zraver

I have been looking at penetration data and the Centurion with its heavier armor could engage the Patton from 2000m and remain relatively safe if it was hull down. the 90mm gun does about 160mm or penetration at that range and the Cent has 152mm of armor so its a close call. But the Centurions 20 pounder can punch holes in the Patton from that range with ease because the Patton only had 110mm of armor at 60 degrees. If the Indian's had 105mm equipped Centurions with penetration at 2000m well in excess of 200mm RHAe its not even close.

Ray

Thank you.

Indians are super, in all spheres, I presume if one goes by your post.

Apart from being slingshot savvy, being low tech!

Pattons must be sure real poor in quality even though it was the latest at that time with the original paint still on!

The US sure sold a lemon to the Pakistanis!

I can't believe that the US was inferior to UK tech. But if you say so, who am I to contest?

Maybe Patton's acclaim was because of the age old US art of hype and hyperbole!

You would know better!

India may buy the US F 16. I sure hope the Indian govt is not sold a lemon like Pakistan has seen over the ages!

__________________


"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

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

tankie

PEASANT,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , Bracketing ?? just imagine a menage a trois

__________________
TANKIE , WITHOUT WAX

tankie

Yes you creep , you always got the cushy postings , just because you played hockey wasnt it , and squash , so tell me Dave , whilst trolling round the world with the ruperts playing your "sports" just how did you practice enough gunnery to maintain your one round hits , and IF you did get one round hits , you obviously took in the lessons i taught you ,,, well done that man , makes me feel my job was worthwhile

lemontree

The AMX13 was no pipsqueek during its time. C Sqn 20 Lancers (IA) prooved it with their grit in the battle on Chamb 1st Sept 1965, when they faced 3 Pak Patton equipped regts single handedly.

Had all the sqns (of 20 Lancers) been present in Chamb on 1st Sept, the Pattons would have got another kicking and that too from a French tank

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

dave lukins

LeamonTree, I have no doubt you are correct but, being used to the Centurion 20 pounder and the 105mm it felt very strange to me

Shipwreck

The Chieftain was actually issued its No.1 Mk.2 laser sight in the early 1970s.

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9)

Shipwreck

Just to keep the records straight, here is the exact statement that triggered this discussion :

That some within the Indian armor community may have thought at the time that the Pakistani Pattons were "far superior" to their Centurions doesn't sound implausible.

To proclaim that the Pakistani Pattons were actually "far superior" to the Indian Centurions back in 1965 is nevertheless a gross overstatement to say the least.

As for the Pakistanis having M48A5 and/or laser-rangefinder-equipped M48s back in 1965, it is nothing but pure nonsense.

zraver

Brigadier that was uncalled for.

Are you claiming the average Pakistani and Indian in 1965 were as technically proficent as the average American or Britisher?

The Pattons were defeated for a number of reasons
A- The crews were not skilled in using the ballistic computers
B- they were firing on the Shermans but being fired on by the Centurions
C- They were attacking a dug in enemy
D- the Patton M-47 was junk, and the M-48 while an improvement still had lighter armor and a weaker gun than the Centurion.
E- Pakistani commanders did not show flair or boldness on the attack

Prior to Assal Uttar however the Pattons did great work repulsing the Indian attack in the battle of Chawinda stopping 11 corps advance on Lahore and forcing the Indians over onto the defensive.

M-47 Patton 46 tons, 48km/h, M-36 90mm gun, maximum armor 101mm, poor ballistic shaping, large size (big target), but good power to weight 17.7-1

Weight 46 tonnes combat ready
Length 8.51 m
Width 3.51 m
Height 3.35 m

M-48 Patton 45 tons, M68 90mm gun, 110mm maximum armor, good ballsitic shaping, poor power to weight ration 13.3-1, high top speed 48km/h, huge size (really big target)

Weight M48: 45 tonnes combat ready
Length 9.3 m
Width 3.65 m
Height 3.1 m

Centurion 51 tons, maximum armor 152mm (50% more than the M-47), 20 pounder OQF or 105mm L-7 gun, low power to weight ratio 13-1, compact size (smaller target), slow 34km/h

Weight 51 long tons (52 tonnes )
Length 25 ft (7.60 m)
Width 11 ft 1 in (3.39 m)
Height 9 ft 10.5 in (3.01 m)

AMX-13 excellent 75mmL/70 gun, small size (very small target) 60km/h top speed, light armor 40mm maximum

Weight 13.7 tonnes empty/14.5 tonnes combat
Length 4.88 m (gun forward: 6.36 m)
Width 2.51 m
Height 2.35 m

As can be seen the Indian tanks were not outclassed by any means. In fact except for speed the Centurion had the important advantages of better armor, better gun, smaller target size. Even the much maligned AMX-13 could destroy a Patton at range.

zraver

Its an outright falsehood. The ballistic computer should have given it (M-48) better accuracy at long range with a highly skilled crew. But that never materialized in the NATO tank gunnery competitions. Without that computer the Centurions only other shortfall is its slower speed it leads in every other catagory.

Ok thanks

Officer of Engineers

Z,

But isn't it the case that Indian CENT crews were just as good as their British counterparts? They read the ground right. They had the proper ranges. And they read the enemy right. How much better could have the Brits done?

__________________
Chimo

Ray

Maybe they were not having equivalent academic standards, but to claim that being academically qualified equals intelligence is not a fair comparison.

One can have a whole lot of degrees that indicates his academic prowess, but could it not be that the person's memory is what holds him in good stead and not his application skills?

An officer can be academically superb, but maybe he will not be so proficient as to strip and assemble parts as an Other Rank! Or that he is a better gunner than his tank gunner! Would Albert Einstein be a better Formula One driver than Schuemaker?

The same soldier as was there in 1965 is still in the IA, except now instead of Class 8, he has to be high school pass. And the chap is firing missiles including the Prithivi and using computers! Just a difference of two grades and he is accepted to be qualified to use computers and missiles!

This is what perplexes me when people equate academic prowess with application skill, though I will concede that there has to be some basic academic background that allow the person to understand the system.

Just because the Patton failed in the Indo Pak War, to do it down and claim other tanks were superior is not fair. It was supposed to be the state of art in those times.

One should check the vintage of the Indian Centurions, the technical aspects and compare it with the Patton, which was supposed to be having a better technical advaantage over other tanks of that time.

It would be very odd to give weightage to the Centurion, just because it was made in the country of one's birth.

The Centurion was a good tank and did a yoeman's service in the Indian Army, but then if the tankers of those times felt that Patton was superior, obviously there must be good reasons to feel so.

Added:

I find the Colonel has explained better than me!

Ray

A brand new tank responds better than a vintage tank?

Would that make any difference in performance?

dave lukins

None whatsoever, Nobody is denying the skills of the tank crews on both sides. Yes they were as good as any Tank Crew, probably better, due to active service