4 ms·
> 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 wea
by thearn4 9y ago
> 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 9y agoDid 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 9y agoYes, 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