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.
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 ? "
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 !!
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.