Indians For Guns

If you could arm the soldiers, what would you arm them with? You will need to choose for them a

1) Sidearm

2) Battle rifle

3) Sniper/Precision rifle

4) Combat Knife

5) MG/Squad support weapon

Or you can choose how many ever you want - ie you can only recommend a knife or a handgun.

side arm:beretta92fs
battle rifle:any ak variant
sniper precision rifle:barrett MRAD 7000seires
combat knife:of course..extrema ratio
mg?suad support:Fn minimi m249
well with all these one word of caution..."you have to give account of the catridges"
regards
dr.jk

Russian Small Arms, the latest of the Kalashnikovs, Makarovs, Druganov Rifles etc etc. proven battle pedigreeandd more importantly familiarity Indian Jawans have with these weapons.

Regards
MOIN.

Makarov? Really?

Skyman wrote:Makarov? Really?

Skyman, sorry no knowledge of firearms as such. If the armed forces can use everything from Aircraft carriers to Sukhois to Ak's made in Russia why not a side arm. Its the same Russians who made the legendary AK.If the Makrovs are good enough for the Spetznaz why not for the Indian Troops.

No no nothing like that.You might be the only one in this thread to suggest that.Let us see.

I was a little surprised that's all.

And what about commission/cut/kickback, will it be given to me or the MOD? decision depends on this....

We are theorizing...

What's wrong with a Makarov? Surely the Soviets were not completely stupid and had some reason for selecting it. I would note that the Makarov, first of all, is based on the Walther PPK design, and thus is a DA pistol. Second, it is a blowback design, taking advantage of the blowback action's simplicity and reliability. Thirdly, the 9mm Makarov cartridge is about as powerful of a round as one can use in a small, blowback pistol.

Brushing aside all of the arguments regarding the suitability for a 500 S&W for a military sidearm, the needs of Rambo, and all of the stories about "my grandfather's neighbor killed 5 elephants with one shot using a 22 LR," etc., we should note that military handguns account for a very minuscule number of battlefield casualties. Of course, were I the one doing the shooting, I would prefer a pocket version of a 105mm howitzer, but the military does not submit their wishes to a fairy godmother: They must balance their selections of weaponry based on how much money they have and how to most effectively use that money in whatever use it might be put to in the most likely possible conflicts.

I might add that the Makarovs I've seen are very nicely made and finished -- they are certainly no piece of junk, either in design or in execution.

As i said, i was surprised at the choice.Most people would have said Glock or something.

This line of thinking has other things occurring to me along the same lines -- the importance of things like budget and innovation when choosing weapons systems for armed forces.

When it comes to innovation, I think of the nation that really has been innovative in the 20th and 21st centuries, that nation had to be Germany. They introduced so many things in both the first and the second world wars that other nations copied, and blazed a trail of innovation in warfare equalled by no other nation. Yet, this was a mixed blessing:

For example, in WW1, the Germans used airships - Zeppelins - to conduct bombing raids on their enemy, Great Britain. The USA, the UK, and France all sought this technology after WW1, but nobody really made it work, other than the Germans, even after the war. (The airship story is so fascinating! I wish I could spend more time, just on it!) The airships could also be used for naval reconnaissance, and might have turned the tables at Jutland, had they been able to participate. But in the end, they were expensive failures as a weapons system: Each Zeppelin required the small intestines of 500,000 cattle to make the gasbags, all scraped and assembled by hand (you read that number right: 5 lakhs of cows in each Zeppelin!). The weather prevented them from being effective naval scouts, they failed at strategic bombing, and terror bombing populations did not work.

The German U Boat very nearly brought Great Britain to defeat in both WW1 and WW2. In both cases, excessive dedication of resources to a surface fleet caused not enough of them to be available at the right time during both wars: In WW1, a surface fleet allocated to a questionable "risk theory" and in WW2, a completely incoherent naval policy and purpose conspired against having enough UBoats to finish the job Germany was twice on the verge of completing. That the concept was valid can be proven by the US submarines in the Japanese conflict: In WW2, submarines accounted for 58% of Japanese tonnage sunk, leaving the other 42% to be shared by all other ships and aircraft, combined!

The Germans often spread their limited resources too thin among many projects, so that their investments didn't pay off in accomplishments. For instance, the investment in V1 cruise missiles and V2 ballistic missiles was totally a waste of money. The investment in the "best" tank, the King Tiger, was totally misplaced when compared to the huge numbers of sufficiently capable T34s the Soviets produced.

Compare this with Douglas MacArthur, who was Chief of Staff of the Army in the mid-thirties. He tells the story of how he saw war on the horizon and demanded President Roosevelt pay the money needed for sufficient defense resources. He went to the White House one night and told FDR that, when some foreign soldier had his foot on a US soldier's neck and was ready to bayonet him, that MacArthur wanted that US soldier's last curse to be on Roosevelt, not MacArthur. MacArthur said that he was so shaken by being disrespectfully bold to the president that he vomited on the White House entrance upon leaving that night.

Working with the monies he had available, it was MacArthur who chose to go ahead and buy the M1 Garand for the US Army, but rather than adapting the supposedly superior 7mm Pedersen cartridge the M1 was developed to shoot, he opted to retain the .30-'06 cartridge. MacArthur thought that the Army had huge stocks of remaining ammunition, and that the expense of reequipping the Army with new stocks of Pedersen ammunition was an inferior "buy" compared to retaining the essential personnel in the Army during the depression, the men who would form the core of the expanded Army in wartime.

MacArthur was a lot smarter in his choices than many Japanese and German leaders, thank goodness, and even though the Americans and British didn't always have the best equipment (but, sometimes they did), they would have the overall best war machines.

The story of the Navy F6F Hellcat fighter is a similar story: it was not the best fighter that could be produced, but it did have enough superiority over the Japanese opposition to get the job done. Because of its flying characteristics, it could be mastered by more pilots just out of training than any other Navy fighter, including the superior F4U Corsair. Putting many pilots into an aircraft they could quickly master proved to be the winning combination.

There is a lot more to choosing this stuff than just the best. The best can often be the enemy of the good.

Anyone seen this?

The Makarov is a perfectly functional sidearm. It has been proven by many years of service.
If I had a Makarov, I would not hesitate to use it to defend myself

Working with the monies he had available, it was MacArthur who chose to go ahead and buy the M1 Garand for the US Army, but rather than adapting the supposedly superior 7mm Pedersen cartridge the M1 was developed to shoot, he opted to retain the .30-'06 cartridge. MacArthur thought that the Army had huge stocks of remaining ammunition, and that the expense of reequipping the Army with new stocks of Pedersen ammunition was an inferior "buy" compared to retaining the essential personnel in the Army during the depression, the men who would form the core of the expanded Army in wartime.

Logistics is a big consideration when choosing arms for your forces.
However for the Indian Army to adopt the Makarov today would mean moving away from the 9X19 and risking a logistics mess.
Even the Russians are switching to 9X19.
For some reason 9X19 seems to be the new standard for military sidearms.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Beretta 92. For me, it is too big and too heavy to have to carry around all the time.
While it is the standard of the US Armed Forces, units that rely on the pistol a lot, like certain Special Forces units tried and rejected the Beretta. Most of them use something else.
The average US Army grunt, however, while he lugs one around doesn't really rely on a sidearm to do battle with. From what I have read, some like it, some don't care and some detest it. I suppose that would summarize the feelings towards any weapon that one would be required to carry.

bennedose wrote:Anyone seen this?
[ Image ]

Many special forces units use some kind of simulated munitions when practicing building clearing or other types of closed quarters battle.

xl_target wrote:

bennedose wrote:Anyone seen this?
[ Image ]

Many special forces units use some kind of simulated munitions when practicing building clearing or other types of closed quarters battle.

One of the simulated ammunition I got a chance to play with :
http://simunition.com/en/home

It's a nice upgrade from the regular paintball gun. Theres a simunition range here which has guns modified to fire this ammo. (http://www.shootextreme.com/)