Small arms of India

[Ray]

Individually, a person's skill in the use of arms or collectively, better tactics in the use of arms coupled with better individual skill will overcome an enemy that is better-armed, better-equipped, and even on occasion, better-supplied.

I must disagree with Ray that the M47 and M48 "Patton" tanks used by the Pakistani Army in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 were the latest in the U.S. Army's inventory: The M47 and M48 tanks were the first generation of post-World War II American tanks. The M60 main battle tank was latest tank in the U.S. Army's inventory in 1965. The M60 tank was actually quite a good tank and was a great product of the Cold War. It was in production from 1960 to 1987, if I recall correctly. And quite a few Cold-war allies of the U.S. and several technically non-aligned countries used it.

.

M47s and M48s were again used in tank warfare by the Pakistan Army in the Indo Pak War of 1965.

It would be worth note that in February 1963, the US Army accepted its first of 600 M48 Patton tanks. Therefore, when Pakistan received it and was used in the 1965 War, it was modern.

Indo-Pakistani Wars - M47s and M48s were again used in tank warfare by the Pakistan Army against Indian Army's Centurion and M4 Sherman tanks in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 with some good results.

The Patton was later used by Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, with mixed results. In a repetition of 1965, Patton's spearheaded the Pakistani advance through Chamb, and the Patton was the main Pakistani tank at Shakarghar. In the latter battle, a brigade of tanks (the Changez Force) successfully resisted the Indian advance, in a repeat of Chawinda. However, in what became known as Pakistan's Charge of the Light Brigade, a counterattack led by 13th Lancers and 31st Cavalry was mauled by the Indian 54th Division around Battle of Barapind.

India later set up a war memorial named "Patton Nagar" ("Patton City") in Khemkaran District, where the captured Pakistani Patton tanks are displayed.

M60 was in service 1961–97. It had a high profile and limited cross-country mobility.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

Despite being handicapped, IA Snipers ( Yes Snipers ) are making hit beyond 1500ms range ..

Can you expand on this? What weapon system is used and with what configuration?
Do we have access to ballistic computers? What is the hit probability and what is the damage done to the target?

 

[Redhawk]

M47s and M48s were again used in tank warfare by the Pakistan Army in the Indo Pak War of 1965.

It would be worth note that in February 1963, the US Army accepted its first of 600 M48 Patton tanks. Therefore, when Pakistan received it and was used in the 1965 War, it was modern.

Indo-Pakistani Wars - M47s and M48s were again used in tank warfare by the Pakistan Army against Indian Army's Centurion and M4 Sherman tanks in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 with some good results.

The Patton was later used by Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, with mixed results. In a repetition of 1965, Patton's spearheaded the Pakistani advance through Chamb, and the Patton was the main Pakistani tank at Shakarghar. In the latter battle, a brigade of tanks (the Changez Force) successfully resisted the Indian advance, in a repeat of Chawinda. However, in what became known as Pakistan's Charge of the Light Brigade, a counterattack led by 13th Lancers and 31st Cavalry was mauled by the Indian 54th Division around Battle of Barapind.

India later set up a war memorial named "Patton Nagar" ("Patton City") in Khemkaran District, where the captured Pakistani Patton tanks are displayed.

M60 was in service 1961–97. It had a high profile and limited cross-country mobility.

From the Wiki article, "M60 Patton":

Combat performance: Other wars:

The M60A1/A3s performed well against opposing tanks such as T-55s, T-62s, Type 69s and T-72s in various conflicts including the Yom Kippur War, Lebanon and the battle for the Kuwait airport during the Gulf war. The US Marines exclusively used the M60 during the conflict. In early February 1991, two hundred USMC M60A3s of the 2nd Battalion drove north from Khafji, Saudi Arabia into Kuwait. In Kuwait they encountered an Iraqi force of T-54/55, Type 69, and T-72 tanks at Kuwait City International Airport. This was the largest tank battle for the Marines since World War II. The Marines won this battle, destroying almost nine dozen Iraqi tanks with only a single M60A3 lost. The defeat of the Iraqi force was not only humiliating to Iraq but also to the USSR's arms export effort. This was in part due to the fact that some of the tanks destroyed were the newer T-72 which the Soviets claimed was superior to the M60. Despite the performance of the M60, the Marine Corps decided to replace it with the M1 Abrams in order to have the same tank as the US Army. The M60 was also fielded by Egypt but it is unknown if they saw any fighting.[26]

N.B.: It is also necessary to remember that no less than four U.S. tanks were called "Patton" tanks: M46, M47, M48, & M60.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

Despite being handicapped, IA Snipers ( Yes Snipers ) are making hit beyond 1500ms range ..

Can you expand on this? What weapon system is used and with what configuration?
Do we have access to ballistic computers? What is the hit probability and what is the damage done to the target?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Basic SVD with PSO-1 optical sight with 4x magnification, It is optimized for 7N14 7.62x54r sniper grade round, But in IA we use simple 7.62 × 54 rimmed rounds as it is easily available via captured terrorist arm catch ..

Simple Optical Scopes both on SVD and 1B1, Vidwanshak use electronic sight system ..

That depends on training and Solider Experience on the field, Right placement of round will cause sure death, Vidwansk 20mm HE round are design to take out trucks, Jeeps and light Armored vehicle and helicopters so does fuel dumps and bunkers ..

Can you expand on this? What weapon system is used and with what configuration?
Do we have access to ballistic computers? What is the hit probability and what is the damage done to the target?

 

[Dark Sorrow]

What about MSG-90? Are they used frequently by IA?

 

[Ray]

@Ray,

Thanks so much for your clarification.

After this, I am left wondering which Anti-material rifle does the Indian Army have? As far as I can see, OFBs have made a copy of Denel NTW20 called Vidhwansak which is quite heavy (near about 20+kg). Last I checked, Indian Army had refused to buy it. Does that mean Indian Army has urgent shortage for CQB and AMR ?

Additionally, what kind of machine guns do they have? Is there any equivalent to American M134 Gatling or M2 Browning .50cal HMG?

Thanks again.

AMR that I saw was possibly a Denel.

The Infantry uses .50 HMGs as sector stores.

 

[Ray]

Dragonuv SVD is a Squad and Platoon weapon, ..

That is interesting. Lots must have changed since my time.

Could you amplify?

Used as Section and Platoon weapons?

Since when and what is the organisation of the Section and Platoon?

The thumb rule for a section is that it must have a minimum of 06 in the assault group to be effective.

The rest are the support group.

I am aware that Dragunov SVD was designed not as a "standard" sniper rifle in its Western meaning of the term. In fact, main role of the SVD in Soviet / Russian Army is to extend effective range of fire of every infantry squad up to about 600 meters and to provide special fire support as SVD is a lightweight and quite accurate (for it's class) rifle, capable of semi-auto fire.

 

[Blood+]

Dragonuv SVD is a Squad and Platoon weapon, AMRs ( Vidhwansak ) are not authorized weapons, They are available at Company or battalion level ....

Dragonuv SVD has many shortcoming in IA, The rounds we get are not sniper grade but regular 7.62x54r of PKM, There are SVD without scopes due to damage in field and their replacement scopes are no where to be seen as these are imported, Now days many units using 1B1 with scopes and being used as DMR ..

Despite being handicapped, IA Snipers ( Yes Snipers ) are making hit beyond 1500ms range ..

But sir,Dragunov SVD was never meant to be a sniper rifle to begin with!!I mean it's used as a designated marksman rifle by the Indian army and is meant to engage targets at 900-1000 yards at max.The snipers on the other hand use the Galil (SF only) ,HK PSG 1 and Mauser SP 66 bolt action rifles with the OFB Marksman rounds.
And don't you think that it would be better to use the SLRs in DMR role rather than the INSAS since 7.62 NATO match grade ammunition are manufactured by the ordnance factories,but there are no Mk 262 or Mk 318 equivalents are produced in our country.But the SLR can share the same match grade rounds that are used in the Galil and SP 66.

 

[Ray]

destroying almost nine dozen Iraqi tanks with only a single M60A3 lost.

@Redhawk

One does not take the Iraq War to be a standard.

We are well aware of how incompetent they proved themselves to be.

 

[Ray]

But sir,Dragunov SVD was never meant to be a sniper rifle to begin with!!I mean it's used as a designated marksman rifle by the Indian army and is meant to engage targets at 900-1000 yards at max.The snipers on the other hand use the Galil (SF only) ,HK PSG 1 and Mauser SP 66 bolt action rifles with the OFB Marksman rounds.
And don't you think that it would be better to use the SLRs in DMR role rather than the INSAS since 7.62 NATO match grade ammunition are manufactured by the ordnance factories,but there are no Mk 262 or Mk 318 equivalents are produced in our country.But the SLR can share the same match grade rounds that are used in the Galil and SP 66.

When I was commanding a Brigade, these were introduced.

It was introduced as a Sniper Weapon.

We had problems with the number of rounds available for training since they were expensive and the import was limited.

I would be surprised if carrying such a heavy weapon compared to our standard issue would be given to every section. What purpose does it serve?

A section does not have to fire at such ranges, or do they?

A sniper has a different task and he has to engage at longer ranges.

Are you suggesting that Galil (SF only) ,HK PSG 1 and Mauser SP 66 bolt action rifles are being used by the snipers of the IA? If I remember, I will check it out next time I visit the unit.

A point to note is what increase the range of a small arm?

One of the reason is stability.

What is a GPMG?

On its standard bipod it was a light machine gun, ideal for infantry assaults; on a tripod it could serve as a sustained-fire medium machine gun.

 

[Redhawk]

@Redhawk

One does not take the Iraq War to be a standard.

We are well aware of how incompetent they proved themselves to be.

Incompetent, yes, but the fact is that even if the tanks were better handled, the array of Soviet-produced armour confronting the U.S. Marines' M60A3 tanks was abysmally outmatched.

Also the M60A1 tank acquitted itself well in Israeli hands against the Soviet-produced armour of the better-trained and more competent Arab Egyptian and Syrian armies in the Yom Kippur War (October War of 1973).

From the Wiki article, "M60 Patton":

Combat performance: Yom Kippur War:

During the Yom Kippur War Israel had about 150 M60A1 in service. Israeli M60 tanks fought effectively against Egyptian T-54/55 and T-62 tanks.[citation needed] However, many Israeli M60s were destroyed by Egyptian troops armed with AT-3 Sagger anti-tank missiles due to being misused in the Bar-Lev line. Most of these were in the first few days following the Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal. Once they could operate in the open they became the most feared tank in the war. Their gun was better than that of the T-54/55 and T-62, and they were safer than other IDF tanks because of their diesel engine instead of gasoline. In Israeli service, the type is highly regarded and has been updated through the years; it has earned praise for its firepower and maneuverability. Throughout the war Israel received airlifts of replacement tanks which replaced all losses and increased the fleet to 300 M60A1. Jordan also operated M-60s but did not enter the conflict.[19][20][21][22][23]

If a tank can reliably operate in desert conditions it can reliably operate just about anywhere.

 

[Ray]

Incompetent, yes, but the fact is that even if the tanks were better handled, the array of Soviet-produced armour confronting the U.S. Marines' M60A3 tanks was abysmally outmatched. Also the M60A1 tank acquitted itself well in Israeli hands against the Soviet-produced armour of the better-trained and more competent Arab Egyptian and Syrian armies in the Yom Kippur War (October War of 1973).

We also handle Soviet machines while our worthy adversary use America's latest.

The results are for all to see.

Man behind the machine is the answer.

I have seen these Arabs in our schools of instructions. They are dimwitted and bone lazy.

One Jordanian refused to climb a hill where we were conducting a lesson of Mountain Warfare, because he said he had no mountains in his country and he would get tired climbing the hill.

and guess what?

He had an array of medal ribbons and was most annoyed and reported me when I asked if he got them every time he shook hands with King Hussein. The instructor had me on the mat for 'ruining' the good relations between Jordan and India. I wonder if we actually ever had good relations, more so, since Jordan provides fighter jets to Pakistan every time there is a war.

Take the case of the 2006 Israel–Hezbollah War.

Israel's inconclusive 33-day war with Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon undermined the military deterrence Israelis consider indispensable to their survival, a government-appointed panel concluded in its final report.

Special three-man hunter-killer teams from the Nasr Brigade destroyed several Israeli armoured vehicles including the famed Mekerva during the fight with light man-made anti-tank missiles.

It is the man and not the machine that wins wars.

 

[Blood+]

When I was commanding a Brigade, these were introduced.

It was introduced as a Sniper Weapon.

We had problems with the number of rounds available for training since they were expensive and the import was limited.

I would be surprised if carrying such a heavy weapon compared to our standard issue would be given to every section. What purpose does it serve?

A section does not have to fire at such ranges, or do they?

A sniper has a different task and he has to engage at longer ranges.

Are you suggesting that Galil (SF only) ,HK PSG 1 and Mauser SP 66 bolt action rifles are being used by the snipers of the IA? If I remember, I will check it out next time I visit the unit.

That would be really great sir!!And about the use of different rifles,there was report that Indian Army had been buying a few thousand Galil sniper versions.And as for the H&K PSG1 and Mauser SP 66 are concerned,I got that from OFB's official site.According to that sight,they have been producing a match grade 7.62X51 mm NATO ammunition for these two rifles.

By the way,what was the reason behind acquiring the SVD when the available SLRs could be used to engage targets at 800 yards or more with addition of scopes (the SVD scopes are not that good anyway) and a heavy bull barrel.I mean when the match grade rounds are produced in country,then what was the need to import another rifle that make use of a different round??

 

[Blood+]

We also handle Soviet machines while our worthy adversary use America's latest.

The results are for all to see.

Man behind the machine is the answer.

I have seen these Arabs in our schools of instructions. They are dimwitted and bone lazy.

One Jordanian refused to climb a hill where we were conducting a lesson of Mountain Warfare, because he said he had no mountains in his country and he would get tired climbing the hill.

and guess what?

He had an array of medal ribbons and was most annoyed and reported me when I asked if he got them every time he shook hands with King Hussein. The instructor had me on the mat for 'ruining' the good relations between Jordan and India. I wonder if we actually ever had good relations, more so, since Jordan provides fighter jets to Pakistan every time there is a war/

Huh.........they think their so called 'tight butted good looks' would be enough to deter their enemies.

 

[Blood+]

By the way @Ray sir,through out the history,there are plenty of examples in many different wars that the muslim armies including that of our western neighbor,hasn't shown much of proficiency while handling their armored or mechanized forces.Just look at the various Arab-Israeli or Indo-Pak wars,in each and every case,they had more numbers of tanks available to them compared their opponents yet they failed to use that strength to their advantage and got their arses handed to them by numerically and qualitatively inferior forces almost at regular basis (well,of course the Pakistanis fared somewhat better compared to other muslim nations due to their legacy of the erstwhile British Indian Army).

 

[Ray]

By the way @Ray sir,through out the history,there are plenty of examples in many different wars that the muslim armies including that of our western neighbor,hasn't seen much of proficiency while handling their armored or mechanized forces.Just look at the various Arab-Israeli or Indo-Pak wars,in each and every case,they had more numbers of tanks available to them compared their opponents yet they failed to use that strength to their advantage and instead,got their arses handed to them by numerically and qualitatively inferior forces almost at regular basis (well,of course the Pakistanis fared somewhat better compared to other muslim nations due to their legacy of the erstwhile British Indian Army).

They are, including Pakistan, more on bluster than on the juice.

 

[Redhawk]

We also handle Soviet machines while our worthy adversary use America's latest.

That's news to me, at least in the Indo-Pak War of '65. Apart from some Soviet PT-76 "amphibious" tanks, I've never heard of the Indian Army armed with Soviet tanks in the 1965 War.

From the Wiki article, "Indo-Pakistani War of 1965":

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965: Tank battles:

The 1965 war witnessed some of the largest tank battles since World War II. At the beginning of the war, the Pakistani Army had both a numerical advantage in tanks, as well as better equipment overall.[45] Pakistani armour was largely American-made; it consisted mainly of Patton M-47 and M-48 tanks, but also included many M4 Sherman tanks, some M24 Chaffee light tanks and M36 Jackson tank destroyers, equipped with 90 mm guns.[46] The bulk of India's tank fleet were older M4 Sherman tanks; some were up-gunned with the French high velocity CN 75 50 guns and could hold their own, whilst some older models were still equipped with the inferior 75 mm M3 L/40 gun. Besides the M4 tanks, India fielded the British-made Centurion Tank Mk 7, with the 105 mm Royal Ordnance L7 gun, and the AMX-13, PT-76, and M3 Stuart light tanks. Pakistan fielded a greater number and more modern artillery; its guns out-ranged those of the Indian artillery, according to Pakistan's Major General T.H. Malik.[47]

At the outbreak of war in 1965, Pakistan had about 15 armoured cavalry regiments, each with about 45 tanks in three squadrons. Besides the Pattons, there were about 200 M4 Shermans re-armed with 76 mm guns, 150 M24 Chaffee light tank and a few independent squadrons of M36B1 tank destroyers. Most of these regiments served in Pakistan's two armoured divisions, the 1st and 6th Armoured divisions – the latter being in the process of formation.

The Indian Army of the time possessed 17 cavalry regiments, and in the 1950s had begun modernizing them by the acquisition of 164 AMX-13 light tanks and 188 Centurions. The remainder of the cavalry units were equipped with M4 Shermans and a small number of M3A3 Stuart light tanks. India had only a single armoured division, the 1st 'Black Elephant' Armoured Division, which consisted of the 17th Horse (The Poona Horse), also called 'Fakhr-i-Hind' ('Pride of India'), the 4th Horse (Hodson's Horse), the 16th Cavalry, the 7th Light Cavalry, the 2nd Lancers, the 18th Cavalry and the 62nd Cavalry, the two first named being equipped with Centurions. There was also the 2nd Independent Armoured Brigade, one of whose three regiments, the 3rd Cavalry, was also equipped with Centurions.

Despite the qualitative and numerical superiority of Pakistani armour,[48] Pakistan was outfought on the battlefield by India, which made progress into the Lahore-Sialkot sector, whilst halting Pakistan's counteroffensive on Amritsar;[49][50] they were sometimes employed in a faulty manner, such as charging prepared defenses during the defeat of Pakistan's 1st Armoured Division at Assal Uttar.

Headlines from the Sept. 13, 1965 edition of The Australian.

Headlines from the Sept. 14, 1965 edition of The Australian.

 

[Blood+]

That's news to me, at least in the Indo-Pak War of '65. Apart from some Soviet PT-76 "amphibious" tanks, I've never heard of any the Indian Army armed with Soviet tanks in the 1965 War.

From the Wiki article, "Indo-Pakistani War of 1965":

Headlines from the Sept. 13, 1965 edition of The Australian.

Headlines from the Sept. 14, 1965 edition of The Australian.

He was most probably talking about the 71 conflict.

 

[Ray]

That's news to me, at least in the Indo-Pak War of '65. Apart from some Soviet PT-76 "amphibious" tanks, I've never heard of any the Indian Army armed with Soviet tanks in the 1965 War.

The issue is 'man behind the machine' that matters.

You are right, T55 was inducted only in 1966.

But we have fought wars with the worthies thereafter too.

1971 was with Soviet tanks and we know how good the Pakistan are when handling US state of the art tanks.

And even so, your quote proves that it the 'man behind the machine' that matters

Despite the qualitative and numerical superiority of Pakistani armour,[48] Pakistan was outfought on the battlefield by India