Indian Army: News & Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
sunny y
BRFite
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Aug 2009 14:47

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunny y » 01 Dec 2009 13:11

Hi....Does anybody know any exercise named "Divine Matrix" undertaken by Indian Army ??
Pardon my ignorance but I didn't know about it. Maybe I missed it somehow.

I came to know about it today. Then I googled it & it turned out that IA undertook this secret exercise in early 2009 keeping in mind any future Chinese offensive.

Here is the Hinustan Times article. Since it's HT (pretty reliable), I thought I should post it here:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News/newd ... 93140.aspx

Thanks

anirban_aim
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 25 Jul 2009 21:28

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby anirban_aim » 01 Dec 2009 13:38

RayC wrote:
anirban_aim wrote:

Ray C, any first thoughts?? :oops:

The reason I'm bringing this particular case the second time is that I know the place and the core in question. One of the oldest in IA. :cry: :cry:


I too have served in this Corps, but I am not too sure which part of the area in Sukhna is in question. Further, there was this report which stated that it was an NOC for some adjoining area, which was not Army land.

Land is not under the jurisdiction of the military and instead is with the Defence Estates organisation which is independent of the Army.

Therefore, it get curiouser! I am not too sure of the status of this land.

I am sure it is a serious case and if found guilty, then they would be cashiered.


The facts of the case are the following:

1. The Land in question belongs to the state Govt.

2. The Land where the construction was supposed to come up overlooks Army establishments like helipads etc; so NOC was sought. It was denied twice.

3. Then steps in Gen. Sir. AP, who gets Lt.Gen. Rath to clear the NOC. (allegedly because of his links with Dileep Agarwal, head of the so calld Educational Body, who it seems offered to job to the Gen. Sir. post his retirement in Feb. :oops: :oops: :oops: )

4. The Organisation/Trust which approached the Army for the NOC turned out be a bogus body claiming to represent Ajmer's Mayo College (Mayo complained to the Army)

5. Army gets wind of rotting fish on receipt of the Mayo complaint and orders an enquiry. (AP is red faced and Rath is claiming pressure from Boss)

6. 4 Corps GOC Lt Gen. Parnaik is presiding the enquiry.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 01 Dec 2009 17:02

Well, we will have to await the inquiry.

Avdesh has always been a queer fish. Silent and deep! I don't know Rath!

Pressure or no pressure, guilty as charged!

They must pay for their crimes (when proved) including the Maj Gen who 'wrongly advised' his Corps Cdr!

If the allegations are correct, then they can have no sympathies.

Disgraceful conduct and bringing a blot on the name of the Army!

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 120
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 01 Dec 2009 20:55

Brig. Ray,

While I appreciate your anguish, I would commend the Army on having taken the step. I don't recall any Government Organisation or Department, India, punishing the errant officers with such alacrity. This happened in case of the so called Tehelka tamasha as well. And in many other cases that I have come across.

So while there are black sheep everywhere, the Army and other Defence services should feel, at least, good about the fact that people do get caught and punished.

Best.

Riza Zaman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 69
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: NYC, NY
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Riza Zaman » 01 Dec 2009 21:05

India peace role in south Lebanon

In a remote corner of south-eastern Lebanon, Maj PPS Chauhan is commanding a UN check post near the strategically significant Sheba Farms area ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8362099.stm

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 01 Dec 2009 21:54

Ashutosh Malik wrote:Brig. Ray,

While I appreciate your anguish, I would commend the Army on having taken the step. I don't recall any Government Organisation or Department, India, punishing the errant officers with such alacrity. This happened in case of the so called Tehelka tamasha as well. And in many other cases that I have come across.

So while there are black sheep everywhere, the Army and other Defence services should feel, at least, good about the fact that people do get caught and punished.

Best.


Black sheep and corruption is in all organisations.

It is the Armed Forces that comes down heavily while others escape!

Yet, it embarrasses since we attempt to appear clean and pure and these chaps ruin that reputation.

We have to live up to the expectations that the citizens have of us!!

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 02 Dec 2009 14:02

Something that I received in the mail. Link to other side of story about the land scam:

http://keepingupthespirit.blogspot.com/

interesting read. It seems there is more to the story than what meets the eye.

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ASPuar » 02 Dec 2009 16:22

Yes, but its a bit too early for "guilty as charged".

1. Reporting coming from news outlets is heavily biased, with the use of words like "indicted", etc, which are scarcely possible, since currently a court of inquiry is in progress, and no indictments have been made.

2. Defence land is administered via the MoD's Defence Estates Service. The general could not have "sold" or "allotted" the land, at all. At most, he could have given an NOC, as regards routine clearance which is sought when building near an aviation facility.

3. The slant of reporting seems to be due to a motivated element which is leaking information in a manner which is detrimental to the officers concerned. Most reporters dont understand the nuances of what they are printing, and just write what they are told. Who is telling them these things, and who stands to gain? In such a scenario, a fair assessment of charges becomes very difficult.

4. If guilty, yes, they will be punished. But if not, JAG should be instructed to take up action on the behalf of IA and MOD, against all incorrect and libellous reporting. Appropriate legal cautions should be issued to those who are printing verbatim what seems at face value to be at least a scurrilous whisper campaign, whether or not accused are guilty.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 02 Dec 2009 17:35

ASPuar wrote:Yes, but its a bit too early for "guilty as charged".

1. Reporting coming from news outlets is heavily biased, with the use of words like "indicted", etc, which are scarcely possible, since currently a court of inquiry is in progress, and no indictments have been made.

2. Defence land is administered via the MoD's Defence Estates Service. The general could not have "sold" or "allotted" the land, at all. At most, he could have given an NOC, as regards routine clearance which is sought when building near an aviation facility.

3. The slant of reporting seems to be due to a motivated element which is leaking information in a manner which is detrimental to the officers concerned. Most reporters dont understand the nuances of what they are printing, and just write what they are told. Who is telling them these things, and who stands to gain? In such a scenario, a fair assessment of charges becomes very difficult.

4. If guilty, yes, they will be punished. But if not, JAG should be instructed to take up action on the behalf of IA and MOD, against all incorrect and libellous reporting. Appropriate legal cautions should be issued to those who are printing verbatim what seems at face value to be at least a scurrilous whisper campaign, whether or not accused are guilty.


Yes, what you write is true.

We await the inquiry!

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Surya » 02 Dec 2009 19:36

ASPuar is right

at worst this is a case of bad judgement for clearance,.

Anyway a COI is hardly an indictment

The media just needs some blood.

Sachin
Webmaster BR
Posts: 8039
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Undisclosed

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sachin » 02 Dec 2009 21:27

Surya wrote:The media just needs some blood.

The media just wants sensational news to increase their TRP. Let us await the details. I feel there should be some control on the media, especially when their reporters have no clue on the laws of the land, especially the military procedures.

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ASPuar » 02 Dec 2009 21:58

Sukhna land scam: Wrong to prejudge Generals, says Army chief
AGENCIES 2 December 2009, 01:42pm IST

MEERUT (Uttar Pradesh): The Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor on Wednesday went on the defensive on the Sukhna land scam asking the media not to prejudge senior army officers.
Interacting with the media here, General Kapoor said: "Its premature to jump into any conclusions just yet, so don't pass any judgement on senior army officers."

General Kapoor's statement came a day after the Eastern Command urged the media to maintain restraint.

"The Court of Inquiry is still going and the report is awaited. My action will be determined by the CoI report," General Kapoor added.

"We need to be just and fair for the image of the army," he said.

On Tuesday, Army's Eastern Command had appealed to the media to exercise restraint in reporting on the Sukna Land issue, involving some officers.

In a statement, the Eastern Army Command said: "Certain media reports have appeared regarding ongoing Court of Inquiry in Sukhna Land issue of Eastern Command. Since the Court of Inquiry is still in progress and not finalized, therefore speculative comments/interferences at this stage about the guilt of an individual is not appropriate."

The statement further went on to say; "It should also be understood that it amounts to character assassination of senior army officers. Premature trials and verdicts by the responsible media should be avoided."

The statement by the Eastern Army Command came days after a court of inquiry reportedly revealed that it found clinching proof against four serving Generals in connection with the Sukna land scam.

Earlier, a section of the media reported that the CoI has indicted Military Secretary Lt. Gen. Avadesh Prakash and Deputy Army Chief-designate Lt Gen P K Rath for their role in issuing a no objection certificate to a private establishment that falsely claimed to be establishing an affiliate of the famous Ajmer-based Mayo College on land adjacent to the Sukhna military station in Darjeeling.

Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash is one of the top eight Principal Staff Officers at the Army headquarters acting as advisors to Army chief General Deepak Kapoor. As Military Secretary, is responsible for the promotion and postings of officers.

Lt-Gen P K Rath was commander of the crucial 33 Corps based in Darjeeling district of West Bengal, under which the Sukna military station comes, when the alleged land scam took place.

The defence ministry has cancelled the appointment of Lt. Gen. Rath as the new Deputy Army Chief (Information Systems and Training).

Lt Gen Rath's, former deputy, Lt. Gen. Ramesh Halgali is currently commanding the 11 Corps at Jalandhar. The Commission of Inquiry has also apparently indicted some other officers in the 'chain in command'.

Sources at the Army headquarters have revealed that evidence is still being collected to try some senior officers for gross improprieties and irregularities through a court-martial.

Defence minister A K Antony has warned the Army that such cases "not only damage the Indian Army's image" but also "adversely affect the ability of senior officers to measure up to the expectations of the men they lead."


Latest ToI report.

Note the use of pseudo facts, and reporting in variance with stated facts (in bold).

1. The army chief has cautioned the media, and said that what it is doing amounts to character assassination (a legal term, which is actionable). The media portrays him as being on the defensive, and assures us that never mind what the army chief says, "sources" at army headquarters are saying that "evidence is being collected to try SOME SENIOR OFFICERS by court martial. Boy, you got that right. The MS is definitely SOME senior officer. And I love these nameless, faceless "sources".

2. Note, that ToI is saying that "sections of the media reported" that a CoI has indicted Rath. Note the nuance. It didnt say that the CoI DID INDEED indict Rath. It said that sections of media said so. So never mind whether its true or not, the editor has decided to print, and be damned!

3. Lastly, noone has asked whether issuance of the NOC on NON DEFENCE LAND, and simply as an administrative matter, amounted to an offence at all. Noone has asked whether issuance of the NOC was incorrect.

Im neither for, nor against these officers. But they are some of the highest officers in the army. And this COI seems to be a media circus, being touted as a "trial" one day, an "indictment" the next, and god knows what else the day after. To me, it stinks of somebodys dirty agenda against these gentlemen.

Oh, and the MOD clearly said a week ago, that LtGen Raths appointment has not been "cancelled", it is merely on hold.
Last edited by ASPuar on 02 Dec 2009 22:14, edited 1 time in total.

anirban_aim
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 25 Jul 2009 21:28

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby anirban_aim » 02 Dec 2009 22:04

2. Defence land is administered via the MoD's Defence Estates Service. The general could not have "sold" or "allotted" the land, at all. At most, he could have given an NOC, as regards routine clearance which is sought when building near an aviation facility.
[/quote]

Hi Aspuar, Completly agree with your sentiments here. But if you see the exchange me and Ray C had on this, may be it would have answered some of your questions.

1. It was never Army's Land, it was the state Govt's.

2. Only a NOC was required from the Army, which was issued by Rath after it was denied twice earlier.

The issue in question is this: Why would the millitary seceretary take a personal intrest in getting the NOC cleared. This is being investigated.


Dear Rohit,

Lt.Gen V.K. Singh is a highly decorated officer who has made a good name for himself and currently GOC EC. (Ray Sir, correct me if I'm wrong here) He was infact in Line for VCOAS, even now he is in line for COAS after Gen. Kapoor. The Blog you refer to seem to suggest some serios allegations towards him. Seemed a little far fetched.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17051
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 02 Dec 2009 22:08

it might be mentioned that the blog has come up very recently as if to publish on this topic only.
not that it's a damnation by any means, but just FWIW.

the media (cnn ibn to be precise) meanwhile is having a field day about army "scam" and "the army generals who have been found guilty". :roll:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 02 Dec 2009 23:09

anirban_aim wrote:
Dear Rohit,

Lt.Gen V.K. Singh is a highly decorated officer who has made a good name for himself and currently GOC EC. (Ray Sir, correct me if I'm wrong here) He was infact in Line for VCOAS, even now he is in line for COAS after Gen. Kapoor. The Blog you refer to seem to suggest some serios allegations towards him. Seemed a little far fetched.


Somehow, it seems that the past record of officers is of little concern here, decorated or not. Are others lesser officers by any yardstick of merit? The reason I put up that link was to present the other part of the story and some facts. If those allegations in the blog are true, it is obvious that what is happening is witch hunt and an effort to get even at the expense of the army and careers of some very senior officers.

And as Rahul M has said, someone in know or who has access to other side of coin (correct version or assumed to be correct) has put out those enteries. Something the newspapers and electronic media has not brought out.

Irrespective of the verdict of case, one thing is clear: someone has deliberately leaked information(s) about the case and progress of case to the media. COI is not some leaky bucket dept of GOI were information/files inadvertently fall into the hands of journalist(s). It is a very tight and closed door affair and unless someone talks, there is no chance of info going out. Who is giving blow by blow account of COI to the media? Someone from the IA itself. How many COI proceedings have you heard details of in the media? We did not even have details of Tehelka affair. All we came to know was COI--Summary of Evidence--Court Martial. That is something that stinks to high heaven.

Another thing, assuming even if all the officers are found not guilty, what happens then? Allegations of cover-up will crop up. "COAS saved his right-hand man"....BS

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 03 Dec 2009 13:23

The facts of the case is not known in the open sources.

Therefore, to judge the Generals would be unfair to them.

Chumta Tea Estate is not under the Army's jurisdiction.

But since it is adjoining a Corps HQs, there may have been some restrictions.

An NOC is hardly a scam, if it is for a good cause. But then, I am not aware of the facts of the case.

I believe the State Govt wanted the NOC given.

God only knows the truth!

anirban_aim
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 25 Jul 2009 21:28

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby anirban_aim » 03 Dec 2009 14:28

Irrespective of the verdict of case, one thing is clear: someone has deliberately leaked information(s) about the case and progress of case to the media. COI is not some leaky bucket dept of GOI were information/files inadvertently fall into the hands of journalist(s). It is a very tight and closed door affair and unless someone talks, there is no chance of info going out. Who is giving blow by blow account of COI to the media? Someone from the IA itself. How many COI proceedings have you heard details of in the media? We did not even have details of Tehelka affair. All we came to know was COI--Summary of Evidence--Court Martial. That is something that stinks to high heaven.


Rohit, Valid Point. Taken.


AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1981
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby AdityaM » 03 Dec 2009 22:39

Not battle-ready before 2027, admits Indian Army
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... +Army.html

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4622
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 04 Dec 2009 14:09

AdityaM wrote:Not battle-ready before 2027, admits Indian Army
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... +Army.html


Good article this! Should get some babus/netas scampering (first comment is a good reaction). A couple articles more along similar lines could see some quick adhoc purchases. Still, what is really needed is for some of the top brass to come out and do R&D ala Tyagi in 2006-7 Field Guns, MRCA, MKIs, 29s anyone? :rotfl:

CM

jimmy_moh
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 14 May 2009 12:33
Location: LOC

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby jimmy_moh » 04 Dec 2009 15:25

am totally confused with this news report..

our general was always saying "we are ready to counter with china any time"
and suddenly IA is admitting we cant afford a battle before 2027.. :eek:

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby krishnan » 04 Dec 2009 15:26

With with the year 2027?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 04 Dec 2009 17:15

Another link to the "Land Scam" story and some additional details:

http://www.statetimes.in/dtlnws.asp?id=1891

Posting in full as the link may not be archived:

The Sukhna land issue: Much ado about nothing

A Court of Inquiry (C of I) is in progress at the Kolkatta based Eastern Command of the Indian Army to investigate irregularities, if any, committed by some officers posted to the Sukhna based 33 Corps in issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to an educational trust that is in negotiations with the West Bengal Government to build an institution on land that falls adjacent to the Corps Headquarters. This issue has generated considerable media interest over the last few
days. The State Times has carried out a detailed investigation of the case with the objective to place it in the right perspective.

The first point is a description of the land in question. This land in question is Not defence land. It is, in fact, a tea estate of approximately 70 acres (Chumta Tea Estate) which adjoins the headquarters of the Sukhna based 33 Corps. The real estate is owned by the Government of West Bengal, it was on lease for 33 years and the lease has since expired. The
government is now considering a renewal of the lease and is working on a proposal mooted by the Dilip Aggarwal Geetanjali
Education Trust to open an educational institution in this real estate. Should the proposal be accepted by the by the Government of West

Bengal then the land would be given to the educational trust probably on lease for 99 years. At this point in time no approval has been accorded and as such no transaction has taken place. The next point is the involvement of the army. Since the said land falls adjacent to the Headquarters of the Sukhna Based 33 Corps the affected parties moved an application to obtain a NOC from the Corps Headquarters to ensure that no claims are made at a later stage. The case was processed by the Headquarters on file and the Commissioner of Land , Government of West Bengal, was informed
about no objection by the army for opening of an educational institute in the premises. Simultaneously the army also entered in negotiations with the trust to obtain some reserved seats for its wards and to this effect a memorandum of understanding was proposed to be signed whereby some 20 per cent seats would go to wards of army personnel. There are a few points that emerge from the foregoing. First, the army has no claims on the land in question. Second, the army has no legal right to be a party to the agreement, if any, that may be reached to by the educational trust and the
Government of West Bengal. Third, it is unclear whether requirement of the NOC was mandatory or it was simply an action
taken by the purchaser to avoid dispute at a later stage. Fourth, the land in question is proposed to be utilised for a noble purpose of providing education in the backward region of the north east. Fifth, the army has taken an initiative to secure some preference for its wards in the proposed institution which cannot be said to be an
irregularity.

Finally it can be concluded that there is no land scam whatsoever involved in this case and especially so with respect to
the Army which in any case has no claim on the land. Now the moot point, why is the army carrying out an inquiry when it has no direct involvement? The answer lies in the statement made by M.M Pallam Raju, Minister of State for Defence who has termed the case as an irregularity. This means that the army, by institution of a C of I is carrying out an internal audit to ensure that there were no lapses in its procedures while giving a no objection to the project. There is also talk of some senior officers having been indicted in the said Court of Inquiry (C of I). In all cases subject to the Army Act a C of I is only an initial investigation, in case some irregularity is established by the C of I then a Summary of Evidence is recorded
which is the equivalent of a charge sheet and on approval of the same by a competent authority a General Court Martial (GCM) may be ordered. The accused is ultimately tried by the GCM and it is at this stage that guilt or otherwise is established. Hence there is no question of indictment at the stage of the C of I. The Chief of Army Staff, General Deepak Kapoor has, during an interaction at Meerut on 2nd December, requested the media not to jump to premature conclusions and has assured that his actions will be determined by the C of I report which is still awaited. It is to the credit of the
forces that they have the courage to question their senior officers even on issues of this nature. It is the duty of the Nation to stand by its forces and keep alive their motivation to stand tall in their quest to remain free of corruption.

Jamal K. Malik
BRFite
Posts: 638
Joined: 27 Mar 2009 23:03

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Jamal K. Malik » 04 Dec 2009 17:18



Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Brando » 04 Dec 2009 17:52

Jamal K. Malik wrote:
AdityaM wrote:Not battle-ready before 2027, admits Indian Army
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... +Army.html

Armed Forces fully prepared to counter any challenge


Sounds like some psych-ops operation.

IMO both articles are not completely true and both have separate agendas, none of them being about informing the public as to their real security.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby SaiK » 04 Dec 2009 19:30

and replace insas with some thing else!? don't the ddms think about upgrade paths at all?

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Brando » 04 Dec 2009 20:35

SaiK wrote:and replace insas with some thing else!? don't the ddms think about upgrade paths at all?


Well. the army must have considered an indigenous approach as well and realized that on balance despite the many benefits of such a development, it would more optimal and beneficial to replace the INSAS with something more advanced from abroad.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 04 Dec 2009 23:05

Brando wrote:
SaiK wrote:and replace insas with some thing else!? don't the ddms think about upgrade paths at all?


Well. the army must have considered an indigenous approach as well and realized that on balance despite the many benefits of such a development, it would more optimal and beneficial to replace the INSAS with something more advanced from abroad.


:lol: ... yes isn't that true for "everything" indigenous wrt foreign for the IA :roll:

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 05 Dec 2009 09:31

What would be a Rifle that is more advanced?

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 944
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 06 Dec 2009 03:37

RayC wrote:What would be a Rifle that is more advanced?

Technology-wise? None that is in wide spread production and issue. Production-wise? That is a different story in itself, isn't it? And a story you know much better than I do... Being the most advanced is no guarantee of it being a better rifle. India itself proved this case with the FAL/SLR pitted against the Pak G3s. Technology-wise the G3 is more advanced than the SLR (more intuitive to use, equal accuracy for lower barrel length etc), but it is also less faulty ammo tolerant - a small problem when neither POF nor OFB(I) used to deliver ammo in nice, vacuum-sealed dirt-free plastic pouches. Sometimes I fear that in the recent craze for the latest and greatest, the basic lessons like that are forgotten.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 06 Dec 2009 13:18

Following the end of World War II, the U.S. Army conducted a number of studies of what happened in the war and how it was actually fought. Several things were learned which applied directly to personal weapon design. Perhaps most important, research found that most combat casualties caused by small-arms fire took place at short range. So the long range and accuracy of the standard rifle was, in a real sense, wasted. Second, the research found that aiming was not a major factor in causing casualties. Instead, the number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.[15] Third, psychological studies found that many riflemen (as much as 2/3) never fired their weapons at the enemy. By contrast, those soldiers equipped with rapid-fire weapons (submachine guns and the early assault rifles) were far more likely to actually use their weapons in battle.[16] This combination of factors led to the conclusion that a fairly short-range weapon capable of rapid fire would be the most effective general purpose weapon for infantry.

While these studies were being digested, the United States insisted on introducing their own 7.62x51mm full-power cartridge as the standard for NATO armies. It could kill at distances of more than 500 meters (though this was increasingly seen as irrelevant). At the time, the British were developing their own 7x43mm (.280 British) intermediate cartridge for their modern EM-2 bullpup assault rifle. Due to political pressure from the Conservative Party, which agreed with the American standardization campaign, the whole project was shelved at the eve of introduction. In Belgium, the famous arms producer FN Herstal started experimenting with the German 7.92x33mm Kurzpatrone. They built a prototype of a rifle using this cartridge, but the impending NATO standardization forced them to rebuild it to use American ammo, giving birth to the FN FAL, Switzerland introduced the SIG 510 that still fired Swiss service full-length rifle rounds but also produced the SIG 510-4 that fired the 7.62x51mm NATO round. Bolivia and Chile adopted the SIG 510-4 as their service rifle, Bolivian/Chilean exports were licence produced by the Italian firm Beretta.

More at:

Assault Rifle

Will give some idea of the changing mindset.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 944
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 06 Dec 2009 17:02

RayC wrote:Will give some idea of the changing mindset.

To clarify, I am not suggesting going back to the SLR. Far from it, I wanted to use it in an apples-to-apples comparison with its contemporary - the G3 - to show that the latest and most advanced is not necessarily the best performer. I agree that in a general sense the era of both those battle-rifles has come to a pass, though some limited applications continue to be found (ex. mod M14s {7.62x51mm} being issued in A'stan/Iraq as for platoon marksmen).

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 06 Dec 2009 21:17

Pargha,

I was quite satisfied with the INSAS.

It is those who are not fighting the enemey who are more worried.

In the Kargil War, there was much hoo hah about the troops not having clothing as in Siachen etc.

I was there during Kargil Ops and before in Op Intrusion Dalunang before that. If we could survive, what's the big deal?

Crocodile tears!

Why did people not bother then?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8100
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 06 Dec 2009 22:38

RayC wrote:Pargha,

I was quite satisfied with the INSAS.

It is those who are not fighting the enemey who are more worried.

In the Kargil War, there was much hoo hah about the troops not having clothing as in Siachen etc.

I was there during Kargil Ops and before in Op Intrusion Dalunang before that. If we could survive, what's the big deal?

Crocodile tears!

Why did people not bother then?


Sir, I didn't quite get you. Was the lack of Winter Clothing real or made up by the media? If it was real, then wasn't the hoo hah necessary to get the government to look into the matter. It might have been too late for those fighting in kargil since any new clothes would take time to arrive but better late than never right? I don't understand who you are referring to when you say "Crocodile tears".

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 944
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 06 Dec 2009 23:01

RayC wrote:It is those who are not fighting the enemey who are more worried.

OK, got you.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 07 Dec 2009 08:26

Pargha,

It was not for you.

I was stating about how the IA mindset changes.

A few years back, there was the RMA frenzy where changing a firing pin became RMA! :((

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 07 Dec 2009 08:28

nachiket wrote:
RayC wrote:Pargha,

I was quite satisfied with the INSAS.

It is those who are not fighting the enemey who are more worried.

In the Kargil War, there was much hoo hah about the troops not having clothing as in Siachen etc.

I was there during Kargil Ops and before in Op Intrusion Dalunang before that. If we could survive, what's the big deal?

Crocodile tears!

Why did people not bother then?


Sir, I didn't quite get you. Was the lack of Winter Clothing real or made up by the media? If it was real, then wasn't the hoo hah necessary to get the government to look into the matter. It might have been too late for those fighting in kargil since any new clothes would take time to arrive but better late than never right? I don't understand who you are referring to when you say "Crocodile tears".


Any better is always welcomed.

I was in the same area in Op Intrusion Dalunang (localised combat situation) and we did with the same clothing that was used in the Kargil War. If it was OK then for us, how come suddenly the clothing became a problem in the Kargil War?

ECC is issued to all troops in J&K.

Crocodile tears is the media!

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby putnanja » 09 Dec 2009 05:51


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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 09 Dec 2009 12:50

There are checks and balances to ensure justice.

Yet, at the same time, I would say that it is not like civil justice which is more laid back (for the want of a better word).

I think the Army has made a Appellate Tribunal composed of non military legal personnel and Judges and military personnel, so that Justice is seen not to be only delivered but actually delivered!


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests