What's new

Why has Pak lost against India every time?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pak military in terms of fighting, trained pros, etc etc is by far some of the best in the world. But military is made to protect the country and protect only. The military does not need to run our offices, schools, ec like said above by sid

This is a topic that has been discussed to death on other Pakistani military forums. Guys the point that everyone takes a tangent on when taking such a broad stroke is that they dump every thing under the account of the active Army (or in other words GHQ).

You just can't say that Army controls all these civilian ventures because a retired Army officer or an organization affiliated with the Armed Forces runs a particular concern.

This is not how the Army functions. The profession of arms is taken very seriously in the PA and aside from the times of Martial law (which did not happen this time), when officers have to handle their professional duties as well as martial law duties, the officers and men focus on the training on hand.

Currently, none of the major Pakistani units or the majority of the officers corp is involved in anything aside from their professional training. This is a common misperception in the minds of many Pakistanis and as a result in the minds of the Indians that Pakistani army is busy selling plots.....in reality, officers at the end of their careers from the military are given jobs to run many of the military-afiliated outfits like the Bahria, Fizaiya or Fauji foundations. The DHS that everybody talks about are always run by RETIRED military personnel who have nothing to do with the active Army. The Foundations, DHS etc., do NOT report to the GHQ or AHQ or NHQ.

The amount of training going on in Pakistan with each service is equal if not more than whats happening to Pakistan's east. Obviously units can do with more days out on training but that is a norm with all armies (they want more). I can say without a shadow of doubt that the bulk of Pakistani Army (not the military affiliated outfits) is not engaged on the civilian side of the house. They are doing what they are suppose to, which is to train or conduct operations as asked for by the GoP.

One note on the above point by melb4austin. I happened to attend an Army affilitaed school in Pakistan too. (One point, the only schools fully staffed by the PA are obviously the PMA and then the cadet colleges for obvious reasons since the intake at these colleges makes its way to the services academies, but aside from that, you have a small sprinkling of officers from AEC at other schools especially in the areas where civilians are unwilling to locate). This was in the days of the Martial law and every now and then, the GSO2, as he was called since he indeed was a GSO2 at a local unit based in the city, used to come to school to make sure that all was ok. In terms of officers being seconded to military schools, this is something that goes on even in the US. There are Maj Gens from the US Army who are running military schools here in the US. This is not a bad thing as they are deputed to schools to instill discipline. Most of the officers used in such roles are the ones who have been passed over for promotions and will retire at the same rank (this is the exact same issue in Pakistan).

Overall, Pakistan army trains equally hard. This has been proven in all of the past wars that despite being busied with non-military jobs during martial laws, the Pakistani army has always been able to hold the Indians back. Pakistani army has never been routed in a defensive war on the eastern borders despite the fact that there was a martial law in place and the army officers had two hats on. Since the time of Gen Aslam Beg, the Pakistani army has not been asked to put on two hats and this bodes well for professional training simply because they get more of it and are not burdened by civil affairs.
 
Overall, Pakistan army trains equally hard. This has been proven in all of the past wars that despite being busied with non-military jobs during martial laws, the Pakistani army has always been able to hold the Indians back. Pakistani army has never been routed in a defensive war on the eastern borders despite the fact that there was a martial law in place and the army officers had two hats on. ....
Without taking away credit from the PA units that fought in the wars against India, the IA had only fought holding operation with West Pakistan, especially when we talk about 1965 and 1971. There never was any intention to rout,...when the IA decides to rout, it routes.
 
Well im not familiar with operations of forces much but as far as winning any war good traning, professionalism or high standard are not the gaurantee specially with so much invovlment of many countries in the big gams.

In wars with India we had been victim of the same phenomnon.
Even in Kargil u cant give the credit to Indian army so many things came to their rescue or for that matter to our withdrawl.
 
Well im not familiar with operations of forces much but as far as winning any war good traning, professionalism or high standard are not the gaurantee specially with so much invovlment of many countries in the big gams.

In wars with India we had been victim of the same phenomnon.
Even in Kargil u cant give the credit to Indian army so many things came to their rescue or for that matter to our withdrawl.
In Kargil, the NLI were unfortunately abandoned by their own GHQ.
 
Lemon NLI was not the onlyone fighting there. i know many were very fresh and not even from forces.i dont want to go into details.

At one point we had suffered alot and that too due to not listening to an officer about concentration at a place.

as far credt do u think IA had won here ?i dont think so it was beaause of their peroformance i think one must accept that. what u think Lemon ?
 
Lemon NLI was not the onlyone fighting there. i know many were very fresh and not even from forces.i dont want to go into details.

At one point we had suffered alot and that too due to not listening to an officer about concentration at a place.

as far credt do u think IA had won here ?i dont think so it was beaause of their peroformance i think one must accept that. what u think Lemon ?
I'm not taking anything away from the NLI whose officers performed bravely on the field, but it wasn't a drubbing for the IA either.

The accounts I've read depict a stellar performance by the artillery. At those altitudes the air isn't sufficient for any physical activity of any kind. Troops had to climb slopes of 70-85 degrees under withering fire from above knowing that once they reach the top death awaited them.

It was the same for the NLI who were being shelled day and night with tons of perdition raining from the sky. What the purpose of the Kargil operation was is anybody's guess. It was a foolish gamble to make especially after the Lahore peace moves. It was a PR disaster. That the PA refused to accept the bodies of their dead also beggars belief. Heavens knows what Musharraf was thinking.
It certainly wasn't a victory denied by the Nawaz Sharif. The NLI just couldn't have lasted up there for long. Withdrawing them was a smart move.
 
Lemon NLI was not the onlyone fighting there. i know many were very fresh and not even from forces.i dont want to go into details.

At one point we had suffered alot and that too due to not listening to an officer about concentration at a place.

as far credt do u think IA had won here ?i dont think so it was beaause of their peroformance i think one must accept that. what u think Lemon ?
Jana,
All advantages of holding heights were removed, after the Northern Command got a grip of the situation.
The initial losses were due to silly mistakes, like day attacks without arty fire, that is the only reason units like 18 Grenadiers sufferred heavy casulties. But once simple tactics of fire and move and maneuver were used, things changed.

You cannot imagine the concentration of arty fire faced by the NLI, those on the forward slopes were obliterated, and only the bunkers on the rear slopes survied some what. Each hill was taken one at a time, and there was nothing the NLI could do - there were no reinforcements or counter-attacks coming (by this I mean brigade level counter-attacks and not section or platoon level).

Initially out chaps did'nt even know the extent of infilteration, it took time to assess and address the problem.

Losses and victories are not judged by number of troops killed, those are costs of war, but by achiving the aim of Op Badr.
Did Op Badr achieve its aim? No.
Did Op Vijay achieve its aim? Yes.

I will not delve on who lost or won, but who achieved his aim on the battlefield.
 
At least somebody recognises what the arty did to the NLI. Nobody else seems to understand the significance of it.
 
Without taking away credit from the PA units that fought in the wars against India, the IA had only fought holding operation with West Pakistan, especially when we talk about 1965 and 1971. There never was any intention to rout,...when the IA decides to rout, it routes.

Ok here we go with ill-founded and misplaced jingoism....like the Indian thrust across the IB in 65 was a "holding" operation. I suggest you go back and read some more before making overtly jingoistic statements like "when the IA decides to rout, it routes." :rolleyes:
 
East-Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971.

There was no rout. The only "rout" in the contemporary South Asian history has been the Chinese route of the IA in 62. Nothing else comes even close to the definition of the term in Indo-Pak context.

The 1971 war was a "surrender" without any real fighting since the Indian forces avoided any major combat by bypassing Pakistani defensive positions (which had huge gaps due to shortage of manpower). Units like Pakistani 26FF etc., made sure that Indians could not get away with terminology such as a "rout".

In Kargil, the Pakistani Army left the heights on its own accord due to International pressure (and not due to pressure put on by the IA). So please lets keep away from unfounded claims of routs in the Indo-Pakistan context.
 
I am wondering.... if the IA routs when it wants why doesn't it do it all the time then? And why do they need nukes? They rout whenever they want.
 
Ok here we go with ill-founded and misplaced jingoism....like the Indian thrust across the IB in 65 was a "holding" operation. I suggest you go back and read some more before making overtly jingoistic statements like "when the IA decides to rout, it routes." :rolleyes:
1. What is the meaning of "leaning" on a Ichogil canal? What did the IA achieve?
2. What was achieved by IA threatening Sialkot?

Ponder over the above questions and analyse what happened to the PA threat to Akhnoor. Then tell me if the 1965 IA ops were to rout or to remove the threat from Akhnoor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom