With countless operations over decades of blood, sweat and balls on the battle vs the word of a so called expert who claims there's no such thing as experts but says none's a expert in the Indian SOF.
Bhai you take your circular logic and go back to you tube videos.
Well i can't help it if your english comprehension is weak. it's pretty clear that i was pointing out that unlike a country with a developed special operations scene where they've understood effective TTPs but generally lack shooters with complete mastery in them due to emphasis on training other neccessary skills, Indian SOF still struggle in fullfilling that required prerequisite of figuring out the most effective and efficient TTPs in the first place. Which is why i typed in - and i paraphrase - "Indian SOF certainly aren't experts in operating weapons and in their manipulation." Key word and emphasis on "certainly."
While you're analyzing shooting skills on video the real guys out there hunt daily and go home either alive or in a box.
All you see in the clip that so many have expertly criticised doesn't account for what kind of target they were trying to shoot, was it a speed firing excerise, was it a moving target, what distance to target or was it just a random video of guys just firing. I know for a fact is the small arms section in the Bambina range has targets at distances ranging from 30- 800m if they were firing from 300 m which is the effective range for regular encounter in valley. I can assure you even with good sights it's not easy picking a threat target from far especially when using a simple red dot
Your first para brings up an irrelevant point. Combat proficiency is relative, case in point being how RR despite not being nearly as well trained usually kill and come home too. None of this would change the fact that they're still a long way from reaching an effective standard of efficiency and effectiveness when compared to their global peers and the results they present. Point being: Sure, you can get the job done as it stands, but the others can get the job done better by being privy to a better approach. That means they're better placed in operational capability and effectiveness.
Coming to the second part, this too is irrelevant. The only thing distance and moving targets change is the speed of the follow up shots. Grip and drawstroke are universal, they don't change a lick in relation to the target; Stance does vary but in relation to the cover available, however when there is none it's widely stated that a staggered stance is superior in general to a lined up stance especially when firing rapidly thanks to a more stable foundation below. Coming to this specific video, nobody's training to shoot a pistol from anything more than 50 meters; judging by how rapid those shots were with the pistol, and how there was no significant lateral maneuvering of the firearms to adjust for moving targets, it's pretty safe to derive that this was a close range drill on stationary targets.
As someone who has the fired the following venerable weapons where I have put down at least 300 rounds from the SCAR-H, 200 on the FNX .45 ACP, around 500 S&W MP-15 5.56 at various ranges everytime I am in the US, I can tell you that there are a lot of stances, ways to hold the weapon, foot work, grip, back stance etc etc and the learning curve is steep. It's takes a long time to get into a stance that is comfy, natural and effective.
So keep it light, I couldn't care less for criticism of shooting stances. All I see is a guy just shooting on the move, switched to his secondary and he was in no urgency.
Sure, personal preference is absolutely a thing, but that doesn't change discourse on what mechanic offers greater advantages and is superior than the other. A high main hand grip with the supporting hand also high and eating up as much of the remaining pistol with locked wrists, combined with a straight back and a stable head is going to offer far greater recoil control and stable drive to the target as well as general situational awareness than a loose grip focused on the lower frame of the pistol, with a slouching/moving back messing with a stable drive into the target and a bent neck straining the positioning of your head lower and blocking your view even more. The latter setup isn't preference, it's bad pistol marksmanship borne from institutional dogma with little in the way of actual logical validity.
So keep it light, I couldn't care less for criticism of shooting stances. All I see is a guy just shooting on the move, switched to his secondary and he was in no urgency.
I also know they focus the shit out of conserving ammo in the IA and being effective with the ammo one carries.
That's odd. Since this critique was of the Para SFs flawed combat marksmanship, if you don't even "care" about the critique itself then why exactly are you quarterbacking arguements in their stead. You'd have literally no reason to do so, the critique doesn't even address you, yet here we are...
Lack of ammunition, again, doesn't bear any relevance to a proper shooting foundation. Time on the trigger makes you more smooth in handling the minutia of controlling a weapon system, but it doesn't make up in any way, shape or form for a flawed shooting foundation. If anything your point just further exarcebates my arguement of Indian SOF not being refined.
Your perceived experts like SEALs go out there, throw down enormous amount of lead with a perfect stance, don't kill anything, call in a Hellfire or a air dropped bomb because they suspect it's a militant taking shots.
After the debris clears they find out it was a wedding, they do this enough times that they need to run ricky tick like they assess are on fire leaving all their gear behind because they done pissed off enough people.
That's a stereotyped and amateurish assessment of a very comprehensive operational history. First off, air support isn't omnipotent and available all the time. Poor weather, terrain, lack of nearby assets and the aircraft available alone grounded CAS half the time. The A-10 for instance has dogshit accuracy and can't identify friend of foe at all, and costs more than Ambani's wedding to modernize and maintain; which is why it has record high blue on blue stats of any modern aircraft in service. Even then, CAS showing up doesn't mean the fight's over. The Taliban became quite adept over time at concealing their positions from impending air-support and mitigating damage making many gun runs and call for fires ineffective, and that's if they can arrive on time before the show's even over. Most gunfights would still end with the guys on the ground ending fights. Pretty much all the "gear" left behind changes nothing strategically and makes little actual impact. Those blackhawks and humvees don't maintain themselves, especially those blackhawks which required trained pilots and proper application for it not to be turned into swiss cheese or kebab by a competant adversary that knows his/her way around a landing zone and packs them with DshKs and SACLOS ATGMs.
This kind of stuff makes for good fantasy material, but it doesn't change operational realities just because you don't want to put in the basic effort of researching operational factors in afghanistan or any other AO. But hey, you made the funny amiright? An arguement from ignorance isn't a valid arguement. It would be a bit like me meming about the "cowardice" of RR for not immediately throwing themselves into killzones within structures to clear out militants without the surprise and instead "dragging out" gunfights from the sidelines outside.
Other than the fact that Indian SF can do better when it comes to uniforms, comms, sights, weapons etc, there's little to no need to compare our SF to some mythical gold standard which doesn't exist. While on exchanges with other SFs our boys get to experience their better kit but their boys get to experience our better tactics, courage, unit leadership and just better all round survivability.
Citation needed. Please, i'm dying to know about these better tactics you speak of.
Also while anyone here can recognize a SEAL or DELTA just by looking at them that makes them a nice, expensive target, how can you kill the mighty Paras when half the time they look like local militia the enemy won't even know what hit em.
Good thing they have dedicated intel support structures and HUMINT then, although still doesn't stop them from conducting CTR.
