[quote=Archer;402777]I think many Indians would take you up on that statement.
Suffice to say that the Indo-Pak battles were cases where neither side gave and took no quarter. The Indian side at least was very well versed with its equipment, and several Pakistanis were quite competent as well.[quote]
Uhmm ok, but were they are technically proficent as a western crew? (having serious deja vu right now)
Quote:
|
All of these are reasons but I submit the most basic reason was that the Indians were more tactically proficient with their tanks. At the end it just boils down to who was more competent, and the Indians had the edge. It could have been the reverse, if complacency had set in amongst Indian armour.
|
vs
Quote:
|
You are citing the bit by Steven Zaloga who relied on Pak accounts. Instead if we see the official '65 history it was far more edgy than the above, and again- it wasnt the equipment as much as tactical blunders on the Indian side.
|
so which is it? If the Pakistanis had not counter attacked the world would be talking about how the Indian tankers could not punch through the Pakistani lines to reach Lahore.
Quote:
|
The AMX-13 and Sherman were weaker tanks overall, vs the Patton. That has been remarked in countless accounts of the conflict. Cent- no doubt, its either equal or better, depending on what parameters you pick.
|
The AMX13 was faster, smaller and packed a lethal gun it was ideal for a light tank. It could not go toe to toe with the Patton but it could sting it to death in a running fight.