Small Arms & Tactical Equipment

Long Eye Relief scopes are not adequate for precision shooting.
That thing is hardly meant for precision shooting. Its an AMR.
I mean look at the size of those bullets. 20X82 mm. Straight up cannon territory.
1565026481320.png


It was meant to take out vehicles, helicopters, bunkers etc. All pretty large targets. In that situation a long eye relief works quite well. Besides think about the recoil, if the scope is any closer to the eye it might hit the eye when fired.
 
That thing is hardly meant for precision shooting. Its an AMR.
I mean look at the size of those bullets. 20X82 mm. Straight up cannon territory.
View attachment 8899

It was meant to take out vehicles, helicopters, bunkers etc. All pretty large targets. In that situation a long eye relief works quite well. Besides think about the recoil, if the scope is any closer to the eye it might hit the eye when fired.
True, not meant for precision from a sniper perspective, but you would be surprised how much accuracy is needed when AMR is actually deployed in an AMR role, to punch a hole in moving target is a highly taxing task.
In addition, to remember to look at your ost card and remember which armored vehicle has soft zones in which part is also quite challenging.

On a side note, the long eye relief scopes were actually created for a very different purpose, conventional scopes are to be utilized with one eye closed, while ler scopes are to be shot with both eyes open, providing better situational awareness, this later made into the bedrock of a scout rifle.
 
True, not meant for precision from a sniper perspective, but you would be surprised how much accuracy is needed when AMR is actually deployed in an AMR role, to punch a hole in moving target is a highly taxing task.
In addition, to remember to look at your ost card and remember which armored vehicle has soft zones in which part is also quite challenging.
Agreed. Some of the longest ranged successful kills have come from AMRs.
About the moving armoured vehicles, requirements are a bit different in our case. Notice how all pictures available of the rifle in operation/d shows a mountainous terrain. That's because these rifles are restricted to high altitude border outposts, not a lot of moving vehicles there. Where as in the plains or deserts, we will use .50 cals and not the 20 mm as it restricts mobility.

On a side note, the long eye relief scopes were actually created for a very different purpose, conventional scopes are to be utilized with one eye closed, while ler scopes are to be shot with both eyes open, providing better situational awareness, this later made into the bedrock of a scout rifle.
Interesting. I think we use the IWI Galils for that task. Galil has that distinctive offset scope. I wonder if that was the reason for its usage by the Army. Otherwise the Galil hardly brings anything to the table that the Dragunov doesn't have.
1565028505188.png
 
Interesting. I think we use the IWI Galils for that task. Galil has that distinctive offset scope. I wonder if that was the reason for its usage by the Army. Otherwise the Galil hardly brings anything to the table that the Dragunov doesn't have.
View attachment 8901

Price, SVD's sell anywhere between 8-10G's, while Galil are close to 2G.
Ballistically 7.62x54R is close to being identical to 7.62x51N, and in addition, Galils come with a bottle opener. Also galils full auto while SVD's semi.
 
Loving the smart finish on the kaladhnikovs.They dont look like 30 yr old designs slogging on anymore.Scopes and new magazines too.
 
Now that we have a single unified command for the various special forces we have, can we expect commonality and up-gradation of their equipment? Anyone with any info on this?
 
why are some soldiers wearing tactical gloves and some not. Are they not issued by the army
Nah. They are either purchased by the unit commanders or individuals. The good thing is that the gloves are readily available in the market and unlike guns you don't have to worry about the lack of standardisation creating a big logistical issue. As long as it fits, who gives a damn.

The benefit of having an unit/individual based purchase system is that there is always someone in the market looking for new gloves. That incentivizes companies to keep coming up with newer/better gloves. However, if they were purchased in bulk they would be lower priced.
Any updates about change in uniform
Well the Army(all services actually) has a number of different uniforms. There is the :

Ceremonial uniform(for parades and stuff) : Unlikely to change
Official uniform(for official work/duties) : Likely to change
Battle dress uniform(self-explanatory) : Likely to change

Let's talk about the BDU first. QZCTs is likely going to be the standard going forward. They will be available in a bunch of different camo patterns, which is to be expected. The most commonly seen camo patterns over the last year are the following :
1565358090702.png
1565358135972.png

1565357372196.png
1565357496013.png

1565358686113.png

We haven seen any QZCTs in desert or snow camo. Of course NSGs have their all black QZCTs. I suppose you could say we are still experimenting with camo patterns, seeing what works best for us. But QZCTs are going to be standard, irrespective of chosen camo pattern. The questing is when.

Now, the official uniform will carry the same pattern as the QZCT. But it will have camo prints all over it, unlike the QZCTs which have prints on the arms but have a plain colored chest,abdomen and back.

Look at what Dhoni baba is wearing. Could that be the official uniform ? Guess we will know soon enough.
1565358575649.png


This is G3 rifle, you sure this from IA?
View attachment 9156
CRPF, not IA. Yes I am sure, look at that head gear. That's a patka, except for CAPFs no one uses them anymore. Over the years a lot of Pakistani armed insurgents came armed with the H&K G3s. Along with of course the omnipresent AK, sometimes American guns like Colt M4 SOPMOD, the recently captured American sniper(I forget the name) etc.

Well after the insurgents are dispatched to get their 72 virgins, we usually re-cycle Pakistani guns and start using them ourselves. Coz why not ? Winning a low cost proxy war require us to cut down costs on our side too. At the peak of insurgency in the 90s, we had gathered so many AKs that the all RR regiments, CAPFs, KP-SOG, Para, MARCOS etc. started using the AKs. These are the AKs you see in service today. In a way the Pakistanis armed us, funny how fate works.

Over the years, the Army felt a need of upgrading the quality of the weapons. In came companies like FAB defense. Making up for the modified AKs that you see today.

The G3 over there probably has a similar story to tell. Being a 7.62N chambered rifle, it would be a very effective medium range sniper. Today it these along with Dragunovs are used to provide sniper cover to our forces during CI/CT ops. Sometimes to snipe Pak soldiers across the LoC. Using their guns to kill them, the Army has a murderous sense of humour.

Now that we have a single unified command for the various special forces we have, can we expect commonality and up-gradation of their equipment? Anyone with any info on this?

We already do have some commonalty across services. For example, everybody uses 7.62R AKs, everybody uses Tavor TAR21s, everybody uses PK machine guns.
What specific area of equipment to you want to know about ?
 
CRPF, not IA. Yes I am sure, look at that head gear. That's a patka, except for CAPFs no one uses them anymore. Over the years a lot of Pakistani armed insurgents came armed with the H&K G3s. Along with of course the omnipresent AK, sometimes American guns like Colt M4 SOPMOD, the recently captured American sniper(I forget the name) etc.

Well after the insurgents are dispatched to get their 72 virgins, we usually re-cycle Pakistani guns and start using them ourselves. Coz why not ? Winning a low cost proxy war require us to cut down costs on our side too. At the peak of insurgency in the 90s, we had gathered so many AKs that the all RR regiments, CAPFs, KP-SOG, Para, MARCOS etc. started using the AKs. These are the AKs you see in service today. In a way the Pakistanis armed us, funny how fate works.

Over the years, the Army felt a need of upgrading the quality of the weapons. In came companies like FAB defense. Making up for the modified AKs that you see today.

The G3 over there probably has a similar story to tell. Being a 7.62N chambered rifle, it would be a very effective medium range sniper. Today it these along with Dragunovs are used to provide sniper cover to our forces during CI/CT ops. Sometimes to snipe Pak soldiers across the LoC. Using their guns to kill them, the Army has a murderous sense of humour.

I am not a big fan of dissimilar rifles in any unit. The fact that a single post can have insas, AKM and VZ58 for similar roles just blows my mind.
g3's and SLR are very dissimilar and should not be fielded in a unit. Operational nuisance it brings outweighs its advantages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GuardianRED
I am not a big fan of dissimilar rifles in any unit. The fact that a single post can have insas, AKM and VZ58 for similar roles just blows my mind.
g3's and SLR are very dissimilar and should not be fielded in a unit. Operational nuisance it brings outweighs its advantages.
Fair point. But we have to keep in mind the base when we speak of advantages. Advantages are always relative, never absolute.

In the 90s the economy was in doldrums, corruption was sky-high and at the same time we were witnessing the highest levels of insurgency ever. Not just in J&K but also Maoist-Naxal belt, NER etc. We didn't have the resources to equip all individual soldiers with modern gear, forget gear ever modern rifles were hard to come by. Our guys were fighting against Taliban/Taliban trained militants, most of which were Soviet war veterans equipped with Soviet/Pakistani made AKs. We were using INSAS, SLRs, Sten guns etc then. All our guns were either too long and heavy(INSAS,SLRs) to be suited for CI/CT Ops or had insufficient stopping power(Sten guns). The reason for this is obvious, while we had tools to fight conventional wars, CI/CT was a different ball game and it required tools we did not posses. Advantage Pakistan.

We tried and eventually succeeded in clawing back the advantage by using a three pronged approach. One : If we don't have the tools for this "new" form of warfare, we will use the enemy's tools. At worst we will be their equal. With better training and more exposure we will outdo them. Two : Copy their tactics. If the Pakistanis are using "non-state actors", we can do the same. Remember the Ikhwans ? That didn't last long though. But it did allow us to build up a massive HUMINT network in the valley, some of those networks extends beyond our borders. Three : Heavily out number them. Given the size of our military we can play the number game quite well. However, the down side to the numbers game is now we have more people to equip.

The whole "use whatever gun is available" policy was adopted under this situation and with the above mentioned constraints. The advantage gained was over the Pakistanis not other better equipped forces around the world.

As we all know, modernisation of the infantry has been stuck for a long time. Thus we are where we are. I agree with you with the logistical problems of such an approach to warfare. I suppose if our bureaucracy and politics was less corrupt we'd be in a better position.