1965 War | An eye witness account.

[Lil Mathew]

Now abt tanks!

U just didnt had Shermans and Centurions but u also had AMX 13 tanks of France which were or advance then anything we had back then.But interestingly yr sources and Analysist never mention those tanks but only mention Second line Tanks.

How can you compare AMX 13 (14t light tank) with M48(45t medium tank)??? India's best tank in 1965 was Centurion.... But M48 was superior....

 

[Umair Nawaz]

How can you compare AMX 13 (14t light tank) with M48(45t medium tank)??? India's best tank in 1965 was Centurion.... But M48 was superior....

Keep on reading my responses in this thread i have answered this as well. BTW Pattons that we had then had 30 to 38 ton weigh and i seriously doubt that AMX 13 has 14t weight.

 

[GR!FF!N]

1) Patton production started in late 40s even wikipedia can tell this and AMX's started in early 50s both can be seen in wikipedia.

In Thailand's contender the AMx was selected over Pattons and T62 tank. And I did mentioned that Patton is a Medium tank anyways so no need to repeat it.

If yr armed forces were not too satisfied with AMX then so were our forces with Patton even in Wiki's 65 war page it is mentioned. Thats is one of the reason why we didnt after that opted for any western tank neither did u.
And Friend yes there is a weight difference b/w these two but it doesnt mean that this is the reason we call some thing inferior or superior ovr each other. In this case then Why is today AL Khalid is our MBT which will face face the likes of Arjun series tanks as one is medium and other is heavy tank? It has to do about capabilities then just weight. Rather in our South Asian scenario the light,Medium tanks r more effective because we live in fertile lands used for Agriculture and then we have sands like Deserts. Here the tanks who will be more agile will be more effective. So it doesnt matter if Patton weighted 38(its not 45 tons) tons or AMX 14 tons as u claim.

2) i think we r talking about 65 war not of today. As the time progresses the new tech comes and ammunition. So its better if we compare the amount of tech we had back then not today.

3) Only tactics dont make u win battles its about technology as well. And u had the matching technology.

4) Honestly u know the feeling is rather mutual.

Red part------

you should learn to search for wiki first before making comments here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M47_Patton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M48_Patton

where it is said that it was produced in late 40s??????

for blue part-----

learn the difference between a light tank and a MBT before coming to a defence forum..you're saying that someone bought a bicycle over an aircraft..

for green------

I don't even want to reply as your post is as dumb as it ever could be..a tank doesn't become light by doing yoga..it has to sacrifice almost everything to reduce 20 ton.armor,guns,equipment,powerful engine--everything.but then again,it doesn't matter to you as for you,PT-76 and T-72 are same...

and for black part.....

I did the same.I compared it with tanks during 1965 and not today.today,a capable ATGM carrier can destroy a MBT with being 1/3 of its weight.but not back then.weight was the key factor as people wanted heavier(more armor,more punch) tanks to counter light tanks.you should read about difference between light british tanks and heavy panzers of Germany and their fate during various battles..German tanks blew them up without even breaking sweat.and now,you're comparing a tank with armor 120 mm against a tank having armor 10-40 mm..


and I didn't expect a rational reply from you,as I know,you're uncapable to gobble up so many information.go home and get a good sleep.and start reading about tanks from tomorrow.else,don't bother to reply. 

How can you compare AMX 13 (14t light tank) with M48(45t medium tank)??? India's best tank in 1965 was Centurion.... But M48 was superior....

leave him..he is seriously a ret@rd..he is comparing an MBT(armor-120mm,gun 90 mm) with a light tank (rmor 10-40 mm,gun 75 mm)..

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Red part------

you should learn to search for wiki first before making comments here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M47_Patton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M48_Patton

where it is said that it was produced in late 40s??????

for blue part-----

learn the difference between a light tank and a MBT before coming to a defence forum..you're saying that someone bought a bicycle over an aircraft..

for green------

I don't even want to reply as your post is as dumb as it ever could be..a tank doesn't become light by doing yoga..it has to sacrifice almost everything to reduce 20 ton.armor,guns,equipment,powerful engine--everything.but then again,it doesn't matter to you as for you,PT-76 and T-72 are same...

and for black part.....

I did the same.I compared it with tanks during 1965 and not today.today,a capable ATGM carrier can destroy a MBT with being 1/3 of its weight.but not back then.weight was the key factor as people wanted heavier(more armor,more punch) tanks to counter light tanks.you should read about difference between light british tanks and heavy panzers of Germany and their fate during various battles..German tanks blew them up without even breaking sweat.and now,you're comparing a tank with armor 120 mm against a tank having armor 10-40 mm..


and I didn't expect a rational reply from you,as I know,you're uncapable to gobble up so many information.go home and get a good sleep.and start reading about tanks from tomorrow.else,don't bother to reply. 

leave him..he is seriously a ret@rd..he is comparing an MBT(armor-120mm,gun 90 mm) with a light tank (rmor 10-40 mm,gun 75 mm)..

All right Kid.

U won happy now!