Indian Patriot
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 3,000
- Reaction score
- -23
- Country
- Location
M16 could do full auto,3 round burst and single shots. Trained soldiers never go full auto. You waste your ammo,get your barrel heated up and probably hit nothing. Thats why going full auto is called 'spray and pray'. All armys train to take down enemys in a single shot,in every situation. In Indian Army ,its 'Ek Goli,Ek Dushman'. There are videos of live combat of USMC in Afghan and Iraq,even under intense conditions,M4 carbine does not go full auto. They may pull trigger continuously in bursts,but not full auto. Its the SAW that goes full auto,that too in intervals. You see army men going full auto only in movies and video games.
M16 cannot go full auto because the rifle was difficult to handle at that heavy recoil. Troops complained about that and M16 was made into semi-automatic and 3 round burst mode.
And please don't give the "wastage of ammo" as an excuse. Every single modern rifle in this world has the full auto option. These manufacturers and makers of weapons are not civilians like you and me. They are professionals who know what they are doing. If full auto is so bad then armies around the world would have banned the use of such weapons in their units. You obviously underestimate the need for superior firepower. Trained soldiers will go full auto when the enemy is 20 meters away from them. Even if you fire semi-automatic your barrel will heat up. Every time a bullet is fired the barrel heats.
And it is not possible to take down an enemy in a single shot. Ask any soldier and he will laugh. It is next to impossible to shoot the target 30 times in a shooting range. In battlefield there will be smoke, distraction, enemy fire, and fear and fatigue. Not to mention that the enemy won't be sitting in one position forever. This ek goli ek dushman thing is good for motivating the soldiers to improve accuracy. In real life it would be dus goli ek dushman.
Soldiers prefer the semi-automatic option. Please read carefully what I have written before commenting. Every modern rifle has four levers - safety, semi-automatic, 3 round burst, full automatic. Though in some cases 3 round burst may be missing. In normal combat situations semi-auto fire is the best. In close quarter combat, defeating numerically superior enemies or breaking out of an ambush you will need full auto.
Army men went full auto in the battle of Stalingrad. Check for PPSH-41 and its crucial impact on the war.
Keep in mind that every army comes out with their own doctrines and styles. IA has its own,and they know better. Carrying a 200 round mag does affect the mobility of the gunner. And no matter whatever type gun (portable) you carry,you go full auto for like 30-60 rounds,your barrel will be cherry hot red. 30 round mags are easier to carry,and mag change gives you interval for barrel cool down. And INSAS mags are interchangeable,LMGs can fire rifle mags and vice versa. And another point is, an INSAS LMG will perfectly blend in with other rifles so the enemy won't know who is the support gunner. An INSAS LMG can fire accurate shots with point accuracy and still go full auto. IA always could've got belt fed LMGs if they wanted,yet they sticked to Mag fed LMGs,coz thats their doctrine and they know what they are doing. Even USMC has been using 30 round mag fed M27 Infantary Automatic Rifles in the SAW role.
M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, and I repeat that doctrines can be flawed. The IA had the policy of evacuating posts during winter in LoC. In 1999 they got a rude wake up call when the Pakistanis intruded in Kargil, Drass and Batalik. In Kargil war battle tactics had to be changed and improvised under enemy fire. In 2001 it took months to mobilise the IA to the border. This resulted in enormous international pressure on India and the element of surprise was lost. Then the army changed the doctrine from strike sorps to cold start. Doctrines are not permanent, what worked in the past can become obsolete in the present. And it is the IA who is demanding the replacement of INSAS.
SAW and other light machine guns usually come in 150-200 round magazines. Be it America, Russia or the Israeli Negev. Check for any modern squad automatic weapon and you will find it is belt-fed.
You say 30 round mags are easier to carry. What do you base your judgement on? How many 30 round mags will the gunner carry. And if the gunner is carrying 200 rounds then the weight would ultimately be the same. NATO soldiers carry anything between 100-180 pounds of equipment on their body. And these are regular soldiers, not commandos or special forces units. Why do you think there is so much emphasis on physical fitness? Army soldiers are trained to carry heavy loads for long distances and fight the enemy carrying these loads.
The LMG is heavier than the assault rifle for the specific reason that a heavy barrel takes longer to heat up. And waiting for the barrel to cool down when the enemy is raining bullets on you would mean that you will end up dead. That's why modern armies carry spare barrels for the LMG which they are trained to change in battle conditions withing seconds. And a squad does not have only one LMG, US and NATO forces have atleast two to three machine gunners so that the others can keep firing when one is doing the barrel replacement.
Mags being interchangeable is not that great an advantage. Would a rifleman sacrifice his magazine for the LMG or would the machine gunner sacrifice his mag for the rifleman? Enemy won't be looking with binoculars to identify the machine gun to know who is the gunner. LOL! The gun that goes tat-tat-tat-tat would be the machine gunner, the moment you fire your weapon both your position and your weapon is identified. That's how snipers fight each other, that's how soldiers triangulate on the position of the enemy and that's why every platoon has a designated marksman. And the Indian army does use belt fed LMG of Israeli and Russian origin.
INSAS has seen conflict in Kargil,NE,Kashmir and peace keeping missions and countless trainings missions. INSAS rifle is being changed not because INSAS is a bad rifle.but because of IA's decision to use Multi cal rifles. Tavour will never be a replacement for INSAS.OFB did not merely change the colour of the INSAS,its a rifle with improved metallurgy. It weighs less than its earlier brothers.
The INSAS was looked down with disgust during the Kargil conflict. It jammed, broke down, was inaccurate and the plastic mags cracked in harsh weather conditions. In Kashmir it is AK and TAR-21 doing their business. INSAS weighs 4.2 kg empty. A 7.62 x 51 mm SLR weighs 4.5 kg. The rifle is too heavy for a 5.56 mm caliber. Its range is 400 meters. It is inferior to the AK, never mind the TAR-21.
IA is forced to buy the junk DRDO and OFB make. Trishul was scrapped and now they are going for Barak missiles. Arjun tank is still under development for the last 30 years.
I am not a scientist so I cannot comment on the changes in metallurgy But I can comment on things which can be noticed by simple observation. If you have seen pics of INSAS rifles you will find a lot of rivets which is missing in most modern rifles. It is unnecessarily complicated, too heavy and lacks fire-power. A 3.2 kg rifle can carry a 30 round mag and shoot accurately to 500 meters and also has the option to go full auto, and a 4.2 kg rifle can carry a 20 round magazine and shoot till 400 meters and has no option to go full auto. Any professional soldier would choose the former..
Another important point is that,5.45 MM FMJs were designed to penetrate the body armour and unless it strikes a bone,it won't unleash enough kinetic energy to disable the enemy. It merely enters the enemy,and leaves penetrating the armour. This will leave him wounded which is perfect while fighting a profesional army,as they will have to give medical attention to their wounded buddy. So its perfect to wound him rather than killing him. Thats not the case with 7.62 mm rounds. Its bloody powerful,unleashing enough KE to knock you down. Perfect for Counter Insurgency roles as its better to kill insurgents.
You mean 5.56 mm I guess. NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are going back to 7.62 mm rounds and bringing out HK 416 rifles.
Do not pointlessly blame INSAS and its makers,being a member of a defence forum you should know better not to blame a piece of equipment that has served meritoriously in our services for years.
Calling INSAS a junk is not pointlessly blaming anybody but simply stating what is true. It is an outdated and obsolete rifle. The fact that the very best units in IA are armed with TAR-21, and even AKs in some instances, is proof enough where INSAS stands in comparison with other rifles.