Why does Pakistan Army use G3

[Xeric]

Say its 2000K rifles costing a sum total of maybe $2 billion...heck lets add another billion to it to make it $3 billion !

Are you telling me that we're so cash starved that we can't even spend $3 billion spread over say a 5 year acquisition plan ?

That'll be $600 million p.a - Thats a lot of money but surely not an impossible amount to spend for a country ?

Take into account that such a major change will not be made within 5 years, especially when the old G3s would also have to be disposed off. Remember, being a poor country we cant just throw away the old equipment.

Instead, what we normally do is that let's say 5K G3s are condemned each year, so we would add (only) 5K new rifles each year. Next year with another 5, may be 6K G3s gone, we would add and equivalent number of newer rifles. This is how poor countries do it. So it is not that easy.

Also, keep into account what @niaz has said:

In a cash starved Pakistan, question for the army planners must be; would these funds be more beneficial to the Army’s fighting ability if spent on some other defence hardware?

 

[niaz]

Say its 2000K rifles costing a sum total of maybe $2 billion...heck lets add another billion to it to make it $3 billion !

Are you telling me that we're so cash starved that we can't even spend $3 billion spread over say a 5 year acquisition plan ?

That'll be $600 million p.a - Thats a lot of money but surely not an impossible amount to spend for a country ?

Funds allocated to the PA are not unlimited. Planners at the GHQ have to decide where this money is to be spent. On replacing the assault rifle or on some other hardware such as additional helicopters or APC’s or field guns? It is a question of priority.

For example I came across a quote by a US General that in his opinion a squadron of 20 attack helicopters was equal to a couple of armoured brigades in offensive capability, but he would rather have the attack helicopters.

IMO, if Pak Army planners at the GHQ have not thus far decided to replace G3, it can only be because they must think that limited funds available to PA are better spent elsewhere.

 

[Armstrong]

There is a finite allocation of funds allocated to the PA are not unlimited. Planners at the GHQ have to decide where this money is to be spent. On replacing the assault rifle or on some other hardware such as additional helicopters or APC’s or field guns? It is a question of priority.

For example I came across a quote by a US General that in his opinion a squadron of 20 attack helicopters was equal to a couple of armoured brigades in offensive capability, but he would rather have the attack helicopters.

IMO, if Pak Army planners at the GHQ have not thus far decided to replace G3, it can only be because they must think that limited funds available to PA are better spent elsewhere.

I hear you but considering what @Xeric said about replacing them at a much slower rate; say if we take 15 years to replace it....that'll cost what maybe $150 million per year - Thats doable....isn't it ?

I think that the reason we're not replacing the G3s has less to do with the alternative's price tag and more to do with the notion 'if it ain't broken....don't fix it' in that the G3 is still considered by the Army to be a fine.....fine Battle Rifle and they don't see it being outclassed in the short or medium term. In fact they probably think that with the upgrades here and there the G3 might even see herself serving admirably in the Army till the mid 2030s !

What do you say @Xeric ?

 

[Xeric]

I hear you but considering what @Xeric said about replacing them at a much slower rate; say if we take 15 years to replace it....that'll cost what maybe $150 million per year - Thats doable....isn't it ?

I think that the reason we're not replacing the G3s has less to do with the alternative's price tag and more to do with the notion 'if it ain't broken....don't fix it' in that the G3 is still considered by the Army to be a fine.....fine Battle Rifle and they don't see it being outclassed in the short or medium term. In fact they probably think that with the upgrades here and there the G3 might even see herself serving admirably in the Army till the mid 2030s !

What do you say @Xeric ?

Oye motay dimagh, by the time (15 yrs) this G3 would be replaced, smartazzez like yourself would already be showing us a another newer weapon to replace the previous yet-to-be-fully inducted rifle.

 

[Armstrong]

Oye motay dimagh, by the time (15 yrs) this G3 would be replaced, smartazzez like yourself would already be showing us a another newer weapon to replace the previous yet-to-be-fully inducted rifle.

Bhai ko kiya keh diyaa ? Dil tooot giyaa meraa !

I was just saying it for you that maybe you won't be able to fire a G3 because its so heavy and well you've got a lady's arms !

Warnaa Bhai keh tou muscle hain....I'm sure I can fire the G3 at full burst !

 

[niaz]

Bhai ko kiya keh diyaa ? Dil tooot giyaa meraa !

I was just saying it for you that maybe you won't be able to fire a G3 because its so heavy and well you've got a lady's arms !

Warnaa Bhai keh tou muscle hain....I'm sure I can fire the G3 at full burst !

Like your sense of humour.

I have never had the opportunity to fire G3. But I have used Weatherby Mark V 0.300 magnum. It is an excellent rifle but does it have a kick! It was bolt action and I don't think I could use it if it was automatic.I sincerely hope G-3's kick is nothing like it.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

5.56 as round has more or less failed, due to the simple fact that it lacks the stopping power.
The nerative that was given for the intro of this caliber was that they were looking to cause maximum injuries so as to put max strain on the opposing armies resources. That was the theory.
But in practice it failed miserably partly as in both instances they were not facing a regular conventional army but a insurgency.
So the result as that the U.S is moving awY from from the 5.56 caliber n the latest reports indicate that they want to 38 special round. As it is small n resolves the size prob Plus it has the stopping power as well

yes they are moving back to heavier round.
there are many reasons for that

in Iraq and Afghanistan, the MOUT presented the challenge for 5.56 where it couldnt penetrate the urban infrastructure such as walls, metal sheets, pipes etc.


but 5.56 has not failed as claimed, its advantages like accuracy, less weight , cost effectiveness cant be discounted. in CBQ situations for example when there is clear field of fire then how much challenge will the human skull present to this bullet? war is a fluid concept there is no one fix for all Microsoft patch available here.
one has to adapt.
and when the target is the face or upper part of the torso which normally doesnt have the armor due to the u neck line then stopping power is not an issue.
back to 7.62
introduction of bullpup design cuts down the length of the battle rifle which looks like a pole arm by today's standards , the recoil mechanism is improved in a way to reduce the recoil which increases the accuracy and longevity of the arm socket of the shooter

in the end I want a lighter, compact but effective rifle for our troops, yes they have managed to carry the G3 for about half a century but their battle effectiveness and stamina will increase if the dead weight of their gear is reduced.

 

[Xeric]

Like your sense of humour.

I have never had the opportunity to fire G3. But I have used Weatherby Mark V 0.300 magnum. It is an excellent rifle but does it have a kick! It was bolt action and I don't think I could use it if it was automatic.I sincerely hope G-3's kick is nothing like it.

G3 does have a kick, it is difficult to control it on cyclic rate, but then if it is to be used on cyclic/machine gun role, it is provided with a bi-pod.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

G3 does have a kick, it is difficult to control it on cyclic rate, but then if it is to be used on cyclic/machine gun role, it is provided with a bi-pod.

did you check the link I posted earlier about Norwegian guy shooting it at full auto? thee are some other videos of Germans firing it while standing at full auto without any problem. maybe its their stance and gripping the gun.... they always lean forward a bit.

if the situation requires, the gun can be fired at full auto .just that looking at our men shooting it show there is a lot of room for improvement

 

[Armstrong]

@Xeric - No reply !

 

[Xeric]

did you check the link I posted earlier about Norwegian guy shooting it at full auto? thee are some other videos of Germans firing it while standing at full auto without any problem. maybe its their stance and gripping the gun.... they always lean forward a bit.

if the situation requires, the gun can be fired at full auto .just that looking at our men shooting it show there is a lot of room for improvement

Waisay tu Rambo bhi khara ho k machine gin chalata hai
But what i said was that if required to be used on MG role, the G3 manual says to make use of the bi-pod provided with the rifle.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Waisay tu Rambo bhi khara ho k machine gin chalata hai
But what i said was that if required to be used on MG role, the G3 manual says to make use of the bi-pod provided with the rifle.

Gi Sir
just saying ,, G3 CAN be shot like that. if done properly and if the situation requires. after all our Jawans and Saabs like you do fire the MG1A3 while standing and marching forward as well with ease

 

[Armstrong]

Gi Sir
just saying ,, G3 CAN be shot like that. if done properly and if the situation requires. after all our Jawans and Saabs like you do fire the G3 while standing and marching forward as well with ease

@Xeric kahin Kangriii-Pehalwan tou nahin that he can't stand the recoil ?

Xeric Bhai waisee koi reply nahin....koi lift hii nahin !

 

[Irfan Baloch]

@Xeric kahin Kangriii-Pehalwan tou nahin that he can't stand the recoil ?

Xeric Bhai waisee koi reply nahin....koi lift hii nahin !

I must correct my self I mean MG1A3 firing while standing

 

[Khan_patriot]

One thing I know about G3 is that its not just an assault rifle but a more powerful battle rifle which can penetrate level III body armor without any AP bullets.

As here are a lot of experts so can you ppl tell me that aren't rifles using 5.45 or 7.62 x 39 mm rounds like Famas, M4,AK74 or Ak103 respectively, are somewhat better than g3.

Many NATO nations use Hk416 and modern guns so why dosent PAkistan. On tv I mostly see that our soldiers have either G3 or type81 chinese Ak47's. M4's and Ak74 and 103 are only used by Special forces.

Its a very good all round rifle, is multi-purpose, reliable and battle tested, its larger bullet is its biggest advantage, if I shoot anyone with the G3 I know that he is not getting up but with a anyother I may have to double tap, even the US is considering to change to a caliber larger then their standard NATO rounds because of lack of lethality, plus we dont have the resources to change from an already established weapons platform to a whole new one....