Lemontree, I couldn't disagree with you on this. But yet again I fear we are treading the path the Brits have taken - The SA80 family. Aside from the bullpup thingy the concept is the same i.e. Rifle and "Machine Rifle". The LSW ended up being not too suited for its primary role- Support. So now they've picked up the Minimi. This is where I feel the INSAS LMG is headed (Of course, thats only my opinion though).Originally Posted by lemontree
I'm seeing this from a section level match up with our Pakistani counterparts. Forget terrain, compitency, and the larger picture. In a purely academic sense, how do we match up at Infantry section level? They'd generally have G3's And MG3's or Type56's and RPD(type 59?) , We'll have either the SLR /Bren combo, or INSAS /INSAS LMG/BREN combo or AK/INSAS.... goodness the logistics!
Who can produce more firepower? I'd rather stick to the Bren than inflict the INSAS LMG on our troops. If its logistics then its Negev- I'm sure it'll be relatively easy to adapt it to handle INSAS mags. I know the ammo belts produce their on plethora of problems but in certain tactical scenarios 100+ round C-Mags as standard is a viable alternative- we then solve the problem of volume and belt hitches in one stroke.
It would be useful to study the reasons for the US requirement for a 'return' to 7.62X51 - Mk48, M240 etc. Perhaps we can then avoid a costly foray into "Machine Rifling".
What do you say?