simple weapons to arm their forces. Although if we efficiently use our diplomatic, financial and political means, Case 2 countries are the best bet for India, when it comes to selling INSAS.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 26 Jun 2009 09:29

Sandipan wrote:But i do disagree on some points. As RayC was saying whatever the country is producing and it meets the demands, is good for him and do we require the whole array of weapons, but RayC why not!.

There is the whole problem of ammunition supply and logistics involved. Say the military allows your unit to take a choice .303 rifle, a 5.56mm INSAS, a 7.62mm AK-47, a 7.62mm FN-FAL and a 0.32 revolver. Now let's say there are 5 different units in your area of operations and they all decide to pick whatever they feel suits them best. Now imagine what kind of hassle the military has to go through to make sure that everyone in your unit is adequately supplied. Also there may be mistakes made in the supply chain. For instance, say your group uses FN-FAL and tjey are running low on ammo. So you dutifully call the supply depot and say, "Send me a few boxes of 7.62s. I'm running low.". Next day, the supply truck arrives with boxes of 7.62x39mm ammo, which fits AK-47s just fine, but are useless for your FN-FAL (which uses 7.62x51mm)

Sandipan wrote:I have been to the OFB website, the choices they have can be counted on the fingers of my hand. Indian army does not have much choice as far as OFB produce is concerned. IF INSAS is so good, why no country other than Nepal bought it.

Well, if you look at non-weapon producing countries, you'll see that the majority of them either use AK-47 family or M16 family. Does that mean there are no other good rifles in the world? No, there are some other countries that produce excellent weapons as well -- Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Germany etc. and many of them produce weapons that are far more reliable than the AK and far more accurate than the M16. Heck, when the Israelis wanted a new rifle, they based the Galil on the Finnish RK-62. So obviously there must be another reason why most countries use AK or M16 family then. The answer is "state subsidies". The US and the former USSR were in the habit of handing out gifts of weaponry to various countries, at a heavily discounted rate. The only reason the Israelis switched from the Galil to the M16 is because the US supplied them to Israel for free!

This is also the same reason why Nepal uses INSAS, because they were given to them by India at a very discounted rate. If the US military had got there first, rest assured that Nepal would have been using M16s instead.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 26 Jun 2009 09:51

Sandipan,

India plans hot chilli grenades
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8119591.stm

Imagine that!

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Sanku » 26 Jun 2009 09:53

INSAS to other countries :eek: :shock: :eek:

Gentlemen till recently OFB was struggling to provide enough INSAS within Indian forces itself -- surely we need to first meet our own needs before we export?

(The debate on why we struggle to make enough INSAS locally will be yet another debate)

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 26 Jun 2009 12:42

ParGha wrote:
RayC wrote:Equipment changes as per the tactical requirement of the times.


Sir, out of curiosity, has the Sterling now disappeared from the battalion TOE completely? I don't see it with the army these days, and I had heard many complaints about for a while now. Plus the trend now seems to be that field and company grade officers almost all over the world (especially those involved in COIN) are abandoning their handguns and pistol-caliber carbines in favor of the standard individual rifles.



To be frank, I have heard no complaints. Indian equivalents are there.

I have also not heard of officers not carrying their SMC.

If officers are taking rifles as their weapon the world over, it does speak volumes of how they don't trust their command for their safety! Odd, what ?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17016
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Rahul M » 26 Jun 2009 12:47

Secondly, Rahul says do we transform the army into a COIN force.But isnt it a reality. I am not saying that we sell tanks, planes and ships to buy guns. In last 3 decades, our army has been reduced to a COIN force. So, doesnt the common sense demands that we prepare and majorly arm ourselves according to what we do day in day out instead of something which happens in rarity.


NO, NO and NO, the only reason only "it" has been happening in reality is the very conventional superiority you want to do away with ! :shock:

think about this, does India still have a threat perception from china and pak ? if the answer is yes, you have no option but to prepare for that.

also think why pak has changed its tactics from conventional warfare to terrorism(mostly) ?
because they are aware of the conventional superiority of India. if that is taken away, as you are proposing will bring about another cycle of conventional warfare from pakistan.

secondly, the army doesn't really want to become a COIN force, its job is to fight external enemies, not foreign supported mercenaries hiding behind civil population.
the tactics, psychology and of course weapons are all different.
this is why the Rashtriya Rifles has taken over more and more from the army in J&K.
now RR is a proper COIN force, it is equipped to army standards but armed for COIN operations, IOW it is precisely the force you were wanting !
_______________________________________

OT
A bit of harmless advice.
regarding my earlier post, please learn to be a bit more circumspect while passing judgement on whatever issue it may be. even after a decade on BR and years of following defence affairs before that, most of us here deliberately avoid sounding like the last word on a subject, because after all, we are only arm-chair experts.(RayC excluded)

sweeping judgements with half-baked arguments (and trust me we can identify those easily) really gets on the nerves of most of us, we can't help it. consider yourself lucky that you didn't register 4-5 yeards earlier, the members used to be much more aggressive to loose comments back then ! :wink: BTW did you know your post was also reported against ?

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby KiranM » 26 Jun 2009 13:36

Sandipan wrote: though few of the comments from Rahul were bit personal, but i guess i led him to it.


Rahul M wrote:consider yourself lucky that you didn't register 4-5 yeards earlier, the members used to be much more aggressive to loose comments back then ! :wink: BTW did you know your post was also reported against ?


I would have to commend Rahul for the deft handling of that 'comment'. It was not grave enough to warrant adverse measures, yet appropriate message had to be passed on to you and everyone else what can be tolerated and what cannot.

Talking about the 'old' era, the 'grooming' would give Spartan society a complex.

Hoping that we can engage in mutually beneficial discussion.

Regards,
Kiran

SivaVijay
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 19:23

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby SivaVijay » 26 Jun 2009 14:00

Can anyone give me a link or article on how the Bullpup works, Tried my luck in Google but not much info as it is available for gas operated....

Also I read that a bull pup is not ambidexteric, why is this so...?

Thanks in advance.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 655
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby k prasad » 26 Jun 2009 16:56

SivaVijay wrote:Can anyone give me a link or article on how the Bullpup works, Tried my luck in Google but not much info as it is available for gas operated....

Also I read that a bull pup is not ambidexteric, why is this so...?

Thanks in advance.


Its almost the same as a normal rifle, except that the trigger is in front of the magazine. So that calls for internal redesign with the levers and rods. action itself remains much the same except for some minor changes.

As for ambidextrous use, if you see any rifle being fired, you'll notice the spent casings being ejected at speed from the side... these are extremely hot (imagine how hot a tin can would be if a bomb went off inside it), and given that it is a mini-explosion happening inside the chamber, the noise is quite loud... along with that are searing hot gases that escape from the slot.

Now imagine putting that noise and that heat right in front of your cheeks and ear... you'll definitely want that casing and the gas to be as far from your pretty face as possible. Now, since casings need a way to get out, the ejection port has to be on one side... since 90% are right handers, the port is on the right hand side... so obviously, you can't fire it from your left shoulder lest you get full 800 degree celsius brass facial treatment. A lot of guns do put in a deflector to deflect the shells downwards, but that still doesn't make them truly ambidextrous. The alternative is bottom or forward ejection mechanisms which are now being tried... as you can understand, that will take a lot of re-engineering, so it takes time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullpup

Sandipan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Sandipan » 27 Jun 2009 04:01

RayC

I have seen those chillies during my childhood days in Assam. I think we used to call them "Naga Marich". I can wonder what will happen to those who will be on the other end of the grenade. :twisted:

g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby g.sarkar » 28 Jun 2009 07:38

RayC wrote:India plans hot chilli grenades
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8119591.stm
Imagine that!

Raybabu,
In California we are trained to use OC as a spray and in launchable granade form. C is for Capsicum or red chillies on an oil base that clings to the skin on exposure. It is very effective as a crowd control and against animals. But as cadets we were trained to work after being sprayed, or fight through a closed space where granades were exploded. This may not work against a determined enemy. I do not know if the Indian chillies will be more effective.
Gautam

"Pepper spray, also known as OC spray (from "Oleoresin Capsicum"), OC gas, and capsicum spray, is a lachrymatory agent (a chemical compound that irritates the eyes to cause tears, pain, and even temporary blindness) that is used in riot control, crowd control, and personal self-defense, including defense against dogs and bears. It is a less lethal agent that may be deadly in rare cases." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 28 Jun 2009 08:12

Sandipan,

It is incorrect to state that soldiers prefer fully auto weapons.

Just imagine an assault is underway. INSAS has a 20 round magazine and each man carries his on weapon scale of 100 rounds.

How many rounds are required to incapcitate/ kill one soldier? To believe that all soldiers are marksmen, would be an incorrect belief. Therefore, there is the possibility that more than one round will be used. In an automatic mode, there will be the temptation to fire 'a wall of lead' and so how long will the rounds carried last? Now, if the ammunition is over and the enemy is still coming on, then what will happen? However, in a single shot mode, the ammunition will last longer and the time continuum longer.

Further, when a battle is on, the chances of replenishment of ammunition is near impossible. If one is on auto mode, it is obvious that the ammunition will be expended faster, then how will the ammunition be replenished?

And if there is no ammunition left, then the situation can well be visualised as to what will happen.

I might add that the soldier does not want to get burdened with unncessary weight. That is why there is always this ongoing exercise to make equipment lightweight.

The rationale to AK 47 being preferred to INSAS (which isn't always true) is because the AK 47 is of the 7.62 calibre and hence has a greater 'stopping power' than the INSAS which is 5.56.

Neilz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 21:09

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Neilz » 29 Jun 2009 10:44

Ok little bit deviation from ongoing discussion...

But I just saw this pic of Black color INSAS in use.. I know lot of members like to see INSAS in this....

http://img87.exs.cx/img87/9937/50851178.jpg

http://img87.exs.cx/img87/6383/50851179.jpg

Following one is INSAS in cameo cover

http://img73.exs.cx/img73/5309/2842.jpg

I have Q to gurus.... this guns looks perfctly matching to the cameo worn by the soldiers .. and very much with non reflective surface, will not stand out as a eye candy as the orange one does. Then why does we still produce orange one.

atreya
BRFite
Posts: 541
Joined: 11 Dec 2008 16:33

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby atreya » 29 Jun 2009 10:55

Nowhere close to a "guru", but can put in my 2 cents..? :)

The black coloured INSAS is the "Excalibur" version. It was meant to be used by SF. It has a selective fire with two modes- semi-auto and fully auto. Thats what I have read in Wiki and OFB site, anyway.
However, as you said, it looks better than the orange one and goes well with the battle dress too!

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 29 Jun 2009 11:03

Neilz wrote:I have Q to gurus.... this guns looks perfctly matching to the cameo worn by the soldiers .. and very much with non reflective surface, will not stand out as a eye candy as the orange one does. Then why does we still produce orange one.

Try holding a black metallic object on a hot day, and you'll get your answer.

Neilz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 21:09

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Neilz » 29 Jun 2009 12:33

atreya, I also had the doubt that it could be Excalibur... if you have a closure look (though pic is not that sharp) the barrel is more similar to INSAS regular issue. From the wiki photo only I found that regular and Excalibur is little different at the end of barrel.

Try holding a black metallic object on a hot day, and you'll get your answer.


Thats true but I think that logic does not sound good.. Except the barrel and mechanism the rest of the part previously made of wood and now with some type of polymer. Definitely the heat characteristic of that is far diff from the metal. Also, I think designer wood have taken that into consideration. Around the world plenty of assault rifles are black. Not only that I think in most of the scenario the rifle will be either in constant touch of human body or under shadow of the human body. If I am not wrong (I read long time back) when IA was deciding on a rifle for some SF unit there was specification of Gun with non-reflective surface.

But in contrast our regular INSAS which we see has shiny orange surface. Of course few times I saw little dark and mat finish INSAS(but again I was in hurry so may be mistook an FN).
Even if you ignore the shiny or mat finish thing.. I think keeping the olive green background(cameo of soldier) the orange color really make itself out.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 29 Jun 2009 13:43

"Blued" firearms are finished by using a hot-salts dipping method that penetrates the steel firearm surface and is the most common. If maintained and not scratched deeply, it is a very effective finish, but can easily be re-blued if damaged...

"Nickel" is actually a metal plating process that using electricity, the Nickel finish is "bonded" the the firearm surface as a seperate outer layer. Nickel is the LEAST durable finish and is more preferred by people attracted to the "flash asthetic's" rather than the durability of the finish.More glamourous than practical for most people...

"Black" is just another form of hot-salts blueing or chemically induced finish that is done by first "bead blasting" the surface metal on the firearm (Like a light form of sandblasting using minute plastic beads to rough up the surface metal FIRST)then the finish is applied. This is a good finish too, and is used so the firearm will not reflect light off of the firearm finish. These finishes can also be redone if necessary..
"Stainless Steel" is the most durable of all finishes because the surface is either polished or bead blasted and no hot salts or finish is applied. The Stainless steel is naturally tough and will last the longest simply because there is no applied finish to wear off. If you want a muted non-reflective stainless steel finish than it is just bead blasted as with the "Black" finish previously described. Nothing is done to Stainless steel other than polishing if you want a brighter finish..

"Parkerizing" is just another form of hot -salts Gray-Green-Black colored finish usually used on Military weapons, and on some shotguns for a non-reflective surface.On both steel and alloy firearms....

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 914AAU6xMP

Neilz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 21:09

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Neilz » 29 Jun 2009 15:24

RayC sir,

Thank you for the technical detail. From your post it is evident that for military purpose a gun with non reflective surface/with dark color is preferred.

Also, I note from your post that you extensively talked about the metal surface of the gun. In that aspect I think INSAS is pretty ok. However, I was talking about the orange color pistol grip, front hand grip and butt. I think they are made of polymer/fiber glass/wood. In any case they can be colored… A permanent one.

My query is when there are a batch of INSAS with the cameo color then why not it is applied to all INSAS. Or may be I am wrong these guns in posted pic are actually Excalibur. Or is it that the new INSAS series with cameo is in the production now.

RayC sir, I know your are one of the best person to answer this.

Sandipan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Sandipan » 29 Jun 2009 20:30

I heard somewhere that orange INSAS were for Indian army and black are for Nepalese army

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 29 Jun 2009 21:43

Neliz,

The orange also has me guessing!


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests