What's new

Army's special forces to hone linguistic skills for covert ops

.
Only ur special forces are operating M-4s... and tht too in small numbers... while i have yet to see Galil in indian service... while tavor n mx-4 storms are used in very limited numbers by bsf....

M4s are only used for very limited ops by SFs as such they have been procured in very limited numbers- the IN,IA and IAF's SF all have the TAR-21 (and its variants) as their main AR as it is a superior weapon to the M4. The Galil, is similarly, in a operation with all 3 Indian SOFs.


The BSF has 35,000+ MX4 Storms on order as well as a further 10,000 X-95s/MTAR-21s- not "very limited numbers" at all!

Similarly the CRPF has 20,000+ X-95/MTAR-21s in service/on order and many other local,state and central police forces are procuring this weapon (X-95) in serious numbers.

+Maharashtra's Force One SRU and Mumbai Police's SRU(s) also use the M4.
 
.
M4s are only used for very limited ops by SFs as such they have been procured in very limited numbers- the IN,IA and IAF's SF all have the TAR-21 (and its variants) as their main AR as it is a superior weapon to the M4. The Galil, is similarly, in a operation with all 3 Indian SOFs.

Yes in ur opinion...
First of all, the only reason it is being adopted is because IMI needs a big boost from the Israeli government. Whats going on is domestic political bullcrap which is going to give the Israeli's a weapon they dont need or want. The bullpup design is generally flawed even though it has its benefits. Number one, the tavor has no backup iron sites in case the opticals fail, break, or get fogged up in cold, misty, rainy, or muddy conditions. Number two, the tavor is difficult or impossible to fire left handed and is not really so easily converted to do that. Also, is the middle of urban combat it is often necessary to switch the rifle to different shoulders as you go around left or right corners so you dont expose yourself to fire. Its called "cutting the pie" by American SWAT units (the most experienced urban warfare specialists in the world). Consider Israel and Gaza and West Bank= they are one HUGE urban environment. I sure as hell wouldnt want a bullpup in that territitory. MAybe the Jews are palnning to invade Russia?? :) Number three, despite what you see on games like Tom Clancy Raven Shield, it is damn near impossible to use beta C-mags and other "high cap" mags on bullpup designs. Also, magazine changes are far more awkward and slow than on conventional designs (not a good thing in combat). If you look at the latest most ultra modern weapons designs by nations with the MOST experience in designing small arms, they are no logner bull pups. The russian made An-94 Abakan, the Heckler and Kock G-36, etc.... are all conventional designs. The Israli's are some of the most experienced urban fighters around, but unfortunately their weapons choice is not being decided by the Army or police units, it is being decided by politicians who are being payed off by IMI which produces the Tavor. Im sorry, but thats wrong. Give the Israeli army what its want = The m-16a2 and especially the m4 SOPMOD variant with the QD 40mm grenade launcher. Nuthin works better in an urban place than a carbine with a "nade launcher" to clear those doors and windows of enemy snipers. Also works well for launching just past a corner and killing the guys around the corner with fragments!!!!

Mp.net...

The BSF has 35,000+ MX4 Storms on order as well as a further 10,000 X-95s/MTAR-21s- not "very limited numbers" at all!

Instead of barfing... read my post again... it might be on "order" but right now only a limited number is in service...
 
.
Instead of barfing... read my post again... it might be on "order" but right now only a limited number is in service...

BS.... X95s are in service with Central Police Forces and paramilitary forces in huge numbers by now... they have been inducted since more than 2 years by now...

There are plenty of pics of regular cops/paramilitary personal carrying those weapons on regular duty.
aaaamkp.jpg

dsfsg.jpg
 
.
Yes in ur opinion...


Mp.net...



Instead of barfing... read my post again... it might be on "order" but right now only a limited number is in service...

The M4 in Indian SF service is onto for very limited roles were it performs that bit better than the Tavor ie para jumping and extreme CQB environments. For every other mission the Tavor is used by Indian SOFs. Why would the Indian military be inducting more expensive (Tavor) but less capable weapons when the M4 was cheaper and better performing? That doesn't make sense.


Is it so hard for you to admit that India has made a right call for once??

Yes in ur opinion...


Mp.net...



Instead of barfing... read my post again... it might be on "order" but right now only a limited number is in service...

The M4 in Indian SF service is onto for very limited roles were it performs that bit better than the Tavor ie para jumping and extreme CQB environments. For every other mission the Tavor is used by Indian SOFs. Why would the Indian military be inducting more expensive (Tavor) but less capable weapons when the M4 was cheaper and better performing? That doesn't make sense.


Is it so hard for you to admit that India has made a right call for once??
 
.
The M4 in Indian SF service is onto for very limited roles were it performs that bit better than the Tavor ie para jumping and extreme CQB environments. For every other mission the Tavor is used by Indian SOFs. Why would the Indian military be inducting more expensive (Tavor) but less capable weapons when the M4 was cheaper and better performing? That doesn't make sense.


Is it so hard for you to admit that India has made a right call for once??



The M4 in Indian SF service is onto for very limited roles were it performs that bit better than the Tavor ie para jumping and extreme CQB environments. For every other mission the Tavor is used by Indian SOFs. Why would the Indian military be inducting more expensive (Tavor) but less capable weapons when the M4 was cheaper and better performing? That doesn't make sense.


Is it so hard for you to admit that India has made a right call for once??

Again i posted with facts... while you with hot air ?

Also i guess US military,NATO and other countries operating M-4 are foolish...and even ur new papers were publishing articles abt buy m-4s... :lol:


P.S= The cost of M4A1 n tavor is almost same...
 
.
Again i posted with facts... while you with hot air ?

Also i guess US military,NATO and other countries operating M-4 are foolish...and even ur new papers were publishing articles abt buy m-4s... :lol:


P.S= The cost of M4A1 n tavor is almost same...

M4 is being replaced in almost every military in the world- US SOFs haven't used the weapon as their primary Assualt rifle in years, the US army is actively involved in looking for a relacment to the M4, the USMC never fully adopted the M4, instead they shore to stick with the M-16.


From 2 days ago (not TEN years ago like your quote):

Whatever reservations you may have about the bullpup concept will vanish as soon as you pick up the new Tavor, which is being imported straight from IWI – Israeli Weapons Industries.There’s a lot to like about the rifle. It’s light and it’s compact, belying the full-size 16.5-inch barrel. The use of polymers is extensive.
The balance is better than any M4 or M-16, since most of the weight rests against your shoulder. It’s also more ergonnomic than other bullpups I’ve fired, such as the Steyr AUG, FAMAS or the SA80/L85 – the worst of the lot.
The Tavor is 100-percent ambidextrous. The ejection port can be switched to either side, and the magazine release and bolt release are located in the center of the weapon. The selector switch is mounted on both sides.For an AR shooter, the new controls will take some getting used to, but they’re actually pretty fast. It’s easy to trip the mag release with a finger while stripping a spent mag. After inserting a fresh mag, the bolt release can be manipulated with the same handDisassembly of the weapon is simple – easier than an AK. One pin holds the butt stock in place. Once it’s removed, the bolt and bolt carrier simply slide out.


From MP.net:
On a wholly separate note & without reference to anybody…

I do concur with gilgoul on bullpups. They are the way forward... & that's coming from one who was trained to use the M16 for years in the army. I've shot the SAR-21 & the benefits of a bullpup are tremendous.

Yet putting aside everything else, there are only 2 things that matter in a rifle... reliability and projectile lethality. AKA, being able to fire whenever needed and hitting with deadly force. AKA, the AK-47 (pun unintended though convenient).

Given the state of today's technology, the 1st is most simply achieved by using modern propellants and gas-piston mechanisms. No-brainer. The AK-47 has been doing that for umpteenth years.

The 2nd is met perfectly by the bullpup which detractors refuse to admit due to old school stubborness. Its called BARREL LENGTH!

Whatever overall length of the weapon, the bullpup offers 25-30% greater barrel length compared to traditional layout rifles. Accuracy, range & projectile power improves markedly as a result - whatever projectile/propellant/ergonomics/optics used!

I’m so sick & tired of folks who whine and moan about “Oh, I’m not used to it… I don’t like it… its too difficult…its too unusual… I can’t this or that”. They ought to shut up, re-train and get on with the serious business. Although we’re trained to call it our wives in the army, the rifle is not your *********ion device for you to derive pleasure rubbing, lubing & operating its parts. Its like the Nikon camera users who moan that their lenses & camera bodies give them a smoother ergonomic feel when the specifications are crap.

The reason why your American soldiers are dying with substandard rifles is because the M4 is precisely that – crap. It’s a CARBINE for bloody sakes… get it? It’s a compromised pea-shooter lacking range, power nor accuracy. All because of the magic word – BARREL LENGTH! Or the lack thereof.

It’s the reason why the urban legend “I shot the guy 3-4 times but he just got up and ran off” crap came about. No mention of distance, red mist or medical evidence – the shooter missed pure & simple! That’s what happens under combat stress with a shortened rifle barrel. Just like putting margarine in your car tank, but complaining about the engine. But let’s face it, if it happened to us, we probably wouldn’t admit missing a critical shot either.

It’s also how that “let’s go 6.8mm Grendel” crap came about… ppl think a bigger round will solve all problems. Notice how no evidence could be found that the 5.56mm lacks lethality if landed on the torso within the prescribed shooting range? Notice how armed forces using the bullpups NEVER complain about 5.56mm lethality??

The 5.56mm was invented for a 20” barrel. Get that right. Whatever projectile weight or barrel rifling twists used, give the round (& its projectile’s base surface area) the 20” it deserves.

On that count alone, bullpups are the only way forward. But they offer way more than just the sacrosanct lethality.

Ergonomics are way better & saves lives. Being more compact, troops get in/out of vehicles much faster. CQB is much better too for daily house to house searches (a soldier’s nightmare). Bullpups are easier to keep pointed forwards not upwards when going around walls, corridors and doors. Meaning you shoot the other guy first b4 he shoots u. All that while retaining the full 5.56mm kinetic energy.

The trite moaning about ease of magazine change is also ridiculous. There’s no difficulty unless u’re a retard whose brain cannot be retrained. In fact I find the wrist forms a natural guide to the magazine well, the same way the Uzi uses the hand as an instinctive guide. If I can reload an M16 in total darkness by stuffing a magazine into the emptiness of the space in front of my right hand, I sure can do a bullpup magazine more easily. It’s a matter of how you practice & make correlational mental linkages!

The Brits in Iraq love their bullpup SA80s because firing from within cramped vehicles is so much easier and reloading is a breeze too since the loading hand does not need to reach as far away from the body into harms way.

The other trite moan is about the weight distribution. They say traditional rifles which are front heavy aid accurate fire by reducing muzzle rise. That’s the old-school-dumb-***-swing-the-sledgehammer approach. Its like saying give a car a more comfortable ride by making it as heavy as possible (sprung vs unsprung weight). But the smarter way is to improve the suspension, damping, weight distribution, balance, chasis strength etc.

Bullpups’ shorter length means that for every given barrel length, the muzzle is closer to the body, which means that the torque and twist acting on the shoulder is not as ****ounced. The supporting hand is also nearer the muzzle and able to exert greater control. Given the inherently in-line layout of most bullpups, recoil can be just as good if not better controlled. Its all physics and moments.

Considering that assault rifles are regarded as weapon systems capable of mounting grenade launchers, laser illuminators, tactical lights et al, traditional rifles become too ridiculously front heavy once you pile it on. U end up with the Hollywood phallic symbol rifles like the XM8. They are too unbalanced and must be supported 2 handed at all times. Notice how bullpups, once shoulder slung are basically held one handed? Rifles are a pain to carry and wear, which is 99.9% of the time. They are useful only during that brief moment when u pull the trigger. It’s the comfort that leads to less fatigue which leads to better performance during that 0.1% of the time that counts.

While earlier bullpups like the SA80 & FAMAS tends to be rear heavy, modern ones like the SAR-21 have a center of gravity directly on the pistol grip, which makes it a joy to hold & fire accurately.

Some cite the traditional rifle layout as offering advantages of more varied magazine choice. In practice, C-Mags will never be standard issue anyway, given how expensive (& unreliable) they are. It also goes against all good military training regarding making every shot count. Not to mention the logistics strain of replenishing rounds to the troops. While an adjustable butt stock offers advantages for body armour / winter clothing use, well-designed bullpups (with piccatiny rail mounted optical sights) offer great comfort for a suitably wide range of soldier sizes anyway, while offering all the advantages spelt out above.

Perhaps this explains why the XM8 has been such a fiasco. Congress wasn’t stupid in calling it an unnecessary and expensive toy not worth the marginal benefits. Its basically a gas-pistoned rifle with Hollywood style makeover and nothing else. Different configurations & interchangeable parts? All modern bullpups from the STEYR, FAMAS, SA80, Tavor, SAR-21 already do that. In fact, its so desperate to justify itself, they probably tried to shave ounces off the overall weight by using thinner/poorer polymer that promptly overheats and melts. Polymers are no longer new in gun design, rule of diminishing returns apply. So much so the Marines do not want it. Even the FN SCAR doesn’t impress me much – a mere rehash of existing gas-piston designs.

If the troops in Iraq need more reliable weapons, then issue drop-in replacement gas-piston upper receivers for every M16s & be done with it. Relatively cost effective & quick with no retraining needed. But if a more compact weapon is needed, the M4 or any other traditional rifle with a sawed off barrel is not it! The shorter barrel & gas tube increases the rate of fire and places huge stress on the internal mechanisms, not to mention worsening accuracy further beyond barrel length issues.. For a better weapon all round, the most of the modern armed forces have already gone bullpup – numerous military thinkers and independent analyses round the world can’t be all wrong at once.


Reading through that thread you'll see that guy's opinion gets ripped to shreds.




Once again, and you don't seem to be nle to comprehend this- the Indian SOFs are ONLY getting a few M4s for Very limited missions/roles. The Tavor family is well and truly he standard rifle of Indian SOFs and rightfully so.
 
.
:lol:


I don't care what language an Indian speaks in, but you can always tell who is an indian, by BO, skin color, or goofy accent.
 
.
M4 is being replaced in almost every military in the world- US SOFs haven't used the weapon as their primary Assualt rifle in years, the US army is actively involved in looking for a relacment to the M4, the USMC never fully adopted the M4, instead they shore to stick with the M-16.

Again baseless crap... M4 aint goin anywhere:

http://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&r...ZnOwd_1Jh2ad4nO0i8tvhYg&bvm=bv.48705608,d.bGE

http://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&r...lfwrSpmnSvFyWxPObhMx7Pw&bvm=bv.48705608,d.bGE


Army Kills Competition to Replace M4 | Military.com

Redirect Notice

US forces with M4s in Afghanistan (recent pics):

14o60ki.jpg


73m829.jpg


ktf2s.jpg


rjqscy.jpg


SEALs with M4s:



Militarys gun of choice a lil older article:

Redirect Notice

Infact why dnt you go and view US army thread on MP.met? instead of makin baseless claims?

The United States Army - Thread - Page 106
From 2 days ago (not TEN years ago like your quote):

A few benefits of tavor... or should i say bullpups...
From MP.net:

Again talkin abt bullpups in general includin SA80s,Famas,AUG etc...

Reading through that thread you'll see that guy's opinion gets ripped to shreds.

yeah right..
Once again, and you don't seem to be nle to comprehend this- the Indian SOFs are ONLY getting a few M4s for Very limited missions/roles. The Tavor family is well and truly he standard rifle of Indian SOFs and rightfully so.

Good for em..
 
. . . . . . .
Back
Top Bottom