Modernisation of Indian Army Infantry

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,244
Likes
2,408
Country flag
These are the best helmets one can use, from ergonomics, to effectiveness etc. but there are 1.2 million soldiers and 2 million Paramilitary.
Not all need the gear. Besides, there is another tender for 1 lakh or so helmets more. Also there is a tender for ballistic vests. And Patkas will continue to be in service. Not that they are good enough, but they do provide ballistic protection, albeit not on top. Paramilitary have started modernisation as well. We can even expect them to be better geared up than army, considering army's shitty procurement methods.
 

Lancer

Bana
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
1,409
Likes
5,635
Country flag
you cant just cover a soldier in kevlar from head to toe, they have to fight move jump run as well. There is always give and take, the more protection you put on the slower and more likely to get shot you are aswell.
modern plate carriers only cover the vitals on the human body, they cover the organs that if hit will kill you very quickly, they have sacrificed protection for speed and comfort.
Except I never said to do that. But I'd say avoiding paralysis of half the body is a pretty damn vital thing to prevent. Increasing the coverage from behind by some inches really wouldn't be the end of the world for movement or comfort - but would significantly reduce the size of the target + probability of being hit right in the spine.

The only people such small armor makes sense for is highly trained SF guys whose whole thing is surprise + speed. They might be able to pull it off, and even then it's a big risk. But it's certainly a stupid thing for regular infantry.
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,244
Likes
2,408
Country flag
What?? Bigger the calibre of a bullet, the better the armour piercing!! There is a reason why we have armour plates and BPJs for 5.56 rounds, but not for 7.62,since its really difficult to stop, even at a longer distance! The only downside is it's heavy compared to 5.56/5.45,hence Russians dropped it!!
Bullshit, 5.45 is a better round than 7.62 any day. Its ballistics are amongst the crappiest there ever has been for a rifle caliber. 5.45 is way better than 7.62 at ranges over 200m. All modern rounds in 5.45 and 5.56 have way better penetration than 7.62. Google M855A1. Thats why US is so reluctant to replace M4. Because of M855A1 round.
 

Vishalreddy3

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,320
Likes
4,137
Country flag
Bullshit, 5.45 is a better round than 7.62 any day. Its ballistics are amongst the crappiest there ever has been for a rifle caliber. 5.45 is way better than 7.62 at ranges over 200m. All modern rounds in 5.45 and 5.56 have way better penetration than 7.62. Google M855A1. Thats why US is so reluctant to replace M4. Because of M855A1 round.
I would suggest you to fully read and the below post where I have given proofs regarding the claim!! Even in close quarter range 5.45 can't beat the 7.62 in armour piercing. I don't know about 5.56,bit definitely 7.62 beats both in range and damage especially ballistic
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,244
Likes
2,408
Country flag
Except I never said to do that. But I'd say avoiding paralysis of half the body is a pretty damn vital thing to prevent. Increasing the coverage from behind by some inches really wouldn't be the end of the world for movement or comfort - but would significantly reduce the size of the target + probability of being hit right in the spine.

The only people such small armor makes sense for is highly trained SF guys whose whole thing is surprise + speed. They might be able to pull it off, and even then it's a big risk. But it's certainly a stupid thing for regular infantry.
If coverage is increased up to the bottom of the spine, then say goodbye to maneuverability. The spine is a thin target, and the risk of paralysis is always there. But, consider a scenario where enemy is really close and your armor is compromised. Then, mobility with minimum level of protection becomes imperative. The army is willing to compromise on coverage so that soldiers vacant be more mobile.
 

Lancer

Bana
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
1,409
Likes
5,635
Country flag
If coverage is increased up to the bottom of the spine, then say goodbye to maneuverability
Simply not true. Covering up to the end of the back, or at least right above it, would make far more sense for infantry.

Check the reference picture given, even this one technically doesn't cover the entire back - but it's far better, provides much smaller target/gap.
Virtus_body_armour,_visible_is_the_integral_rigid_spine_that_forms_part_of_the_kit's_Dynamic_W...jpg
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,244
Likes
2,408
Country flag
I would suggest you to fully read and the below post where I have given proofs regarding the claim!! Even in close quarter range 5.45 can't beat the 7.62 in armour piercing. I don't know about 5.56,bit definitely 7.62 beats both in range and damage especially ballistic
Yes, that is the problem. 7.62 is only good for ranges less than 200m. I'd choose 5.45 or 5.56 over 7.62 for anything, including CQC, because 5.45 is *adequate* for all ranges within 500m. Thats why I agree with the army choosing 5.56 for CQC, after finding out how it works.
I suggest you read up on M855A1 projectile; in a nutshell, it has a steel armor piercing tip, and rest of bullet fragments inside soft tissue, causing max damage. It is adequate to kill with one shot.
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,244
Likes
2,408
Country flag
Simply not true. Covering up to the end of the back, or at least right above it, would make far more sense for infantry.
No, the length itself was not what I meant...
You would need a hard armor plate twice as big to get that much coverage. It would be double the weight. It is simply not realistic to add that much weight. Also, blunt force trauma on the plate can do equal damage to the spine in case of direct hit. So what we have now is a better option, especially as it adds protection to the side.
 

Lancer

Bana
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
1,409
Likes
5,635
Country flag
No, the length itself was not what I meant...
You would need a hard armor plate twice as big to get that much coverage. It would be double the weight. It is simply not realistic to add that much weight. Also, blunt force trauma on the plate can do equal damage to the spine in case of direct hit. So what we have now is a better option, especially as it adds protection to the side.
Twice as big? Doubt it.

And no, while blunt force trauma is an issue in general w/ such armor/vests, it's not like having a bullet pierce through the spine.

The same way I'd rather crack ribs w/ armor than have my organs riddled.
 

Vishalreddy3

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,320
Likes
4,137
Country flag
Yes, that is the problem. 7.62 is only good for ranges less than 200m. I'd choose 5.45 or 5.56 over 7.62 for anything, including CQC, because 5.45 is *adequate* for all ranges within 500m. Thats why I agree with the army choosing 5.56 for CQC, after finding out how it works.
I suggest you read up on M855A1 projectile; in a nutshell, it has a steel armor piercing tip, and rest of bullet fragments inside soft tissue, causing max damage. It is adequate to kill with one shot.
Wait wait buddy what?? You think 7.62 has lesser range than 5.56??
7.62mm has greater range (800-1000m vs. 600m or so), although this is generally unneeded in modern combat. The kind of general-purpose assault rifle most troops are issued would be hard pressed at 800m even with 7.62mm ammunition. So, I would definitely pick 7.62 over 5.56 for range as well as armour piercing.
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,244
Likes
2,408
Country flag
Wait wait buddy what?? You think 7.62 has lesser range than 5.56??
7.62mm has greater range (800-1000m vs. 600m or so), although this is generally unneeded in modern combat. The kind of general-purpose assault rifle most troops are issued would be hard pressed at 800m even with 7.62mm ammunition. So, I would definitely pick 7.62 over 5.56 for range as well as armour piercing.
I'm talking about 7.62x39mm. 7.62 NATO is heavy as hell compared to 5.56, so I'd not even consider that, unless I was gonna be in an outpost, firing at the enemy at a range (LoC). Carrying around .308 is out of the question. And it is overkill for CQC. So, I'd still go for 5.56.
 

Vishalreddy3

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,320
Likes
4,137
Country flag
Yes, that is the problem. 7.62 is only good for ranges less than 200m. I'd choose 5.45 or 5.56 over 7.62 for anything, including CQC, because 5.45 is *adequate* for all ranges within 500m. Thats why I agree with the army choosing 5.56 for CQC, after finding out how it works.
I suggest you read up on M855A1 projectile; in a nutshell, it has a steel armor piercing tip, and rest of bullet fragments inside soft tissue, causing max damage. It is adequate to kill with one shot.
No doubt 5.56 and 5.45 are the best for CQB, but it's just not powerful for BPJs.
 

Vishalreddy3

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,320
Likes
4,137
Country flag
I'm talking about 7.62x39mm. 7.62 NATO is heavy as hell compared to 5.56, so I'd not even consider that, unless I was gonna be in an outpost, firing at the enemy at a range (LoC). Carrying around .308 is out of the question. And it is overkill for CQC. So, I'd still go for 5.56.
Yes, the weight is the primary reason why the Russians opted out of 7.62 to 5.45!!
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,244
Likes
2,408
Country flag
Yes, the weight is the primary reason why the Russians opted out of 7.62 to 5.45!!
You are talking about 7.62x39, right. Because I was under the impression that you were talking about 7.62x51 from your previous post.
Wait wait buddy what?? You think 7.62 has lesser range than 5.56??
7.62mm has greater range (800-1000m vs. 600m or so), although this is generally unneeded in modern combat. The kind of general-purpose assault rifle most troops are issued would be hard pressed at 800m even with 7.62mm ammunition. So, I would definitely pick 7.62 over 5.56 for range as well as armour piercing.
 

Vishalreddy3

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,320
Likes
4,137
Country flag
You are talking about 7.62x39, right. Because I was under the impression that you were talking about 7.62x51 from your previous post.
But at the end of the day, it's 7.62!!
In one of the youtube video I linked above, in the comments one guy said "5.56 is for Humans, but 7.62 is for killing mammals".
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top