INSAS vs AK47 vs M16?

[Shiny Capstar]

Great.

You have eyes that is not 6 by 6 but better.

In combat, what did you achieve by getting the enemy ahead of 300m?

We eliminated the enemy before they could get into the effective range of their weapons.

Was you artillery and infantry mortars that useless?

No we have very effective support, but you can not be sure that they alone will eliminate the enemy, why not strike at a range a which you have all the advantages, at which you can destroy the enemy with no loss, than at one where the enemy are not at such a disadvantage?

Friend, understand how battles are fought!

If rifles could do the work of Close air support, artillery and the mortars, then they would be redundant and a waste of national finances.

A rifle cannot do those jobs, but having one with a good reach is better than having one without.

What is known as graduated response?

It is nice to learn that western forces are scared of close in battles. We are not!!

Sir, we are not afraid of close in battles, if we were so afraid we would not even bother leaving our bases. If you want a idea of how close we sometimes engage the enemy I shall simply say that bayonets were a vital and very much used part of our equipment.

[Officer of Engineers]

You have eyes that is not 6 by 6 but better.

Sir,

You too can have the same. In fact better. I got mine at $798 for 9-12x instead of the 4x that is the standard issue with our armies.

In combat, what did you achieve by getting the enemy ahead of 300m?

Suprression and not having to wait.

Was you artillery and infantry mortars that useless?

A TOT measured in seconds as compared to minutes often denies the Taliban the chance to slip away.

It is nice to learn that western forces are scared of close in battles. We are not!!

Having been stabbed, Sir, and the fact that a British Regiment fought hand-to-hand for two hours during Tora Bora, fear has got nothing to do with it. In deed, it would be complete stupidity not to use an advantage that is denied to the enemy.

[ashvaka]

re: original copy of the study

I have heard this before but no original copy of the study had been produced. I have also heard it stated that it was a Pentagon ploy to trick the Congress into porcuring a bullet that was precieved as inadequate in lethality. Yet, no extant evidence suggested this was true, or if it did, the army actually believed it. 5.56mm is deadly when fired from a 20 in. weapon, and good enough with a shorter barrel.

These were the results of a study conducted by the Operations Research Office established by USAGS. I'm sure a copy of the study can be dug up if need be, but here is a reference from Future Weapons By Kevin Dockery.

Future Weapons - Google Book Search

relevant quotes:

most effective fire (80%) took place at ranges of less than 200 yards (chances of soldier hitting target dropped to nill above 300). Before the naysayers decide to stab me, I agree that technology advaces may have added to those ranges.

the other more important finding was the destruction via light flechettes (that formed the basis for the lighter Armalite projectiles), finally dovetailing into the M16.

[texasjohn]

Sir,

Suprression and not having to wait.

A TOT measured in seconds as compared to minutes often denies the Taliban the chance to slip away.

Having been stabbed, Sir, and the fact that a British Regiment fought hand-to-hand for two hours during Tora Bora, fear has got nothing to do with it. In deed, it would be complete stupidity not to use an advantage that is denied to the enemy.

Sir, pardon my ignorance, but would this also not assume you actually have a 300m clear firing field? what about in places like the himalayas where you are up close to tree lines all the time? Perhaps that's why Indian infantry tactics are different from the Western ( NATO) doctrines?

Your views on this?

[Officer of Engineers]

Your views on this?

Like a condome, it's better to have it when you don't need it than need it when you don't have it. - Alien vs Predator I.

The actual situtuation was that that I had engaged at 350 m+.

[Triple C]

These were the results of a study conducted by the Operations Research Office established by USAGS. I'm sure a copy of the study can be dug up if need be, but here is a reference from Future Weapons By Kevin Dockery.

relevant quotes:

most effective fire (80%) took place at ranges of less than 200 yards (chances of soldier hitting target dropped to nill above 300). Before the naysayers decide to stab me, I agree that technology advaces may have added to those ranges.

the other more important finding was the destruction via light flechettes (that formed the basis for the lighter Armalite projectiles), finally dovetailing into the M16.

I am refering to the allegation that the M-16 was not designed to kill outright but rather to wound so that the enemy infrastructure would be tied down. I cannot find any reference to that in the text provided. All that it says is ORO believes the ideal standard infantry hand weapon should be a short range automatic with a high rate of fire in order to maximize hit and kill probability in the absolute majority of infantry engagements (46-50). This has nothing to do with intentionally wounding the enemy instead of killing him; the passage on page 50 explicitly stated that ORO looked into the needle rifle precisely because it was a accurate, fast firing weapon that is capable of inflicting heavy damage on soft tissue, i.e. high lethality.

[Blademaster]

An SLR could do all that, plus some - yet it is weapon of a day and age gone by. ;)

One reason it is a weapon of a day and age gone by because it is not automatic or semi-automatic. It does not have a magazine. And that's a huge thing.

[Blademaster]

Blade,

Since you have not fired the weapon, I will leave it at that!

This accuracy business depends on the skill and zeroing of the weapon since the recoil affects a novice firer.

Obviously, the person going for combat should not be a novice.

If so, equip all with a .22 rifle what one used to get novices adjusted to rifles!

You are right I have not fired the weapon so my opinion would not be fair. But I based my opinion on reading others' posts who have extensive experience in small arms weapons and there is a majority of combat vets and professionals that place more importance on marksmanship and accuracy than ability to fire in the mud or water.

[Blademaster]

Statistics accumalted on a fixed fireing range are all good, but alas you can never take into account the most important one, and it effects every individual differently..........."the pucker factor" ........this strange, and hard to come by statistic cannot be gathered in development, it occurs on the battlefield when in contact when the target actually shoots back, the resulting actions is what usually occurs.........you shout "bugger me", and your sphincter all of a sudden is able to crack nuts if you wish to use it for that purpose, the one shot you used to use when laid on a nice level piece of ground with a sandbag to rest on, the luxury of being able to control your breathing perfectly all of a sudden dissapears......... sometimes haveing a weapon with a nice beaten zone (spraying as it is so eloquently called on this thread) as opposed to spot on accuracy is far prefered..........I love walnuts I always carried a few in my map pocket for when in contact as I could eat a lot in a short period of time.

That may be true but when you are in a sustained firefight, you get over that shock and you are concentrating on taking that guy out, you want confidence that you can take him out with a bit of steady aiming as opposing to just firing over your head and hoping that one of the bullets hit him. Like when I take cover and pop my head out not giving away much of a target outline, and see where the guy is hiding or holed up, I wanna aim and take that guy out. With an AK-47, I got zero confidence but with an M-16, yeah sure I can.

[Officer of Engineers]

You are right I have not fired the weapon so my opinion would not be fair. But I based my opinion on reading others' posts who have extensive experience in small arms weapons and there is a majority of combat vets and professionals that place more importance on marksmanship and accuracy than ability to fire in the mud or water.

Throw a grenade.

[Blademaster]

How many grenades can you hold and how far can you throw a grenade?

[T_igger_cs_30]

[/B]

That may be true but when you are in a sustained firefight, you get over that shock and you are concentrating on taking that guy out, you want confidence that you can take him out with a bit of steady aiming as opposing to just firing over your head and hoping that one of the bullets hit him. Like when I take cover and pop my head out not giving away much of a target outline, and see where the guy is hiding or holed up, I wanna aim and take that guy out. With an AK-47, I got zero confidence but with an M-16, yeah sure I can.

OK Bm I will rememeber that thanks ,................ do you like walnuts ? you never said

[Ray]

We eliminated the enemy before they could get into the effective range of their weapons.

No we have very effective support, but you can not be sure that they alone will eliminate the enemy, why not strike at a range a which you have all the advantages, at which you can destroy the enemy with no loss, than at one where the enemy are not at such a disadvantage?


A rifle cannot do those jobs, but having one with a good reach is better than having one without.




Sir, we are not afraid of close in battles, if we were so afraid we would not even bother leaving our bases. If you want a idea of how close we sometimes engage the enemy I shall simply say that bayonets were a vital and very much used part of our equipment.

Sir,

You too can have the same. In fact better. I got mine at $798 for 9-12x instead of the 4x that is the standard issue with our armies.

Suprression and not having to wait.

A TOT measured in seconds as compared to minutes often denies the Taliban the chance to slip away.

Having been stabbed, Sir, and the fact that a British Regiment fought hand-to-hand for two hours during Tora Bora, fear has got nothing to do with it. In deed, it would be complete stupidity not to use an advantage that is denied to the enemy.

Fighting a war is an issue of graduated response.

It is also the employment of optimal weapon systems.

To kill one soldier with a PGM is effective, but wasteful.

That has to be understood, unless you have the wealth of the world at your disposal to squander.

If it were so, then the US and the UK would not be keeling over as it is doing right now.

That said, if we are only to look at ‘eliminated the enemy before they could get into the effective range of their weapons.’, then why have the different arms and services or have a Air Force and a Navy. Club them in the infantry so that as soon as the enemy mobilises the Infantry clobbers them?!

It is not the task of the Infantry to engage BVR.

Warfare is a graduated affair and each segment of that graduated increment is addressed by the right weapon of war and it is coordinated by the highest HQ in the theatre and then slowly handed over to the others as the operations progresses closer.

It is first the air that takes on in a strategic mode and then in a tactical mode..

Then, the artillery.

Then the tanks and the mines (in various types of categorisation),

.And then the infantry.

To feel that the infantry should be right there where the air is to take on, is ridiculous!

One must also understand that ammunition and its resupply is not infinite.

Or is it that in the western armies, as the ammunition depletes, there is instant resupply?

Do let me know how that is achieved..

Will be an education!

[Ray]

The problem with you western chaps is that you want to be the bestest, fastest and the strongest everywhere.

Not possible.

There is a method in this madness!

Waging a war is not WWF!

Keep at it and the Taliban will win.

[ashvaka]

I am refering to the allegation that the M-16 was not designed to kill outright but rather to wound so that the enemy infrastructure would be tied down. I cannot find any reference to that in the text provided. All that it says is ORO believes the ideal standard infantry hand weapon should be a short range automatic with a high rate of fire in order to maximize hit and kill probability in the absolute majority of infantry engagements (46-50). This has nothing to do with intentionally wounding the enemy instead of killing him; the passage on page 50 explicitly stated that ORO looked into the needle rifle precisely because it was a accurate, fast firing weapon that is capable of inflicting heavy damage on soft tissue, i.e. high lethality.

Touché - my bad.