Patton vs Centurion 1965 Indo-Pakistan war - Page 11

Shipwreck · 09-07-2007, 03:56 AM

Excerpts from an interview with a Pakistani Brigadier (full interview here) :

Quote:

Tank gunnery of the early forties, as taught at ‘Babina’ (pre-partition training centre) was taught, for instance a tank gun firing procedure called “semi-indirect fire”, with artillery method of registering of the target by bracketing which related to the Lee-Grant (which became obsolete in 1943) where the commander could see the target and the gunner could not because in the Lee-Grant tank the main 75 mm gun was fitted in a sponson on the side of the tank while the tank commander was up in a turret which housed a 37 mm gun; I had a number of arguments about this method of target engagement, till 1964, even the M47 and M48 tanks were modified to continue this method of firing. In 1964, while I was in Armour Directorate I questioned it again and it was finally discontinued. The application of tank gunnery, in the attack, defence and encounter, the importance of the vertical bracket, and the use of the range finder was never understood and applied.

Quote:

The allegation that the Patton was too sophisticated for the Pakistan Armoured Corps is incorrect, the fault lay in our officers who trained the crew. In the Armoured Corps at that time the best and most educated recruit was trained as a wireless operator, the next best was trained as a driver (this was the most desired trade because a job could be got as a driver outside the army), as far as the tank drivers and operators were concerned they quickly learnt their functions on the new tanks, in fact the operation of the AN/GRC 3 and 4 and the SCR 528 sets made wireless operation very simple.

The Sherman and Stuart gunnery was very simple so normally the least educated and the dopiest recruits were made gunners, the only sophistication the M 47 and M 48 had was the optical range finder which required understanding and a little intelligence in its operation to get accurate ranges for direct anti-tank and other direct shooting.

The range finder was an optical instrument whose working and operation was difficult to make our gunners understand and required about a thousand practice ranging, these were never mastered. What should have been done was to select the most intelligent recruits as gunners.

The M 47 and the M 48 tanks were not too sophisticated for our tank crew but the Armoured Corps did not want to change and shed what it had brought from ‘Babina’.

Archer · 09-07-2007, 15:34 PM

In other words, despite the Good Brig.'s attempt to protect the "izzat" of the Pak armoured corps, the contemporary accounts are correct- the Patton was indeed too complex for the PAC, since the designated gunners couldnt master it and their existing gunnery processes were inadequate.

Other interesting comments:

Quote:

How would you assess the negative or positive impact of General Musa as C-in-C of the Pakistan Army from 1958-66?

There was no positive impact, the negative impact was felt in the 1965 war, with our superiority in equipment, specially tanks, we should have won the 1965 war very easily.

We had enough tanks to form two armoured divisions, one of M 47s and one of M 48s, and armoured brigade of M4A1s (Sherman IIs) and providing a Sherman III/V regiment to each infantry division and forming an anti-tank regiment with the M 36b2s.

The re-organisation of 1962-63 with the introduction of the Recce and Support battalions of infantry wasted infantry battalions and anti-tank fire power, the reduction of infantry divisions from nine to seven battalions reduced the capability of infantry divisions, specially with the vast frontages that they had to defend, (an infantry division front was supposed to be 10,000 yards 10 Division had nearly 50,000 yards.)

Since there was a limitation on the manpower and ammunition supply was also restricted by the terms of the US Aid methods should have been worked out to overcome these, manpower could have been easily managed.

Quote:

You have stated some commanding officers of some tank regiments collapsed in Khem Karan. Why did this happen?

In Khem Karan the armoured division commander, two brigade commanders and four out of five armoured regiment commanders collapsed. This happened because our commanders are neither trained nor tested for working under battlefield stress.
How far do you agree or disagree with Lieut General Gul Hassan Khan’s theory that the prime reason for the failure of 1st Armoured Division’s was Major General Nasir?

Major General Nasir was responsible to the extent that he failed to get a grip on the division. The 1st Armoured Division operation was planned to be conducted with 7 Division, less brigade, providing the required infantry support, GHQ, which includes General Musa, the CGS and DMO (Gul Hassan Khan) moved 7 Division for the Chamb operation ‘Grand Slam’ and ordered the Armoured Division to conduct the operation without the required infantry; the failure of the division commander, firstly, was in not pointing out the inadequacy of troops and, secondly, not ensuring that subordinate commanders carried out the tasks given to them.

will read the rest later...quite interesting link.

**Officer of Engineers** · 09-08-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer

In other words, despite the Good Brig.'s attempt to protect the "izzat" of the Pak armoured corps, the contemporary accounts are correct- the Patton was indeed too complex for the PAC, since the designated gunners couldnt master it and their existing gunnery processes were inadequate.

Not a very good tank guy either since our experts here have found the CENTURION to be the better tank and the upgunned SHERMAN to be more than adequate. Superiority would not be the word I use.

Ray · 09-08-2007, 09:13 AM

Colonel,

There is a saying in India "Nach na jane, amgam tera!". This translated means "If one does not know how to dance, one claims that the dance floor is crooked!"

The Brigadier on the one hand claims "The allegation that the Patton was too sophisticated for the Pakistan Armoured Corps is incorrect," and on the other, goes into a a justification that the Patton failed because of adherence to British techniques!

I presume I have understood what he is trying to say.

He leave me befuddled!

Archer · 09-08-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Not a very good tank guy either since our experts here have found the CENTURION to be the better tank and the upgunned SHERMAN to be more than adequate. Superiority would not be the word I use.

Too many contradictory statements Col. He claims both sides were equal in gunnery, despite the PAC being hammered in almost all engagements and after putting forth that really convoluted explanation of "we were good but but .."

Hes trying hard to put forth the concept of a good institution let down by a few bad apples, who incidentally had sacked on account of grudges. But he seems to have come out of it alright, a bunch of plum positions in Army owned firms!

Archer · 09-08-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Colonel,The Brigadier on the one hand claims "The allegation that the Patton was too sophisticated for the Pakistan Armoured Corps is incorrect," and on the other, goes into a a justification that the Patton failed because of adherence to British techniques!
I presume I have understood what he is trying to say.

He leave me befuddled!

His reasoning is that the smartest chaps went on to become radio operators, and the dopes, the gunners. The logic behind that decision making is dubious, and his confidence that if it were reversed, things would be A-ok, is speculative.

zraver · 09-08-2007, 20:52 PM

The Only Patton that was ever "best" was the M60A1 from 1963-67 it was the best tank in the world.

tankie · 12-11-2007, 03:44 AM

[quote=Ray;404258]Colonel,

There is a saying in India "Nach na jane, amgam tera!". This translated means "If one does not know how to dance, one claims that the dance floor is crooked!"

QUOTE]

Yes Ray , a bad workman always blames his tools ?

Albany Rifles · 12-11-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

The Only Patton that was ever "best" was the M60A1 from 1963-67 it was the best tank in the world.

I am a big fan of the M-60A1 but are you saying that in that time frame or overall? And it was not the best of the series...that has to be the M60A3.

zraver · 12-13-2007, 16:21 PM

From 63-67, yes the A3TTS was the best of the series its the tank I started on.

Ray · 12-14-2007, 01:01 AM

[quote=tankie;436418]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Colonel,

There is a saying in India "Nach na jane, amgam tera!". This translated means "If one does not know how to dance, one claims that the dance floor is crooked!"

QUOTE]

Yes Ray , a bad workman always blames his tools ?

Thanks.

I just wanted to give an exotic oriental touch to this whole "subcheese".

tankie · 12-14-2007, 02:10 AM

[quote=Ray;437673]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankie

Thanks.

I just wanted to give an exotic oriental touch to this whole "subcheese".

Welcome .

furkensturker · 12-15-2007, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave lukins

And Glyn I was one of the winning crew as a gunner!!

I still prefer the Centurion to this day

I think you and Glyn have been rattling around inside cents for way too long. We're talking about a tank where you need three arms to change gear,

a tank where you had come almost to a complete stop to go over the smallest of bumps.

I always thought buckets were a strange lot.

We got rid of ours in 1976 for the Leopard 1, chalk and cheese really. Go faster, even over rough ground, no worrying about how you're going to change gears with only two hands, the Leopard has even got a steering wheel. But proberly the best thing of all is you don't have to tow the bomb around that is the mono trailer because the Leopard runs on diesel.

Freddie

furkensturker · 12-15-2007, 09:51 AM

[quote=tankie;437692]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Welcome .

Hey Tankie, you still taking your anti drip medication?

Freddie

furkensturker · 12-15-2007, 09:58 AM

Was it the Sherman that had the nickname of "ronson", lights up first time, every time when hit. someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

We had the Matilda, I'm not sure what they were like.

Freddie

09-08-2007, 09:13 AM	#154 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,276 Country:	Colonel, There is a saying in India "Nach na jane, amgam tera!". This translated means "If one does not know how to dance, one claims that the dance floor is crooked!" The Brigadier on the one hand claims "The allegation that the Patton was too sophisticated for the Pakistan Armoured Corps is incorrect," and on the other, goes into a a justification that the Patton failed because of adherence to British techniques! I presume I have understood what he is trying to say. He leave me befuddled! __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

12-11-2007, 03:44 AM	#158 (permalink)
tankie tankie *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-22-06 Location: u/k Posts: 2,287 Country:	[quote=Ray;404258]Colonel, There is a saying in India "Nach na jane, amgam tera!". This translated means "If one does not know how to dance, one claims that the dance floor is crooked!" QUOTE] Yes Ray , a bad workman always blames his tools ? __________________ TANKIE , WITHOUT WAX

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?	Bluesman	The War in Iraq	1067	08-30-2008 06:09 AM
Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou	Officer of Engineers	The Field Mess	34	05-10-2007 15:44 PM
Indo-Pakistan Talks – Myths, Delusions and Fantasies!!	Ray	South Asian Defense Topics	11	05-06-2007 21:25 PM
Articles and links for the Military Professional	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	115	11-20-2006 11:28 AM
What Needs To Be Done To Make Pakistan A Haven Of, peace and security?	visioninthedark	South Asian Defense Topics	91	10-28-2004 14:27 PM

09-08-2007, 20:52 PM	#157 (permalink)
zraver Contrary by nature. *Military Professional* Join Date: 10-22-06 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,382 Country:	The Only Patton that was ever "best" was the M60A1 from 1963-67 it was the best tank in the world.

12-13-2007, 16:21 PM	#160 (permalink)
zraver Contrary by nature. *Military Professional* Join Date: 10-22-06 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,382 Country:	From 63-67, yes the A3TTS was the best of the series its the tank I started on.

12-15-2007, 09:58 AM	#165 (permalink)
furkensturker Underwater panelbeater *Military Professional* Join Date: 10-11-07 Location: West Gippsland, Victoria Posts: 621 Country:	Was it the Sherman that had the nickname of "ronson", lights up first time, every time when hit. someone please correct me if I'm wrong. We had the Matilda, I'm not sure what they were like. Freddie

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)