Colonel,
You quote Wikipedia as authority and when I quote Wikipedia, it is lampooned!
I am not confused inspite of the attempts made towards that end . I want to know the actuals.
I am aware that the variants are either upgrades or modified to suit the clients requirement.
All are giving their opinion and with no concrete evidence and yet, LRF is not being accepted (not that it could be correct) because there is no authority to prove so that I can give as others are equally not being able to give to support their contention.
These after action war reports, and more so the one dished out in the open media, do not totally impress me because there are many issues that are not taken into consideration to prove that one side or the other did a marvellous job. At best, they are references.
I would not totally feel that the Pakistanis were not proficient.
I do not discuss for brownie points and therefore where the Pakistanis did well, I would surely give it to them, but analyse why we went wrong. I do so to add fruitfully to whatever little I know. Even this thread has given me a whole new vista to what I knew.
Without meaning offence, one of the posts here account of the US putting average tank crew against the best of European crew in NATO exercises is a case in point wherein reasons are thought out as to why one did not succeed! The same would be the story of each action of the 1965 War or for that matter, any war! As far as Centurions are concerned, one could state many reasons where it falters in the Indian weather and terrain while it may be a marvel in Europe. Nonetheless, notwithstanding, the Centurions did a marvellous job for the Indian Army and is fondly remembered by the tankers.
Vietnam is blamed on politicians. But some might contend that had the US Army been real hot, it would have gone through butter like a knife! So, are the politicians alone to blame? Everywhere, one finds some reasons as to why they fail to deliver, Indians notwithstanding!
Even so, I sure would like to know what were the reasons and if one has authoritative links it does help to analyse.
Quote:
|
to the M-47 and M-48 Pattons equipped with stereoscopic range-finders and sophisticated ballistic computers, which proved too complex for the ordinary Pakistani "sowar".
|
Another condescending humbug aimed to blame the subcontinental user (taken to be idiots) for the poor performance or applicability of the equipment!
Please read Archer's post on US tank crews performance in NATO exercises! Must have been too sophisticated for the US GI too!
Quote:
|
In the 1960s, optical range finders began to be replaced by laser range finders.
|
Replacement, as I understand, would not be for prototype fitment. It would be changing a whole lot of optical RF and replacing them with Laser RF.