Patton vs Centurion 1965 Indo-Pakistan war

[Shipwreck]

The Pakistani Pattons had laser range finders.

NO, the Pakistani Pattons DIDN'T have laser rangefinders back in 1965.

Some technical details for comparison for the militarily 'knowledgeable' and militarily uninitiated:

These specifications refer to the M48A5 variant, which the Pakistanis DIDN'T have back in 1965.

[Ray]

NO, the Pakistani Pattons DIDN'T have laser rangefinders back in 1965.



These specifications refer to the M48A5 variant, which the Pakistanis DIDN'T have back in 1965.

It shows how much you know!

I accept your view since you were the stripping the tanks destroyed and found that they don't have the rangefinders!

I hope the engines were more powerful and so the 'turning around'!

[Shipwreck]

It shows how much you know!

LOL

Below are some pics taken by Lt. Col. Hari Singh at *Patton Nagar* back in 1965. Show us how much you know and tell us where you see a M48A5.

[dave lukins]

m-47 had IR sights and an Optical range finder

[tankie]

The cents' I was on(66) had .50 ranging guns worked by solanoid accurate as buggery...could put 3 Hesh rounds in the air at the same target, try that in a Challenger...no chance!!;)

Yes Dave , but only when the target has been bracketed and hit once :)

The 5.0 ranging m/g ( bop bop bop ) set alongside the co,ax m/g so the loader could sustain maximum nuckle rash

from x cent gunner / driver /loader/operator , scimitar commander , the rules governing the engagment of targets were the same on scorpion and scimitars as well as cents , ie , the target must 1st be bracketed , basic standard gunnery

[Ray]

LOL

Below are some pics taken by Lt. Col. Hari Singh at *Patton Nagar* back in 1965. Show us how much you know and tell us where you see a M48A5.

Do the show the Laser RANGE FINDER pictures?

I could show you the pricture of the Moon!

[tankie]

LOL

Below are some pics taken by Lt. Col. Hari Singh at *Patton Nagar* back in 1965. Show us how much you know and tell us where you see a M48A5.

I see in the 2nd set of pics an illustration of the perfect hull down position

[Shipwreck]

I could show you the pricture of the Moon!

So it shouldn't be too difficult for you to post some pics of those laser rangerfinders and/or M48A5 that the Pakistanis supposedly had back in 1965 then...

[Shipwreck]

I see in the 2nd set of pics an illustration of the perfect hull down position

LOL

[Archer]

The Patton in 1965 was believed to have more advanced fire control, better ammunition and better armour. In conflict, the Indian crews turned out to have better training, the Pakistanis hadnt drilled enough on their ballistic computer equipped tanks, while the Indian side was adept at ranging and putting rounds on target quickly. Tactics also counted, India demonstrated integration with infantry (Tanking 101) and proper use of terrain for ambushes. When Indias tankers discovered that APDS was not penetrating at range, it was quickly decided to hold fire till half range (iirc) and then fire- that worked. Before the conflict, the Patton had built up a very solid mythos- including amongst Indian tank crews who regarded it as a modern tank than what they had. Post conflict, it became a symbol of how technology alone would not suffice in the Indo-Pak battlefield.
Another example of the above was the Gnat vs F.86 Sabre issue. The Gnat, a much lighter, smaller and generally more "basic" aircraft - when well handled- proved to be a match for the Sabre in air to air combat.

[glyn]

The Patton in 1965 was believed to have more advanced fire control, better ammunition and better armour.

Believed by whom? The Centurion had a first-rate fire control system to go with its stabilised armament. The gun was very effective for its time (although changed to the 105mm in later marks of Centurion, and existing early marks were up-gunned to the new calibre). The efficiency of the armour depends on many things, thickness, type, treatment and avoidance of shot traps amongst them. The Centurion was well up to snuff here.
In conflict, the Indian crews turned out to have better training, the Pakistanis hadnt drilled enough on their ballistic computer equipped tanks, while the Indian side was adept at ranging and putting rounds on target quickly. Tactics also counted, India demonstrated integration with infantry (Tanking 101) and proper use of terrain for ambushes. When Indias tankers discovered that APDS was not penetrating at range, it was quickly decided to hold fire till half range (iirc) and then fire- that worked. Before the conflict, the Patton had built up a very solid mythos- including amongst Indian tank crews who regarded it as a modern tank than what they had.

But their experience in battle should have nailed that myth for all time. Compare the loss figures. Of course crew training and resolve are among the factors that can greatly influence the outcome of any battle.

Post conflict, it became a symbol of how technology alone would not suffice in the Indo-Pak battlefield.
Another example of the above was the Gnat vs F.86 Sabre issue. The Gnat, a much lighter, smaller and generally more "basic" aircraft - when well handled- proved to be a match for the Sabre in air to air combat.

Indeed it was. HAL further produced it as the Ajeet in some numbers.

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Archer
The Patton in 1965 was believed to have more advanced fire control, better ammunition and better armour.

Glyn:Believed by whom?

The Indian Army itself - let alone international observers and trade magazines or the like. The Indian internal history of the 65 conflict which references interviews with officers who served in the conflict, mentions that the Patton was regarded as a very tough nut to crack before conflict and was believed to be a more modern tank than what India possessed. Of course, there would have been many who disagreed, but there was definitely a belief that the Patton had an edge.

The Centurion had a first-rate fire control system to go with its stabilised armament. The gun was very effective for its time (although changed to the 105mm in later marks of Centurion, and existing early marks were up-gunned to the new calibre). The efficiency of the armour depends on many things, thickness, type, treatment and avoidance of shot traps amongst them. The Centurion was well up to snuff here.

Note I said modern- not effective! :) The two are not always hand in hand, for instance you would have yourself seen that a more conservative design often performs flawlessly while a more ostensibly modern one, is a boondoggle. In the case of the Patton vs Cent, I think the general thinking at the time (and pardon me if I miss any point or am incorrect, I am going purely from memory here)- was that the Pattons Fire control system was state of the art (for the time). Similarly, the US had repeatedly stated that its armor was the best they had made, ditto for its ammo etc. All this combined to create a general "image" of the tank, which it didnt live upto- partly due to the inefficacy of its crew, and of course because the Cent itself was a fine weapons system.

Incidentally post '71, the British stopped spares support for the Cents, as a result of which India took all of its Cents and sold them off for a pittance abroad- I believe several landed in South Africa and some even made their way to Singapore, where all these were upgraded and served for a long time.

The Arjun incidentally falls into the Cent category- a heavy tank able to take punishment and dishes out far more than it gets. But thanks to the Cents leaving the IA, the collective memory of this wonderful tank has dissipated, and the T series units have taken over, with doctrine and employment all standardized around what these can do (and cannot).

But their experience in battle should have nailed that myth for all time. Compare the loss figures. Of course crew training and resolve are among the factors that can greatly influence the outcome of any battle.

Well thats the thing- its become more of a training vs non training issue, and to be frank, the Indo-Pak wars have escaped attention for the most. The Arab-Israeli wars have gained most of the western attention and academic interest.

Indeed it was. HAL further produced it as the Ajeet in some numbers.

Yes indeed- a delightful aircraft, even if it was quite tricky in the initial years. The Ajeet was a variant intended for ground attack and had wet wings. I had occasion to closely see a rather decripit survivor, and I cannot begin to describe how small the thing is. Its literally as if the aircraft is "made" around the pilot, as in the old days, tailors used to literally stitch a suit onto a man.
The whole thing looks so small and dainty, its hard to imagine its a combat aircraft till one looks at the rather wicked gun emplacements built into it.

[Archer]

I must also add that several Cent officers believed their kit was every bit as good - as the Patton.
But Indias standard tank -more or less- was the Sherman and then there was the AMX at the time, both of which were definitely inferior to the Patton. And hence the perception that the Patton could be a war winner etc.

[glyn]

In the case of the Patton vs Cent, I think the general thinking at the time (and pardon me if I miss any point or am incorrect, I am going purely from memory here)- was that the Pattons Fire control system was state of the art (for the time). Similarly, the US had repeatedly stated that its armor was the best they had made, ditto for its ammo etc. All this combined to create a general "image" of the tank, which it didnt live upto- partly due to the inefficacy of its crew.

Ah, the power of advertising!

Incidentally post '71, the British stopped spares support for the Cents, as a result of which India took all of its Cents and sold them off for a pittance abroad- I believe several landed in South Africa and some even made their way to Singapore, where all these were upgraded and served for a long time.

I didn't realise the Brits stopped spares support for them. I had heard the RSA bought them and read the newspaper speculation that India supplied them.


Yes indeed- a delightful aircraft, even if it was quite tricky in the initial years. The Ajeet was a variant intended for ground attack and had wet wings. I had occasion to closely see a rather decripit survivor, and I cannot begin to describe how small the thing is. Its literally as if the aircraft is "made" around the pilot, as in the old days, tailors used to literally stitch a suit onto a man.
The whole thing looks so small and dainty, its hard to imagine its a combat aircraft till one looks at the rather wicked gun emplacements built into it.

In a fight it's often an advantage to be the smaller target!:) The Ajeet would have been a tiny, rapidly moving dot in a big big sky.

[dave lukins]

I must admit the AMX 13 was not up to the "job". Whilst on tour in Berlin I spent a week(Enough!!) on the AMX13.