New Assault Rifles for Indian Army

Which Contender`s Rifle has more chances of winning than others?


  • Total voters
    390

Hari Sud

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
3,699
Likes
8,324
Country flag
You are right but IA has chosen both guns ( F90 and Tavor 7 ) are bullpop.
Both these rifles (F90 and Tavor 7) are bullpop design, totally unsuitable for regular infantry. During a battle, a soldier crouches or hides in a trench or a bunker and uses his shoulder as a support for the rifle action. Any bullpop design does not offer that opportunity. Moreover, the pride of a soldier in a battle is his ability to close in on the enemy and jump on him with a bayonet. Most battles on the Kargil in 1999 ended up like that when India soldiers closed in and jumped on the Pakistani soldiers who also carried a bayonet but were surprised by the ferocity of the attack. Same thing happened in 1965 in Burki and Dograi battle. Bayonet on FAL and Lee Enfield at that time did the job. Both these rifles F90 and Tavor 7 do not offer that opportunity.

F90 is not what IA is looking for. It is 5.56x46 caliber. Indian Army requirements are clearly 7.62x51.

Bullpop is better suited for urban warfare where smaller size could be hidden out of sight or quickly brought into action with frontal straps.
 

Enquirer

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
3,567
Likes
9,357
Unfortunately this is not the reality however . Conventional ARs are center mass heavy. The Tavor and other bullpups were deisnged to be stock heavy. Which leant to the theory that it was easier to shoot from standing, kneeling and modified positions. However that only works on the range. in Combat the Bullpups were poor weapons to fire when prone. Around Corners (single handed) and were inefficient in sustained fire fights for quick mag changes. While the Tavor (mag release / charging handle) and over all design does go a long way to address the issues it may still be the WRONG weapon for a line grunt but perfect for a SOF soldier who has to fight in narrow hallways/ caves / Climbing mountains / jumping out of planes - etc) - Which further begs my question as to why Indian SF/SFF etc didnt choose the CTAR or MTAR over the TAR-21
I've haven't carried guns, but I've definitely carried big weights for long distances in rugged terrains. I feel that heavier part being closer to the body (what you call stock heavy) will always be more comfortable compared to the heavier part being farther away from the body.

"ARs are center mass heavy"
But you're not gripping the rifle at the center (like an Uzi), the pistol grip of AR/AK is almost at the back-edge (leaving only the stock behind); the extended 'left' hand supports much of the weight farther away from the body - this must cause much fatigue (especially on long patrols which army folks do on the LoC).

I can see how the bullpup design (with 30 round magazine) may be a little inconvenient in the prone position. But IA's choice of 7.62x51 caliber would mean shorted magazine with 20 rounds only.
 

vishal_lionheart

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
246
Likes
14
In Indian subcontinent human lives doesn't have value. Those IA generals still thinking of baynot fighting are still living in 2nd World war era. None of the western country uses this techniques. Change is must as today's war become highly advance due to GPS guided artilary and network centric warfare. These Generals rejected Battle Management System for imported rifle. God save soldiers.
 

rkhanna

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
3,218
Likes
12,031
Country flag
I've haven't carried guns, but I've definitely carried big weights for long distances in rugged terrains. I feel that heavier part being closer to the body (what you call stock heavy) will always be more comfortable compared to the heavier part being farther away from the body.

"ARs are center mass heavy"
But you're not gripping the rifle at the center (like an Uzi), the pistol grip of AR/AK is almost at the back-edge (leaving only the stock behind); the extended 'left' hand supports much of the weight farther away from the body - this must cause much fatigue (especially on long patrols which army folks do on the LoC).

I can see how the bullpup design (with 30 round magazine) may be a little inconvenient in the prone position. But IA's choice of 7.62x51 caliber would mean shorted magazine with 20 rounds only.
Fair points. Let me try and rebutt.

When you carry weights over large distances (Assuming backpack) natural tendency is to pull your straps up so that weight is higher on your body. The problem with Indian soldiers is not Bullpup Vs Normal rifle . It is the way we have trained with the sling.

Here are some pics from recent COIN in kashmir. Do you see a problem? Almost all our troops include SF carry their slings in this manner. The Gun is Dangling so much lower on the body than it should. The Butt has no alignment with the shoulder. Outside of Fatigue the trooper is going to take that much longer to bring the rifle to his shoulder and align to get a shot

Another inherent downside of wearing the gun so low is that essetially you cant run hands free with the gun banging around on you.







How Slings SHOULD be worn






Most armies - (including the pakis) wear their guns higher up on their Chest rigs.

This inefficient SOP (and ofcourse I am just a keyboard warrior mentally masturbating on the internet) is what leads to greater fatigue, slower reaction time and poor first shot capability.



NOW coming back to the Convention vs Bullpup weight issue.

The Center Mass Gun is inherently better balanced because better center of gravity. But for the Bullpup as the barrell is lighter you can bring the rifle up in the fire ready position faster (theoretically)..
.
However do note
1. that the TAVOR is HEAVIER Than the M-4
2. The position of the triggers for both Guns are almost the same and both hands are needed to steady and fire. The Difference is weight will be off by fraction of a pound.
3. However the bulky ness of the Tavor (higher side profile), Fact that you cant shoot around corners, Fact that you cant change shooting hand, cant shoot prone, Cant shoot with one hand. Takes longer to do a mag change are all Factors that HAVE to be weighed along with the wee bit of weight saving.
4. The Butt of a bullpup is not adjustable. So its one size irrespective of the arm lenght of the shooter.
5. Lastly the center of weight differential between a conventional rifle and bullpup is 4-6inches. The Sling has a bigger impact
 

rkhanna

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
3,218
Likes
12,031
Country flag
In Indian subcontinent human lives doesn't have value. Those IA generals still thinking of baynot fighting are still living in 2nd World war era. None of the western country uses this techniques. Change is must as today's war become highly advance due to GPS guided artilary and network centric warfare. These Generals rejected Battle Management System for imported rifle. God save soldiers.

100% agree with you and the Irony is that stretching back to WWI India had some of the best soldiers on the battlefield. Better than the British for the most part. Yet after independence our capacity, and willingness to evolve and learn from our mistakes has been slower. No lessons from 62, Kargil etc have ever been implemented. SOCOM still lies in doldrums, So does a unified Command across services.

PS . Kargil War + 15 years of the GWOT has shown that Bayonet fighting is still pretty relevant ;)
 

Enquirer

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
3,567
Likes
9,357
Fair points. Let me try and rebutt.

When you carry weights over large distances (Assuming backpack) natural tendency is to pull your straps up so that weight is higher on your body. The problem with Indian soldiers is not Bullpup Vs Normal rifle . It is the way we have trained with the sling.

Here are some pics from recent COIN in kashmir. Do you see a problem? Almost all our troops include SF carry their slings in this manner. The Gun is Dangling so much lower on the body than it should. The Butt has no alignment with the shoulder. Outside of Fatigue the trooper is going to take that much longer to bring the rifle to his shoulder and align to get a shot

Another inherent downside of wearing the gun so low is that essetially you cant run hands free with the gun banging around on you.







How Slings SHOULD be worn






Most armies - (including the pakis) wear their guns higher up on their Chest rigs.

This inefficient SOP (and ofcourse I am just a keyboard warrior mentally masturbating on the internet) is what leads to greater fatigue, slower reaction time and poor first shot capability.



NOW coming back to the Convention vs Bullpup weight issue.

The Center Mass Gun is inherently better balanced because better center of gravity. But for the Bullpup as the barrell is lighter you can bring the rifle up in the fire ready position faster (theoretically)..
.
However do note
1. that the TAVOR is HEAVIER Than the M-4
2. The position of the triggers for both Guns are almost the same and both hands are needed to steady and fire. The Difference is weight will be off by fraction of a pound.
3. However the bulky ness of the Tavor (higher side profile), Fact that you cant shoot around corners, Fact that you cant change shooting hand, cant shoot prone, Cant shoot with one hand. Takes longer to do a mag change are all Factors that HAVE to be weighed along with the wee bit of weight saving.
4. The Butt of a bullpup is not adjustable. So its one size irrespective of the arm lenght of the shooter.
5. Lastly the center of weight differential between a conventional rifle and bullpup is 4-6inches. The Sling has a bigger impact
Your commentary on the incorrect use of the sling is spot on!!

However, when it comes to bullpup I am still not convinced.
I think bullpups are much more easy to fire with single hand, and that too accurately! Because your trigger hand is so close to the muzzle & the weight ahead of the trigger point is so low that the deflection can be easily controlled by the trigger hand itself. With non-bullpup, the muzzle is so far away from the trigger point & further 80% of the weight is ahead of the trigger point such that it's impossible to aim or fire accurately with single hand!

Regarding the stock (I am thinking at the top of my head here) it may not be required in bullpup. The whole idea of the stock is to make sure that your eye can be placed close to the mounted sight (which cannot be brought back beyond the pistol grip point). In bullpup design you're free to move the sights all along the length (almost).
There's also the comfort thing - that a shorter hand will be more extended to support (almost all of) the weight ahead of the gripping point, as such that 'comfortable' extension of the trigger hand is important. In bullpup design, since much of the weight rests on your chest, the gripping hand extension is not that significant.
This can be proven easily using the physics concept of 'moments' on a sheet of paper.
 
Last edited:

rkhanna

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
3,218
Likes
12,031
Country flag
Your commentary on the incorrect use of the sling is spot on!!

However, when it comes to bullpup I am still not convinced.
I think bullpups are much more easy to fire with single hand, and that too accurately! Because your trigger hand is so close to the muzzle & the weight ahead of the trigger point is so low that the deflection can be easily controlled by the trigger hand itself. With non-bullpup, the muzzle is so far away from the trigger point & further 80% of the weight is ahead of the trigger point such that it's impossible to aim or fire accurately with single hand!

Regarding the stock (I am thinking at the top of my head here) it may not be required in bullpup. The whole idea of the stock is to make sure that your eye can be placed close to the mounted sight (which cannot be brought back beyond the pistol grip point). In bullpup design you're free to move the sights all along the length (almost).
There's also the comfort thing - that a shorter hand will be more extended to support (almost all of) the weight ahead of the gripping point, as such that 'comfortable' extension of the trigger hand is important. In bullpup design, since much of the weight rests on your chest, the gripping hand extension is not that significant.
This can be proven easily using the physics concept of 'moments' on a sheet of paper.
Lol bro . all your points are valid. But like you I am not convinced on the otherside of the spectrum.
 

sthf

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
5,327
Country flag
@rkhanna I think you are missing forest for trees.

1) No reliable source is saying that Tavor 7 has been or will be selected. For all we know Tavor 7 may not even be a contender. It is a rifle that has just made it to the scene. Not enough time to work out its kinks.

2) If you consider the possiblity of a bullpup (Tavor 7) not being selected as the primary rifle (not carbine) bayonets are the last thing to be considered as a criteria. Officers and supporting arms are not supposed to do bayonet charge.

If you are an officer in infantry or you belong to arty, medical corps etc and you are about to do a bayonet charge, the length of your carbine is the least of your worries.

3) As for the weight, balance of bullpups, swivel etc. these issues and the experience of Western forces have little to do with Indian Army. West's experience about these issues stems from their use of conventional armies in CI/CT in GWOT.

IA is not buying these rifles and carbines to use them in CI/CT but a conventional peer to peer confrontation. Which translates to limited foot patrolling and more static defence or forward staged offence. (Just applicable to infantry).
 

rkhanna

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
3,218
Likes
12,031
Country flag
1) No reliable source is saying that Tavor 7 has been or will be selected. For all we know Tavor 7 may not even be a contender. It is a rifle that has just made it to the scene. Not enough time to work out its kinks.
Sirji - Alot people on this forum were pro Tavor. I am not talking about the Tavor I was engaging in a debate between Bullpup Vs Conventional Rifles considering 2 of the "shortlist" are Bullpups. But as far as bullpups go I WOULD prefer the Tavor - Level of operational refinement is superior to all other Bullpups and on par with most Current Gen ARs (SCAR / SIG MCX / HK417) . It has not been battle tested is true. But neither was the TAR-21 we adopted and all problems were fixed by the Israeli post haste. Their work ethic and commitment to the gun really came through.

and Trust me . This is the subcontinent . ANY RIFLE WE CHOSE WILL HAVE KINKS.

2) If you consider the possiblity of a bullpup (Tavor 7) not being selected as the primary rifle (not carbine) bayonets are the last thing to be considered as a criteria. Officers and supporting arms are not supposed to do bayonet charge.
Didnt understand this. My bayonet comment was just a flipant response to Vishals comment.

PS. nobody is supposed to do a Bayonet Charge. If any unit finds themselves in a "Bayonet Charge" essentially means end of days for that particular unit.

But nonetheless didnt understand your comment

3) As for the weight, balance of bullpups, swivel etc. these issues and the experience of Western forces have little to do with Indian Army. West's experience about these issues stems from their use of conventional armies in CI/CT in GWOT.
Hmm. i think your point is grossly missplaced. The "Conventional Battle Space" has changed. Nobody is lining up across borders to pick a fight. Look at ME/Central Asia / Ukraine / Africa . etc etc. ALL Conventional Units acorss the globe - Whether Allied in Astan and Iraq or the french in Haiti etc are now trained for MOUT unconventional warfare. Those armies that havnt transitioned will be DOOMED.

THe issues of the bullpup highlighted by the western armies have come from extensive use by

- Britsh Gurkha
- British Paras
- French FL
- French Paras
- Britsh Royal Marine commandos

Above would represent the most "unconventional" part of those conventional militaries.

There experiences/ Feedback are EXTREMELY VALID. They have fought in houses, in swamps, in deserts and in mountains and they have found the efficiency of their weapon systems wanting. Not in terms of bullet dynamics etc - but in terms of easy of use in the modern day battlefield.

All that being said - i must contend that the TAVOR is the only bullpup built from the ground up for those EXACT same conditions but IMO still falls short of a conventional rifle.

IA is not buying these rifles and carbines to use them in CI/CT but a conventional peer to peer confrontation. Which translates to limited foot patrolling and more static defence or forward staged offence. (Just applicable to infantry).
No such thing as a peer to peer confrontation. The battle space landscape in terms of costs / technology / Communications is all changing. For India our battle fields are our Domestic Insurgencies, Border Threats, Peace Keeping Missions, and future force project.

The Last Conventional War we fought was in 71. There were NO static defence, there were EXTENSIVE foot patrols and forward staged offensives were leaped frogged via Airborne and Airmobile forces. Contrast with Kargil which was an uphill battle with smash mouth battle (where bayonets were used extensively ;p)

my point - no such thing as a "ideal battlefield". Army is buying equipment that is transitional across the entire spectrum of warfare.
 
Last edited:

sthf

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
5,327
Country flag
It has not been battle tested is true. But neither was the TAR-21 we adopted and all problems were fixed by the Israeli post haste. Their work ethic and commitment to the gun really came through.
I am not talking about battle tested. I am talking about user feedback. We bought Tar-21 because Israeli trained SG "believed" it could be a good addition to its arsenal. AFAIK, it didn't go through the long and tedius tendering process Tavor 7 is going to, against the rifles who don't share this particular handicap.

Simply put, Tavor 7 won't be granted enough time to work through the kinks if they exist. If not then well and good.

and Trust me . This is the subcontinent . ANY RIFLE WE CHOSE WILL HAVE KINKS.
Agreed.

PS. nobody is supposed to do a Bayonet Charge. If any unit finds themselves in a "Bayonet Charge" essentially means end of days for that particular unit.
Agreed.

But nonetheless didnt understand your comment
Let me try again. People who carry carbines, bullpup or not, don't do bayonet charge. Length of carbine is irrelevant.

Hmm. i think your point is grossly missplaced. The "Conventional Battle Space" has changed. Nobody is lining up across borders to pick a fight. Look at ME/Central Asia / Ukraine / Africa . etc etc. ALL Conventional Units acorss the globe - Whether Allied in Astan and Iraq or the french in Haiti etc are now trained for MOUT unconventional warfare. Those armies that havnt transitioned will be DOOMED.
That is a massive, absolutely humoungous leap of faith there. If India is not preparing or don't expect a conventional war then the $100 billion naval buildup should be ceased immediately.

Another Mumbai or Parliament attack and you are in for a shock.

Above would represent the most "unconventional" part of those conventional militaries.
Yet our "unconventional" forces swear by their bullpups. I'll take their word over others.

There experiences/ Feedback are EXTREMELY VALID.
Not to us.

No such thing as a peer to peer confrontation. The battle space landscape in terms of costs / technology / Communications is all changing.
Yes there is and yes battlespace is more fluid than ever. The definitions of conventional and unconventional warfare are being modified, not be done with.

If you are using your submarines to sink your enemy's submarine, there is nothing unconventional about it.

The Last Conventional War we fought was in 71.
Irrelevant. Last time we sank a ship was also 1971.

There were NO static defence, there were EXTENSIVE foot patrols
No & No. You are confusing between what static defences and foot patrolling actually are. Every unit, back then and even today use static defences like bunkers, trenches, mine fields, anti-armour ditch cum bund etc in their AOR i.e. the unit's frontage.

Extensive wartime patrolling means giving enemy a chance to sap your forces. Instead scouting is used by the unit in charge to keep an eye on the enemy and its movement.

IA has created entire scout regiments for this very purpose.

my point - no such thing as a "ideal battlefield". Army is buying equipment that is transitional across the entire spectrum of warfare.
You are again missing the point. IA is not a CI/CT force. Despite being often used in such a role, that is not their raison d'etre. IA is also extensively used in disaster relief & SAR. Again, it is not the reason why army exists. Army exists to fight other armies. Entire spectrum of warfare doesn't mean that IA has given up on its primary mandate. And your primary mandate governs your decisions.

RR & AR solely exists for CI/CT. They have no other purpose and they are not army.

West doesn't have RR & AR like units and therefore in this SPECIFIC case, their experience with small arms is irelevant.
 
Last edited:

rkhanna

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
3,218
Likes
12,031
Country flag
Yet our "unconventional" forces swear by their bullpups. I'll take their word over others.
I am not talking about battle tested. I am talking about user feedback. We bought Tar-21 because Israeli trained SG "believed" it could be a good addition to its arsenal. AFAIK, it didn't go through the long and tedius tendering process Tavor 7 is going to, against the rifles who don't share this particular handicap.

Simply put, Tavor 7 won't be granted enough time to work through the kinks if they exist. If not then well and good.
Let me try again. People who carry carbines, bullpup or not, don't do bayonet charge. Length of carbine is irrelevant.
Fair

That is a massive, absolutely humoungous leap of faith there. If India is not preparing or don't expect a conventional war then the $100 billion naval buildup should be ceased immediately.

Another Mumbai or Parliament attack and you are in for a shock.
First lets define the term limits of The definition of the Conventionality of War needs.
Second the argument for Conventional Arms in our discussion was restricted to Infantry not other arms. Every Military Service needs to arm itself for its own purpose and contigency. The Navy also trains extensively in Disaster relief and its most recent operation was the rescue of thousands of civilians from war torn Yemen which was denied space. THAT was unconventional.

That being said circling back to Infantry - Know that if we are fighting Pakistan - we will be coming up against irregular warfare . If we fight against China THEY will be coming up against Irregular war fare.

Dont under stand the comment on a terrorist attack on Mumbai or the Parliament. That is the very basis of Irregular warfare.

Yes there is and yes battlespace is more fluid than ever. The definitions of conventional and unconventional warfare are being modified, not be done with.
Thats my point isnt it?

No & No. You are confusing between what static defences and foot patrolling actually are. Every unit, back then and even today use static defences like bunkers, trenches, mine fields, anti-armour ditch cum bund etc in their AOR i.e. the unit's frontage.

Extensive wartime patrolling means giving enemy a chance to sap your forces. Instead scouting is used by the unit in charge to keep an eye on the enemy and its movement.

IA has created entire scout regiments for this very purpose.
In 71 we patrolled all the way to Dhaka. Over Mountains we will HAVE to patrol over mountain territory to take the fight to the enemy. Same happened with the British Marines and Paras in their war with Argentina. An offensive military action will be mobile (both mechanized and otherwise). Bunkers, Trenchs, Minefields are for our Holding Corps and Border Defences not for our Strike Corps.


You are again missing the point. IA is not a CI/CT force. Despite being often used in such a role, that is not their raison d'etre. IA is also extensively used in disaster relief & SAR. Again, it is not the reason why army exists. Army exists to fight other armies. Entire spectrum of warfare doesn't mean that IA has given up on its primary mandate. And your primary mandate governs your decisions.

RR & AR solely exists for CI/CT. They have no other purpose and they are not army.

West doesn't have RR & AR like units and therefore in this SPECIFIC case, their experience with small arms is irelevant.
RR is an organizational Wrapper to the Indian Army. it is a conventional military unit reoriented to COIN operations. Whether in the NE or in Kashmir the conventional army (CIJWS/HAWS exist for a reason) has proven to be far more effective than CAPF in COIN roles.

Secondly at which point did i say that the Army was giving up its primary mandate. Its primary mandate is the protection of the sovereignty of the nation. hence being proficient across the entire spectrum of warfare IS its mandate.

And your comment on the west not having Units like RR / AR - I have no idea what you are talking about.

What is the difference between RR/AR Vs The British Paras, US Ranger Regiment, SOCOM, French Foriegn Legion, British Gurkhas? These are all Light Infantry units tasked with small unit operations outside Large Conventional Formations. What makes RR/AR so different?

Not at all understanding Your correlation to nomenclature and saying their small arms experience holds no value
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,502
Likes
16,946
Country flag
Interesting. Rosoboronexport chief Alexander Mikheev says Russia is moving forward govt-to-govt talks for a @MakeInIndia Kalashnikov AK-103 assault rifle line to meet the Indian Army’s infantry requirements.
 

sthf

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
5,327
Country flag
First lets define the term limits of The definition of the Conventionality of War needs.
Second the argument for Conventional Arms in our discussion was restricted to Infantry not other arms. Every Military Service needs to arm itself for its own purpose and contigency. The Navy also trains extensively in Disaster relief and its most recent operation was the rescue of thousands of civilians from war torn Yemen which was denied space. THAT was unconventional.
That being said circling back to Infantry - Know that if we are fighting Pakistan - we will be coming up against irregular warfare . If we fight against China THEY will be coming up against Irregular war fare.

Dont under stand the comment on a terrorist attack on Mumbai or the Parliament. That is the very basis of Irregular warfare.
You are asking too much from me. But let me give it a shot.

Conventional war is an open military confrontation between the conventional forces of two or more States. Unlike asymetrical or sub-conventional or hybrid warfare, international laws of warfare laid by Geneva conventions are to be abided, i.e. the distinction between the lawful combatants, non-combatants and POWs are to be observed. Unlawful combatants are not mentioned in Geneva conventions.

Definition of unlawful combatant.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/U/UnlawfulCombatant.aspx

You are making up your own definition of unconventional warfare based on god knows what. It is very difficult to carry a conversation if you present your own opinions as axioms and it goes down the drain pretty fast.

Indian Army when fighting PLA will carry visibily identifiable markers like uniforms, patches etc. If you have a source that says otherwise, I am all ears. (Just sticking to infantry here).

Now lets address Navy. I made that naval buildup point because you stated this.

Nobody is lining up across borders to pick a fight.
You don't build destroyers for HADR missions. You don't build a submarine fleet to fight unconventional wars.

You build your navy as a fighting force to fight conventional wars.

Thats my point isnt it
Nope. Your point was India is not going to fight a conventional war.

In 71 we patrolled all the way to Dhaka. Over Mountains we will HAVE to patrol over mountain territory to take the fight to the enemy. Same happened with the British Marines and Paras in their war with Argentina.
No we did not "patrol" our way to Dhaka. We scouted, marched and fought our way to Dhaka. None of these things are same.

Royal Marines yomped and British Army tabbed their way to victory. Again, that is not what patrolling is.

An offensive military action will be mobile (both mechanized and otherwise).
Yes.

Bunkers, Trenchs, Minefields are for our Holding Corps and Border Defences not for our Strike Corps.
I did not specify either of the units. Unit incharge of the AOR is responsible for the static defences.

RR is an organizational Wrapper to the Indian Army.
Technically yes. Key word being technically because it is important. I will explain the reasons below.

. it is a conventional military unit reoriented to COIN operations.
No. These are units raised from the ground up for CI operations. Nothing more nothing less. Which means they have their own training schools and batallions of RR & AR lose their support elements.

Secondly at which point did i say that the Army was giving up its primary mandate. Its primary mandate is the protection of the sovereignty of the nation. hence being proficient across the entire spectrum of warfare IS its mandate.
Oh bhai, "entire spectrum of warfare" is neither army's mandate nor its responsibility. You need to look up what "spectrum" in warfare is.

I will repeat myself once again. IA as an "organisation" is a conventional fighting force. It is not a sub-conventional, asymetrical or hybrid force but may contain elements of either or all.

What is the difference between RR/AR Vs The British Paras, US Ranger Regiment, SOCOM, French Foriegn Legion, British Gurkhas? These are all Light Infantry units tasked with small unit operations outside Large Conventional Formations. What makes RR/AR so different?
Okay. Let me take a stab at this too. Each of the forces you mentioned belong are regular forces. That is, they belong to the regular armed forces of the their respective countries.

RR & AR are paramilitaries raised specifically for CI. They report to MHA. Which means that they unlike the aforementioned units do not participate in any form of conventional warfare and are not allowed to use the support elements that a regular light infantry. Unlike these units RR/AR do not in fight combined arms operations. That is army's job.

Not at all understanding Your correlation to nomenclature and saying their small arms experience holds no value
Because their experience stems from fighting unconventional warfare but with access to support elements like combat air-power, artillery, armour or mechanized elements of the regular forces. They are fighting in distant lands, AR/RR are not.

RR/AR on the other hand is forbidden to use these since they are fighting Indian citizens and/or cannot differntiate between them enough to warrant this. The last time India used combat air-power in CI in India was 1966 in Mizoram.

I hope I am clear about the differences between regular light infantry forces and dedicated CI forces. Their counterparts work for Indian MOD not MHA.
 
Last edited:

sthf

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
5,327
Country flag
@rkhanna Continued here. Please add this to your reply as well.

Unlike the experience of units you mentioned, IA is buying the rifles for conventional warfare i.e. to fight the regular units of PA and/or PLA. Only riflemen of the infantry regiments will be issued the new rifles. West hasn't fought a proper conventional war since 1991. 2003 was turkey shoot of an atrophied and molested Iraqi forces.

So their complaints about weight, balance etc. hold little to no merit in this SPECIFIC case.

Lessons learned by them are very valuable to units who are engaging in CI/CT like RR, AR, CAPFs and various special forces of India but not to conventional fighting arms of IA.

IA, RR & AR learned the truth about 5.56mm lot earlier than West. Hence, the 7.62×39 in COIN areas. West is now busy apeing 7.62 Russian in the name of .300 Blackout.
 
Last edited:

Hari Sud

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
3,699
Likes
8,324
Country flag
In Indian subcontinent human lives doesn't have value. Those IA generals still thinking of baynot fighting are still living in 2nd World war era. None of the western country uses this techniques. Change is must as today's war become highly advance due to GPS guided artilary and network centric warfare. These Generals rejected Battle Management System for imported rifle. God save soldiers.
How many battles the Western countries have won?

Every time, including Faluja in 2006 in Iraq, an air strike was called when a hill feature or an important feature had to be captured. Soldiers were never exposed to direct fire to reach their objective.. The only casualties US suffered were exposure to sniper fire with home made and modified sniper fire. Others casualties were with IED devices.

The point here that western country armies are equipment heavy but light on soldering. In India, China and Pakistan case, the armies are equipment light and soldering is of prime consideration. That is where all hand held battle equipment becomes very important. We are talking about rifles here. In the latter case western rifles other than special forces, the rifle has to be equipped with powerful round, a grenade launcher, a scope and a bayonet etc. All that bullpop rifle talk is of least importance. We are fighting our enemies not the western country enemies.
 

vishal_lionheart

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
246
Likes
14
How many battles the Western countries have won?

Every time, including Faluja in 2006 in Iraq, an air strike was called when a hill feature or an important feature had to be captured. Soldiers were never exposed to direct fire to reach their objective.. The only casualties US suffered were exposure to sniper fire with home made and modified sniper fire. Others casualties were with IED devices.

The point here that western country armies are equipment heavy but light on soldering. In India, China and Pakistan case, the armies are equipment light and soldering is of prime consideration. That is where all hand held battle equipment becomes very important. We are talking about rifles here. In the latter case western rifles other than special forces, the rifle has to be equipped with powerful round, a grenade launcher, a scope and a bayonet etc. All that bullpop rifle talk is of least importance. We are fighting our enemies not the western country enemies.
Sir ji That's what I am talking, West gives priority to valuable life as they had seen heavy human loss in world war. So they've developed resources and save lives. We never learnt any lesson from past experience. When war started our media creates national emotional histeria and forgot about professionalism in it. We never invest in MIC. Human lives are so cheap here. We wait for any disaster whether it's 1962 or 1999 Kargil. We never prepared and often caught in off hand. Now days, West also fought with Similar enemies as we have, but they study and make new strategies against it and we always depend on individuals bravery. That's why IA starts war exercise and equipment training along with West and Russians. We are always delayed and late to catch new training and equipment's. Hear I read that 25 years ago, US won a war against Iraq with then new BMS and we still don't have it. When we adopt new strategies and new equipment to be par with the World's advanced super power. Unless We think and act like super power, no one consider us as even regional power.
 

rkhanna

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
3,218
Likes
12,031
Country flag
Nope. Your point was India is not going to fight a conventional war.
Talk about missing the Tress for the Forest.

I started participating here with two hypotheses

1. The Bullpup is unfit for line infantry citing examples of others
2. There is no such thing as "conventional warfare" any more. IA has to be ready to fight whatever is in front of it. Today and Tomorrow.


Now the thread has been broken down to semantics and at a tangent to anything relevant to this thread.

@Mods while this is a nice lively discussion it is seriously off topic for this thread. Suggest move elsewhere so that STHF and me can continue our back and forth

Thanks
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top