Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
You said they were protecitgn thier small base of skilled personel. if they had a alrge pool of technically proficent people to begin with...
|
Sigh, only if you insist on believing what you want to believe as compared to reading my statements for what they are meant to be..
Soldiers AND equipment are expensive. They cant be just built up overnight, not for a developing country. This is India circa 1965, with virtually non existent foreign exchange reserves, a huge issue of feeding its population...risk and audacity is proportional to the aims of war and secondly, the national resource backing it. Pakistan is a garrison state - India isnt. That rules out #1. Second, thats where the developing country syndrome hits.
Quote:
|
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
|
.
Please continue to believe that if you will, but you cant ignore either historical records OR for that matter, the Pakistani Armys own statements. First- EVERY war Pakistan has fought with India has been marked by tactical audacity on the Pakistani side, almost invariably let down by p*ss poor strategy and underestimation of the opponents will to fight- if that doesnt speak of the ill-effects of propoganda, nothing else will.
Second- those who became Pakistanis etc did yeoman service under British control, led by the British, and fought as part of Indian units, staffed heavily with the British @higher command. So lets see whether they had an opportunity to develop their war leadership skills before the British. Unlike, Indian empires such as the Marathas and Sikhs, no Pakistani Punjabi empire ever created its own standing army of equal caliber or drilled to the RMA of the time, the disciplined infantry with muskets who wouldnt break and run at battle. Even the last remnant of Islamic power in the subcontinent- Ahmed Abdali, was Afghani not of present day Pak. Back to the British then: Till 1857, the proportion of Muslims in the British Army was considerably lesser than that of other natives. After 1857, the loyal natives were rewarded, the mutineers and their ethnic/religious groups downsized and a % marked to each group, and hence began the ascendance of the forefathers of todays Pak Army and the hoary claim of being a martial race etc. Fact is that they have little to no connection of being part of a successful empire that ever existed in India, and during WW1 and WW2, they like most other Indians, were led and put into battle by Brits. During WW2, if you look at senior officers of native origin, most went to India- and they were but a handful to begin with. Even that, being of limited use.
Fact: Both India & Pakistan in 1965 were armies that were "learning" as far as waging war on their own was concerned. And UNLIKE Pakistan, India didnt sell its troops a line of hokey that their faith and piety would translate into automatic battlefield performance. That continues to be the reason why the Indian Army has a more representative modern officer corps which is secular, rational and does not covet power, unlike the Pakistani Army which sees itself as the self assigned guardian of Islam & Pakistan, both being synonymous.
Quote:
|
take your own advice, not all Pakistanis are zealots.
|
Not all. But a significant percentage.
Continue believing that they havent bought into their own idealogy, if you will since you have missed my point in totality- thats like stating that the Crusades were political and had no religious element to them. I would rather take an Army that declares its motto to be " Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi Sabilillah" at its word. Not to mention its actions against non combatants it deemed heretical in 1971, and throughout the 80's and 90's in its own country. I dont underestimate the Pakistanis- they will fight hard in defence and wont be a walk over. But as far as being a professional apolitical worldclass armed forces is concerned, they are hampered severely by their idealogy and the greed of their officer corps. There are 24 hours in a day- you can spend those either doing your job (preparing for war), or running the local Govt. Needless to say, the latter affects the former.
Quote:
|
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?
|
I would like to see the reasoning behind that incredible piece of reasoning.
Especially considering that India entered Kashmir AFTER Pakistan invaded it.
And considering that India didnt "grab" Kashmir, it was in talks with both the ruler as well as the popular leader (Sheikh Abdullah).
Quote:
|
Or they didn't lead the attack with the Shermans which had weaker armor and guns.
|
Fail to get what you mean by this.
Quote:
|
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.
|
So why are your regulars- who were according to you, automatically well trained on account of their upbringing etc- unable to cope with "crack crews"?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Simple logic- America, by the time of WW2 was an industrial power. India, was a colony with considerable resource constraints. One will be more profligate with its war and where it wages it, the other wont be.
Quote:
|
Look at the units involved, they were the same ones.
|
Were the leaders the same? Were the companies the same?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Semantics.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Not even with their Pattons?