New Assault Rifles for Indian Army

[ghost]

Isn't it great the IA is benchmarking itself against the Army of a failed state with 1/6th the budgetary allocation of their's? So they are admitting they have been sat on their fat backsides for the past 2 decades as the PLA has systamatically upgraded, modernised,reformed and transformed itself and thus the IA would stand no chance against them?

And these a$$holes want us to believe they could fight a two-front war?

I think that in recent times; we are yet to see a visionary and evolutionary leadership in Indian army.Which brings in new approach, revolutionary ideas ,doctrine and shook things up ;disrupt the routine;break the pattern.Our army has promoted too much by the book, as a result it has become a big old rusty machine ,which may look formidable at first glance, but when it's put to action the squeaking and rattles comes to light.

The acquisition process of our army is "legendary".It's not that we don't have bright minds or ideas, but they are relegated.I think connected and integrated,swift movement and overwhelming firepower are the ideas that define modern armies.We Indians have made reaction our mantra ,instead of being proactive.We need a hard shock to disrupt things and to wake us from this slumber.

In modern times ,Russian army present us with a fantastic example of evolution.From a slow ,rusted and blunt power ,which it was a decade back; it has transformed and is fast changing into a sleek war-fighting machine.Crimea reflected this in action.

 

[India22]

Every army learns from what they face. When they start copying others doctrine, is not called learning. Why you think multinational countries do undertake joint military exercise?
Indian army didn't took lesson in auto mode from Vietcong. When you dive into history of IA and compare it with present IA, you would find that from British era, importance has been given on accuracy rather then volume. Its the reason for our adopting SLR in the first place instead of AK after Ishapore 2A1.
Any army in world does learn from others regarding doctrine. They don't simply follow those doctrine, rather try to adapt them in their context.

Accuracy with high power bullet is okay. But accuracy with less powerful bullet is not desirable at the cost of fire rate. In anyway, German infantry was better than British infantry. Germans having MG 42, MG 34 and supported by MP 40 and Kar 98K was better than Brain Gun Centric British troops armed with Lee Enfield and Sten Gun.

And best system Americans had, their M1 Gerand Semi-automatic rifles fared better than Bolt Action rifle armed other countries. In WW2 era, semi-automatic rifle and bolt action rifle's difference can be considered today's difference between semi-automatic rifle and full automatic rifle. Americans fared better with almost every soldier of them being equipped with M1 Gerand. Later Soviets came with arming entire divisions with sub machine guns and Germans with their STG 44. British themselves abandoned accuracy when they retired Bren Gun and adopted full automatic rifles.

A soldier in Siachen is much less armed then his Punjab counterpart. But he in turn carries double the total burden of clothing and gear with him. In that case each and every gram of weight matters. M16A2 and A4 both does have 20 as well as 30 rounds mag. Now it depends on the soldier which he prefers. For your information a fully loaded 20 round mag of M16 weights 335 gms against a fully loaded 30 round mag which weights 480 gm. Now ask any soldier patrolling in Siachen or anywhere, which he would prefer weight wise.

View attachment 12201

View attachment 12202

Have a look at the firing position in both cases. In which position would you like to see yourself?

That's why I said, a soldier in Siachen and what they prefer should not be necessarily doctrine of entire IA. In Siachen Soldiers armed with INSAS are given 22 round magazines which is acceptable as you said. But then why even a BSF Jawan patrolling Bangladesh border is also given 22 round magazine?

I will prefer to have the AK instead. More ammunition I have, the better.

I mean a box magazine of 100 rounds. INSAS LMG is made to sustain a heavy volume of fire for longer duration. For this purpose it does have an extra strong firing chamber and barrel, which in turn increases its weight.

I do understand it. Yet weight difference between INSAS 1N and INSAS LMG is not so. INSAS LMG no where weighs like M 240 which has over 12 kg weight.

This is what known as development. M16 had been discarded as a toy by US army during Vietnam era when first introduced. Now its one of the most preferred weapon by many armies including India.

M 16 Rifle originally had no problem, it was problem with cartridge. INSAS 1B's technical problems can be compared to it. But M16A1 did not suffer from faulty doctrine.

 

[India22]

I think that in recent times; we are yet to see a visionary and evolutionary leadership in Indian army.Which brings in new approach, revolutionary ideas ,doctrine and shook things up ;disrupt the routine;break the pattern.Our army has promoted too much by the book, as a result it has become a big old rusty machine ,which may look formidable at first glance, but when it's put to action the squeaking and rattles comes to light.

The acquisition process of our army is "legendary".It's not that we don't have bright minds or ideas, but they are relegated.I think connected and integrated,swift movement and overwhelming firepower are the ideas that define modern armies.We Indians have made reaction our mantra ,instead of being proactive.We need a hard shock to disrupt things and to wake us from this slumber.

In modern times ,Russian army present us with a fantastic example of evolution.From a slow ,rusted and blunt power ,which it was a decade back; it has transformed and is fast changing into a sleek war-fighting machine.Crimea reflected this in action.

Indian army did not have visionary leaders ever. Although separate topic is that. I have read 1962 war, how some higher rank officers misled the entire army, how Army troops were ordered to abandon fortified positions, only to be ambushed or how bomb, rocket laden Hawker Hunters were sent in midst of Pakistan without escort when first rule of aerial warfare is do not send ground attack aircraft without escort. A lesson from WW2. Government should force military to only accept Indian hardware if we are producing that type of hardware. Indian military is rigid in combat doctrine, when US is thinking about retiring giant super carriers our navy is thinking to acquire them even more.

 

[armyofhind]

Indian army did not have visionary leaders ever.

Ever heard of Sam Manekshaw? Harry Kler? JFR Jacob? Gen Sundarji?

Easy things to say for a keyboard warrior who has never known what it is like to have family or friends serve in the armed forces.

bomb, rocket laden Hawker Hunters were sent in midst of Pakistan without escort

quote the instance. dont give vague statements.

Government should force military to only accept Indian hardware if we are producing that type of hardware. Indian military is rigid in combat doctrine,

You sitting behind your computer screen will tell the government and the military how their job is done right? Lol. Go and get a life first.

 

[India22]

Ever heard of Sam Manekshaw? Harry Kler? JFR Jacob? Gen Sundarji?

Easy things to say for a keyboard warrior who has never known what it is like to have family or friends serve in the armed forces.


quote the instance. dont give vague statements.


You sitting behind your computer screen will tell the government and the military how their job is done right? Lol. Go and get a life first.

Actually it is pretty complex topic. I have respect for Sundarji though. You can open a new thread I will talk about it.

 

[armyofhind]

Actually it is pretty complex topic. I have respect for Sundarji though. You can open a new thread I will talk about it.

Think before posting stupid statements like you did above. I dont need the opinion of someone who tries to authoritatively dictate government and military policy to the people who do the same job day in and day out while spending his days sitting behind a keyboard and computer screen.

Have you ever served in the military yourself? How many from your family are currently serving? Are you even a graduate in military science?

 

[India22]

Think before posting stupid statements like you did above. I dont need the opinion of someone who tries to authoritatively dictate government and military policy to the people who do the same job day in and day out while spending his days sitting behind a keyboard and computer screen.

Have you ever served in the military yourself? How many from your family are currently serving? Are you even a graduate in military science?

Okay then for sake of your information I am giving you one example. In 1971 when the war broke out IAF sent Hawker Hunters to attack the Dhaka airbase. Those Hawkers were laden with bombs and rockets. The attack failed and we lost seval aircraft to PAF CAP Sabers and AA. It forced IAF to change doctrine and send MiG 21s, they armed with 2 500 kg bombs stuck the runway and got out before PAF could respond.

So the question is why did IAF send Hawker Hunters fully laden with bombs and rockets with considerable less maneuverability to midst of Pakistan without fighter escort? In WW2 Ground Attack aircraft always had to depend escort fighters. German Ju 87s operated most effectively when they were under protection of BF 109s and Fw 190s, Soviet IL-2s were most effective when they were sent under escort. So why this obvious lesson was ignored?

I know about military history more than many person and so although I dont serve in armed forces I know what they are. I criticize because I want to see armed forces more efficient.

Edit : I would say in tactical level Indian armed forces are best, only when it comes to higher echelon, things get orthodox.

 

[abingdonboy]

I think that in recent times; we are yet to see a visionary and evolutionary leadership in Indian army.Which brings in new approach, revolutionary ideas ,doctrine and shook things up ;disrupt the routine;break the pattern.Our army has promoted too much by the book, as a result it has become a big old rusty machine ,which may look formidable at first glance, but when it's put to action the squeaking and rattles comes to light.

The acquisition process of our army is "legendary".It's not that we don't have bright minds or ideas, but they are relegated.I think connected and integrated,swift movement and overwhelming firepower are the ideas that define modern armies.We Indians have made reaction our mantra ,instead of being proactive.We need a hard shock to disrupt things and to wake us from this slumber.

In modern times ,Russian army present us with a fantastic example of evolution.From a slow ,rusted and blunt power ,which it was a decade back; it has transformed and is fast changing into a sleek war-fighting machine.Crimea reflected this in action.

The IA is just another bloated arm of the govt that viciosuly protects the "old ways" and fears disruption/change. They have got fat off the way things have been done, they are not interested in exploring new ways.

The IA will not reform itself, that much is clear, they cling onto their outdated practices relgiously or at the very least it will take decades (if not centuraries) for them to get up to date. They need to be made to reform by outside elements, hmmmm maybe the supposed civilian elected officals of the land? But whilst the politcians are MIA (busy in other matters), the IA is disinterested the babus are theones running the show and they have absolutely zero intention of upsetting the apple cart nor are they actually qualified to intiate such a process.

 

[ghost]

Ever heard of Sam Manekshaw? Harry Kler? JFR Jacob? Gen Sundarji?


You sitting behind your computer screen will tell the government and the military how their job is done right? Lol. Go and get a life first.

I agree on the bold part.Regarding rest ,please debate on the views and ideas propagated, based on their merit or demerit. Debate,question and judge the qualification of views instead of questioning qualification of their source.

Whatever he said about 1962 is correct.
No more off-topic from my side.

 

[armyofhind]

Okay then for sake of your information I am giving you one example. In 1971 when the war broke out IAF sent Hawker Hunters to attack the Dhaka airbase. Those Hawkers were laden with bombs and rockets. The attack failed and we lost seval aircraft to PAF CAP Sabers and AA. It forced IAF to change doctrine and send MiG 21s, they armed with 2 500 kg bombs stuck the runway and got out before PAF could respond.


German Ju 87s operated most effectively when they were under protection of BF 109s and Fw 190s, Soviet IL-2s were most effective when they were sent under escort. So why this obvious lesson was ignored?

I know about military history more than many person and so although I dont serve in armed forces I know what they are. I criticize because I want to see armed forces more efficient.

Edit : I would say in tactical level Indian armed forces are best, only when it comes to higher echelon, things get orthodox.

You need to read up first on your information.

Do you know why the first strike missions were sent in unescorted? Because we had only one squadron of Mig-21s in the eastern sector when the war broke out. During the outbreak of the war, they were assigned on BARCAP duties over our own airbases.
Remember we didnt have as many resources then as we do today.

In WW2 Ground Attack aircraft always had to depend escort fighters. German Ju 87s operated most effectively when they were under protection of BF 109s and Fw 190s

Your information is wrong. Fighter-bombers which were thought to be capable of defending themselves in case of aerial combat were almost always sent in without escort. This was the precise reason why the Fighter-Bomber was developed in the first place along with the "Cab Rank" system of tactics.
Heard of the P-47 Thunderbolt? Hawker Typhoon?
Always went in unescorted because they were fighter bombers and didnt need escort.

Same goes for the ground attack variants of the Focke Wulf 190 when they were sent in for strike missions by the luftwaffe because of a lack of resources towards the end of the second world war.

Soviet IL-2s were most effective when they were sent under escort.

Entire REGIMENTS of Il-2s went in unescorted during the battle of Kursk to attack german tanks. And did a good job at that.


Same reason applies for why the hunter was sent in unescorted in the beginning.The hunter was designed and built as a fighter. It was deemed capable of protecting itself.
However, it suffered losses to ground fire and the tactics were adapted. Mig-21s were chosen primarily because of their speed by which they could avoid the worst of the flak. It worked and we won the war. The rest as they say is history.

Side Note : - if you can, go through Eagles Over Bangladesh by Jagan Mohan and Samir Chopra. One of the authors is my best friend's uncle. You'll get the exact specifics of the 1971 Air War in the eastern sector.

The other book on the western sector is on the way.

 

[India22]

You need to read up first on your information.

Do you know why the first strike missions were sent in unescorted? Because we had only one squadron of Mig-21s in the eastern sector when the war broke out. During the outbreak of the war, they were assigned on BARCAP duties over our own airbases.
Remember we didnt have as many resources then as we do today.


Your information is wrong. Fighter-bombers which were thought to be capable of defending themselves in case of aerial combat were almost always sent in without escort. This was the precise reason why the Fighter-Bomber was developed in the first place along with the "Cab Rank" system of tactics.
Heard of the P-47 Thunderbolt? Hawker Typhoon?
Always went in unescorted because they were fighter bombers and didnt need escort.

Same goes for the ground attack variants of the Focke Wulf 190 when they were sent in for strike missions by the luftwaffe because of a lack of resources towards the end of the second world war.


Entire REGIMENTS of Il-2s went in unescorted during the battle of Kursk to attack german tanks. And did a good job at that.


Same reason applies for why the hunter was sent in unescorted in the beginning.The hunter was designed and built as a fighter. It was deemed capable of protecting itself.
However, it suffered losses to ground fire and the tactics were adapted. Mig-21s were chosen primarily because of their speed by which they could avoid the worst of the flak. It worked and we won the war. The rest as they say is history.

Side Note : - if you can, go through Eagles Over Bangladesh by Jagan Mohan and Samir Chopra. One of the authors is my best friend's uncle. You'll get the exact specifics of the 1971 Air War in the eastern sector.

The other book on the western sector is on the way.

Open a separate thread. I can counter it too. But not here.

 

[armyofhind]

Open a separate thread. I can counter it too. But not here.

By all means. Open one.
====================

 

[India22]

You open.

According to OFB site, Kalanatak has very low recoil so offers greater accuracy in full automatic mode, so I suppose Indian army should opt for Kalantak. Excalibur goes to BSF and other paramilitary forces, ITBP gets Ghatak, other paramilitary forces get INSAS 1B1. Amogh is issued to commandos and police special forces. All Indian army needs that is a systematic thinking and trust in indigenous products.

 

[armyofhind]

You open.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...riors-to-teach-tactics-to-the-military.77933/

 

[aditya g]

@Kunal Biswas please illuminate on the various model numbers of SLR and INSAS family. 1B1 etc

 

[Chinmoy]

You and your logics are epic man........

Accuracy with high power bullet is okay. But accuracy with less powerful bullet is not desirable at the cost of fire rate. In anyway, German infantry was better than British infantry. Germans having MG 42, MG 34 and supported by MP 40 and Kar 98K was better than Brain Gun Centric British troops armed with Lee Enfield and Sten Gun.

And best system Americans had, their M1 Gerand Semi-automatic rifles fared better than Bolt Action rifle armed other countries. In WW2 era, semi-automatic rifle and bolt action rifle's difference can be considered today's difference between semi-automatic rifle and full automatic rifle. Americans fared better with almost every soldier of them being equipped with M1 Gerand. Later Soviets came with arming entire divisions with sub machine guns and Germans with their STG 44. British themselves abandoned accuracy when they retired Bren Gun and adopted full automatic rifles.

Its during the WWII era which you mentioned, the concept of Assault rifle is born. Before that either its the battle rifle or MGs. Germans were the first to use 9mm pistol bullet in there very first version of assault rifle, the Grease Gun. Why you think they adopted AK47 after WWII instead of their StG44?
Bullets like 7.62 are not accurate enough. The first requisite and idea of Assault rifle was :
1-- It should be one man portable
2-- It should have the firing volume of a Machine gun
3-- It should have the range and accuracy of a rifle.

Many rounds had been tried to meet all the requirements and each and every round thus seem to have one problem or another. Rounds like 7.62 or 7.92 were not fit enough to fire accurately and volume of it means reduced life span of the overall weapon system. So to overcome all of these, the standard of 5.45 had been accepted after WWII.
Regarding stopping power, let me quote something from Wiki.

Despite complaints that the 5.56×45mm NATO round lacks stopping power, others contend that animal studies of the wounding effects of the 5.56×45mm NATO round versus the 7.62×39mm have found that the 5.56×45mm NATO round is more damaging, due to the post-impact behavior of the 5.56 mm projectile resulting in greater cavitation of soft tissues

The problem which arose regarding the stopping power of 5.45 is attributed mainly to shorter barrel of modern ARs. The original barrel of INSAS B1 was 18 inch which was later reduced to 16 inch in later version of 1B1. Now for a more damaging shot by 5.56 studies shows that you need a 20 inch barrel as that of old M16.

So in short, when it comes to short range, 7.62 is good with its massive punch, but when it comes to accuracy at longer range like 300 mtr + 5.56 is better.

That's why I said, a soldier in Siachen and what they prefer should not be necessarily doctrine of entire IA. In Siachen Soldiers armed with INSAS are given 22 round magazines which is acceptable as you said. But then why even a BSF Jawan patrolling Bangladesh border is also given 22 round magazine?

I will prefer to have the AK instead. More ammunition I have, the better.

AKs are provided in all the troublesome area for patrolling purpose as well as COIN. As far as weight goes, have a look at this chart.

Rifle Cartridge Cartridge weight Weight of loaded magazine Max. 10 kilogram ammo. load
M14 (1959) 7.62×51mm 393 gr (25.4 g) 20 rd mag @ 0.68 kg 14 mags @ 9.52 kg for 280 rds
M16 (1962) 5.56×45mm 183 gr (11.8 g) 20 rd mag @ 0.3 kg 33 mags @ 9.9 kg for 660 rds
AK-47 (1949) 7.62×39mm 252 gr (16.3 g) 30 rd mag @ 0.92 kg[8] 10 mags @ 9.2 kg for 300 rds
AKM (1957) 7.62×39mm 252 gr (16.3 g) 30 rd mag @ 0.82 kg[9] 12 mags @ 9.8 kg for 360 rds

So which do you think you would prefer? 360 rounds of AK mag with 30 round per mag or 660 round of 5.56 with 20 round per magazine?

I do understand it. Yet weight difference between INSAS 1N and INSAS LMG is not so. INSAS LMG no where weighs like M 240 which has over 12 kg weight.

Again you are mixing things over here. M240 is designed for 7.62 mm and INSAS LMG is designed for 5.56. Any gun designed for 7.62 round would be heavier then anything for 5.56 mm.

M 16 Rifle originally had no problem, it was problem with cartridge. INSAS 1B's technical problems can be compared to it. But M16A1 did not suffer from faulty doctrine.

M16 rifle originally had no problem? Let me quote one Marine Corps Rifleman from Vietnam.

We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19, Believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Practically every one of our dead was found with his (M16) torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it.

— Marine Corps Rifleman, Vietnam.

As far as any doctrine is concerned, the keep on evolving. There is nothing like fool proof or faulty doctrine. Doctrine are subjected to be changed and armies world over do learn from their mistakes.

 

[India22]

You and your logics are epic man........

You fail to read them properly within context.

Its during the WWII era which you mentioned, the concept of Assault rifle is born. Before that either its the battle rifle or MGs. Germans were the first to use 9mm pistol bullet in there very first version of assault rifle, the Grease Gun. Why you think they adopted AK47 after WWII instead of their StG44?
Bullets like 7.62 are not accurate enough. The first requisite and idea of Assault rifle was :
1-- It should be one man portable
2-- It should have the firing volume of a Machine gun
3-- It should have the range and accuracy of a rifle.

Many rounds had been tried to meet all the requirements and each and every round thus seem to have one problem or another. Rounds like 7.62 or 7.92 were not fit enough to fire accurately and volume of it means reduced life span of the overall weapon system. So to overcome all of these, the standard of 5.45 had been accepted after WWII.
Regarding stopping power, let me quote something from Wiki.

Look I never said said about the rifle itself but about rate of fire. Otherwise I know STG 44 was world's first true assault rifle so stop misinterpreting my post. I clearly stated that American soldiers with M1 Gerand had better advantage because of their higher rate of fire although they were not that accurate like Kar 98K which however had slow rate of firing. It was nothing about rifle but about which rifle had better rate of fire.

Grease Gun was not an assault rifle, it was not even manufactured by Germans, it was US design a sub machine gun. And you facepalm me. Rounds like 7.92x33mm Kurtz and Soviet 7.62x39mm were perfectly capable of becoming round of assault rifle. Soviets were already using 7.62x54mmR ammunition for their Mosin Nagant and Germans 7.92x57mm. Both were scaled down for their assault rifles. What you even wanted to say?

The problem which arose regarding the stopping power of 5.45 is attributed mainly to shorter barrel of modern ARs. The original barrel of INSAS B1 was 18 inch which was later reduced to 16 inch in later version of 1B1. Now for a more damaging shot by 5.56 studies shows that you need a 20 inch barrel as that of old M16.

So in short, when it comes to short range, 7.62 is good with its massive punch, but when it comes to accuracy at longer range like 300 mtr + 5.56 is better.

No. M 16 has a barrel length of 20 inch still it lacked enough stopping power.

AKs are provided in all the troublesome area for patrolling purpose as well as COIN. As far as weight goes, have a look at this chart.

Rifle Cartridge Cartridge weight Weight of loaded magazine Max. 10 kilogram ammo. load
M14 (1959) 7.62×51mm 393 gr (25.4 g) 20 rd mag @ 0.68 kg 14 mags @ 9.52 kg for 280 rds
M16 (1962) 5.56×45mm 183 gr (11.8 g) 20 rd mag @ 0.3 kg 33 mags @ 9.9 kg for 660 rds
AK-47 (1949) 7.62×39mm 252 gr (16.3 g) 30 rd mag @ 0.92 kg[8] 10 mags @ 9.2 kg for 300 rds
AKM (1957) 7.62×39mm 252 gr (16.3 g) 30 rd mag @ 0.82 kg[9] 12 mags @ 9.8 kg for 360 rds

So which do you think you would prefer? 360 rounds of AK mag with 30 round per mag or 660 round of 5.56 with 20 round per magazine?

Here goes another problem, Indian army by weight logic as I said was supposed to issue 30 round magazines for INSAS 1B. It does not, it gives 22 round magazines. So Indian army does not really follow your logic even though I accept and agree to your logic. If Indian army issued 30 rounds magazines to soldiers, the problem would be less, but as you said 5.56mm was chosen not because of weight but because of doctrine of incapacitating enemy.

Again you are mixing things over here. M240 is designed for 7.62 mm and INSAS LMG is designed for 5.56. Any gun designed for 7.62 round would be heavier then anything for 5.56 mm.

Yes I know that and FN Minimi still weighs more than INSAS LMG and has more rounds. Further till now you failed to show INSAS LMG weighs extraordinarily heavy than INSAS so that INSAS LMG cant be used as assault rifle. A simple logic is if INSAS 1B weighing more than 6 kg is accepted as assault rifle but then why INSAS LMG with superior structure and weighing almost same(if stands are removed weights will be almost equal) should not be accepted as assault rifle?

M16 rifle originally had no problem? Let me quote one Marine Corps Rifleman from Vietnam.

Early on there was an explanation forwarded that the type gunpowder used in the initial lots of 5.56 mm ammo the M-16 uses clogged the works up more than usual, and that particular type powder was replaced by another type. And more attention was put to more frequent cleaning of the M-16 by the troops who had to depend on them. Also there were some changes made on the M-16A1 model, including that forward-assist button that was supposed to help seat a round in the chamber if the gun started to gum up to the point of maybe jamming. The firearm also got one of those selective fire switches that you could dial up a new three shot burst feature with also instead of just single shot, on safe, or full automatic. This was supposed to help in reducing the innards getting crudded up.

Afterwards a comment by a US soldier

I spent 31 years Army and yes, I used my M-16 in aggressive action many times. Never jammed. Never failed me. Of course, I did clean mine. Most cantonment troopers never cleaned theirs and kept them in the wall locker where they got really rusty. This includes some vehicular support maintenance units .

http://www.rense.com/general44/fatal.htm

When these issues were addressed and corrected by the M16A1, the reliability problems decreased greatly.[51] According to a 1968 Department of Army report, the M16A1 rifle achieved widespread acceptance by U.S. troops in Vietnam.[43] "Most men armed with the M16 in Vietnam rated this rifle's performance high, however, many men entertained some misgivings about the M16's reliability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Reliability

During immediately following years, a number of negative reports apears from Vietnam. M16A1 rifles, issued to US troops in the Vietnam, severely jammed in combat, resulting in numerous casualties. There were some causes for malfunction. First of all, during the introduction of the new rifle and its ammunition into the service, US Army replaced originally specified Dupont IMR powder with standard ball powder, used in 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition. The ball powder produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the actions of the M16 unless the gun was cleared well and often. It also had different pressure curve, resulting in increased stress on operating parts of the gun. This pitifully combined with the fact that the initial M16 rifles were promoted by the Colt as "low maintenance", so, for the sake of economy, no cleaning supplies were procured for new M16 rifles, and no weapon care training was conducted fro the troops. As a result, soldiers did not knew how to clean their rifles, and had no provisions for cleaning, and things soon turned bad. Another cost-saving measure on the part of the Army was to give up with cromium plation of the barrel bore and bolt group, which made these parts much more sensitive to corrosion and rust that originally designed.

http://modernfirearms.net/assault/usa/m16-m16a1-m16a2-m16a3-e.html

As far as any doctrine is concerned, the keep on evolving. There is nothing like fool proof or faulty doctrine. Doctrine are subjected to be changed and armies world over do learn from their mistakes.

Except Indian Army? Since late 1940s Indian army's obsession with accuracy has not ended. Time to follow American doctrine, giving soldiers full automatic rifles and FN Minimi type SAW.

 

[India22]

Guess which rifle is this? After this Indian army will not need anything any more.

 

[F-14B]

Guess which rifle is this? After this Indian army will not need anything any more.

This is the IWI galil ACE which itself is a Israeli take on the Ak-47/46 series

 

[ghost]

This is the IWI galil ACE which itself is a Israeli take on the Ak-47/46 series

It's a modernized FN fal "tactical".Para FAL to be precise.