Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
Uhmm ok, but were they are technically proficent as a western crew? (having serious deja vu right now)
|
Why not? They could operate their equipment as well as it could be used. And according to you, in NATO exercises, the PATTON didnt do as well either-and its BC was too complicated etc. So that does imply that the western crews fared no better with it.
Quote:
vs
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.
|
Two different engagements- two different commanders, two different groups fighting it out, and two different outcomes!
It might surprise you, but in 1965, the Indian Army was not a monolith. On both sides, commanders varied between the audacious, the conservative, to the incompetent. Overall, the edge lay with the Indian Army. But its not just technical competence or bravery that decides the war, its experience and the initiative displayed by the brass. India for one, was very loath to lose men and material on account of the "developing country syndrome", where both are very expensive to come by. The Pakistanis on the other hand bought into their mythos of 1 Pakistani Muslim= 10 effete Hindus full scale, leading to some real reckless actions on their part, which made no tactical or strategic sense. The entire war was an unecessary and ill thought venture on the part of Pakistan, with no thought even given to basics like ammunition stocks! Obviously the Indians would surrender after a few hard knocks and the Mughal empire would be reborn- as if!
In Assal Uttar, the Indian side was more competent and as the draw would have it, most of the commanders and units were in synch- even there, if you read the PDF above- one brass type is criticized for not having taken the initiative. The Pakistanis were tactically incompetent, and got suckered into a losing fight again and again and again.
In the fight for Lahore, the Indian side was cautious and didnt want to get suckered in- that itself is often pointed to as a mistake. It didnt reinforce striking units, got caught in caution allowing the Pakistanis to rush reinforcements in turn, etc etc. It became a slogging match which, incidentally neither side hoped to have since both thought they had limited resources (India actually had ammo to continue the war, but accounting snafus convinced its own brass that a ceasefire was best. Pak was running out of tank ammo, in particular). Incidentally, the lessons of '65 came to bear in '71, where many of the people who fought and studied '65 went on to conduct the Bangla campaign which was nothing but audacious.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Sure but the Patton could do the same to it, and in fact take it on in a headon fight as well. Its not really the equal of the Patton then.