Saddled with Insas, Army wants new AK-47s

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
The NSG/armed forces killed them all. So whats the fuss about the rifle?
The fuss is that urban warfare cannot be equated to the kind of skirmishes that take place in Kashmir. The kind of weapons NSG used in Mumbai were submachine guns such as MP5, which suits urban warfare well. For our forces in Kashmir facing an enemy that barely believes in self-preservation, and the kind of terrain there, INSAS is a failure. So, the idea is to train at making the best use of the weapon, now that it's here to stay.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Brig Ray had no problems with it either in Kargil or in COIN.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
Perhaps because in Kargil, his enemy had a sense of self-preservation, and that is exactly what makes INSAS effective ("the gun is meant to incapacitate the enemy, rather than kill.").
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Its not the gun, but the bullet. Insas cannot be blamed for it.

The 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge with the standard military ball bullet (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 inches (38 to 50 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet).[citation needed] These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[8] Fragmentation, if and when it occurs, imparts much greater damage to human tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest. This fragmentation effect is highly dependent on velocity, and therefore barrel length: short-barreled carbines generate less muzzle velocity and therefore lose wounding effectiveness at much shorter ranges than longer-barreled rifles. The rapid transfer of energy also results in wounding effects beyond the tissue directly crushed and torn by the bullet and fragments.[2][3] These remote wounding effects are known as hydrostatic shock.[4]

There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation.[9] This wounding problem has been cited in incidents beginning in the first Gulf war, Somalia, and ending in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7"-10" of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer.[9] This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an issue at increasingly shorter ranges (beyond 45m when using an M4 or 140m when using an M16 w/ a 20" barrel) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than its big brother, the 20" barreled M16 and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.

From Dr. Roberts:[who?]

"Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56x45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite their being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting. This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, malnourished individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants. Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag’s papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11-28, Winter 2001) describe this problem."[9] However, if the bullet is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a person is greatly reduced. Several alternate cartridges have been developed in an attempt to address the perceived shortcomings of 5.56mm ammunition including the 6.5 mm Grendel and the 6.8 mm Remington SPC.

Recently, advances have been made in 5.56mm ammunition. The US military has adopted for limited issue a 77-grain (5.0 g) "Match" bullet, type classified as the Mk 262. The heavy, lightly constructed bullet fragments more violently at short range and also has a longer fragmentation range.[10] Originally designed for use in the Mk 12 SPR, the ammunition has found favor with special forces[citation needed] units who were seeking a more effective cartridge to fire from their M4A1 carbines. It should be noted, however, that commercially available loadings using these heavier (and longer) bullets can be prohibitively expensive and cost much more than military surplus ammunition. Additionally, these heavy-for-caliber loadings sacrifice even more penetrative ability than the M855 round (which has a steel penetrator tip). Where M855 currently struggles to penetrate thin car doors and wood framed obstacles, the heavy bullets will do little more than spray the concealed party with bullet fragments.

Performance of 5.56x45mm military ammunition can generally be categorized as almost entirely dependent upon velocity in order to wound effectively. Heavy OTM bullets enhance soft tissue wounding ability at the expense of hard-target/barrier penetration.
Wiki.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
I had quoted the article. The change between AK-47 to INSAS changes its ammunition too. Besides the handful of M16 or M4 the Army uses, there're not too many guns here that use 5.56. So when they don't like the gun, they don't like its ammo either.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
I think its the other way around.

I think if they come up with a 7.62 suitable INSAS, the army would probably be happy.
 

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,171
Likes
870
Country flag
I am curious - Why does a DRDO division have to develop assault files.

Why couldnt the GOI create a tender for a couple private Indian engineering companies to research & develop assault rifles and then pick the best one.

I fail to understand why the government DRDO labs are involved in even low-tech projects like assault rifles ??
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Matt,
Private industry participation is near zilch in India or at least it was before. Its only now that the GOI is waking up to the fact that private industry can do a lot for the defense sector.
Even then, private industry is not involved in research. They are right now into only contract fabrication.

What you are suggesting happens in the US. Here only the DRDO has got the kind of set up to do research. Unless the GOI comes up with good incentive for private participation in defense research, they will stay away from it.
 

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,171
Likes
870
Country flag
Yusuf.....Wait a second.....are you saying that even the big boys like the Tatas, Birlas, Mahindras, L&T, etc do not have their own engineering departments that can undertake defense projects, and do the research & development and manufacturing of a fairly simple item like an assault Rifle.

I can understand if there is not enough money in it for them. But given that the huge size of the Indian Army.....surely there must be money in it.

Its mind-boggling to see the Government of India trying to manufacture every little dinky item themselves. It almost sounds like some backward communist country.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Its not the capability thats the problem. Its the government policy thats the problem.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Things have started to change a little bit, but a lot more needs to be done. LnT made the hull for the ATV. But thats just the fabrication of it. What went behind the design was the DRDOs work.

The Tatas and Mahindras have come up with JVs in the Aerospace industry, but then again its just for some components. Nothing like what LM, Boeing and others do.
 

ppgj

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,029
Likes
168
Its not the capability thats the problem. Its the government policy thats the problem.
how does it matter whether private firms develop it or GOI does it thro' its agencies? as long it is good for the army it is fine.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
how does it matter whether private firms develop it or GOI does it thro' its agencies? as long it is good for the army it is fine.
Good private competition will bring out the best for the country. Right now the forces takes whats given to them by the DRDO or else go abroad.
What private participation will also do, is that it will free up its funds used in RnD for other uses. The development will be left to the private guys who will sink in their money. Once they come up with a winner, the government can fund the program.
 

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,171
Likes
870
Country flag
Private industry is always more efficient and faster and possible cheaper 90% of the time.

This is true in virtually every country in the world. Plus with private industry you can have competition and select the best one. With the government - what they produce is what you get; like it or not.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Private industry is always more efficient and faster and possible cheaper 90% of the time.

This is true in virtually every country in the world. Plus with private industry you can have competition and select the best one. With the government - what they produce is what you get; like it or not.
Agree. read my post above.
 

ppgj

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,029
Likes
168
Good private competition will bring out the best for the country. Right now the forces takes whats given to them by the DRDO or else go abroad.
agreed. but the army is happy with it. it is rounds vs accuracy issue.
What private participation will also do, is that it will free up its funds used in RnD for other uses. The development will be left to the private guys who will sink in their money. Once they come up with a winner, the government can fund the program.
agree too. but the problems with private firms is they want profits to accrue asap. in matters of defence tech it is generally a long haul.
having said that i am not against the private firms to do r&d and bring in better quality.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
I think there is a lot of money to be made in the defense sector. Look at the western companies. They roll in money.
But I think its the government regulations and policies that holds them back.

If i had the money, i would be investing in some defense R&D and come up with something. If your product is good, then there is the export market as well.
 

A.V.

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
6,503
Likes
1,157
in my academic field in warfare management and management of the wounded a golden principle is

the treatment of the wounded in a war is more severe and a burden to the nation than losing lives in the conflict, its a theory that has been going on for ages a wounded causes more suffering to the nation in terms of economic,management and effects
i think the idea behind the development of this weapon was same to incur more than one way of oss to the enemy, its well known now after the cold war that economic stability decides which way it swings

we need to look at the operation doctrines on how and where these must be used it depends on the tactics both the guns are excellent
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
I think its the other way around.

I think if they come up with a 7.62 suitable INSAS, the army would probably be happy.
Changing Insas to adpt 7.62 M43 rounds may be good in J&K but m43 is a fail in Punjab, Rajasthan and in Gujarat because of its range ( Under 200m ), Insas gives a range of 400m effective fire, Also 5.56mm can be carried in large numbers where M43 is not, Insas is also handicapped in J&K because of its intensive maintenance in wet, muddy environment where AK runs just smooth coz of its easy maintenence and good puching power of m43 in close and medium ranges..



I am curious - Why does a DRDO division have to develop assault files.

Why couldnt the GOI create a tender for a couple private Indian engineering companies to research & develop assault rifles and then pick the best one.

I fail to understand why the government DRDO labs are involved in even low-tech projects like assault rifles ??
Buying a 5.56mm rifle from western country may prove expensive, Home made reliable Insas gives a good alternative choice..
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
I believe if needed INSAS can be drastically improved in 2 years and can serve as stop-gap till ARDE develop entirely new IAR totally as per army's requirement. Going for Ak will not be beneficial for army and nation in long term. IAR is such which has to be desi.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top