What's new

The 1965 Indo-Pak war

Status
Not open for further replies.
genius. :disagree:

The Observer, London,
American Broadcasting Corporation
General Editor, Newsweek
Indonesian Herald

and oh btw... i got these articles from pakdef..... its authentic because we can also find links for other articles (quotes).

well I haven't read the Observer any time.I would really want a neutral link that testifies that article Growler you know the rules.
 
pure BS.
Hawker hunter is no way infirior to sabers. only few squadrons of sabers were equipped with lame 1st generation AIM-9 which had less then 30% kill ratio. other then that the hunter out performs saber in almost every aspect. look the arabs used hunters against superior IDAF and PAF pilots did manage to shoot down couple of IDAF planes. most of the planes provided by friends of pakistan were more like force projection and saw very limited action... thats according to very reliable source non other then sir Muradk.
other then hunters... IAF also had superior ground attack AC like Su-7, cannabera, and hunters and air superiority fighters like Mig-21, Gnat, and hunters.

do you not know of the deadly Vulcan cannons aboard your planes?
and the Gnat is the classic example of how the IAF used it's obsolete inventory against your state-of-the-art one!
 
the differences in the armor strength of India and Pakistan was not as much in the case of your analogy.
Read about the Pakistani vs Indian armor strength.

indian army had much superior tank the "centurion". however things have manipulated for younger indian generation for ego satisfaction to believe india faced all possible challenges but still defeated superior pakistan force. sort of like wanna be isrealis..
 
indian army had much superior tank the "centurion". however things have manipulated for younger indian generation for ego satisfaction to believe india faced all possible challenges but still defeated superior pakistan force. sort of like wanna be isrealis..

it is not like that at all...infact '65 was a wake'p call for us...and we did work on them as history beckons.
the point is that did we lose?
no we didn't...why do you forget that it was a war instigated by Pakistan to 'liberate' Kashmir?
what was the purpose of the '65 war?

"Armed infiltrators from Pakistan crossed the cease-fire line, and the number of skirmishes between Indian and Pakistani troops increased in the summer of 1965. Starting on August 5, 1965, India alleged, Pakistani forces began to infiltrate the Indian-controlled portion of Jammu and Kashmir. India made a countermove in late August, and by September 1, 1965, the second conflict had fully erupted as Pakistan launched an attack across the international line of control in southwest Jammu and Kashmir. Indian forces retaliated on September 6 in Pakistan's Punjab Province and prevailed over Pakistan's apparent superiority in tanks and aircraft. A cease-fire called by the UN Security Council on September 23 was observed by both sides. At Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in January 1966, the belligerents agreed to restore the status quo ante and to resolve outstanding issues by negotiation."

from the Library of congress-Country studies
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+in0173)
 
I think war of 1962 and 1965 teach us two separate lessons. First that anyone can attack you. Second that your enemy will always take advantage of your weaken defense due to other factors.
 
indian army had much superior tank the "centurion". however things have manipulated for younger indian generation for ego satisfaction to believe india faced all possible challenges but still defeated superior pakistan force. sort of like wanna be isrealis..

and lpus we held more territory too...when ceasefire was declared.
"The war was heading for a stalemate, with both nations holding territory of the other. The Indian army suffered 3,000 battlefield deaths, while Pakistan suffered 3,800. The Indian army was in possession of 710 mile² (1,840 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (545 km²) of Indian territory, mostly in Chumb in the northern sector."
from...a Pakistani site.
itsPakistan - Pakistan - History of Pakistan
and
INDO-PAKISTANI WAR OF 1965
 
indian army had much superior tank the "centurion". however things have manipulated for younger indian generation for ego satisfaction to believe india faced all possible challenges but still defeated superior pakistan force. sort of like wanna be isrealis..

Centurions superior...:rofl:

Please note the standard phrases of yours like "ego satisfaction"you throw about with such impunity may well apply more to you...especially with millitary commanders accepting that Pakistanis were fooled by your leaders about the result of the war. Plese do not make fool out of yourself with such ludicrous statements....you're a Senior member for shits sake...
 
Though the 1965 war ended in a stalemate, I feel India was the Nett gainer at the end of the conflict. Here are the following reasons:

1. Pakistan initiated the conflict with the goal to capture whole of Kashmir - Goal NOT achieved.

2. India retaliated to maintain its territorial integrity - Goal achieved.

3. After 1962 war defeat at the hands of Chinese, the morale of the Indian military was rock bottom. on top of that, Indian leaders had neglected the military completely since independence. Indian army was equipped with old and obsolete equipment and only started re-arming after 1962 wakeup call. On the other had Pakistan's alliance with the west in the cold war had got it the latest start-of-art weapons and training. Considering all this Pakistan was expected to just walk over and hand defeat to India. Pakistan was over-confident at the start of war to defeat India, otherwise it would not have initiated a military conflict to grab Kashmir. But this did not happen in the end.

4. India learnt some valuable lessons from the war which helped 6 years later in 1971. The military doctrine in Pakistan before '71 was that 'the defense of east Pakistan lay in west'. That is to say, in case of hostilities in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) with India, West Pakistan will capture Indian territories in Kashmir, Punjab and Rajasthan to force India to withdraw from East Pakistan. '65 war taught Indian military strategists that India could checkmate Pakistan in West. This strategy worked very well in '71 and the result is for all to see today. So, if seen in isolation, the '65 war ends in stalemate. But seen from a broader perspective, the events of '65 leads to the Indian military victory in '71.
Another twist to the war of 1965 was that it increased the disenchantment of the Bengalis in East Pakistan with West Pakistanis. During the whole of '65 war East Pakistan was left undefended and Pakistan had concentrated all its military might in the defense of West Pakistan. It was pure luck that India refrained from attacking East Pakistan in '65. This was also one of the reasons that lead to the events which unfolded in 1971.

5. Also, the 1965 war was a big morale booster for the Indian military, which was rock-bottom after 1962 defeat in the hands of Chinese, and gave them the necessary confidence in 1971. For the Indian Military '65 is one of the big military lesson learnt in the learning curve starting from '62 to the ultimate victory in '71.
 
Last edited:
9-10 MiG's claimed by PAF pilot is not a whole fleet of IAF MiG-21's.

Besides I posted (and other Indian fellow members) many articles from Pakistani authors (many of them Ex-Pakistani Sefvicemen) who don't belive that Pakistan won the 65 war.
GB
Excuse me, what is your definition of winning that war by Pakistan? Was it that Pakistan should have captured Delhi, only then you would have conceded defeat! India had at least 4 times more troops and the total strength was more than that. But, what is your specific achievements in 1965 war even with this advantage?

India lost many of its aircrafts and the IA could not make any real dent to the PA. Don't you think that this was a great humiliation and defeat for the IA? Retrospectively, it was a Pakistani win over a much larger IA.

To win even an unequal war a larger army needs brave soldiers willing to sacrifice their lives. Indians are not that willing to do this sacrifice, they want to overwhelm its adversary only with numbers.
 
Excuse me, what is your definition of winning that war by Pakistan? Was it that Pakistan should have captured Delhi, only then you would have conceded defeat! India had at least 4 times more troops and the total strength was more than that. But, what is your specific achievements in 1965 war even with this advantage?

Not capture Delhi, But Srinagar at least. Wasn't it the objective of Pakistan to grab Kashmir when they launched Operations Gibraltar and Grand Slam?
In the end, Pakistan could not wrest even a single square mile of Indian territory in Kashmir.
 
Excuse me, what is your definition of winning that war by Pakistan? Was it that Pakistan should have captured Delhi, only then you would have conceded defeat! India had at least 4 times more troops and the total strength was more than that. But, what is your specific achievements in 1965 war even with this advantage?

India lost many of its aircrafts and the IA could not make any real dent to the PA. Don't you think that this was a great humiliation and defeat for the IA? Retrospectively, it was a Pakistani win over a much larger IA.

To win even an unequal war a larger army needs brave soldiers willing to sacrifice their lives. Indians are not that willing to do this sacrifice, they want to overwhelm its adversary only with numbers.

Our Achievement was that we were able to maintain status quo. Pakistan wanted to take away whole Kashmir in 1965 war while India didn't have intention to take the Azad Kashmir or Northern Areas at that time. Fight started operation of Pakistanis and India successfully defended it. So, it's win situation as Pakistan completely failed achieve what it wanted.
 
India lost many of its aircrafts and the IA could not make any real dent to the PA. Don't you think that this was a great humiliation and defeat for the IA? Retrospectively, it was a Pakistani win over a much larger IA.
The Primary role of IAF in 1965 war to provide close air support to IA in its ground operations. PAF's role on the other hand was to deny IAF air dominance and hamper IAF's operations.
During the 1965 conflict, the PAF flew a total 2,364 sorties while the IAF flew 3,937 sorties. These numbers itself says which air force was more affective. Most of IAF sorties were ground support to IA, whereas most of PAF sorties were in defence of Pakistans airspace by attacking the IAF planes. The IAF might have lost more aircrafts than PAF, but they were also able to deliver more.


Attrition Trends
For the period of the war, the IAF also logged no less than 3937 combat sorties (fighters and bombers), not including the combat sorties flown by helicopters or other elements of aviation. INAS 300 of the Indian Navy also flew 106 sorties and INAS 310 also flew a number of Electronic Intelligence missions. The PAF flew 2279 combat sorties in total. As expected, claims by each side varied greatly and while the PAF admitted only 19 losses, the Indian Armed Forces claimed as many as 73 aircraft kills, although the latter would include kills from post war incidents and from Army Aviation as well. While the latter figure has been scaled down over the years, disparities still remained. For example, the PAF could boast of 120 F-86F (6 squadrons) during the 1965 war but had no more than 2 squadrons (Sqn Nos 15 and 16) of F-86F during the 1971 war. While India claimed a larger number of B-57Bs, the PAF admitted no more than 4 losses to all causes, including accidents. Yet, the PAF which started out with 26 B-57B , and 2 RB-57D/F before the 1965 war (not including another two ex-USAF RB-57F on loan ), had only 18 B-57B and a single RB-57D/F in inventory by 1971, although 2 flying accidents between the years were known. Pakistan had also claimed to have lined up its fleet of five C-130s in order to prove that none were lost but once again, the actual number of C-130s acquired was six, according to a veteran PAF author. The credibility of Pakistani versions has always taken a beating with incidents such as the MM Alam fairytale and other strange claims including ones that the IAF was operating MiG-19s and MiG-23s . A retired Pakistani
General admits "It appears that 1965 war was not rationally analyzed in Pakistan at all. In this regard the Pakistani military decision -makers were swept away in the emotional stream of their own propaganda !". As Air Commodore Jasjit Singh AVSM VrC VM (Retd), Director, Center for Air Power Studies, also points out, demands for emergency supplies of additional aircraft from Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and China, within 10 days of the war, was hardly supportive of the claim that the PAF had lost less than a squadrons worth of aircraft in the conflict. The "Official History of the 1965 war" puts Pakistan's combat losses at 43 aircraft, although a lot of the former's information is derived from Pakistani accounts.
Strangely, even though the IAF flew a larger offensive air campaign by devoting 40% of its air effort to offensive air support alone, the majority of its losses came from aircraft destroyed on the ground through PAF air strikes. Night bombing by B-57Bs equipped with terrain mapping radar and George Peach bombing systems, was particularly effective. The PAF without doubt, had achieved far more in terms of enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground but the IAF had achieved much more in the close support role, even if the IAF's performance and mission response was viewed as far less than optimal by the Indian Army during the 1965 war, as Air Commodore Jasjit Singh and Lt. Gen Harbaksh Singh VrC point out . The Air Force's claims for Tanks, Guns and Vehicles destroyed due to air action conflict
with the figures for the same, confirmed by the Indian Army, although the latter did confirm that its own equipment losses to enemy air action was relatively negligible. Interestingly, the Indian Army itself claims 471 Pakistani Tanks as destroyed and 38 captured.
 
Last edited:
Attrition rate of IAF & PAF in 1965

The most accurate estimate that we can put together from accounts of both sides is the attrition rate of Pakistan Air Force losses in the air-to-air warfare was 0.9 percent (that is, 9 aircraft lost for every 1,000 sorties flown) compared to 0.6 percent for the IAF.

This actually points to the IAF being the superior force in air warfare progressively gaining dominance.

But during the war the IAF lost a significant number of aircraft to enemy action on the ground, especially in the eastern sector. The total attrition rates during the war including losses to enemy action in the air and on the ground work out to 2.16 percent for the Pakistan Air Force and 1.49 percent for IAF, that is, Pakistan was losing combat aircraft in the war nearly one-and-a-half times faster than India.

This ratio would have undoubtedly tilted much more in our favour if the IAF had not been ordered by the ministry of defence not to retaliate against the PAF in East Pakistan after the Pakistanis had destroyed a large number of our aircraft on the ground parked in the open (in spite of World War II blast pens being available)!

And Pakistan expected this to happen. That is why President Ayub despatched Air Marshal Asghar Khan, the former air chief, urgently by special aircraft, to China, Indonesia, Turkey and Iran to seek arms, especially combat aircraft, with a message of help in what Ayub's letter called Pakistan's 'dire need'
 
Last edited:
well I haven't read the Observer any time.I would really want a neutral link that testifies that article Growler you know the rules.

good pathological deluded that you are i cant help more then this.....

THE 1965 INDO- PAKISTAN WAR
"The Partition of 1947 signalled the end of the British Empire in India, and the establishment of two independent states, India and Pakistan. They took opposite sides over Kashmir's struggle for independence in 1947-49, and although open war was averted, India lost 6000 men in the conflict. India annexed Kashmir in January 1957 and there followed a long period of tension with Pakistan. Armed clashes in the Rann of Kutch in western India during January 1965 and Pakistan's recruitment of a 'Free Kashmir' guerrilla army finally erupted into open warfare in August 1965.

The ground forces of the two countries appeared to be evenly matched, and their respective offensives (although involving approximately 6000 casualties on each side) were indecisive. The Pakistan Air Force, however, emerged with great credit from its conflict with the Indian Air Force, destroying 22 IAF aircraft in air-to-air combat for the loss of only eight of its own - a remarkable achievement considering that the PAF faced odds of nearly four to one. During the conflict India and Pakistan came under strong international pressure to end the war, and arms supplies to both sides were cut off by Britain and the US. A ceasefire imposed by the UN Security Council then reduced the conflict to a series of sporadic minor clashes, and the national leaders were persuaded to attend a peace conference at Tashkent in January 1966. Their decision to renounce the use of force finally ended the war."

(Anthoney Robinson, former staff of the RAF Museum, Hendon and now a free lance Military aviation writer . Book: Elite Forces Of The World)

ask your library to order these books for you..

Combat Over The Indian Subcontinent
"In September 1965 a festering border dispute between India and Pakistan erupted into full scale war. The Indian possessed the larger air force numerically, composed maily of British and French types- Hawker Hunter, Folland Gnat and Dassault Mystere fighters, Dassault Ouragon fighter-bombers and English electric Camnberra bombers. The smaller but highly trained Pakistan air force was equipped in large part with F-86F Sabers, plus a few F-104 Starfighters. Fighting lasted little more than two weeks, but during that time, Pakistan gained a definite ascendancy in the air……….. It was the well proven Sabers that emerged with honors, being credited with all but five of the 36 victories claimed. The Indians claimed 73 victories - undoubtly a considerable overestimate - for an admitted loss of 35."

(Christopher Sivores, Book: Air Aces)




ooops i forgot.. these are just made up stories on pakdef :bunny:
 
do you not know of the deadly Vulcan cannons aboard your planes?
and the Gnat is the classic example of how the IAF used it's obsolete inventory against your state-of-the-art one!

oh really? just because indian planes fell to it like easy targets does not make these "deadly vulcan cannons on board our planes" more supirior.. like i said.. Hunters had much much more superior guns and they faced IDAF much much supirior Mirage-IIIJ....
and you just had to throw rubbish at the end didnt you?? lol...
here is a introduction time comparison..

Type -----Introduced
F-86-----1949
F-104----1958
(only 10)
Gnat-----1959 (one of the most stealthiest planes of its time (low RCS)
Hunter---1956
Mig-21---1959 (14)


Clearly indicates IAF operated one generation ahead of PAF fighters.. the technological gap was.... 10 freaking years! In todays standard it would be like our F-7s shooting your Mig-29s and Mirage-2000 like lil birds.. :lol:
and btw Gnat a absolute fighter after just 6 years of introduction? :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom