Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
|
 |
|
09-04-2007, 16:53 PM
|
#121 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
1- if they could have used thier equipment as well as it could have been used, why didn't they?
|
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.
Quote:
|
At least on the Pakistani side the Pattons were used in frontal attacks and wasted thier effort on 26 ton enemies that could not easily hurt them while 52 ton monsters were firing on them.
|
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.
Read the transcripts:
"For the sake of Islam, Pakistan and hillal-e-jurat, move forward" etc.
Fanaticism does not equal tactical thinking. Underestimating the enemy is worse.
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.
That does not (however) mean, that they will not fight to the bitter end, or that they will just give up, or that they dont drill as much as they can.
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.
Quote:
|
2- I would like to say the BC was to complicated for anyone but I can't. One problem with the NATO competitions was the Americans didn't use crack crews like most of the Europeans did. Instead they used normal crews so its not a fair comparison other than to say the BC never lived up to its expectations but is this crew or mechanical? In 65 the Patton was flat out misused against an arguably superior foe.
|
So, a crack crew is needed to make use of the BC, then? 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.
Quote:
|
same units, same commanders, same outcome- the attacker lost But since Pakistan lost last, they are seen as the overall loser.
|
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.
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..
Pak need not win any war to claim victory. Survival is enough.
Quote:
|
The AMX being 1/5 faster and 1/3 smaller with similar fire power could dictate the terms of the fight if it kept moving. The Patton could not easily run it to ground. For what it was the AMX13 was a great light tank. It gave cavalry units heavy hitting power and great speed, and it could easily double as a very effective tank destroyer.
|
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.
__________________
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu
My bow is stretched for its task
Last edited by Archer : 09-04-2007 at 17:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
09-04-2007, 17:11 PM
|
#122 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shipwreck
Barr & Stroud has a longtime presence in India.
IIRC, the Arjun Mk.1 was/is supposed to use a Barr & Stroud laser rangefinder.
|
The Vijayanta ie Vickers Medium tank used a Barr & Stroud LRF. British sights plus a locally made Ballistic computer etc.
The Arjun doesnt use a B&S LRF. |
|
|
|
|
09-04-2007, 21:01 PM
|
#123 (permalink)
|
|
Contrary by nature.
Military Professional
Join Date: 10-22-06
Location: Arkansas
Country: 
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 00:33 AM
|
#124 (permalink)
|
|
Bandaid
Military Professional
Join Date: 10-04-04
Location: India
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
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?
|
What do you think the 1948 war in Kashmir was all about?
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.
|
The Indian attack in Lahore sector was meant to take pressure off Akhnoor, hence the Indian aim was achived.
The Pakistanis did counter attack in the KhemKaran sector, which ended in defeat for them in the battle of Assal Uttar.
__________________
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
|
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 04:33 AM
|
#125 (permalink)
|
|
Resident Mythbuster
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 01-07-06
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Country: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archer
The Vijayanta ie Vickers Medium tank used a Barr & Stroud LRF. British sights plus a locally made Ballistic computer etc.
The Arjun doesnt use a B&S LRF.
|
My bad then.
For some reason, I was under the rather vague impression that the Arjun Mk1 was going to use an indigenous upgrade of the Vijayanta's TFCS with the Barr & Stroud LRF.
What LRF does Arjun use then ? Local design or off-the-shelf ? By whom ?
__________________
 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9)
Last edited by Shipwreck : 09-05-2007 at 04:40 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 07:18 AM
|
#126 (permalink)
|
|
Resident Mythbuster
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 01-07-06
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archer
Ravi Rikhye at ORBAT claims, that the Pattons key advantage over the Indian tanks was its night fighting capability.
|
What night fighting capability ??? 
The Pakistani Pattons back in 1965 had no infrared periscopes for the gunner and the commander (infrared periscope for driver appeared on late-production M48 and I'm am not even sure the Pakistanis had this feature back in 1965).
The infrared searchlight (or Xenon white light) above the 90mm appeared on the M48A3, so the Pakistanis didn't have it back in 1965. |
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 07:46 AM
|
#127 (permalink)
|
|
Contrary by nature.
Military Professional
Join Date: 10-22-06
Location: Arkansas
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontree
What do you think the 1948 war in Kashmir was all about?
|
The question was if Indian had bene able to accurately guage the pakistani responce, not what they did. Archer claims the Pakistanis are incapable of looking into the future, I simply pointed out an example where perhaps the very same ethnic groups might not be so different.
Quote:
|
The Indian attack in Lahore sector was meant to take pressure off Akhnoor, hence the Indian aim was achived.
|
What troops did pakistan shift?
Quote:
|
The Pakistanis did counter attack in the KhemKaran sector, which ended in defeat for them in the battle of Assal Uttar.
|
And that coutner attack is what turned a Pakistani win in the area into a defeat |
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 08:06 AM
|
#128 (permalink)
|
|
Military Professional
Moderator
Scotch taster
Join Date: 08-06-03
Country: 
|
I've found some references to the stereoscopic and coincidence range finders
Quote:
From The M1A1 Tank: Its Role In The Marine Corps
The M-60A1 has a coincidence range finder that requires the
tank commander to manually crank the superelevation on the
gun tube, until the double image of the target is brought
together or zeroed-out, much like a pair of binoculars. The
problem with this system is that it is time consuming and
the tank commander can over-crank the target. The existing
range finder is more affected by temperature, moisture and
needs constant adjustments. A well trained crew can get a
round on target at 2000m, or closer, in approximately 7 to
10 seconds.
|
Quote:
From M48 Patton
When first deployed, the M48-A3 had for the 1960s a state-of-the-art fire control system. At the time computers were mechanical, and range to the target was provided by a stereoscopic range finder, which functioned similarly to a 35mm camera. An end-box on each side of the turret exterior held a prism-type mirror. Turning a hand-crank on the range finder would pivot these mirrors until the double-image in the range finder merged. As the distance between the mirrors is exactly known, a little trigonometry provided the range (in meters) to the target. This information was displayed on a range indicator, and also fed to the ballistic computer by a rotating shaft. The ballistic computer was a collection of gears and cams--nothing was solid-state--which had a handle so that the gunner could select the type of ammunition that was to be fired. Each round had a different muzzle velocity, and therefore the computer had a different cam for each type. The computer would take the range data, merge it with the velocity data, and via a set of rotating shafts, supply this information to the gun's super-elevation mechanism, resulting in the gun being elevated above the gunners line of sight sufficiently for the round to overcome the downward pull of gravity on its way to the target. The gunner's sight however remained locked onto the target.
A good crew in Europe was able to put the first round on target 90% of the time, but this required excellent teamwork and communication on the part of the entire crew. In peacetime qualification, it was possible to stop from a speed of 20 mph, acquire the target, and get off a first round kill at 2,000 yards in seven seconds.
|
For the Indians in defence and hull down, they should've already had the ranges marked and saved themselves 3-5 seconds.
FAS also goes on to explain that the range finder is useless when dealing with short ranges
Quote:
|
This precision fire control system was almost irrelevant in Vietnam where typical engagement ranges could be measured more reasonably in feet than in yards. So in Vietnam it was common to take the gunner out of the turret and put him on the back deck with an M16 or M79 for close-in protection. This also afforded him some protection from mines, and indeed the tank commander and loader often rode on the turret roof or the hatch lips when mines were expected. The TC laid the main gun by eye, and fired using the commander's override control or a lanyard to the manual trigger on the main gun.
|
__________________
Chimo
|
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 08:10 AM
|
#129 (permalink)
|
|
Resident Mythbuster
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 01-07-06
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archer
So, a crack crew is needed to make use of the BC, then? 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.
|
Compared with other optics, stereoscopic rangefinders tend to greatly de-average a gunner's performance and though they were believed to be potentially more accurate, this benefit failed to materialize more often than not.
That's the reason why they were replaced by the more user-friendly coincidence type starting with the M48A2C. On a sidenote, the French went for a coincidence type for their AMX-30, and the Germans for a dual-mode (stereoscopic or coincidence) type for their Leopard 1. |
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 08:17 AM
|
#130 (permalink)
|
|
Resident Mythbuster
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 01-07-06
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
I've found some references to the stereoscopic and coincidence range finders
|
The M48A3 had an M17A1 coincidence rangefinder. |
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 08:23 AM
|
#131 (permalink)
|
|
Military Professional
Moderator
Scotch taster
Join Date: 08-06-03
Country:
|
Well, that reference is fvcked.
|
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 08:38 AM
|
#132 (permalink)
|
|
Military Professional
Moderator
Scotch taster
Join Date: 08-06-03
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shipwreck
The M48A3 had an M17A1 coincidence rangefinder.
|
Are you sure? I found this reference from a guy who served on the beast.
Weapons of War |
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 08:47 AM
|
#133 (permalink)
|
|
Resident Mythbuster
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 01-07-06
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Are you sure? I found this reference from a guy who served on the beast.
Weapons of War |
100% sure on the coincidence type (RF could be the M17 rather than the M17A1 though).
Last edited by Shipwreck : 09-05-2007 at 08:57 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 09:56 AM
|
#134 (permalink)
|
|
Military Professional
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Well, that reference is fvcked.
|
Tell me! We can get deranged on occasion even when dealing with official publications because they might have a typo or just be plain wrong. The worst thing is modifications being incorporated to the vehicle but the manuals (at least the one I happen to be reading) not being amended to show the changes.
__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
|
|
|
|
|
09-05-2007, 11:01 AM
|
#135 (permalink)
|
|
Military Professional
Join Date: 01-04-07
Location: cheshire uk
Country: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shipwreck
The M48A3 had an M17A1 coincidence rangefinder.
|
100% correct |
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:38 PM.
|
| 
Similar Threads