Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Z,
But isn't it the case that Indian CENT crews were just as good as their British counterparts? They read the ground right. They had the proper ranges. And they read the enemy right. How much better could have the Brits done?
|
Would the Brits have bungled Chawinda?
Quote:
|
Maybe they were not having equivalent academic standards, but to claim that being academically qualified equals intelligence is not a fair comparison.
|
I never said academics, I said technically proficent. How many Indians or Pakistanis grew up hunting so that thier minds were effectively ballistic computers and enemy detection system, or tinkering on engines etc. America had huge reserves of such people.
Quote:
|
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.
|
State of the art does not always mean the best. In anyway you stack the deck the Centurion comes out on top. Thicker armor, better gun, better gunnery history in NATO and combat, smaller size. The only advantage ofthe Pattons were higher top end.
Quote:
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.
|
I am American so dissing the Patton isn't out of nationalism
The Pattons were over rated, combat history and NATO trials prove this. America didn't really have a winning tank design until the M60A1 that arrived in 1961. This 52 ton tank had 225mm of well shaped armor and a 105mm gun and a high top end. It's only draw back was its huge shilloutte.