# What could have PAF done in Kargil war



## JF-17

According to my knowledge pakistani F-16 were 100 km away from su 30 mki which were bombing on pakistani forces. Idont understand what the hell our government have done in this regard. I think purchasing of jf-17 should be cancelled and pakistani is to get only50 Rafales to counter india. Our government giving orders to get quantity not quality what is you response towards this.
What about Pakistan air force and BVR technology.


----------



## Lakshya

At that point of Time Pak did not have BVR missile.

Only thing that saved Pak is the nukes.


----------



## JF-17

There is no one to answer me


----------



## Skywalker

which bombing you are talking about???


----------



## Spring Onion

Well i guess we did not use PAF in that clash


----------



## T-Rex

JF-17 said:


> According to my knowledge pakistani F-16 were 100 km away from su 30 mki which were bombing on pakistani forces. Idont understand what the hell our government have done in this regard. I think purchasing of jf-17 should be cancelled and pakistani is to get only50 Rafales to counter india. Our government giving orders to get quantity not quality what is you response towards this.
> What about Pakistan air force and BVR technology.



You can win battles but not wars with purchased weapons, you need to understand that. Pakistan should quicken the pace of the JF-17 production instead of purchasing fancy weapons whose supply can be terminated any time Pakistan's "ally in the war against terror" desires.


----------



## SurvivoR

JF-17, your question does not merit an answer... you surely seem to be living in fantasy land... could you plz give us the calculation of how much these 50 Rafales gonna cost us? plus the weapons and spares and the logistical costs involved? do your homework first... Pakistan is getting ToT of these JF17 aircrafts which you are so against even though in your naivety you have kept the same username for yourself.

Rest assured PAF is in good and capable hands. And the decision to go in to fight or not to fight is not only PAF's, its taken by the Govt.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Muradk

JF-17 said:


> According to my knowledge pakistani F-16 were 100 km away from su 30 mki which were bombing on pakistani forces. Idont understand what the hell our government have done in this regard. I think purchasing of jf-17 should be cancelled and pakistani is to get only50 Rafales to counter india. Our government giving orders to get quantity not quality what is you response towards this.
> What about Pakistan air force and BVR technology.





Indians used mirage2000 not SU-30s if I am correct. We did move 2 sqd at one of our FOB. PAF was told to be on ADA if needed.
I wounder that your Avatar says JF-17 and you are against it. SO who are you a banned member getting in , or someone who just wants to create frictions.

MOD Please close the thread , Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ahassan

Muradk said:


> Indians used mirage2000 not SU-30s if I am correct. We did move 2 sqd at one of our FOB. PAF was told to be on ADA if needed.
> I wounder that your Avatar says JF-17 and you are against it. SO who are you a banned member getting in , or someone who just wants to create frictions.
> 
> MOD Please close the thread , Thank you.



Sir i think Indians Used Mig-29's also!!!


----------



## Owais

Jana said:


> Well i guess we did not use PAF in that clash



because at that time we didn't have any plane to counter Bvr enabled IAF. unfortunately, that power deficit is still prevailing in PAF


----------



## Muradk

Try to see the situation the other way around, In kargil freedom fighters and army were against Indian Army an IAF. If our planes got into a dog fight and shot them down and vice versa, And that would have started a war. 
TiT for TAT

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Goodperson

Muradk said:


> Try to see the situation the other way around, In kargil freedom fighters and army were against Indian Army an IAF. If our planes got into a dog fight and shot them down and vice versa, And that would have started a war.
> TiT for TAT



Kargil itself was a limited war however initially Pakistan claimed it was between mujahideens and IA. Hence PAF was kept away.
Otherwise no nation will stop using its Airforce if its Army is pounded by opponent Airforce.

More debate will lead to friction I alsp feel the thread should be closed.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Munir

The Indians failed in the beginning cause they could not become near the hills. Then they switched to high altitude but then you do not have the accuracy. After asking and getting LGB from Israel they could remove the defenders of the hills... They indeed did not use MKI. At that time I thought they had no real MKI but the trainers which lacked a lot options...


Kargil showed that flying low is no longer an option. It ends fast and it is difficult to win from even a small number of opposition.

I do not really agree with the fact that PAF was not allowed to do more then ADA. Surely it could lead to more but I have seen more nations doind a lot more without moving toward full scale war. Let us not forget the mass murdering of Breguet Atlantique crew, I do not understand that India can pass rules why PAF has to be de correct one. We have seen Indian pilots acting as crazy as possible in the past. We do not go that far but waiting to be shot down and not reacting harsh is a bit to soft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Always Neutral

airbus said:


> Sir i think Indians Used Mig-29's also!!!



Yes you are partially right but not for attacks on the freedom fighters cum regular Pakistan Army.

They did do high altitude photography and also air cap to protect the Mirages incase the PAF intervened.

Regards


----------



## IceCold

Lakshya said:


> Only thing that saved Pak is the nukes.



Yeah yeah! along with Divine strength.


----------



## blain2

airbus said:


> Sir i think Indians Used Mig-29's also!!!


The aircraft used by the IAF included Mig-23/27/21 and then Mirage 2000s.


----------



## blain2

Goodperson said:


> Kargil itself was a limited war however initially Pakistan claimed it was between mujahideens and IA. Hence PAF was kept away.
> Otherwise no nation will stop using its Airforce if its Army is pounded by opponent Airforce.
> 
> More debate will lead to friction I alsp feel the thread should be closed.



GP,

The problem for the PAF was that the fighting was going on across the LoC on your side. PAF could not have crossed over to support the ground forces in the Kargil region as the ramifications would have been far reaching (all out war). So there were RoE limitations as well. 

The efficacy of IAF was questionable (IA questioned their effectiveness). The pounding was because of the Indian Artillery.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aman1981

dear jf-17
we used mirage-2k after the initial sorties of migs failed to deliver the desired results. MKI was not available at that time, only some su-30s initialy provided by russia were available. Kargil Intrusion, right from the planning stage, was ment to be a limited area operation. also, Unlike land based fighters, aircrafts can'nt be passed off as those belonging to mujahids, this was one reason why pakistan did'nt use its airforce.


----------



## ngold

I even heard in some PAF forum in Orkut that 2 F-16 was locked by IAF MIG 29... Don't know about the truth....


----------



## ngold

ngold said:


> I even heard in some PAF forum in Orkut that 2 F-16 was locked by IAF MIG 29... Don't know about the truth....



please find the url for more info...

MiG-29 &#8216;Falcon Hunter&#8217; : The F-16 Killer - World Affairs Board


----------



## Goodperson

blain2 said:


> GP,
> 
> The problem for the PAF was that the fighting was going on across the LoC on your side. PAF could not have crossed over to support the ground forces in the Kargil region as the ramifications would have been far reaching (all out war). So there were RoE limitations as well.
> 
> The efficacy of IAF was questionable (IA questioned their effectiveness). The pounding was because of the Indian Artillery.




It does not matter if the war was inside Indian territory now that its very clear that PA fought the war and PAF was bound to protect it or act as deterrent.

IAF did use Laser guided bombs and eventually was the difference for PA withdrawal Ofcourse Clinton played part to for political pressure.

*Some vidoes of IAF*

1) MiG-21 : (279 KB, 6 sec) An armed Indian Air Force MiG 21 takes off for action in Kargil. 

2) Mirage 2000 : (158 KB, 6.3 sec) An armed Mirage 2000 fighter of the Indian Air Force takes off with PGMs to be used against Pakistani infiltrators. (See Video 3 below) 

3) Laser Guided bomb: (174 KB, 5 sec) A precision guided bomb from an Indian Air Force aircraft (Possibly a Mirage 2000) converts a Pakistani Army camp perched on a mountain into history. 

4) MiG 27: (161 KB, 2.8 sec) IAF MiG 27s after action over Kargil. 

5) Mi-17 helicopters: (300 KB, 7.7 sec) India Air Force Mi-17 helicopters each armed with 4 rocket pods containing 128 rockets returning after a mission against retreating Pakistani forces in the Himalayas.


----------



## Neo

As mentioned by Blain IAF used Mig-21/23/27 and BVR capable Mirage2000H in the Kargil conflict. IAF was having severe maintenace (no spareparts) and engine problems with the Mig-29 at that time and did not risk sending it to Kargil.


----------



## Awaaz

paf done sweet fa mate thats what they done in kargil.


----------



## Goodperson

ngold said:


> please find the url for more info...
> 
> MiG-29 &#8216;Falcon Hunter&#8217; : The F-16 Killer - World Affairs Board



Indian MiG-29s saw action during the Kargil War in Kashmir in 1999. The IAF used the MiG-29s extensively for providing fighter escort for Mirage 2000s which were used for firing laser-guided bombs on enemy targets. According to Indian sources during the Kargil War, a pair of MiG-29s from IAF's 47 (Black Archers) Squadron successfully locked onto two Pakistani Air Force (PAF)'s F-16s which were close to the Indian airspace. *Since India and Pakistan were not officially at war during the time, the MiGs were ordered by the IAF command to give up the chase. After this incident, the PAF ordered its aircraft to stay well within the Pakistani airspace. However, this claim has been refuted by the Pakistan Air Force and there is no evidence to support the IAF claim*. *Also, during the conflict IAF Fulcrums were armed with RVV-AE missiles with BVR capability allowing them to achieve total air superiority during the conflict.*


----------



## blain2

Goodperson said:


> Indian MiG-29s saw action during the Kargil War in Kashmir in 1999. The IAF used the MiG-29s extensively for providing fighter escort for Mirage 2000s which were used for firing laser-guided bombs on enemy targets. According to Indian sources during the Kargil War, a pair of MiG-29s from IAF's 47 (Black Archers) Squadron successfully locked onto two Pakistani Air Force (PAF)'s F-16s which were close to the Indian airspace. *Since India and Pakistan were not officially at war during the time, the MiGs were ordered by the IAF command to give up the chase. After this incident, the PAF ordered its aircraft to stay well within the Pakistani airspace. However, this claim has been refuted by the Pakistan Air Force and there is no evidence to support the IAF claim*. *Also, during the conflict IAF Fulcrums were armed with RVV-AE missiles with BVR capability allowing them to achieve total air superiority during the conflict.*



This was as unverified a claim as ever filed. To top it off, ACIG included this BS "Lock-on" as something to keep a score of. Locking on does not mean anything as long as aircraft are not in a hot situation. Talking about lock-ons, PAF has had quite a few. in any case, had there been an actual shooting match then we would have something to talk about, otherwise its all "feel-good" chatter.

Also speaking about claims, here is one more:



> PAF engages Indian Air Force
> 
> 9th July, 1999, APP, Dawn/PNS
> 
> 
> ISLAMABAD: In what was a classic pre-dawn interception, air defence interceptors of the Pakistan Air Force, comprising of two PAF F-7MP fighter jets, intercepted and engaged intruding Indian Air Force (IAF) fighter jets which crossed the Line of Control in Jammu & Kashmir and violated Pakistan's airspace by several kilometres. The IAF fighters were believed to be two MiG-27ML ground-attack aircraft and two Mirage 2000H fighters providng top cover. The event took place in the early hours of Thursday, 8 July 1999, at approximately 2:30 a.m. (0230 hours) PST.
> 
> According to sources, PAF F-7MP fighters were supported by two F-16 Fighting Falcons providing back-up which conducted electronic jamming of the intruder IAF 'bandits'. The F-16s were scrambled whereas the F-7MPs were already on Combat Air Patrol (CAP) duty when the incursion occured.
> 
> The PAF F-7MP air defence interceptors were immediately vectored by GCI towards the intruding 'bandits' within seconds of their crossing into Pakistan airspace. *The PAF fighters intercepted the Indian fighters and 'locked' on them with their missiles. In fighter terms, this is an invitation for a dogfight. However, the IAF fighters refused to engage in return and instead fled straight back into the airspace of Indian-held Kashmir in what PAF pilots perceived was sheer panic. "It was not a very orderly or dignified exit", remarked a PAF officer. *
> 
> According to PAF sources, even the Dynamic Launch Zone (DLZ) perimetres had been met for launching of the air-to-air missiles which means that the PAF pilots had gotten the AAM tone indicating the bandits were well within shoot-down range of the PAF fighters. A missile tone is achieved when the missile's infrared heat-seeker or its radar has picked up the hostile aircraft. "It looks as if we gave them a fright", says a PAF officer, "Their RWR signal would have been blasting off in the cockpits as our interceptors tracked them". If the missiles were short-range heat-seeking missiles, then this would imply that the distance between the PAF and the IAF fighters was less than 10 kilometres - "Too close for comfort", as the PAF officer remarked.
> 
> PAF fighters did not shoot down the Indian fighters even though they were within range of the air-to-air missiles of the PAF fighters. The Indian fighters were perilously close to the Line of Control and their wreckage may have fallen inside Indian-held Kashmir territory which, going by their track record, would have given the Indian authorities the opportunity to blame the PAF for the intrusion.
> 
> According to the PAF Rules of Engagement (ROE), three conditions have to be met in peacetime before an enemy aircraft can be shot down: (i) the enemy aircraft must violate Pakistan's airspace; (ii) it must be a combat aircraft and (iii) its wreckage must fall inside Pakistani territory. 'Peacetime' in the context of India and Pakistan means when no war has been declared.
> 
> In this instance, the third criterion may not have been met as the IAF fighters were too close to the LoC and their wreckage may have fallen on either side of the LoC.
> 
> "All the intruder Indian fighters fled when our air defence fighters locked on them", said a PAF officer.
> 
> A second intrusion occured seven and a half hours later, at approximately 10:00 a.m. (1000 hours) PST, when two IAF fighter jets violated Pakistan's airspace in the Mushkoh-Olding sector in Jammu & Kashmir. Two F-7MPs were immediately scrambled from a
> 
> forward PAF air base to intercept the two intruders. However, the IAF jets sensing the PAF
> fighters fast approaching them, turned back and fled into Indian-held Kashmir before the PAF interceptors could get a missile lock-on them.
> 
> In both cases, the IAF intruders had taken off from Srinagar air base, according to PAF GCI controllers.
> 
> It is pertinent to mention here that earlier this year, on 27 May 1999, two intruder Indian Air Force MiGs - a MiG-27ML and a MiG-21bis - were shot down by the Pakistan Army using Anza-II SAMs after the IAF jets had violated Pakistan's airspace in the Jammu & Kashmir region. The wreckage of both the Indian aircraft fell 10-12 kilometres inside Pakistani territory near Hamzi Ghund. One Indian pilot, Flt. Lt. K. Nachiketa, was captured whereas the other pilot, Sqn. Ldr. Ajay Ahuja, was killed. Sqn. Ldr. Ahuja's body was returned to India with full military honours and Flt. Lt. Nachiketa was released shortly afterwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

Only one thing is True which needs no verification and cannot be denied by any!

Pakistan Shot Down 2 of your Jets!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Goodperson

blain2 said:


> This was as unverified a claim as ever filed. To top it off, ACIG included this BS "Lock-on" as something to keep a score of. Locking on does not mean anything as long as aircraft are not in a hot situation. Talking about lock-ons, PAF has had quite a few. in any case, had there been an actual shooting match then we would have something to talk about, otherwise its all "feel-good" chatter.
> 
> Also speaking about claims, here is one more:



My post did mention that "However, this claim has been refuted by the Pakistan Air Force and there is no evidence to support the IAF claim".

Mig 29 (Fulcrums) were used they were armed with RVV-AE missiles with BVR capability allowing them to achieve total air superiority during the conflict and LGM were decisive.


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

Then you should have shot them down!

Donot claim what didnot happen.... You got your Mig 21 AND Mig 27 Shot down!


----------



## blain2

ngold said:


> please find the url for more info...
> 
> MiG-29 Falcon Hunter : The F-16 Killer - World Affairs Board



Please avoid posting trash. The poster (or the troll) who started that thread at WAB got banned for posting astonishingly stupid stuff and comparisons and actually got schooled by quite a few folks. PAF has flown and evaluated the Mig-29 and while the maneuverability is fine, its nothing earth-shattering. F-16, Mirage2000, Fulcrum all have their pros and cons depending on altitude etc. In the end, in between these three platforms and also in general, the better trained pilot would win the day.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Goodperson

Proud to be Pakistani said:


> Only one thing is True which needs no verification and cannot be denied by any!
> 
> Pakistan Shot Down 2 of your Jets!



Mig-21 - PAFCombat.com, maintained by retired Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail of the PAF admits that Nachiketas MiG crashed due to "gun gas injection resulting in engine flame.

Mig-27 - Was fired at by Stinger missile and was shot down. Pilot ejected but was killed in a gun-fire exchange with Pakistani Ground troops.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## blain2

Goodperson said:


> Mig 29 (Fulcrums) were used they were armed with RVV-AE missiles with BVR capability allowing them to achieve total air superiority during the conflict and LGM were decisive.



Air superiority?..Debatable..there was no contest to attain air superiority over the Indian airspace by the PAF. Had there been an attempt then we could discuss it.

LGB sorties decisive?....claims to the contrary have been made by the Indian Army to the press.

Lets stop here. At least I will. I think we are starting to drift down the usual path  Lets be glad that there was no full-blown war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

Both of these Jets were gunned down by Anza MK-II Manpads!


----------



## Goodperson

blain2 said:


> Air superiority?..Debatable..there was no contest to attain air superiority over the Indian airspace by the PAF. Had there been an attempt then we could discuss it.
> 
> LGB sorties decisive?....claims to the contrary have been made by the Indian Army to the press.
> 
> Lets stop here. At least I will. I think we are starting to drift down the usual path  Lets be glad that there was no full-blown war.



OK quoting a from neutral source http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_jul03/sa_jul03sur01.html

Read The 1999 Kargil Conflict

Change of Tactics

The losses resulted in a change of tactics. Fighter operations stayed well above the ridgelines, using high-level bombing and laser-guided bombs. 44 Mirage fighters were used to lob laser-guided weapons at the bunkersan expensive way to fight infantry. However, no more aircraft were lost. *Eventually, a combination of air power, determined infantry assault, and artillery bombardment resulted in the Pakistani forces retreating across the LoC*. The turning point was the encirclement and then the successful air attack on the Muntho Dalo base camp, a logistics hub. The destruction of the camp resulted in the intruders' supply line being cut. Their positions having become untenable, they were forced to withdraw.


----------



## Goodperson

Proud to be Pakistani said:


> Both of these Jets were gunned down by Anza MK-II Manpads!



Debatable I tried to Quote from Pafcombat but not the link does not work.


----------



## blain2

Goodperson said:


> OK quoting a from neutral source http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_jul03/sa_jul03sur01.html
> 
> Read The 1999 Kargil Conflict
> 
> Change of Tactics
> 
> The losses resulted in a change of tactics. Fighter operations stayed well above the ridgelines, using high-level bombing and laser-guided bombs. 44 Mirage fighters were used to lob laser-guided weapons at the bunkersan expensive way to fight infantry. However, no more aircraft were lost. *Eventually, a combination of air power, determined infantry assault, and artillery bombardment resulted in the Pakistani forces retreating across the LoC*. The turning point was the encirclement and then the successful air attack on the Muntho Dalo base camp, a logistics hub. The destruction of the camp resulted in the intruders' supply line being cut. Their positions having become untenable, they were forced to withdraw.



My friend, IAF delivered a total of 9 LGBs (actually 8 from M2K and 1 from the JAG as per IAF sources) during the entire conflict through the Mirage 2000. I can dig this up (it was in the words of an Indian analyst). So to call these limited LGB sorties "decisive" is not exactly true.

The bolded text simply gives credit to all of the above because they participated in the operations. What was effective was the Indian Artillery. This is something that even the Pakistani side has commented upon. If IAF want to have their moment of glory by claiming that they had a major part to play, then they can do so by all means, however the side against which they were used does not think so. They hit certain positions with LGBs, but most other missions were with free-fall, dumb ordnance which was not very effective. The use of LGBs was very limited.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Goodperson

blain2 said:


> My friend, IAF delivered a total of 9 LGBs (actually 8 from M2K and 1 from the JAG as per IAF sources) during the entire conflict through the Mirage 2000. I can dig this up (it was in the words of an Indian analyst). So to call these limited LGB sorties "decisive" is not exactly true.
> 
> The bolded text simply gives credit to all of the above because they participated in the operations. What was effective was the Indian Artillery. This is something that even the Pakistani side has commented upon. If IAF want to have their moment of glory by claiming that they had a major part to play, then they can do so by all means, however the side against which they were used does not think so. They hit certain positions with LGBs, but most other missions were with free-fall, dumb ordnance which was not very effective. The use of LGBs was very limited.



Blain, IA seemed to be struck in mountains with terrible loss of lives it was at disadvantageous position lower in mountains even continous pounding by Bofors did not produce results fast public pressure was mounting. IAF joined later initially they lost two Aircrafts later they changed tactics and then achieved their objective. Hence it was said IAF support was decisive IA might not have achived it in shorter period.

Below link shows IAF Role in Kargil war (Has images too)

http://www.indianarmy.gov.in/arkargil/kargil-web.htm


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

Decisive was Pakistan's Political Decision to Back down when all your IA assests and men were at risk of death!


----------



## Muradk

ngold said:


> please find the url for more info...
> 
> MiG-29 Falcon Hunter : The F-16 Killer - World Affairs Board


My friend you are right but the photos published in the news and on the internet was of the American exercise, The F-16s were USAF.


----------



## Goodperson

Proud to be Pakistani said:


> Decisive was Pakistan's Political Decision to Back down when all your IA assests and men were at risk of death!



You as a Pakistani have a different interpretation than me.

It is good that it was over, as it had huge potential to escalate further with Catastrophic effects.


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

I am no War lover!

I want Peace .... I support peace .... But i hate Aggressions ...Suppressions and Hatered for Islam and its Followers!


----------



## ngold

Proud to be Pakistani said:


> Both of these Jets were gunned down by Anza MK-II Manpads!



Look i think they were shot down by the Anza MKII and that time India didn't retaliate.. Now Look how smart we are we just shot down Atlantice... So did you learn any message from this..?


----------



## ngold

Muradk said:


> My friend you are right but the photos published in the news and on the internet was of the American exercise, The F-16s were USAF.



Hi Sir.. As i am new to this forum and have heard that you have fougt 2 wars against India.. I am little curious to know about any such incidence where you really faced any kind of fear.....


----------



## Neo

ngold said:


> Look i think they were shot down by the Anza MKII and that time India didn't retaliate.. Now Look how smart we are we just shot down Atlantice... So did you learn any message from this..?



Whats so smart about shooting down an unarmed aircraft inside our own territory? 
Cosider yourself lucky we didn't retaliate in same manner.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Skywalker

Neo said:


> Whats so smart about shooting down an unarmed aircraft inside our own territory?
> Cosider yourself lucky we didn't retaliate in same manner.



Smart thinking wow...if you mean by shooting down an unarmed aircraft ...on cowards can do that and we all know what Indians are. I have a firm belive we will square this up some were else yes by not shooting down an unarmed aircraft.


----------



## BATMAN

Goodperson said:


> You as a Pakistani have a different interpretation than me.
> 
> It is good that it was over, as it had huge potential to escalate further with Catastrophic effects.



All escalation attempts failed. Didn&#8217;t India tried all available tools? Only after, realizing their limits they turned to US for mediation.


----------



## Humanoid

Neo said:


> Whats so smart about shooting down an unarmed aircraft inside our own territory?
> Cosider yourself lucky we didn't retaliate in same manner.



looks like Atlantique is capable of carrying air to ground missile.. is there anyway to know whether an aircraft is unarmed or not which otherwise is capable of being armed? Also it is still inconclusive where exactly the aircraft was shot... and where the wreckage fell .. IAF was looking for an opportunity to square the tally sheet after suffering three hull losses in Kargil (Two Combat and one Chopper).. and they pound upon it.. it was .. foolish on PAF to send a sitting duck so close to the border soon after the Kargil .. .. they should have used a little more restrain.. ..


----------



## Goodperson

BATMAN said:


> All escalation attempts failed. Didnt India tried all available tools? Only after, realizing their limits they turned to US for mediation.



Did you seriously go through below link posted earlier

UNDERSTANDING AIR OPERATIONS IN KARGIL


----------



## ngold

Neo said:


> Whats so smart about shooting down an unarmed aircraft inside our own territory?
> Cosider yourself lucky we didn't retaliate in same manner.



Ohh.... now please don't tell me that Atlantice was Passenger Aircraft... and that plane was in goodwill visit...
After all loss is a loss... we lost 3 and took down 1....


----------



## EagleEyes

ngold said:


> Ohh.... now please don't tell me that Atlantice was Passenger Aircraft... and that plane was in goodwill visit...
> After all loss is a loss... we lost 3 and took down 1....



ngold,

You have no knowledge about Atlantic. I mean if you cant spell Atlantic.. why bother explaining us that it wasn't a passenger aircraft?



> Shahadat by the Naval Aircrew
> 
> Tenth of August, 1999 would be remembered as a Black Day in Pakistan. On that day two Indian Air Force Mig jet fighters sneaked into Pakistan's air space and tried to skyjack an Atlantic patrol aircraft of the Pakistan Navy from over Sindh to India. Failing in their dastardly objective, the Migs shot down the unarmed slow moving aircraft without any warning. It was a dirty cowardly act only the Indian Air Force could be proud of. I am sure, if the Indian people were aware of the truth they would bow down their heads in shame. Sixteen naval personnel onboard led by the Captain of the aircraft Lieutenant Commander Mehboob Alam preferred Shahadat to preserve national honour rather than to be skyjacked to India. This was in keeping with the true spirit of Islam and traditions of the Navy
> 
> A Pakistan Navy Seaking helicopter later found the wreckage of the Atlantic about three kilometres north of the boundary line with India. Some parts of the aircraft were still burning at that time. Indian uniformed personnel collecting broken pieces from the crash site ran away in their helicopter at the first sight of the PN Seaking. BBC TV coverage of this contemptible incident that day also showed Indian uniformed personnel scurrying about collecting parts of the downed aircraft. The shooting down of the unarmed Atlantic and stealing of aircraft parts was nothing short of military aggression on Pakistani soil which has yet to be regretted by the Government of India. Luckily, providence in its benevolence to Pakistan has let the culprit himself provide the video evidence of his perfidy.
> 
> A study of the contradictory Indian media reports establishes beyond doubt that two Indian Mig-21 fighters corralled the Atlantic well inside Pakistan's air space and tried to force it to go to India. According to reports, two other Indian fighters circled high in the adjacent Indian airspace as protection for the two Migs, which had sneaked into Pakistan for the Atlantic. It is also clear from Indian reports that unable to shake off the Indian fighters, Lt Cdr Alam rather than surrender to this disgraceful act of air piracy made a final bid to break away before reaching the Indian border. His plane was then mercilessly shot down.
> 
> Atlantic-91 of the Pakistan Navy took off from Sharae-Faisal Base (Faisal for short) at 09:14 on Tuesday 10th August for its training mission in the Badin sector. Onboard, in addition to the Captain, were a crew of two officers and four sailors. In addition, there were two young pilots recently out of the Pakistan Air Force Academy, Risalpur and seven sailors of different specialization for training. For the two young pilots this was to be their initiation into flying with these over thirty-five million-dollar aircraft so much cherished by entire Navy's fixed wing pilots. They were to exercise under a highly experienced crew who had operated dozens of times before in the area.
> 
> Karachi, containing the country's major international airport and PAF and Naval Air Bases has a modern and well-equipped (Karachi Airport) Control Tower. The Civil Aviation Authority operates its own long range and short range radars, which enable the Control Tower to monitor all air traffic up to and beyond the border with India and to keep all planes flying in and around Karachi operate under its control. It gives flight path clearance to all aircraft in the region and allocates exercise areas together with any height restrictions to ensure their safety. For the training mission of Atlantic-91 that day, Badin area was considered most suitable because of the air navigation facilities around there, little density of air traffic and the area's regular use for training by PN for nearly twenty years. Normal procedure was followed on 10th August and Atlantic-91 proceeded on its assigned task as directed by Karachi Airport. Keeping a height of around 7,000 feet ensured the aircraft remained painting on Karachi Radar all the time. Its safety was thus ensured. PAF too has its own radars in this area. In addition, all Naval Air Squadrons have Standing Instructions to keep well outside the 10-kilometer restricted zone along the border with India, doubly ensuring compliance with the 1991 Agreement and never before has there been any complaint from the Indian Government on this score.
> 
> Inquiries have been in progress in Pakistan to establish what happened, how and why after the Atlantic arrived in the exercise area? However, it has been possible to ascertain bits of information which together with what the Indians have put out themselves, confirm that the two Indian Migs operated well inside Pakistan's air space for a length of time before they shot down the Atlantic. According to the Indians, their Ground Radar picked up an aircraft track inside Sindh near Badin, at 10:51 (Indian Time) approaching the Indo-Pakistan border. At 10:54 it touched the border and for the next 17-18 minutes this aircraft carried out a series of manoeuvres over the area staying within or close to 10 km of the boundary. At 10:59 two Mig-21 fighters, who had been scrambled two minutes earlier, were directed to the north arriving in the general area of the Atlantic at 11:10. Two minutes later the Atlantic proceeded initially west and then turned south to touch the border and then turned west again. The Indian fighters were then directed southward to keep abreast of the bogey (unidentified aircraft), keeping on Indian side of the border. At 11:14 the Atlantic turned south and entered Indian airspace (for the third time) and penetrated 10 km into Indian territory before turning on an easterly heading. (This is Indian version which is blatantly false).
> 
> The Indian release continues that at this stage the Ground Radar manoeuvred both Migs so as to place the leader between the border and the intruder and the wingman brought behind the unknown intruder. The leader made radar contact at 10 - 15 km range, visually sighted and identified the aircraft as a PN Atlantic and the leader closed to 300 meters, on his left, intending to formate on him and signal him visually. As the leader of the interceptors was jockeying into position, the Atlantic turned into him in an aggressive evasive attempt. The Atlantic had earlier been declared hostile after it had been identified, and at 11:17 (approx.) on being cleared to fire by ground radar, the leader fired an R-60 missile at the Atlantic hitting the left engine 5km South of the border.
> 
> According to this Indian report on the Internet, the Atlantic after being hit continued to be seen on IAF ground radars. It entered a loose descending spiral turn to the left, burning fiercely with wreckage falling off. In the process, it described an arc 5 kms within Pakistani territory before facing an approximately southeasterly direction again close to the border before disappearing from the IAF ground radar screen. It would therefore seem that the Atlantic carried out an amazing feat of flying more than 10 km after being hit by a missile. Furthermore, Indians certainly have the most envious type of ground radars that can observe fires as well in the sky. Simultaneously, Indian authorities have also released a map of the area showing the tracks with timings of Atlantic-91 and the Indian Migs. Therein, the crash site is marked separately about two kilometres south of the border and the missile-firing position is shown about six to seven kms further to its southeast. It is noteworthy that this firing site has been physically shifted about seven kms westward from where the aircraft tracks end. On adjustment of aircraft tracks for the crash site shown on the Indian map and seven kms tracks misalignment, from the Indian version itself it becomes clear that the Migs were flying inside Pakistan's airspace most of the time particularly when closing in to skyjack the Atlantic. .
> 
> The lack of information from the Pakistan side has left uncertainties in the minds of many people. Some quarters have even started a whispering campaign against the crew of Atlantic-91. However, one thing is certain that the new precision navigation system fitted onboard all Atlantic aircraft of the Pakistan Navy enables them to fly with almost perfect accuracy. The plane just could not have been more than a few yards outside its allocated area, certainly not miles as claimed by the Indians. It has now been unofficially learnt that on 10th August the Karachi Radar picked up the two Indian fighters and tracked them till their echoes faded at 10:41(11:11 IST) in position 120 Karachi 94 nautical miles. This position is about 20 kms inside Pakistan from the southern edge of the border and over 10 kms from the eastern edge of the frontier at Border Point 1175. Interpolating this radar contact with the Indian given track means that the Migs were inside our airspace for nine minutes approximately in their chase for the Atlantic.
> 
> Investigating further, from the Indian narrative of events the Migs were airborne at 10:59 IST (10:29 PST) and were in general area of the Atlantic at 11:10 IST i.e. it took them eleven minutes to reach there. At 400 kts, assuming that these aged Migs now travel at less than their maximum 450 kts, they must have flown over 70 miles from Naliya Indian airbase which is located only 40 NM from the border. This means the Migs after entering Pakistan's airspace as shown in the map may have penetrated as deep as thirty miles from a point west of Border Pillar No.1175 to the place where the Atlantic-91 was exercising.
> 
> An important point not reported in the media is that the left engine of the ill-fated Atlantic fell almost half a kilometre northwest of the fuselage. Had the Indians discovered it before the Pakistan Navy Marines arrived at the site on the 10th, they would have certainly removed the engine for display on their side of the border. The position of the left engine relative to the fuselage clearly establishes that Atlantic-91 was heading south, and not northward as claimed by the Indians, when it was hit on the left engine which immediately detached and fell at a faster rate than the fuselage. The latter, for one was being pushed cyclically forward and leftward by the right engine and into a downward spiral, which took the fuselage almost half a kilometre further in the southeasterly direction than the left engine. The actual direction of the fuselage on the ground would depend on the position of the spin at the moment of impact and could have been in any direction.
> 
> A number of Ham radio operators in North America informed the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and CBS News, after the effort at air piracy by India, that they overheard radio traffic between the ground controllers and Indian fighter aircraft during the attack on a Pakistani aircraft. They reported that order was given to destroy the aircraft, but it was out of weapon range. The order was then given to chase the aircraft, which was reported as being 'several miles' inside Pakistani territory and to shoot it down when inside range. The Indian aircraft reported firing and then reported, 'Turning back to Indian airspace.' This corroborates and confirms that the Indian fighters penetrated deep into Pakistan airspace to try and 'skyjack' Atlantic-91. Lieutenant Commander Mehboob Alam, as stated earlier, preferred Shahadat for himself and the rest of the personnel onboard rather than surrender to this dastardly Indian act of air piracy.
> 
> The state of mind in India at that time can be judged fairly accurately from some of the statements and comments given to the media then. According to the magazine 'India Today' 'Defence experts point out that the Indian Air Force (IAF) had built up a dubious reputation of lax vigilance in the area. The same magazine quotes Air Chief Marshal AY Tipnis the Indian air chief saying, 'Air intrusions in this area have been taking place for years. It was time to take action.' The magazine 'Outlook' quotes an IAF official, 'The aircraft came in thinking this would be another routine sortie. This time around, however, the air force, still smarting after their choppers were shot down in Kargil, decided to go after the Pakistanis.' The Indian Express commented, 'The simmering tension between India and Pakistan in the wake of Kargil conflict boiled over when an Indian Air Force aircraft shot down an intruding Pakistani military plane.' 'The Outlook' quotes the Defence Minister George Fernandes to have said, 'This intrusion was one of the many that had occurred in this sector. So what was the Indian Air Force and allied intelligence agencies doing? Was it another Kargil in the making?' Thereafter, he is quoted by the Guardian of London and the Statesman of New Delhi to have warned Pakistan that, 'since the wreckage was lying two km on the Indian side of the border, it would not tolerate attempts to interfere with salvage operations,' and, 'that any attempt to enter Indian territory to recover the wreckage would be treated as hostile act. Since then he has conveniently forgotten the Indian Air Force a streaming across the border.'
> 
> The Kargil syndrome is clearly visible all throughout in the Indian mind, and the shooting down of Atlantic-91 inside Pakistan's air space, without any warning on the radio as required internationally, was nothing but a cold blooded act of murder. It was a revenge for the loss of face the Indian Air Force suffered at Kargil. Someone in India should be held responsible for it.'
> 
> One hopes that in Pakistan, the people and the government will appreciate this act of supreme sacrifice rendered by the Captain of the PN Atlantic-91 to safeguard the honour of the country and the nation. And, that this meritorious act of courage and bravery in the face of a superior enemy would be recognized immediately, by bestowing him with the highest gallantry award of the country. Fifteen other naval personnel onboard, for no fault of theirs, also became victim to this wanton Indian act of aggression on an unarmed aircraft. Their deaths need to be recognized too, as resulting from an act of military aggression by India and suitably rewarded. Fighting conditions at 'the front' are very different for personnel of the Navy when compared with those faced by the personnel of the Army or the Air Force. In the Navy the whole unit is always involved together in any action against the enemy. and there is no opportunity for display of individual courage or acts of bravery against the enemy. In the case of the Army and Pilots of the Air Force, individuals are literally fighting one to one and exposed to dangers individually with an opportunity to display their courage and valour. In the case of Atlantic-91 it is certain that faced with a similar situation individually as Shaheed Lt Cdr Alam did, all of them would have preferred Shahadat without hesitation. Yet, it would be difficult to award all of them the Nishan-e-Haider. However, considering the gravity of the circumstances in which they lost their lives, all individuals are deserving of a suitable gallantry award. The country must not be miserly in offering recognition of the services rendered by those who perished and award appropriate military honours to them. This is the least that the country can do. It is also the only way that we will establish traditions for the young and for generations to come.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## shehbazi2001

Humanoid said:


> looks like Atlantique is capable of carrying air to ground missile.. is there anyway to know whether an aircraft is unarmed or not which otherwise is capable of being armed? Also it is still inconclusive where exactly the aircraft was shot... and where the wreckage fell .. IAF was looking for an opportunity to square the tally sheet after suffering three hull losses in Kargil (Two Combat and one Chopper).. and they pound upon it.. it was .. foolish on PAF to send a sitting duck so close to the border soon after the Kargil .. .. they should have used a little more restrain.. ..





Atlantique aircraft can carry anti-ship missiles but when its flying over the land, then its of no use. Against fighter aircrafts, Atlantique is unarmed. There are no air to air armaments. Although now I think that Maritime aircraft like Atlantique too need to be equipped with air to air missiles and all counter measures for self-defence against fighters.

What I think is very odd is the fact that there was no "fighter escort" from PAF given to Atlantique, whose mission was close to border. *Now we need to investigate whether PN requested for escort or not??? * and whether there was no surveillance radar of Pakistan's air defence network that monitored the movements of Indian fighters.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN

Goodperson said:


> Did you seriously go through below link posted earlier
> 
> UNDERSTANDING AIR OPERATIONS IN KARGIL



See post#26


----------



## chindit

WebMaster said:


> ngold,
> 
> You have no knowledge about Atlantic. I mean if you cant spell Atlantic.. why bother explaining us that it wasn't a passenger aircraft?



The funny thing is that the aircraft name is actually *Atlantique* - not Atlantic as the article claims.

The story is interesting - what is the source of publication ? 

I find it difficult that the PAF was not recording any IAF communication between fighter and radar even though amateur HAM radio operators could listen in. imagine what Pakistan could have proved if they had that evidence. The reason they they dont have, or even claimed to have it - because the conversation never hppened.

second, what were paf controllers doing? even if their fighters had been late in going to the area in time to save the atlantque, they were not scrambled even to prevent the indian helicopters from coming in and going off with wreckage. that is another failure on the paf's side.


----------



## chindit

chindit said:


> The story is interesting - what is the source of publication ? .




Never mind, found it myself 
defencejournal. com/ nov99/naval.htm


----------



## Kharian_Beast

Kargil was unnecessary. Nawaz Sharif is an idiot. 

/thread


----------



## Goodperson

Kharian_Beast said:


> Kargil was unnecessary. Nawaz Sharif is an idiot.
> 
> /thread



Kargil was Musharafs doing. Nawaz was kept in dark.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Both sides probably push the limits on and off when it comes to flying too close to the others airspace or even violating it - as the article posted by Blain suggested, of Indian fighters getting locked on but not being engaged.

In fact, the reaction from the defense attache's and other diplomats taken to view the wreckage in Pakistan (no question over the location, unlike what the Indians initially said) clearly indicates that India's actions were uncalled for.



> The Pakistani plane shot down by India this week may have strayed across the border between the two countries, according to foreign diplomats who visited the crash site.
> 
> However, the diplomats also said that India's reaction to the incident was not justified.
> 
> The diplomats - who included military attaches at western and other embassies in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad - went to see the wreckage on Thursday, taking global positioning systems and other equipment with them.
> 
> "My gut feeling is that the Pakistani plane may have strayed into restricted space. However, the Indian reaction was nowhere near in line," said one defence attache.
> 
> They said that the impact point of the crash was certainly inside Pakistani territory.
> BBC News | South Asia | Pakistani plane 'may have crossed border'


I am also not certain how the Indian claim of 'hostile action' can be regarded as true, given that the wreckage was in Pakistani territory, which meant that:

1. The Atlantique was moving away from Indian airspace towards Pakistani airspace (if we consider the allegation that it violated restricted airspace to be true), and was shot by the IAF while doing so.

- If this was the case, then it is quite frankly tantamount to shooting an unarmed individual in the back - which is the only plausible explanation to account for the wreckage falling in Pakistani territory. How can an aircraft turning away and flying back into Pakistan (if the allegation of airspace violation is true) be committing a 'hostile act'?

2. The Atlantique it was far enough in Pakistani territory that even after being shot allegedly moving towards Indian territory, the wreckage fell inside Pakistan. 

- In this case the IAF position is again indefensible, given that it blatantly shot down an aircraft that was nowhere close to a threat nor violating Indian airspace.

In either case, the Indian version of events seems a distortion.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Goodperson said:


> Kargil was Musharafs doing. Nawaz was kept in dark.



Nawaz knew - General Kyani (not the COAS) who came out to criticize Musharraf after retirement, actually let slip that Nawaz was informed and even said that he would not own up to Kargil if it failed.

Nawaz did exactly that as we can see.


----------



## Humanoid

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Both sides probably push the limits on and off when it comes to flying too close to the others airspace or even violating it - as the article posted by Blain suggested, of Indian fighters getting locked on but not being engaged.
> 
> In fact, the reaction from the defense attache's and other diplomats taken to view the wreckage in Pakistan (no question over the location, unlike what the Indians initially said) clearly indicates that India's actions were uncalled for.
> 
> 
> I am also not certain how the Indian claim of 'hostile action' can be regarded as true, given that the wreckage was in Pakistani territory, which meant that:
> 
> 1. The Atlantique was moving away from Indian airspace towards Pakistani airspace (if we consider the allegation that it violated restricted airspace to be true), and was shot by the IAF while doing so.
> 
> - If this was the case, then it is quite frankly tantamount to shooting an unarmed individual in the back - which is the only plausible explanation to account for the wreckage falling in Pakistani territory. How can an aircraft turning away and flying back into Pakistan (if the allegation of airspace violation is true) be committing a 'hostile act'?
> 
> 2. The Atlantique it was far enough in Pakistani territory that even after being shot allegedly moving towards Indian territory, the wreckage fell inside Pakistan.
> 
> - In this case the IAF position is again indefensible, given that it blatantly shot down an aircraft that was nowhere close to a threat nor violating Indian airspace.
> 
> In either case, the Indian version of events seems a distortion.



In the post Kargil Scenario when tension was still running high and both India and Pakistan busy counting body bags.. how can a PAF aircraft wish to infiltrate Indian border expect not to be retaliated and chased down? Were Pakistani planners sleeping or they simply underestimate the response from IAF if provocated..? either way it was too risky and belligerent for PAF to carry out a dubious training mission so close to international border soon after Kargil incident.. talking about the comments from Military attache .. it is common diplomatic practice to generally hold the lines of the hosting country which in this case was Pakistan...


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Humanoid said:


> In the post Kargil Scenario when tension was still running high and both India and Pakistan busy counting body bags.. how can a PAF aircraft wish to infiltrate Indian border expect not to be retaliated and chased down? Were Pakistani planners sleeping or they simply underestimate the response from IAF if provocated..? either way it was too risky and belligerent for PAF to carry out a dubious training mission so close to international border soon after Kargil incident.. talking about the comments from Military attache .. it is common diplomatic practice to generally hold the lines of the hosting country which in this case was Pakistan...



You are first assuming that the allegation of violation was first true, and that secondly both sides desisted from what seem to be almost routine incidents.

A cessation of hostilities is a cessation - there is no room for 'hurt feelings' in order to somehow justify doing something that, to quote the diplomats taken to the scene, "was nowhere near in line".

And I disagree with the part about 'towing the host nation's line'. These were comments made anonymously to a third party news organization, and in that article those diplomats also criticized Pakistan, and its position on the incident, so your argument doesn't fly at all.

I do agree with you that the Indian Military did take a cheap shot at an easy target that it would not have in other circumstances - but again, that does not take away from the fact that hostilities had ceased, and India's reaction was 'out of line'.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Thread moved to military history section.


----------



## Goodperson

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Both sides probably push the limits on and off when it comes to flying too close to the others airspace or even violating it - as the article posted by Blain suggested, of Indian fighters getting locked on but not being engaged.
> 
> In fact, the reaction from the defense attache's and other diplomats taken to view the wreckage in Pakistan (no question over the location, unlike what the Indians initially said) clearly indicates that India's actions were uncalled for.
> 
> 
> I am also not certain how the Indian claim of 'hostile action' can be regarded as true, given that the wreckage was in Pakistani territory, which meant that:
> 
> 1. The Atlantique was moving away from Indian airspace towards Pakistani airspace (if we consider the allegation that it violated restricted airspace to be true), and was shot by the IAF while doing so.
> 
> - If this was the case, then it is quite frankly tantamount to shooting an unarmed individual in the back - which is the only plausible explanation to account for the wreckage falling in Pakistani territory. How can an aircraft turning away and flying back into Pakistan (if the allegation of airspace violation is true) be committing a 'hostile act'?
> 
> 2. The Atlantique it was far enough in Pakistani territory that even after being shot allegedly moving towards Indian territory, the wreckage fell inside Pakistan.
> 
> - In this case the IAF position is again indefensible, given that it blatantly shot down an aircraft that was nowhere close to a threat nor violating Indian airspace.
> 
> In either case, the Indian version of events seems a distortion.



Some wreckage was found in indian territory too I guess

http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/thumbs/FT0016749_t.jpg


----------



## Goodperson

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Nawaz knew - General Kyani (not the COAS) who came out to criticize Musharraf after retirement, actually let slip that Nawaz was informed and even said that he would not own up to Kargil if it failed.
> 
> Nawaz did exactly that as we can see.



Nawaz categoric comments are available let me know if you want links.
Why was the report (Even edited or parts) not published as demanded by Nawaz.


----------



## Humanoid

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> You are first assuming that the allegation of violation was first true, and that secondly both sides desisted from what seem to be almost routine incidents.
> 
> A cessation of hostilities is a cessation - there is no room for 'hurt feelings' in order to somehow justify doing something that, to quote the diplomats taken to the scene, "was nowhere near in line".
> 
> And I disagree with the part about 'towing the host nation's line'. These were comments made anonymously to a third party news organization, and in that article those diplomats also criticized Pakistan, and its position on the incident, so your argument doesn't fly at all.
> 
> I do agree with you that the Indian Military did take a cheap shot at an easy target that it would not have in other circumstances - but again, that does not take away from the fact that hostilities had ceased, and India's reaction was 'out of line'.



lets live thru the life of indian military planners.. 
post Kargil they had to face heat internally as to how they could have missed the infiltrations of Militants and Pakistani regulars on the Kargil front..... 
there had been accusations of intelligence lapses .......... 

So if a reconnaissance aircraft comes close to your border which has important strategic installations like Trombey Nuclear Reactors, World's Largest Greenfield Refinery so and so forth.. in a post Kargil scenario .. the regular desisting from routine scenario does not simply hold.... you have to understand this from the standpoint of military planner... it is true that if this has happened in any other time this would have not found any mentioning anywhere other than the log book of Radar post... but after an incident which almost triggered an all out war between two nuclear power... PAF decision to send a strategic aircraft so close to Indian border is plain and simple playing with the lives of their individuals.. bcos i don't believe PAF top leaders did not anticipate this kind of retaliation...from IAF


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> bcos i don't believe PAF top leaders did not anticipate this kind of retaliation...from IAF



If they anticipated the Indians deviating from the norm and taking a cheap shot I doubt they would have sent the Atlantique without air cover. 

The time for retaliation was during Kargil - though as Salim admitted, the rule of thumb ratio (casualties) of attackers to defenders in mountainous terrain is 11 to 1, so perhaps there was a reason for resorting to this.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Goodperson said:


> Some wreckage was found in indian territory too I guess
> 
> http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/thumbs/FT0016749_t.jpg



The majority in Pakistan - some suggested that the Indians in fact transported wreckage over to their side from the Pakistani site.

Regardless of whether the latter claim is true, the majority of the wreckage and the views of the diplomats taken to the site do indicate that India first lied about the location, lied abut hostile intent, and most likely took a cheap shot.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Goodperson said:


> Nawaz categoric comments are available let me know if you want links.
> Why was the report (Even edited or parts) not published as demanded by Nawaz.



Musharraf's categorical comments are also available, I am sure you don't need me to provide links.

I think the fact that this General was present at the meeting, and made his comments in the process of criticizing Musharraf indicates that NS was indeed in the know.


----------



## Humanoid

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> If they anticipated the Indians deviating from the norm and taking a cheap shot I doubt they would have sent the Atlantique without air cover.
> 
> The time for retaliation was during Kargil - though as Salim admitted, the rule of thumb ratio of attackers to defenders in mountainous terrain is 11 to 1, so perhaps there was a reason for resorting to this.



I am sure if Indian Military and Political leaders had anticipated what Pakistan would be doing after the Lahore Pact ..i.e. *deviating from the norm and taking a cheap shot*.. they would not have left their guard down in Kargil... so .. Pakistan got a treatment through the same medicine that they invented ..


----------



## Skywalker

Guys first of all Atlantique shoot down coradly by IAF was from PN not PAF, secondly we all remember the video file shown on PTV time n again about the indians were collecting the wreckage from th crash side and when they saw Pakistani helicopters landing at the reash area teyrushed back to their chopper and with some pieces of wreckage and fled away.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Humanoid said:


> I am sure if Indian Military and Political leaders had anticipated what Pakistan would be doing after the Lahore Pact ..i.e. *deviating from the norm and taking a cheap shot*.. they would not have left their guard down in Kargil... so .. Pakistan got a treatment through the same medicine that they invented ..



I don't think Pakistan was shooting any unarmed Indian soldiers in the back as they were running away. Y'all lost your soldiers in straight up combat.

If you want to talk cheap shots in the political process and dialogue context, Nehru's unilateral rejection of the plebiscite demanded in the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and in the Instrument of Accession, after rigged elections in Kashmir, was the original 'cheap shot'.


----------



## chindit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> If they anticipated the Indians deviating from the norm and taking a cheap shot I doubt they would have sent the Atlantique without air cover. .



I dont think it is 'deviating from the norm' if forces have been on high alert just a month and a half of major hostilities. even in previous wars, aircraft were interecepted or shot down even after end of hostilities. pak army lost a one or two aop aircraft after 65 and 71 because they strayed into indian territory. months after the war.

so if the paf/pn expected iaf fighters not to take up the challenge when the atlantique came over into indian territory then they only have themselves to blame.

the blame i think lies more on the PN for not informing the paf of its intent to carry out sorties close to the border. 

The other thing is that there has been considerable time from the point of interception to shoot down. a whole load of radio communication would have taken place and would have been recorded as well by both sides. yet neither side released these recordings. it suggests both have things to hide.

even radars will be able to record movements - the PN has to just release these recordings if they wanted to substantiate that their aircraft never crossed the border. but they didnt.


----------



## chindit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I don't think Pakistan was shooting any unarmed Indian soldiers in the back as they were running away. Y'all lost your soldiers in straight up combat.
> .




no but they did shoot down an unarmed civilian aircraft in 1965. the aircraft was piston engined beechcraft flying over indian territory - posed no threat and was in civlian colors. yet paf jets shot down the aircraft killing many civilians.


----------



## Humanoid

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I don't think Pakistan was shooting any unarmed Indian soldiers in the back as they were running away. Y'all lost your soldiers in straight up combat.
> 
> If you want to talk cheap shots in the political process and dialogue context, Nehru's unilateral rejection of the plebiscite demanded in the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and in the Instrument of Accession, after rigged elections in Kashmir, was the original 'cheap shot'.



Cummon now you are opening a Pandora's box.. the list is long on both sides and lets not go thru .. it .. but .. taking hostage of an unsuspecting ..patrol team of IA and killing them cold blooded and mutilating their genital parts so that they cant reach "jannat" is not the highest example of gallantry ..


----------



## IceCold

Humanoid said:


> Cummon now you are opening a Pandora's box.. the list is long on both sides and lets not go thru .. it .. but .. _taking hostage of an unsuspecting ..patrol team of IA and killing them cold blooded and mutilating their genital parts so that they cant reach "jannat" is not the highest example of gallantry_ ..



Now hold on for a second? when did this happen? i guess you seem to be pretty much inspired by the bollywood movies where Pakistan is the Satan.


----------



## IceCold

Humanoid said:


> I am sure if Indian Military and Political leaders had anticipated what Pakistan would be doing after the Lahore Pact ..i.e. *deviating from the norm and taking a cheap shot*.. they would not have left their guard down in Kargil... so .. Pakistan got a treatment through the same medicine that they invented ..



Dude there are no cheap shots in strategic warfare and if NS wouldnt be such as jack *** that he is, we would then have seen who have got what treatment.


----------



## Goodperson

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I don't think Pakistan was shooting any unarmed Indian soldiers in the back as they were running away. Y'all lost your soldiers in straight up combat.
> 
> If you want to talk cheap shots in the political process and dialogue context, Nehru's unilateral rejection of the plebiscite demanded in the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and in the Instrument of Accession, after rigged elections in Kashmir, was the original 'cheap shot'.



AM, Why was the need to shoot also why Invite Vajpayee to Lahore by Pakistani PM if PA was supposed to carryout operations in Kargil? 

PA soldiers were place on higher mountains and Indians were at lower layer hence they managed to shoot Indians.

Plebiscite was agreed by Nehru in those times, with conditionalities required to be met by Pakistan which was never met. Any way I will not reply more on Kashmir in this thread.


----------



## Humanoid

IceCold said:


> Dude there are no cheap shots in strategic warfare and if NS wouldnt be such as jack *** that he is, we would then have seen who have got what treatment.



ha ha Strategic warfare.. after inviting a guest in your country .. and then .. putting dagger in the back... i was under the impression that.. .in Islam .. a guest is next to GOD.. since you are justifying everything under the umbrella of "Strategic Warfare" ..lets not even bring out Kashmir then... n i m not sure what NS is.. he pulled out at a time when anyway .. we were on ascending despite suffering casualties and even if we didnt make any headway .. things would have turn worse for both the countries.... I don't know what Pakistan gained out of Kargil bcos it actually jolted the entire Indian Military Establishment .. and then India went into a weapons buying frenzy to close all the weaknesses that were exposed by Kargil.... so I guessed it was .. a worthy wake-up call..


----------



## Neo

ngold said:


> Right sir it never happened.. It was the false propaganda by IA against the Freedom Fighters...
> And i have 1 more news that Atlantique was shot down near Lahore.. Look how cowards are they... Its the limit of their cowardiness that after shooting Atlantique over Lahore they tried to steal wreckage also...



Sarcasm is lost on me, so please stick to the facts from neutral sources.
Thanks.


----------



## chindit

Humanoid said:


> Cummon now you are opening a Pandora's box.. the list is long on both sides and lets not go thru .. it .. but .. taking hostage of an unsuspecting ..patrol team of IA and killing them cold blooded and mutilating their genital parts so that they cant reach "jannat" is not the highest example of gallantry ..



I for one dont believe this. if they did it, what is the need for them return the bodies? they could have said the bodies were lost.

i have seen the letter that saurabh kalias father circulated - but that letter makes it clear that part from the initial reports and press - did the autopsy report confirm such kind of mutilation? i havent seen any

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Humanoid said:


> Cummon now you are opening a Pandora's box.. the list is long on both sides and lets not go thru .. it .. but .. taking hostage of an unsuspecting ..patrol team of IA and killing them cold blooded and mutilating their genital parts so that they cant reach "jannat" is not the highest example of gallantry ..



That was a 'cheap shot' from the propganda POV. The Indian media itself called attention to this outright lie.


----------



## Humanoid

May be it is deviating from the topic ..but this is one article .. pondering on the Lessons learnt From Kargil as Projected by Pakistani Strategist Shireen Mazari: 

It is a long one so here is the link 
PAKISTANS LESSONS FROM ITS KARGIL WAR (1999): An Analysis

just a small excerpt...
*
Confusion and Dysfunction in Decision Making:

"And as the operation incrementally moved up on the escalation ladder, Pakistans decision-making system betrayed signs of confusion and dysfunction. In fact, the short-coming of Pakistans national security decision-making were revealed by the Kargil Conflict were not episodic but systemic.*


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

chindit said:


> no but they did shoot down an unarmed civilian aircraft in 1965. the aircraft was piston engined beechcraft flying over indian territory - posed no threat and was in civlian colors. yet paf jets shot down the aircraft killing many civilians.



During the war or after? 

I can accept collateral damage in the 'fog of war', but I'd like some neutral links on the event if it ocurred after hostilities ceased.


----------



## Humanoid

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That was a 'cheap shot' from the propganda POV. The Indian media itself called attention to this outright lie.



I am trying to search for the valid link supporting my claim .. can you also provide the link that you have just mentioned..? 

every piece of info if gets described as Propaganda.. then it will not lead us anywhere..


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Humanoid said:


> May be it is deviating from the topic ..but this is one article .. pondering on the Lessons learnt From Kargil as Projected by Pakistani Strategist Shireen Mazari:
> 
> It is a long one so here is the link
> PAKISTANS LESSONS FROM ITS KARGIL WAR (1999): An Analysis
> 
> just a small excerpt...
> *
> Confusion and Dysfunction in Decision Making:
> 
> "And as the operation incrementally moved up on the escalation ladder, Pakistans decision-making system betrayed signs of confusion and dysfunction. In fact, the short-coming of Pakistans national security decision-making were revealed by the Kargil Conflict were not episodic but systemic.*



I personally have no quarrel with the analysis that decision making and long term strategic planning was flawed when it came to Kargil - both in the runup to it, its execution and the potential long term goals.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Humanoid said:


> I am trying to search for the valid link supporting my claim .. can you also provide the link that you have just mentioned..?
> 
> every piece of info if gets described as Propaganda.. then it will not lead us anywhere..



Certainly - I remember gettin into teh same discussion with a gentleman when I first joined this forum, and posting the links at the time - I'll have to search them out again. They were all Indian links, one from the Indian Express unfortunately did not work when I tried linking to it in the course of a similar debate later on.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Ahh.. I found a PM I exchanged with Energon on the subject way back then:



> Here are some of the resources:
> 
> I do not recall the thread that the discussion with Blain took place - like a lot of times, the Kargil torture issue was tangential to what the thread was about. The arguments against Torture, despite the "mutilated condition" of the bodies had a lot to do with the HMG's and the distance at which they were used on the intruding parties. Keyser pitched in with his knowledge of seeing HMG wounds. At relatively close distances you are looking at limbs almost being torn off, which explains the mutilation. There was also the issue of the mountainous terrain. Did the bodies just drop to the ground or did you have falls into ravines etc.
> 
> Here are a few links I could round up:
> 
> http://www.himalmag.com/99Sep/lies.htm
> 
> The Media in Terror
> 
> In the second link you'll have to scroll about half way down to find the relevant parts. One excerpt that the essay has:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this is shocking and deeply reprehensible. Nevertheless, it does not amount to mutilation. But the mutilation story  which so inflamed passions in India  remained in print because we (emphasis added) felt that to contradict the army would be unpatriotic and demoralizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is that the article that the excerpt above is taken from is no where to be found, even with a sentence search. I distinctly remember reading the entire thing and posting a link to it during that earlier discussion. It was also one of the first articles to pop up when I did a "Kargil torture lies" search. The link from the SATP site is also non functional.
> 
> A more thorough search on simply kargil might turn it up, but it requires too much time for the moment.
Click to expand...


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

chindit said:


> I for one dont believe this. if they did it, what is the need for them return the bodies? they could have said the bodies were lost.
> 
> i have seen the letter that saurabh kalias father circulated - but that letter makes it clear that part from the initial reports and press - did the autopsy report confirm such kind of mutilation? i havent seen any



Both militaries are too professional, and rooted in tradition and respect for the opponent to enage in this sort of condemnable behavior.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chindit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> During the war or after?
> 
> I can accept collateral damage in the 'fog of war', but I'd like some neutral links on the event if it ocurred after hostilities ceased.



during the war. see its collateral damage for you.

its the same for us. the atlantique was collatarel damage

we only had a ceasefire - not a complete end to hostilities or 'treaty to stop war'. collatoral damage of the altantique was acceptable.

It was no an "all around peace and friendship" situation one month after kargil has ended. 

things were still heated up, feelings were still high. casualities were still happening on the ground. i remember one indian patrol was ambushed and two solders take prisoner. much much after fighting has ended.

last thing PN had to do was send an atlantique close to the border.

i dont believe that indian fighters went in 10-20 miles deep into pakistani territory and deliberatly shot it down. if thats true i am sure PAF/PN would have had radio transmissions and other proof that the admiral claims even HAM radio operators had. but there was no proof then and none now.

when the US frigate shot down the iranian airliner in the early 90s, they displayed radar recordings, and also communication.

the same applies to india as well. it has not released any radio recordings either - why it has things to hide as well

what do we get from india and pakistan - nothing.

proves both have somethign to hide. no one is innocent on either side.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chindit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Both militaries are too professional, and rooted in tradition and respect for the opponent to enage in this sort of condemnable behavior.


.

agree.


----------



## Humanoid

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Both militaries are too professional, and rooted in tradition and respect for the opponent to enage in this sort of condemnable behavior.



I sincerely believe and wish that you are true...


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

chindit said:


> during the war. see its collateral damage for you.
> 
> its the same for us. the atlantique was collatarel damage
> 
> we only had a ceasefire - not a complete end to hostilities or 'treaty to stop war'. collatoral damage of the altantique was acceptable.
> 
> It was no an "all around peace and friendship" situation one month after kargil has ended.
> 
> things were still heated up, feelings were still high. casualities were still happening on the ground. i remember one indian patrol was ambushed and two solders take prisoner. much much after fighting has ended.
> 
> last thing PN had to do was send an atlantique close to the border.
> 
> i dont believe that indian fighters went in 10-20 miles deep into pakistani territory and deliberatly shot it down. if thats true i am sure PAF/PN would have had radio transmissions and other proof that the admiral claims even HAM radio operators had. but there was no proof then and none now.
> 
> when the US frigate shot down the iranian airliner in the early 90s, they displayed radar recordings, and also communication.
> 
> the same applies to india as well. it has not released any radio recordings either - why it has things to hide as well
> 
> what do we get from india and pakistan - nothing.
> 
> proves both have somethign to hide. no one is innocent on either side.



Argued well Chindit, and it makes sense - and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Always Neutral

chindit said:


> proves both have somethign to hide. no one is innocent on either side.



I agree. Its mysterious.

1. Why would the Atlantique fly so close to the border if its on training mission
since this training could have been done out at sea.

2. Countries usually do test each others response by flying near the border. I think some faulty instruements may have contributed to plane entering the Indian Space as pointed out by the Neutral DA in one of the posts.

3. I think the IAF was waiting for this incident to happen to force the Atlantique down and score a moral victory.

4. I think the PAF Cdr called the bluff with fatal consequences.

5. I think the plane we shot somewhere on the IB which lead to some of the debris falling on the Indian side with the major parts in Pakistan.

6. I think the point that PAF did not pursue the case in the international courts or release the tapes or the black boxes means they are hiding something about the initial location of the clash just as they Indian are also not releasing their transcripts for various reasons.

Lastly I believe the crisis was defused by the americans thru backdoor channels as I am sure their satellites would have picked some of the chatter which may show both parties were at fault. 

Regards

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bernard

JF-17 said:


> According to my knowledge pakistani F-16 were 100 km away from su 30 mki which were bombing on pakistani forces. Idont understand what the hell our government have done in this regard. I think purchasing of jf-17 should be cancelled and pakistani is to get only50 Rafales to counter india. Our government giving orders to get quantity not quality what is you response towards this.
> What about Pakistan air force and BVR technology.


 lol next paf air chief marshal


----------



## imiakhtar

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/SIGS/NSA/publicationsandresearch/studenttheses/theses/Acosta03.pdf

In my opinion, this research paper by the US is a very well sourced and accurate report into the Kargil conflict. It's a long read. Enjoy!!!


----------



## Kasrkin

Thanks, it is a good article. And according to it, PAF could have helped win the war by preventing IAF attempts to bomb our logistics (its obvious forward NLI took care of themselves, air-wise ofcourse). It says the main reason Pakistani NLI suffered reverses was because they were undermanned and under supplied, therefore even a token protection of the logistic routes by PAF could have rectified this.


----------



## Kumar

Kasrkin said:


> Thanks, it is a good article. And according to it, PAF could have helped win the war by preventing IAF attempts to bomb our logistics (its obvious forward NLI took care of themselves, air-wise ofcourse). It says the main reason Pakistani NLI suffered reverses was because they were undermanned and under supplied, therefore even a token protection of the logistic routes by PAF could have rectified this.


On Page 10:

" Throughout the operation that mujahadeen militants beyond the governments control
planned and executed the incursion.15 Captured documents, prisoners of war, and the
bodies of Pakistan Army officers killed in action seemed to prove otherwise. Faced with
mounting evidence, in late July Pakistan officially acknowledged that soldiers had been martyred in the adventure.

This is the reason PAF did not involved.


----------



## Kasrkin

Stupid reason, support your troops no matter what you claim on the media stage. The supply lines were barely on the Indian side of the LoC, it was possible for PAF to harass or impede IAF ground sorties without significant diplomatic fall out because Pakistan already claimed Indian jets were violating Pakistan air space and showed the wreckage of a shot down fighter to that effect. Anyway what's done is done, I have no bitter feelings. Just lessons for the future.


----------



## chindit

honestly - if the pakistani army did not take into confidence the PAF about its plans in kargil, how can one blame PAF? in many ways kargil was exactly like the build up to september 1965. army ocming up with its own ideas, not telling air force etc.


----------



## Kasrkin

Yes actually, in 1965 most of the Army didnt know about it either. Bhutto till the last moment was trying to convince everyone that the Indians would not attack across the international border. And even the Lahore core commander was caught off guard untill Indian forces were already inside our border! 
Certainly PAF should have been told, thats would have changed things a lot.


----------



## chindit

Kasrkin said:


> Certainly PAF should have been told, thats would have changed things a lot.




yes they would have told the army to smell the coffee and not to blunder into misadvantures


----------



## Kasrkin

Unlikely, since IAF was no match for them, but if that makes you feel better.


----------



## chindit

Kasrkin said:


> Unlikely, since IAF was no match for them, but if that makes you feel better.



well , think beyond jingoism. question is not whether IAF was match for them or no match. I might as well retort saying if they are so great, why didnt they show up at all defending the troops on ground and then we go in full circle all over.

The simple answer is that its a crazy plan. and the PAF is not that crazy.


----------



## aboutimeee

i dont know why PA didnt use Anza (missile), if pakistan wasnt officially involved in the war they could have said that Kashmiri Mujahideen were provided these earlier?


----------



## Zob

@ PARITOSH.... waiting for you my boy....

saying it but please check out how many soldiers you commited to battle and how many did we commit.....who lost 2 war planes....and in revenge we lost an unarmed navy plane.....who ordered COFFINS from abroad.....??? OPERATION SAFAIID SAGAR was nearly lost but diplomacy prevailed and PAKISTAN ARMY withdrew...and in the withdrawal we lost alot of soldiers because...well let's just leave it at because


----------



## chindit

Zob said:


> @ PARITOSH.... waiting for you my boy....
> 
> saying it but please check out how many soldiers you commited to battle and how many did we commit.....who lost 2 war planes....and in revenge we lost an unarmed navy plane.....who ordered COFFINS from abroad.....??? OPERATION SAFAIID SAGAR was nearly lost but diplomacy prevailed and PAKISTAN ARMY withdrew...and in the withdrawal we lost alot of soldiers because...well let's just leave it at because



Zob. did you read Kaiser Tufail's article? after reading it does it look like India was losing?  do you know what the "coffins" were supposed to do?


----------



## Patriot

Army should not have expected PAF help...period.It was very weak at that time due to sanctions.There were barely enough spares to keep F16 in air for few hours.PAF was possibly in it's worst shape at that time.


----------



## Zob

and ONE KAISER TAUFIL says it and i believe it as a god send.....what if i give you an article by an indian saying india was losing in KARGIL will you belive it.....and just answer this how many troops did you commit and how many did we.....and given all your "facts" which side lost fighters....please my friend....tell me how can we loose...we didn't commit enough army,airforce or anything....


----------



## chindit

Zob said:


> and ONE KAISER TAUFIL says it and i believe it as a god send.....what if i give you an article by an indian saying india was losing in KARGIL will you belive it.....and just answer this how many troops did you commit and how many did we.....and given all your "facts" which side lost fighters....please my friend....tell me how can we loose...we didn't commit enough army,airforce or anything....


Your ONE Kaiser tufail was a serving Air Commodore at that time  Find me an article by an Indian Air Commodore that states that IAF did badly


----------



## haawk

blain2 said:


> GP,
> 
> The problem for the PAF was that the fighting was going on across the LoC on your side. PAF could not have crossed over to support the ground forces in the Kargil region as the ramifications would have been far reaching (all out war). So there were RoE limitations as well.
> 
> The efficacy of IAF was questionable (IA questioned their effectiveness). The pounding was because of the Indian Artillery.


 
\
lets see -your army was on our side of the LOC fighting and your airforce could not do so because it didnt want to cross the border hmmmmm i dont get it !!!!!!!!!!
then you question our airforce 's efficacy when your airforce didnt want to even cross borders lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarbe Momin

Kargil operation was full with *suprise element* . Pakistan Army took complet advantage in area. Pakistan Army blocked the Indian national highway by artillary fire. It was beginning of summer. It was time to send supplies to Siachin through National High Way. India was in difficult situation and they want to open high way before winter. Pakistan militray thought that this operation would be like siachin and nothing will come out to world. There was a close room presentation given to Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan and cabinet members, during the Kargil conflict Nawaz Sharif also visited the Area. He was aware of the plans. Pakistan Foreign Office was'nt prepared the case well to present to world. Military command was not prepared to handle the worst scenario. Militray hardware and ammunation was in area already. Troops from the elite Special Services Group as well as four to seven battalions of the Northern Light Infantry were on posts. Pakistani forces took stand that these areas are in hands of Kashmiri guerrillas. That was also a bigger mistake. Then Government of India responded with Operation Vijay, a mobilisation of 200,000 Indian troops. Two divisions of the Indian Army, numbering 20,000, plus several thousand from the Paramilitary forces of India and the air force were deployed in the conflict zone. Musharraf stated that 500 square miles (1,300 km&#178 of was occupied. PAF was not prepared and technically for PAF was not favourable to go in operation area without BVR capability. Indian Airforce did what they can. They destroyed Pakistan ammunation stores, Indian Artillary fired on Pakistan posts and fired on supply lines to stop supply. There was shortage of Army troops, ammunation and artillary although fire of Pakistan artillary was very precise. Last week before withdrawl indians were able to capture Tiger hill, with growing international pressure, Sharif managed to pull back the remaining soldiers from Indian territory. The joint statement issued by Clinton and Sharif conveyed the need to respect the Line of Control and resume bilateral talks as the best forum to resolve all disputes. Pakistan Army and politicans repeated history 4th time and failed to attain something positive. Sharif on Ptv in address to nation totally contradicted that "There is no road that goes from Sirinagar to kargil". Pakistan Army losted 400 troops, for indians that should be four to five times higher because they had to go up to capture hills. U.S. Intelligence study is reported to have stated that Kargil was yet another example of Pakistan&#8217;s (lack of) grand strategy, repeating the follies of the previous wars. Being a pakistani for me it is shameful. Look indians know that Siachin is not there part but they are there and Kahsmir is disputed area and we got upper hand and then again withdrawl.


----------



## godsavetheworld

JF-17 said:


> *According to my knowledge pakistani F-16 were 100 km away from su 30 mki which were bombing on pakistani forces.* Idont understand what the hell our government have done in this regard. I think purchasing of jf-17 should be cancelled and pakistani is to get only50 Rafales to counter india. Our government giving orders to get quantity not quality what is you response towards this.
> What about Pakistan air force and BVR technology.



The MKI never 'engaged' nor did the undertake any 'bombing missions'. When IAF flew a few sorties(one of which was shot down) to pinpoint the exact position of PA soldiers, you sent in your F-16's. As a response, IAF sent in the MKI, which had BVR and the F-16 did not. So the F-16 disengaged, giving IAF a complete air superiority.


----------



## abrakadabra

godsavetheworld said:


> The MKI never 'engaged' nor did the undertake any 'bombing missions'. When IAF flew a few sorties(one of which was shot down) to pinpoint the exact position of PA soldiers, you sent in your F-16's. As a response, IAF sent in the MKI, which had BVR and the F-16 did not. So the F-16 disengaged, giving IAF a complete air superiority.




Did India have operational MKI's at that time? WIKI says the following about MKIs.

First flight: 1 July 1997 
Introduced: 27 September 2002


----------



## abrakadabra

Zob said:


> and ONE KAISER TAUFIL says it and i believe it as a god send.....what if i give you an article by an indian saying india was losing in KARGIL will you belive it.....and just answer this how many troops did you commit and how many did we.....and given all your "facts" which side lost fighters....please my friend....tell me how can we loose...we didn't commit enough army,airforce or anything....




Yes, India committed more troops, probably lost more men, used AirForce. You are right. This was the price that India had to pay for the lax in finding out of incursions. By the time India noticed and had an idea of the nature of the incursions, Pakistanis were already occupying vantage positions, heights and were in reinforced bunkers that could not be destroyed by the MIGs used.

Coming to who won or who lost - this is determined by whose objectives were met. India's objectives were to eject the occupants and to isolate Pakisthan diplomatically. I thought India successfully achieved them.


----------



## satishkumarcsc

godsavetheworld said:


> The MKI never 'engaged' nor did the undertake any 'bombing missions'. When IAF flew a few sorties(one of which was shot down) to pinpoint the exact position of PA soldiers, you sent in your F-16's. As a response, IAF sent in the MKI, which had BVR and the F-16 did not. So the F-16 disengaged, giving IAF a complete air superiority.



No MKI was there. It was the MiG 29 from Adampur base I suppose. They had a lock on 2 F 16s across the border.


----------



## spsk

Zarbe Momin said:


> Kargil operation was full with *suprise element* . Pakistan Army took complet advantage in area. Pakistan Army blocked the Indian national highway by artillary fire. It was beginning of summer. It was time to send supplies to Siachin through National High Way. India was in difficult situation and they want to open high way before winter. Pakistan militray thought that this operation would be like siachin and nothing will come out to world. There was a close room presentation given to Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan and cabinet members, during the Kargil conflict Nawaz Sharif also visited the Area. He was aware of the plans. Pakistan Foreign Office was'nt prepared the case well to present to world. Military command was not prepared to handle the worst scenario. Militray hardware and ammunation was in area already. Troops from the elite Special Services Group as well as four to seven battalions of the Northern Light Infantry were on posts. Pakistani forces took stand that these areas are in hands of Kashmiri guerrillas. That was also a bigger mistake. Then Government of India responded with Operation Vijay, a mobilisation of 200,000 Indian troops. Two divisions of the Indian Army, numbering 20,000, plus several thousand from the Paramilitary forces of India and the air force were deployed in the conflict zone. Musharraf stated that 500 square miles (1,300 km²) of was occupied. PAF was not prepared and technically for PAF was not favourable to go in operation area without BVR capability. Indian Airforce did what they can. They destroyed Pakistan ammunation stores, Indian Artillary fired on Pakistan posts and fired on supply lines to stop supply. There was shortage of Army troops, ammunation and artillary although fire of Pakistan artillary was very precise. Last week before withdrawl indians were able to capture Tiger hill, with growing international pressure, Sharif managed to pull back the remaining soldiers from Indian territory. The joint statement issued by Clinton and Sharif conveyed the need to respect the Line of Control and resume bilateral talks as the best forum to resolve all disputes. Pakistan Army and politicans repeated history 4th time and failed to attain something positive. Sharif on Ptv in address to nation totally contradicted that "There is no road that goes from Sirinagar to kargil". Pakistan Army losted 400 troops, for indians that should be four to five times higher because they had to go up to capture hills. U.S. Intelligence study is reported to have stated that Kargil was yet another example of Pakistans (lack of) grand strategy, repeating the follies of the previous wars. Being a pakistani for me it is shameful. Look indians know that Siachin is not there part but they are there and Kahsmir is disputed area and we got upper hand and then again withdrawl.



If you had upper hand why did Pakistan decided to with draw the troops ? You get upper hand only when you have total control of situation both by military and diplomacy . If your military really had upper hand why Nawaz "Blamed" Mush for Kargil ? I think as a prime minister he would have definitely taken credit. 

If Kargil is a grand strategy of Pakistan why did they ignored even to accept the dead bodies of Pakistani Soldiers?


----------



## Zarbe Momin

Let me clear, i pointed out that Pakistan failed to get success. Obviously we were in better position in start, Idia took just Tiger hill back in complete operation and other area given back by Pakistan just to deescalate the situation. Yes pakistan did'nt used air force because we did'nt have BVR capability. It was a good chance to do some business but due to lack of grand strategy failed to attain something positive. History repeated again and we failed but India with 3to4 times more loss got success. Siachin was our part it is our part & we will take back.


----------



## SQ8

Sun tzu made the simplest statement
"The victorious general only seeks battle after the victory has been won"

Kargil was a folly,like many other strategic blunders by our armed forces.
While initial tactical gains were made.. as an overall strategy, It looked like a repeat of operation Gibraltar. The operation was launched with quite a few Corp Cmdrs not in favor of it including the current chief, yet in the Initial stages of it were quite optimistic, I was in bhurban during the whole time and sat beside my father as he was shown the maps of where we were on the peaks. True we had the Indians by the neck and a few more weeks of the status quo would have meant thousands of Indian troops starved for supplies but somehow...deja vu occured and we were not prepared for a punch to our bellies. The brilliant planners at GHQ again made the assumption that what happens in Kashmir, stays in Kashmir. And when India threatened to expand the war their legs went weak and begged the civilian govt to bail them out,This required us begging the Americans to intervene, who simply gave us hell and told us to get out and not expect a ceasefire. The result, as our troops evacuated they were cut down like swiss cheese. I have accounts from two different heli pilots who tell of choppers filled with bodies and blood being washed away ala "we were soldiers" style.
As far as the Airforce is concerned, they would have made little difference. We were infiltrating the Indian side, it was on thier side of the LOC. ROE's from the Indian side were not to violate Pakistani airspace, which they did not usually, they conducted air strikes on our hapless troops and pulled up just before crossing, those that did cross were shot down. Our aircraft that tried to oppose them were locked up from BVR and had to bug out due to inability to counter it which was the smart thing to do.
The simple quagmire that effects Pakistan is we have a system in place in out army that runs on nepotism after the brigadier level, and so usually only those who remain quiet and say "Yes SIR" even if they oppose it or those who are sycophantic hypocrites who only praise the higher authority make it to the level of general. And when ever these people end up planning an operation they start and conveniently call the other forces and say"Hey, we're attacking India today.. so tell the wife you arent coming home tonight".
About the Kargil I have personally heard accounts of Navy Cmdrs begging to be declared unfit at PNS Shifa for fear of being killed if they went out to sea which was certain, such is the calibre of some officers. Then they are expected to fight a much larger, better equipped enemy with utter devotion.
Simply, let us forgo the Idea that at any time for the past 12 years can we expect to repeat the successes of the 65 and 71 wars. back then, it still mattered if you could bring your older machine to bring a pipper on the enemy.. whether it was a sabre on mig-21 or a mystere on a starfighter.
Now.. you can be an excellent aerobat but when there is a R-77 locked on to you in its active mode and you cant do buns about it.. That is the time you blame your leaders for throwing your life away.
apologies for the off topic meandering.. but some posts are too ignorant or irrational to be left alone.


----------



## SQ8

Sun tzu made the simplest statement
"The victorious general only seeks battle after the victory has been won"

Kargil was a folly,like many other strategic blunders by our armed forces.
While initial tactical gains were made.. as an overall strategy, It looked like a repeat of operation Gibraltar. The operation was launched with quite a few Corp Cmdrs not in favor of it including the current chief, yet in the Initial stages of it were quite optimistic, I was in bhurban during the whole time and sat beside my father as he was shown the maps of where we were on the peaks. True we had the Indians by the neck and a few more weeks of the status quo would have meant thousands of Indian troops starved for supplies but somehow...deja vu occured and we were not prepared for a punch to our bellies. The brilliant planners at GHQ again made the assumption that what happens in Kashmir, stays in Kashmir. And when India threatened to expand the war their legs went weak and begged the civilian govt to bail them out,This required us begging the Americans to intervene, who simply gave us hell and told us to get out and not expect a ceasefire. The result, as our troops evacuated they were cut down like swiss cheese. I have accounts from two different heli pilots who tell of choppers filled with bodies and blood being washed away ala "we were soldiers" style.
As far as the Airforce is concerned, they would have made little difference. We were infiltrating the Indian side, it was on thier side of the LOC. ROE's from the Indian side were not to violate Pakistani airspace, which they did not usually, they conducted air strikes on our hapless troops and pulled up just before crossing, those that did cross were shot down. Our aircraft that tried to oppose them were locked up from BVR and had to bug out due to inability to counter it which was the smart thing to do.
The simple quagmire that effects Pakistan is we have a system in place in out army that runs on nepotism after the brigadier level, and so usually only those who remain quiet and say "Yes SIR" even if they oppose it or those who are sycophantic hypocrites who only praise the higher authority make it to the level of general. And when ever these people end up planning an operation they start and conveniently call the other forces and say"Hey, we're attacking India today.. so tell the wife you arent coming home tonight".
About the Kargil I have personally heard accounts of Navy Cmdrs begging to be declared unfit at PNS Shifa for fear of being killed if they went out to sea which was certain, such is the calibre of some officers. Then they are expected to fight a much larger, better equipped enemy with utter devotion.
Simply, let us forgo the Idea that at any time for the past 12 years can we expect to repeat the successes of the 65 and 71 wars. back then, it still mattered if you could bring your older machine to bring a pipper on the enemy.. whether it was a sabre on mig-21 or a mystere on a starfighter.
Now.. you can be an excellent aerobat but when there is a R-77 locked on to you in its active mode and you cant do buns about it.. That is the time you blame your leaders for throwing your life away.
apologies for the off topic meandering.. but some posts are too ignorant or irrational to be left alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarbe Momin

Very nice arguments. Monst of our soliders lost their lives when they were withdrawing after cease fire by artillary fire. Indians occupied Siachin and they sticked their and Pakistan occupied Kargil, then.............!


----------



## wtf

Zarbe Momin said:


> Very nice arguments. Monst of our soliders lost their lives when they were withdrawing after cease fire by artillary fire. Indians occupied Siachin and they sticked their and Pakistan occupied Kargil, then.............!



I believe the ceasefire was held in Kargil. One of the terms of the deal Nawaz Sharif made with US was that there be no firing during withdrawal.
Indian TV had coverage on news of people withdrawing and it was pretty clear there was no firing going on.


----------



## Zarbe Momin

During withdrawl indian's started artillary fire. Most pakistani soliders died during withdrawl rather than in fighting during operation. Indian TV coverage was fake during operation.


----------



## white_pawn

Zarbe Momin, your right what indian media shows is all fake. Only pakistan medias is the most trusted one.


----------



## Zarbe Momin

Yes obviously true pople have truth based open media. We have and proud to be on that. I will put some examples how much media and justice system of india is *fake*.
Babu Bajrangi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Babu Bajrangi after genocide & organized attacks on Muslims during the 2002 Gujarat violence is free. No justice & media silent. Terrorist are free again to do terrorism. Pakistan is a neighbouring country with muslim population and obviuosly we have concerns on that.
Hemant Karkare report was also there on Samjhauta train terror mastered by indian hindu terrorist. Then Hemant Karkare was killed. Then hindu terrorists and indian government attached this incident with Bombay incident and Ajmal Kasab. Even till today it is not clear Ajmal kasab is pakistani or not. In Samjhauta train terror we showed response as a responsilbe nation but unfortunately in Bombay attack indian government and media response was ugly monky type. I don't want to derail this topic but i think it is enough to shut your mouth. Just try to talk with facts.


----------



## SQ8

wtf said:


> I believe the ceasefire was held in Kargil. One of the terms of the deal Nawaz Sharif made with US was that there be no firing during withdrawal.
> Indian TV had coverage on news of people withdrawing and it was pretty clear there was no firing going on.



Negative, It was a withdrawal under fire. While this agreement was Clinton _saying_ he would ask the Indians not to attack withdrawing troops.
But that was not the case and the Indians had field day with killing retreating troops who HAD been told by our GHQ that the Indians have been told by the Americans not to fire at them & there was an agreement on this(not).
As far as killing retreating troops, I see no reason why the Indians would not want to, because while the infiltrators held the peaks they had direct line of fire on the main Indian supply lines to Kashmir. And for the Initial ten days or so were having a duck shoot at the supply convoys and any attempts by the Indian army to recapture those peaks. the losses stated by the Indians are accurate in their troop count, but do not state the losses in equipment and supplies which were worth millions if not billions of rupees. Not to mention the extra millions per Kg they had to spend to just sustain the existing troops by aerial resupply.(for e.g 1kg meat in a truck costs 1000rs to get to an Indian position, the same amount by helicopter costs 25000rs)
So when they opened up their barrels, they wanted some payback, after all..Zee TV needed something to start with in their bloated propaganda(starting with the M2k LD-FLIR shots of LGB's taking out our posts). So while our troops were pulling back in the false assurance that they would not be fired upon, the Indians were raring at the chance to send those poor chaps to their maker.


----------



## wtf

santro said:


> Negative, It was a withdrawal under fire. While this agreement was Clinton _saying_ he would ask the Indians not to attack withdrawing troops.
> But that was not the case and the Indians had field day with killing retreating troops who HAD been told by our GHQ that the Indians have been told by the Americans not to fire at them & there was an agreement on this(not).
> As far as killing retreating troops, I see no reason why the Indians would not want to, because while the infiltrators held the peaks they had direct line of fire on the main Indian supply lines to Kashmir. And for the Initial ten days or so were having a duck shoot at the supply convoys and any attempts by the Indian army to recapture those peaks. the losses stated by the Indians are accurate in their troop count, but do not state the losses in equipment and supplies which were worth millions if not billions of rupees. Not to mention the extra millions per Kg they had to spend to just sustain the existing troops by aerial resupply.(for e.g 1kg meat in a truck costs 1000rs to get to an Indian position, the same amount by helicopter costs 25000rs)
> So when they opened up their barrels, they wanted some payback, after all..Zee TV needed something to start with in their bloated propaganda(starting with the M2k LD-FLIR shots of LGB's taking out our posts). So while our troops were pulling back in the false assurance that they would not be fired upon, the Indians were raring at the chance to send those poor chaps to their maker.




I understand your points that India had a motive to attack, but you gave no evidence that they did. My evidence is the TV coverage of the withdrawal and the report by US forces about the war which mentions the agreement with US. http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/war_in_kargil.pdf

Here is also another report on Indian treatment of the fallen 
Rediff On The NeT: Pakistan refuses to take even officers' bodies

I can't see any evidence that India broke any laws of war or agreement with US.

Question: Where is your evidence ?


----------



## SQ8

I wish I could present about a dozen Pakistani personnel to you who would swear on an oath that they saw their comrades cut down in retreat. The documents mention only a negotiated settlement. Not whether it was carried out or not word for word. The TV coverage you mention.. I saw it too, we got Zee tv here via dish back then too.And all I saw were long distance shots of artillery hitting peaks, A few Pakistani bodies along with shots of various weaponry, not to mention the famous FLIR videos of LGB strikes and continuous blaring of how victory after victory was being achieved by the Indian army. I was living in bhurban, and heard artillery all night and day. met army officers routinely and even saw my favorite picnic spot by kohala river turned into a holding point.
So truly.. I am at a loss of evidence, but then, you don't present me anything concrete either apart from US navy article which mentions a negotiated settlement ("In a negotiated settlement, Pakistan decided to
withdraw its troops from the remaining locations in a set time frame") and a report about refusal to accept bodies which we all know happened, nowhere does it state about a ceasefire or surrender.
And as a simple conclusion.. citing the report that you do, It states that "India likewise tried to use the international media to make its case known". Therefore it had the world media in its favor. Now as Pakistan was already denying involvement, WHY on earth would anyone state that their soldiers were killed retreating from enemy territory, hence your question has its answer in itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

from Nawaz Sharif&#8217;s US visit during Kargil conflict canary trap

On July 2, 1999 Sharif called President Clinton and requested him to intervene. The President also consulted with then Indian Prime Minister A B Vajpayee who clearly stated that India will not negotiate under the threat of aggression and that withdrawal of Pakistani forces was essential.

Sharif again called President Clinton on July 3 and told him that he was ready to come to Washington. The President warned him that without agreeing to withdraw Pakistani forces behind the LoC, the visit will not yield any results. Sharif told him that he was coming to the US on July 4.

According to the policy paper, the White House and the State Department prepared two documents before Sharifs visit. The first was a draft statement President Clinton would issue if Sharif agreed to withdraw Pakistani forces behind the LoC. The second draft was a statement the President would issue if Sharif refuse to withdraw the forces. The latter draft clearly stated that Pakistan was solely responsible for the crisis in South Asia.

The paper states that the US had evidence that Pakistan was preparing their nuclear arsenals for possible deployment. The US government also took help from Saudi Arabia, Britain, and China to pressurize Pakistan to back down from Kargil. Before the meeting, President Clintons advisers briefed him and suggested that the President should not be alone with Sharif at any time during the meeting. According to them a record of all the conversations was very critical.

Firm US response

During the meeting with President Clinton, Sharif kept on playing the old Kashmir tune. But the US President made it clear that the issue at hand was withdrawal of Pakistani forces behind the LoC and that there was no point in raking up old issues at this point.

The paper further states that Sharif then requested twice to be left alone with President Clinton. But the President insisted that he wanted a record of the event and asked Bruce Riedel to be present with him.

Sharif told President Clinton that he needed a face saving formula to withdraw the Pakistani forces otherwise the fundamentalists in his country would use the opportunity to topple him.

The Pakistani PM once again asked for a one-on-one discussion with President Clinton, which was dismissed. The paper states: The President dismissed this with a wave of his hand and then told Sharif that he warned him on the second not to come to Washington unless he was ready to withdraw without any precondition or quid pro quo. Sharif had been warned by others as well. The President said he had a draft statement ready to issue that would pin all the blame for the Kargil crisis on Pakistan tonight.

President Clinton reminded Sharif that despite making commitments about helping the US locate Osama bin Laden he has done nothing. Instead, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was conniving with bin Laden and the Taliban in spreading terror. The President also warned him that his draft statement would also mention Pakistans role in supporting terrorism in Afghanistan and India.

The two leaders took a break after the first round of talks and met again. President Clinton presented a draft statement for the press that the two leaders would jointly issue.

The key element in the draft read the Prime Minister has agreed to take concrete and immediate steps for the restoration of the LoC.

*The statement also called for a ceasefire once the withdrawal was completed* and restoration of the Lahore process. Finally, the statement included a reaffirmation of the Presidents long standing plans to visit South Asia, the paper states.

Sharif read the statement and again took a break to discuss it with his team of advisers. Finally he accepted the draft statement with one addition of his own.

According to the paper, Sharif wanted a sentence which would say, The President would take personal interest to encourage an expeditious resumption and intensification of the bilateral efforts (i.e. Lahore) once the sanctity of the LoC had been fully restored.

Finally the announcement was made. Pakistan withdrew its forces behind the LoC.

Joint Statement

Following is the full text of the joint statement issued by the US President Bill Clinton and the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif after their talks:

President Clinton and Prime Minister Sharif share the view that the current fighting in the Kargil region of Kashmir is dangerous and contains the seeds of a wider conflict. They also agreed that it was vital for the peace of South Asia that the Line of Control in Kashmir be respected by both parties, in accordance with the 1972 Shimla accord.

*It was agreed between the President and the Prime Minister that concrete steps will be taken for the restoration of the Line of Control in accordance with the Shimla Agreement.* The President urged an immediate cessation of the hostilities once these steps are taken. The Prime Minister and President agreed that the bilateral dialogue begun in Lahore in February provides the best forum for resolving all issues dividing India and Pakistan, including Kashmir. The President said he would take a personal interest in encouraging an expeditious resumption and intensification of those bilateral efforts, once the sanctity of the Line of Control has been fully restored.

The President reaffirmed his intent to pay an early visit to South Asia.


----------



## wtf

santro said:


> I wish I could present about a dozen Pakistani personnel to you who would swear on an oath that they saw their comrades cut down in retreat. The documents mention only a negotiated settlement. Not whether it was carried out or not word for word. The TV coverage you mention.. I saw it too, we got Zee tv here via dish back then too.And all I saw were long distance shots of artillery hitting peaks, A few Pakistani bodies along with shots of various weaponry, not to mention the famous FLIR videos of LGB strikes and continuous blaring of how victory after victory was being achieved by the Indian army. I was living in bhurban, and heard artillery all night and day. met army officers routinely and even saw my favorite picnic spot by kohala river turned into a holding point.
> So truly.. I am at a loss of evidence, but then, you don't present me anything concrete either apart from US navy article which mentions a negotiated settlement ("In a negotiated settlement, Pakistan decided to
> withdraw its troops from the remaining locations in a set time frame") and a report about refusal to accept bodies which we all know happened, nowhere does it state about a ceasefire or surrender.
> And as a simple conclusion.. citing the report that you do, It states that "India likewise tried to use the international media to make its case known". Therefore it had the world media in its favor. Now as Pakistan was already denying involvement, WHY on earth would anyone state that their soldiers were killed retreating from enemy territory, hence your question has its answer in itself.



I was talking about the later TV coverage, where it clearly showed Pak troops/infiltrators retreating. There was no firing shown, and none reported. There was general feeling and discussion that firing should be allowed but the army was holding back.

But I guess if you heard directly from those involved, that is as good as an evidence as I have. I'll keep looking for either side, but I'll let your point stand.


----------



## Muradk

Just a few word on what PAF thought. 
If PAF would have entered in Kargil war and would have short down a plane Pakistan and India would have gone into a full bore War.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TexasJohn

Muradk said:


> Just a few word on what PAF thought.
> If PAF would have entered in Kargil war and would have short down a plane Pakistan and India would have gone into a full bore War.



In other words, the author of the article was right. The goal of the PAF was to not escalate as it was merely an Army adventure?


----------



## Hellfire

TexasJohn said:


> In other words, the author of the article was right. The goal of the PAF was to not escalate as it was merely an Army adventure?



actually the world opinion swung away from Pakistan, so they could not do a volte face and intervene as they had been claiming the areas were occupied by local separatists and no PA regular/irregular pers were involved.

escalation would have been a grave mistake and as such there was no overt interference on Pakistani sides.


----------



## Hellfire

wtf said:


> I was talking about the later TV coverage, where it clearly showed Pak troops/infiltrators retreating. There was no firing shown, and none reported. There was general feeling and discussion that firing should be allowed but the army was holding back.
> 
> But I guess if you heard directly from those involved, that is as good as an evidence as I have. I'll keep looking for either side, but I'll let your point stand.



wtf

even after the cessation of military operations, IA was conducting missions for further few days. It was to regain control of 2 peaks which had never been under Indian occupation since early 1980s and were essential to secure the highway (by negating development of static arty OP over there by PA).

its true that PA troops were eliminated after the said dates but it was not on "withdrawl", rather in continued military operations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Contrarian

hellfire said:


> wtf
> 
> even after the cessation of military operations, IA was conducting missions for further few days.* It was to regain control of 2 peaks which had never been under Indian occupation since early 1980s and were essential to secure the highway (by negating development of static arty OP over there by PA).*
> 
> its true that PA troops were eliminated after the said dates but it was not on "withdrawl", rather in continued military operations.



This i did not know. Could you help me know more about it mate-a few links or something of the sort.


----------



## Hellfire

malaymishra123 said:


> This i did not know. Could you help me know more about it mate-a few links or something of the sort.



MM

as you know exchanges of features between India and Pakistan was a regular feature along LoC till ceasefire was declared mutually, India had lost 2 peaks (numbers not recalled, will mail in when I do) in 80s which could not be taken by India till end of Kargil War. The Kargil war was over by July 18 however IA continued operations declaring no ceassation of hostilities and no ceasefire "to verify" clearance officially. It was only by July 23/25 that IA finally stopped all operations after securing these 2 features with active participation of elements of 9 SF supported by Infantry and Artillery Units.

If you google you can find it in news items like this:

Rediff On The NeT: Last of the Pakistanis leaves Kargil

the exact reference numbers I have forgotten as it was hardly of value any further as another one which was needed to be secured could not be.

This was done to ensure that direct observation by PA could not be undertaken of the national highway any more

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TexasJohn

What video? no links visible....


----------



## salman nedian

monumanojsharma said:


> if anyone wants to reply me do that on my email *manoj00007@gmail.com*
> Jai Hind



The mujahideens were initially involved in the fighting and later on when army saw an opportunity, they tried to cpatalize on it. Simple is that and as far as PAF couldnt do any thing, it is a mere speculation because when needed we shot down 2 IAF planes as soon as they crossed the border.Pakistans main goal was to highlight the Kashmir issue as a nuclear fleshpoint and we succeded in that.

Hope you got your answer.

Pakistan Zindabad.


----------



## syed999

Kargil was a small border incident pakistan did not want to activate the full war machinery as it would have resulted in all out war, india on the other hand had gone to full war mode.

and yes, pakistan activated its nukes, and forced india to cease fire


----------



## agastya

syed999 said:


> Kargil was a small border incident pakistan did not want to activate the full war machinery as it would have resulted in all out war, india on the other hand had gone to full war mode.
> 
> and yes, pakistan activated its nukes, and forced india to cease fire



the only thing that this kargil misadventure did to was to show how weak its prime minister was who till date says "he was never informed about kargill misadventure ",weakened the institution ,made pervez Musharraf the chief architect (pakistan always initially romanticized the generals) the darling of the state .who later had become so pawerfull removed the democratically elected government of nawaz sharif in a bloodless coup and continued to rule the country for nine years till the honeymoon of it lasted ,until the bitter public divorce under the auspices of the chief justice of pakistan took place....


a noted writer summed of the whole thing in a beautifull sentence

"Musharraf waged a battle in kargill to capture pakistan ."


----------



## marcos98

Pakistan was criticised by other countries for allowing its paramilitary forces and insurgents to cross the Line of Control. Pakistan's primary diplomatic response, one of plausible deniability linking the incursion to what it officially termed as "Kashmiri freedom fighters", was in the end not successful. Veteran analysts argued that the battle was fought at heights where only seasoned troops could survive, so poorly equipped freedom fighters would neither have the ability nor the wherewithal to seize land and defend it. Moreover, while the army had initially denied the involvement of its troops in the intrusion, two soldiers were awarded the Nishan-E-Haider (Pakistan's highest military honour). Another 90 soldiers were also given gallantry awards, most of them posthumously, confirming Pakistan's role in the episode. India also released taped phone conversations between the Army Chief and a senior Pakistani general where the latter is recorded saying: "the scruff of [the militants] necks is in our hands,"[58] although Pakistan dismissed it as a "total fabrication". Concurrently, Pakistan made several contradicting statements, confirming its role in Kargil, when it defended the incursions saying that the LOC itself was disputed. Pakistan also attempted to internationalize the Kashmir issue, by linking the crisis in Kargil to the larger Kashmir conflict but, such a diplomatic stance found few backers on the world stage.
As the Indian counter-attacks picked up momentum, Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif flew to meet U.S. president Bill Clinton on July 4 to obtain support from the United States. Clinton rebuked Sharif, however, and asked him to use his contacts to rein in the militants and withdraw Pakistani soldiers from Indian territory. Clinton would later reveal in his autobiography that "Sharifs moves were perplexing" since the Indian prime minister had travelled to Lahore to promote bilateral talks aimed at resolving the Kashmir problem and "by crossing the Line of Control, Pakistan had wrecked the [bilateral] talks." On the other hand, he applauded Indian restraint for not crossing the LoC and escalating the conflict into an all-out war.
G8 nations supported India and condemned the Pakistani violation of the LOC at the Cologne summit. The European Union also opposed Pakistan's violation of the LOC. China, a long-time ally of Pakistan, did not intervene in Pakistan's favour, insisting on a pullout of forces to the LoC and settling border issues peacefully. Other organizations like the ASEAN Regional Forum too supported India's stand on the inviolability of the LOC.
Faced with growing international pressure, Sharif managed to pull back the remaining soldiers from Indian territory. The joint statement issued by Clinton and Sharif conveyed the need to respect the Line of Control and resume bilateral talks as the best forum to resolve all disputes


----------



## marcos98

CASUALITIES:
Casualties for both sides were heavy. Pakistani claims gave two figures. The figure of 357 soldiers dead was challenged by some Pakistani officials, who claimed that 4,000 Pakistani soldiers were killed in the conflict. Pakistan also confirmed that more than 665 Pakistani troops were wounded and 8 were captured. According to India, Indian losses stand at 527 soldiers killed, 1,363 wounded, and 1 captured.
Pakistan army losses have been difficult to determine, partly because Pakistan has not published an official casualties list. The US Department of State had made an early, partial estimate of close to 700 fatalities. According to numbers stated by Nawaz Sharif there were 4,000+ fatalities. His party Pakistan Muslim League (N) in its "white paper" on the war mentioned that more than 3,000 Mujahideens, officers and soldiers were killed. Another major Pakistani political party, the PPP, also says that "thousands" of soldiers and irregulars died. Indian estimates stand at 1,042 Pakistani soldiers killed. Musharraf, in his hindi version of his memoirs, titled "Agnipath", differs from all the estimates stating that 357 troops were killed with a further 665 wounded. Apart from General Musharraf's figure on the number of Pakistanis wounded, the number of people injured in the Pakistan camp is not yet fully known. One Indian Pilot was officially captured during the fighting, while there were eight Pakistani soldiers who were captured during the fighting, and were repatriated on 13 August 1999.


----------

