Basic Training?

[blain2]

I appreciate that Blain. However I am a firm believer in "borrowing" Ideas and learning from other similar scenarios or techniques. (For example the Finns have a great deal of experience with extreme cold operations in the Lapland area. at similar temps to the ones you mention) Of course there are other issues (altitude for example) which I can check with some HA mountaineers that I know. I am just throwing some ideas out there for discussion

Absolutely.

Here is a relevant document on Pakistan Army experiences in High Altitude warfare by Maj Asim Malik (Baloch).

http://usacac.army.mil/cac/milreview/download/English/SepOct04/malik.pdf

 

[sword9]

The problem encountered on Siachen is not something unique to the Pakistani Army and as such can not be attributed to maintenance and cleaning of the weapons...G-3 was found to be more susceptible to this extreme weather in contrast to the Type-56. This was the same reason that the IA also switched to AK-47 instead of their SLR (FN FAL 7.62) on the glacier.

Correction sir, we are don't use the AK series or its variants in Siachen but our home made INSAS. Inspite of initial hic-ups, it turning out to be quite a reliable weapon.

The AKs were introduced in the early 90s after, DRDO had delays in completion of the INSAS project. The AK was issued only to COIN units, and some Para units (who aree anyway switching to the Tavor). We don't really like the AK, I used a captured T-56 for a while but found the 9mm Sterling more accurate than the T-56.

I was quite surprised about Spartens remark on the G-3, since that is a state-of-art rifle, and I assumed German engineering would have catered for extreme weather conditions.

Even now when troops are not using their rifles, the action mechanism is kept under wrap in order to keep it from being impacted by the extreme cold...the gun lubricant/oil too was found to be inappropriate and changed (I suspect that was due to issues related with oil viscosity). The same problem exists with other weapons like LMGs/HMGs etc.

You are quite correct, nothing works there, infact during a few of the major battles between Indo-Pak troops on Siachen in the late 80s, that resulted in hand-to-hand combat, no weapon worked except the Khukri or dha.

 

[sparten]

Sword9 sir, go to Defrence Journal and find the article on theISachin glacier's early battles. The G-3's of of 26 FF for instance had a very high failuer rate.

 

[sparten]

As for the INSAS thing people I met (for instance a Captain of 9 NLI) told me that while it was a fine rifle, the round was not particularly powerful. ANd the Rate of fire of the G-3 A3 is about the same and PA often carries 30 round mags. He felt that in fire fights (they had a pretty big one with 3 Sikh IIRC) the longer range and accuracy carried the day.

 

[blain2]

9mm Sterling more accurate than the T-56

At what range? Type-56 is a fairly accurate weapon, more so than I could ever imagine a SMG like MP-5 or the older Sterling SMGs at extended ranges would be (100-200 meters, I am pretty sure that a Type-56 would do just as good as an MP-5...beyond that, MP-5 is downhill and Type-56 remains alright..I can't believe the Sterling would do better than MP-5).

BTW, Sword, is the Sterling finally on its way out of the IA now? I ask because this is something of a legacy SMG in the PA (my father used it in 65) and I have never come across one myself and none of the Armed Service or law enforcement use it.

 

[sparten]

Correction sir, we are don't use the AK series or its variants in Siachen but our home made INSAS. Inspite of initial hic-ups, it turning out to be quite a reliable weapon.

The AKs were introduced in the early 90s after, DRDO had delays in completion of the INSAS project. The AK was issued only to COIN units, and some Para units (who aree anyway switching to the Tavor). We don't really like the AK, I used a captured T-56 for a while but found the 9mm Sterling more accurate than the T-56.

I was quite surprised about Spartens remark on the G-3, since that is a state-of-art rifle, and I assumed German engineering would have catered for extreme weather conditions.


You are quite correct, nothing works there, infact during a few of the major battles between Indo-Pak troops on Siachen in the late 80s, that resulted in hand-to-hand combat, no weapon worked except the Khukri or dha.

You served in against FCNA. I was under the impression you served on the working boundry (XXX Corps sector).
As for the T-56, most of FCNA will agree with you about accuracy.

 

[blain2]

Do not take this the wrong way, unfortunately FCNA will agree because of poor marksmanship. There is much to be said about the level of accuracy in the PA (I am pretty sure the same applies to the IA as well). The rifle is aging, however the accuracy on the Type-56 has never been aweful.

To Sword's point about G-3 being state-of-the art design, I think it indeed was but around the 60s timeframe.

 

[sparten]

Actually no, marksmanship is pretty good in the PA as well as the IA. The problems have always been identified with the T-56. To take an example a skilled opertaor of a G-3 A3 can hit a man sized target at near 400 m. A guy with a T-56 can hit at around 150 m.

 

[blain2]

I beg to differ about the marksmanship point (but that maybe because of differences in what we have seen...my own take has always been that there is room for a lot of improvement)...but in any case, I can pretty much guarantee that Type-56 can do better than 150 meters. The key thing is being skilled enough to be able to do so.

Having never used the AUG, I am inclined to say that with a built-in scope etc., if inducted as a standard, the marksmanship would improve quite a bit...however it does not look like AUG is being worked on.

 

[Keysersoze]

Well a number of interesting issues here.......

If the Type -56 operates anything like the AK. Then I am surprised that you had such disagreements with it Sword9. Everyone I have met regards it as one of the finest close assault weapons they have used. Bear in mind the range issue is based upon the philosophy behind the weapon. The lever goes to automatic first........ I am not sure what the average range of contacts on the glacier were. But I assume they were not at extreme ranges? (I would appreciate clarification if you guys know this)

Accuracy.......again another interesting issue. I used one of the worst weapons available (SA80) However I could still hit targets at 600 metres in high winds. So I am dubious at the Ranges stated by Sparten. If they are correct then I would blame the training of the troops rather than the weapon.

A factor that would really improve accuracy would be a integral scope on the weapon (such as the SA80 or Steyr Aug or even the M16A3) It makes a HUGE difference to long range shooting. So I agree with Blain on this one

 

[sword9]

As for the INSAS thing people I met (for instance a Captain of 9 NLI) told me that while it was a fine rifle, the round was not particularly powerful.

The initial ammo issue was an imported low powered version of the 5.56x45mm, now we use the SS109 Special. As for its power vs the 7.62x51mm, SniperM21 is the one to contact for a discourse on the capabilities of the two types of rounds.

ANd the Rate of fire of the G-3 A3 is about the same and PA often carries 30 round mags. He felt that in fire fights (they had a pretty big one with 3 Sikh IIRC) the longer range and accuracy carried the day.

That would be 8 Sikh, they were the unfortunate few who were ordered into daylight attacks in the intitial days. That initial defeat was not because of use of a low powered round, but because of day light enabling the defender to observe, MG fire and observed mortar fire. The same unit recaptured the feature after the proper arty fire support was provided.

 

[sword9]

At what range? Type-56 is a fairly accurate weapon, more so than I could ever imagine a SMG like MP-5 or the older Sterling SMGs at extended ranges would be (100-200 meters, I am pretty sure that a Type-56 would do just as good as an MP-5...beyond that, MP-5 is downhill and Type-56 remains alright..I can't believe the Sterling would do better than MP-5).

I am speaking of ranges of 100-200 mtrs, and for anything beyond that I would prefer anything but the AK-47/Type-56. Its very difficult to get a 2 inch grouping at 100 mtrs with an AK, while an MP-5 the Sterlings silenced version gives that accuracy with easy and (not the standard sterling though - the sight is a little rudimentary).

The problem with the AK is the short sight radius and open 'V' sights.

BTW, Sword, is the Sterling finally on its way out of the IA now?

We are trying to get rid of it. The INSAS carbine has been shelved, but some sources say that Israeli assistance is being sought.

We don't use it in operations, if we can help it. But give it to the state police forces to protect corrupt politicians with that weapon

I ask because this is something of a legacy SMG in the PA (my father used it in 65).

How old are you? I though that you were my father's seniority.

I though that you guys used the good old Sten gun in 1965 and the Czech Samapol Sa.25, because the Sterling was a only inducted by the IA in 1963/64.

 

[sword9]

You served in against FCNA. I was under the impression you served on the working boundry (XXX Corps sector).
As for the T-56, most of FCNA will agree with you about accuracy.

I served opposite your X Corps.

 

[sword9]

Actually no, marksmanship is pretty good in the PA as well as the IA. The problems have always been identified with the T-56. To take an example a skilled opertaor of a G-3 A3 can hit a man sized target at near 400 m. A guy with a T-56 can hit at around 150 m.

blain,
I agree with Spartan, besides marksmanship depends from unit to unit, and the amount of time spent on training.

 

[sword9]

Well a number of interesting issues here.......

If the Type -56 operates anything like the AK.

The Type-56 is a Chinese made AK-47.

Then I am surprised that you had such disagreements with it Sword9.
Everyone I have met regards it as one of the finest close assault weapons they have used.

Its reliability has reached cult status, but its accuracy sufferes due to a small sight radius. A red eye sight however, changes the weapon altogether, and makes it more accurate.

I would prefer the old FN SLR. I have hit targets with open sights at extended ranges with that weapon.

Bear in mind the range issue is based upon the philosophy behind the weapon.

The philosophy of the AK is apt of a guerilla army but not a conventional army. For that we need an inbetween weapon.

The lever goes to automatic first........

Correction, its single fire first then auto.

I am not sure what the average range of contacts on the glacier were. But I assume they were not at extreme ranges? (I would appreciate clarification if you guys know this)

In mountains we rarely use rifles unless we are assaulting, the main weapons used are the MMGs and HMGs, to take pot shots are each other.

Accuracy.......again another interesting issue. I used one of the worst weapons available (SA80)

I always wonder how the hell did a fine army chose such a shytty rifle.