Shipwreck

Being an old school guy , I can only suggest a couple of off-line references on the Patton Tanks :

* Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank by R.P. Hunnicutt, Presidio Press, 1984, ISBN 978-0891412304 : THE BIBLE, sadly long out of print, used copies terribly expensive.

* The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks by Steven Zaloga, Osprey Publishing, 1999 (revised edition), ISBN 978-1855328259 : nowhere near as detailed as Hunnicutt's, but easily available and affordable, with some interesting developments on the whys and hows of rangefinders on the Pattons.

To keep a long story short :

1. The M47, M48, M48C, M48A1 and M48A2 all used stereoscopic rangefinder.

2. This was replaced by a coincidence rangefinder on the M48A2C, M48A3, M48A3 (Mod.B), (M48A4), M48A5, (M48A5PI), M60 and M60A1.

3. Though potentially more accurate and harder to *spoof* than coincidence rangefinders, stereoscopic rangefinders are much more difficult to use (*flying the geese* requires more aptitude, more training and a higher degree of concentration).

4. Hence to the switch to the more *user-friendly* coincidence type starting with the M48A2C.

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

Ray

So, what is the opinion on the Britannia claim:

On which tank were they used in the 60s?

Britannia is generally taken to be authentic.

__________________


"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

Shipwreck

When it entered service back in 1975, the M48A5 had the M17B1C coincidence rangefinder.

The M60A2 had the AN/VVS-1 laser rangefinder.

lemontree

The biggest screw up with the M47 Patton was its petrol engine - one hit and went up in flames. This was improved in the M48 with a diesel engine.

The absence of fire-on-the-move stabilizers - attackers suffered against dug in defenders.

One needs a war to judge a weapon system, the Patton failed and Centurian won in 1965. All the pre-war hyperbole of the Patton was blown apart at Assal Uttar.

Now the Centurian is said to be the better tank, something like our north western adversaries now claim that the F-86 was equal to the hunter or the F104 was not up to the mark against the Mig-21, so and so.

However, all this came after they got clobbered - prior to that those machines were considered invincible.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Shipwreck

Diesel engine was actually introduced on the M48A3.

Ray

Which tank was fitted with Laser Rangefinder in the 1960s which is what is claimed in Encyclopaedia Britannica?

I am sure some person who is well read on tank and tank technology should be able to answer or dig out.

Rather keen to know.

Ray

What variant of Patton tanks were used? There is a lot of contradictions in the posts.

Ray

Patton

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/c...48A5_camo2.gif

Attached Images

M48A5_camo2.gif (70.4 KB, 60 views)

Ray

The Patton (Pak Modified) of 1965

The difference maybe noted.

And what is the difference in "Pak Modified" Patton as has been mentioned in the link I appended above.

Attached Images

patton_6.jpg (15.5 KB, 58 views)

Shipwreck

This is an M47 on the 2nd pic.

Ray

Thanks.

I thought so too going by the bogey wheels and the extended rear.

I will try to relocate the link and see what Patton they mention!

Added:

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/a...ks/patton.html

Yes, they mention that it was M 47.

My mistake!

But my curiosity has been ignited by the fact that Britannia mention that Laser Raangefinders were being fitted to tanks in the 1960s. I wonder which tank and were they fitted to the Pak Pattons. More so, since the link above mentions the tank as Patton M48A5 (Pak Modified).

Obviously, after 1965, Pak would not have banked on the Patton and got more from the US as aid!

zraver

Ray, that site is for a out of print game called twilight 2000, it is not an authoritative source.

best I can figure is that Pakistan had the base model M48 in 1965 per Patton-mania.com, although a model kit shows a M48a3

http://im.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/05war.gif shows an M48, but the shadows hide the return rollers. But it does clearly show a lack of even a white light searchlight and the 90mm gun.


Pakistan did not have laser range finders, I have seen no evidence of IR searchlights, and they had the inferior 90mm gun.

Ray

This is not a game site:

Pakistani Tanks

Or is it?

It says:

I wonder if anyone will accept or buy any equipment after it let the country down in war with total humiliation as in Assal Uttar (which also means "Real Reply") and therefore, it would not be too incorrect to presume that the Pakistani continued to have whatever they had of the Patton consignment that came as aid and thereafter did not accept such a tank again!

And which tank used Laser Range Finder in the 1960s (Encyclopaedia Britannia)? Apart from the US I don't think others would have "more modern" a tank!

To be frank, I am real keen to know how come that some in the IA felt that Pak Pattons had Laser RF. This is more so since I was a cadet those days and it stuck in my memory because as cadets or military novices, technicalities is all that one would understand and feel great that they have militarily arrived!

While in service, to be frank, I really never bothered that much about the technicalities of an equipment as a novice would and as one observes from the 'which is the best' type of threads. Its performance, employment and result was all that interested me, more than the mere technical characteristics.

I was seeing a thread about which is better - a HIND or a Cobra! Much was said about technical prowess or otherwise. But little did anyone speak about the employment and which was more adept in which application of combat!

A heavy tank is wonderful for armour protection. But what about mobility and ground pressure? In the plains of Punjab and that too when the crops are high, it matters immensely or for that matter during monsoons!

Therefore, all these comparisons made so far is not catering for the terrain and the weather. Technicality is not the only issue to look at the superiority of a tank. It is in which terrain it is to be applied and what are the weather conditions in which it is to be applied is what matters.

Would a Patton or a Centurion work in the riverine terrain of Bangladesh as in 1971? Obviously not. That is where the amph PT 76 did a great job and PT 76 is hardly comparable to Patton or the Centurion in technical prowess.

Officer of Engineers

Sir,

I hope not to add to your confusion but the A5 variant is a retrofit, not a new tank. It would make economic sense for the Paks to upgrade their M48 stocks to M60 standards as far as gun and fire control is concerned. However, the 1st M48A5 were deployed in 1975, long after the 1965 war.

Sir, everyone was working on a laser range finder in the late 60s. There were a few prototypes ready but I don't think any were deployed until the 1970s.

Also, Sir

As for the LRF confusion, it may be a simple case of mistaken identity. There were three PATTON tanks, the M47, M48, and M60 of which the M60 was the most advanced. Few people might just look up PATTON and took the M60 as the default tank.

Sir, laser range finder or not, it does not diminish one bit Indian tactical prowness at Assal Uttar. Most kills were done by technicals (jeeps with AT guns or RR). Obviously they didn't have any lasers with them.

__________________
Chimo

Ray

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.

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!

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.