Quote:
|
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.
|
1- if they could have used thier equipment as well as it could have been used, why didn't they? At least on the Pakistani side the Pattons were used in frontal attacks and wasted thier effort on 26 ton enemies that could not easily hurt them while 52 ton monsters were firing on them.
2- I would like to say the BC was to complicated for anyone but I can't. One problem with the NATO competitions was the Americans didn't use crack crews like most of the Europeans did. Instead they used normal crews so its not a fair comparison other than to say the BC never lived up to its expectations but is this crew or mechanical? In 65 the Patton was flat out misused against an arguably superior foe.
Quote:
|
Two different engagements- two different commanders, two different groups fighting it out, and two different outcomes!
|
same units, same commanders, same outcome- the attacker lost But since Pakistan lost last, they are seen as the overall loser.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The AMX being 1/5 faster and 1/3 smaller with similar fire power could dictate the terms of the fight if it kept moving. The Patton could not easily run it to ground. For what it was the AMX13 was a great light tank. It gave cavalry units heavy hitting power and great speed, and it could easily double as a very effective tank destroyer.