Modernisation of Indian Army Infantry

[Bleh]

For elbow pads i know but I think gloves are important

Proper armament first, no?

What's the regular squad & platoon structure now to be, different for mechanised, mountain & light infantry?
Sig-716, LMG coupled with carbines/Ak-103? ..how many DMRs? Any mortar or grenade launchers?

I was going through Battle Order & ir seems the most recent war-fighting armies today are keeping seperate 40-50 round Squad Automatic Weapon & 100-round LMGs.

Old Soviet

New Russian


Ukraine.

View: https://twitter.com/battle_order/status/1593939474651971584

 

[ezsasa]

Unpopular opinion but our army is horribly outdated and will fold in front of a properly equipped army due to inferior training and firepower/technological disadvantage.

Not only our equipments are outdated but our training and doctrine regimes are outdated as well.

doctrinally, India is bothered about three threats, primarily pakis, now the chini and ever present jihadis.

India is not planning to fight thousands of kms away, if the threat perception was different, planning would have been different. no other country in this world has a stated policy of having to prepare for a two front war, that too with two nuclear capable nations.

- pakis have given up on a military2military conflict with India for now, hence their heavy dependence on jihadis.
- chini have not gone into a war with any one for half a century, so their performance in combat is an enigma.
- if anything two decades of war on terror has taught us, is that you don't use 100,000 $ missile to hit 10$ tents jihadis use.

so the question arises, are the current capabilities sufficient for current threat levels under the dual nuclear over hang. answer is probably yes and it would be even better if all the points under kargil review committee are closed + one full cycle of infantry modernisation is completed which hasn't happened.

 

[Tier 1 Patriot]

Indian army jugaad at its peak used double sided tape to attach gopro

 

[vampyrbladez]

Proper armament first, no?

What's the regular squad & platoon structure now to be, different for mechanised, mountain & light infantry?
Sig-716, LMG coupled with carbines/Ak-103? ..how many DMRs? Any mortar or grenade launchers?

I was going through Battle Order & ir seems the most recent war-fighting armies today are keeping seperate 40-50 round Squad Automatic Weapon & 100-round LMGs.

Old Soviet
View attachment 10066
New Russian
View attachment 10067

Ukraine.

View: https://twitter.com/battle_order/status/1593939474651971584

I along with some other forum members actually gave some thought on this. I think the folding buttstock on the AK 203 suits the mechanized infantry quite well.

Rest is up to pure speculation given the evolving nature of war post the 2022-24 Russia-Ukraine war.

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/p0RRvB3Pkw0

this is roughly how a platoon attack is done , thus the platoon must be configured accordingly .

In our case :

This composition has many loopholes and does not properly exploits the capabilities of Sig neither covers its weaknesses .

A GOOD SQUAD WEPON PROFILE in our case (according to me ( i am no pro , just a retard ).

Two teams make up a squad, which has four to 10 soldiers. In an infantry squad, the teams divide duties: one serves as a base-of-fire element, while the other serves as the maneuver element. A staff sergeant is often in charge.

The base of fire element sets up an SBF position that provides fire support to the maneuver element that moves up to the objective to assault .
As per their roles , the base of fire element occupies positions that afford the best possible cover and concealment, a clear view, and clear fields of fire. They must provide good volume of accurate fire on the objective , for this role having guns that can effectively engage from a long distance accurately and possess good lethality is ideal . For this role Sigs with sights will work good .
Thus in our case 2 men with Sigs , one Negev and One RCL ( or replace RCL with a Sig and one Shmel/AT4 ) and one with AK 203(ammunition carrier for RCL or a standard ammunition carrier ) will be an ideal composition . Having a Sniper/DMR with SVD attached will also be good .

The role of the maneuver element that moves up to the objective to assault . This fight will take place up close and would need good firepower , thus using guns like Sigs that are bulky , have limited mag capacity and are not manageable in Full Auto is not ideal . For this job they need guns that are compact , easy to handle and control and have good capacity . Ak203 will be perfect for this job .
Thus in our case having 4 men with Ak203 (one/two of them with a ubgl or Mbgl ) and one Negev will be best .

In total
5 Ak203 (with red dots/holographics , one or two with magnifiers as per need ).
2 or 3 Sig716 with 4x .
2 Negev
1 RCL ( can be replaced as per need with Shmel/AT4/Man portable Mortar/MBGL/UBGL)

This is just a vanilla squad , Drones, Anti drone , Anti Armor stuff can be added on as per need

What do yall think , Correct or add on on this composition .

I proposed this in DFI. Made some modifications for scopes and weapon profiles.

Omega Team - 2 Man : (Command)

Section Leader - (Havildar)
1 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm) with Tonbo EK Gen2
1 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm)

LMG Gunner
1 x Negev NG7 LMG/SAW (7.62x51 mm)

Bravo Team - 4 Man : (Anvil)

Team Leader - (Lance Naik)
1 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm) with Holo-Magnifier combo
1 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm)

Rifleman/ Grenadier
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm) with BEL Holo
1 x OFB Multi Grenade Launcher (40 mm)

Rifleman/ Marksman
1 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm) with Optel x4 scope

Rifleman/ Ammunition Carrier
1 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm) with Holo-Magnifier combo

LMG Gunner
1 x Negev NG7 LMG/SAW (7.62x51 mm)

Alpha Team - 4 Man : ( Hammer)

Team Leader - 2IC (Naik)
1 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm) with Holo-Magnifier combo
1 x Browning Hi Power (9x19 mm)

Rifleman/ Ammunition Carrier
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm) with BEL Holo
1 x UBGL ( 40 mm)

Rifleman
1 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm) with Holo-Magnifier combo

Rifleman
1 x Sig 716i (7.62x51 mm) with Optel x4 scope

Rifleman / Missileer
1 x Carl Gustav RCL (84 mm)
1 x AK 203 (7.62x39 mm) with BEL Holo

Weapon Profile

View attachment 7838
Sig 716i with Holo-Magnifier

View attachment 7839
Sig 716i with Optel x4 scope

View attachment 7840
Ak 203 with BEL Holo

View attachment 7841
Negev 7 LMG

View attachment 7842
Sig 716i with Tonbo EK Gen2

AK 203 with UBGL

OFB MGL and RCL

OFB Browning Hi Power

Order of Battle

• Team Omega has access to Loitering Munitions which can scout and locate enemy targets
• Once enemy hard point has been identified, Team Bravo gets into position to assault objective
• Team Alpha opens up the engagement and lays down fire using RCL and DMR to engage the enemy
• Team Omega opens up with LMG to provide cover fire for Team Bravo and uses loitering munitions to takeout snipers, FPV operators, LMG/MMG nests
• Team Alpha then opens up and moves towards objective to assault and clear and hold
• Team Omega then proceeds to flank and further pin down enemy hardpoint
• Once enemy hardpoint suppression is maximised, Team Bravo then moves in to box enemy and destroy the objective

View attachment 7837

 

[Ayan Barat]

FC & BC

This is what that Jawan is saying us keyboard warriors to our faces by not even bothering to flip-up the iron sights.

 

[Ayan Barat]

M240 has a few key advantages over regular FN mag, IDK if we have added those or not

Not really; except for the fact that M240 uses FreedomUnits instead of milimeter all the changes are extremely minor, let alone be any advantage.

Like using different style of disassembly pins, different gas regulator and hydraulic buffer instead of mechanical (interestingly a hydraulic buffer is considered a downgrade because definitely it reduces recoil slightly better but hydraulic fluids tend to change their viscosity according to temperatures, so firing rate also changes as you go from Arizona to Alaska).

These are so small that everything on a MAG is still completely interchangeable with M240. Even our MAGs.

The only upgrade or for that matter any serious change in M240 came a couple of years back when Barrett decided to completely change the way it was manufactured. MAG/M240 is still manufactured using a more than 100 years old techniques of making machine guns; you take steel sheets (read heavy slabs) and rivet them around two chunks of steel trunnion. The result is receiver that indestructible but at the cost of being extremely heavy. Barrett made two monolithic yet lightweight halves, integrated all the trunnions in it and welded them together.

But then the NGSW program picked pace and this project hit dead end.

If you're referring to this as having key advantages then we've already kind of ripped off Barrett's patents.

So not a big deal

 

[Ayan Barat]

Yes Sergeant, I feel you.
Trust me, I too have the exact same reaction whenever I see this thing.

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

What is this obsession of Indian Army to buy Gopro and put on a helmet but not buy decent NVG or optics for iron sights?

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Not really; except for the fact that M240 uses FreedomUnits instead of milimeter all the changes are extremely minor, let alone be any advantage.

Like using different style of disassembly pins, different gas regulator and hydraulic buffer instead of mechanical (interestingly a hydraulic buffer is considered a downgrade because definitely it reduces recoil slightly better but hydraulic fluids tend to change their viscosity according to temperatures, so firing rate also changes as you go from Arizona to Alaska).

These are so small that everything on a MAG is still completely interchangeable with M240. Even our MAGs.

The only upgrade or for that matter any serious change in M240 came a couple of years back when Barrett decided to completely change the way it was manufactured. MAG/M240 is still manufactured using a more than 100 years old techniques of making machine guns; you take steel sheets (read heavy slabs) and rivet them around two chunks of steel trunnion. The result is receiver that indestructible but at the cost of being extremely heavy. Barrett made two monolithic yet lightweight halves, integrated all the trunnions in it and welded them together.
View attachment 10091
But then the NGSW program picked pace and this project hit dead end.

If you're referring to this as having key advantages then we've already kind of ripped off Barrett's patents.
View attachment 10092
So not a big deal

I meant things like ability to close top cover without having to worry about orientation ertc, not major changes

Anyway IMO Negev is far better than Mag, good that we are moving over to it.

 

[Ayan Barat]

I meant things like ability to close top cover without having to worry about orientation ertc, not major changes

Even earlier M240s had that issue.

Later with Bravo and also the newer models of FN MAG the boing boing (only correct technical term) feed lever actuation roller became standard.

Anyway IMO Negev is far better than Mag, good that we are moving over to it.

Ummnn...yeah...kind of.
As a "Light Medium Machine Gun" it takes the wind out of FN MAG; lighter, ergonomic, lesser recoil...there's absolutely no competition.

But that's the problem, it was conceived from the beginning to be an infantry machine gun not a General Purpose Machine Gun. There's no coaxial Negev for tanks, neither spade grips for helicopter, no heavy barrel for area fire from fixed position, you can't reverse the feed tray for dual mounting, short top cover can't accommodate a scope and image intensifier at the same time.

 

[Tier 1 Patriot]

View: https://youtu.be/uV7KTulZIG8?si=AsTjSHvD1OWkKIJA
This is how 2 armies conduct joint exercise

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

View: https://youtu.be/uV7KTulZIG8?si=AsTjSHvD1OWkKIJA
This is how 2 armies conduct joint exercise

Equals..thats the word u missed.

This is how two equal army conducts exercise.

We are still proving by buying jugaad.

Thanks to Pubg now every kid on twitter understands.

 

[Tier 1 Patriot]

View: https://youtu.be/Rvb9QSbkC9s?si=y7s_yk_OcYJidE0E

 

[Tier 1 Patriot]

Equals..thats the word u missed.

This is how two equal army conducts exercise.

We are still proving by buying jugaad.

Thanks to Pubg now every kid on Twitter understand it

One thing I noticed about foreign armies is they got best camo according to their
Just look italian army camo and terrain
I think they gave tender to private companies good competition better the camo
Humare wale toh 50 shades of grey hai

 

[Mr.Evil]

View attachment 10186
One thing I noticed about foreign armies is they got best camo according to their
Just look italian army camo and terrain
I think they gave tender to private companies good competition better the camo
Humare wale toh 50 shades of grey hai

we haven’t even standardised our “new camo” which was rolled out in 2022 specific camo according to terrain toh dur ki baat hai

 

[Hawkeye]

I really don't think land based infantry doesn't matter much.
Without Air Dominance(Its a Delusion) or Air Deterrence(Its plausible) all infantry talk is meaningless.
You can equip Indian Army with 2000 M1 Abrams, 2000 K-9 Thunder, 3000 Zorawars, 5000 Lynx, 5000 CV90, 10,000 HIMARS, 10,000 Barak-8 Batteries or S-400, at the end of the day they have to first survive the attack of PLAAF. They have to be moved from their bases to battlefield and even before that their fate would already been decided.
A Single Fighter Jet can target any of the land based assets from above but reverse can't be true.
What Iam saying is that until we attain Minimum Credible Air Deterrence or a Certain % Parity with PLAAF, investing in the land based assets is just throwing money into drainage.

You need an airforce capable of large sustained sorties with close coordination with ground forces in addition to strike campaign against strategic targets to curtail enemy's war sustaining capability.
For that you need a large airforce, sufficiently technologically advanced and one who doesn't need every other equipment from foreign country.
PLAAF is there or atleast 10-15 yrs ahead of us while we are not, IAF is not.

Now, the best other option is stopping enemy on the ground, afterall it's the land taken which is ultimately a yardstick of victory, not the number of casualties however big they are.

So, in our case as of yet, investing in ground forces is least risky option and that's what we have been doing for a long time and even in that we have failed.

You will always need mass in numbers and firepower for ground forces to be effective. We are lacking in both compared to PLAGF.

I guess we are screwed in future as well considering short sightedness. Chinese have shown great will to study their enemies and change themselves by equipping same types of equipment and doctrine/training, US being the case here. While our Generals pride themselves in not copying anyone while becoming obsolete by the day.

 

[Hawkeye]

doctrinally, India is bothered about three threats, primarily pakis, now the chini and ever present jihadis.

India is not planning to fight thousands of kms away, if the threat perception was different, planning would have been different. no other country in this world has a stated policy of having to prepare for a two front war, that too with two nuclear capable nations.

- pakis have given up on a military2military conflict with India for now, hence their heavy dependence on jihadis.
- chini have not gone into a war with any one for half a century, so their performance in combat is an enigma.
- if anything two decades of war on terror has taught us, is that you don't use 100,000 $ missile to hit 10$ tents jihadis use.

so the question arises, are the current capabilities sufficient for current threat levels under the dual nuclear over hang. answer is probably yes and it would be even better if all the points under kargil review committee are closed + one full cycle of infantry modernisation is completed which hasn't happened.

For the scenario under nuclear overhang, probably Yes. But in case if a conventional conflict takes place we are screwed hard. I also disagree with the common perception of Chinese inaptitude given they haven't fought for a long time but to be honest so have we, last major war we had was 1971, more than half a century ago. Chinese are more serious on tackling US and hence their preparation.

As I said earlier, the force who is able to take and hold land is kind of a winner no matter what. Now if we keep our force structure to be only defensive in mindset, we are always going to lose on initiative and enemy will be at its own disposal to attack without any fear of land loss. You need to possess capability to make enemy think that his adventure could lead to a good enough loss on his own side, thereby deterrence.

I believe strike corps was such a concept by IA but if you can't equip well you are just waiting for a grinding battle with higher friendly casualties. We are seriously lacking in firepower whether on Company level or Brigade level compared to Chinese.

 

[ezsasa]

We are seriously lacking in firepower whether on Company level or Brigade level compared to Chinese.

since India is not going to change it's defensive doctrine in near future, one pathway to know if your assumption is accurate or not, is by chini having the same assumptions you are having and prove their superiority on Indian military.

ultimately every military doctrine/strategy needs to be proven on battle field.

 

[Mr.Evil]

since India is not going to change it's defensive doctrine in near future, one pathway to know if your assumption is accurate or not, is by chini having the same assumptions you are having and prove their superiority on Indian military.

ultimately every military doctrine/strategy needs to be proven on battle field.

What happened to our new approach of “defensive-offensive” doctrine launched in 2014?
In which we can do preemptive strikes if we suspect danger?

 

[ezsasa]

What happened to our new approach of “defensive-offensive” doctrine launched in 2014?
In which we can do preemptive strikes if we suspect danger?

it's better for the man himself to explain in detail, other than his speech in 2014 nothing much is available.

if i am to speculate, defensive-offence need not mean just in military terms, could be viewed as a whole of govt approach i.e thru diplomacy, economic and strategic measures working collectively to deter an adversary.