Quote:
|
Are you claiming the average Pakistani and Indian in 1965 were as technically proficent as the average American or Britisher?
|
Maybe they were not having equivalent academic standards, but to claim that being academically qualified equals intelligence is not a fair comparison.
One can have a whole lot of degrees that indicates his academic prowess, but could it not be that the person's memory is what holds him in good stead and not his application skills?
An officer can be academically superb, but maybe he will not be so proficient as to strip and assemble parts as an Other Rank! Or that he is a better gunner than his tank gunner! Would Albert Einstein be a better Formula One driver than Schuemaker?
The same soldier as was there in 1965 is still in the IA, except now instead of Class 8, he has to be high school pass. And the chap is firing missiles including the Prithivi and using computers! Just a difference of two grades and he is accepted to be qualified to use computers and missiles!
This is what perplexes me when people equate academic prowess with application skill, though I will concede that there has to be some basic academic background that allow the person to understand the system.
Just because the Patton failed in the Indo Pak War, to do it down and claim other tanks were superior is not fair. It was supposed to be the state of art in those times.
One should check the vintage of the Indian Centurions, the technical aspects and compare it with the Patton, which was supposed to be having a better technical advaantage over other tanks of that time.
It would be very odd to give weightage to the Centurion, just because it was made in the country of one's birth.
The Centurion was a good tank and did a yoeman's service in the Indian Army, but then if the tankers of those times felt that Patton was superior, obviously there must be good reasons to feel so.
Added:
I find the Colonel has explained better than me!