4 ms·

> 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.

Alupis 9y ago
It's worse with the full sentence.: > 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 The author doesn't seem to understand their weapons nor rounds very well.
BoorishBears 9y ago
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.
- Alupis 9y ago
  The article isn't completely true. The 5.56 was selected because it's significantly lighter and smaller (soldier can carry more ammunition), produces less recoil (soldier can be less trained but still effective, especially when in full-auto mode... which pertains to CQB), and is effective within the average engagement range (<600m). Most 5.56 weapons also have higher rates of fire when compared to their 7.62 brethren, which also plays a significant role in CQB effectiveness. Regarding "stopping power"... a round from either will incapacitate most humans, and the latest generations of 5.56 can penetrate light to medium armors very effectively. Since NATO adheres to the Geneva Conventions, firing upon medical troops is forbidden, as is deliberately wounding but not killing enemy combatants, making the author's claim even more dubious.
- willvarfar 9y ago
  Indeed, the Russians also moved from AK 47 with 7.62mm to AK 74 at 5.45mm for the same reasons as Nato. The Nato reasons included other considerations such as weight and rate of fire too. However, Nato and everyone else uses the modern smaller rounds for CQB too.
- rhino369 9y ago
  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.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - DrScump 9y ago
    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.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Yes, it's in the article; it's also a (impressively durable) myth, not an actual fact. The 5.56mm was adopted by NATO as a standard for logistical reasons, not because wounding is better than killing. (The initial US use of the round was spurred by a doctrinal shift in favor of full auto fire, but that shift was rapidly reversed...for both effectiveness and logistical reasons.) > 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. True (at least compared to the 5.56 round at issue) of the 7.62×51 round used by the FAL, less true of the 7.62×39 round used by the AK; from everything I've seen the 5.56×45 round used by the M-16 and similar assault weapons is at least as lethal as the (slower) AK round overall, and moreso when body armor or other material is penetrated before reaching the target.

Alupis 9y ago

It's worse with the full sentence.: > 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 The author doesn't seem to understand their weapons nor rounds very well.

BoorishBears 9y ago

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.

Alupis 9y ago
The article isn't completely true. The 5.56 was selected because it's significantly lighter and smaller (soldier can carry more ammunition), produces less recoil (soldier can be less trained but still effective, especially when in full-auto mode... which pertains to CQB), and is effective within the average engagement range (<600m). Most 5.56 weapons also have higher rates of fire when compared to their 7.62 brethren, which also plays a significant role in CQB effectiveness. Regarding "stopping power"... a round from either will incapacitate most humans, and the latest generations of 5.56 can penetrate light to medium armors very effectively. Since NATO adheres to the Geneva Conventions, firing upon medical troops is forbidden, as is deliberately wounding but not killing enemy combatants, making the author's claim even more dubious.
willvarfar 9y ago
Indeed, the Russians also moved from AK 47 with 7.62mm to AK 74 at 5.45mm for the same reasons as Nato. The Nato reasons included other considerations such as weight and rate of fire too. However, Nato and everyone else uses the modern smaller rounds for CQB too.
rhino369 9y ago
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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- DrScump 9y ago
  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.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Yes, it's in the article; it's also a (impressively durable) myth, not an actual fact. The 5.56mm was adopted by NATO as a standard for logistical reasons, not because wounding is better than killing. (The initial US use of the round was spurred by a doctrinal shift in favor of full auto fire, but that shift was rapidly reversed...for both effectiveness and logistical reasons.) > 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. True (at least compared to the 5.56 round at issue) of the 7.62×51 round used by the FAL, less true of the 7.62×39 round used by the AK; from everything I've seen the 5.56×45 round used by the M-16 and similar assault weapons is at least as lethal as the (slower) AK round overall, and moreso when body armor or other material is penetrated before reaching the target.