
Why's it easier to build a Mars orbiter than an assault rifle for India? - nksgopikrishnan
http://quoradiary.blogspot.com/2017/05/corruption-in-indian-defence.html
======
friedman23
> However, INSAS was a field weapon and its 5.56mm ammo (designed to injure,
> not kill) was not suited for CQB

This is so wrong it hurts.

~~~
BoorishBears
Right in the article:

>4\. As per new NATO doctrine in the late 80s it was analyzed that injuring a
soldier is more lethal to the enemy than killing one, as you have to expend
other soldiers to carry the injured soldier. As per this doctrine, NATO moved
to 5.56mm ammo, which have higher chances of injuring someone than killing.
Indian Army, wanted to follow the same doctrine hence it asked INSAS to be a
5.56mm weapon, unlike AK 47 or FN FAL which are 7.62 mm weapons. Chances of
survival from a 7.62mm ammo, especially at close range are low or nil.

Edit: No idea why the multitudes of weapons experts on HN are downvoting me
for quoting the article.

~~~
rhino369
It's true that it is less lethal, but that isn't the purpose. NATO uses it
because you can carry more rounds because they are smaller.

Intentionally wounding is considered to be a war crime.

~~~
DrScump

      Intentionally wounding is considered to be a war crime.
    

To clarify, inflicting wounds _with the specific intent of avoiding fatal
wounds_ violates international pacts to which the vast majority of nations are
signatory.

Also, bear in mind that not every major potential combatant is a signatory to
all military-related pacts. For example, the USA is _not_ a signatory to any
of the Declaration IV subsections of the Hague Conventions.

------
thearn4
> Another problem cited for INSAS was that it performs badly in Close Quarter
> Battles (CQBs) for which the forces preferred AK47. However, INSAS was a
> field weapon and its 5.56mm ammo (designed to injure, not kill) was not
> suited for CQB, very much like the any 5.56mm weapon with NATO ( e.g. M16)
> ,is not suited for CQB.

I know very little about the INSAS. but I'm not sure I follow the reasoning
here. Why does the author not believe that 5.56mm is suitable for CQB? It may
not have the momentum of other calibers, but it's most certainty not a less-
than-lethal system...

~~~
BoorishBears
Did you read the whole article?

>4\. As per new NATO doctrine in the late 80s it was analyzed that injuring a
soldier is more lethal to the enemy than killing one, as you have to expend
other soldiers to carry the injured soldier. As per this doctrine, NATO moved
to 5.56mm ammo, which have higher chances of injuring someone than killing.
Indian Army, wanted to follow the same doctrine hence it asked INSAS to be a
5.56mm weapon, unlike AK 47 or FN FAL which are 7.62 mm weapons. Chances of
survival from a 7.62mm ammo, especially at close range are low or nil.

~~~
thearn4
Yes, and frankly it is bad history. Development of intermediate cartridges and
their adoption by NATO forces had nothing to do with purposefully limiting
lethality. It's about finding a better balance between controllability at
increased fire rates, combat loading, and range suitable for conflicts
emerging in the 20th century.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge)

------
Analemma_
My sympathies to India, although it's strangely comforting to know that the
United States isn't the only country where military procurement is a complete
clusterfuck.

In other news, the F-35 is still useless garbage:
[https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/breaking-news-
the-f-35-is-...](https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/breaking-news-the-f-35-is-
still-an-expensive-mess-1796484914) and the lifetime cost of the program is
now projected to be $1.5 trillion, up from 1.3.

~~~
luckyhat4
If you go over to /r/credibledefense and read up on the F-35 discussions
sometime it'll probably change your mind about the program. It gets a
tremendous amount of unjustified hatred from people who don't realize what an
impossible balancing act it is to build cutting-edge defense aerospace
products, especially one that's such a huge paradigm shift.

~~~
droithomme
Thanks for joining HN 5 minutes ago and congrats on your first post. How did
you find us?

~~~
nyolfen
defense contractor doesn't want to use the account where they post about
flight control software

------
LyndsySimon
I find it interesting that India's INSAS is widely considered to be a failure
as a weapons platform, while Japan's Type 89 is by all appearances an
excellent rifle. Both weapons were designed and produced indigenously, and
both weapons followed a similar government acquisition process.

