Modernisation of Indian Army Infantry

[RocketMan]

I have long held the belief that a lot of IA Gernaails actually don't understand the difference between 7.62x51 and 7.62x39...or atleast don't take appreciable note of it.

Not once have I heard any high ranking brass actually differentiate them when talking to media (even informed defence media with which you can go into depth if you want) and instead they simply clump them both together as "7.62mm calibre".

While it's true that they're both .30cal rounds, there's a world of difference between the two in terms of ballistics...especially as you look to engaging targets beyond 200m.

It's like how 5.56x45 and .22LR are both .22cal but one is a decent combat round and the other is a peashooter.

Oh well, I have stopped worrying about the sardardh that is IA small arms procurement...life's been much more peaceful since

Why doesn't Indian Army standardize the ammo? We manufacture all kinds of ammo of all calibres & export to NATO & Russia both. It'd be easy for us & logistics too . We even export 6.8x43 mm round which is best intermediate round available.

 

[Ayan Barat]

We even export 6.8x43 mm round which is best intermediate round available.

Naah... even we don't make them properly let alone exporting it. We only have limited tooling capacity to produce few hundred rounds for testing purposes because there was no point in producing that round in high volumes if MCIWS itself was not supposed to be the service rifle.

Moreover 6.8 SPC is better in just one area; delivering higher stopping power at close ranges. So during gulf war (the time when all this "5.56 too fast, terrorist doesn't stop" thing started) it was the hottest thing in the market but with time it became kind of obsolete. Because now the whole focus is "overmatch" where you either try to get better performance than 7.62x51mm in a 7.62x51mm package (like US Army's new .277 Fury) or try to get the same range as 7.62x51mm but in a 5.56x45mm package...and 6.8 SPC suffers a bit in range because of its Ballistic Coefficient.

Currently the most suitable intermidate round in my opinion is something like a 6.5 Grendel. It's perfectly in between 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm.

Why doesn't Indian Army standardize the ammo?

Because there's a very brief window in which a large Army like ours can change its caliber and that's when a new rifle is adopted. The first window closed with the adoption of 1.5L SIG 716i and then the final nail in coffin came in the form of 6.5L AK-203 in 7.62x39mm. Converting some 10L or so newly purchased guns to a new caliber will always be exponentially expensive than procuring it in that said caliber in the first place. And in case you're wondering why we ordered them in 7.62x38/51mm in the first place then the answer is simply short-sightedness.

And now the next window to choose a better cartridge would open some 15-25 years later when we'd be replacing our SIGs and AKs.

 

[username unkown]

Naah... even we don't make them properly let alone exporting it. We only have limited tooling capacity to produce few hundred rounds for testing purposes because there was no point in producing that round in high volumes if MCIWS itself was not supposed to be the service rifle.

Moreover 6.8 SPC is better in just one area; delivering higher stopping power at close ranges. So during gulf war (the time when all this "5.56 too fast, terrorist doesn't stop" thing started) it was the hottest thing in the market but with time it became kind of obsolete. Because now the whole focus is "overmatch" where you either try to get better performance than 7.62x51mm in a 7.62x51mm package (like US Army's new .277 Fury) or try to get the same range as 7.62x51mm but in a 5.56x45mm package...and 6.8 SPC suffers a bit in range because of its Ballistic Coefficient.

Currently the most suitable intermidate round in my opinion is something like a 6.5 Grendel. It's perfectly in between 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm.

Because there's a very brief window in which a large Army like ours can change its caliber and that's when a new rifle is adopted. The first window closed with the adoption of 1.5L SIG 716i and then the final nail in coffin came in the form of 6.5L AK-203 in 7.62x39mm. Converting some 10L or so newly purchased guns to a new caliber will always be exponentially expensive than procuring it in that said caliber in the first place. And in case you're wondering why we ordered them in 7.62x38/51mm in the first place then the answer is simply short-sightedness.

And now the next window to choose a better cartridge would open some 15-25 years later when we'd be replacing our SIGs and AKs.

What about new Russian 6.02 x 41 (ak22)
For 7.62x 51 replacement .277 fury is great round but as primary rifle and primary round it is going to suck that round us heavy so less ammo and forget about cqb or close range with xm7
I dont know much but xm 7 just Seems like ar 10 in new cartridge
Correct me if I am wrong

 

[Corvus Splendens]

What about new Russian 6.02 x 41 (ak22)
For 7.62x 51 replacement .277 fury is great round but as primary rifle and primary round it is going to suck that round us heavy so less ammo and forget about cqb or close range with xm7
I dont know much but xm 7 just Seems like ar 10 in new cartridge
Correct me if I am wrong

I am once again shamelessly shilling for the 6.5x42 MPC round by J.D. Jones.

 

[Ayan Barat]

What about new Russian 6.02 x 41 (ak22)

Compared to the existing Russian ammunition like 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm it's way better performing but compared to the max potential you can have in that same package it comes but short.

6.02x41mm is a 6.7g bullet @ 800m/s generating 2.1kJ
Now compare that with 6.5 Grendel. An 8g bullet @ 820m/s generating 1.9kJ.
Perhaps even better is another 6.5 Grendel derivative, the 6mm ARC. A 7g bullet @ 840m/s for 2.4kJ.

But at the end even 6.02x41mm is now pretty much a far cry for us as we have already started the AK-203 production. If the AK were adopted in this caliber then it would have made way more sense.

For 7.62x 51 replacement .277 fury is great round but as primary rifle and primary round it is going to suck that round us heavy so less ammo and forget about cqb or close range with xm7
I dont know much but xm 7 just Seems like ar 10 in new cartridge

.277 Fury is excellent in what is achieves but bit weird in how exactly it does that. Shooting a 9g bullet@ 900m/s for 3.6kJ and most importantly all these from a 16" barrel is just phenomenal. For comparison a 7.62x51mm shoots 10g @ 855m/s for 3.6kJ...but needs a 22" barrel for that. But to do all these the trick .277 Fury uses is a chamber pressure of 550MPa compared to 415MPa of 7.62x51mm. And this increase has some serious implications.
A much more "elegant" approach should have been something in line with what General Dynamics/Beretta/True Velocity was trying to do. A simple full length barrel to achieve similar ballistics without increased pressure, bullpup configuration to keep the gun shorter despite longer barrel and finally some real innovation in terms of cartridge by using lower weight polymer cased ammo. But in the end we all know what happened in the NGSW program.

But in this case too we can't rechamber our SIGs to .277 Fury even if we want as that increased pressure might end up compromising the structural integrity of barrel extension - bolt lugs designed around 7.62x51mm.

 

[username unkown]

Compared to the existing Russian ammunition like 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm it's way better performing but compared to the max potential you can have in that same package it comes but short.

6.02x41mm is a 6.7g bullet @ 800m/s generating 2.1kJ
Now compare that with 6.5 Grendel. An 8g bullet @ 820m/s generating 1.9kJ.
Perhaps even better is another 6.5 Grendel derivative, the 6mm ARC. A 7g bullet @ 840m/s for 2.4kJ.

But at the end even 6.02x41mm is now pretty much a far cry for us as we have already started the AK-203 production. If the AK were adopted in this caliber then it would have made way more sense.

.277 Fury is excellent in what is achieves but bit weird in how exactly it does that. Shooting a 9g bullet@ 900m/s for 3.6kJ and most importantly all these from a 16" barrel is just phenomenal. For comparison a 7.62x51mm shoots 10g @ 855m/s for 3.6kJ...but needs a 22" barrel for that. But to do all these the trick .277 Fury uses is a chamber pressure of 550MPa compared to 415MPa of 7.62x51mm. And this increase has some serious implications.
A much more "elegant" approach should have been something in line with what General Dynamics/Beretta/True Velocity was trying to do. A simple full length barrel to achieve similar ballistics without increased pressure, bullpup configuration to keep the gun shorter despite longer barrel and finally some real innovation in terms of cartridge by using lower weight polymer cased ammo. But in the end we all know what happened in the NGSW program.

But in this case too we can't rechamber our SIGs to .277 Fury even if we want as that increased pressure might end up compromising the structural integrity of barrel extension - bolt lugs designed around 7.62x51mm.

In short for kick backs our small arms procurement is fucked

And in ngsw program best thing they got was this new optic 1-8x lpvo with inbuilt ballastic calculator which is actually game changing
And general dynamics bullpup would have been best choice considering all kind of situation i would love to see us soldiers clearing house to house like iraq in thier new xm7
Sig most definitely won by more of political influence and lobbying

 

[Tier 1 Patriot]

 

[ArjunMK1A]

Trichy assault rifle in alternate universe.

 

[vampyrbladez]

 

[vampyrbladez]

View: https://x.com/dauntless_ops/status/1851988798453760032

 

[darkindie]

View: https://x.com/dauntless_ops/status/1851988798453760032

Damn good photos

In my opinion 5.56 is avoided by IA due to it's performace in kargil with INSAS.
Whereas 7.62/39 is prefered due to it's effectiveness in CI/CT.
7.62/51 is prefered due to it's performance in 1971 with SLR (standard issue rifle of that time with IA and maybe US army).

 

[Hawkeye]

Damn good photos

In my opinion 5.56 is avoided by IA due to it's performace in kargil with INSAS.
Whereas 7.62/39 is prefered due to it's effectiveness in CI/CT.
7.62/51 is prefered due to it's performance in 1971 with SLR (standard issue rifle of that time with IA and maybe US army).

That's a flawed logic but anyway we are already in an absurd situation.

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

View: https://x.com/spadex_716i/status/1852362240407544088?s=46

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

View: https://x.com/force82323/status/1852299295543693422?s=46

 

[Unknowncommando]

Shivalik MMHG

 

[ezsasa]

we spend a lot of time discussing on acquisitions, we don't spend enough time on absorption(of change) capacity of an organisation. in private organisation too, for a change to trickle down from the top takes years before new processes stabilise, IA is a much larger and complex organisation.

 

[Ayan Barat]

an organisation

Glad you brought this angle of drawing parallel with an organisation. Because other than absorption of new procedures there is another very interesting thing in management and especially HRM that's quite emphasised on; resistance to change.

No one talks about this too in regards to the military.

 

[ezsasa]

Glad you brought this angle of drawing parallel with an organisation. Because other than absorption of new procedures there is another very interesting thing in management and especially HRM that's quite emphasised on; resistance to change.

No one talks about this too in regards to the military.

keep in mind, the reason "resistance to change" popped in your head when i mentioned absorption capacity of an organisation is because goras have extensively written in their business literature a lot about how to overcome "resistance to change".

 

[vampyrbladez]

Credit : Kalashnikov Operator @ Twitter

 

[BlackViking]

7.62/51 is prefered due to it's performance in 1971 with SLR

I had the opportunity to meet an INSAS Project engineer during some trials. The whole concept of INSAS and 5.45 caliber came into play after IA observed the 1971 battlefield.