Modernisation of Indian Army Infantry

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
16,331
Likes
53,297
Country flag
5.45 has better ballistics, and we don’t know which 5.45x39 he’s using.
fun fact:
the dia of 5.56 nato, when you convert into inches is .219, if you have seen or shot .22 you will realise how narrow the projectile is, albeit with a lot more powder & mass to increase the kinetic energy

Others can correct me if I am wrong.
 

ManhattanProject

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
234
Likes
502
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.
if you are talking about 7.62x39, thats true.
 

Killbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
832
Likes
1,434
Country flag
fun fact:
the dia of 5.56 nato, when you convert into inches is .219, if you have seen or shot .22 you will realise how narrow the projectile is, albeit with a lot more powder & mass to increase the kinetic energy

Others can correct me if I am wrong.
Yeah. I've shot .22LR. But why it (5.56x45) is really is in service is not due to the kinetic energy, but the fact that it fragments in soft tissue. This causes damage disproportional to its size.
1603714992720.png

Various soviet calibers:
1603715100032.png

If you observe 7.62x39 (3rd and 4th images), it goes straight through, without making a big permanent cavity (dark part, thats the actual wound). Even earlier rounds of 5.45 are like that. I think Russians have replaced old 5.45 round.
 

FalconSlayers

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
824
Likes
2,066
Country flag
The question to ask is : in modern times, will close quarter battles take place at all? Will most battles be fought with stand off weapons to minimize casualties anyway? If we assume this then carrying lighter guns in favor of heavier body protection and donning situational awareness and networking gadgets make more sense? After all, I am sure the army has a max load that a soldier can carry and are probably figusing out how best to maximize lethality of a soldier without exceeding the max load threshold. I think we have to see weapons as part of a soldier’s overall battle suite and the type of soldier’s role in warfare than a simple round versus round comparison.
Thats why I feel 14.5 inch CAR-816 Carbine should be procured coz 14.5 is actually the carbine barrel length whereas 16 inch is an assault rifle barrel length.
 

Killbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
832
Likes
1,434
Country flag
Thats why I feel 14.5 inch CAR-816 Carbine should be procured coz 14.5 is actually the carbine barrel length whereas 16 inch is an assault rifle barrel length.
Not much of a difference between 14.5" and 16". 10.5" is the best, as its effective up to 200m. Thats what is required.
 

FalconSlayers

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
824
Likes
2,066
Country flag
Not much of a difference between 14.5" and 16". 10.5" is the best, as its effective up to 200m. Thats what is required.
If you are buying a carbine so why buy a short barrel rifle with 10.5” barrel.

14.5” is already too short and perfect for Carbine role.
1603722463728.jpeg


Car-816 14.5” Carbine
1603722507101.jpeg


Plus 14.5” is the best length for any Infantry for carbine role, coz a 200m range requirement is a joke. Coz army wants 4 lakh carbines, so 4 lakh guns with 200m range being carried by soldiers assaulting the enemy is a joke, plus if a barrel is too short then it is also difficult to use and manoeuvre the Weapon.
 

Vishalreddy3

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
982
Likes
3,077
Country flag
If you are buying a carbine so why buy a short barrel rifle with 10.5” barrel.

14.5” is already too short and perfect for Carbine role.
View attachment 64406

Car-816 14.5” Carbine
View attachment 64407

Plus 14.5” is the best length for any Infantry for carbine role, coz a 200m range requirement is a joke. Coz army wants 4 lakh carbines, so 4 lakh guns with 200m range being carried by soldiers assaulting the enemy is a joke, plus if a barrel is too short then it is also difficult to use and manoeuvre the Weapon.
Carbines are primarily used in CQB role where the range beyond 200m is not necessary, and that's the job for assault/battle rifle.
These Carbines would be used for RR and Ghatak commandos, not necessarily for infantry unit, since they would be using Ak203 and sig 716 for frontline troops!!
 

FalconSlayers

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
824
Likes
2,066
Country flag
Carbines are primarily used in CQB role where the range beyond 200m is not necessary, and that's the job for assault/battle rifle.
These Carbines would be used for RR and Ghatak commandos, not necessarily for infantry unit, since they would be using Ak203 and sig 716 for frontline troops!!
7.5” is a PDW weapon
1603723455500.jpeg


10.5” is a short barrel rifle
1603723492576.jpeg


14.5” is a carbine
1603723522408.jpeg


16.5” is an assault rifle
1603723545281.jpeg


Indian Army has a requirement of around 4 lakh carbines. So first things first, why were assault rifles made?

In WWII, the submachine guns and bolt action rifles formed the bulk of all forces, but because of poor range of the submachine guns and poor rate of fire of bolt action rifles, Assault rifles and battle rifles were made.

But later Carbines were made for doing the role of CQB and Assault rifle both.

Considering Indian army has 1.2 million personnel, do you think Indian Army will equip 1/3rd of its Army with 10.5” short barrel rifles with an effective range of 250 metres? RR and Ghatak don’t make up 1/3rd of the force bro.

18” Battle rifles are made for long distance combat because of a full power rifle cartridge and barrel length being high.
1603723934684.jpeg


16” Assault Rifles are made for intermediate range combat due to use of intermediate range cartridge and a shorter barrel.
1603724157452.jpeg


14.5” inch barrelled rifles are made for carbine role with intermediate cartridges and a shorter barrel for CQB and intermediate engagements with high manoeuvrability.
1603724246575.jpeg


10.5” guns are classified as short barrel rifles made for CICT and Police use as it has a decent range and lethality and is much compact to be carried and operated in confined spaces for hunting terrorists hiding in a building or killing
hostage-takers.
1603724639380.png


7.5” is classified as a personal defence weapon (PDW) and it has a very low range and as the name suggests is made for the personal defence of a person. It sports a very short barrel for personal defence requirements as it is very very compact and with its stock folded can easily be carried with anyone under their clothes like a jacket or a coat.
1603724797464.jpeg


so do we think Indian Army to equip their soldiers with a 10.5” inch barrelled CAR-816 which is a short barrel rifle not a Carbine as a carbine has 14.5” barrel and the reason carbines and assault rifles were made at first place was due to the low range of submachine guns during WWII engagements, and Indian Army is no fool to do the same mistake done in WWII by all countries plus Indian Army itself had fought extensively in the WWII under British Indian Army so they have its experience as they are going to equip 4 lakh of its soldiers with these guns hence I don’t think 10.5” inches will be selected, that’s more for NSG, Ghatak, RR, SWAT and other specialised police units.

a true carbine has a 14.5” inch barrel and army wants a Carbine so equipping 1/3rd of your army that can’t Kill or Hit your enemy beyond 200-250 metres is senseless.

if Army had requirement of about say 30-40K carbines then I would have agreed these are for Ghataks, Rashtriya Rifles, Ghatak Platoons and Special Forces but Army wants around 4 lakh of these, think again I have written it long after a lot of thinking so pls appreciate my efforts guys.

plus making a rifle too short won’t increase manoeuvrability, It depends on the weight of the rifle. A heavy PDW will be difficult to manoeuvre compared to a very light assault rifle.

Thats the reason USA uses 14.5” inch carbines as they can be used for every role, they are used for room clearing and close quarter combat in Afghanistan and with high effectiveness can be used as an assault rifle.
1603725564466.jpeg


OPINIONS APPRECIATED...!!!
 

MIDKNIGHT FENERIR-00

VICTORIOUM AUT MORS
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
2,230
Likes
6,652
Country flag
The Americans are planning to phase out 556 for the larger 6.8 which is between the 556 and 762 rounds. Phasing out the INSAS is the right move. Phasing out 556 altogether for frontline troops is also the right move. The 556 simply isn't powerful enough to take on troops wearing body armor at distance. The Russians moved down from 762x39 to 545.45 in the 70's for their own reasons. Apparently, they are thinking of moving back up to a larger caliber for the same reasons the Americans are.
India should stick with 7.62x51mm NATO, New 6.8x53mm NATO and 7.62x39mm for Frontline Battle Rifles while using 5.56x45mm NATO and 5.45x39mm for Carbines and New 8.6x70mm NATO as intermediate caliber machine gun round between 7.62 GPMG Rounds and 12.7x99mm and 12.7x108mm caliber Heavy Machine Gun Rounds. Some these might be replaced as frontline rounds but they are still widely used and produced by different countries around the world.
 
Last edited:

Vishalreddy3

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
982
Likes
3,077
Country flag
7.5” is a PDW weapon
View attachment 64413

10.5” is a short barrel rifle
View attachment 64414

14.5” is a carbine
View attachment 64415

16.5” is an assault rifle
View attachment 64418

Indian Army has a requirement of around 4 lakh carbines. So first things first, why were assault rifles made?

In WWII, the submachine guns and bolt action rifles formed the bulk of all forces, but because of poor range of the submachine guns and poor rate of fire of bolt action rifles, Assault rifles and battle rifles were made.

But later Carbines were made for doing the role of CQB and Assault rifle both.

Considering Indian army has 1.2 million personnel, do you think Indian Army will equip 1/3rd of its Army with 10.5” short barrel rifles with an effective range of 250 metres? RR and Ghatak don’t make up 1/3rd of the force bro.

18” Battle rifles are made for long distance combat because of a full power rifle cartridge and barrel length being high.
View attachment 64423

16” Assault Rifles are made for intermediate range combat due to use of intermediate range cartridge and a shorter barrel.
View attachment 64428

14.5” inch barrelled rifles are made for carbine role with intermediate cartridges and a shorter barrel for CQB and intermediate engagements with high manoeuvrability.
View attachment 64429

10.5” guns are classified as short barrel rifles made for CICT and Police use as it has a decent range and lethality and is much compact to be carried and operated in confined spaces for hunting terrorists hiding in a building or killing
hostage-takers.
View attachment 64430

7.5” is classified as a personal defence weapon (PDW) and it has a very low range and as the name suggests is made for the personal defence of a person. It sports a very short barrel for personal defence requirements as it is very very compact and with its stock folded can easily be carried with anyone under their clothes like a jacket or a coat.
View attachment 64431

so do we think Indian Army to equip their soldiers with a 10.5” inch barrelled CAR-816 which is a short barrel rifle not a Carbine as a carbine has 14.5” barrel and the reason carbines and assault rifles were made at first place was due to the low range of submachine guns during WWII engagements, and Indian Army is no fool to do the same mistake done in WWII by all countries plus Indian Army itself had fought extensively in the WWII under British Indian Army so they have its experience as they are going to equip 4 lakh of its soldiers with these guns hence I don’t think 10.5” inches will be selected, that’s more for NSG, Ghatak, RR, SWAT and other specialised police units.

a true carbine has a 14.5” inch barrel and army wants a Carbine so equipping 1/3rd of your army that can’t Kill or Hit your enemy beyond 200-250 metres is senseless.

if Army had requirement of about say 30-40K carbines then I would have agreed these are for Ghataks, Rashtriya Rifles, Ghatak Platoons and Special Forces but Army wants around 4 lakh of these, think again I have written it long after a lot of thinking so pls appreciate my efforts guys.

plus making a rifle too short won’t increase manoeuvrability, It depends on the weight of the rifle. A heavy PDW will be difficult to manoeuvre compared to a very light assault rifle.

Thats the reason USA uses 14.5” inch carbines as they can be used for every role, they are used for room clearing and close quarter combat in Afghanistan and with high effectiveness can be used as an assault rifle.
View attachment 64432

OPINIONS APPRECIATED...!!!
Good, appreciate your effort!!
 

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
3,946
Likes
3,416
The Americans are planning to phase out 556 for the larger 6.8 which is between the 556 and 762 rounds. Phasing out the INSAS is the right move. Phasing out 556 altogether for frontline troops is also the right move. The 556 simply isn't powerful enough to take on troops wearing body armor at distance. The Russians moved down from 762x39 to 545.45 in the 70's for their own reasons. Apparently, they are thinking of moving back up to a larger caliber for the same reasons the Americans are.
Mikhail Kalashnikov was against the move at that time, he opined that 7.62mm potential was yet to be fully utilised.
Btw any news on NSV heavy machine gun with Indian troops.it appears that this gun is produced by OFB
 

Tridev123

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
338
Likes
801
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.
Designing BPJ's to protect soldiers from various types of assault rifle rounds is not a simple affair as we have to keep the weight of the BPJ's within limits. No purpose will be served if the weight becomes a burden on the soldier.

An outlandish idea. We use Explosive Reactive Armour panels to protect battle tanks against incoming anti tank rounds, RPG's, ATGM etc. This is done to reduce the kinetic energy of the incoming projectile and deflect it. Why not apply the same principle to design micro ERA panels for BPJ's. The rifle round whether it is a 5.56 or 7.62 mm one is essentially a projectile and a micro ERA panel will reduce its energy and deflect it. Instead of continuously increasing the thickness of the BPJ's and adding weight to resist new rounds like the steel core ones, application of micro ERA over a base armour will reduce the weight of the BPJ's.

It will not be easy to fabricate because of the technical challenges. The micro ERA panels should not become a fire hazard for the soldier and the deflected bullet should be captured in a mesh like layer beneath the ERA. Also the micro ERA panels should be thermally stable and not explode when the soldier falls down. Only a high temperature and high velocity projectile like a bullet should be able to detonate it.

We have arrived in the nano technology age and there are miniature robots which can travel through a human blood vessel to remove blood clots. So such a degree of miniaturisation gives hope that very small ERA panels can be developed.

I will agree that the suggestion is controversial. But who knows. It might be possible one day.
 

FalconSlayers

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
824
Likes
2,066
Country flag
India should stick with 7.62x51mm NATO, New 6.8x53mm NATO and 7.62x39mm for Frontline Battle Rifles while using 5.56x45mm NATO and 5.45x39mm for Carbines and New 8.6x70mm NATO as intermediate caliber machine gun round between 7.62 GPMG Rounds and 12.7x99mm and 12.7x108mm caliber Heavy Machine Gun Rounds. Some these might be replaced as frontline rounds but they are still widely used and produced by different countries around the world.
How many different rounds you want in the infantry to create a logistics nightmare?
@MIDKNIGHT FENERIR-00 : YES!
 

Vishalreddy3

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
982
Likes
3,077
Country flag
Please don't do your buffoonary here.
For your information, I am also from Andhra. Reddygaru.
Lol buffoonary?? C'mon mate, I am coming to good terms here, now it's you who keeps widening the gaps!! Let's just leave it here, since this is a forum filled with open minded, easy going people who takes jokes with a laugh I thought you would take it funny!!
 

Killbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
832
Likes
1,434
Country flag
7.5” is a PDW weapon
View attachment 64413

10.5” is a short barrel rifle
View attachment 64414

14.5” is a carbine
View attachment 64415

16.5” is an assault rifle
View attachment 64418

Indian Army has a requirement of around 4 lakh carbines. So first things first, why were assault rifles made?

In WWII, the submachine guns and bolt action rifles formed the bulk of all forces, but because of poor range of the submachine guns and poor rate of fire of bolt action rifles, Assault rifles and battle rifles were made.

But later Carbines were made for doing the role of CQB and Assault rifle both.

Considering Indian army has 1.2 million personnel, do you think Indian Army will equip 1/3rd of its Army with 10.5” short barrel rifles with an effective range of 250 metres? RR and Ghatak don’t make up 1/3rd of the force bro.

18” Battle rifles are made for long distance combat because of a full power rifle cartridge and barrel length being high.
View attachment 64423

16” Assault Rifles are made for intermediate range combat due to use of intermediate range cartridge and a shorter barrel.
View attachment 64428

14.5” inch barrelled rifles are made for carbine role with intermediate cartridges and a shorter barrel for CQB and intermediate engagements with high manoeuvrability.
View attachment 64429

10.5” guns are classified as short barrel rifles made for CICT and Police use as it has a decent range and lethality and is much compact to be carried and operated in confined spaces for hunting terrorists hiding in a building or killing
hostage-takers.
View attachment 64430

7.5” is classified as a personal defence weapon (PDW) and it has a very low range and as the name suggests is made for the personal defence of a person. It sports a very short barrel for personal defence requirements as it is very very compact and with its stock folded can easily be carried with anyone under their clothes like a jacket or a coat.
View attachment 64431

so do we think Indian Army to equip their soldiers with a 10.5” inch barrelled CAR-816 which is a short barrel rifle not a Carbine as a carbine has 14.5” barrel and the reason carbines and assault rifles were made at first place was due to the low range of submachine guns during WWII engagements, and Indian Army is no fool to do the same mistake done in WWII by all countries plus Indian Army itself had fought extensively in the WWII under British Indian Army so they have its experience as they are going to equip 4 lakh of its soldiers with these guns hence I don’t think 10.5” inches will be selected, that’s more for NSG, Ghatak, RR, SWAT and other specialised police units.

a true carbine has a 14.5” inch barrel and army wants a Carbine so equipping 1/3rd of your army that can’t Kill or Hit your enemy beyond 200-250 metres is senseless.

if Army had requirement of about say 30-40K carbines then I would have agreed these are for Ghataks, Rashtriya Rifles, Ghatak Platoons and Special Forces but Army wants around 4 lakh of these, think again I have written it long after a lot of thinking so pls appreciate my efforts guys.

plus making a rifle too short won’t increase manoeuvrability, It depends on the weight of the rifle. A heavy PDW will be difficult to manoeuvre compared to a very light assault rifle.

Thats the reason USA uses 14.5” inch carbines as they can be used for every role, they are used for room clearing and close quarter combat in Afghanistan and with high effectiveness can be used as an assault rifle.
View attachment 64432

OPINIONS APPRECIATED...!!!
Carbine=SBR=PDW.
If you are buying 14.5", it is the same as buying 16". It is practically a full size rifle. They call the M4 a carbine, but it is a full size rifle. Because 14.5" offers about the same ballistics as 16". It is only 1.5" smaller. Buying it for CQC makes no sense, as you would ideally want a smaller weapon than 14.5". 10.5" is perfect for IA's requirements.
 

Killbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
832
Likes
1,434
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.

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.
View attachment 64369
Oh... that is the US Army soldier plate carrier system btw.
I thought you meant for the PC to cover the whole spine.
Afaik, the new SMPP vests will have this much coverage.
 

FalconSlayers

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
824
Likes
2,066
Country flag
Carbine=SBR=PDW.
If you are buying 14.5", it is the same as buying 16". It is practically a full size rifle. They call the M4 a carbine, but it is a full size rifle. Because 14.5" offers about the same ballistics as 16". It is only 1.5" smaller. Buying it for CQC makes no sense, as you would ideally want a smaller weapon than 14.5". 10.5" is perfect for IA's requirements.
You are saying 10.5” do you even know thats 4” or 10.8 cm shorter than what a Carbine is as per definition? If I had a choice I would have gone for a 13.5 inch Carbine.
1603731509237.jpeg

From top to bottom: M16A1, M16A2, M4A1, M16A4.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top