AK-203 Scrap

[vampyrbladez]

Army wanted 66,000 multi calibre weapons in the tender that was cancelled in 2011. We were very close to buying the ARX 160 which would have been another maintenance queen with only aimpoint RDS.


The Army decided to be clever and pushed the AR 10 based Sig 716i as a 'multi calibre weapon' due to it's modularity and made a joint purchase with IN and IAF.

The cost of the first deal for 72,400 (IA 66400) guns is 700 crore. However the TI ballistic computer sights for ~ 29,000 Sig 716i is 1400 crore for which trials were ongoing as per the last update.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ti...t-improved-night-fighting-capabilities/843741
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.thew...-against-repeating-us-assault-rifle-order/amp

The follow on order for 72,000 more guns was conceived when the AK 203 deal was not inked and the Russians were hardballing us. In addition we had a friendly US Govt. under Trump which we don't have right now.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.econ...an-sigsauer-guns/amp_articleshow/74001571.cms

Now we have cause for neither. The deal may have scraped through but the Russia-Ukraine War ended that avenue with SWIFT sanctions now on the table.

The Ak 203 deal is highly unlikely to be scrapped given that the factory, tooling and training has already been prepared combined with a political angle to the setting of the production facility.

The Galil ACE was under trails with various agencies (probably MHA) but there was no further information to be found regarding this.

To summarise, the Ak 203 deal will unfortunately go through.

 

[vampyrbladez]

AK 203 is at the core of the Indian Army's ORBAT based on a cursory analysis.

Current composition of an Infantry Section (10 man) :

6 x INSAS (5.56x45 mm) (bayonet strength)
2 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm) (Squad Leader + 2IC)

2 x Bren LMG (7.62x51 mm) (Gunner + Asst.)

1 x Carl Gustav RCL (84 mm)

1 x Ammunition Carrier


Near future composition of an Infantry Section (10 man) :

Squad Leader
1 x (AK 203) (7.62x39 mm)
1 x (Browning Hi Power) (9x19 mm)

Maneuver Element 1 :

Rifleman
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm) (UGBL)

Rifleman
2 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm)

Maneuver Element 2 :

Rifleman
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm) (UGBL)

Rifleman
2 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm) (1 DMR Config)
1 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm) (2IC)

Fire Support :

LMG Gunner
1 x Negev NG7 LMG/SAW (7.62x51 mm)

Rifleman / Missileer
1 x Carl Gustav RCL (84 mm)
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm)

Rifleman/ Ammunition Carrier
1 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm)


Possible additional personnel :

Rifleman/ Drone Operator
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm)

Rifleman/ EW Specialist (Jammer)
1x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm)

Combat Medic
1 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm)

 

[Angel of War]

AKs are not as accurate as they are touted to be by people like you, I would advise you check the online reviews of people who have actually used AK series guns (i.e AKM, AK-103, AK-203 etc).

AKs are actually pretty accurate for targets at distances of 200 meters (650 feet). Some have said that it can comfortably hit targets with good accuracy even at 300 meters. I absolutely do not deny that the SiG-716 (7.62 x 51mm) which you are a fan of is better than the AK-203 in terms of Accuracy, range but you need to understand that AKs are still not as bad as portrayed.

I think you haven't read my above post yet , I'll appreciate if you will . Please don't quote me on something which I've already answered

 

[Angel of War]

@Super Flanker read this

A 1979 report, titled “Shooting effects of automatic weapons” lays out the statistical methodology that was used to test weapons during the Soviet era. There also is a huge resource of firing tables from 1977, that compare accuracy of various infantry weapons. Both experienced and average soldiers were tested with various weapons, from various stances, including firing from moving vehicles, at night, at even returning fire against muzzle flashes at night. From those tests, a measure of average shots to hit or destroy a target was measured against a variety of targets, including helicopters, cars, and enemy personnel.From one hundred to four hundred meters, the AKM loses a good 60 percent of it's energy .
The Soviets also measured these figures for burst fire against the ak74. Here the softer recoiling characteristics of the AK-74 start to shine. Firing from a supported prone position, a single three shot burst from an AK-74 is all that is needed to hit a running target out to five hundred meters. With the AKM, this can only be done out to three hundred meters. In a bounding overwatch situation, firing short bursts after a quick halt with the average soldier, the AK-74 required two bursts or six rounds to hit a standing target at one hundred meters, and five bursts or fifteen rounds to hit that same target at two hundred meters. With the AKM, eleven rounds are required at one hundred meters, and thirty-three are required at two hundred meters. The difference is dramatic, with almost double the rounds required with the AKM when bursting.
So It isn't really false bro , it's true to a good extent .
Also , Perhaps one of the most interesting tests is the longer bursts. Soldiers were instructed to shoot at a squad target using long bursts from one hundred to three hundred meters out. The number of shots required to neutralize 50 percent and 80 percent of the squad was recorded, against standing targets, and head and chest targets. From the prone supported position, the best soldiers needed twenty-two shots in long bursts to neutralize half a squad, and fifty-two shots to neutralize 80 percent of the squad with the AKM at three hundred meters. The average soldiers needed fifty-one and 119 shots to accomplish the same tasks. With the AK-74, the numbers for the best soldiers dropped to seventeen and thirty-nine, and to thirty-eight and eighty-eight for the average soldier, a marked improvement in full auto control and accuracy.

The accuracy could have improved in AK203 . But the current generation of AKs in IA service aren't known to be very accurate

 

[Blademaster]

A 1979 report, titled “Shooting effects of automatic weapons” lays out the statistical methodology that was used to test weapons during the Soviet era. There also is a huge resource of firing tables from 1977, that compare accuracy of various infantry weapons. Both experienced and average soldiers were tested with various weapons, from various stances, including firing from moving vehicles, at night, at even returning fire against muzzle flashes at night. From those tests, a measure of average shots to hit or destroy a target was measured against a variety of targets, including helicopters, cars, and enemy personnel.From one hundred to four hundred meters, the AKM loses a good 60 percent of it's energy .
The Soviets also measured these figures for burst fire against the ak74. Here the softer recoiling characteristics of the AK-74 start to shine. Firing from a supported prone position, a single three shot burst from an AK-74 is all that is needed to hit a running target out to five hundred meters. With the AKM, this can only be done out to three hundred meters. In a bounding overwatch situation, firing short bursts after a quick halt with the average soldier, the AK-74 required two bursts or six rounds to hit a standing target at one hundred meters, and five bursts or fifteen rounds to hit that same target at two hundred meters. With the AKM, eleven rounds are required at one hundred meters, and thirty-three are required at two hundred meters. The difference is dramatic, with almost double the rounds required with the AKM when bursting.
So It isn't really false bro , it's true to a good extent .
Also , Perhaps one of the most interesting tests is the longer bursts. Soldiers were instructed to shoot at a squad target using long bursts from one hundred to three hundred meters out. The number of shots required to neutralize 50 percent and 80 percent of the squad was recorded, against standing targets, and head and chest targets. From the prone supported position, the best soldiers needed twenty-two shots in long bursts to neutralize half a squad, and fifty-two shots to neutralize 80 percent of the squad with the AKM at three hundred meters. The average soldiers needed fifty-one and 119 shots to accomplish the same tasks. With the AK-74, the numbers for the best soldiers dropped to seventeen and thirty-nine, and to thirty-eight and eighty-eight for the average soldier, a marked improvement in full auto control and accuracy.

The accuracy could have improved in AK203 . But the current generation of AKs in IA service aren't known to be very accurate

The aforementioned tests were done in ideal situations. Real life combat rarely offer you ideal situations. As I said before, most kills are not done with rifles but with artillery, grenades, RPGs, antitank munitions, etc.

 

[Angel of War]

AK 203 is at the core of the Indian Army's ORBAT based on a cursory analysis.

Current composition of an Infantry Section (10 man) :

6 x INSAS (5.56x45 mm) (bayonet strength)
2 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm) (Squad Leader + 2IC)

2 x Bren LMG (7.62x51 mm) (Gunner + Asst.)

1 x Carl Gustav RCL (84 mm)

1 x Ammunition Carrier


Near future composition of an Infantry Section (10 man) :

Squad Leader
1 x (AK 203) (7.62x39 mm)
1 x (Browning Hi Power) (9x19 mm)

Maneuver Element 1 :

Rifleman
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm) (UGBL)

Rifleman
2 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm)

Maneuver Element 2 :

Rifleman
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm) (UGBL)

Rifleman
2 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm) (1 DMR Config)
1 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm) (2IC)

Fire Support :

LMG Gunner
1 x Negev NG7 LMG/SAW (7.62x51 mm)

Rifleman / Missileer
1 x Carl Gustav RCL (84 mm)
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm)

Rifleman/ Ammunition Carrier
1 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm)


Possible additional personnel :

Rifleman/ Drone Operator
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm)

Rifleman/ EW Specialist (Jammer)
1x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm)

Combat Medic
1 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm)

This arrangement makes sense . Very well researched I must say

 

[Angel of War]

The aforementioned tests were done in ideal situations. Real life combat rarely offer you ideal situations. As I said before, most kills are not done with rifles but with artillery, grenades, RPGs, antitank munitions, etc.

The tests I've mentioned Are comparative trials . Don't try to hide the failures by hiding it under the pretext of 'Ideal conditions' . I am doing a comparision . So your whole point becomes irrelevant here . By your logic why don't we keep using insas for our troops because rifles don't kill as many people as artillery .

 

[Blademaster]

The tests I've mentioned Are comparative trials . Don't try to hide the failures by hiding it under the pretext of 'Ideal conditions' . I am doing a comparision . So your whole point becomes irrelevant here .

It doesn't matter. What the IA decides goes. As I said before, most kills are done with artillery, etc so your comparisons are meaningless. All that matters that it is good enough to suit IA's purposes and fits the IA budget.

 

[Angel of War]

It doesn't matter. What the IA decides goes. As I said before, most kills are done with artillery, etc so your comparisons are meaningless. All that matters that it is good enough to suit IA's purposes and fits the IA budget.

Your logic - Let's keep using insas because rifles don't kill as many people as artillery .
Your explanation is meaningless , not my comparision . In this thread we are essentialy comparing the AK203 against other rifles . You are going off topic

 

[Angel of War]

It doesn't matter. What the IA decides goes. As I said before, most kills are done with artillery, etc so your comparisons are meaningless. All that matters that it is good enough to suit IA's purposes and fits the IA budget.

why don't we use .303 rifles ! After all it dosen't matter because rifles don't kill as many people as artillery . That's your logic right

 

[Blademaster]

Your logic - Let's keep using insas because rifles don't kill as many people as artillery .
Your explanation is meaningless , not my comparision . In this thread we are essentialy comparing the AK203 against other rifles . You are going off topic

Ok fine. as long as you want to waste your time even though the IA has already decided to dump the Sig and go for 203.

 

[Blademaster]

why don't we use .303 rifles ! After all it dosen't matter because rifles don't kill as many people as artillery . That's your logic right

Take it easy... you are getting all worked up for nothing.

 

[Super Flanker]

I think you haven't read my above post yet , I'll appreciate if you will . Please don't quote me on something which I've already answered

@Super Flanker read this

Coming to the article that you have Shared :

That article is mentioning the Performance of AK-74 and AKM, do you know how old these 2 rifles are as of now?

AKM was designed in 1959 and AK-74 was designed designed in 1974. Also the article is mentioning that it is a report from 1979, it's already 2022 mate, it's been more than 40 years since those trials of AKs mentioned in that video was done, it doesn't mean anything now.

In those 40+ years, AKs have evolved a lot. Now they are more accurate than before, are more Reliable, more deadly.

 

[Angel of War]

Ok fine. as long as you want to waste your time even though the IA has already decided to dump the Sig and go for 203.

yup , We can go on about it but it won't have any effect on the whole flawed process through which the rifle was accquired . I give in on that

 

[Angel of War]

Coming to that article which you have Shared,
that article is mentioning the Performance of AK-74 and AKM, do you know how old these 2 rifles are as of now? AKM was designed in 1959 and AK-74 was designed designed in 1974. Also the article is mentioning that it is a report from 1979, it's already 2022 mate, it's been more than 40 years since those trials of AKs mentioned in that video was done, it doesn't mean anything.

In those 40+ years, AKs have evolved a lot. Now they are more accurate than before, are more Reliable, more deadly.

the videos you shared were of new designs ?
I gave a comparision between AKM and AK74 because one fires 7.62*39mm and the other fires 5.45*56mm . Two different intermediate cartridges. The comparision is still relevant today because IA essentially uses old school AK knockoffs in it's inventory

 

[Super Flanker]

the videos you shared were of new designs ?
I gave a comparision between AKM and AK74 because one fires 7.62*39mm and the other fires 5.45*56mm . Two different intermediate cartridges. The comparision is still relevant today because IA essentially uses old school AK knockoffs in it's inventory

Those videos have nothing to do with what you are talking here, I had shared those to show how they are more Accurate than you say so. I would suggest you try and look up videos of more modern AKs like AK-103, AK-203. Here are a few videos which I am sharing to you here:-


And by the way, I am not taking about old school AKs and their knock-offs used by IA, I am trying to compare the more modern AKs like AK-103, AK-203. That is what I am Comparing here. You cannot Deny that AK series rifles have improved a lot in the last couple of decades.

 

[Flying Dagger]

@Flying Dagger when I say Ak , I mean 7.62*39mm AKs , not the 5.45mm variants. AKs are generally associated with 7.62*39mm

AKs are infamous for bring inacurrate

When you say Aks I should guess the one firing 7.62 *39 AK round ?

Didn't had the guide book to read your comments. And how would i know you are talking abt the rifle ?

Since you are questioning the Ak production line deal as political in nature

Every deal has politics involved what do you mean by that ?

And what are the rounds you want Army to use for different ops they do. Clearly 5.56 weren't good enough So you want then to use 7.62 NATO round for Coin cqb etc ?

39 has a lot of drawbacks in modern combat. 51 necessarily dosen't have extreme recoil if you use the correct ammunition for the correct weapon . The drawbacks of 39 has been mentioned alot of times in Infantry modernisation thread .

The recoil isn't much for 7.62 NATO? Please share details how.. as all the professional says otherwise.

AKs are not as accurate as they are touted to be by people like you, I would advise you check the online reviews of people who have actually used AK series guns (i.e AKM, AK-103, AK-203 etc).

AKs are actually pretty accurate for targets at distances of 200 meters (650 feet). Some have said that it can comfortably hit targets with good accuracy even at 300 meters. I absolutely do not deny that the SiG-716 (7.62 x 51mm) which you are a fan of is better than the AK-203 in terms of Accuracy, range but you need to understand that AKs are still not as bad as portrayed.

It's not that Aks are inaccurate it depends on round you use.

7.62 round was meant for CQC/CQB. And under 300 m it does the job.

Use a different round for competitive shooting as it comes in all cal.

I don't think you know a lot about COIN ops . Most of the engagements are at close quarters within a 100 meters in forests and door to door in the urban centres . Do take time to study about the circumstances in which these engagements take place . Then we can discuss

You have fixated yourself so heavily on COIN ops as if pakistan army and PLA don't exist.
Let me tell you something - AK works wonders against insurgents , But it dosen't do the same magic in a real war

You mentioned the 200 m distance in your previous post for battle against Pakistan army please read what you write or put a disclaimer not to refer your previous posts.


Anyway which rifle you got sir ?

 

[Super Flanker]

When you say Aks I should guess the one firing 7.62 *39 AK round ?

Didn't had the guide book to read your comments. And how would i know you are talking abt the rifle ?

Since you are questioning the Ak production line deal as political in nature

Every deal has politics involved what do you mean by that ?

And what are the rounds you want Army to use for different ops they do. Clearly 5.56 weren't good enough So you want then to use 7.62 NATO round for Coin cqb etc ?



The recoil isn't much for 7.62 NATO? Please share details how.. as all the professional says otherwise.



It's not that Aks are inaccurate it depends on round you use.

7.62 round was meant for CQC/CQB. And under 300 m it does the job.

Use a different round for competitive shooting as it comes in all cal.



You mentioned the 200 m distance in your previous post for battle against Pakistan army please read what you write or put a disclaimer not to refer your previous posts.


Anyway which rifle you got sir ?

AK-203 Scrap

Check recent procurements, M21 getting phased out. I have already made a post regarding that . But no further reports came out after 2020 . Dont care much for the guns, My point was about the ammo. 7.62x39 is perfectly fine for our needs for infantrymen, only better alternative would be to go...

defenceforumindia.com

Small correction which I would like to make here with regards to this post of mine which you have quoted. I didn't mean to Say :-

"AKs are not as accurate as they are touted to be by people like you" but rather I meant to say that :"AKs are not as inaccurate as they are touted to be by people like you"

 

[Kuldeepm952]

AK 203 is at the core of the Indian Army's ORBAT based on a cursory analysis.

Current composition of an Infantry Section (10 man) :

6 x INSAS (5.56x45 mm) (bayonet strength)
2 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm) (Squad Leader + 2IC)

2 x Bren LMG (7.62x51 mm) (Gunner + Asst.)

1 x Carl Gustav RCL (84 mm)

1 x Ammunition Carrier


Near future composition of an Infantry Section (10 man) :

Squad Leader
1 x (AK 203) (7.62x39 mm)
1 x (Browning Hi Power) (9x19 mm)

Maneuver Element 1 :

Rifleman
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm) (UGBL)

Rifleman
2 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm)

Maneuver Element 2 :

Rifleman
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm) (UGBL)

Rifleman
2 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm) (1 DMR Config)
1 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm) (2IC)

Fire Support :

LMG Gunner
1 x Negev NG7 LMG/SAW (7.62x51 mm)

Rifleman / Missileer
1 x Carl Gustav RCL (84 mm)
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm)

Rifleman/ Ammunition Carrier
1 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm)


Possible additional personnel :

Rifleman/ Drone Operator
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm)

Rifleman/ EW Specialist (Jammer)
1x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm)

Combat Medic
1 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm)

Current CG Rcl guy doesn't get extra rifle, just a pistol. Any sources as to your said ORBAT. I am damn sure sigs are just spread among units and there are no kind of specified structures for the units. Guys in IA are well known to implement things in chalta hai- jugaad attitude, atleast very true for emergency purchases.

Anyway, going to 7.62rus from 5.56 nato is a downgrade in any conceivable way.

 

[Angel of War]

When you say Aks I should guess the one firing 7.62 *39 AK round ?

Didn't had the guide book to read your comments. And how would i know you are talking abt the rifle ?

Any one with common sense here would know which AK I'm talking about . This thread is literally about an AK which fires 7.62*39mm cartridge . You're actually the first one to have asked me such a useless question sir

Since you are questioning the Ak production line deal as political in nature
Every deal has politics involved what do you mean by that ?

All deals have politics , but they follow a procedure and a competitive process . Did this deal go through such a process ?

And what are the rounds you want Army to use for different ops they do. Clearly 5.56 weren't good enough So you want then to use 7.62 NATO round for Coin cqb etc ?

Isn't it obvious that different missions require different weapon profiles ? COIN ops are very different from your typical infantry ops . Soldiers involved in COIN ( RR) already have AKs , you can replace their AKs with a better weapon like AK 203 and it would be perfectly fine , but that won't be a justification to equip PBI with the same.

The recoil isn't much for 7.62 NATO? Please share details how.. as all the professional says otherwise.

It all depends on the type of ammunition , read this article

US Army adopts the low recoil 7.62 NATO round with M14

What if in order to deal with the problem of automatic fire controllability the M14 was adopted with the US low recoil 7.62 cartridge? Apparently it was fully comparable in effectiveness to a regular 7.62 NATO cartridge out to 500m, had 37% less recoil, and made the weapon controllable in full...

www.alternatehistory.com

From the article - What if in order to deal with the problem of automatic fire controllability the M14 was adopted with the US low recoil 7.62 cartridge? Apparently it was fully comparable in effectiveness to a regular 7.62 NATO cartridge out to 500m, had 37% less recoil, and made the weapon controllable in full auto while reducing the heat build up due to the lower powder load

It's not that Aks are inaccurate it depends on round you use.

This is probably the only part where I will agree with you .

7.62 round was meant for CQC/CQB. And under 300 m it does the job.

Use a different round for competitive shooting as it comes in all cal.

Here you are again fixating yourself on the efficacy of 7.62*39 in COIN ops and CQB battles . are bhai PBI engagements are not done in the same way !

You mentioned the 200 m distance in your previous post for battle against Pakistan army please read what you write or put a disclaimer not to refer your previous posts.

Kindly read my post again which you are reffering to . I have clearly mentioned ' a couple hundered metres ' for an infantry assault on an enemy position not 200 metres as you claim . If you have doubts then you can just ask me instead of boldly justifying yourself

Anyway which rifle you got sir ?

I wonder why You'll ask me that