Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8691
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Mort Walker » 10 Sep 2020 02:30

Seems like India is being fleeced by the Russians. The AK-203 should be between $800-$900 USD per rifle. Less than Rs. 500 Cr for the whole deal is the actual cost.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2561
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 10 Sep 2020 15:48

ramana wrote:I wish those who made that 5.56mm decision are asked or named for posterity.


This is a proof that the decision makers in the IA believe in foreign-studies & brochures rather than their own experiences in COIN! Absolutely disgraceful.

Its like the Panchatantra story about the "Brahmin and the Goat"

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12277
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 10 Sep 2020 17:42

Boss -> Thats a sweeping statement, INSAS 5.56 came from the Sri Lankan experience where in close combat situations the IA struggled with long barreled SLR and recoil while the LTTE had Chinese made Ak 56. Since most Western Armies had moved to 5.56 the IA probably thought there was something to it. Over years of Coin and conflict IA has probably realised that 1) 7.62*39 mm is best for close quarter conflict and 2 7.62*51 Nato is good for barren stretches of Deserts, High Altitude LOC and LAC.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 606
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Igorr » 10 Sep 2020 20:54

Even US have got the 5.56 mm low caliber insufficiency and are going to a 6.8 mm new intermediate cartridge. But it's only because they lack their own 7.62 intermediate, like 7.62x39 mm Russian I think. The 6.8 mm is more close to 7.62x39 then to 5.56 mm by its properties.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7926
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 10 Sep 2020 23:02

Prem Kumar wrote:
ramana wrote:I wish those who made that 5.56mm decision are asked or named for posterity.


This is a proof that the decision makers in the IA believe in foreign-studies & brochures rather than their own experiences in COIN! Absolutely disgraceful.

Its like the Panchatantra story about the "Brahmin and the Goat"

That is not true and we can't throw around accusations like that. Our own experience in COIN (IPKF) was the trigger to switch to a different cartridge primarily for burst-fire/full-auto capability. But also for enabling a smaller, lighter rifle, less ammo weight leading to more ammo being carried etc. That was the hope. It didn't turn out very well for a variety of reasons (including some decisions the IA itself made viz. 20 round magazines and burst-fire only no full-auto on the INSAS). But yes, that the power of the cartridge would be lower was known back then and was considered an acceptable compromise. That did not bear out in practice. To be sure, the IA isn't the only one dealing with this realization. The way they have decided to fix it however is quite...unique.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 10 Sep 2020 23:15

World over everyone opted for seemingly miraculous 5.56 / 5.45 mm cartridges. If only 7.62x39 didn't have poor ballistics for long range engagement, it would be perfect military round.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 606
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Igorr » 12 Sep 2020 03:58

Thakur_B wrote: If only 7.62x39 didn't have poor ballistics for long range engagement, it would be perfect military round.

For the long range engagement they have 7.62x51 NATO or 7.62x54mmR rifle rounds. For both machine-guns and marksmen use. The 7.62x39 mm intermediate cartridge can penetrate the wooden buildings unlike 5.56 mm NATO, which is a hunting one, adopted for military needs. With the modernized bullets it can have even better ballistics. Unlike 5.45x39 mm soviet cartridge that was especially developed for a military, 5.56 mm NATO has poorer ballistics and penetrating capability due to its shorter axis. On the contrary the length of its sleeve 45 mm is excessive.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1162
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby rkhanna » 12 Sep 2020 09:01

Prem Kumar wrote:
ramana wrote:I wish those who made that 5.56mm decision are asked or named for posterity.


This is a proof that the decision makers in the IA believe in foreign-studies & brochures rather than their own experiences in COIN! Absolutely disgraceful.

Its like the Panchatantra story about the "Brahmin and the Goat"


It's more of a case where our own experiences are poorly documented and there is no study to determine what works best. Everything from CAMO, to small arms - feedback loop from real world users is poor

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 606
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Igorr » 12 Sep 2020 11:36

Between other things they compare the penetrating capabilities of 7.62x39 mm vs. 5.45x39 mm rounds on the wood in this video:

However, the comparison is in favor of 5.45x39 mm, that does explain why Russians dont rush for changing their main round. The 5.56 mm NATO bullets will never achieve such results since they are significantly shorter.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 12 Sep 2020 15:18

Agreed. 5.45x39 is a ballistically superior round compared to 5.56x45. Nevertheless, the advantage it holds is marginal at best. The 5.56 INSAS round bests both in performance but the rifle, barring it's superior accuracy, is mediocre at best.

Looking back, the British were way ahead of time with their EM2 rifle and 6.25x43 ammunition for it, both of which were revolutionary at the time. Unfortunately the Americans were hell bent on 7.62x51 at the time as it was closest to American 30.06, British 0.303, German Mauser 7.92x57 and Soviet 7.62x54 in performance. The deal was America will decide the Ammo and the Euros will decide the standard NATO rifle.

The Em2 rifle didn't do well with hasty 7.62x51 ammunition redesign because the Brits designed the rifle around the cartridge. Fn-FAL bested it handsomely in NATO trials. America being America never accepted European rifle and went with their inferior M14.

Everyone has arrived at the same conclusion, the intermediate round is the way forward. Admitting that they made a mistake with 5.56/5.45/5.8 is Harakiri.

IA managed it by blaming the rifle. Americans are justifying it with improvement in Russian body armour standards. The Chinese are thoroughly invested in their "faster than lightning, stronger than meteor strike 5.8 mm round". Russians are too cash strapped to replace their cold war reserve rifles and ammunition opting to upgrade their AK-74 than inducting AK12 in large numbers. Everyone else is either too broke or still trying to keep logistics compatibility with their allies.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3121
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 13 Sep 2020 20:46

Image
Image supposedly from Ladakh - Note the 40 mm Multi Grenade Launcher. Its become IA Infantry Platoon/Section's second most favourite weapon after the Carl Gustaf.

Also note the INSAS LMG with 30 round magazine

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby vivek_ahuja » 13 Sep 2020 21:56

tsarkar wrote:Also note the INSAS LMG with 30 round magazine


They still use the transparent (plastic?) magazines for the LMG variant? I thought I remember there being some complaints from the Army about that years ago? Fixed, presumably?

Isn't there a better way for the magazine to give a haptic feedback to the user when the rounds are near empty?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 13 Sep 2020 22:57

tsarkar wrote:Image
Image supposedly from Ladakh - Note the 40 mm Multi Grenade Launcher. Its become IA Infantry Platoon/Section's second most favourite weapon after the Carl Gustaf.

Also note the INSAS LMG with 30 round magazine


Milkor 40 mm grenade launcher has been.in use for decades now. The Americans too after a decade of COIN came around to mass adopt CG and Milkors. They also managed to shorten the Milkor while keeping the velocity same and added some optics to it.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 14 Sep 2020 00:11

Xposting from R&D Thread
Vips wrote:Midhani masters armour that can stop AK-47 shots.

Image

The bulletproof jackets that are manufactured in Midhani meet the specifications of the Union ministry of home affairs and also the BIS level-6.


BIS Level-6 is defined as as capable of stopping 7.62x54R API (Armour Piercing) round as per IS 17051:2018. This is comparable to NIJ Level-IV. Also note the Ceramic Patka for helmets in bottom corner.

The current SMPP NIJ Level-III jackets are 10.5 Kgs for medium sized vest. The new IS code based on Army QSR 1438 has reduced the weight for future procurements to 9.5 Kg for mediu sized jacket. The Bhabha Kavack is based on the IS code. There is an active project to further reduce the weight of a medium sized vest from 9.5 Kgs to 7.5 Kgs by DRDO. This is an aspect of infantry modernisation where we are actually ahead. We have already started looking into mass producing NIJ Level-IV jackets and boosting the helmets from NIJ Level-III+ to Level-III.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 15 Sep 2020 07:25

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... successor/

CG Haenel Mk556 (short stroke piston AR) has apparently emerged as a winner of German G36 replacement program.

HK participated with HK416 and HK433 (Ar180 derivative). Rheinmetall and Steyr participated with RS556 (another HK416 style short stroke piston AR).

CG Haenel is owned by the same parent company which own Caracal.

This is the first time Bundeswehr has chosen any other firm than HK. This is a very sobering loss of HK who have established themselves as a high cost high end manufacturer.

amar_p
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby amar_p » 15 Sep 2020 14:07

The helmet design in the pic above seems to leave quite a large gap around the ear, exposing a vulnerable area of the head. Also makes the Y of the chin strap get too close to the eye. Is there any reason for this specific design? Is it a finalised design?
Thanks

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5152
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 15 Sep 2020 14:25

Image

Image

amar_p
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby amar_p » 15 Sep 2020 17:04

Thank you Jamwal ji.

That explains it, 6th Gen warfare. We want to tire the enemy out with our battlefield DJs belting out Bollywood dance numbers, and they will be compelled to hop till they drop :)

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 15 Sep 2020 17:15

amar_p wrote:The helmet design in the pic above seems to leave quite a large gap around the ear, exposing a vulnerable area of the head. Also makes the Y of the chin strap get too close to the eye. Is there any reason for this specific design? Is it a finalised design?
Thanks


This is called FAST/High cut helmet design.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 553
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ashishvikas » 15 Sep 2020 23:39

Govt plans to scrap 2 defence deals under foreign procurement, could go ‘atma nirbhar’ way

https://theprint.in/defence/govt-plans- ... ay/503522/

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9506
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 16 Sep 2020 02:37

UAE getting a taste of our beloved MoD Babus in (in)action. I pity these guys. I really do. So sad...

But from a buy-local perspective, cancel the deal. Why dangle the UAE along like this?

Indian Army Set To Abort UAE Battle Carbine Deal?
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/09 ... -deal.html
05 Sept 2020

Livefist has had a chance to view the contents of the letter written on August 27, in which a senior executive at Caracal writes, “As you are aware the program is a fast track procurement which puts Caracal resources under stress as it has to account for production of the weapons on a continuous basis which creates an issue for us when considering to undertake tenders or take on larger orders for our products. We are therefore at a commercial disadvantage on being able to optimise our resources due to the program.”

Referring to ‘conflicting reports’ in Indian media, Caracal writes, “We are ready willing and able to provide the weapons… Caracal would therefore humbly request an update from the Indian MoD on when it will proceed with the program. Caracal remains 100 per cent committed to the program and would appreciate if you could kindly expedite the case and provide an update on the MoD’s status with the program.”

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Sep 2020 07:09

Caracal was what calibre carbine?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7926
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 16 Sep 2020 07:17

ramana wrote:Caracal was what calibre carbine?

5.56x45mm. It didn't really make sense anyway alongside the SIG and AK deals.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2919
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 16 Sep 2020 07:25

Rakesh wrote:UAE getting a taste of our beloved MoD Babus in (in)action. I pity these guys. I really do. So sad...

But from a buy-local perspective, cancel the deal. Why dangle the UAE along like this?

Indian Army Set To Abort UAE Battle Carbine Deal?
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/09 ... -deal.html
05 Sept 2020

Livefist has had a chance to view the contents of the letter written on August 27, in which a senior executive at Caracal writes, “As you are aware the program is a fast track procurement which puts Caracal resources under stress as it has to account for production of the weapons on a continuous basis which creates an issue for us when considering to undertake tenders or take on larger orders for our products. We are therefore at a commercial disadvantage on being able to optimise our resources due to the program.”

Referring to ‘conflicting reports’ in Indian media, Caracal writes, “We are ready willing and able to provide the weapons… Caracal would therefore humbly request an update from the Indian MoD on when it will proceed with the program. Caracal remains 100 per cent committed to the program and would appreciate if you could kindly expedite the case and provide an update on the MoD’s status with the program.”



Not so soon Sirjee, one more round of Chai-Biskoot Samosa and maybe a free trip to UAE for the babus before they finally decide :mrgreen:

CQB deal to be closed by year-end? Possibly yes, indicate sources

Wait by the UAE based Caracal continues for a decision to be taken on the close-quarter-battle carbines (CQB), for the Indian Army. The deal worth $553 million for 93,895 CQB, has been stuck for almost two years now. Sources have confirmed to Financial Express Online that, “A UAE government delegation recently met with senior officials at the Indian mission in Abu Dhabi. The main agenda was the long delay in the signing of the deal for Close Quarter Carbine (CQB) for the Infantry soldiers.”

This deal was put on Fast Track Procurement (FTP) as the Indian Army requires these CQBs urgently. As has been reported by Financial Express Online the UAE based company Caracal was declared as L1 in 2018 after having fulfilled all the requirements and procedures laid down in the DPP.

The issue of delay on the final decision by the Indian side has been raised at various levels including at recent meeting in Abu Dhabi.

Though there is still a lack of clarity on the reason about dealy, sources have indicated “While the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is keen to add `Make in India’ clause, the Indian Army Headquarters is keen to conclude this deal fast as the CQBs are needed on an urgent basis. ”

“There is a possibility of the deal being inked before the year ends. And this will help the soldiers,” added the source.

Several presentations have been made to the office of the CDS, outlining the reasons for the urgent requirement for the carbines. To push the `Make in India’ initiative, the MoD plans to initiate the procedure for CQBs to be made here locally, as several Indian companies have offered to manufacture here,” a senior officer indicated.

These CQBs are a critical weapon for the troops posted in the Valley and on the Line of Control, to deal with the constant terrorist attacks from the Pakistan side. And with China becoming belligerent along the LAC, the LOC is becoming more active, and this is why the Indian Army wants to ensure the procurement is expedited.

Meanwhile Indian company Bharat Forge along with the European company Thales has offered to make these CQBs here locally and at the same price as being offered by the UAE based company.

The story so far for the CQB
It is now 19 months since the company after going through extensive trials in India in different terrains as well outside the country was declared L1. During the trials, Indian ammunition was used in the CQBs made in UAE. However, there were several representations by companies which had failed to clear the trials. And to studies those representations an Oversight Committee led by a Brigadier rank officer was set up which went through them and has submitted its report to the MoD. “The representations made to the MoD basically stated that the UAE based company has no facility to fulfil India’s order and this could delay the delivery of 93,895 CQBs,” said an officer.

What happens under FTP?
Once the government decides to procure through this route then the delivery has to be made within one year from the time the contract is signed.

Who were the other bidders?
S&T Motiv of South Korea & European Company Thales.

In the best tradition of Indian babudom please to note the words: "Possibly yes" to the deal being decided by year-end. :twisted:

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 16 Sep 2020 07:46

Apart from AK203 there is a further requirement of around 2lac+ 7.62x51 mm rifles and 4 lac+ 5.56x45 mm carbines.

Hope ARDE carbine makes it through. 4 years back Insas Mk1C was almost chosen as standard Army rifle but Army dropped 5.56x45 as their standard ammunition of choice.

Let us not forget that AK203 deal is for IA, IN and IAF combined. Army will get just about half the quantity of 6.5 lac rifles, a large chunk of which will go to RR and AR. Front line troops will still get 7.62x51 rifle and 5.56x45 carbine.

morem
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 15:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby morem » 16 Sep 2020 09:27

Thakur_B wrote:Apart from AK203 there is a further requirement of around 2lac+ 7.62x51 mm rifles and 4 lac+ 5.56x45 mm carbines.

Hope ARDE carbine makes it through. 4 years back Insas Mk1C was almost chosen as standard Army rifle but Army dropped 5.56x45 as their standard ammunition of choice.

Let us not forget that AK203 deal is for IA, IN and IAF combined. Army will get just about half the quantity of 6.5 lac rifles, a large chunk of which will go to RR and AR. Front line troops will still get 7.62x51 rifle and 5.56x45 carbine.


But isn't the IAF + Navy less than 2 Lac users? And not everyone gets a rifle, correct?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Sep 2020 09:49

Thakur, 9mm cartridge is not good for carbine any more?

What bothers me is old INSAS pin prick cartridge.
5.56x45

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4488
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby putnanja » 16 Sep 2020 12:24

Looks like the AD guns contract has been cancelled too ...

Carbines, Anti Air Systems for Indian Army to be made in India after MoD cancels import

In a special meeting held on Tuesday, chaired by the Defence Secretary, it has been decided that plans to procure close quarter carbines from a UAE based company and a program to import Self Propelled Air Defence systems from South Korea are being scrapped.
...
The acquisition case for Self Propelled Air Defence Gun Missile System (SPAD-GMS) – the Indian Army wants five regiments of the guns that can be deployed with forward moving forces and can be quickly relocated on the basis of threat perception – has also been cancelled after South Korean company Hanwa’s K 30 Biho was shortlisted by the Army.
...

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 16 Sep 2020 14:52

morem wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:Apart from AK203 there is a further requirement of around 2lac+ 7.62x51 mm rifles and 4 lac+ 5.56x45 mm carbines.

Hope ARDE carbine makes it through. 4 years back Insas Mk1C was almost chosen as standard Army rifle but Army dropped 5.56x45 as their standard ammunition of choice.

Let us not forget that AK203 deal is for IA, IN and IAF combined. Army will get just about half the quantity of 6.5 lac rifles, a large chunk of which will go to RR and AR. Front line troops will still get 7.62x51 rifle and 5.56x45 carbine.


Yes you are right. Add to that Defence Security Corps and Coast Guard. If we assume that CAPF get none of the AK203 then that would leave IA with 5 lac + rifles. If everyone gets to order from the contract then the numbers would be far lower.

But isn't the IAF + Navy less than 2 Lac users? And not everyone gets a rifle, correct?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 16 Sep 2020 14:55

ramana wrote:Thakur, 9mm cartridge is not good for carbine any more?

What bothers me is old INSAS pin prick cartridge.
5.56x45


5.56 x 45 is the best that can be done for carbines. 9 mm will be defeated by barest of body armour.

5.56x30 JVPC is a non starter for anything beyond basic sentry duty, tank crew and helicopter pilots self defence.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Sep 2020 22:44

Glad you said that.

I commpared the energy.
A lot of difference.

OK 5.56x45 for carbine is right decision.

So I guess it will be prinicipal side arm for the second line troops.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3444
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 17 Sep 2020 03:09

Thakur_B wrote:....5.56x30 JVPC is a non starter for anything beyond basic sentry duty, tank crew and helicopter pilots self defence.


There is also good potential in law enforcement. Armed cops are equipped with AK variants which is just ridiculous. Even the likes of CISF and DSC can do with a JVPC or Amogh carbine.

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby sohamn » 17 Sep 2020 03:25

ramana wrote:Thakur, 9mm cartridge is not good for carbine any more?

What bothers me is old INSAS pin prick cartridge.
5.56x45



5.56x45mm is a lot more powerful than a 9mm, 9mm is a joke of a cartridge in the modern battlefield unless you are aiming for a face shot.In fact, a steel core 5.56x45 will have better armour penetration capability than 7.62x39 steel core rounds.
Last edited by sohamn on 17 Sep 2020 03:30, edited 1 time in total.

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby sohamn » 17 Sep 2020 03:28

ramana wrote:Glad you said that.

I commpared the energy.
A lot of difference.

OK 5.56x45 for carbine is right decision.

So I guess it will be prinicipal side arm for the second line troops.



It can't be the principal side arm of "second line troops", it's for first rate troops but for different battlefield scenarios. Carbines are an important weapon in urban, close combat and melee type scenarios where the long barrel of a rifle becomes a handicap.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 17 Sep 2020 04:57

Tell me about 84mm Carl Gustaf.

How effective is it?

How many rounds does OFB produce/year?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1490
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 17 Sep 2020 05:24

sohamn wrote:
ramana wrote:Glad you said that.

I commpared the energy.
A lot of difference.

OK 5.56x45 for carbine is right decision.

So I guess it will be prinicipal side arm for the second line troops.



It can't be the principal side arm of "second line troops", it's for first rate troops but for different battlefield scenarios. Carbines are an important weapon in urban, close combat and melee type scenarios where the long barrel of a rifle becomes a handicap.



What are melee type scenarios?

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby sohamn » 17 Sep 2020 06:03

ks_sachin wrote:
sohamn wrote:

It can't be the principal side arm of "second line troops", it's for first rate troops but for different battlefield scenarios. Carbines are an important weapon in urban, close combat and melee type scenarios where the long barrel of a rifle becomes a handicap.



What are melee type scenarios?


very close proximity battle.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1490
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 17 Sep 2020 06:45

Ok. So basically close combat. There are no degrees here.

I for a moment got the image of the rifles being used as clubs in which case the length of the 7.62X51 would be an advantage!!

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2013
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby srin » 17 Sep 2020 10:56

I didn't get the spec for AK 203, so I'm using AK 103 specs.

Brochure comparison tells me that AK is only slightly longer than the Caracal with stock fully extended (37" vs 36.3"). I didn't get the stock retracted length (only the folded length on wiki) for the AK (27") whereas for Caracal, I got only the stock retracted length ("33").

Neither are bullpups, so what makes Caracal superior to AK for CQB ?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1490
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 17 Sep 2020 13:53

Our small arms philosophy is FUBAR...


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bharadwaj, brar_w, chaitanya, Dennis, Prem Kumar and 66 guests