Indian Special Forces

[ALBY]

TONBO doesn't sell less than a couple dozen to 100 at a time. There is something called scale of production.

Please go and ask active PARA SF operators and veterans like @AVINASH4061 Sir if they would like to have gear like this :

View attachment 91758

Instead of this :

BTW this is CRPF QAT from a few years ago :

Even PARA Airborne are starting to get better gear :

This is the most 'TACTICOOL' image of PARA SF aka our Tier 1 SF unit :

View attachment 91759

Something somewhere is horribly wrong in terms of priorities.

Provide a link which says QAT had bought the quad tubes in sizeable numbers rather than the images which are part of PR stunt.
Concerning the image of 6th Para they got these equipments only recently and in no way they are superior to what SF have in their arsenal wheyher its the plate carriers, hugh cuts, commns boots or knee pads. They are on par with SF but the nhnbers they bought is sceptical. Only peice which is better than the SF is the MOR sights on the Tar-21s, then again that too is bought only in limited numbers.
Well we all can agree to the fact that Para SF in no way can be compared with other SFs except SSG in terms of equipment. (SSG afaik might be having a little edge in terms of freedom to procure equipment). But that doesnt mean euther QAT or Para airborne if looked from a wider angle is better equipped than SF

 

[Automatic Kalashnikov]

 

[vampyrbladez]

Provide a link which says QAT had bought the quad tubes in sizeable numbers rather than the images which are part of PR stunt.
Concerning the image of 6th Para they got these equipments only recently and in no way they are superior to what SF have in their arsenal wheyher its the plate carriers, hugh cuts, commns boots or knee pads. They are on par with SF but the nhnbers they bought is sceptical. Only peice which is better than the SF is the MOR sights on the Tar-21s, then again that too is bought only in limited numbers.
Well we all can agree to the fact that Para SF in no way can be compared with other SFs except SSG in terms of equipment. (SSG afaik might be having a little edge in terms of freedom to procure equipment). But that doesnt mean euther QAT or Para airborne if looked from a wider angle is better equipped than SF

I already provided the link. Seeing is believing.

 

[Hellenic Zeus]

TONBO doesn't sell less than a couple dozen to 100 at a time. There is something called scale of production.

Please go and ask active PARA SF operators and veterans like @AVINASH4061 Sir if they would like to have gear like this :

View attachment 91758

Instead of this :

BTW this is CRPF QAT from a few years ago :

Even PARA Airborne are starting to get better gear :

This is the most 'TACTICOOL' image of PARA SF aka our Tier 1 SF unit :

View attachment 91759

Something somewhere is horribly wrong in terms of priorities.

I am sorry, I am new here in this forum, this is my first message here.
I have to say you are wrong here, para sf is not a Tier-1 unit, at most its considered a Tier-2 unit atleast in its training not gear and India doesnt have resources to form a Tier-1 unit as we speak, until and unless we improve our recruitment and training doctrine from scratch.

 

[Scramjet]

Isn't tier system limited to US SOCOM? And since we don't have any SOCOM yet, there's no point in classifying our SFs into TIER XYZ already.
I'd say, for now, let us compare mandates only

 

[Hellenic Zeus]

Isn't tier system limited to US SOCOM? And since we don't have any SOCOM yet, there's no point in classifying our SFs into TIER XYZ already.
I'd say, for now, let us compare mandates only

yes, I have to agree with you here, but for simple understanding were our sf stands today against other developed militaries around the world, this has to be discussed like this

 

[Gessler]

@AVINASH4061

Hello Sir, there is something I must ask for your views on:

What's your take on the SF's purchase of Tavor rifles, I believe the first deal was in mid-2000s? At that time the Tavor was a very unproven platform, and that too a Bullpup (in fact I think Indian SFs were among the first few users of the Tavor that put it through the paces in all kinds of environments).

What, in your opinion, may have compelled the powers-that-be to go for it as opposed to a large scale order of tried-and-tested M4 platform, which is also infinitely more customizable?

Simply put - do you smell any mischief in this selection process?

Tagging you also @abingdonboy @rkhanna @Killbot as I know you too will be interested in this answer.

 

[Scramjet]

yes, I have to agree with you here, but for simple understanding were our sf stands today against other developed militaries around the world, this has to be discussed like this

Yes buddy, that's the reason why I said, comparing them by mandate is a better option

 

[ALBY]

I already provided the link. Seeing is believing.

Sorry didn't saw that link. Thats why asked for it.

 

[ALBY]

@AVINASH4061

Hello Sir, there is something I must ask for your views on:

What's your take on the SF's purchase of Tavor rifles, I believe the first deal was in mid-2000s? At that time the Tavor was a very unproven platform, and that too a Bullpup (in fact I think Indian SFs were among the first few users of the Tavor that put it through the paces in all kinds of environments).

What, in your opinion, may have compelled the powers-that-be to go for it as opposed to a large scale order of tried-and-tested M4 platform, which is also infinitely more customizable?

Simply put - do you smell any mischief in this selection process?

Tagging you also @abingdonboy @rkhanna @Killbot as I know you too will be interested in this answer.

I think It was a political decision rather than a tactical decision. I remember hearing the decision to buy Tar-21s, Galil and shipons in DD-1 news back in 2002/03. Then again at that time the options available for us were limited too. M-4s were pretty much newer in early 2000s with reports of unreliability, G-36s &Sigs were also there. Other than them dont think much other options were there. The relations with US and Germany were not that warm as it was with Israel back then. If it was not a political decision why would we buy 12000 X-95s for CRPF. Those orders were required to keep the production lines running and also act as an advertising fpr Tar series around the globe.

 

[rkhanna]

I think It was a political decision rather than a tactical decision. I remember hearing the decision to buy Tar-21s, Galil and shipons in DD-1 news back in 2002/03. Then again at that time the options available for us were limited too. M-4s were pretty much newer in early 2000s with reports of unreliability, G-36s &Sigs were also there. Other than them dont think much other options were there. The relations with US and Germany were not that warm as it was with Israel back then. If it was not a political decision why would we buy 12000 X-95s for CRPF. Those orders were required to keep the production lines running and also act as an advertising fpr Tar series around the globe.

The tavor was even more untested than the m4 . The decision for the Tavor was to shake hands with the Israelis. First major deal. Everything else followed post tavor.

 

[fire starter]

 

[Tactical Doge]

View attachment 91877

Isn't 22SF and SG the same?
I maybe wrong, but there's some law that forbids R&AW from operating on home soil without supervision of IB(knowledge from the web series special ops)

So the international thing makes sense although it's skeptical for me

 

[ALBY]

The tavor was even more untested than the m4 . The decision for the Tavor was to shake hands with the Israelis. First major deal. Everything else followed post tavor.

Yeah thats what i meant. A political decision. We bought untested Tavors, Galils, Shipons all just to make Israelis happy. Iirc were buying israeli hardware for IAF too. Then again seeing the amount of accessories we have even today, Tavors are enough. Btw they werent bad either and never heard any reliability issues with them unlike M4 series.
[/USER=37573]@AVINASH4061[/USER] how do u felt shooting Galatz compared with SR-25/10s or other DMRs.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

The definition of good rifles differ from nation to nation. From US, it is the ability to fire with very high accuracy, minimal recoil, high modularity and ability to mount multiple accesories.

From Indian perspective, a good rifle is one that have extremely high reliability and acceptable accuracy. Since, Insas was supposed to be the benchmark, but failed to live up to its expectation due to QC issues from RFI (OFB). Hence, Tavor was quite a good rifle from Indian perspective in early 2000s. There was no point in demanding high modularity (since the rifle parts were to come from a single OEM) and ability to mount accesories (since we were not going to procure any, unless it comes free from the OEM with the weapon).
In addition, bullpup were quite a tacticool thing to have in the early 2000s.

Now fast forward 20 years from the initial Tavor procurement. Unlike Insas which due to its unreliability was a army headache since its inception and army was trying to dump it since late 2000s, which finally materialized in 2019. There was no need from an Army perspective to replace Tavors since it shoots just fine and the existing rifles have a lot of life left in them. Tavors will continue to remain the main service weapon in Para SFs with atmost a few addition of SCARs/HK-416s (emergency purchase).

 

[Maitreya Shyam]

The tavor was even more untested than the m4 . The decision for the Tavor was to shake hands with the Israelis. First major deal. Everything else followed post tavor.

Yes you are right because 2000 was start of indo israel relationship after ariel sharon visited india

 

[ALBY]

Isn't 22SF and SG the same?
I maybe wrong, but there's some law that forbids R&AW from operating on home soil without supervision of IB(knowledge from the web series special ops)

So the international thing makes sense although it's skeptical for me

The very same IB operates abroad too, which is opposed by the RAW. Still it happens and vice versa.. No one gives a shit.
Concerning the name of the units they are allt he same.

 

[Spindrift]

Isn't 22SF and SG the same?
I maybe wrong, but there's some law that forbids R&AW from operating on home soil without supervision of IB(knowledge from the web series special ops)

So the international thing makes sense although it's skeptical for me

There is no law as far as I know, it's more of a mandate thing, but there may be some obscure rules somewhere regarding this.

 

[not so dravidian]

The very same IB operates abroad too, which is opposed by the RAW. Still it happens and vice versa.. No one gives a shit.
Concerning the name of the units they are allt he same.

sir ji, if u don't mind cud u explain the Technical Support division saga? @Gessler any idea
@WARREN SS said that that RAW and army established a network in Kahmir which was opposed by IB babus and got it wreked??

any idea others?

 

[Tactical Doge]

sir ji, if u don't mind cud u explain the Technical Support division saga? @Gessler any idea
@WARREN SS said that that RAW and army established a network in Kahmir which was opposed by IB babus and got it wreked??

any idea others?

Was it R&AW or Military intelligence

"Trying to topple a democratically elected government"