ramana wrote:It looks like modernised Bren with belt feed and auto selector.
Wish ARDE had tried to upgrade the BREN over the many decades and IA had some officers with vision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRMHDqe_k5Y
ramana wrote:It looks like modernised Bren with belt feed and auto selector.
Wish ARDE had tried to upgrade the BREN over the many decades and IA had some officers with vision.
Karan M wrote:ramana wrote:It looks like modernised Bren with belt feed and auto selector.
Wish ARDE had tried to upgrade the BREN over the many decades and IA had some officers with vision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRMHDqe_k5Y
nachiket wrote:Karan M wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRMHDqe_k5Y
That looks more like a modernized FN-MAG than a modernized Bren.....which brings me to the question, is the Negev supposed to replace the FN-MAG in service as well as the Bren?
Gyan wrote:nachiket wrote:That looks more like a modernized FN-MAG than a modernized Bren.....which brings me to the question, is the Negev supposed to replace the FN-MAG in service as well as the Bren?
If Negev is going to fulfill the role of LMG then it will replace or supplement INSAS LMG.
A tripod mounted FNMAG is a GPMG & is a different category of beast. Also I think Army only has around 5,000 FNMAGs in Infantry.
ks_sachin wrote:The FN-MAG is the MMG as we call it and is a dedicated support weapon in the inf batallion. Difficult to cart around.
nachiket wrote:ks_sachin wrote:The FN-MAG is the MMG as we call it and is a dedicated support weapon in the inf batallion. Difficult to cart around.
Does that mean the MAG is allocated at battalion level (1 per battalion)? That sounds very low. Or is it Company level?
nachiket wrote:Karan M wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRMHDqe_k5Y
That looks more like a modernized FN-MAG than a modernized Bren.....which brings me to the question, is the Negev supposed to replace the FN-MAG in service as well as the Bren?
ramana wrote:ks_Sachin the BR pages have the TOE for Infantry battalion.
Our old NCC book used to detail it.
I wish we had real ex-military still with us!
But they leave in a huff at first instance.
ks_sachin wrote:ramana wrote:ks_Sachin the BR pages have the TOE for Infantry battalion.
Our old NCC book used to detail it.
I wish we had real ex-military still with us!
But they leave in a huff at first instance.
Ramana I was discussing the Negev with my dad who is an infantryman. Happy to field any specific questions.
The MMG cannot be converted into an LMG. The OFB is struggling with weight reduction.
Ramana are you surprised that the ex-military leave....I tear my hair out sometimes!!!!
ks_sachin wrote:Ramana I was discussing the Negev with my dad who is an infantryman. Happy to field any specific questions.
nachiket wrote:ks_sachin wrote:Ramana I was discussing the Negev with my dad who is an infantryman. Happy to field any specific questions.
Any chance of him joining here?
ramana wrote:I wish we had real ex-military still with us!
But they leave in a huff at first instance.
Manish_P wrote:Actually I honestly wonder about it. Reason being the Mil folk on Twitter do face quite a few idiotic, self-entitled, opionated and at times abusive trolls, with lots of calm & cool.
It can't be because the expectations are different.. since the BRF forums are also social media to an extent or are they?
Gyan wrote:I think FNMAG is issued as MMG or GPMG at rate of 4 per Company. OFB has been unable to ramp up production and is stuck around 500 per Annum for many years.
Military wanted to try 12.7 NSV also in various roles but OFB has been unable to deliver.
Bren was issued one per section, INSAS LMG was also intended to be issued 1 per Section & Similarly Negev Will also be issued as 1 per section. After 16,000+8,000 the balance numbers may be made up with more imports or some sort of indigenous manufacturing
Manish_P wrote:^ Thakur ji, what do you think about the Knights Light Assault Machine Gun?
ks_sachin wrote:ramana wrote:I wish we had real ex-military still with us!
But they leave in a huff at first instance.
Ramana garu I wonder why that is......
Bart S wrote:ks_sachin wrote:Ramana garu I wonder why that is......
Too many political opinions/whines/rants by some here, often completely OT, probably making them uncomfortable. Also, over the top, blanket criticism of forces regarding procurement etc, by a small but vocal minority of people.
Thakur_B wrote:Manish_P wrote:^ Thakur ji, what do you think about the Knights Light Assault Machine Gun?
Similar to ultimax. They share design DNA with common designer.
ramana wrote:All good feedback
I see a dichotomy here. Mil folks on twitter can block those whom they don't want to read.
We don't have such a feature in a forum.
ramana wrote:All good feedback
I see a dichotomy here. Mil folks on twitter can block those whom they don't want to read.
We don't have such a feature in a forum.
ks_sachin wrote:Is it possible to create a separate space where we invite ex-servicemen and shield them from the more uninformed posts?
Lots of ex-servicemen with time on their hands who I can tap...
Or better still lets make a list of questions that I can pose.
-
ks_sachin wrote:Having spent a week or so going through small arms design and historical small arms I can safely say that even some of the WW2 weapons were better designed designed and engineered than the INSAS.
What a tragedy!!!
sudeepj wrote:ks_sachin wrote:Having spent a week or so going through small arms design and historical small arms I can safely say that even some of the WW2 weapons were better designed designed and engineered than the INSAS.
What a tragedy!!!
Design is a function of goals and tech/abilities.. Insas was designed with a different role in mind. What you say may be right, but that doesnt mean smle can replace Insas. For a firearms newbie, what are some bad design decisions in the INSAS? I have only heard that the design was OK, but the manufacturing was not.
Gyan wrote:INSAS was designed around the requirements of Army. Some of the design features they wanted created problems.
In any case, DRDO was well aware of problems & was seeking permission to design a new rifle since atleast 2005. This permission was obstructed by Army for many years. Later on led to development of MCIWS.
Aditya_V wrote:I think the problem with Insas is the 5.56*45 ammo , it came about due to bad experience with FN 7.62*51 in the jungles so SL. But due to lesser stopping power not suitable for COIN. Like we are doing today we should have gone for 7.62*39 AK series for COIN and 7.62×51 rifles for more open areas. Similarly we should get rid of submachine guns with 9mm pistol round.
Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 36 guests