Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 18 Jul 2009 03:13

It about time, some one starts questioning MS actions which are border line insane

Rising disquiet in Congress over PM's Pak line

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Jul 2009 03:20

^^ discussion going on in strat forum.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=240

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 18 Jul 2009 06:11

VinodTK wrote:It about time, some one starts questioning MS actions which are border line insane

Rising disquiet in Congress over PM's Pak line

But it isn't MMS alone, nothing moves in Congress without a yes from Sonia madam. Congress questioning Sonia, I don't think that day would ever come.

koti · Post by **koti** » 20 Jul 2009 09:53

koti wrote:There is supposed to be an evaluation going on for selecting a carbine for IA. What happened to that?

And any news about Excalibur or Kalantak or MSMC ??

Though BRF guys ignored this post, looks like the MoD didn't miss it. And I'm proud that IA is getting better guns because of my post.

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 20 Jul 2009 10:47

hi

Is there any thread related to air guns ? I couldnt find any . Kindly guide if one exists.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Jul 2009 11:42

abhiti wrote:
VinodTK wrote:It about time, some one starts questioning MS actions which are border line insane

Rising disquiet in Congress over PM's Pak line
But it isn't MMS alone, nothing moves in Congress without a yes from Sonia madam. Congress questioning Sonia, I don't think that day would ever come.

I don't blame MMS.

He is an economist and an expert!

No one has said that he is an expert on the English Language!

Maybe, if the Joint Statement was in Urdu, he would have understood or got that 'expert' fan of his, Kushwant to explain it to him!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Jul 2009 11:44

koti wrote:
koti wrote:There is supposed to be an evaluation going on for selecting a carbine for IA. What happened to that?

And any news about Excalibur or Kalantak or MSMC ??

Though BRF guys ignored this post, looks like the MoD didn't miss it. And I'm proud that IA is getting better guns because of my post.

Thank you for making India 'safe'!

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 20 Jul 2009 23:14

Guys i have always been wondering has there ever been a missile that is fired from an aircraft that is being pursued, this missile could then attack/force the aircraft that is pursuing ti make evasive maneuvers. Guess it needs a rear facing radar and a couple of hardpoints dedicated for missiles that fly backwards.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 20 Jul 2009 23:28

^^ I really have no idea, but I would like to hazard a guess. Rearfacing radars are present but wouldn't it be impossible for the pursued pilot to lock on the chasing a/c?

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 21 Jul 2009 01:09

suryag wrote:Guys i have always been wondering has there ever been a missile that is fired from an aircraft that is being pursued, this missile could then attack/force the aircraft that is pursuing ti make evasive maneuvers. Guess it needs a rear facing radar and a couple of hardpoints dedicated for missiles that fly backwards.

AFAIK the Su-34 has a rearward facing radar. It can potentially direct R73s or R77s at an aircraft in the rear hemisphere.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jul 2009 01:13

it's not necessary to have an on-board radar to fire a missile in the rear hemisphere, data from any radar by DL will do. for a well coordinated fighter/AEW&C combo it might be possible for the fighter to shoot at its pursuer without turning back.

koti · Post by **koti** » 21 Jul 2009 08:42

suryag wrote:Guys i have always been wondering has there ever been a missile that is fired from an aircraft that is being pursued, this missile could then attack/force the aircraft that is pursuing ti make evasive maneuvers. Guess it needs a rear facing radar and a couple of hardpoints dedicated for missiles that fly backwards.

IIRC this has been achieved bi RAAF(?) F-18SH some time back with the new AMRAAM(version?).

I think an IR sensor at the rear can do the jab. It dosen't need a radar.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 22 Jul 2009 04:20

I see that US marines are often heavily built when compared to their Indian counterparts. Our soldiers in contrast look lanky but dont have those huge biceps or those shoulders. In combat what would be advantages of being heavily built ? the ones that i can think of is
a) lugging loads like mortars
b) in cqb they can possibly overwhelm the opponent
c) they can fire more heavier arms

Given these should we also promote building more muscles in our soldiers ?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Jul 2009 06:10

Are you for real?

I had to read your post twice to really believe that you were not joking.
Have you any idea of the level of physical training at NDA? You certainly are not aware of sheer number of stress fractures during cadet training.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 22 Jul 2009 06:25

Saar we are SDRE onlee, now the ameri-khans are the original TFTA.

on a serious note, size of muscles or the girth of ones limb are not the right way to meausre strength. Big muscles are more or less a cosmetic thing.
If you really want to see strength and endurance go and look at the life style of villages and small towns where the majority of our jawans, NCO's come from.
It is us city dewellers who are getting lazy by every generation and think one need to look like "ahrnohld" to be a good soldier.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 22 Jul 2009 06:43

Guys it is not as if i am not aware of the levels of physical training imparted at NDA or for that matter the daily physical routine in the cantonments. I happened to be in a bootcamp and believe me the marines there atleast looked far more beefier than our soldiers. I dont agree with your statement that big muscles are mere cosmetic, I personally know how you get those muscles. Again, I am not trying to question the agility/endurance/strenght but simply trying to say that x has muscles which can be achieved with y amount of physical training so the muscles x has does that translate to anything beneficial in a deployment scenario when compared with "a" who is reasonably built and has longer endurance etc.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 22 Jul 2009 06:55

sir with all due respect, muscle strength doesnt mean having huge muscles. That is a myth. In my jiujitsu/catch wrestling classes there were these vietnamese kids who were half my size(not literally) and would lift me up in air and then slam me on the ground with ease. Whereas a couple of my buffed TFTA buddies (same class) had problems lifting me up and also i weighed close to 180-190 lbs at that time.
This also brings me to another point, strength is not everything, technique plays a huge role too.

also genetics play a huge part in body size/strength. While in massaland etc among men 6' + height is pretty common. Whereas in india its not that common.

In the end, you can consult with a medical practitioner, and they will tell you that buffed,rippling muscles dont mean they are stronger than a person with lean muscle mass.

I do agree with you that in hand to hand combat a bigger person can always "bum rush" you and then take top control. but this only applies if you dont know hand to hand combat. So in a normal circumstance it might be so, but our soldiers do train in hand to hand combat.

That brings me to the point, if our soldiers have adequate strength and training, then why do we need to look like TFTA americans.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Jul 2009 07:11

suryag
Please understand that, to attain that bodybuilder look that you mention, one has to have a lot of fat in their body. If you ask any IA personnel, any amount of fat is strictly discouraged in our training. While this may certainly make our soldiers look much less impressive, the fat plays havoc with one's stamina. Fat is important in situations where weight is crucial (eg:wrestling), however when you have to climb steep mountain peaks of Kargil for hours on no sleep, looks are hardly your priority. I have heard accounts of Australian soldiers having to be carried by Indian soldiers because they could not keep up with our soldiers and had fainted. Visit military hospital kirkee, pune and you will meet cadets having run so much that they developed stress fractures (crack in bone). I know a cadet in CME (for training engineers). It was not unusual for him to get only 12-14 hrs of sleep in a week in his first term. And this not anything unusual.
You say you are aware of the levels of physical training imparted at NDA. I seriously doubt that. Otherwise you would not have asked if "they can fire more heavier arms". I suggest you ask someone from IA about the physical training.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jul 2009 07:29

yes big muscles do give some advantages like carrying more weight etc but in the modern battlefield that doesn't translate into any considerable combat advantage.

moreover even the higher load carrying advantage might be nullified if you need a very high amount of sustenance to maintain yourself.
by all accounts, endurance of the Indian soldier is almost unmatched. (*)

I also remember a discussion in the SF thread on this very topic many many moons back where it came out that even in US/euro armies, it was the lean mean types who dominated the top SF formations as against the beefs who were in regular units.

lastly, strength is not necessarily directly proportional to muscle mass for most practical purposes. I remember an anecdote by a young IN officer who was challenged to a bout of arm-wrestling by a large US marine (twice my size or words to that effect was his description) on some foreign port call. he did manage to defeat him !

(*) one of SV's comments on India's working class comes to mind, "with half a roti they can turn the universe upside down"

ChandraS · Post by **ChandraS** » 22 Jul 2009 09:23

Why are we even discussing the question of physique of soldiers? So long as they are able to do their tasks efficiently without any problems, does it even matter how lean or bulky they are? There is so much 'research' and 'data' out there for us to debate this till the end of time and we will be none the wiser. Thus I suggest we focus on the ends rather than the means to the end. All that is required is that our soldiers are well trained to meet the challenges of their job and provided with adequate nutrition to cope with the physical demands of the tasks. The rest is just fluff.

On another note, I am surprised at the prevalence of of stress fractures being used as a metric for the toughness of training. I was under the impression that the aim of the academy was to train the cadets to be tough enough but not run them down so much to make them physical wrecks. At most, the cadets with such injuries beyond a threshold limit would be let go as they are not suitable for the job. If the majority of cadets are sustaining higher number of injuries, then either the training is too tough and unrealistic or the cadet pool is not suitable for the rigours of the job. Either ways we lose

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 22 Jul 2009 09:45

On the question of top physiques ityadi I would like to quote something that a mate of mine (ex-IDF tank platoon (I think thats what the yehudis call em could be wrong though) commander told me...during excercises in the negev dersert the yanks would bring down their M1s to excercise against the Israeli Merkava op-fors. Anyhow he said most of the yehudi soldiers were quite normal in physiques when compared to the massive muscley american tankers and yet the pot belly yehudis kicked a$$ during these excercises through and through...just goes to show that while having a good physique is imp. it is certainly not everything!...JMT

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Jul 2009 10:32

ChandraS wrote: On another note, I am surprised at the prevalence of of stress fractures being used as a metric for the toughness of training. I was under the impression that the aim of the academy was to train the cadets to be tough enough but not run them down so much to make them physical wrecks. At most, the cadets with such injuries beyond a threshold limit would be let go as they are not suitable for the job. If the majority of cadets are sustaining higher number of injuries, then either the training is too tough and unrealistic or the cadet pool is not suitable for the rigours of the job. Either ways we lose

Please note that prevalence of stress fractures was just my observation. I was just trying to convey that the physical training is not a walk in the park. As I in no way represent IA, this should not be taken as benchmark IA uses to measure the toughness of training.

As for your other points. I cannot say whether the training is unrealistic or not. Nor can I say whether the cadet pool is suitable or not. That is for IA BR members to answer. However, I would like to point out towards one of the reasons for stress fractures. The cadets are, obviously, instructed to report if they are feeling any major discomfort or pain. However, many cadets(in josh and pride) disregard this and continue with their training thinking that the pain will eventually go. This sometimes lead to very serious complications. I can also think of another reason(though this is mostly my guess). Lot of training that the cadets go through is not through official means. Apart from official training, a major part of physical and mental toughness is imparted through seniors(through hazing). This, I am told, can sometimes become too much. I have witnessed cadets bearing minor injuries due to this. My guess is that, perhaps, this sometimes lead to injuries of more serious kind. I would like to point out that, though at first glance this unofficial training may seem wrong, officers give it credit to much of their physical and mental toughness.

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 22 Jul 2009 10:53

My brother's school friend is a Captain in the IA. He was involved in some joint exercises with the Australian Army. He said the same thing as some others have said here. The Australians were no doubt bulkier and (maybe) stronger than the Indians. They, however, lost out in the stamina part. IA soldiers were tougher than the Australians soldiers. Now, my bro's friend said that this was because, Australian soldiers are usually heli-dropped close to their destination, and they have to walk only little distances. On the other hand, IA soldiers have to trek/walk the majority of the distance.

As an aside, I would like to mention another difference that the above-mentioned Captain pointed out, between the Australian Army and the IA. Soldiers of the AA, are given weapons, and then, they "own" them. They take it with them to the barracks, etc. However, IA soldiers are just "issued" weapons. That is, after their duty hours are over, they have to return them back to the store. Can some IA BR member please elaborate this?

ChandraS · Post by **ChandraS** » 22 Jul 2009 11:26

Parijat Gaur wrote: Please note that prevalence of stress fractures was just my observation. I was just trying to convey that the physical training is not a walk in the park. As I in no way represent IA, this should not be taken as benchmark IA uses to measure the toughness of training.

As for your other points. I cannot say whether the training is unrealistic or not. Nor can I say whether the cadet pool is suitable or not. That is for IA BR members to answer. However, I would like to point out towards one of the reasons for stress fractures. The cadets are, obviously, instructed to report if they are feeling any major discomfort or pain. However, many cadets(in josh and pride) disregard this and continue with their training thinking that the pain will eventually go. This sometimes lead to very serious complications. I can also think of another reason(though this is mostly my guess). Lot of training that the cadets go through is not through official means. Apart from official training, a major part of physical and mental toughness is imparted through seniors(through hazing). This, I am told, can sometimes become too much. I have witnessed cadets bearing minor injuries due to this. My guess is that, perhaps, this sometimes lead to injuries of more serious kind. I would like to point out that, though at first glance this unofficial training may seem wrong, officers give it credit to much of their physical and mental toughness.

Parijat,

I was making an observation based on the argument you made. Given that IMA's motto is 'Veerta aur Vivek' i.e. 'Valour & Wisdom' one can easily figure out that IA is not intent on making its soldiers muscle men only. I can understand that cadets may carry some minor injury at times, but that is to be expected. They are supposed to be tough! If the slightest pain or discomfort gets them to the hospital they are better off not being in the military. The worrisome part you mention is the hazing. While a little bit of ragging and such goes on in every institution, the practice of subjected juniors to strenuous activities on top of a punishing schedule is unacceptable. Referring to officers who credit it with mental & physical toughness is no justification for this practice. Who knows how many cadets have had their minor injuries aggravated due to this extra 'toughening'? Maybe some of them lost their medical status because of this. Now that many officers have been lost from the force. I wonder what has this 'extra toughening' gotten the military, apart from losing a few potentially good officers.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Jul 2009 14:15

^^ Perhaps I made a mistake by using the term "hazing". It might be confusing. Perhaps you are thinking of ragging along the lines of engg and med colleges. It is not so. There is no relation between hazing done in colleges and that of the rigor seniors put juniors through at NDA and CME. This unofficial training is sort of a tradition in IA. It has been there for a long time(probably from the start). So, I am sure that whatever hardships the cadets are put through, it is never allowed to go too far. If there would have been incidents because of this, I am sure that the administrators of the institutes would have come down hard and this practice would have been prohibited. After all, this is no new practice.
However, I would refrain from commenting more about this topic simply because I do not know anything more about it. Rather than me saying things which are totally based upon what I have heard from others, it is better that your concerns be addressed by BR members who actually have experienced this.

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 24 Jul 2009 11:07

Friends, talking about the physiques of Amrikki soldiers vs Indian soldiers can well be thought of in terms of difference between Amrikki Cow and Indian Cow. (My Nanu used to have lot of cows in yester-years and this comparison has come stratight from my Mom). Though the Amrikki would give more milk, it would also be the costliest to maintain. It is all about genes.

Hey in case it sounds funny, I am not kidding

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 24 Jul 2009 11:32

It would be interesting to see American soldiers comparing themselves with the physical fitness, agility, and strength with a think and lanky Jat or a Maratha soldier.

Being beefy is a disadvantage when coming to agilty and dexterity!

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 24 Jul 2009 17:19

Possibly a silly question: twin vertical stabilisers (fins, to keep it short) are supposed to help manoeuvreability in fighters, yes? If so, why do some modern twin-engined fighters stick to a single fin? eg Rafale, Typhoon.
Also, are there any, even TDs, of single-engined, twin-finned fighters?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of twin fins?

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 24 Jul 2009 18:33

vardhank wrote:Also, are there any, even TDs, of single-engined, twin-finned fighters?

The F-35.

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 24 Jul 2009 20:19

Can anyone please give me information on the use of shotguns in the IA and the police services? Any pics would be highly appreciated.
Thank you

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 24 Jul 2009 22:31

shameekg wrote:
vardhank wrote:Also, are there any, even TDs, of single-engined, twin-finned fighters?
The F-35.

There are quite a few of ww2 vintage, even in the 1950s-60s. In those times the twin fins would be connected by a horizontal surface.

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 25 Jul 2009 22:56

I have a very basic question. Accding to the information available on the net and what I gathered from Discovery Channel. the AK - 47 and its variants are the basically the best assault rifles in the world. Even edgeing out M 16s. Especially because of their low maintenance requirements, ease of handling, low cost and reliability. In the light of this information, I would like to understand why is the IA, BSF and the other CPMFs opting for INSAS and phasing out AK series guns

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Jul 2009 23:07

ak-47 and derivatives are not the best assault rifles in the world.
there is no weapon system that is the best in all situations.

AK-47s are mostly inaccurate at longer ranges and are arguably better in COIN situations.

But I do advise you to read the links I gave in the first thread, they will answer many of your questions and then some.

welcome to BR !

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 25 Jul 2009 23:20

Rahul M wrote:ak-47 and derivatives are not the best assault rifles in the world.
there is no weapon system that is the best in all situations.

AK-47s are mostly inaccurate at longer ranges and are arguably better in COIN situations.

But I do advise you to read the links I gave in the first thread, they will answer many of your questions and then some.

welcome to BR !

Dear Mr, Moderator,

Thanks a lot for your personal reply. Though my first post (mistakenly posted as a new thread) lasted less than 5 minutes

its indeed an honor to be a member of BR after almost 6 years of just reading. Thanks for the welcome.

Sure will go through the suggested posts. Looking forward to quickly upgrade from a trainee....

Thanks again

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Jul 2009 00:58

Dear Mr, Moderator,

just rahul will do nicely !

have a look at the archives too, you may find those interesting.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewforum.php?f=21

Ted Kotcheff · Post by **Ted Kotcheff** » 26 Jul 2009 03:35

***** NOOB alert *****

Please understand that, to attain that bodybuilder look that you mention, one has to have a lot of fat in their body.

To build muscles, you need to have better protein intake and proper workouts. Fat will result in single pack not six pack.

by all accounts, endurance of the Indian soldier is almost unmatched

Before we get carried away by unsubstantiated claims of the unlimited endurance of the Indian soldier, it would be prudent to acknowledge that in any army there would be mix of soldiers with different physique and stamina. This dated Russian video pokes a hole into the much vaunted endurance of the Indian soldier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa7SLPbh ... re=related

Maybe, it was the new environment that fatigued our troops. IIRC, some years ago, the stocky US soldiers repeatedly broke down during their exercise in the Himalayas whereas our troops did well.

VikB is right, more the muscle, more the calories needed to fuel any movement. Methinks, in general, Indian soldiers are like the gangly Kenyan long distance runners whereas beefier US soldiers are like 100 m sprinters who collapse at the end of the mark.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Jul 2009 05:12

Before we get carried away by unsubstantiated claims of the unlimited endurance of the Indian soldier, it would be prudent to acknowledge that in any army there would be mix of soldiers with different physique and stamina.

hello, don't put words into others' mouth please.

I said 'almost unmatched' , not unlimited. one expects that people reading BR have the ability to differentiate between the too. clearly I was wrong. if you don't have a dictionary handy, all you have to do is ask.

btw that part is evident to anyone who follows Indian army exploits in any amount of detail, or has talked to any jawan who has served in an operational environment.
our soldiers can make do with very little compared to most major armies and still perform well.

Ted Kotcheff · Post by **Ted Kotcheff** » 26 Jul 2009 05:34

Apologies for any lexical quandaries. All I wanted to say was, its wise not to go around blowing one's own trumpets when sarcastically titled videos surface on youtube.

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 26 Jul 2009 05:51

Why does the canopy of the JAS-39 Gripen ,open towards left (when viewed from back) ? I find it as an odd case considering that most a/c ,having canopies opening to sides, open towards right (when viewed from back).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Jul 2009 05:59

excuse me, there is nothing sarcastic about the video, you are sadly mistaken.
please don't imagine slights when there is none.

lastly, no one is blowing trumpets here, I suggest you stop beating the drums too.

regards.

p.s. if you are having problems digesting the pole comment, remember how the unaccustomed human body reacts to the sudden shock of immersion.

how would the russian paratroopers fare if let lose in thar or the jungles of mizoram ?