In terms of upgrade value or major advantage over enemy weapons, it will have to come from the accessories involved, rather than the weapon itself. The AK-203 has but minute differences to the older AKMs, Type-56s, and Eastern European AK clones which are widespread among militants in terms of raw ballistics. However, it will undoubtedly be superior to any AK currently in use in all of South Asia. It will be more reliable & more accurate out of the box.
Point to note is that a lot of CI/CT operators in J&K today (including Army & CAPFs) already have bullet-proof plate inserts in their Fighting Load Carriers (FLCs). However, it is not known to me personally what is the armor level rating of those plates. So hard to say how much of an improvement the SMPP vests will provide with regard to the HAP (Hard Armour Panel) sections...however, the SMPP vest will also provide SAP (Soft Armour Panel) inserts for the neck, groin & sides - which we don't have at the moment. So IMO, the improvement in protection standards (whether from bullets or shrapnel) will be most noticeable in those sections of the body.
CRPF:
Still, there are examples where the FLCs can only accommodate a plate insert on the back and not in the front, plus, the bulk of the regular Army (whether frontline or not) still doesn't have BPJs. So the SMPP vest will show a marked improvement especially in those use-cases.
In terms of reliability & accuracy, noticeable improvement. Other than that, it doesn't bring much to the table that we can say is a game-changer. The M4A1 isn't a bad rifle in terms of accuracy or reliability either, and in terms of peripheral functionality, the M4A1s already give us all-round Picatinny rails, adjustable stock etc. However, we can have much better offers on the market today.
I believe its more to do with regard to personal preference than anything else. There are a lot of people who just can't take to the Bullpup-layout of firearms all that well, they much prefer the traditional layout (magazine & bolt assembly placed in front of the trigger group). Bullpup-style guns like the Tavor are considerably different in terms of handling, weight-distribution and shooter comfort - some like it, some don't. And those that don't would rather go with the M4A1.
The Tavor and M4s both take the same STANAG magazines and same ammo so there isn't much of a logistical issue even if both types of firearms are operated together in the same squad.
I'd say both. A lot will depend I think, on which battalion the particular Ghatak unit is attached to - and what is the service-issue weapon of that regiment's troops.
In terms of raw functionality, nope. There's nothing on the AK-203 that makes it more functional than a FAB-upgraded AK.
But, it will certainly be overall a better gun, thanks to new features like a hinged dust cover & new muzzle device (all contributing to better accuracy and more reliable shot-placement).
RR uses both Bren and INSAS-LMGs. Para SFs use PK variants in their ops, while IAF's Garuds have the Negev 5.56 version. I believe I've seen some OFB-made MAG clones with stocks as well.
The Bren owing to its larger calibre is the most powerful cover-penetrating LMG commonly accessible to RR troops. Probably why it's still in service to this day. But then again, any AK is a devastating weapon when it comes to destroying cover or going through walls. So that's not what we need LMGs for. Their principle use is in suppressing/pinning down militants with sustained fire (at least as much as can be managed by the magazine-fed Brens and INSAS in the absence of a belt-fed gun) without having to worry much about barrel overheating & cook-offs.
In my opinion, the CI/CT troops will end up using whatever they want. Nobody could force them to use INSAS, they ditched it and chose AKs instead. So far, the only 'carbine' in IA service was the 9mm Sterling produced by SAF Kanpur. In today's world, the Sterling is about as ancient and worthless as it can get, especially in counter-insurgency warfare. Not just because of its lack of functionality, but more importantly due to it's 9x19 round, who's stopping power will make the 5.56x45 seem like a mean critter. No wonder then that these SMG carbines are now very rarely seen in Army usage, with everyone preferring the much larger INSAS or AK instead.
But once (and if) the Caracal rifle carbine comes in, I believe all that will change. I believe we'll see a whole bunch of users will start preferring to carry the CAR816 instead of the larger SIG or AK rifles.
There is no QBZ-1, I believe you meant the QBZ-95 (or the newer 95-1) which is the PLA service rifle. The SIG 716G2 is easily a much better rifle than either the Chinese QBZs or the pakistan-made G3s. Against the G3, the SIG is principally ahead in terms of functionality and aspects like accuracy, weight & reliability. But they both shoot the same round (7.62x51mm) so there's not that much difference in terms of raw ballistic performance.
The QBZ-95 on the other hand, shoots a much smaller round. In the kind of environments where a battle with the PLA can be expected (either in the mostly wooded regions of Arunachal Pradesh or in the mountainous terrains of Ladakh and nearby sectors, I believe the 7.62 Nato rounds of the SIG, especially if combined with a good optic, will easily out-shoot the Chinese infantry rifles.
Yes it does - and so far the pakistanis have enjoyed a marked advantage due to their employment of 7.62 Nato battle rifles and true bolt-action sniper weapons. A gap in capability the Indian side has only recently risen up to fill.
