Quote:
Originally Posted by Archer
As I have told you before, India in '65 was attrition averse and caution was the name of the game, for senior brass plus folks were moving divisions in battle for the first time. Folks didnt want to start something they couldnt finish. By 71, this attitude had disappeared in many sectors, and you had the blitzkreig without tanks (mostly) on Bangladesh.
|
You said they were protecitgn thier small base of skilled personel. if they had a alrge pool of technically proficent people to begin with...
Quote:
|
Because their leadership messed up. And have done so, repeatedly. You have to understand the Pakistani pysche and what they are told about their opponents. They believed the Indians would break and run. They were fed on the mythos of 1 Muslim = 10 Hindus.
|
I do not beleive that, India was on the losing end at the begining of the series of battles that would elad to the Patton Slaughter. Those who would become Pakistanis also did yoemans service with the British.
Quote:
|
Fanaticism does not equal tactical thinking. Underestimating the enemy is worse.
|
take your own advice, not all Pakistanis are zealots.
Quote:
|
Pakistan has repeatedly fallen into these traps in all the wars it has fought with India. Take a look at Kargil- tactically audacious, initial surprise...all wasted away on account of poor strategy- no reinforcements, inability to guage indian response, poor logistics etc.
|
Do you really think India would ahve tried to grab Kashmir in the first palce if they had been able to accurately guage the Pakistani responce?
Quote:
|
In the case of the Pattons, they were found wanting. But they crewed their Shermans well. They had had time and enough logistics to train.
|
Or they didn't lead the attack with the Shermans which had weaker armor and guns.
Quote:
|
So, a crack crew is needed to make use of the BC, then?
|
not what I said, I said the European antiosn sent crack crews to the competitions, while America sent regulars so that a comaprison was not valid.
Quote:
|
You made my point. Earlier you were stating that almost all American boys etc could do geewhiz stuff in their heads and were cut out for this kind of stuff...but they werent. Crack crews are invariably not the majority in any army (the term itself denotes the same)...lets talk about the average denomination, the well trained but average soldier...not the master gunner with thousands of drills under his belt.
|
Except that America could feild thousands of tanks, jets, and ships even if india could have afforded it they didn't have that skill base.
Quote:
|
Who says they were the same units, same commanders and the outcome was the same? India's assault on Lahore was a far more complicated affair and heck to manage. Add all the doctrinal issues I mentioned before as well.
|
Look at the units involved, they were the same ones.
Quote:
|
Secondly, you are again mistaken about the overall conflict with the 2nd statement..India is seen to be the winner now..decades after the war, since the Pak propoganda mythos has been removed thanks to impartial accounts which show India to have had more land/ territory and more combat kills to its name post war. Pakistan still claims a victory on the specious claim that it survived against a larger Indian foe, and hence thats enough..
|
If Pakistan had not gone over onto the attack after defeatign the intial Indian attack in the lahore sector, the hsitory books would call 65 or at leas tthe battles for lahore an Indian defeat.
Quote:
|
Sure, the AMX was good when used properly, but so was the Patton when used well. The simple point is that the AMX was a light tank. Your statement is akin to saying that the T-90 is as good as a M1 overall since the former can hurt the latter if crewed well and if the conditions favour it. But thats inaccurate. The M1 is a more capable tank overall.
|
No my statement wa sto show that the AMX-13 fullfilled a critical role in the Indian Army. It gave them a level of fast hard hitting firepower the Pakistanis could not match.