What's new

The increasing Might of IAF: From a PAF perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
nonetheless IAF's air superiority, I like the way PAF has kept IAF at bay for all this years.
taking a cue from PAF, IAF should induct more interceptors asap (hope the MMRCA is going somewhere) to consolidate our own airspace.
 
man just chill. No need to get over the top.:cheers:

Like to always correct my fellow citizens so they are informed...less or incorrect knowledge is always a dangerous thing...cheers:cheers:
 
Pakistan started the 65 war with intention to capture Kashmir. Remember operations Gibraltar and grandslam? Pakistan failed in its primary goal and ended up barely defending its second largest city. India defended well and learned a lot, which it put to very good use in '71 war. Also the attitude west pakistan showed towards the defense of east Pakistan in 65 was a big factor in Bengali disenchantment with pakistan, leading to the events of '71. So, in effect, what Pakistan started in '65 was concluded in '71 with surrender of Pakistani army.
 
Pakistan started the 65 war with intention to capture kashmir. Remember operations Gibraltar and grandslams? Pakistan failed in its primary goal and ended up barely defnding its second largest city. India defended well and learned a lot, which it put to very good use in 71 war. Also the attitude west pakistan showed towards the defence of west pakistan in 65 was a big factor in bengali disenchantment with pakistan, leading to the events of 71. So, in effect, what pakistan started in 65 was conculded in 71 with surrender of pakistani army.

so what were the lessons learnt in 1962 war with china?
 
dont agree that PAF would always be lesser in number due to geographical limitations.

money is what is keeping it back. Israel has far better strength than many of its neighbours.
 
Gentlemen, if this thread is used for anything other than civil discussion.. Ill be dropping an infraction nuke here.

If you cannot agree, SHUT UP..
And if you are here to suck your own thing.. be warned that we do not tolerate self-fellatio for flamebaiting.
 
@President Dude, u need to back urself up with facts here (PDF is a different kinda world)!!!!!!!
first of all most of us here were not even born back in 71 or 65 for that matter. so you could have either made aware about the 65 war from either listening to somebody or reading it in paper/internet.
but by the sweeping statements that you had been giving (which btw, is overly patriotic, partial as well as chauvinistic), i must advice u to do some more elaborate research using neutral sources.
i never got to say "welcome" to u, so welcome to pdf , buddy !!!!!!!!!!
and remember what i said.
 
@President Dude, u need to back urself up with facts here (PDF is a different kinda world)!!!!!!!
first of all most of us here were not even born back in 71 or 65 for that matter. so you could have either made aware about the 65 war from either listening to somebody or reading it in paper/internet.
but by the sweeping statements that you had been giving (which btw, is overly patriotic, partial as well as chauvinistic), i must advice u to do some more elaborate research using neutral sources.
i never got to say "welcome" to u, so welcome to pdf , buddy !!!!!!!!!!
and remember what i said.

Thanks buddy- I am just being polite here ..talking about facts Office of the Historian - Milestones - 1961-1968 - The India-Pakistan War of 1965 ...
 
PAF had no impact on the final outcome of both '65 and '71 wars. Unlike PAF, IAF had a very clear agenda to support the ground forces in both wars, which they did quite well. Both wars were basically fought on ground, with the airforces playing minor role. IAF was used more effectively in '71 than in '65. Thanks to USA, in '65 PAF had a qualitative edge, of which IAF was well aware and this had a major impact on IAF's defensive strategy and was over-cautious. Post-war analysis made both IA and IAF completely rethink their strategies, which was very effectively used in '71.
 
^^ yes... my point is if somebody decides to shut their eyes on the truth, let them stumble down to their fall, why should we bother to correct them if they are not interested in truth in the first place ????
 
PAF had no impact on the final outcome of both '65 and '71 wars. Unlike PAF, IAF had a very clear agenda to support the ground forces in both wars, which they did quite well. Both wars were basically fought on ground, with the airforces playing minor role. IAF was used more effectively in '71 than in '65. Thanks to USA, in '65 PAF had a qualitative edge, of which IAF was well aware and this had a major impact on IAF's defensive strategy and was over-cautious. Post-war analysis made both IA and IAF completely rethink their strategies, which was very effectively used in '71.

Incorrect myths enforce incorrect views.
I wonder how an airforce with its major fleet of a lesser quality(Sabre vs Hunter.. the Hunter was superior).. is being projected in sheer idiocy by state propoganda through school books and bloggers as better quality.

THE ONLY edge the PAF had over the IAF was the Aim-9B... thats it.
Even in that ..the PAF performed pathetically to what it could have actually accomplished.. the 65 air war plan was a failure.

in contrast.. to all the ludicrous claims made by the so called "enthusiasts" who dont seem to bother to read up on books written by actual military personnel.. would find that the PAF actually did better in 71 in terms of sortie rate and objective holding than it did in 65.
 
looks like your a$$ is getting burnt on your own forumn..deal with it..truth always hurts..you lost the war in 1965,1971, 1999 , Pakistan was divided into 2 ..now..how does that sound..Kiddo!

:omghaha:

Mr Kid from jungle

Whose *** is actually burning here is being seen by everyone.

U dont need to advocate that.

In 1965 Pak won that war.

India has attacked Pakistan by crossing international borders in the 3am in morning of 6th september 1965.

Pakistan had defended herself from enemy and denied it to capture its main objectives of capturing strategic points n cities.

The land u gained was returned back to us when UN intervened in to war after 17 days of fighting.

The indian myth of op. Gibraltar is a total lie. Its an excuse of Indian Army to save its face from defeat n starting war.
Even in this 21st century u have failed to prove that operation of such kind had ever took place.

Even Yr PM lal bahadur shastri had an heart attack when he heard that india is forced to give back occupied land back to pakistan.

Even yr army after just 17 days of war had depleted its resources and was unable to fight longer.

Our main objective was to make sure the enemy dont gain strategic points and cities in war n we achieved it very well yes u gained some land but its obvious that an enemy whose numerically vastly superior will definitely gain some mass but what can be done is that whatever it gains its of no use for its nation and army by denying it to capture the important locations in the defending country.
 
:omghaha:

Mr Kid from jungle

Whose *** is actually burning here is being seen by everyone.

U dont need to advocate that.

In 1965 Pak won that war.

India has attacked Pakistan by crossing international borders in the 3am in morning of 6th september 1965.

Pakistan had defended herself from enemy and denied it to capture its main objectives of capturing strategic points n cities.

The land u gained was returned back to us when UN intervened in to war after 17 days of fighting.

The indian myth of op. Gibraltar is a total lie. Its an excuse of Indian Army to save its face from defeat n starting war.
Even in this 21st century u have failed to prove that operation of such kind had ever took place.

Even Yr PM lal bahadur shastri had an heart attack when he heard that india is forced to give back occupied land back to pakistan.

Even yr army after just 17 days of war had depleted its resources and was unable to fight longer.

Our main objective was to make sure the enemy dont gain strategic points and cities in war n we achieved it very well yes u gained some land but its obvious that an enemy whose numerically vastly superior will definitely gain some mass but what can be done is that whatever it gains its of no use for its nation and army by denying it to capture the important locations in the defending country.

Kindly back up your claim with facts like I did..show me a "neutral source " which says India had started the war..man people are adamant I say..mods do you like to teach your fellow citizen about truth..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom