# The 1965 Indo-Pak war



## Myth_buster_1

INDIA POSSESSES THE LARGER ARMY; Pakistan's Is Outnumbered, 825,000 to... - Free Preview - The New York Times

INDIA POSSESSES THE LARGER ARMY; Pakistan's Is Outnumbered, *825,000 to 200,000 *

India also possesed larger Air force with supirior planes close to 1,000 combat aircrafts campared to Pakistan who only had 120 fighters and bomber.


----------



## Muradk

Growler said:


> INDIA POSSESSES THE LARGER ARMY; Pakistan's Is Outnumbered, 825,000 to... - Free Preview - The New York Times
> 
> INDIA POSSESSES THE LARGER ARMY; Pakistan's Is Outnumbered, *825,000 to 200,000 *
> 
> India also possesed larger Air force with supirior planes close to 1,000 combat aircrafts campared to Pakistan who only had 120 fighters and bomber.



Don't believe everything you read. Most of these ediots who are writing don't know the difference between a nose and a tail.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Muradk said:


> Don't believe everything you read. Most of these ediots who are writing don't know the difference between a nose and a tail.



sir g with all due respect i dont think anything i have said here is wrong. our troops and air forces were outnumbered.


----------



## Muradk

you are right I was talking about the article.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Muradk said:


> you are right I was talking about the article.



but sir g so far the article is right. india had the larger army.


----------



## chindit

what article man? you quote one line from the article - others cant read the rest of it and you feel fit to start a whole thread on it?


----------



## Coolyo




----------



## Joshi

Now how do we know the video is showing Indian or Pakistani soilders?


----------



## Spitfighter

In '65 Pakistan launched Op' grandslam, India defended itself and counter attacked, forcing Pakistan to retreat, at the end of the day Pakistan was defending Lahore from India instead of capturing Kashmir, how is that a victory? or even a stalemate? doesn't that count as a loss?


----------



## Coolyo

Spitfighter said:


> In '65 Pakistan launched Op' grandslam, India defended itself and counter attacked, forcing Pakistan to retreat, at the end of the day Pakistan was defending Lahore from India instead of capturing Kashmir, how is that a victory? or even a stalemate? doesn't that count as a loss?



Haha, nice BS...

Pakistan won the war in 1965, not India! You Indians had to beg the UN for a peace deal! We stood and fought against India's tyranny!

Amazing article:

'We won the 1965 war, not India'

Videos:


----------



## Coolyo

Joshi said:


> Now how do we know the video is showing Indian or Pakistani soilders?



U crazy? These are historical videos showing how we (Pakistanis) destroyed you guys!


----------



## Spitfighter

Coolyo said:


> U crazy? These are historical videos showing how we (Pakistanis) destroyed you guys!



How about some neutral sources once in a while? or are you just trying to waste my time? I understand you really like what Zaid Hamid has to say, but he isn't exactly the neutral source I'm talking about, why not double check his analysis against some neutral sources? or have the zionists taken over all the other information outlets? 

I watched all of 3 minutes of his Hindu Zionist episode  how come Allah helps you guys and doesn't help us? after all people are people right.


----------



## third eye

It would do god to ppl if / when they stop living in the past & focus on the present & look to the future.

One keeps reading lines like ' we ruled for 1000 yrs, we won this war or the last:.

Does it matter what happened in times before most ppl on this forum were even born ? What are they doing to control the scourge of terrorism & fundamentalism that has all but bought Pk to its knees & the region to grief & dis repute ?

Yes , if these are ways to re assure one's self that ' we weren't going down hill always" its OK. But.. lest focus on now coz what we do now will matter in the days ahead.


----------



## Zob

a nation that forgets its HISTORY will have no FUTURE.....and 65 my friend was a stalemate.... we had captured indian land in the RAJHISTAN sector and you had land captured in PUNJAB sector....

so ya what happened before we were born is important for us to know our roots and also move forward accordingly!!!


----------



## typewriter

Zob said:


> a nation that forgets its HISTORY will have no FUTURE.....and 65 my friend was a stalemate.... we had captured indian land in the RAJHISTAN sector and you had land captured in PUNJAB sector....
> 
> so ya what happened before we were born is important for us to know our roots and also move forward accordingly!!!



I think that's more balanced. The war was another stalemate like the first kashmir war, where 3/5th of land was captured by India and the rest by pakistan and that's it. If only someone, either India or Pakistan had the brains or the balls to win it outright, we'd not have been wasting our time till today.

But in '65 Pakistan suffered the greater casualties and a slightly greater loss of land than India did. And politically it was kind of a defeat for the Pakistani dream of Kashmiri "liberation" which is what Op. Gibraltar set out to achieve in the first place.


----------



## AliFarooq

Joshi said:


> Now how do we know the video is showing Indian or Pakistani soilders?



look at the numbers written on the tanks.


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> a nation that forgets its HISTORY will have no FUTURE.....and 65 my friend was a stalemate.... we had captured indian land in the RAJHISTAN sector and you had land captured in PUNJAB sector....
> 
> so ya what happened before we were born is important for us to know our roots and also move forward accordingly!!!



Well said.. " a nation that forgets..

But, the issue is that what have we learnt from out history ?? Aren't we repeating the same mistakes over & over again ?

If '65 was a stalemate as you say so what ? Where are we now .. still in a stalemate ??

What did we learn from '65 that we improved in ' 71 ? The performance was worse. You could ' justify' this with things like long distances, logistics, local population being hostile etc etc. But.. what of these were not known before the shooting war began ? Yet the performance did not improve.

Again in '84 what happened in Siachen ?.. Nothing.

In kargil too the war machine foolishly did not cater for the kind of response it got from India. Generals are supposed to think things out to their logical conclusion & cater for the ' worst case' situation. Not blunder into a situation saying it is ' disputed territory' hence I can do what I feel & expect the enemy to play by my rules.

On the domestic front things are hardly better.

What have learnt form history & what have we done better or differently.. thats the moot point.


----------



## Zob

typewriter said:


> I think that's more balanced. The war was another stalemate like the first kashmir war, where 3/5th of land was captured by India and the rest by pakistan and that's it. If only someone, either India or Pakistan had the brains or the balls to win it outright, we'd not have been wasting our time till today.
> 
> But in '65 Pakistan suffered the greater casualties and a slightly greater loss of land than India did. And politically it was kind of a defeat for the Pakistani dream of Kashmiri "liberation" which is what Op. Gibraltar set out to achieve in the first place.



ok you agree it was a stalemate and then you say slightly or not slightly....whatever 

if india had complete victory then it should have been along the lines of how ISRAEL defeated its enemy or the GERMANS defeated the FRENCH in WW2.....


you got neither so yes we are still in a stalemate and no one has an upper hand these words such as "SLIGHTLY" don't count....


----------



## Zob

third eye said:


> Well said.. " a nation that forgets..
> 
> But, the issue is that what have we learnt from out history ?? Aren't we repeating the same mistakes over & over again ?
> 
> If '65 was a stalemate as you say so what ? Where are we now .. still in a stalemate ??
> 
> What did we learn from '65 that we improved in ' 71 ? The performance was worse. You could ' justify' this with things like long distances, logistics, local population being hostile etc etc. But.. what of these were not known before the shooting war began ? Yet the performance did not improve.
> 
> Again in '84 what happened in Siachen ?.. Nothing.
> 
> In kargil too the war machine foolishly did not cater for the kind of response it got from India. Generals are supposed to think things out to their logical conclusion & cater for the ' worst case' situation. Not blunder into a situation saying it is ' disputed territory' hence I can do what I feel & expect the enemy to play by my rules.
> 
> On the domestic front things are hardly better.
> 
> What have learnt form history & what have we done better or differently.. thats the moot point.



we are 1/6 your size and still able to standup to you till today that my applaudable my friend!! 

in 71 well you got involved in a civil war so that is a backstabbing....don't worry we will rightlty take our revenge when the time is right...


in 84 we still don't understand why indians want to sit on top of a SNOW CLAD MOUNTAIN it is utter stupidty on both sides and we didn't retalite cuz we till today don't understand why you want to spend so much resources keeping siachan active!!!

in 99 well look at how many soldiers you lost even got 2 fighters shot down....you ordered coffins.... so now do we take it as our victory we don't cuz again it was a stalemate...that led to pressure from the US and indian threat that it will cross the international border...and our government buckled under the combined US pressure & INDIAN threat....


so yes till today we are in a stalemate!!! if this was not the case india would have held a clear decisive edge over us like the israels enjoy over all its arabs neighbour....


----------



## Patriot

65 can hardly be called victory.We did not win any stragetic locations (Kashmir) which was the reason behind the entire OP Grandslam.The mission was very bad.Had Pakistanis Soldiers and Air Force not fought gallantly Lahore would be under Indian hands.Fortunately for us our air force as well as Soldiers performed far better then what our enemy expected.It was a bad stragety of our generals which got us intro trouble in the first place.The blood of Soldiers and Air Force Pilots saved Lahore from India.We managed to gain territory so in the end both sides gave back each other territory...in other words stalemate.


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> we are 1/6 your size and still able to standup to you till today that my applaudable my friend!!
> 
> Ok.. if thats how you wish to see it.
> 
> in 71 well you got involved in a civil war so that is a backstabbing....don't worry we will rightlty take our revenge when the time is right...
> 
> All Indians will I am sure join me when I say.... anytime !
> 
> in 84 we still don't understand why indians want to sit on top of a SNOW CLAD MOUNTAIN it is utter stupidty on both sides and we didn't retalite cuz we till today don't understand why you want to spend so much resources keeping siachan active!!!
> 
> Like I said, ask others on this forum.. there must be some threads on this
> 
> 
> 
> in 99 well look at how many soldiers you lost even got 2 fighters shot down....you ordered coffins.... so now do we take it as our victory we don't cuz again it was a stalemate...that led to pressure from the US and *indian threat that it will cross the international border...and our government buckled under the combined US pressure & INDIAN threat*....
> 
> You have just answered yourself.
> 
> 
> so yes till today we are in a stalemate!!! if this was not the case india would have held a clear decisive edge over us like the israels enjoy over all its arabs neighbour....




Stalemate at what cost ?? Compare both countries , got indep together. If one is larger .. it has larger No of probs both due to its size & diversity & the fact that the nation has to be run along established lines.

I do not wish to brag, but who has emerged better & stronger world wide & within ?

Younger people must apply themselves differently to address age old probs. Not the same way their dads & grand dads saw it.


----------



## digitaltiger

* According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies:

The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.[47]

* TIME magazine analyzing the conflict,[48] reported that India held 690 Mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 Mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The same article stated that 'severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N'.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overall, the war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

Pakistan was rudely shocked by the reaction of the United States to the war. Judging the matter to be largely Pakistan s fault, the United States not only refused to come to Pakistan s aid under the terms of the Agreement of Cooperation, but issued a statement declaring its neutrality while also cutting off military supplies. The Pakistanis were embittered at what they considered a friend's betrayal, and the experience taught them to avoid relying on any single source of support. For its part, the United States was disillusioned by a war in which both sides used United States-supplied equipment. The war brought other repercussions for the security relationship as well. The United States withdrew its military assistance advisory group in July 1967. In response to these events, Pakistan declined to renew the lease on the Peshawar military facility, which ended in 1969. Eventually, United States-Pakistan relations grew measurably weaker as the United States became more deeply involved in Vietnam and as its broader interest in the security of South Asia waned. 

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

Heavy Loss Larger territory captured... Pakistan won the War ??????

Now please for heaven sake dont say that Wikipedia and global security are Indian sites or they are hacked by some group of Indian hackers.


----------



## Zob

*By Sept 22 both sides had agreed to a UN mandated cease-fire ending the war that had by that point reached a stalemate. *

from your link my friend

and yes being 1/6 your size reaching a stalemate is as close to victory as one can get!!!!


----------



## Myth_buster_1

digitaltiger said:


> * According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies:
> 
> The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.[47]
> 
> * TIME magazine analyzing the conflict,[48] reported that India held 690 Mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 Mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The same article stated that 'severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N'.
> Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Overall, the war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.
> 
> Pakistan was rudely shocked by the reaction of the United States to the war. Judging the matter to be largely Pakistan s fault, the United States not only refused to come to Pakistan s aid under the terms of the Agreement of Cooperation, but issued a statement declaring its neutrality while also cutting off military supplies. The Pakistanis were embittered at what they considered a friend's betrayal, and the experience taught them to avoid relying on any single source of support. For its part, the United States was disillusioned by a war in which both sides used United States-supplied equipment. The war brought other repercussions for the security relationship as well. The United States withdrew its military assistance advisory group in July 1967. In response to these events, Pakistan declined to renew the lease on the Peshawar military facility, which ended in 1969. Eventually, United States-Pakistan relations grew measurably weaker as the United States became more deeply involved in Vietnam and as its broader interest in the security of South Asia waned.
> 
> Indo-Pakistan War of 1965
> 
> Heavy Loss Larger territory captured... Pakistan won the War ??????
> 
> Now please for heaven sake dont say that Wikipedia and global security are Indian sites or they are hacked by some group of Indian hackers.




At my indian friend anything you have studied in your lil bharat rakshak world please throw that in the bin. if you wanna live in your fairy tales then go ahead and be a wikipeedia-bharatraksak dumb***.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## typewriter

Zob said:


> and yes being 1/6 your size reaching a stalemate is as close to victory as one can get!!!!



"Nearly there" "Close to victory" doesn't mean anything. It's either a win or nothing. Pakistan set out to liberate kashmir and to say that we came "close to victory" means a defeat of the political ambition to "liberate" kashmir.

btw, Though the numbers were surely in India's favour, qualitatively the Pakistani military was well equipped and much more prepared at that point of time, whereas India was undergoing a huge modernization post '62 war that would take years to complete. The economy of Pak was also in much better shape. They also had the first mover advantage & a supposedly well "thought" out plan.


----------



## Coolyo

typewriter said:


> I think that's more balanced. The war was another stalemate like the first kashmir war, where 3/5th of land was captured by India and the rest by pakistan and that's it. If only someone, either India or Pakistan had the brains or the balls to win it outright, we'd not have been wasting our time till today.
> 
> But in '65 Pakistan suffered the greater casualties and a slightly greater loss of land than India did. And politically it was kind of a defeat for the Pakistani dream of Kashmiri "liberation" which is what Op. Gibraltar set out to achieve in the first place.



Pakistan took over 2/5 of Kashmir from India, we reclaimed part of the land that was rightfully ours! 

We won the war in 1948, and you Indians were pushed back thousands of square miles!

Indians did not capture anything, rather they beggen the UN for a ceasefire, which Pakistan should not have accepted, but sadly did!

India would later lose 1/5 of Kashmir to the Chinese, making about 2/5 of Kashmir in Pakistan, 2/5 occupied by India, and 1/5 in China!


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> *By Sept 22 both sides had agreed to a UN mandated cease-fire ending the war that had by that point reached a stalemate. *
> 
> from your link my friend
> 
> and yes being 1/6 your size reaching a stalemate is as close to victory as one can get!!!!



Our national aims were achieved.

After the '62 debacle, Ayub's team felt that India would be a pushover. The situation in J&K was contained & the battle was taken into enemy terrirory. lahore was threatened to a point that Pk had to recoil iteslf to defend Lahore.

All this 3 yrs after we suffered a humiliating defeat.


----------



## Zob

*Pakistan's for the taking had they not indulged in looting, arson, rape & murder*

link please to backup such ABSURD claims!!! 


secondly we were threatning to completely take over KASHMIR and hence to release the pressure you opened the PUNJAB FRONT!!! so don't say that kashmir should have been taken...as long as it was a controlled small scale war we were holding our own but once the full might of 6 times larger army came into force all we could do was reach a STALEMATE!! so yes it is a victory!!! 

@thirdeye

*All this 3 yrs after we suffered a humiliating defeat. *

you lost to an EQUAL sized enemy 3 years ago....and against us we were always the underdog...you cannot possibly think that we will take over INDIA and then we will be victorious...cuz if you do then lol i guess i need to know what u smokin boy....

and in rajhistan sector we had almost equal amount of land captured!!!


----------



## Zob

Battle of Chawinda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

interesting read...


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> *
> @thirdeye
> 
> All this 3 yrs after we suffered a humiliating defeat.
> 
> you lost to an EQUAL sized enemy 3 years ago....and against us we were always the underdog...you cannot possibly think that we will take over INDIA and then we will be victorious...cuz if you do then lol i guess i need to know what u smokin boy....
> 
> and in rajhistan sector we had almost equal amount of land captured!!!*


*

I smoke wills Clasic Ultra Milds.

Secondly, PA has always miscalculated. When you start a mis adventure why lament on being an under dog ? Gibraltar was a mis calculated move akin to Kargil, did not cater for the reaction... No change in the approach of PA between ' 65 &'99. 

Capturing real estate in Raj is of no consequence as the land was defended thinly - of lack of hi value objectives to defend. In any case capturing anything across an IB has little relevance less in Punjab as they have to be returned.

What matters is that were the objectives of going to war realised ?*


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Off topic posts deleted - thread is about 1965 war.*


----------



## paritosh

well..i'd say we'd won cus it was a planned invasion by the pakistani army...and it ended in a stale-mate...it would have been called if paksitan would have achieved the goal of freeing kashmir or annexing some significant area...
we won cus we repulsed the attack...it depends upon how you want to define 'victory'...


----------



## Cockpuncher

Here it says "After Pakistan's loss in the 1965 war against India"
Pakistan (03/09)

It also seems that Pak tried to hide something
Gulfnews: Army attemps to prevent book sales


----------



## Hellfire

Omar1984 said:


> Sir Creek is another disputed territory between Pakistan and India and still hasn't been resolved for about 62 years now.
> 
> OP Grandslam was used on another disputed territory Kashmir again hasn't been resolved for about 62 years now.
> 
> Are Lahore and Sialkot disputed territories that where invaded by Indians in 1965 by crossing INTERNATIONAL BORDERS.
> 
> Everyone in the world agrees, including India, that Lahore and Sialkot are part of Pakistan and still India decided to invade these areas in 1965.
> 
> Everyone in the world recognizes Sir Creek and Kashmir as disputed territories between Pakistan and India that hasn't been resolved for 62 years now.



Omar 

Point was - you got kicked ... irrespective of what you claim

ANY NATION THAT POLITICALLY CONCEEDS DEFEAT IS DEFEATED 

Irrespective of militarily you may hold territory but if you fail to achieve your political objectives (a necessary instrument deciding military usage) you have lost. So you lost.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

hellfire said:


> Omar
> 
> Point was - you got kicked ... irrespective of what you claim
> 
> ANY NATION THAT POLITICALLY CONCEEDS DEFEAT IS DEFEATED
> 
> Irrespective of militarily you may hold territory but if you fail to achieve your political objectives (a necessary instrument deciding military usage) you have lost. So you lost.



Your objective was to gain control of all of J&K in 1948, and you failed.

Your objective against Op. Grandslam was achieved when the infiltrators were found out - India then launched a full fledged conventional war.

What were its objectives in launching that war? Have breakfast in Lahore? Well that didn't happen either, so you lost there as well.

Of course one could argue that in 1948 Pakistan's objective was to capture all of J&K, but that is not borne out by orders given to the PA that it had to fight defensively (see Shuja Nawaz's book - _Crossed Swords_).

That is why I see both wars as stalemates - there is no way to argue Indian victory in them without distorting events and taking a very pro-Indian subjective view. 1971 is the only war in which decisive victory was achieved by one side, and we know the exceptional circumstances in East Pakistan that allowed that to happen.


----------



## Hellfire

*AgNoStIc MuSliM*

*Your objective was to gain control of all of J&K in 1948, and you failed.*

Thanks due to Nehru's approach of legalising everything in UN. Something for you to read:

Wapedia - Wiki: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

the then British born Chief of Independent Pakistan Forces refused direct orders of MA Jinnah to send troops across .... anyways we have had this topic across multiple threads .....


*Your objective against Op. Grandslam was achieved when the infiltrators were found out - India then launched a full fledged conventional war.*

The fight was limited to Kashmir (India just did not have the resources still due to lack of a military policy for over a decade under Nehru as proved by 1962 confrontation). It were the Pakistani forces which crossed into Akhnoor first spreading the conflict to Hindu-Sikh dominated Jammu region (instead of limiting as per their logic to the "legitimate demands" of muslim majority Kashmir valley) so the reply

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

*What were its objectives in launching that war? Have breakfast in Lahore? Well that didn't happen either, so you lost there as well.*

Objective was to ease pressure on Indian forces in that area "chicken neck" of India ....... it was achieved remarkably ......

*Of course one could argue that in 1948 Pakistan's objective was to capture all of J&K, but that is not borne out by orders given to the PA that it had to fight defensively (see Shuja Nawaz's book - Crossed Swords).*

Quote an independent author please. I can quote many Indian authors who can argue that Indian position is justified .... against Pakistan but not China (that Chinese indeed have legitimate claims over Aksai Chin and Tawang) ...... infact if you want, can give you the whole history of inception of J&K and the problem b/w Pakistan and India and India and China .......!!!!


*That is why I see both wars as stalemates - there is no way to argue Indian victory in them without distorting events and taking a very pro-Indian subjective view. 1971 is the only war in which decisive victory was achieved by one side, and we know the exceptional circumstances in East Pakistan that allowed that to happen*

You can not deny that victory is determined by the political advantage gained. War afterall is an extension of state policy ...... while Russians suffered proportionally high casualties in their recent war in Georgia (in terms of ratio of standing armies), there is no denying the fact that Georgia lost the war ....... even though they withstood Russian pressure for a couple of days ......

Same ways multiple friends from Pakistan have championed their cause by saying this is a victory. It is not ..... am not claiming an Indian victory, but instead a Pakistani defeat as national/political objectives were not realised ......

In addition, while 1971 is defined as "cowardly act" by Indian Army deploying 10 divisions (how there were 10 divisions in that theater only those who claim it can tell I dont know of any such deployment) overwhelming the PA garrison for the country there .... they call it bravado ... dressing up as civillians to infilterate and fight as Kashmiris in J&K in 1965 Really not understood.


----------



## Zob

*Secondly, PA has always miscalculated. When you start a mis adventure why lament on being an under dog ? Gibraltar was a mis calculated move akin to Kargil, did not cater for the reaction... No change in the approach of PA between ' 65 &'99.* 

lol well what can we do if we got a big bal*s

*Capturing real estate in Raj is of no consequence as the land was defended thinly - of lack of hi value objectives to defend. In any case capturing anything across an IB has little relevance less in Punjab as they have to be returned.*


Ok let me get this straight if we capture RAJHISTAN it is insignificant....but when you capture PUNJAB it is significant....?? my friend we entered KASHMIR your forces were reeling to release the pressure you openeed the PUNJAB front....inorder to counter attack we opened the RAJHISTAN sector along with naval bombardment of DWARKA!!


*What matters is that were the objectives of going to war realised ? *

my friend we wished to capture KASHMIR you wished to capture LAHORE....so now none of the aims were realized hence a stalemate....and given your sheer size that is poor showing for you my friend...its like GEORGIA defeating the RUSSIANS or the TAIWANIESE defeating the CHINESE!!


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> *Secondly, PA has always miscalculated. When you start a mis adventure why lament on being an under dog ? Gibraltar was a mis calculated move akin to Kargil, did not cater for the reaction... No change in the approach of PA between ' 65 &'99.*
> 
> *lol well what can we do if we got a big bal*s*
> 
> Thats the reason.. one cannot perform with hernia / hydocele !!
> 
> *Capturing real estate in Raj is of no consequence as the land was defended thinly - of lack of hi value objectives to defend. In any case capturing anything across an IB has little relevance less in Punjab as they have to be returned.*
> 
> 
> Ok let me get this straight if we capture RAJHISTAN it is insignificant....but when you capture PUNJAB it is significant....?? my friend we entered KASHMIR your forces were reeling to release the pressure you openeed the PUNJAB front....inorder to counter attack we opened the RAJHISTAN sector along with naval bombardment of DWARKA!!
> 
> Punjab is Hi value while raj in '65 was not. In fact Raj only strains the attacker further due to increased logistics. Remember Longewalla - failed in '71 due to logistics & lack of air cover .
> 
> Attacking Raj did not necessitate diversion of Indian troops from anywhere as threatening Lahore did,
> 
> *What matters is that were the objectives of going to war realised ? *
> 
> my friend we wished to capture KASHMIR you wished to capture LAHORE....so now none of the aims were realized hence a stalemate....and given your sheer size that is poor showing for you my friend...its like GEORGIA defeating the RUSSIANS or the TAIWANIESE defeating the CHINESE!!



If we wished to capture Lahore, we would have attacked it ab initio as Pk did to J&K.

In any case what are we achieving TODAY by discussing what happened in 1965 ???


----------



## Kasrkin

> It were the Pakistani forces which crossed into Akhnoor first spreading the conflict to Hindu-Sikh dominated Jammu region (instead of limiting as per their logic to the "legitimate demands" of muslim majority Kashmir valley) so the reply



Actually, there was much more to that invasion of Pakistani territory without a formal declaration of war. The Indian Army was ordered to eliminate the Pakistan Army as a threat once and for all, which is exactly what the Indian Army, armed with their new western weapons, intended to do after their humiliating defeats in the Rann of Kutch and 1962. Despite the initial surprise, the resistance mounted by Pakistani forces was beyond the expectations of all Indian and impartial observers. Outnumbered and outgunned, taken by surprise (Bhutto was assuring the nation that India would not invade just a couple of days before the attack) the Pakistani garrisons had only started mustering when Indian tanks were crossing the border. Pakistan then went on not only to stall all Indian thrusts, inflicted heavily casualties on the attackers but also launched bold counterattacks deep into enemy territory. So no, you cant refer to the Indian Armys plans for Pakistan in 1965 to have been fruitful. Pakistan was not able to reclaim all of Kashmir, so were not claiming victory. But India wasnt able to come anywhere near destroying Pakistan, so the more ambitious your plan, the greater your failure. You cant use the failure of Op Grand Slam as proof of victory for your severely thrashed and failed invasion groups down south against Pakistan proper. It was a draw, and thats the honorable way of seeing it. If we have the decency to acknowledge your fighting ability and our own failures, then why cant you?

Pakistanis have every reason to be proud of their fighting prowess. Indian forces were well trained, well equipped, well lead and extremely motivated (smarting from previous defeats) in the beginning of the war. Furthermore they had the element of surprise and an over-whelming numerical advantage. If that wasnt enough, Pakistan was in for a rude awakening finding that its lifeline of military equipment and munitions was completely blocked by a trusted ally, while Indias supplies from the USSR were wide open. The fact that Pakistan survived at all, let alone fought such a powerful nation to strategic standstill is remarkable and speaks about the qualitative edge of our soldiery. And the contrast between our and the Arab performance in the 1967 War against a much lesser enemy two years later was shocking. It is not without reason that the Pakistanis are proud of their army; the fact that everything went wrong in 65 and we still endured is all the more proof of what Pakistan can achieve if its people are united. 

The Pakistani heart land as never since been endangered like it had been in 1965. From then on every menacing Indian deployment along our border was met with equally forceful deterring maneuvers from our side. This has deterred many Indian invasion prospects in the past and reportedly deterred India from deploying its cumbersome formations after the Mumbai attacks.

Also Hellfire, youre quoting Wikipedia which doesnt speak highly of the sources you have to credit your opinion. No one posts hotly contested Wikipedia articles as proof in an argument, thats a basic online rule. Also, youre asking for independent sources when you havent even read the source AM referred to. _Crossed Swords_ has been endorsed by renowned observers like Stephen P. Cohen, Owen Bennett-Jones and Barbara Crossette to name a few. So its much more authoritative than your counter-proof Wikipedia articles to say the least. 



> You can not deny that victory is determined by the political advantage gained.



May I ask, to what political advantage gained are you referring?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zob

well we were sitting in AKHNUR....and in RAJHISTAN....now they are not strategically important for you...lol good one....and punjab is cuz that is the only place the indian army entered....and we shelled DWARKA and that i guess is also not strategically important....

if that is the case then i don't mind you believing you won....and as for LAHORE buddy we stopped you dead in your tracks in CHAWINDA....don't worry INDIA won WHATEVER makes you sleep at night....


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> well we were sitting in AKHNUR....and in RAJHISTAN....now they are not strategically important for you...lol good one....and punjab is cuz that is the only place the indian army entered....and we shelled DWARKA and that i guess is also not strategically important....
> 
> if that is the case then i don't mind you believing you won....and as for LAHORE buddy we stopped you dead in your tracks in CHAWINDA....don't worry INDIA won WHATEVER makes you sleep at night....



won't give up eh ?

This is 2009 & we are going into raptures discussing 1965 ???


----------



## le_souriceau

As neutral side I can say next:

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 ended without a convincing victory for any side. But in India, and Pakistan government propaganda reported on the successful conclusion of war...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zob

well friends i never started this debate so their is no question about me giving up.....you stop i stop simple....


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> well friends i never started this debate so their is no question about me giving up.....you stop i stop simple....



This is the root of the Indo - Pak problem.

... no one started it but every one wants to end it.


----------



## Zob

the root cause is that the BIGGER country wants to compete with the smaller one....why do you waste so much time trying to fight us spend it competing with CHINA.....but forget it let's not get into it...


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> the root cause is that the BIGGER country wants to compete with the smaller one....why do you waste so much time trying to fight us spend it competing with CHINA.....but forget it let's not get into it...



I don't think u have noticed..none of India's actions are Pak centric. They are focused on a " larger' pic.

Pk likes to feel it is otherwise. As rgds competing..where is the competition ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zob

third eye said:


> I don't think u have noticed..none of India's actions are Pak centric. They are focused on a " larger' pic.
> 
> Pk likes to feel it is otherwise. As rgds competing..where is the competition ?



yes like i said all indian forward airforce bases are located towards pakistan even your ARMY CHIEF came on tv and said we know about PAKISTAN's capabilites we have no idea about CHINESE...

all your wars except 62 have been with us....how can you possibly say your aims are not pakistan centric....


----------



## Hellfire

*Kasrkin*


*Actually, there was much more to that invasion of Pakistani territory without a formal declaration of war. The Indian Army was ordered to eliminate the Pakistan Army as a threat once and for all, which is exactly what the Indian Army, armed with their new western weapons, intended to do after their humiliating defeats in the Rann of Kutch and 1962.* 

Totally far from truth. IA was in no shape to fight as the 50s neglect (due to Nehru's belief that India only needed police) saw India ill prepared on Chinese border as also to fight Pakistan till finish (which was incidentally receiving tremendous equipment supply as part of CENTO from US, CENTO members & Co.) So your contention does not hold. Yes Rann of Kucch was humiliation .... the Sikh troops deployed were shitting en-masse (thinking there are no Pakistani forces in region) when the PA and Rangers took them on at 4 am .... who the hell sleeps at that time?  Bloody humiliation I agree!!!! and Hilarious!


*Despite the initial surprise, the resistance mounted by Pakistani forces was beyond the expectations of all Indian and impartial observers. *

You have thoroughly managed to change and modify history here sir. Pakistan launched Op. Grandslam thinking there shall be a mass insurrection in Kashmir and infact it were the Kashmiris who gave away their presence in the valley to Indian army. So any general is not naive enough to plan such a large scale operation without expecting an attack.

Points to note:

1. Pakistani assesment was that post-1962 debacle India was in no position to match the better equipped and prepared troops of PA which were high on moral vis-a-vis Indian troops who had suffered a humiliation in Sino-Indian war.

2. Lal Bahadur Shastri was taken to be weakling in shadow of Nehru, and as such was not expected to be able to command the respect of world leaders, as such Pakistan with its CENTO membership had excellent relations with US and Co. So diplomatically Pakistan could get enough time to wrest Kashmir.

3. PA Generals and Bhutto forced Ayub Khan to toe their line literally calling him a chicken out to save his new found power and riches. He never wanted to engage in a conflict.

4. India was in dire straits. And it was on the imminent positioning of 3 JAT across Icchogil Canal (irrespective of what you all might denounce) and troops from IA getting a stronger hold for second time to build a bridgehead across icchogil to eventually take on Lahore, that forced Pakistan to use its excellent relationship with US to force a peace (the famous incident where the PM of India was reportedly threatened by US and USSR both) ....

So it was infact a military plan that backfired on you. 


*Outnumbered and outgunned, taken by surprise (Bhutto was assuring the nation that India would not invade just a couple of days before the attack) the Pakistani garrisons had only started mustering when Indian tanks were crossing the border.* 

Told you, PA never expected India to be able to fight back post-1962 debacle. A gross miscalculation by military commanders. Its not because India was attacker here, but you never expected a response in first place! 



*Pakistan then went on not only to stall all Indian thrusts, inflicted heavily casualties on the attackers but also launched bold counterattacks deep into enemy territory. So no, you cant refer to the Indian Armys plans for Pakistan in 1965 to have been fruitful. *

I never did say IA plans were successful, did I? Please do quote me where such insinuation has been done, I shall gladly clarify and rectify the same. I maintain you lost the war, not India won it! And your capital was threatened imminently, timely diplomatic intervention saved you .....!!!


*Pakistan was not able to reclaim all of Kashmir, so were not claiming victory. But India wasnt able to come anywhere near destroying Pakistan, so the more ambitious your plan, the greater your failure.*

Can you give me any official directive given to IA to "destroy Pakistan"? My grandfather was commanding an infantry batallion and their mandate was to defend and hold ground. They simply didnt have resources to do even that had PA attacked en-force across LC in Poonch sector (instead of making meek attempts aimed to probe the defenses) also. So your contention is not true.


*You cant use the failure of Op Grand Slam as proof of victory for your severely thrashed and failed invasion groups down south against Pakistan proper. It was a draw, and thats the honorable way of seeing it. If we have the decency to acknowledge your fighting ability and our own failures, then why cant you?*

For heavens sake I siad you lost the war, not we won it ... there is a difference .....

*Pakistanis have every reason to be proud of their fighting prowess. Indian forces were well trained, well equipped, well lead and extremely motivated (smarting from previous defeats) in the beginning of the war. Furthermore they had the element of surprise and an over-whelming numerical advantage.*

all false .... rebutted earlier



*If that wasnt enough, Pakistan was in for a rude awakening finding that its lifeline of military equipment and munitions was completely blocked by a trusted ally, while Indias supplies from the USSR were wide open.*


distorted history. USSR had mistrust of India (due to help given by US and Britain in '62) and thought NAM leanings were infact a guise for pro-west approach. In addition china was an ally till then and India was seen as fighting an ally. So you have grossly distorted history here ...... you actually have no idea of the situation faced by india that time.

*
The fact that Pakistan survived at all, let alone fought such a powerful nation to strategic standstill is remarkable and speaks about the qualitative edge of our soldiery.*

Pep talk I am sure meant to give succour to your troops who were promised breakfast at ramparts of red fort famously by Ayub Khan!!!!
what a rude awakening from the delusions given out by foolish generals to a proud army of professional soldiers ......!!! 


*The Pakistani heart land as never since been endangered like it had been in 1965. From then on every menacing Indian deployment along our border was met with equally forceful deterring maneuvers from our side. This has deterred many Indian invasion prospects in the past and reportedly deterred India from deploying its cumbersome formations after the Mumbai attacks.*

A tad too much here mate!!!

*Also Hellfire, youre quoting Wikipedia which doesnt speak highly of the sources you have to credit your opinion. No one posts hotly contested Wikipedia articles as proof in an argument, thats a basic online rule. Also, youre asking for independent sources when you havent even read the source AM referred to. Crossed Swords has been endorsed by renowned observers like Stephen P. Cohen, Owen Bennett-Jones and Barbara Crossette to name a few. So its much more authoritative than your counter-proof Wikipedia articles to say the least. *

I give easily accessible proofs. shall indeed read the book referred to .... i dont ever not read something that can be read sir ....... rest some contents i post can not and will not have any public domain proofs .... so cant help it .....!!!

*
May I ask, to what political advantage gained are you referring?*

Political advantage .... getting Kashmir ..... you failed in your basic objective ... so you lost ........ simple .... we didnt win ... but you sure lost ...

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

again wiki ... but you can cross refer from the sources you have there listed ..... please

thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> yes like i said all indian forward airforce bases are located towards pakistan even your ARMY CHIEF came on tv and said we know about PAKISTAN's capabilites we have no idea about CHINESE...
> 
> all your wars except 62 have been with us....how can you possibly say your aims are not pakistan centric....



There has been an unfortunate air crash of the IAF today, was it from an air base facing Pk ?

If you plan for the larger contender, the lesser ones get automatically caterd for...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

third eye said:


> There has been an unfortunate air crash of the IAF today, was it from an air base facing Pk ?
> 
> If you plan for the larger contender, the lesser ones get automatically caterd for...



Yes, but your 'planning for the larger contender' is rather ridiculous given that the larger proportion of your military resources are directed at Pakistan.

Its more a case of planning for the larger and smaller contender, but primarily deploying against the smaller contender.

Actions speak louder than words - so long as most of India's military resources are deployed against Pakistan, the reality remains that Pakistan is your largest concern and against which you constantly plan and evaluate.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Hellfire:

Your arguments are getting convoluted to the point where you are contradicting yourself:

*"So any general is not naive enough to plan such a large scale operation without expecting an attack."*

and later:
*
"Its not because India was attacker here, but you never expected a response in first place!"*

You argue that Pakistan 'lost the 65 war' because it did not achieve its political objectives. The same argument could be made about India in the 1948 war, given that Pakistani operations were defensive. India did not brandish the Instrument of accession indicating ownership and put its forces in just so it could control two thirds of kashmir - it went in planning to occupy and control all of it.

As such India failed in its 'political objective' - so while Pakistan did not win the war in 1948, India 'sure as hell lost it'.
*
"The fight was limited to Kashmir"* 

How on earth was the fight limited to Kashmir when your general's were planning on having "breakfast in Lahore"? 

The resulting defeat of that particular plan was, as you said, 'what a rude awakening from the delusions given out by foolish generals to a proud army of professional soldiers'

How is that not indicative of an offensive directive rather than defensive?

The problem with your posts is as Kasrskin correctly observed, a tendency to constantly disparage Pakistan and its armed forces, while coming up with every excuse in the book to explain away Indian failures. The Sikhs were 'shitting' and taken by surprise, it wasn't that the Pakistanis just fought better.

The IA was let down by Nehru in the UN, despite the fact that they had several months in which to overwhelm Pakistani defenses in 1948, and failed because of how the PA fought.

The IA was inadequately prepared and equipped in 1965, and not that the PA (depsite being taken by surprise) fought valiantly and defended its territory, despite being outnumbered.

Your disparaging remarks are not limited to historical discussions - you did much the same when talking about Pakistan's COIN efforts in Swat for example, and automatically assumed that the PA was blowing up towns and cities willy nilly.

I think there is a need on your part to recognize that the Pakistani Military, its generals, officers and soldiers, are a professional and competent institution who have largely done the best that could be done under the circumstances and limitations they have faced, as is the case with the Indian military.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kasrkin

Sorry AM, I wrote this before you posted. I&#8217;d hate to delete it, but if hellfire continues then we&#8217;ll take it to another thread. 



> Totally far from truth. IA was in no shape to fight as the 50s neglect (due to Nehru's belief that India only needed police) saw India ill prepared on Chinese border as also to fight Pakistan till finish (which was incidentally receiving tremendous equipment supply as part of CENTO from US, CENTO members & Co.) So your contention does not hold. Yes Rann of Kucch was humiliation .... the Sikh troops deployed were shitting en-masse (thinking there are no Pakistani forces in region) when the PA and Rangers took them on at 4 am .... who the hell sleeps at that time? Bloody humiliation I agree!!!! and Hilarious!



That&#8217;s fairly odd, you start off your reply with 'totally far from the truth' but then what follows, your own words, don't disagree or clash with my words that you&#8217;re supposedly refuting. Yes those wars were humiliating, which was what I said. I wouldn't say that India was 'in no shape' to fight a war because India had been modernizing military at a _faster_ rate than Pakistan in the 50s, but obviously there were significant shortcomings that were remedied by the time India tried to invade in 1965. The point is the Indian military was in a much better shape, which is something you obviously agree with.



> You have thoroughly managed to change and modify history here sir. Pakistan launched Op. Grandslam thinking there shall be a mass insurrection in Kashmir and infact it were the Kashmiris who gave away their presence in the valley to Indian army. So any general is not naive enough to plan such a large scale operation without expecting an attack.



Again, my words and your contentions do not clash. It was indeed Pakistan's mistake in thinking that the Kashmiris were ready for liberation. It would take decades of Indian suppression and neglect before they would turn to Pakistan in the hopes of intervention. Yes, it was the Kashmiris themselves who failed act as hoped by Pakistan and identified the infiltrators themselves.

Was the political and military leadership na&#239;ve in not informing the formation commanders of the situation? Yes I believe so. This was an inexcusable mistake that cost Pakistan dearly, but without the benefit of hindsight it is understandable to an extent. GHQ did not appreciate the extent to which the Indians were itching to have a go at the PA, and thus expected that the Indians would prefer to keep the conflict localized. Kashmir was (and is) _Disputed Territory_ and not a sovereign part of India or Pakistan, thus it was supposed that skirmishes in Kashmir would not immediately result it hostilities across the international border (it didn&#8217;t happen during the First Kashmir War). Secondly, it was also expected that an escalation that might lead to full scale conflict would take time to development, with clear diplomatic signals emulating from Delhi giving the Pakistani Army plenty of time to deploy. This obviously did not happen, and without a formal declaration of war or fair warning tens of thousands of Indian troops and armor launched themselves at Pakistan. Thirdly, Pakistan&#8217;s foreign minister at the time, Z.A. Bhutto was blustering hawk who proved utterly incapable of managing or monitoring the political situation next door. He did everything in his power to convince important figures and the nation at large that there was no danger. Lastly, the very nature of operation Grand Slam required a level of confidentiality which meant that the formation commanders, the military at large and civil population could not be told of the course being pursued and the risks (no matter how remote at first) involved.

A lot of mistakes and miscalculations all round, and ultimately the responsibility lay with Ayub Khan (who hired advisors like Bhutto). But these were the facts and Pakistan was unprepared. Even the Lahore Garrison commander was caught completely off guard.



> 4. India was in dire straits. And it was on the imminent positioning of 3 JAT across Icchogil Canal (irrespective of what you all might denounce) and troops from IA getting a stronger hold for second time to build a bridgehead across icchogil to eventually take on Lahore, that forced Pakistan to use its excellent relationship with US to force a peace (the famous incident where the PM of India was reportedly threatened by US and USSR both) ....



That is nonsensical BS. The Indian Army Chief recommended the cease fire, the ceasefire was not &#8216;imposed&#8217; on India. You&#8217;re not Israel, let&#8217;s stick to fact not fiction here shall we. By this time all Indian attempts at Lahore (and elsewhere) were exhausted. Now instead of going into a long description, I&#8217;ll save us all the time and ask you to demonstrate some credible proof regarding your imaginary claims. A lot of Pakistanis feel we could&#8217;ve taken on India too, and numerous Pakistani offensives were canceled as a direct result of American pressure. But since you&#8217;re so sure let&#8217;s see some impartial evidence&#8230;



> I never did say IA plans were successful, did I? Please do quote me where such insinuation has been done, I shall gladly clarify and rectify the same. I maintain you lost the war, not India won it! And your capital was threatened imminently, timely diplomatic intervention saved you .....!!!



You&#8217;re arguing over lame semantics and I don&#8217;t see the point of your arguments. Fine, we both lost the war. Happy? Call it whatever you want, but the most impartial way to put it is to call it a draw. 



> Can you give me any official directive given to IA to "destroy Pakistan"? My grandfather was commanding an infantry batallion and their mandate was to defend and hold ground. They simply didnt have resources to do even that had PA attacked en-force across LC in Poonch sector (instead of making meek attempts aimed to probe the defenses) also. So your contention is not true.



I can&#8217;t give you an official directive, but I can quote to you Brian Cloughley&#8217;s book _History of the Pakistan Army_ which has been endorsed by an Indian Army chief. Destroying the Pakistan Army as a fighting force was the plan at the onset of the attack, as was the invasion of Lahore. As the fighting dragged on and hastily build Pakistani defenses didn&#8217;t give way, soaking up India resources and men, I&#8217;d presume Indian war-aims became considerably more modest. Cloughley clearly states _&#8220;Although India&#8217;s immediate concern was to prevent Pakistan severing the link with the north, the aim of the their advance into &#8216;West&#8217; Punjab was clear: to defeat the Pakistani Army&#8221;._ There is more, but I don&#8217;t feel like quoting it. You best read the book. 



> distorted history. USSR had mistrust of India (due to help given by US and Britain in '62) and thought NAM leanings were infact a guise for pro-west approach.



Actually, the NAM has historically been considered pro-Soviet as opposed to pro-western. Their 'anti-Imperialism' leanings were routinely exploited by the USSR in the UN. So no, the Soviet supplies and spares were wide open to India. 



> Political advantage .... getting Kashmir ..... you failed in your basic objective ... so you lost ........ simple .... we didnt win ... but you sure lost ...



No we didn&#8217;t get Kashmir, but you didn&#8217;t get Punjab either. Punjab is larger and you expended more lives and resources in the hopes of battering the Pakistan Army into submission there and acquiring the latter. So yup it was a draw. But you can go ahead and believe what you want&#8230;

P.S. Impartial commentators observe that the reason Pakistan won the Rann of Kutch was because of superior tactics, and little else. You can believe it was because of 'bad luck', etc but then dont pretend you're not looking at things in a biased way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chindit

lol quoting zaid hamid to prove pakistan won 65. ha ha ha ha ha

i can quote a dozen pakistani generals and air marshals to prove you guys were so close to disaster


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

chindit said:


> lol quoting zaid hamid to prove pakistan won 65. ha ha ha ha ha
> 
> i can quote a dozen pakistani generals and air marshals to prove you guys were so close to disaster



Lets move away from feeding trolls on either side chest thumping about 'victory'.

And 'close' does not cut it - either we met disaster or didn't. We didn't, and neither did you.


----------



## typewriter

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Lets move away from feeding trolls on either side chest thumping about 'victory'.
> 
> And 'close' does not cut it - either we met disaster or didn't. We didn't, and neither did you.



True, but I did read that if the stalemate had continued, then in the war of attrition India would have won because they had more munition & supplies (being larger of course), but their intelligence goofed up & reported that Pakistan had the longer fuse.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

typewriter said:


> True, but I did read that if the stalemate had continued, then in the war of attrition India would have won because they had more munition & supplies (being larger of course), but their intelligence goofed up & reported that Pakistan had the longer fuse.



Doesn't matter - the fact remains that 'close' is the same as 'did not happen'.

Bluffing the other side into blinking is also part of war.

You shouldn't have blinked - that's your failure, not ours.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## typewriter

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Doesn't matter - the fact remains that 'close' is the same as 'did not happen'.
> 
> Bluffing the other side into blinking is also part of war.
> 
> You shouldn't have blinked - that's your failure, not ours.



Yes, our intelligence is quite frankly, pathetic. 

And the leadership at that time was nothing to write home about. Had it been Indira Gandhi, maybe it would have been better.


----------



## third eye

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Yes, but your 'planning for the larger contender' is rather ridiculous given that the larger proportion of your military resources are directed at Pakistan.
> 
> Its more a case of planning for the larger and smaller contender, but primarily deploying against the smaller contender.
> 
> Actions speak louder than words - so long as most of India's military resources are deployed against Pakistan, the reality remains that Pakistan is your largest concern and against which you constantly plan and evaluate.



Logistics today allows rapid shifting from W to E & vice versa.

Pk's actions ( or lack of them) are the immediate threat. On the E, whats happens is only a talking war ( sometimes).


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

typewriter said:


> And the leadership at that time was nothing to write home about. Had it been Indira Gandhi, maybe it would have been better.



Its like saying I wish I could go to war with an Army that had Alexander the great, Genghis Khan, Sun Tzu, Julius Caesar, Salahadin as generals and leaders (all trained in modern warfare of course).

You fight with whatever you have and whomever you have.

Hindsight is 20/20 - there is a lot for Pakistanis to crib about as well, in terms of decision making by the political leadership, going all the way back to the 1948 war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

third eye said:


> Pk's actions ( or lack of them) are the immediate threat.



In other words Pakistan is your largest concern at the moment, and therefore the concern that you plan for primarily, since you would be foolish planning for the 'smaller' and 'non-immediate threat' - hence all the rest of it about China being the primary concern is nothing but rhetoric.


----------



## third eye

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> In other words Pakistan is your largest concern at the moment, and therefore the concern that you plan for primarily, since you would be foolish planning for the 'smaller' and 'non-immediate threat' - hence all the rest of it about China being the primary concern is nothing but rhetoric.



Look , you can play with words as much as you wish to, the bottom line is that since Pk actively conspires to de stab India, it needs to be looked at NOW. 

Others are not immenent but have the potential to clash with the larger game plan.. which Pk does / cannot.


----------



## le_souriceau

I think all words in this kind of "duels" must be proved by documents or, at least historical (non publicistic) books.

Everything else looks like child battle in sandbox.


----------



## Zob

@ Third eye

just cuz u lost a plane of the IAF close to the CHINESE border what does it have to signify....

we lost a plane close to the IRANIAN border a while ago it had taken off from quetta does that mean now our PRIMARY focus is IRAN... and not inda??

*I maintain you lost the war, not India won it! And your capital was threatened imminently, timely diplomatic intervention saved you .....!!!*

@hellfire

what makes you come 2 such a conclusion like i said to relase the pressure on Kashmir you crossed the International border in the punjab sector....we followed it up by opening up RAJHISTAN...as well as naval bombardment of DWARKA....


you also claimed that indian military was lagging.... my friend if you remember the famous pathankot assualt you had MIG-21s siting on the tarmac....for the time it was the SU30 of the day so i don't see how you can claim to be lagging & lagging in what kind of equipment....


62 you fought an enemy equal your size and lost in 65 you fought an enemy 1/6 your size....and couldn't defeat it COMPREHSIVELY....that my friend is really poor showing....so yes 65 was a stalemate and no one won

however, the fact that being 1/6 your size & being able to stand up to you till the last round is great showing & that cannot be overlooked!!


----------



## Hellfire

*AgNoStIc MuSliM*

*Your arguments are getting convoluted to the point where you are contradicting yourself:*

Absolutely not.

*Statement 1:* *"So any general is not naive enough to plan such a large scale operation without expecting an attack."*
*
Statement 2"Its not because India was attacker here, but you never expected a response in first place!"*

The first statement is to drive in the point that a plan is made taking into view every eventuality ..... and the second to highlight the gross underestimation of Indian will to fight over Kashmir ...... 

both are not contradictory if taken along with subsequent points I have elucidated .... however isolated together yes they appear as such if taken purely at face value.


*You argue that Pakistan 'lost the 65 war' because it did not achieve its political objectives.*

Yes I do. Militarily it did perform remarkably well, but it lost the war purely on political grounds. Indian IPKF lost the war in Sri Lanka against LTTE in political sense too, and not in military terms. We had the resources, not the political will to continue. That is a defeat as surely as any irrespective of what my fellow posters might contend to contrary.

* The same argument could be made about India in the 1948 war, given that Pakistani operations were defensive.*

What were you defending? The tribals? At no point did India crossover the IB .... and well while I wont call it a loss, I will certainly call it a blunder as Nehru went to UN cutting short the military offensive. The political objectives given to IA at the time was to save Srinagar and secure the capital till a formal integration could be done under the aegis of UN ..... so not a loss as political objective was achieved .... but a shameful blunder at best in real sense .... something we are paying for till date.


* India did not brandish the Instrument of accession indicating ownership and put its forces in just so it could control two thirds of kashmir - it went in planning to occupy and control all of it.*

Instrument of Accession was signed to allow for conformity to Constitution of India for induction of IA in opinion of the self deluded PM of India of the time (now logic for that is as confounding to me as to you) .... why, I frankly do not know. 

*As such India failed in its 'political objective' - so while Pakistan did not win the war in 1948, India 'sure as hell lost it'.*

No.

*How on earth was the fight limited to Kashmir when your general's were planning on having "breakfast in Lahore"? *

Initial phases of the campaign. Please do go through the chronology of events .... 

*The resulting defeat of that particular plan was, as you said, 'what a rude awakening from the delusions given out by foolish generals to a proud army of professional soldiers'*

both sides have the same I agree.

*How is that not indicative of an offensive directive rather than defensive?*

The cross over of the IA was to ease the pressure at Akhnoor .... so defensive in nature ... also please do appreciate the fact that India was militarily in no position to fight anymore

*The problem with your posts is as Kasrskin correctly observed, a tendency to constantly disparage Pakistan and its armed forces, while coming up with every excuse in the book to explain away Indian failures.* 

Right. Really. And the problem with your collective posts is to distort the history and show yourself as defenders and aggrieved fighting for a just (?) cause .... actually if you were to not distort those facts things would be much clearer ..... but then your history text books in school also tends to do the same, its an official policy I guess.

I have never said a word against Pakistani colodiers ... please do expand on where .... generalship and politicos, yes and am justified for same.


*The Sikhs were 'shitting' and taken by surprise, it wasn't that the Pakistanis just fought better.*

Oh the Rangers & PA whipped the *** off no doubts .... and it serves to highlight the success of Pakistani plans .... whereby acting upon hard info, the Indian Troops just thought it a hoax having failed to locate any troops and were lounging around .... if you cant appreciate the fact that such a level of stealth can only be achieved by tactical brilliance on part of PA officer and need it spelled out in bold, then shall do so next time on.

FYI I am of full awe for a young Pakistani SSG 2nd Lieutenant (1971) who along with 20 men infiltrated DCB near Pakka (Fazilka static defences) and beat up the Assam Regiment men manning the posts there and spared their lives, sent them back to HQ 67 Bde (Fazilka) and told them to retake the area if they could. As a result a whole Indian brigade (later supported by parts of the 15 Div it was under) was tied down and after 362 Indian killed and over 500 wounded, with no losses to the young SSG lieutenant, was tied down for the whole of war .... and only upon ceasefire did that young officer withdraw, writing a citation for an Indian Major killed by his machine gun fire who was the only Indian officer/soldier to reach the position at all ..... and handing it over to Indian officers before his withdrawl. 

Oh please ..... you have fine soldiers and I can tell about many cases, tales told to me by relatives who witnessed such bravery that they thought none of the Indian soldiers under their command could also match .... 

But I see that you guys cry foul when you are pointed out for your failures ....

You must have noticed I keep posting Battle of Islamgarh ... your major surrendered the fort there to one infantry unit of India ..... and there too only one cook from PA posted there .... was the only one who kept fighting and firing and eluded capture injuring 7 soldiers reaching safely to Pakistani troops located at other locations .....


Can go on and on ....... so atleast grant me that much that am not out Pakistan bashing as you all like to think every Indian likes to indulge in 


have had lot of interactions with your officers and have great respect for them too..... in professional and personal aspects both .....

I stressed upon your political leadership being inept (like Indian was in 1962 and years upto it) so please dont cry foul over that ......


*The IA was let down by Nehru in the UN, despite the fact that they had several months in which to overwhelm Pakistani defenses in 1948, and failed because of how the PA fought.*


totally agreed



*Your disparaging remarks are not limited to historical discussions - you did much the same when talking about Pakistan's COIN efforts in Swat for example, and automatically assumed that the PA was blowing up towns and cities willy nilly.*

Please quote where I have said they are blowing up the towns ... I really want you to tell me ... will gladly and PUBLICLY apologise for the same 


however discussing a rationale in purely intellectual term CAN NOT mean to say as beinmg a FACT ..... have maintained that the rational for heavy weapons is not there an intellectual exercise and NOT denounciations of your efforts ......

Have ENOUGH experience in the field sir to know what I am talking about ......!!! Enigma talks about every Tom Dick And Harry knowing what nuclear measures India has in place for protection ...... and I named just 2 guys .... of your army .... one's designation last held was also told he was also in UNSOM forces ..... and that info is not PUBLIC DOMAIN .......

*I think there is a need on your part to recognize that the Pakistani Military, its generals, officers and soldiers, are a professional and competent institution who have largely done the best that could be done under the circumstances and limitations they have faced, as is the case with the Indian military.*

I agree and I think you need to understand that anyone who criticises you is not necessarily your enemy ........


----------



## Hellfire

Kasrkin said:


> Sorry AM, I wrote this before you posted. Id hate to delete it, but if hellfire continues then well take it to another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats fairly odd, you start off your reply with 'totally far from the truth' but then what follows, your own words, don't disagree or clash with my words that youre supposedly refuting. Yes those wars were humiliating, which was what I said. I wouldn't say that India was 'in no shape' to fight a war because India had been modernizing military at a _faster_ rate than Pakistan in the 50s, but obviously there were significant shortcomings that were remedied by the time India tried to invade in 1965. The point is the Indian military was in a much better shape, which is something you obviously agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, my words and your contentions do not clash. It was indeed Pakistan's mistake in thinking that the Kashmiris were ready for liberation. It would take decades of Indian suppression and neglect before they would turn to Pakistan in the hopes of intervention. Yes, it was the Kashmiris themselves who failed act as hoped by Pakistan and identified the infiltrators themselves.
> 
> Was the political and military leadership naïve in not informing the formation commanders of the situation? Yes I believe so. This was an inexcusable mistake that cost Pakistan dearly, but without the benefit of hindsight it is understandable to an extent. GHQ did not appreciate the extent to which the Indians were itching to have a go at the PA, and thus expected that the Indians would prefer to keep the conflict localized. Kashmir was (and is) _Disputed Territory_ and not a sovereign part of India or Pakistan, thus it was supposed that skirmishes in Kashmir would not immediately result it hostilities across the international border (it didnt happen during the First Kashmir War). Secondly, it was also expected that an escalation that might lead to full scale conflict would take time to development, with clear diplomatic signals emulating from Delhi giving the Pakistani Army plenty of time to deploy. This obviously did not happen, and without a formal declaration of war or fair warning tens of thousands of Indian troops and armor launched themselves at Pakistan. Thirdly, Pakistans foreign minister at the time, Z.A. Bhutto was blustering hawk who proved utterly incapable of managing or monitoring the political situation next door. He did everything in his power to convince important figures and the nation at large that there was no danger. Lastly, the very nature of operation Grand Slam required a level of confidentiality which meant that the formation commanders, the military at large and civil population could not be told of the course being pursued and the risks (no matter how remote at first) involved.
> 
> A lot of mistakes and miscalculations all round, and ultimately the responsibility lay with Ayub Khan (who hired advisors like Bhutto). But these were the facts and Pakistan was unprepared. Even the Lahore Garrison commander was caught completely off guard.
> 
> 
> 
> That is nonsensical BS. The Indian Army Chief recommended the cease fire, the ceasefire was not imposed on India. Youre not Israel, lets stick to fact not fiction here shall we. By this time all Indian attempts at Lahore (and elsewhere) were exhausted. Now instead of going into a long description, Ill save us all the time and ask you to demonstrate some credible proof regarding your imaginary claims. A lot of Pakistanis feel we couldve taken on India too, and numerous Pakistani offensives were canceled as a direct result of American pressure. But since youre so sure lets see some impartial evidence
> 
> 
> 
> Youre arguing over lame semantics and I dont see the point of your arguments. Fine, we both lost the war. Happy? Call it whatever you want, but the most impartial way to put it is to call it a draw.
> 
> 
> 
> I cant give you an official directive, but I can quote to you Brian Cloughleys book _History of the Pakistan Army_ which has been endorsed by an Indian Army chief. Destroying the Pakistan Army as a fighting force was the plan at the onset of the attack, as was the invasion of Lahore. As the fighting dragged on and hastily build Pakistani defenses didnt give way, soaking up India resources and men, Id presume Indian war-aims became considerably more modest. Cloughley clearly states _Although Indias immediate concern was to prevent Pakistan severing the link with the north, the aim of the their advance into West Punjab was clear: to defeat the Pakistani Army._ There is more, but I dont feel like quoting it. You best read the book.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the NAM has historically been considered pro-Soviet as opposed to pro-western. Their 'anti-Imperialism' leanings were routinely exploited by the USSR in the UN. So no, the Soviet supplies and spares were wide open to India.
> 
> 
> 
> No we didnt get Kashmir, but you didnt get Punjab either. Punjab is larger and you expended more lives and resources in the hopes of battering the Pakistan Army into submission there and acquiring the latter. So yup it was a draw. But you can go ahead and believe what you want
> 
> P.S. Impartial commentators observe that the reason Pakistan won the Rann of Kutch was because of superior tactics, and little else. You can believe it was because of 'bad luck', etc but then dont pretend you're not looking at things in a biased way.



will get back to you once am done reading the book you have mentioned ...... am prepared to read your side too .


however .... rann of kucch was definitely your way .... and none can deny it ..... the exmaple i gave was meant to highlight the gross incompetency Indians showed 


if you have any idea, then you may appreciate that Indian troops received info of PA and rangers moving in the area, this specific unit was tasked to sweep the area and they found nothing and were generally lounging around 
and the rest is history 

they were given a sound thumping

am sure you do read military history so you may be aware ..... but now I see that I do have to specify more clearly and will be done now on

also am sure you can appreciate the skills shown by the PA offocer in the theater at the time .... that troops were not detected .... and were instead able to give a good thump to indian troops there 


but youhave to have the same clearly spelled out i guess will gladly do so now on 

lastly, your info leaves at times a lot to be corrected ... even concerning IBGs and RAPIDs something that I had offered to discuss with you in depth ..... display of military professional as your status does not mean the other who is not in that category is totally a novice .......

thanks


----------



## Hellfire

typewriter said:


> Yes, our intelligence is quite frankly, pathetic.
> 
> And the leadership at that time was nothing to write home about. Had it been Indira Gandhi, maybe it would have been better.



what exactly did she achieve in 1971? Shimla agreement?


----------



## Hellfire

*Something of Interest Maybe*

The Battle for Ravi-Sutlej Corridor 1965 A Strategic and Operational Analysis
December 30, 2001

Major A.H. Amin, 11 PAVO Cavalry


The Indian attack on Lahore in particular and Ravi-Sutlej Corridor in general
has remained the subject of too much propaganda and too little analysis. On
Pakistani side the Battle for Lahore was seen as a superhuman effort while on
the Indian side it exposed many glaring weaknesses in the Indian Army at unit,
brigade, divisional and corps level.

On the other hand the total failure of the main Pakistani attack in Khem Karan
was ignored or forgotten in the smoke screen of glory created by official
propagandists who successfully shifted the entire public attention on laurels of
Aziz Bhatti etc. Thus, many glaring failures like surrender of an entire tank
regiment on Pakistani side in Khem Karan were overlooked. If Niranjan Parshad
was sacked on the Indian side no one realized that the Pakistani GOC 1st Armored Division survived unceremonious dismissal simply because he was close to the then army chief.
Unfortunately, instead of dispassionate analysis the Battle for Lahore or Ravi-Sutlej Corridor as one may call it was overclouded by tales of heroism at individual and unit level on the Pakistani side.On the Indian side, it led to various drastic changes in high command and re-thinking about unit employment.

After the war, Indian High Command spent a very large fortune on increasing
terrain friction by construction of spurs, bunds, drains etc to ensure that
something like a tank thrust against their strategic line of communication to
Kashmir and Amritsar may never again take place. In 1971, thus little activity
took place in Ravi-Sutlej Corridor and the emphasis shifted to area south of
Sutlej.

We will analyse the corps level battle in this article in the Ravi-Sutlej
Corridor in 1965 which involved a total force of some five infantry divisions
and one armored division and an independent armored brigade.

Orientation with the battle area

The Ravi-Sutlej Corridor from the point where the River Ravi finally enters
Pakistan near BRB Syphon north of Lahore till Kasur measures roughly 160,000
yards in frontage. The main Pakistani town Lahore, a place which had immense
strategic, political as well as psychological significance for Pakistan was
located just 29 kilometres from the border while the main Indian town Amritsar
was about 28 kilometres from the border. 

Khem-Karan, a small Indian town which made many headlines in the first four days of the war lay about 60 kilometres south west of Amritsar and 5 kilometres to the border. Ravi, the
river comprising the northern boundary of the corridor was relatively smaller
than Sutlej, the river which formed the southern boundary of the corridor and
entered Pakistan in the Sejhra Bulge, going into India again for a few miles
into Hussainiwala Headworks before re-entering Pakistan again a few miles south
of Kasur, a small Pakistani town 5 kilometres from the border. Since there was
no natural boundary between India or Pakistan in this corridor, Pakistan had
constructed the BRBL (Bambanwalla Ravi Bedian Link) Canal which the Indians
referred to as Ichhogil Canal. 

The BRBL canal ran from north to south from Ravi in the north till Sutlej in the south, after it entered the corridor passing through a siphon on the Ravi from Sialkot District. The canal was constructed in the 1950s with the exbrss purpose of serving as a defence obstacle against a possible Indian attack on Lahore. Its western banks were higher than its eastern
banks to provide good fields of fire and observation for the defender and lined
with bunkers. It was approximately five metres deep and 45 metres wide and was a
complete water obstacle, formidable in subcontinental terms where attack
across water obstacles was regarded as a formidable and extremely difficult
operation!1 

The BRB running in a nearly ninety degree direction flows 5 to 14
kilometres from the Indian border. It has various branches which run from east
to west like the Lahore Branch, Kasur Branch. All these branches ran from
northeast to southwest and thus no cause of any ground friction for any
attacker advancing from east to west. The BRB crossed the GT Road at Dograi a
village located on its east bank. The other obstacles in the corridor were the
Hudiara Drain, Rohi Nala and the Nikasu Nala. The first two could be crossed
with minor engineer effort or recce while the third required greater engineer
effort. 

Both Ravi and Sutlej were complete water obstacles with width varying
from 150 to 350 metres and were in near full flow in the season. The fields of
fire in the area were limited from 300 yards to 1200 yards and the area near the
canals, their branches and the nalas were boggy, limiting tank movement and
requiring careful reconnaissance. The main roads in the area were the GT Road
linking Lahore with Amritsar and onwards to Jullundhur and Ludhiana.
Lahore-Harike Road linking Lahore with Ferozepur-Ludhiana Road and the
Ferozpur Road linking Lahore with Ferozpur, after passing through Kasur and
crossing the Sutlej over the Hussainiwala Headworks near Ferozpur. The major
bridges from where the BRB could be crossed were at Dograi on the GT Road,
Bhaini, Malikpur, Bedian, Barki, Kasur etc. In addition, there were various
aquaducts and viaducts on the BRB. The area had thick vegetation trees etc and
various crops specially sugar cane severely limited fields of observation and
fire.

Indian Plan

The Indian war plan was finalized on 9th August 1965.2 The plan envisaged a
major attack in the Ravi-Sutlej Corridor employing 11 Corps (4 Mountain
Division, 7 Infantry Division and 15 Infantry Division) along three axis i.e 15
Infantry Division on Amritsar-Lahore axis, 7 Infantry Division on
Khalra-Barki-Lahore axis and 4 Mountain Division on Khem Karan-Kasur axis.

Each division had two brigades while their third brigade was held by the 11 Corps as
reserve or for other tasks. 29 Brigade (ex-7 Division) was directly under corps
headquarter and tasked to defend the area opposite the Dera Baba Nanak Enclave,
Dharm Enclave and the Jassar Bridge. The corps boundary of the 11 Corps extended
from Dera Baba Nanak (Included) some 56 Kilometre North of Amritsar in the
north till the north bank of Sutlej River in the south and onwards till
Ganganagar which was defended by 67 Infantry Brigade (three battalions)
supported by 4 Independent Squadron (Sherman-75mm). 

The 2 Independent Armored Brigade was the corps reserve of 11 Corps. It consisted of 3rd Cavalry (Centurions) and 8th Light Cavalry (AMX-13). 15 Infantry Division had 14 Scinde
Horse (Shermans-76 mm), and 1st Skinners Horse (Shermans) an additional regiment
which was on move on 6th September 1965 from Benares to the frontline. This unit
joined the 15 Division only on 11th September. The 7th Divisions integral
armor unit was the 21 Central India Horse (Sherman-75mm) while the 4th Mountain
Division (less 33 Mountain Brigade deployed on Chinese border) had the 9
Deccan Horse (Sherman-76 mm). In addition after 6th September the 7th Light
Cavalry (PT-76) equipped with fully amphibious PT-76 tanks was moved to the
corps area with restrictions placed on the unit for utilization in only highly
sensitive missions because of conversion and armor vulnerability reasons since
the PT-76 was newly inducted and had very thin armor plates. This brigade also
had 1 Field Regiment (SP) and 1 Dogra (Lorry borne). In addition the corps also
had a reserve infantry brigade i.e 96 Infantry Brigade (three infantry units)
(ex-15 Division) initially placed at Tarn Taran.

The reader may note that Joginder Singh claims that at one point General
Harbaksh Singh had agreed to transfer 7 Division to 1 Indian Corps involved in
Operation Nepal opposite Chawinda but the decision was changed on Joginders
remonstrances to the Indian Army chief. This if done would have left a big gap
in between Indian 15 and 4 Mountain Division.3

Each Indian division had an organic artillery brigade known as divisional
artillery in Pakistan. In addition there was the 21 Independent Artillery 
Brigade consisting of one medium and one heavy regiment.

In addition the 11 Corps was also given three other formations which were not in
its area of operations on 6th September 1965.These were 41 Mountain Brigade
(forced to move to Akhnur after Grand Slam), 50 Para Brigade which was on move
from Agra to 11 Corps area on 6th September and the 23 Mountain Division which
was initially Indian Army Reserve and did not arrive in the battle area and had
no influence on the conduct of operations till end of the war. The reader may
note that this formation was last ordered to concentrate in area Dera Baba Nanak
by 26th September 19654 while ceasefire took place on night 22/23rd September
1965.

*In the strategic sense the prime Indian aim in 11 Corps area was to launch a
thrust at Pakistani vital centre of Lahore which would compel Pakistan to
retain large portion of her reserves in that Sector.5*

Another major strategic benefit that the Indians visualised to derive from 11
Corps attack was ensuring defence of Indian territory in Ravi-Sutlej Corridor by
utilising the BRB as a water obstacle. The Indian planners had assessed that
with all territory from the border till BRBL in Indian hands the Indian
territory in Ravi-Sutlej Corridor was secure against any Pakistani attack. This
was so since no water obstacle like BRB was available with the Indians for the
defence of their side of the Ravi-Sutlej Corridor.

The reader may note that before the war if Joginder Singh the Chief of Staff
Western Command is to be believed some people (Harbaksh Singh) in the Indian
Higher Command regarded the Ravi-Sutlej Corridor as indefensible and were in
favour of taking a defensive position on the Beas River.6

*In classical strategic terms the Indian 11 Corps attack was a Thrust defined
by Andre Beaufre as Reach a vulnerable point in spite of opposition of the
enemy and aimed at Depriving the enemy of his freedom of action by wearing him
down.7* 
In pure operational order terminology 11 Corps tasks were:8

Advance to the Ichogil Canal (BRBL) along the axes GT Road, Bhikiwind-Khalra and
Bhikiwind-Khem Karan to capture Pakistani territory from opposite Ranian
inclusive to its junction with Dipalpur Canal opposite Hussainiwala inclusive
and capture intact:

a. GT Road Bridge over Ichogil Canal.
b. GT/Jallo Link Road Bridge. Barki Bridge over Ichogil Canal.
c. Destroy any enemy which may enter the Punjab and Ganga Nagar Sector in
Rajhastan.
d. Simultaneously with point a above eliminate Bridgehead in the area 
Dera Baba Nanak, and if possible capture the bridge intact.
e. Finally on completion of task a, be brpared to continue the advance to Lahore.

15 Division Plan

Translated into tangible terminology the above mentioned objectives were to be
acomplished by commencing the advance of 15 Infantry Division in two phases. In
Phase One commencing on night 5/6 September with two brigades and one task
force. 54 Infantry Brigade (three battalions) of this divison supported by a
tank squadron (14 Scinde Horse) and engineer field company was to advance along
GT Road after crossing the international border at 0400 Hours 6th September and
capture two bridges on BRB at Jallo and Dograi. Simultaneously, a battalion
group task force i.e 1 Jat (ex-38 Infantry Brigade) half tank squadron (14
Scinde Horse), engineer field company, under direct command of HQ 15 Division
were to capture road bridge in area Bhaini-Dhilwal. In the second phase not
before six hours after 0400 Hours 38 Infantry Brigade was to capture area
Bhasin and Dograich.

7 Division Plan

The 7 Infantry Division was also given a two phase plan. In Phase one, it was to
advance with one infantry brigade (48 Brigade) supported by tank squadron less
one troop (21 Central India Horse) advancing along axis Khalra-Barki capturing
Barki and securing the adjacent bridge over the Ichogil Canal (BRBL) by last
light 6th September. Simultaneously and independent task force directly under 7
Division Headquarter comprising 17 Rajput and one tank troop (21 Central India
Horse), supported by a regiment strength of artillery and a field company of
engineers was to cross the border at axis Wan-Bedian and secure Bedian by last
light 6th September. In Phase two, 65 Infantry Brigade was to carry out mopping
up operations along BRBL and also destroy all bridges on BRBL within 7 Division
area of responsibility.

4 Mountain Division Plan

4 Mountain Division comprising two infantry brigades and one tank regiment (9
Deccan Horse) was the southern most division of the advancing force. It was
tasked to secure Pakistani territory upto Ichhogil Canal which in this area was
just about 4 kilometres from the Indian border, destroying bridge over Ichhogil
Canal over road Khem Karan-Kasur and to occupy a defensive sector to contain
possible Pakistani offensive consisting of an armored division and two infantry
brigades. This division was also assigned the support of 2 Indian Independent
Armored Brigade on priority.
The reader may note that initially the Indian planners had correctly assessed
that Pakistani 1st Armored Division may be employed in this sector. However,
once Pakistans 7th Infantry Division the sister division of the 1st Armored
Division had moved into Gujrat area the Indian Intelligence equally incompetent 
like their Pakistani counterparts had by September assessed that the Pakistani
1st Armored Division was in Wazirabad area!9

Thus the 11 Corps was in a relaxed mood and had no clue that the Pakistani 1st
Armored Division was dispersed in Changa Manga Forest area about to commence an
attack which in leading Indian military analyst Ravi Rikhyes word had the
potential to be Indias Fourth Battle of Panipat.

Pakistani Plan 10 Division Plan

The Pakistani plan in this corridor had two different dimensions. One was the
defence of Lahore the prime Pakistani defensive consideration. The second was
the main Pakistani attack originating from Kasur aimed at severing the entire
Indian 11 Corps line of communication. There were three Pakistani divisions in
the corridor. The 10 Division responsible for defence of Lahore from BRB Syphon
till Bedian in the south a frontage of approximately 60,000 yards.10 The newly
raised 11 Division responsible for defence of the area from Bedian till and
including Hussainiwala Headworks, a total frontage of some 100,000 yards11 in
gunner terminology!

The 10 Division had three infantry brigades, two of which were deployed in
defensive role and one along with a tank regiment (23 Cavalry), two infantry
battalions, a field artillery regiment in direct support and an R & S Company
was designated as the Division Strike Force responsible for
counterattacks.Before the war this brigade had been trained to carry out
counterattacks to destroy any enemy penetration west of BRBL. The reader may
note that 23 Cavalry had one M-47 Squadron while the remaining two squadrons
were equipped with Shermans.12 The TDU regiments were also equipped with
Shermans.

114 Brigade was responsible for defence of Ravi Syphon through Bhaini Bridge
till and including the main GT Road at Wagah. It had three infantry battalions,
an R & S Company less one platoon, a TDU tank squadron (30 TDU) and was directly
supported by a field artillery regiment. The main defensive positions of the
brigade were on the BRBL.

103 Brigade was responsible for defence of area excluding GT Road till Bedian.
It had two infantry battalions, a TDU tank squadron (30 TDU), an R & S Company
less a platoon, and a field artillery regiment in direct support.

The 10 Divisional artillerys strong point and one which gave it a marked
advantage over the Indians, was in possession of 30 Heavy Regiment consisting of
latest US eight 155 mm guns and four 8 inch Howitzers. In addition, the
division had three medium regiments supporting three infantry brigades, a medium
regiment and two locating batteries.

11 Division Plan
The 11 Division was raised in 1965 around May 1965.13 It consisted of three
infantry brigades i.e 21 Brigade, (two battalions), 52 Brigade (three
battalions) and 106 Brigade (two battalions). In addition it had two tank regiments (15 Lancers and 32 TDU). The division had two roles i.e defending the line of BRB and also providing a bridgehead to the main Pakistani attack force i.e the 1st Armored Division. Its
artillery consisted of three field regiments, one mortar troop, one medium
regiment, one heavy regiment (eight 8 inch Howitzers and four 155 mm guns) and
most valuable, a corps locating regiment.

The dual operational task of the 11 Division was defence of Kasur, destroy enemy
advance on axis Ferozpur-Kasur and Khem Karan-Kasur, capture Pakistani side of
Hussainiwala enclave and destroy all enemy likely water crossings in the
divisional area. Its offensive role was to be brpared to secure a bridgehead
across the Rohi Nala for the 1st Armored Division. In this task the division
was to secure general line Patti-Harike inclusive of bridge over Harike and
Bhikkiwind on axis Lahore-Harike. In the Phase two, the division was to get the
5 Armored Brigade to capture Jandiala Guru Bridge over the Beas River.14
Conversely, if the GHQ decided to launch the whole of 1st Armored Division in
conjunction with 11 Division, 11 Division was then to provide a firm base to
facilitate operations of 1st Armored Division. In this eventuality the 5
Armored Brigade was to revert to under command 1st Armored Division.15
Lately, Major General Naseerullah Babar in an interview conducted by this scribe
for the Defence Journal claimed that the originator of this offensive plan was 
Major General Altaf Qadir.16

1st Armored Division Plan

As per the initial war plans of the Pakistani GHQ Headquarter, 1 Corps was
supposed to control the operations of 8 Division, 15 Division, 10 Division, 11
Division and 1st Armored Division. Humanly speaking, this was an impossible
task and a tribute to Ayub and Musas grasp of strategic and organisational
depth or lack of it! Even the officially sponsored historian Shaukat Riza
admitted nothing could be farther away from intention or capability of HQ 1
Corps .17

The reader may, note that the 1st Armored Divisions prime task was to function
as a reserve for the Ravi-Sutlej Corridor along with 7 Infantry Division.
However, later on the 7 Division was diverted to Operation Grand Slam North of
Chenab River.18

*The first armored division as it stood in 1965 was one of the finest armored
formations that the sub continent had seen till 1965. To be brcise in the words
of Gul Hassan the last C-in-C of the Pakistan Army and the then Director
Military Operations in 1965, the 1st Armored Division was the best equipped
division that we fielded and far superior to any armor formation the Indians
had19* 

In September 1965, the 1st Armored Division consisted of three armored
brigades (3rd, 4th and 5th) each with two tank regiments and one APC borne
(Armored Personnel Carrier) mechanised infantry battalions. In addition the
division had a recce regiment and the normal divisional artillery component of
three self propelled (tracked) artillery regiments, one medium regiment, one
self-propelled (tracked) Light Anti Aircraft Regiment. In addition there was the
usual component of engineer signal and other supporting arm and service
battalions.

On 1st September 1965, Headquarter 1 Corps still in command of 1st Armored
Division and still retaining some mental equilibrium which it was soon to lose
from 6th September 1965 issued its grand operational instruction to the 1st
Armored Division:

1st Armored Division on orders from GHQ was required to debouch from a
bridgehead provided by 11 Division and to cut Grand Trunk Road in area
Jullundhur!20

*In other words, 1 Corps Headquarter was assigning the 1st Armored Division an
objective some 100 miles inside India and one which required crossing of one
major river !* 

As per this instruction the 5 Armored Brigade was initially placed under
command 11 Division for establishment of bridgehead.21
The initial 1st Armored Division plan is illustrated on the adjoining map. It
envisaged an advance by 3rd Armored Brigade along Sobraon Branch to secure the
Beas Bridge, a distance of 60 miles, an advance by the 4 Armored Brigade along
Kasur Branch to Jandiala Guru on Grand Trunk Road east of Amritsar, a distance
of some 50 miles. 5 Armored Brigade was to revert to command of 1st Armored
Division in the breakout phase and act as reserve.22

If 1st Armored Division succeeded in accomplishing the above mentioned tasks
this would have meant that complete Indian 11 Corps was encircled and forced to
either surrender or withdraw northwards towards Pathankot. In the process the
Indians would have forced to sue for ceasefire and would have lost all territory
including crucial cities like Amritsar till the Beas River. This is why Ravi
Rikhye called it a possible fourth battle of Panipat for India.

Conduct of Battle

*On 4th September at brcisely 2230 Hours the Pakistani GHQ sent a signal to all
formations which asked them to take necessary defensive measures against
India. War had not yet broken out but Pakistan had already launched an infantry
division/armored brigade size attack in Indian Held Kashmir from 1st September.*The signal whose language was described by Shaukat Riza as not peremptory23
read as following:

*Pak Army DTE Sept 042230 E
Latest Intelligence reports indicate Indian concentration on both East and West
Pakistan and such flash announcements on All India Radio as QUOTE Pakistanis 
attacking Jammu etc. UNQUOTE indicate their aggressive intention, formations
will take necessary defensive measures (.) All Informed.* 


*Gul Hassan states that there was no ambiguity in this signal and that all
formations took immediate action on it barring 10 Division in Lahore. This in
view of Gul Hassan was a clear case of complacency.24* 


10 Division area

*All that 10 Division did on receipt of the above mentioned signal was to warn
forward troops to exercise greater vigilance and ordered troops to move into
defensive positions on night 5th and 6th September.25 Guls assertion is
confirmed by Shaukat Riza who states that GOC 10 Division on 4th September
brushed aside Commander 114 Brigades suggestion to move into defences but later
relented and ordered move to defensive positions during night 5/6 September 1965
on the morning of 5th September.26 *
Shaukat did not give any reason in his book
in which he repeatedly praised Ayub and Musa as to why the Pakistan Army had so
non-military in the language of it signals while stating that the 10 Division
was not in full deployment because of the GHQ!27 Even the Indian armor
historian noted that for some unaccountable reason the 114 Brigade was not in
its defences when the Indian attack came on the morning of 6th September .28
The two forward brigades of the 10 Division were occupying their positions when
the Indian attack commenced at 0400 Hours 6th September 1965. 3 Jat the leading
battalion of the 54 Indian Brigade reached the BRB bridge near Dograi which had
been destroyed by the Pakistani defenders. The Indians claim that two companies
of this battalion crossed the BRB walking over the partially destroyed debris of
the bridge and occupied Batapur for sometime but were forced to withdraw since
the Indian 54 Brigade/15 Division did not reinforce it.29 The reader may note
that in this case the weakest link in the whole affair was not the Indian
soldier or 3 Jat but the Indian 54 Brigade Commander and GOC 15 Division who did
not respond to CO 3 Jats repeated requests for reinforcements! The claim of 3
Jat having crossed the BRBL, however, is denied by Major General Tajammul
Hussain Malik who was then defending that area as Commanding Officer 3rd
Baluch.30 In the final analysis 54 Brigade accomplished little except 3 Jats
singular accomplishment of contacting the BRBL opposite Batapur.
1 Jat Group similarly performed miserably. It failed to reach the BRBL and was
repulsed by the combined effect of artillery fire and left forward battalion of
the 114 Brigade. It panicked and dispersed back to the Indian side of the border
by mid-day.31 It was replaced by 6 Kumaon along with two tank troops which
deployed at Ranian.32

The 38 Infantry Brigade of the 15 Division also advanced very slowly at H + 6
and according to Harbakshs narrative had just advanced within 2000 yards of the
BRBL by 2200 Hours 6th September.33

By 1300 Hours 6th September GOC 15 Indian Division Niranjan Parshad reported
that the situation in his sector was serious on account of high casualties and
no further offensive action was possible! On hearing this report, Harbaksh Singh
accompanied by Commander 11 Corps personally visited 15 Division battle area and
found that the situation had been grossly exaggerated and the fighting
potential of the formation were in no way impaired  only the GOC had failed to
measure upto certain local reverses, inevitable in any battle. Harbaksh found
the GOC 15 Division drained of all will and vision ...his attitude was
passively negative and there was the unmistakable air of the defeatist about
him. He stated his inability to undertake any further offensive action on the
plea that his formation had lost all capacity for operations.34

On 7th September afternoon GOC 15 Division while on the way to visit 38 Brigade
towards Bhasin was ambushed35 by 18 Baluch. The GOC escaped but his jeep was
captured and is still retained by 18 Baluch (now 3 Sind) as a war trophy.
Harbaksh Singh sacked GOC 15 Division on 7th September and Major General
Mohinder Singh succeeded Niranjan Parshad as the new GOC 15 Division on night
7/8 September 1965.36

On night 7/8 September 38 Brigade based in Pul Kanjri area attempted to capture
Bhasin but failed. 54 Brigade on Jallo and Dograi villages with a battalion each
also failed on night 7/8 September.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani GOC 10 Division ordered a counterattack to put 15
Division on the defensive. The Divisional Strike Force 22 Brigade was given
orders to attack Indians east of BRB, something which they had not practiced in
br-war training manoeuvres. The 22 Brigade crossed the BRB at Maqboolpur Syphon
with 23 Cavalry leading, Brigadier Qayyum Sher37, captured area Bhaini by 0830
Hours 8th September and had cut the GT Road at Milestone 13 in Dograi area by
1330 Hours. This audacious counterattack threw the Indian 15 Division into utter
confusion. Harbaksh Singh states that two Indian units 13 Punjab and 15 Dogra in
Dograi area broke the line and abandoned their defences.38 The battalions were
later goaded, rallied and brought back to the defences. This forced 11 Indian
Corps to reinforce the area with their reserve brigade i.e 96 Infantry Brigade
which was now deployed immediately behind 54 Brigade in depth in the Hudiara
Drain area.

The 22 Brigade Force was too weak to stay in Dograi area. Therefore, it withdrew
back to the west bank of the BRB after executing their counter-attack.
On 10th September 1965, 1 Jat and 6 Kumaon again abandoned Ranian area39 in face
of alleged heavy artillery, tank and infantry small arms fire. This produced
another crisis in the 11 Corps. The right flank of the Indian 11 Corps was
exposed and Amritsar could be threatened from this direction. This produced an
operational crisis of magnanimous proportions in the 11 Indian Corps
Headquarter. To plug this gap, 96 Infantry Brigade was rushed forward to Ranian
area and its position at the Hudiara Drain as the reserve brigade was taken over
by the 50 Para Brigade.

Meanwhile, the 7 Indian Division performed better. It crossed the international
border at 0530 Hours 6th September with 48 Brigade in lead and secured the
Hudiara Drain defended by a company size advanced position by an outflanking
manoeuvre from the left. 65 Brigade commenced the advance from Hudiara Drain
onwards towards Barki and contaced the BRB opposite Barki which was held in
strength by elements of a unit of 103 Brigade. Barki defended by a company of
17 Punjab and a company of 12 Punjab was captured by the 7 Division employing
one battalion (4 Sikh) supported by Central India Horse less two squadrons on
night 10th/11th September. Major Aziz Bhatti who was later awarded the
Nishan-I-Haidar was the 17 Punjab Company Commander at Barki and survived this
action. He was killed by enemy shelling on 11th September on the west bank of
the BRBL the next day.40 The Indian Commanding Officer of Central India Horse Lt
Col Joshi who was leading from the front was mortally wounded once his jeep was
blown up by an anti-tank mine and died on 12th September.41

17 Rajput advanced successfully till the BRBL on 6th September 1965 but failed
to capture the Bedian bridge since the Pakistani battalion defending the area
inundated the area. Nothing significant took place in this sector till
ceasefire.

The last significant event which took place in the 10 Division area was the
recapture of Dograi by the Indians. Dograi on the east bank of the BRBL was
defended by the 16 Punjab. It was attacked by two infantry battalions supported
by a squadron plus of tanks and captured by a multi-directional night attack on
night 21/22 September 1965. The village had little strategic significance
specially when compared with the casualties suffered by both the attackers and
defenders who were involved in the Dograi battle.

11 Division area

4 Mountain Division attacked the 11 Division area on 6th September 1965. The
attack was on too wide a front and too diluted to make any impact. The Indians
were overconfident in this sector since they thought that Pakistans 1st
Armored Division was in Wazeirabad as earlier discussed. Ballanwalla a small
village and securing all area upto the east bank of the BRBL from area opposite
Rajoke till opposite Kasur was the main Indian objective in the area. The
Indians had planned a two brigade attack (they only had two brigades in this
division) with 7 Mountain Brigade (two battalions supported by a tank squadron)
going in the north and 62 Mountain Brigade (three battalions and a company
supported by a tank squadron), in the South while 1/9 Gurkha along with Deccan
Horse less two squadrons was the Divisional Reserve.

At mid-day Pakistans 52 Brigade mainly 7 Punjab supported by tanks and well
directed artillery fire launched a determined counterattack on the 62 Brigade.
Harbaksh Singh notes that the 13 Dogra gave away and broke the line.42 13
Dogra was the left forward attacking battalion of the 62 Brigade and its
bolting away disoriented the whole Indian attack. Similarly, the 7 Mountain
Brigade opposite Ballanwalla was thrown back by artillery fire and the small
arms fire of the 106 Brigade units. The Indian Armor historian claims that
Pattons unexpectedly appeared east of the canal through a viaduct located 500
metres south of the road bridge43 (Khem Karan-Kasur on the BRBL). However,
Shaukat Riza has made no mention about this either because of anti-armor bias
or because he wanted to unduly project the 52 Brigade.

K.C Praval notes that 9 Jammu and Kashmir right forward attacking battalion of
the 62 Mountain Brigade became so demoralized by the combined effect of 52
Brigade attack and artillery/tank fire that it retreated as far back as Valtoha!

Another significant affair in the 11 Division battle area was the moverment of
the 21 Brigade its reserve brigade. Initially, on 5th September the brigade was
ordered to be ready to move north and moved north towards Bhimbhar at 0430 Hours
6th September. Later the move was countermanded and the brigade reverted to
command 11 Division whose area it reached on around 0200 Hours 7th September!44


1st Armored Division/11 Division Attack

Since this article is devoted to the overall battle in Ravi-Sutlej Corridor the
1st Armored Division attack will be covered in brief.
At 1430 Hours 6th September, 2 FF (reserve battalion of 52 Brigade) was ordered
by 11 Division Headquarter to capture a bridgehead across the Rohi Nala by
first light 7th September. Similarly the 5 Armored Brigade which was placed 
under command 11 Division on 5th September was ordered on 5th September to
secure line Bhikkiwind-Patti as soon as possible.45

The 2 FF launched its attack astride road Khem Karan-Kasur across the Rohi Nala
at 1930 Hours 6th September 1965 and by 2130 Hours secured a bridgehead across
the Rohi Nala.46 6 Lancers the leading regiment of 5 Armored Brigade was to
cross the Rohi Nala. The bridge over Rohi Nala was completed by 1130 Hours but
since its exit ramp was too steep the first tank of 6 Lancers crossed it at 1300
Hours 7th September.47 After one squadron of 6 Lancers had crossed the Rohi Nala
at 1600 hours one tank got stuck and blocked the Rohi Nala bridge. At this time
there were ten tanks across the Rohi Nala and about a company strength of 1 FF.
Colonel Sahibzad Gul, CO 6 Lancers made some forward movement putting some
Indians in front on the run shooting three Indian tanks and capturing about 25
prisoners.

1st Armored Division Attack

The 1st Armored Division was involved in the main battle from 6th September
when 5 Armored Brigade was placed under command 11 Division. The 5 Armored
Brigade attack was to commence at 0500 Hours on 7th September, however, it was
delayed to 1130 Hours because of delay in bridge construction on Rohi Nala which
was within Pakistani territory. Gul Hassan the then DMO later claimed in his
memoirs that a bridge was not required since the Rohi Nala was fordable but did
not explain what he had done as DMO to bring this point in any br-war planning
discussion ! By evening 1600 Hours only about a tank squadron strength of the 6
Lancers leading unit of 5 Armored Brigade had crossed the Rohi Nala since one
of its tanks had got stuck on the Rohi Nala Bridge. Thus 7th September was lost
with just ten tanks across the Rohi Nala. All this was happening at a time when
the situation in 4 Mountain Division as per Harbaksh Singh was so serious that
out of six battalions two and half had left the line and the remaining three
and half were under severe enemy brssure. Harbaksh states that it was under
these circumstances that GOC 4 Mountain Division sought permission from GOC 11
Corps to withdraw and take a position at Assal Uttar in the rear.48

Harbaksh states that early in the morning of 8th September he received a
handwritten letter from GOC 11 Corps recommending that four infantry units i.e
18 Rajputana, 7 Grenadier, 9 J & K, AND 13 Dogra be disbanded and that another
infantry division should replace 4 Mountain Division.49

At this stage Harbaksh had no reserves and exhorted GOC 4 Mountain Division and
GOC 11 Corps to be more resolute.

While all this was happening Brig Bashir commander 5 Armored Brigade was
throwing to winds Pakistans armor superiority by dividing his brigade into two
directions with 24 Cavalry to advance along axis Khem Karan-Bhikiwind and 6
Lancers towards Valtoha Railway Station. 24 Cavalry contacted defences of 4
Mountain Division and tried to develop the situation from the west but failed
because of lack of infantry support and timely arrival of 3rd Cavalry
(Centurions) which reached the 4 Mountain Division area after mid-day. 6 Lancers
reached Valtoha Railway Station but was recalled after last light back to Khem
Karan by Brigadier Bashir to leaguer in line with the old British practice which
in this scenario was not required.50

By 9th September when the Pakistani armor once again commenced advance the
Indian armor was well poistioned with 3rd Cavalry Centurions plugging flanks
which could have enabled 5 Armored Brigade to get into rear of 4 Mountain 
Divisioon 8th September. The critical time span was over. The ancient Greeks
used to say that the Goddess of Victory favours those who are bold. Boldness was
sadly missing in 5 Armored Brigade less Sahibzad Gul the only tank commander
who wanted to lead and fight from the front.

Thus once 5 Armored Brigade recommenced advance from its leaguers near Khem
Karan, 6 Lancers was greeted by Centurion fire of 3rd Cavalry while 24 Cavalry
also made nominal progress. To compound things further Sahibzad Gul the only man
in the whole senior lot was killed on 9th September near Valtoha.This
indomitable man was only given an SJ since he was not from the more pampered
regiments of the then Pakistan Army!

By 10th September the Indians were well poised to meet any outflanking
attack.They had taken a horse shoe position with about three tank regiments,
one in 4 Mountain Division defences, another less one squadron in Valtoha area
and the third and the most formidable in technical terms i.e the 3rd Cavalry
covering the western deep flank of the 4 Mountain Division.
Naseer now launched 4 Cavalry into this valley of death. The result was
catastrophic. 4 Cavalry got bogged down and was forced to surrender. The Indians
claimed that they captured all tanks of the unit, the Commanding Officer and 12
officers including six majors and several other ranks.51 Shaukat Riza states
that some tank crew of 4 Cavalry trickled into HQ 4 Armored Brigade.They
reported that the regiment had been taken prisoner...at the end of the day 4
Cavalry reported 4 Officers and 25 Other Ranks missing and a total of ten
killed. Almost all the tanks had been lost.52 The layman reader should not get
shocked.In tank warfare such things happen. In WW two an illustrious British
tank unit 8th Hussars along with 4 Armored Brigade was captured by the
Germans.53 The fault in 4 Cavalry fiasco was not of the unit but its CO and GOC
1st Armored Division.

Indian armor historian admits that 4 Cavalry fought well but ran out of fuel
because of poor planning and was caught in a well laid ambush.

Thus ended an offensive which had the potential to knock the Indian Army out of
the war. The 3rd Armored Brigade was never employed and from 11th September the
1st Armored Division less 5 Armored Brigade and 4 Cavalry which was totally
written off was despatched to Chawinda.

The Indians launched some very fool hardy frontal attacks on 11 Division from
11th September till 22nd September. All were repulsed since surprise had been
lost and defence keeping in view terrain and relative strength was the superior
form of war.

Analysis

Level of strategic success

On the strategic level the Indians failed in their prime aim i.e in compelling
Pakistan to retain large portion of her reserves in that Sector i.e
Ravi-Sutlej Corridor. The Pakistani 1st Armored Division successfully
disengaged from Khem Karan and was redeployed opposite Chawinda. The Pakistanis
thus defended Lahore successfully with existing formations except 5 Armored
Brigade whose one tank regiment (4 Cavalry) was completely lost, having been
captured by Indians while two (6 Lancers and 24 Cavalry) suffered serious
losses. Thus at ceasefire in strategic terms the Pakistani position opposite
Chawinda was far superior. It is another thing that Ayub and Musa lacked
strategic resolution to launch Operation Wind Up which had the potential of
bagging two Indian Infantry divisions in Chawinda area.

Element of Surprise

Both the sides started with the element of surprise, the Indians having achieved
surprise opposite Lahore and Pakistan having achieved complete strategic
surprise opposite Khem Karan. Ironically the Intelligence agencies of both sides
were a complete negation of the Two Nation Theory in terms of comparative
levels of grey matter, keeping in view the fact that both miserably failed to
detect the location of each others armored division till the last minute!
Employment of Armor

The conduct of 5 Armored Brigade on 7th, 8th and 9th September was the most
crucial aspect of the battle. Commander 5 Armored Brigade totally failed in his
job. His initial orders divided his brigade into three directions, with 6
Lancers going towards the right and 24 Cavalry going in the centre and left. Had
he kept his two tank regiments concentrated in any one direction with a squadron
on the main Khem Karan-Bhikiwind axis the Pakistanis would have outflanked the
4th Mountain Division on the 8th September. This would have enabled GOC 1st
Armored Division to pump in the 4th Armored Brigade to reinforce the success
of the 5th Armored Brigade with the 4th Armored Brigade while still retaining
3rd Armored Brigade for the final push to the Beas River Bridge. By 9th
September the Indians were well poised to defeat any outflanking move and the
critical time span i.e had run out for the Pakistanis.

In every battle, campaign and a war there are/is one or more period/s when one
side is greatly exposed to the risk of being decisively defeated, due to
material factors or psychological factors like perception of the opposing
commander that his cause is doomed, with the other side being possibly aware of
it or not.54 Superior decision making means the ability or talent to identify
the critical time span and seize it relentlessly! Brigadier Basheer failed in it
on 7th, 8th and 9th September! Alas, the truth in Schillers saying what is lost
in a moment is lost for eternity. The current of history now started moving in
the reverse direction and Pakistan Army paid a very heavy price for the failure
at Khem Karan six years later in 1971!

Chances of Strategic Success

At the strategic level the plan was excellent. It was in planning and at
operational level that it failed. Even Indian military writers like K.C Praval
admitted that the plan was well conceived...that the advance throughout would
be along the grain of the country and no water obstacles would have to be
crossed...and that Pakistani armor had the capability for the thrust but the
plan failed due to inept execution.55 Harbaksh Singh admitted that it was a
simple but foolproof plan and that only the 4 Mountain Division stood in its
way. Gurcharan Singh Sandhu the tank corps historian also admitted that The
loss of any bridge over the Beas was expected to pose such a serious threat to
Delhi that the rest of the Indian Army would be forced to contain it rather than
make an attempt to rescue the stranded XI Corps.56

In Clausewitzian terms the strategic plan decides when, where and with what
forces the battle is to be delivered.57 Again in the light of Clausewitzs
teachings, one of the principal objects of strategy is always to be strong,
first generally and then at the decisive point.58 In this regard, strategy
placed at Naseers disposal an initial superiority at the decisive point of
about 7 to 1 but he failed to translate it into success because he and his 5
Armored Brigade Commander were incompetent and the men who handpicked them
based on personal likes were worse! After all Naseer was Musas handpicked
choice. The fault was not that he was a non-armor officer as Gul Hassan
fallaciously alleges but simply that Naseer was incompetent! After all, Ibrar
who did far better was also an infantry man. Rommel was an infantry man.
Macarthur, Lee and Meade were from Corps of Engineers!

The greatness of the German General Staff as this scribe stated in an article
written in 1994 was not that it produced a Manstein but that it discovered a
Manstein and allowed a Manstein to reach the highest ranks!59 It was here that
the Indo-Pak Armies failed. They are simply a conspiracy against originality and
boldness!

If successful the 1st Armored Division attack had great chances of
success. Indian GOC Western Command Harbaksh Singh frankly admitted that A
Blitzkrieg deep into our territory towards the GT Road or the Beas Bridge would
have found us in a helpless position of a commander paralysed into inaction for
want of readily available reserves while the enemy was inexorably pushing deep
into his vitals.It is a nightmarish feeling even when considered into retrospect
at this stage. 60

The BRB as the key to the battle

It may sound unheroic and unromantic but the BRBL proved the English Channel
that saved Pakistans strategic position in the crucial Ravi-Sutlej Corridor.
This man made obstacle severely restricted the Indian freedom of manoeuvre and
nullified their relative superiority in infantry. The canal acted as the anvil
vis-a-vis Pakistani artillery fire, tank fire and infantry small arms fire which
played the role of hammer which crushed the Indians inflicting heavy casualties
on them. Without BRB there is no doubt that nothing could have stopped the
indians from entering Lahore on 6th September. Similarly, without BRB the 1st
Armored Division could not have as easily disengaged from the Khem Karan battle
as it did. Conversely, the BRB also slowed down the induction of the 1st
Armored Division into the bridgehead but this was less because of the BRB and
more due to incompetence in Pakistani planners at GHQ (DMO), corps and
divisional level.

Musa admitted BRBLs role, once he stated that Pakistani plan was based on
making use of the BRB canal which to a great extent compensated for disparity in
resources and enabled Pakistani formations in the Ravi-Sutlej Corridor to deploy
on very extended frontages. 61

Indecision,Vaccillation and Procrastination in the GHQ

The Pakistani GHQ particularly the Military Operations Directorate acted as
catalysts towards increased confusion. Their contradictory orders to a certain
extent retarded the pace of advance of the 1st Armored Division. Twice the GHQ
gave orders which created great doubt and confusion in the 1st Armored
Division. See the case of 3rd Armored Brigade. On 6th September it was told to
concentrate east of Zafarke by first light 7th September. The brigade carried
out the move successfully by 0600 Hours 7th September. The same day at 1400
Hours it was told to move to Lahore and at 1500 hours on the same day these
orders were cancelled!62 Imagine the state of mind of the brigade commander and
his commanding officers. On the second occasion, the 4 Armored Brigade was
ordered by the DMO to move to Daska in Ravi-Chenab Corridor at 1300 Hours 7th
September. While the brigade was brparing for the move it was cancelled the
same day at 1600 Hours. Naturally, GOC 1st Armored Division Naseer could not
have ordered these moves on his own. There were men higher up in the chain of
command who were not clear about many things connected with operational 
strategy and generalship! 63

Lack of initiative at battalion, brigade and divisional level

There was a marked lack of initiative at the battalion, brigade and divisional
level. Lieutenant Colonel Ihsan ul Haq Malik who later rose to the rank of major
general and participated in the Khem Karan operations as the CO of the
indomitable 15 SP (it was a privilege for this scribe to have served in the
Romeo Battery of this fine unit after a disciplinary problem in 11 Cavalry
from 9th August 1984 till 10th October 1984) states that senior officers were
conspicuously absent from the frontline in war. I saw a command post of one of
them in the rear areas. The bunker was a massive job.Only a direct hit by a 5
KT would disturb it!64

Barring exceptions like Qayyum Sher who as earlier discussed led from the front.
GOC 1st Armored Division and Commander 5 Armored Brigade brferred staying
many miles away from the line of action! Brigadier Shami the Artillery Commander
was killed simply because in confusion of battle he was disoriented and
travelled too forward under the assumption that he was in territory held by own
troops. On the decisive 8th of September when the 1st Armored Division could
have achieved a breakthrough no officer of colonel level except Sahibzad Gul
was anywhere within 1000 yards of action! In a personal conversation with this
scribe Brigadier (then captain Asmat Beg Humayun) then GSO-3 of the 5 Armored
Brigade stated that Brigadier Bashir had pitched his headquarter in a rest house
many miles behind the actual scene of action.

Triumph of defence over offence

All battles were triumph of defence over offence. The attacker was stopped
whether it was the Indian opposite BRB or the Pakistani opposite Assal Uttar or
Valtoha. If one Pakistani tank unit stopped the Indian Armored Division
opposite Gadgor, one Indian tank unit and later one brigade stopped the
Pakistani Armored Division at Assal Uttar. If there was a Harbaksh Singh at
Assal Uttar prodding 4 Mountain Division to hold on there was an Abrar at
Chawinda reviving the spirits of the 6 Armored Division. There were historic
reasons for triumph of defence.The br-1947 Indian Army was primarily used by
the Britisher as a shield rather than a spear. While Indian Infantry dug in,
the main manoeuvres in North Africa were performed by the purely British
armored divisions. Burma was a different case altogether since in Burma the
Indian tank brigades overwhelmed the Japanese with a ratio of 100 to 10 in
qualitative and quantitative terms. Offensive action required
initiative,independent judgement, swiftness in decision making, all of which
were sadly missing in both the armies beyond tank troop level. Men like Sahibzad
Gul or Tarapur were solitary exceptions and that is why once they were killed in
action there was no one who could replace them. Excellence in decision-making
had not been institutionalised in both the armies and I dare say this is the
state till to date. A convincing proof being the latest Kargil affair!

Role of Artillery

Artillery played a decisive role in breaking many Indian attacks opposite Lahore
and Kasur, however, it lost its effectiveness when Pakistani armor was
distributed in too wide an area on the 8th of September. In the case of 1st 
Armored Division offensive its role was severely mauled due to overemphasis on
secrecy. Ehsan then an artillery CO thus noted In peace we had not even seen
the maps of this area.Nobody had ever thought that we could be committed in this
area for an ofensive task.65 Ehsan further noted that such was the confusion
that another artillery unit in our formation moved by rail. Understandably, it 
never got to the required place in time. Artillery was even ignored in award of
gallantry awards. Thus while infantry officers particularly belonging to Ayubs
Punjab Regiment Group got the Lions share of gallantry awards artillery and
armor were the underdogs in receipt of gallantry awards. Thus Shaukat Riza
caustically albeit realistically noted Three of our observers were killed while
bringing fire on the enemy. One captain stood up in his post to engage enemy
tanks with better effect. He was killed with a bullet in his right eye. After
ceasefire we recommended them for gallantry awards. None of them got anything.
66

Organisational failures

One of the most serious failures which laid the foundation of Pakistani 1st
Armored Divisions failure was failure to have a higher command organisation to
control and coordinate the operations of the Pakistani infantry and armored
divisions. On the Indian side on the other hand the situation was to a great
extent since all Indian divisions in the corridor were controlled by a corps
headquarters. The responsibility for this failure can be laid squarely on the
shoulders of Ayub and Musa and to some extent on the then CGS and DMO.

Staff and Planning Failures

Ironically while all the blame for failure was heaped on the shoulders of GOC
1st Armored Division and Commander 5 Armored Brigade, the underlying and some
more serious failures were ignored. Starting from the top, the prime culprit in
the planning was the Military Operations Directorate. Planning for attacks which
decides the fate of a war at the strategic level cannot be relegated to
divisional headquarters. The Khem Karan Offensive plan was brpared many years
before the war started. Obstacles like Rohi Nala and the Nikasu Nala were
br-partition obstacles, the Nikasu Nala being so prominent that it was even
prominently marked on the maps of the Radclife Award Boundary Commission maps.
The fault lay not in the fact that the 1st Armored Division was launched in bad
terrain but in the fact that adequate brparations in planning were not made to
ensure that ground friction was reduced. 

Compare this with another similar operation i.e the Inchon landing. The terrain and amphibious factors at Inchon were formidable. MacArthurs own Chief of Staff Major General Almond described Inchon as the worst possible place to land!67 The reader may note that the water
channel from where the amphibious force of MacArthur had to approach could be
conveniently mined or simply blocked by a sunken or disabled vehicle. Thus, at
Inchon terrain did not favour a landing but the advantage of strategic surprise
were far greater than terrain odds.

The important fact which differentiated Inchon and Khem Karan was that the planners at Inchon took terrain as well as movement factors into account, thereby reducing terrain friction and the time and space required to concentrate while at Khem Karan the Pakistani planners
starting from the Military Operations Directorate,1 Corps Headquarter, 1st
Armored Division Headquarter down till brigade headquarters of the 1st Armored
Division did not plan meticulously for the move into bridgehead and for getting
out of the gap between Rohi Nala and Nikasu Nala as soon as they could. The
governing element in this whole situation was getting out of the Nikasu-Rohi
bottleneck so as to gain complete freedom of manoeuvre where Pakistani
superiority of nine to three in tank regiments could be fully exploited. 

If BRB saved the Pakistani position in this corridor then the Rohi Nala and the Nikasu
Nala to a great extent saved the Indian position. Nothing in the instructions
passed to 1st Armored Division indicated that the Pakistani GHQ was even aware
of closeness of two obstacles within Pakistani territory i.e the Rohi Nala and
the BRB which could and did produce traffic jams which severely delayed the
induction of the 1st Armored Division into the bridgehead and enabled the
Indians to bring their independent armored brigade into the battle area before
the Pakistani 1st Armored Division had crossed the crucial Rohi-Nikasu Corridor
which was a serious operational bottleneck. It was not Nasir or Bashir who
failed but the whole staff system inherited from the British. Nasir and Bashir
were just tips of the iceberg! The British staff college at Cambrai in words of
Montgommerys biographer Nigel Hamilton was an institution broccupied with
hunting and socialising! 68 A British officer who rose to considerable height
in the British Army in WW Two  frankly ascribed his selection for staff duty to
having played golf regularly with a senior commander!69

It was a failure of command as well as staff system where even the staff
officers on both sides were too slow for armored warfare and worked on yards
and furlongs rather than miles. Their orientation was position oriented rather
than mobility oriented and their idea of a battlefield was a typical linear
battlefield. Their Burma or North African experience where the Japanese and
Germans frequently appeared in their rear had made them extra sensitive about
their flanks. These were men who thought in terms of security rather than speed.
Conformity rather than unorthodox dynamism, having been trained in the slavish
colonial orders oriented. British Indian Army was the cardinal script of their
life. It was this British system in which every senior commander was more
interested in doing the job of those one step junior to him that led to the lack
of dash and initiative at brigade and battalion level. They were trained that
way and their behaviour as far as the timidity at brigade and divisional level
has to be taken in this context.

Analysis of Casualties

Contrary to popular imagination created by the propaganda that Chawinda was the
greatest battle since WW II it was in the Ravi-Sutlej Corridor that the Indians
suffered the maximum casualties.Thus, while the 1 Indian Corps which fought the
Battle of Chawinda suffered a total of 575 killed casualties, the Indian 15
Division opposite Lahore alone suffered some 486 killed casualties.70 Thus if
the casualties of all three Indian divisions and the independent brigade in 11
Corps area are combined, these far exceed those suffered by the 1 Corps which
fought the Battle of Chawinda.

Influence of Higher Headquarters on lower headquarters

In the case of Indian 4 Mountain Division the GOC 4 Mountain Division lost the
will to carry on as proved by Harbakshs narrative. In this case the situation
was restored by Harbakshs personal visit and exhortations to carry on. In the
final analysis 4 Mountain Division gradually regained its spirit and functioned
effectively in the defensive role.

Comparative Differences in the two armies

Many ridiculous myths were propagated in Pakistan about differences in the two
armies. Racially by and large both the armies were of the same stock. The
Pakistan Army bulk of which some 65% to 75% being Punjabis who were converted to
Islam in the period 1000-1600 or Pathans or Ranghars who were of Hindu Rajput
origin. On the other hand the bulk of the Indian Army was Punjabi or North
Indian again with Sikhs who were converted to Sikhism in the period from
1500-1800. The remaining larger portion of the Indian Army was Dogra (Punjabi
Hindu Rajput), Punjabi Hindu Jat, and some Madrasis, Kumaonis and Gurkhas.
Racially by and large the armies were alike. Where a unit did not do well had a
deeper connection with poor leadership at battalion, brigade or divisional
level. Units panicked on both sides, artillery fire had the same effect on both
sides and if one side had better guns it definitely gave it an advantage. Thus,
there was no major differences in both the armies at soldier to soldier level.

This fact was noted by some officers soon after 1965 but the majority were
victims of the psychosis of Islamic Martial Military superiority that
overwhelmed the West Pakistani psyche during the period 1966-1971! Brigadier A.R
Siddiqi in his book on the Pakistan Armys brss image thus narrated a 
thought-provoking incident soon after the war. Siddiqi met Brigadier Qayyum Sher
who as just discussed had distinguished himself as an infantry brigade commander
in the battle opposite Lahore. Qayyum Sher was unhappy about the unrealistic
expectations and myths that were being created as a result of the official
propaganda. 

Qayyum Sher told Siddiqi, Miracles he mused, may indeed have
happened, but they happen only once. Let me tell you that your brss chaps are
doing a lot of harm to the soldier psychologically by publishing all those
foolish stories. I wonder what they are really trying to tell the world. That
the Pakistani soldier can fight his war only with the help of his celestial
allies. That he is facing an enemy inferior to him in all respects. I admit
Gods help is of the utmost importance but its no substitute for ones own
performance. It would be quite stupid to forget that the Indian soldier is as
much of a professional as his Pakistani counterpart. He has been trained in
similar military systems and institutions and fights like hell when he has to.
The only reason why the Pakistani soldier put up a comparatively better
performance in this war was that he fought largely on his own home ground as a
defender. 

Siddiqi further noted that The Pakistani image makers, however, had
little use for such sterile talk. They had their own mental picture of the war
and regarded it as the only correct one. Anybody who dared to speak of the war
more realistically simply betrayed a diffident and defeatist mentality ...The
merest suggestion of the criticism of the military performance became a
taboo.71 Sher was not alone in entertaining these views. Major General
Tajammul Hussain Malik who very ably commanded the 3rd Baluch opposite Lahore on
the BRB states in his memoirs that the Indian superiority opposite Lahore was
not as overwhelming as later portrayed in the Pakistani official propaganda.
Tajammul thus stated, We had Patton Tanks whereas Indians had mostly Sherman
Tanks which were comparatively much inferior. Similarly our artillery guns out
ranged the Indian artillery guns. They had an overall superiority of infantry,
perhaps of about 1 to 2 but most of their divisions were comparatively
ill-equipped and untrained and they had to guard a much bigger frontier. 72

Conclusion

The battles fought in the Ravi-Sutlej Corridor are fit to be subject of a
Shakespearian comedy of errors. On a more serious note Pakistan Army lost its
last chance to force a military solution on the Indians. It failed not because
failure was inevitable but because seeds of failure were sown once soldiering
was mixed with politics, merit was sidelined and men of limited grey matter were
elevated to the highest ranks. After 1965 the current of history started flowing
against Pakistan and its full results came into light only in December 1971.
There was logic in Bhutto and his hawks position that Pakistan had the
potential to knock India out in a swift war like the Israelis did in 1956 and
1967. Unfortunately, Pakistan failed not because of material reasons but because
of qualitative reasons. The finest steel goes through the hottest fire. This
unfortunately was not the case with the Pakistan Army of 1965 in terms of higher 

leadership.



Notes

1 Gul Hassan the then Pakistani Director Military Operations (DMO) from 1961 to
1965 stated in his memoirs that all Pakistani planning was based on the fact 
that both sides would refrain from undertaking a crossing over a major water
obstacle at the outset of operations. See Page-173-Memoirs of General Gul
Hassan Khan-Oxford University brss-Karachi-1993. The Indians similarly were
equally timid and Harbaksh Singh the GOC Western Command noted that the Indian
GHQ was also hesitant in attempting to cross a major water obstacle even within
Indian territory which was close to the border. See Page-16 & 17-War
Despatches-Lieut Gen Harbaksh Singh-Lancer International-New Delhi-1991. The
reason for this was hesitation in taking any risk and in being unconventional,
the cardinal common trait in both Indian and Pakistan Armys higher leadership
since the Indians commissioned in the br-1947 British Indian Army in any case
were not trained to go beyond company or platoon commander level. The WW II
changed everything and speeded up the process of transfer of power!

2Page-18-War Despatches-Op Cit.

3Page-132 & 133- Behind the Scene-An Analysis of Indias Military
Operations-1947-71- Major General Joginder Singh-Lancer International-New
Delhi-1993.

4Pages-122 & 127-Ibid.

5Page-15-War Despatches-Op Cit. Harbaksh Singh had visualised that a major
attack in Ravi-Sutlej Corridor with 11 Corps would force Pakistan to retain a
large proportion of her reserves in Lahore Sector and resultantly minimise the
opposition againt the Main Indian Attack in Ravi-Chenab Corridor opposite
Chawinda.

6Page-134-Joginder Singh-Op Cit- The reader is advised to read Joginders book
with a pinch of salt. It was published after publication of Harbakshs War
Despatches and was more of a rejoinder than a detached analysis of the war.
Joginder was Harbakshs Chief of Staff in the war and it appears that Harbaksh 
was tough with Joginder. Joginder retired in the same rank soon after the war
while Harbaksh the most deserving candidate for Indian Army Chief was not
promoted since he was a Punjabi Sikh. It is hard to believe Joginders
unsubstantiated assertion that Harbaksh a staunch Sikh would advocate taking
position behind the Beas abandoning holy places like the Sikh Vatican City i.e
Amritsar.

7Page-38-An Introduction to Strategy-General Andre Beaufre-Faber and
Faber-London-1965.

8Page-18-War Despatches-Op Cit.

9Page-365-The Indian Armored Corps-History of the Indian Armored
Corps-1940-71-Major General Gurcharan Singh Sandhu-Vision Books-New Delhi-1991.

10Page-189-The Pakistan Army-War-1965-Major General Shaukat Riza-Army Education
brss-1984.

11Page-215-Ibid.

12Page-189-Ibid.

13Page-211-Ibid.

14Pages-213 and 214 -Ibid.

15Page-215-Ibid.

16Page-10- Remembering our Warriors series-Interview of Major General
Naseerullah Khan Babar (Retired), SJ and Bar conducted by A.H Amin - Defence
Journal-April 2001 Issue-Pathfinder Fountain -Clifton Karachi-2001. The reader
may note that General Babar avoids self- publicity and propaganda.He agreed to
an interview on the personal request of Mr Ikram Sehgal who had served with him
in the Corps of Aviation in the period 1968-71.

17Page-215-Ibid.

18Page-76-Gul Hassan Khan -Op Cit.

19Page-200-Gul Hassan Khan-Op Cit.

20Page-235-Shaukat Raza-Op Cit.

21Ibid.

22Pages 235 & 236-Ibid.

23Page-135 & 135-Ibid.

24Page-189-Gul Hassan Khan-Op Cit.

25Ibid.

26Pages-192 & 193-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

27Pages-191 & 192-Ibid.

28Page-355-History of The Indian Armored Corps -Op Cit.

29 Page-90-War Despatches-Op Cit and Page-268-The Indian Army Since
Independence-Major K.C Praval-Lancer International-New Delhi-1993.

30Pages-52, 53 & 54-Story of My Struggle-Major General Tajammul Hussain
Malik-`Jang Publishers-Lahore-1991.

31Page-356-History of the Indian Armored Corps-Op Cit.

32 Ibid.

33Page-92-War Despatches-Op Cit.

34Ibid.

35Page-356-History of the Indian Armored Corps-Op Cit.

36 Page-92 -War Despatches-Op Cit.

37 Page-203-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

38 Page-94-War Despatches-Op Cit.

39 Ibid.

40Page-202-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.Harbaksh claims that Bhatti was killed on the
east bank of BRB (page-96-War Despatches-Op Cit) but Shaukat states that Bhatti
was killed by enemy tanks shooting from across the BRB Canal (Page-202-Shaukat
Riza-Op Cit).

41Page-362-History of the Indian Armored Corps-Op Cit.

42 Page-99-War Despatches-Op Cit.

43Page-366-History of the Indian Armored Corps-Op Cit.

44Pages-218 and 219-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

45Page-224-Ibid.

46Pages-221 & 222-Ibid.

47Page-227-Ibid.

48Page-100-Harbaksh Singh-Op Cit.

49Pages-100 & 101-Ibid.

50We shall discuss the leaguer concept which seriously jeopardised the success
of Pakistani armor operations in Khem Karan. The British, mostly withdrew from
the final battle positions in North Africa because they feared the German 88
Anti-Tank Guns and wanted to have a peaceful next morning. In any case the
operational situation in North Africa was not area oriented, as in Punjab, but
mobility oriented since any outflanked force could easily move in any direction
and regain its equilibrium. In Punjab where defence was a relatively far more
superior type of warfare than in the desert and holding every inch of captured
territory was important, the operational situation was totally different from
North Africa. Here every locality once captured had to be held since manoeuvre
was far more difficult due to heavy terrain, friction and large number of
artificial and natural obstacles and bottlenecks. This was a serious doctrinal
failing which should have been resolved in the School of Armor. No one gave it
a serious thought since it was thought that the Pattons were invincible. These
pedants failed to realise that the British repeatedly failed to defeat Rommel
despite possessing numerical and qualitative superiority as was admitted by
Captain B.H Liddell Hart.

51Page-109-Harbaksh Singh-Op Cit.

52Page-245-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

53Page-220- The Sidi Rezeg Battles 1941- J.A.I Agar Hamilton and L.F.C
Turner-0xford University brss-Cape Town-1957

54Page-33- Plain as well as Subtle aspects of Military Decision-Making- A.H
Amin-Citadel Magazine-Issue-1/94-Command and Staff College Quetta-1994-Term
coined and defined by this scribe.

55Page-278 & 279-Maj K.C Praval-Op Cit.

56Page-371-History of the Indian Armored Corps-Op Cit.

57Page-174-On War-Carl Von Clausewitz-Edited by Anatol Rapoport-Pelican
Books-London-1974.

58Page-276-Ibid.

59Page-35-Plain as well as Subtle Aspects of Military Decision Making-Op Cit.

60Page-161-Harbaksh Singh-Op Cit.

61Page-23-My Version-Indo Pakistan War 1965-General Musa-Wajid Alis-Lahore-1983.

62Page-237-Shaukat Riza-Op Cit.

63Ibid.

64Page-24-Observations of an Artillery Commander-Major General Ihsan ul Haq
Malik (Retired)-Defence Journal-Volume One-Number -8-1975-Karachi.

65Page-22-Ibid.

66Page-20-Article-Back to Square One-Major General Shaukat Riza- Defence
Journal-Volume One-Number -8-1975-Karachi.

67Page-24-Hell or High Water-MacArthurs landing at Inchon-Walt Sheldon-Macmillan
and Company-Newyork-1968 and Pages 19 to 23 and Pages-186 & 187-Victory at High
Tide-The Inchon Seoul Campaign-Robert.D.Heinl Junior-J.B Lippincott
Co-Philadelphia-1968.

68Page-151-Monty-The Making of a General-1887-1942-London-Hamilton Books-1981.

69Footnote-25-Page-87-Op Cit-Sidi Rezeg Battles-Op Cit.

70Page-404,405 & 409-Major K.C Praval-Op Cit .

71Pages-108 & 109-The Military in Pakistan-Myth and Reality-Brig A.R
Siddiqi-Vanguard-Lahore-1996.

72Footnote on page-78-General Tajammul-Op Cit.



The Battle


I can furtherelaboratequoting your own officers ..... about the1965 war and how it was Pakistani creation and that the PA was infact ordered to be prepared for Indian attacks across IB .....

It servesto highlight the point that I have made, that the attack was made by India to ease pressure on akhnoor where there was definitely a serious situation .... and that the aim was to deny PA the momentum there by tying up troops further south ....


further quotes will be coming quoting your own officers involved.

AM you have attacked me for criticising PA .... well this is not the case. Have always criticised the leadership given,same for Indian side too. I really dont care to mince words about brave soldiers being led by complete idiots.

Distortion of facts was not done by me.....


----------



## Hellfire

one more

quoting your own officer

The Fighter Gap - 1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Good - plenty to read.

Lets keep it this way - academic. 

However, avoid posting too many articles at the same time lest any discussion get drowned out in a deluge of articles and cut and pastes, and please post a summary of the conclusions you draw (if any) from whatever you are providing a link/excerpt to, to make things clearer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kasrkin

> lastly, your info leaves at times a lot to be corrected ... even concerning IBGs and RAPIDs something that I had offered to discuss with you in depth ..... display of military professional as your status does not mean the other who is not in that category is totally a novice .......



Yes we still need to talk about that matter. I am fully aware what IBGs and what RAPIDs are and what roles they might play in a future Indo-Pak war. You should suggest that I don't know something when we're talking about it so I can correct your own misconceptions or your misconceptions about my knowledge. Do tell me what you make of the book and do read AM&#8217;s suggestion _Crossed Swords_ as well, the latter being a little more detailed, and both have healthy criticisms of both sides.


----------



## Hellfire

Kasrkin said:


> Yes we still need to talk about that matter. I am fully aware what IBGs and what RAPIDs are and what roles they might play in a future Indo-Pak war. You should suggest that I don't know something when we're talking about it so I can correct your own misconceptions or your misconceptions about my knowledge. Do tell me what you make of the book and do read AM&#8217;s suggestion _Crossed Swords_ as well, the latter being a little more detailed, and both have healthy criticisms of both sides.



shall definitely PM you when am done with the two books ..... and get back to you ..


The first IBG formation is being placed now .... 21 Corps Bhopal ....... 


thanks


----------



## Hellfire

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Good - plenty to read.
> 
> Lets keep it this way - academic.
> 
> However, avoid posting too many articles at the same time lest any discussion get drowned out in a deluge of articles and cut and pastes, and please post a summary of the conclusions you draw (if any) from whatever you are providing a link/excerpt to, to make things clearer.



sure.... 

the whole cut, copy paste was to ward off anothernew entrant makingme revert to original contention ... wont be done .... shall get back to you after having read the book you suggested..... 

infact had read a very good work by some Pakistani General (the cover page had a knocked out(?) tnak a few years back ..... which led me to the conclusion that both sides were rather sparring strangely ..... the political objective angle I have as my opinion for both 65war and IPKF intervention in SL ......!

thanks


----------



## Kamakazi 69

India had a much larger air force, but the PAF had the qualitative edge over them. 
Oh and never believe the New York Times, they are more immature and moronic in their observations than Geo t.v.


----------



## Shiji

Lieutenant General Harbaskhsh Singh Writes:
"By about 1430 hours, 13 Dogra in Area 45r (Rohiwal) was attacked by some infantry and Armour after and intense artillery bombardment. The unit game way and broke the the line. The remnants of the battalion was collected in the rear and ordered to occupy a defensive position in Area Mianwala................The Commanding Officer and one company of the unit withdrew without permission, leaving the rest of the battalion to its fates."
On another The General writes:
" Massive Pakistan reaction had created a grave situation..... It was evident that enemy Pattons had succeeded in infiltrating during the night. They were threatening to by-pass the Division's firm base and assault its gun area; a tactical withdrawal was the only answer. He, therefore decided to withdraw the Division and occupy positions north of Khem-Karan in the general area Asal Uttar-Bhura Kuhna-Chim"
All these accounts are from the Khem-Karan Sector.


----------



## Hellfire

Shiji said:


> Lieutenant General Harbaskhsh Singh Writes:
> "By about 1430 hours, 13 Dogra in Area 45r (Rohiwal) was attacked by some infantry and Armour after and intense artillery bombardment. The unit game way and broke the the line. The remnants of the battalion was collected in the rear and ordered to occupy a defensive position in Area Mianwala................The Commanding Officer and one company of the unit withdrew without permission, leaving the rest of the battalion to its fates."
> On another The General writes:
> " Massive Pakistan reaction had created a grave situation..... It was evident that enemy Pattons had succeeded in infiltrating during the night. They were threatening to by-pass the Division's firm base and assault its gun area; a tactical withdrawal was the only answer. He, therefore decided to withdraw the Division and occupy positions north of Khem-Karan in the general area Asal Uttar-Bhura Kuhna-Chim"
> All these accounts are from the Khem-Karan Sector.



the point being?


----------



## Shiji

> the point being?


Just to show that events occurring at small scale should also be taken into account while discussing the sector.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

who here has family who fought in the war?

My grandfather was in Mechanized division at Kharian. His unit destroyed over 17 enemy armour units and also captured 4 indians who had escaped from the burning wreckage and try to ran away.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Patriot

Subject: International Think Tank Ranks the World's Strongest Militaries

Well a very reputed International Think Tank released its annual rankings of the world's Strongest Militaries.

1 - United States of America
It's manufacturing capabilities coupled with sheer numbers, advanced technology and nuclear capabilities keep the US on top. 48/60

2 - Russia
Though dwindled since the Cold War, Russia's numbers and nuclear capabilities keep it on top as the second most powerful army in the world. 37/60

3 - Israel
Manpower, sheer numbers and experience rank the Israeli armies among the top in the world. 35/60

4 - Germany
Surprising to find Germany this high on the list but it maintains a stellar peacekeeping force for itself - plus it does not maintain any costly overseas stations. 33/60

5 - China
Overall numbers and the possibility of nuclear capability rank China high on the list, but the fact remains that most of the force is untested in global conflicts, their equipment remains dated and forced conscription takes its toll. 32/60

6 - France and Pakistan Tie
France maintains units for self-defence and peacekeeping missions of its former colonies. Other than that, its primary force is more for its own protection than anything else, having been invaded by Germany twice in the 20th century. Nonetheless, its nuclear capabilities, strong commitment to maritime and defense, and a steady military keep it in the top ten. 31/60

Pakistan's recent experience as a US ally and its build up against India help it score well. It combats internal terrorism regularly but none-the-less maintains support through the US. 31/60

7 - South Korea
Build up over recent years and following up on their own military technology avenues, South Korea is a major player in todays military world. It's support from the US doesn't hurt its ranking either and the provided equipment and training gives it an edge over its northern aggressor. 30/60

8 - Iran
Iran's manpower and supposed nuclear capability rank it in the top ten, but its dated equipment and lack of recent experience bring it out of the top 5. 29/60

9 - India
The build up against Pakistan continues but the Indian armies use dated equipment and lack any recent major military engagements. Nuclear probablity helps its rank. 29/60

10 - UK (Britain)
Once a strong proud world power, the UK maintains a simple fighting force keeping the US as a major ally. It has allocated units in a few global hotspots. 27/60

11 - North Korea
Kim's military build up has been impressive and rumors of a nuclear program help its ranking but none-the-less outdated equipment, non-experienced troops and forced military service hinder its ranking. 27/60

12 - Italy
Italy maintains a strong fighting force and delves more into peacekeeping initiatives than anything else. It remains an average military power at best. 23/60

13 - Greece
Greece's spot as a military power is impressive to some degree. Its build up is more for self-defence and protection (presumably against Turkey) than an offensive-minded force. 23/60

14 - Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is busy combating internal terrorism as a US ally than needing to do much else with its forces. The territory is vast but made of mostly uninhabitable desert, leaving the pipelines and major cities as the only needs of protection. A few border disputes keep other forces away from potential interior hotspots. Equipment remains mostly US in origin, training is avergae and recent experience is mostly relegated to special forces and police units. 23/60

15 - Spain
Other than defending against internal Muslim fanatics, Spain maintains a strictly defensive and peacekeeping force. It removed its forces from Iraq after recent elections and has not seen any since. 22/60

16 - Australia
A capable fighting force with good training, the Australian ranking is low due to numbers and lack of nuclear capability. It assists in peacekeeping missions across the globe and keeps an interest in the Indonesia area. 21/60

17 - Syria
The Syrian army is typical of other Middle Eastern forces - outdated equipment and limited recent military experiences. 21/60

18 - Egypt
See Syria above, though some modernization is occurring. 20/60

19 - Turkey
It's formidable numbers help its ranking but internal unrest, some outdated equipment and lack of a nuclear arsenal bring its ranking down. 20/60

20 - Japan
A shadow of its former dominant World War 2 self, Japan maintains a simple Self-Defense force. It currently sees more peacekeeping missions than anything else. 20/60

21 - Taiwan
The buildup to prevent the invetable Chinese invasion continues. Taiwan would naturally rely on help from the US and the international community in the event of an invasion as it maintains a small defenseive force populated by US equipment and support. 19/60

22 - Canada
Canadian fire power is minimal at best and is striclty used for self-defense with the occasional peacekeeping mission. 17/60

23 - Indonesia
Recent Muslim insurgency have left this area of the world a hotspot to watch. The Indonesian army is capable but could be stretched too thin. 16/60

24 - Brazil
No major war in nearly 100 years yet Brazil maintains a large army. The country itself has a large area to cover in military defense. Some border disputes and drug-running are the major action that it could see.


----------



## Jako

What took you so long to find another idiotic list,which has pakistan higher ranked than india???.....itching to start another flame war,huh?.,......wait a minute,let me find a similar list with us allotted the same rank!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Patriot

there is smoke!!!!!!!!!
You better post that in your own Indian forums. i wont object.


----------



## Jako

The Patriot said:


> there is smoke!!!!!!!!!
> You better post that in your own Indian forums. i wont object.



if you have any problems bout me posting here contact the mods!!!.......they will clear things up to you,and why i said the list was idiotic,search the forum u may see many such threads locked by the mods....,they can clear stuffs up in a better way........


----------



## The Patriot

okay cool down you have every right here just dont take it on heart. i love to see indians here. it helps me understand what and how they think. i know there are many lists and every list has some criteria and no list can be said perfect. of course there are many things to take into account. the purpose of my post was that i expected someone will react and say whats wrong in the list. some professional comment. now you would say its not the thread for that. i would say yes but the thread was moving in a such a direction that posted it here.


----------



## Jako

Ok,but i suggest you to search this very forum itself and see how experts here feel of those and compare the forces......i just thought,as this kind have already been discussed many times and interestingly turned into flamed wars,it might be better for you to go through the already discussed threads.....regards


----------



## The Patriot

thanks for suggestion.


----------



## third eye

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> who here has family who fought in the war?
> 
> My grandfather was in Mechanized division at Kharian. His unit destroyed over 17 enemy armour units and also captured 4 indians who had escaped from the burning wreckage and try to ran away.



Still have some memorabilia of the Bata Factory on the outskirts of Lahore ( ?)& registers ( written in Urdu) of Police Satation , Barkee , Lahore Distt - souvenirs of ' 65 brought by dad.


----------



## ejaz007

Here are some of the links:


----------



## garibnawaz

*Grand SlamA Battle of Lost Opportunities*

Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN from WASHINGTON DC does a detailed analysis of Pakistan Armys attempt to capture AKHNUR in 1965. 

Grand Slam - A Battle of Lost Opportunities


----------



## garibnawaz

*Remembering 6th of September 1965 *

Pakistan Link - Letter & Opinion

*Ayub misled nation in 65 war: Nur Khan *

Khaleej Times Online - Ayub misled nation in 65 war: Nur Khan


----------



## s90

Dont ever forget M.M. Alam


----------



## garibnawaz

s90 said:


> Dont ever forget M.M. Alam



Who was apparently grounded in 1971 since he was a Bengali and PAF feared that he might defect or lead a mutiny.


----------



## garibnawaz

> Pakistan won the war in 1965, not India!



Did Operation Grand Slam Succeded? No
Did Operation Gibraltor Succeded? No

What land/town/areas Pakistan won? None

Was their any changes in MAPS of India? NO

Still if you think that Pakistan won then I dont want to spoil your party.

P.S: - Zaid Hameed forgot to add some videos on how Pakistan won the 1971 war by successfully getting rid of East Paksitan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Su 30mki

India Claims Land area won1,500 mi2 (3,885 km2) of Pakistani territory 


Pak Claims Won 250 mi² (648 km²) of Indian territory 

From Neutral Sources :

India held 710 mi²(1,1840 km²) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 mi²(545 km²) of Indian territory

I dont know, this in PAK called Victory ????


----------



## ANDUBYLL

Su 30mki said:


> India Claims Land area won1,500 mi2 (3,885 km2) of Pakistani territory
> 
> 
> Pak Claims Won 250 mi² (648 km²) of Indian territory
> 
> From Neutral Sources :
> 
> India held 710 mi²(1,1840 km²) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 mi²(545 km²) of Indian territory
> 
> I dont know, this in PAK called Victory ????



India returned all the Pakistani territory that it occupied. Therefore Pakistani did not lose any territory. Thus it is a victory for Pakistan  Pakistan still exists today despite huge efforts of Pakistanis. This is even a greater victory

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## humblehobbes

ANDUBYLL said:


> India returned all the Pakistani territory that it occupied. Therefore Pakistani did not lose any territory. Thus it is a victory for Pakistan  Pakistan still exists today despite huge efforts of Pakistanis. This is even a greater victory



There is a saying in Tamil. to indicate sarcastic sentences. " as soft as pushing a needle into a ripe banana" 

Yours is a classic case of the same

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sonicboom

*For Indian readers*, we Pakistani&#8217;s are always told what Pakistan military wants us to hear via radio Pakistan regardless of the truth on the battle filed or the end result. *Just remember that Pakistani's are always winner.* 

Following is a repost of an article that I posted in an another thread for your reading. I hope this will answer most of your questions.

The myth of September 6, 1965 

Mehmal Sarfraz

Every year we Pakistanis celebrate September 6th with a lot of &#8216;national fervour&#8217; and laud the armed forces for being &#8216;victorious&#8217; against the Indian forces back in the 1965 war. The state commemorates the &#8216;Defence Day&#8217; by holding various ceremonies and special programmes. Milli naghmay (patriotic songs) are aired on the local television channels and radio stations, while the newspapers bring out special supplements to mark the day. This is all very well, but I wonder if our people know that in actuality we are not celebrating a victory. Not only did we lose militarily in 1965 &#8211; state propaganda aside &#8211; but we also lost our national unity in the process. Forty-two years down the road, ours is a country that is on the verge of dismemberment, again.

August 1947 gave birth to two independent states, India and Pakistan. It also gave birth to territorial disputes that haunt both South Asian neighbours to date. Kashmir is one of the main disputed territories. The two infant states fought a war in 1948 on the Kashmir issue, but despite a ceasefire, the issue was never resolved. At the beginning of 1965, skirmishes between the two neighbours erupted once again on another disputed territory &#8211; Rann of Kutch. Having no real economic value, the Rann conflict was only rooted in the overall contentious relationship between the two sides. 

Fortunately, the Pakistan army was successfully able to defend itself against the Indian army and in fact gave it a bloody nose. This served as a morale booster for our military.

The high morale of the military, egged on by Ayub Khan&#8217;s overambitious foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, led to a misadventure that cost Pakistan its dignity. In the late summer of 1965, Pakistan launched &#8216;Operation Gibraltar&#8217;. Pakistan sent infiltrators &#8211; military commandos in civvies &#8211; into Indian-held Kashmir (IHK) to &#8216;liberate&#8217; it, and expected that the &#8216;downtrodden&#8217; Kashmiris would support the insurgency. Little did we know that the plan would crumble like a house of cards. 

It was not only a plan fraught with miscalculation, but a foolish one to begin with. There was no proper reconnaissance, no political intelligence, and the Kashmiris in IHK were not even taken into confidence. &#8220;Whatever his [Ayub&#8217;s] reasons, Pakistan went into Operation Gibraltar without any preliminary preparations and undertook a guerrilla operation inside IHK with a large number of regular soldiers, some SSG elements and a smattering of irregulars, expecting to be welcomed by the local population and raise them up in arms against the Indian government. They were destined to be rudely disillusioned. Far from rising up in arms, the local population denied any support and, in many instances handed over the infiltrators to Indian troops&#8221; (Qadir, Brigadier (retd) Shaukat, &#8216;Operation Gibraltar: Battle that never was&#8217;, Rediff.com). 

Before the operation was launched, Z A Bhutto somehow managed to convince Field Marshal Ayub Khan that even if India responded to the incursions in Kashmir, it would not cross the international border. Thus there was no question of a full-fledged war. But as soon as India had brutally crushed the insurgency in IHK, it launched an attack on Pakistan on September 6, 1965. *The public was led to believe that India had launched a &#8216;surprise attack&#8217; on Pakistan, and that &#8216;Hindu India&#8217; would be taught a lesson. *Thus the armed forces had full public support.

It is to the *credit of our air force and the jawans *fighting in the battlefield that they put up a strong fight against a superior enemy. But it is the generals who let the country down. &#8220;Ayub had attempted to save his forces in Kashmir; more importantly, he wanted to avoid a general war. But the war he sought to avoid had come to Pakistan, and the nation had to be rallied to efforts not envisaged in the plans to capture Kashmir. The vast majority of Pakistanis knew virtually nothing about the course of the hostilities. *All they knew came from Radio Pakistan*, and in the name of national morale, the public was informed over and again of the successes on the battlefield, or at the very least, the heroism of units and individual members of the armed forces who had fallen in combat. The fact that Pakistan itself had been targeted by Indian forces, that air raids had ranged to Peshawar on the one side and Dhaka in East Pakistan on the other, did not shake the Pakistani public&#8217;s belief that the war was going well and that India was paying a heavy price for its audacious assault on Pakistani territory&#8221; (Ziring, Lawrence, Pakistan in the Twentieth Century: A Political History, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 293).

The reality of the much-touted &#8216;friendly&#8217; relations between Pakistan and the US was also exposed during the 1965 war. Pakistan had allied itself with the US during the Cold War era, and in an effort to please the US, Pakistan joined the South East Treaty Organisation (SEATO) in 1954 and later the Baghdad Pact in 1955, which was renamed the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) in 1959. Being a signatory to these treaties gave Pakistan the necessary means and resources to strengthen itself militarily and economically. When the war broke out in 1965, Pakistan expected that the US would come to its aid and used US-supplied weaponry against India. The US never came to Pakistan&#8217;s help, because it perceived communism to be the threat to its interests, hardly India. Thus a military embargo was imposed on Pakistan and military supplies were cut off by the US. 

A little more than two weeks into the battle and it was quite evident to Ayub that the army was running out of logistics &#8211; ammunition, fuel, food, etc. It is reported that during the war, the American ambassador said to Ayub Khan, *&#8220;They [the Indians] have got you by the throat Mr President, don&#8217;t they?&#8221; *or words to that effect. It is ironic that when our fairweather &#8216;friend&#8217; the US decided to leave us in the lurch, the communist Soviet Union came to our aid and helped broker a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. 

The Pakistani nation was left bewildered about why Ayub Khan opted to end the war that we were &#8216;winning&#8217; and instead signed the Tashkent Agreement. Since the public was kept in the dark about the real reasons behind the war and its actual progress, it was hard for them to understand that Ayub had indeed made a wise move by ending the war. The public considered it a sell-out and a betrayal. Little did the public know that had the war gone on, we would have lost much more than our &#8216;pride&#8217;. 

There are some lessons to be learnt from the experience of 1965. One of the main lessons is that subjective and wishful thinking in politics and war is no substitute for objective analysis. It would be useful in this context to recall the old Clausewitzian adage: &#8216;War is the extension of politics by other means.&#8217; It is also time we reflect on the loss of our national unity. Back in 1965, the nation stood behind our military. Today, the situation is quite different. Why is it that today we are not as emotional about our &#8216;sons of the soil&#8217; as we were back in 1965? These are the wages of repeated military interventions at the cost of national unity. When the military took away the sovereign right of the people, the right to rule the country themselves, it took away the respect it rightfully deserved. We can still rediscover this unity if the military goes back to the barracks and allows the civilians to exercise their democratic rights.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

garibnawaz said:


> Did Operation Grand Slam Succeded? No
> Did Operation Gibraltor Succeded? No
> *
> What land/town/areas Pakistan won? None*
> 
> Was their any changes in MAPS of India? NO
> 
> Still if you think that Pakistan won then I dont want to spoil your party.
> 
> P.S: - Zaid Hameed forgot to add some videos on how Pakistan won the 1971 war by successfully getting rid of East Paksitan.



you sound like as if India was on the defence all the time... but lol india got bullied in 65 war... our AF terrorized IAF and IA... 


> "The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."
> Indonesian Herald
> September 11, 1965.



and btw... PA did capture alot of indian lands and had to give up due to UN and international presser..


----------



## arihant

Growler said:


> and btw... PA did capture alot of indian lands and had to give up due to UN and international presser..



I thought it was reverse thing. Possibly both capture each others but larger share was captured by India.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

arihant said:


> I thought it was reverse thing. Possibly both capture each others but larger share was captured by India.



larger share? got have substantial proof? other then pathological lying ego satisfaction wild claims on wikipeedia and bharatraksah?


----------



## luoshan

*Remembering 6th of September 1965*
By Dr. Ahmad Faruqui
CA



> The 6th of September is observed as the Defense of Pakistan Day in Pakistan. According to the official history that has been taught to generations of Pakistani school children, on this day India launched an unprovoked attack on Lahore. The much smaller Pakistani armed forces successfully fought off a much bigger enemy and deserve to be recognized for their valor and courage.
> While there is no question that the lower ranks of the Pakistani armed forces fought bravely in this war and there were several instances of brilliance and heroism in the middle ranks as well, the fact is that this war was brought on by the foolhardiness of the Pakistani high command. Much of the blame for the disaster that ensued rests on the shoulders of the military government headed by President Field Marshal Ayub Khan.
> Ayub in 1965 blundered into a general war with India, fully knowing that Pakistan was in no position to fight one. His top-secret order, sent on 29 August 1965 to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, General Musa, was titled &#8220;Political Aim for Struggle in Kashmir.&#8221; It instructed the Pakistan Army:
> To take such action that will defreeze Kashmir problem, weaken India&#8217;s resolve and bring her to a conference table without provoking a general war. However the element of escalation is always present in such struggles. So, whilst confining our action to the Kashmir area we must not be unmindful that India may in desperation involve us in a general war or violate Pakistan territory where we are weak.
> In December 1964, New Delhi had absorbed Kashmir into the Indian Union. Sensing that the Indian military had begun a massive program of rearmament after its humiliation at the hands of the People&#8217;s Liberation Army in 1962, Pakistan&#8217;s Foreign Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, convinced President Ayub that a &#8220;now or never&#8221; window of opportunity had opened up to reactivate the liberation struggle in Kashmir.
> Ayub initially rejected Bhutto&#8217;s plan to infiltrate irregular fighters into Kashmir, fearing that it would place Pakistan&#8217;s survival at stake. However, after witnessing the Pakistan army&#8217;s successful performance in the Rann of Kutch in April, he changed his mind. While in New York for medical treatment toward the end of his life, he would confide to G. W. Choudhury that this was his worst presidential decision. However, in the summer of 1965, he talked about how &#8220;Hindu morale would not stand a couple of hard blows at the right time and place.&#8221;
> Operation Gibraltar, named after Tariq bin Ziad who conquered Spain in the year 711 with 10,000 Moroccans (whence the name Moors), was launched on August 5/6. Seven thousand fighters crossed the cease-fire line in Kashmir with a simple mission: spark a wild fire in the Vale of Kashmir and bring to a satisfactory conclusion the unfinished business of partition. However, it was soon evident that the fighters were insufficiently trained in the tactics of guerilla warfare and were in no condition to lead a revolt against Indian rule.
> On August 7 the irregulars attacked Kargil, which would gain notoriety 34 years later. By mid-August, they had roused the ire of the Indian army and Pakistan was forced to commit regular troops to keep the fight from dying out. By August 21, the Indian forces had routed the irregulars and by the end of the month, all of them had been killed or captured. The situation was eerily similar to President John F. Kennedy&#8217;s fiasco in the Bay of Pigs in 1961, when the US landed 1,400 Cuban exiles on Cuba&#8217;s south coast, hoping to trigger a revolt against Fidel Castro. In two days of fierce fighting, 114 were dead and 1,200 captured. A chastened Kennedy called off the attack.
> At this point in Pakistan&#8217;s history, Ayub too had the opportunity to call off the dogs of war. Instead, he chose to up the ante. Switching metaphors from Islamic history to the card game of bridge, the Pakistan army launched Operation Grand Slam on September 1. The objective was to capture Akhnur within 72 hours, cutting off India&#8217;s line of communication with Srinagar and forcing it to the negotiating table. The first stop along the way, Chamb, was taken in a day, as Indian forces withdrew under the weight of the Pakistani offensive. Four Indian Air Force (IAF) Vampires, brought in to stop the onslaught, were shot down by American-supplied F-86 Sabre jets of the PAF, leading to the withdrawal of 128 Vampires from the IAF lineup.
> Then the attack stalled and Pakistan&#8217;s General Headquarters changed commanders in the heat of battle, allowing the Indian army to re-gird its defenses of Akhnur. On September 5, General Musa, the Pakistani army chief, impatiently harangued his troops, &#8220;You have got your teeth into him. Bite deeper and deeper until he is destroyed.&#8221; However, Akhnur was to remain a town too far for the Pakistan army.
> On September 6, the Indian army launched a three-pronged attack on Lahore. This came as a rude shock to Ayub, since Bhutto had convinced him that India was not in a position to risk a war of unlimited duration against Pakistan. Bhutto had argued that Pakistan had relative military superiority against India, and while the latter might wage a general war of limited duration, it would not be along the Punjab Frontier.
> Pakistani army units successfully fought off the Indian attack by blowing up 70 bridges along the BRB canal. As the front stabilized, Pakistan launched a counter-offensive on September 10 in Khem Karan with its mailed fist, the 1st Armored Division. Unfortunately, the sophisticated American-supplied M-47 and M-48 Patton tanks of the 1st Armored raced ahead of their supporting infantry units. Soon they found themselves bogged down in sugar cane fields near the village of Asal Uttar, where the Indians had breached a canal that did not exist on Pakistani maps. Indian hunter-killer teams armed with jeep-mounted recoilless rifles took out 40 Pakistani Patton tanks in one day. On September 11, Pakistan&#8217;s vaunted 4 Cavalry ceased to exist, effectively dashing Islamabad&#8217;s hopes of winning the war.
> Next, India opened up another front around Sialkot. Pakistan&#8217;s 6th Armoured Division, which was deployed in this area, fought tenaciously and with tactical skill, blunted the Indian offensive. However, it was running out of fuel and its 155 mm howitzers were put on a daily ration of five rounds per gun. The soldier in Ayub knew the game was over and he began to seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict.
> The people of Pakistan, who had been expecting an imminent victory over India, listened in disbelief as a ceasefire was announced over Radio Pakistan on September 23. Ayub visited the US in December and was told by President Lyndon B. Johnson that the special relationship between the two countries was over. In January Ayub signed the Tashkent Agreement, which restored the pre-war boundaries and provided no new mechanism for resolving the Kashmir dispute.
> Pakistani soldiers fought with gallantry and distinction in 1965, even though they deserved better generals. The Pakistani Navy kept the sea-lanes open against a much bigger enemy. But it was the PAF that excelled in all respects. On one day it shot down 11 IAF fighters. In a single encounter, Squadron Leader M. M. Alam shot down five IAF Hunters in less than two minutes over Sargodha. It is no wonder that John Fricker chose to entitle his history of the air war the &#8220;Battle for Pakistan,&#8221; no doubt inspired by the Battle for Britain waged by the Royal Air Force during the Second World War and designed to evoke Winston Churchill&#8217;s effusive comment, &#8220;Never have so many owed so much to so few.&#8221; This war resulted in a military stalemate for Pakistan and became a political liability for Ayub. Under the advice of his Foreign Minister, he had raised very high expectations among the people of Pakistan about the superiority - if not invincibility - of its armed forces. Ayub and Bhutto presumed that Kashmir was ripe for an uprising, and that Indian forces in the state - which numbered five infantry divisions - would be unable to hold out against a single Pakistani division. Worse, they presumed that India would not launch a counter attack along the international border. Their erroneous presumptions resulted in some 25,000 men being killed or wounded on both sides, with no military or political gain being realized by Pakistan.
> When these objectives were not realized in the form of an outright victory in the battlefield with India, the backlash effectively debilitated Ayub&#8217;s leadership in Pakistan. It triggered a popular uprising that Bhutto, who had fallen out of favor with Ayub after the fiasco with India, used to hound him out of office in less than four years, while he and his coterie were busy celebrating a &#8220;decade of development.&#8221;
> In the late sixties, one of Ayub&#8217;s former cabinet ministers, G. W. Choudhury, asked him whether the usual military procedure for debating both sides of the issue had not been followed with respect to the crucial decision to launch the war in Kashmir. Ayub answered: &#8220;Please do not rub in my weakest and fatal point.&#8221; Ayub died in 1974, a sad and broken man.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

luoshan said:


> *Remembering 6th of September 1965*
> By Dr. Ahmad Faruqui
> CA



unlike in india which is "STATE" run media here in pakistan anyone is allowed to criticize the pak army and here we have no other then hippi liberal anti-war douchebag trying to get some international attention.. 

however it still does not change the fact that PAkistan wipped and bullied 10 times bigger enemy.


----------



## paritosh

is the 6th of september really celebrated as some victory day in Pakistan?
This is bewildering....on this forum I was shocked to hear claims like..."PAF pilots running out of fuel..rammed their jets into Indian air bases" and "PA jawans...when facing assault by the IA tanks used to strap onto anti-tank mines and jump on to the tanks...."
Pakistan did not win the '65 war...that is a fact we all know....but it's chocking to see that the media and the govt. is twisting history in such a bizarre fashion

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## garibnawaz

Growler said:


> unlike in india which is "STATE" run media



Time Group (TOI, Maha Times, Nav Times Times Now) = Bennet and Colman Group
CNN-IBN = Read the word CNN besides Rajdeep Sardesai is a known communist.
NDTV = Belongs to Pranoy Roy who is a communist. He is a relative to Prakash and Brinda Karat.

Now tell me which one is state run in this? 

If our media was a state run you would have never read about the air crashes, fake encounters, Defence scandals, DRDO failures and your all time favorite poverty and toilets.

GB

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## garibnawaz

paritosh said:


> "PA jawans...when facing assault by the IA tanks used to strap onto anti-tank mines and jump on to the tanks...."



1 PA Jawan = 10 Indians ans still PA lost more tanks than India.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

paritosh said:


> is the 6th of september really celebrated as some victory day in Pakistan?
> This is bewildering....on this forum I was shocked to hear claims like..."PAF pilots running out of fuel..rammed their jets into Indian air bases" and "PA jawans...when facing assault by the IA tanks used to strap onto anti-tank mines and jump on to the tanks...."
> Pakistan did not win the '65 war...that is a fact we all know....but it's chocking to see that the media and the govt. is twisting history in such a bizarre fashion



yes 6th september is really celebrated in pakistan because you see...
in WWII germany just ran over entire FRANCE in just under a week while pakistan which was 10 times smaller force did not only kept indians off the bay or at the borders but also captured indian land and inflicted heavy causalities on indian army air force and bit of navy. 
IAF entire mig-21 fleet were wiped out, hunters were hunted, and IAF cr@ped in their pants.


----------



## garibnawaz

Growler said:


> did not only kept indians off the bay





Whats Lt.Col Hari Singh is doing outside this Police Station in Lahore district?



> and inflicted heavy causalities on indian army



PA lost more men and tanks compared to IA.



> IAF entire mig-21 fleet were wiped out



Yeah and I am dating Kareena Kapoor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

garibnawaz said:


> 1 PA Jawan = 10 Indians ans still PA lost more tanks than India.



yep you are right.. in troops strenth india had ten times more troops then pakistan.. as for PA losing tanks.. maybe on your bharatraksak daydream papers.. go read it satisfy your dirty ego and have a good tight sleep...


----------



## luoshan

*1965 war Casualties and losses:
India*
~3,000 killed
175 tanks destroyed
59 aircraft lost (Indian claim): 60-75 aicraft lost (neutral): 110 aircraft destroyed (Pakistan claim)

*Pakistan*
3,800 killed 
280 tanks destroyed
20 aircraft destroyed (Pakistan claim): 20 aircraft lost (Neutral): 73 aircraft destroyed (Indian claim)


----------



## garibnawaz

Growler said:


> yep you are right.. in troops strenth india had ten times more troops then pakistan.. as for PA losing tanks.. maybe on your bharatraksak daydream papers.. go read it satisfy your dirty ego and have a good tight sleep...



MAy be you could prove me wrong with facts or be my guest at Patton Nagar anytime. 

But since you believe that PAF wiped out entire MiG-21 fleet I can't help you much here.


----------



## luoshan

*Indo-Pakistan War of 1965*



> The second Indo-Pakistani conflict (1965) was also fought over Kashmir and started without a formal declaration of war. The war began in August 5, 1965 and was ended Sept 22, 1965.
> 
> The war was initiated by Pakistan who since the defeat of India by China in 1962 had come to believe that Indian military would be unable or unwilling to defend against a quick military campaign in Kashmir, and because the Pakistani government was becoming increasingly alarmed by Indian efforts to integrate Kashmir within India. There was also a perception that there was widespread popular support within for Pakistani rule and that the Kashmiri people were disatisfied with Indian rule.
> 
> After Pakistan was successful in the Rann of Kutch earlier in 1965, Ayub Khan (by nature a cautious person) was pressured by the hawks in his cabinet (led by Z.A. Bhutto) and the army to infiltrate the ceasefire line in Kashmir. The action was based on the incorrect premise that indigenous resistance could be ignited by a few saboteurs. Ayub resisted the idea as he foresaw India crossing the international frontier in retaliation at a point of its choosing. The Bhutto faction, which included some prominent generals, put out the canard that Ayub's cowardice stemmed from his desire to protect his newly acquired wealth. It was boasted at the time that one Pakistani soldier was equal to four Indian soldiers and so on.
> 
> On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15.
> 
> The initial battles between India and Pakistan were contained within Kashmir involving both infantry and armor units with each country's air force playing major roles. It was not until early Sept. when Pakistani forces attacked Ackhnur that the Indians escalated the conflict by attacking targets within Pakistan itself, forcing the Pakistani forces to disengage from Ackhnur to counter Indian attacks.
> 
> The largest engagement of the war occurred in the Sialkot region where some 400 to 600 tanks squared off. Unfortunately the battle was indecisive.
> 
> By Sept 22 both sides had agreed to a UN mandated cease-fire ending the war that had by that point reached a stalemate.
> 
> Overall, the war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. *Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.*
> 
> Pakistan was rudely shocked by the reaction of the United States to the war. Judging the matter to be largely Pakistan s fault, the United States not only refused to come to Pakistan s aid under the terms of the Agreement of Cooperation, but issued a statement declaring its neutrality while also cutting off military supplies. The Pakistanis were embittered at what they considered a friend's betrayal, and the experience taught them to avoid relying on any single source of support. For its part, the United States was disillusioned by a war in which both sides used United States-supplied equipment. The war brought other repercussions for the security relationship as well. The United States withdrew its military assistance advisory group in July 1967. In response to these events, Pakistan declined to renew the lease on the Peshawar military facility, which ended in 1969. Eventually, United States-Pakistan relations grew measurably weaker as the United States became more deeply involved in Vietnam and as its broader interest in the security of South Asia waned.
> 
> Iran, Indonesia, and especially China gave political support to Pakistan during the war, thus suggesting new directions in Pakistan that might translate into support for its security concerns. Most striking was the attitude of the Soviet Union. Its post-Khrushchev leadership, rather than rallying reflexively to India's side, adopted a neutral position and ultimately provided the good offices at Tashkent, which led to the January 1966 Tashkent Declaration that restored the status quo ante.
> 
> The aftermath of the 1965 war saw a dramatic shift in Pakistan's security environment. Instead of a single alignment with the United States against China and the Soviet Union, Pakistan found itself cut off from United States military support, on increasingly warm terms with China, and treated equitably by the Soviet Union. Unchanged was the enmity with which India and Pakistan regarded each other over Kashmir. The result was the elaboration of a new security approach, called by Ayub Khan the "triangular tightrope"--a tricky endeavor to maintain good ties with the United States while cultivating China and the Soviet Union. Support from other developing nations was also welcome. None of the new relationships carried the weight of previous ties with the United States, but, taken together, they at least provided Pakistan with a political counterbalance to India.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

luoshan said:


> *1965 war Casualties and losses:
> India*
> ~3,000 killed
> 175 tanks destroyed
> 59 aircraft lost (Indian claim): 60-75 aicraft lost (neutral): 110 aircraft destroyed (Pakistan claim)
> 
> *Pakistan*
> 3,800 killed
> 280 tanks destroyed
> 20 aircraft destroyed (Pakistan claim): 20 aircraft lost (Neutral): 73 aircraft destroyed (Indian claim)



only a nuisance ego satisfying would waist his time on wikipeedia.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

luoshan said:


> *Indo-Pakistan War of 1965*



globalsecurity? anti-pak 
much of the context have been manipulated from the history to satisfy indian ego. 


*Patrick Seale,
The Observer, London,
September 12, 1965.*
"Pakistan's success in the air means that she has been able to redeploy her relatively small army -- professionally among the best in Asia -- with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust."

"By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war."

*
Roy Meloni,
American Broadcasting Corporation
September 15, 1965.*
"India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front."

"If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?. The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes."

"These muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propoganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side."

"Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."

*
Peter Preston,
The Guardian, London
September 24, 1965.*
"One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds."

"Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air-power, expected an easy air-superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, of the whole conflict."

"Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan's civil air-line, which, in a country where 'now' means sometime and 'sometime' means never, is a model of efficiency. he talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble abobut figures. Immediately one has confidence in what he says."

"His estimates, proffered diffidently but with as much photographic evidence as possible, speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks, are in something like the ration of ten to one."

"Yet, the quality of equipment, Nur insists, is less important than flying ability and determination. the Indians have no sense of purpose. The Pakistanis were defending their own country and willingly taking greater risks. 'The average bomber crews flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on.' "

"This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots themselves and you get the same intense story."

*
Everett G. Martin,
General Editor, Newsweek
September 20, 1965.*
"One point particularly noted by military observers is that in their frist advances the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. by contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during it's attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing.)"

"By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."

*
Indonesian Herald
September 11, 1965.
*
"India's barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralisation. The huge losses suffered by the Indian Armed Forces during the last 12 days of fighting could not be kept from the Indian public and in retaliation, the Indian armed forces are indulging in the most barbaric methods."

"The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."



*WANT MORE?? *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nightrider_saulat

*wonderful job growler anyways can you tell me the exact figure of tanks and soldiers lost on both sides*


----------



## paritosh

Growler said:


> globalsecurity? anti-pak
> much of the context have been manipulated from the history to satisfy indian ego.
> 
> 
> *Patrick Seale,
> The Observer, London,
> September 12, 1965.*
> "Pakistan's success in the air means that she has been able to redeploy her relatively small army -- professionally among the best in Asia -- with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust."
> 
> "By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war."
> 
> *
> Roy Meloni,
> American Broadcasting Corporation
> September 15, 1965.*
> "India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front."
> 
> "If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?. The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes."
> 
> "These muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propoganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side."
> 
> "Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."
> 
> *
> Peter Preston,
> The Guardian, London
> September 24, 1965.*
> "One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds."
> 
> "Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air-power, expected an easy air-superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, of the whole conflict."
> 
> "Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan's civil air-line, which, in a country where 'now' means sometime and 'sometime' means never, is a model of efficiency. he talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble abobut figures. Immediately one has confidence in what he says."
> 
> "His estimates, proffered diffidently but with as much photographic evidence as possible, speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks, are in something like the ration of ten to one."
> 
> "Yet, the quality of equipment, Nur insists, is less important than flying ability and determination. the Indians have no sense of purpose. The Pakistanis were defending their own country and willingly taking greater risks. 'The average bomber crews flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on.' "
> 
> "This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots themselves and you get the same intense story."
> 
> *
> Everett G. Martin,
> General Editor, Newsweek
> September 20, 1965.*
> "One point particularly noted by military observers is that in their frist advances the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. by contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during it's attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing.)"
> 
> "By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."
> 
> *
> Indonesian Herald
> September 11, 1965.
> *
> "India's barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralisation. The huge losses suffered by the Indian Armed Forces during the last 12 days of fighting could not be kept from the Indian public and in retaliation, the Indian armed forces are indulging in the most barbaric methods."
> 
> "The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."
> 
> 
> 
> *WANT MORE?? *



you forgot to add links.


----------



## garibnawaz

Growler said:


> only a nuisance ego satisfying would waist his time on wikipeedia.



Why dont you prove us wrong then?

U have nothing to prove on the figures. I am still waiting for your claim on wiping out entire MiG-21 fleet of IAF.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

paritosh said:


> you forgot to add links.



genius. 

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

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


----------



## garibnawaz

Growler said:


> genius.
> 
> The Observer, London,
> American Broadcasting Corporation
> General Editor, Newsweek
> Indonesian Herald
> 
> and oh btw... i got these articles from pakdef..... its authentic because we can also find links for other articles (quotes).



Still waiting to prove us wrong on casualities.

Still waiting for backing for claim of wiping out entire MiG-21 fleet of IAF.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

garibnawaz said:


> Still waiting to prove us wrong on casualities.


i cant give you the exact figures as it is manipulated from both sides. however my authentic sources which i have provided above do indicate that india suffered alot of casualties.. 



> Still waiting for backing for claim of wiping out entire MiG-21 fleet of IAF.



PAF very famous pilot in an interview with British media claims and confirms 9-10 migs destroyed on the ground. 











Pathankot Strike
8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, *none of which were seen again during the War. *


----------



## garibnawaz

9-10 MiG's claimed by PAF pilot is not a whole fleet of IAF MiG-21's.

Besides I posted (and other Indian fellow members) many articles from Pakistani authors (many of them Ex-Pakistani Sefvicemen) who don't belive that Pakistan won the 65 war. 

GB


----------



## luoshan

Growler said:


> i cant give you the exact figures as it is manipulated from both sides. however my authentic sources which i have provided above do indicate that india suffered alot of casualties..
> 
> PAF very famous pilot in an interview with British media claims and confirms 9-10 migs destroyed on the ground.
> 
> Pathankot Strike
> 8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, *none of which were seen again during the War. *



In 1965 the Mig-21's were just inducted and yet to be operationalized. Its stupid of Indian commanders to have left the planes lying in the open unprotected in an airfield so close to the border. Pure luck for the Pakistanis to have them destroyed on the ground. 
Infact, most of the Pakistani fighter plane kills in 1965 war came from ground attacks, rather than air-to-air fights. Indian commanders must have learnt a very valuable lesson from that experience. In 1971 there were hardly any planes lost by IAF on ground.


----------



## garibnawaz

luoshan said:


> Its stupid of Indian commanders to have left the planes lying in the open unprotected in an airfield so close to the border.



Its very immature of you.


----------



## luoshan

*THE MiG-21s in 1965 WAR*



> The saga of the MiG-21 in the IAF began in 1962, with the selection of the initial batch of pilots who were short-listed to undergo training in Russia on this particular aircraft. They were the fortunate seven. Of the hundreds of pilots in the Air Force, the IAF handpicked seven pilots to fly the first MiG-21 fighters that were being acquired from Russia.
> 
> The MiG-21 was the first true supersonic aircraft acquired by the IAF, in fact it was the first fighter the IAF had that can reach Mach 2. The Hunter, Mystere and the Gnat could were flying supersonic for ages, albeit only in a dive. They were not capable of flying above the supersonic barrier in level flight.
> 
> The intricacies that led to the acquiring of the MiGs had already been recounted. The acquisition of the Starfighter by the Pakistanis and the subsequent strained relations with China led the IAF into thinking of building a supersonic interceptor force. The IAF short-listed the Mirage III, the Starfighter and the MiG-21, roughly in that order.
> 
> The high cost of the Mirage and the reluctance of the Americans to give the Starfighter coupled with the easy terms for the manufacture and buying the MiG-21s saw that the Russians got the order and ultimately the IAF flew over 700 variants of the MiG-21. The Air Force top brass of the time was dead against buying the MiG-21, but the forceful presence of the then-Defence Minister Krishna Menon, saw to it that the deal went through.
> 
> The deal for the MiGs was signed in August 1962 and two months later, the first batch of Indian pilots numbered seven, along with 15 engineers who were nominated to be trained as the ground support staff went to Russia in October 1962, when the Indo-China hostilities broke out. The pilots & engineers, were then headed by Wg. Cdr. Dilbagh Singh (Later Chief of Air Staff). And were posted at Lugovaya, a desolate air force base at Kazakhstan near Tashkent. The facilities given for housing the pilots was appalling.
> 
> The pilots were handpicked and consisted of well known names like Sqn. Ldr. M.S.D. Wollen, Sqn. Ldr. Mukherjee and Flt. Lt. S.K. Behal among others. And all were specially qualified. They were a mix of flying instructors, pilot attack instructors or day fighter leaders, with plenty of flying hours behind them. And what they faced was a shock to them. Russian instructors lacked the experience their pupils had and most of the pilots felt that they were below average. The Russians rated all the seven pilots as excellent. And the Indians were not surprised a little bit.
> 
> The pilots stayed back in Russia for five months doing their training, which included classroom instruction on the aircraft engines and systems. Flying training was scarce. Air Marshal Wollen recalls, that the average training received during the five-month period was a shatteringly low 4½ hours.
> 
> MiG-21 pilots in the 1960s wore the cumbersome one-piece full-chin space-suit type helmet as opposed to the more comfortable open face helmets of today. It gave the pilots an exaggerated sense of feeling that they were prepared more in line to fly high in the stratosphere, than jig around at treetop heights in dogfights.
> 
> On their return from Russia these pilots formed the core group of fighter leaders of the new squadron No.28 First Supersonics. The squadron was raised at Chandigarh and was equipped with six MiG-21 F-13s (Type 74) aircraft. These aircraft were first shipped to Bombay by ship, after which they were assembled and flown to Chandigarh by the pilots.
> 
> Dilbagh Singh was the squadron commander, and the working up of the squadron commenced. Having a limited number of six aircraft for training would hardly make a contribution, but the pilots made best use of what was available. The initial MiG-21Fs had no gun, only the K-13 air-to-air missile. On the insistence of the pilots an external gun-pod was fitted. But this was limited to only the Type 74.
> 
> Training was as per the schedule till one fine day in December 1963, Sqn. Ldr. Wollen took off with Sqn. Ldr. Mukherjee on a routine training mission and a miscalculation led to a collision between the two. Both Wollen and Mukherjee ejected and the aircraft were lost. Both pilots suffered spinal injuries as a result of the ejection, but recovered later. The training regimen of the squadron suffered a severe set back with the loss of the two aircraft. It had to make do with four MiG-21s till mid-1965.
> 
> Wg. Cdr. Dilbagh Singh left for a staff job in March 1965 and Sqn. Ldr. Wollen succeeded him as the Commanding Officer. About this time another MiG-21 was written off in an accident at Chandigarh AFB by Flt. Lt. Musquati. Only three, of the original six MiG-21Fs survived the initial days.
> 
> In March 1965, the squadron received six MiG-21FL (Type 76) aircraft. This aircraft was more pleasant to fly than the MiG-21F because of its roll-stabilization system. It was equipped with an airborne intercept radar (RIL), the first such radar in any IAF aircraft. Inwards of 20 km, the pilot could locate and intercept a target, with this radar.
> 
> Perhaps more important being that the MiG could fly twice the speed of the sound, allowing it to match its nearest rival with the PAF, the F-104 Starfighter. Wg. Cdr. C.R. Malhotra, a MiG-21 pilot who flew Hunters with No.27 Sqn and the MiG-21, describes the feeling of flying supersonic.
> 
> "Flying Supersonic is not as interesting as people think, Oh Wow, you are going so fast, it must be fun. Believe me, its no fun. There is nothing interesting in going supersonic. To me a fighter pilot, the enjoyment in flying is in the turns and the aerobatics.
> 
> This you could do in the Hunter, but going supersonic in the MiG-21, you could fly only level and straight. The slight attempt you do to maneuver at faster than the speed of the sound, it will pitch up in the airflow and the engine would surge as the airflow is cut off and you have a flame out in your hands"
> 
> As war clouds started brewing towards the end of August 1965, No.28 was scheduled to move to Palam to implement night flying training. Chandigarh AFB did not possess a runway lighting system. The Sqn had type trainers available at that time. When war broke out the day prior to the move, most of the pilots in the squadron were unsure of what their role was going to be. Command HQ's operations instruction did not include a role for No.28 squadron. They had practiced set piece NATO-style high altitude bomber interception but not the close combat tactics that were to see the light of the day.
> 
> Air Commodore K. Gocal was the Senior Air Staff Officer at HQ Western Air Command. He was the keenest of pilots, operationally oriented and highly respected. He cleared the squadron for ORP duties (platform readiness for air defence), at a front-line base (Adampur), and a detachment of aircraft flew to this airfield on the afternoon of 1 September 1965.
> 
> Earlier that morning, Vampire aircraft had been shot down by Sabres, whilst providing offensive air support in the Chamb sector. PAF F-104 supersonic fighters were reported in the area. The next day four MIG-21FL aircraft flew from Adampur to Pathankot to fly top cover missions to Mystere IV A aircraft carrying out strike and close air support missions, closely escorted by Gnats. Air Marshal Wollen tells about the first encounter.
> 
> On the afternoon of September 4th, Sqn. Ldr. Mukherjee and I flew a top cover mission to the Mysteres attacking advanced columns of the Pakistani Army. The Mysteres were intercepted by Sabres, probably from combat air patrol (CAP). Escorting Gnats tangled with the Sabres.
> 
> The R/T chatter was exhilarating, particularly the calls from a Gnat pilot (Flt. Lt. V.S. Pathania) reporting a Sabre destroyed. The aircraft engaged in combat were below us, but the GCI station, under whose direction we operated, had 'no pick-up' on their radar screen.
> 
> I decided to enter the 'arena' and dived earthwards. In a few seconds, we spotted some aircraft engaged in turning-combat, about 10,000 ft below us. Coming down, I closed in on a pair of aircraft turning hard left. When the range decreased to around 1.5 km, we had recognized the aircraft as our Mysteres.
> 
> As we eased Our turn, two Sabres, flying almost abreast of each other, crossed from left to right, below and in front of us. I wrenched my aircraft to the starboard (right) calling out to Mukherjee.
> 
> I picked up the Sabres heading northwest, very low and 1 o'clock to me. I went after the slightly lagging Sabre on the right. I later learnt that Mukherjee lost sight of me in the violent turn I had executed. The beastly pressure helmet/face piece is a bad thing to wear when dog-fighting.
> 
> With a good overtake speed, in a slight dive, I released a missile at around 1200 m, sighting through the 'fixed-ring and bead'; the radar cannot provide information so close to the ground. The missile sped towards the Sabre and exploded below it; perhaps ahead and on the ground.
> 
> In my excitement, I released the second missile when I was too close to the ground (90 m) and probably too close to the Sabre. For 0.6 seconds after release, the K-13 missile is unguided. During this time it headed downwards, started to flatten out and then struck the ground, not far ahead of me.
> 
> I engaged engine re-reheat, rapidly closed in on the Sabre, was tempted to brush against his fin and passed about 6 metres over the aircraft. Naturally, the PAF pilot was surprised/shaken. I asked Mukherjee to engage the second Sabre, but got no response. We 'rendezvoused' over Jammu airfield (above AA-gun range) and returned to Pathankot.
> 
> This was the only significant mission flown by No.28 in the early days of the war. The performance of the K-13s in their initial debut was disappointing to say the least. There is no doubt if the K-13s were not so inferior they would have succeeded in bringing down their first kills of the war. As things were, the MiGs would have to wait another Six Years before they would draw blood.
> 
> The second occasion when the MiGs had to face the Sabres was rather one-sided. It was two days later on September 6th, when the Indian Army crossed the international border on an attack on Lahore in an effort to relieve pressure off the Chamb-Jaurian sector.
> 
> *No.28 Sqn had the ignominy of getting caught on the ground at Pathankot when the PAF Sabres attacked. Pathankot was home to the detachment of Gnats, Vampires and Mysteres besides the MiGs and when the Sabres attacked they were literally caught napping.*
> 
> *The pilots of No.28 Sqn had a grandstand view to the raid, luckily the MiGs escaped damage. Two of the MiGs was destroyed in the attack. Some of the rest suffered bullet holes but were soon patched up. Incidentally the Sabre pilots reported all the MiGs as destroyed.*
> 
> For the night the pilots dispersed off the airfield and slept at individual civilian billets to reduce the risk of getting caught in one of the PAF night raids. The night-raids were a nuisance in the fact a lucky strike might wipe out a significant number of pilots. So the pilots were ordered to disperse and assemble in the morning.
> 
> Wollen and one of his men, went to a nearby club house to sleep, but soon ran into trouble, a suspicious Army man, interrogated them on fear of spies but were soon let off. No.28 was stood down for the rest of the war. The squadron flew no significant sorties. Though Pakistan kept reporting encounters with the MiGs, including one on September 11th when a F-104 Starfighter was intercepted by two MiGs. But it was more likely to be a mistake in identification as no MiG pilot reported interception that day.
> 
> It is clear had the MiG squadron had more time to train, both in air combat as well as night interception with the FLs, they would have played a significant part. They were the correct aircraft to counter the night raids by the B-57s, but with hardly 4 to 5 months allocated for training, the MiGs did not play any significant part here.
> 
> Moreover, night interception required a good radar setup and control from the ground, which was again lacking. Wg. Cdr. M.S.D. Wollen was mentioned-in-despatches for his role in the war, and after the war, led a fly past to counter the baseless claims of the Pakistani's destruction of all the MiGs.
> 
> Thus ended the small but significant role played by the MiG-21s in the 1965 War. The importance of the role is not what it contributed to India's war effort but more in what lacunae the effort helped identify in the MiG. The corrections and modifications applied as a result were to pay a rich dividend in the later 1971 conflict.
> 
> In a candid opinion of the aircraft in the aftermath of the 1965 war, Air Vice Marshal Harjinder Singh, who retired as AOC-in-C Maintenance Command, felt that the MiG-21 was "a good for nothing aircraft in combat situation." It's missiles were useless at treetop height and the only saving grace has been the fitting of a gun to enhance its defence potential.
> 
> Perhaps Harjinder Singh was speaking too soon, but the MiG-21 in 1965 was just that. Hampered in its role by the lack of time to train in specific combat profiles, Its contribution to the war-effort left much to be desired. The MiGs did not have enough opportunities to prove themselves in the 1965 conflict. The IAF on its part put much faith in this aircraft and used it to equip many of its squadrons. This faith was later upheld in the 1971 war, when the MiG-21 built up a reputation to envy about. But that, as they say, is a different story!


----------



## Myth_buster_1

i just love this... oh i am going to have some fun.. 



luoshan said:


> In 1965 the Mig-21's were just inducted and yet to be operationalized.



IAF received its very first MiG-21F-13s (Type 74) batch in 1963 and operated about 14 Mig-21s in 1965 war. 
While PAF received only 10 F-104 just in 1962 and this proves that your point is very silly. 



> Its stupid of Indian commanders to have left the planes lying in the open unprotected in an airfield so close to the border. Pure luck for the Pakistanis to have them destroyed on the ground.


so what are you arguing about exactly? 



> Infact, most of the Pakistani fighter plane kills in 1965 war came from ground attacks, rather than air-to-air fights. Indian commanders must have learnt a very valuable lesson from that experience. In 1971 there were hardly any planes lost by IAF on ground.


is this your last desperate attempt? i mean why act so silly...
you do know that more then 80% of IDAF kills in six day war were achieved from surprise attacks on arab air fields while the planes were parked on the pavement.. 
and oh.... in 65 2 of IAF planes also surrendered to PAF which makes a new world record of surrendering combat jet in middle of a dog fight. and lol... just one PAF pilot is accountable for 9 IAF kills/damages.. 
and as for 71 air war.. PAF clearly dominated like masters of the sky.. heck IAF could not even destroy lone PAF f-86 squadron in the east. and lol... as for ground attacks.. 2 IAF murat were destroyed by F-104s.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

luoshan said:


> *THE MiG-21s in 1965 WAR*



and the link is bharat-rakshak which is itself a joke. 
remarkably bharat-joki is quite generous to give extra kill to PAF in http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Loss1965.html from original 2 stated in above article.


----------



## garibnawaz

Growler said:


> IAF received its very first MiG-21F-13s (Type 74) batch in 1963 and operated about 14 Mig-21s in 1965 war.
> While PAF received only 10 F-104 just in 1962 and this proves that your point is very silly.



Every time a F-104 met and IAF MiG-21 the result was F-104 biting the dust. If his point is silly you dont have a point at all.



> heck IAF could not even destroy lone PAF f-86 squadron in the east.



Those F-86's surrendered to India without fighting as they were out of ammunition. 

Later India donated those to the Bangladesh Air Froce. Stick to 1965 war in this thread please.

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 PM ----------




Growler said:


> and the link is bharat-rakshak which is itself a joke.



Well you are no better. You haven't put the list of losses neither proved your point that the entire MiG-21 fleet was wiped out in 1965.


----------



## garibnawaz

Growler said:


> and the link is bharat-rakshak which is itself a joke.
> remarkably bharat-joki is quite generous to give extra kill to PAF in Indian Air Force Losses -1965 War from original 2 stated in above article.



The list on BR is retracted from the official IAF list.

Even if one believes the official list claimed by PAF only 3 MiG-21's were destroyed on ground which in no way was an entire IAF MiG-21 fleet.

GB


----------



## luoshan

Growler said:


> i just love this... oh i am going to have some fun..
> 
> 
> 
> IAF received its very first MiG-21F-13s (Type 74) batch in 1963 and operated about 14 Mig-21s in 1965 war.
> While PAF received only 10 F-104 just in 1962 and this proves that your point is very silly.
> 
> 
> so what are you arguing about exactly?
> 
> 
> is this your last desperate attempt? i mean why act so silly...
> you do know that more then 80&#37; of IDAF kills in six day war were achieved from surprise attacks on arab air fields while the planes were parked on the pavement..
> and oh.... in 65 2 of IAF planes also surrendered to PAF which makes a new world record of surrendering combat jet in middle of a dog fight. and lol... just one PAF pilot is accountable for 9 IAF kills/damages..
> and *as for 71 air war.. PAF clearly dominated like masters of the sky..* heck IAF could not even destroy lone PAF f-86 squadron in the east. and lol... as for ground attacks.. 2 IAF murat were destroyed by F-104s.





*Combat Aircraft Losses in 1971*
Description Pakistan India
Air to Air 19 19
Ground Fire 15 35
_On Ground 29 2_
Total 63 56​* Combat aircraft and bomber losses only. Transporters and Recce PAF aircraft shot down or destroyed on the ground not included.
** PAF losses include 13 aircraft destroyed by PAF on the ground at Dhaka.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

garibnawaz said:


> Every time a F-104 met and IAF MiG-21 the result was F-104 biting the dust. If his point is silly you dont have a point at all.



hmmm. lets see.. thats because IAF mig-21s in 71 war were much more supirior.. F-104 had very poor turning radius in low level where most of paf-iaf dogfights occurred. infact f-104 were never meant to be a dog fighter, its main porpose was high altitude interceptor and recc. 
and still lost to inferior saber and F-6. 
-4Dec71---11 Sqn----F-6 47-1825---A.A.Sharieff----AIM-9B--MiG-21FL---IAF
-17Dec71---18 Sqn----Sabre F.Mk.6---M.Amir------12.7mm---- MiG-21FL C-116----29 or 45 Sqn/IAF (pilot T.Singh)



> Those F-86's surrendered to India without fighting as they were out of ammunition.


balh blah bbbb bahh.. look man dont make fool out of yourself... come back to your senses.. those sabers fought till the last moment and IAF had no roll in surrendering them but infact it was politics.. i just love these bharat-joki dudes jabbering stuff out to satisfy each other dirty indian ego...


> Later India donated those to the Bangladesh Air Froce. Stick to 1965 war in this thread please.


donated?  those planes were parked right their in BD before and after the war so what is their to donate? 



> Well you are no better. You haven't put the list of losses neither proved your point that the entire MiG-21 fleet was wiped out in 1965.


last time you challenged me i pretty much nailed you... so again be my guest. 

ACIG.ORG TEAM.


----------



## Su 30mki

ANDUBYLL said:


> India returned all the Pakistani territory that it occupied. Therefore Pakistani did not lose any territory. Thus it is a victory for Pakistan  Pakistan still exists today despite huge efforts of Pakistanis. This is even a greater victory



Victorious always give back to losers to humiliate and a reminder to them how you loose and given back as charity from our own wishes.

Pak is still their but need money form other country to eat..

I dont know you must be felt proud on this??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MZUBAIR

To all my Indian fellows 

Please have a look from most athentic website that PAF officeal website (History section from bottom).



> From 1955 to1965, the Air Force armed its squadrons with the most modern jet fighters and bombers, Sabers and F-104 Starfighters as fighters, B-57s as bombers and the ubiquitous C-130s as transport fleet. The seven years of rigorous training with realistic threat perception, planning and preparation had enabled PAF to inflict a humiliating defeat on the enemy in 1965 when the mutual hostility of the rival neighbours escalated into a war. *PAF struck hard its rival and kept it reeling under tactics of shock and unpredictability. Many victories came to PAF pilots who exacted an even retribution on the enemy, leaving it in total disarray. At the end of the war, India had lost 110 aircraft with 19 damaged, not including those destroyed on the ground at night, against a loss of 16 PAF planes.* Thus the outnumbered PAF emerged triumphant over a four times larger force, its air defence controllers, engineers, logisticians and hands just as much the heroes as its pilots.



PAF official website


----------



## arihant

MZUBAIR said:


> To all my Indian fellows
> 
> Please have a look from most athentic website that PAF officeal website (History section from bottom).
> 
> PAF official website



Then I will need to put Indian Air Force Website here.

We can only conclude with neutral sources and it does that India lost more Planes than Pakistan. But Pakistan had to acquire more fighters just within 10 days of war from Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and China. Unlike the PAF, whose planes largely consisted of American craft, the IAF flew an assortment of planes, from Vampires to Hawker Hunters, many of which were outdated in comparison to PAF planes.

Also, it is worth to be added that PAF begin the war by attacking on ground planes in India. So, it has first strike advantage unlike IAF which has to just reply.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Su 30mki said:


> Victorious always give back to losers to humiliate and a reminder to them how you loose and given back as charity from our own wishes.



the thing is pakistan also occupied indian territory so you have clearly portrayed your own country. pakistan had to gave back its occupied territory due to UN presser while india gave back few KM of sand dunes pakistani territory due to pakistani presser. 
Only indian older generation knows how it feels to be humiliated by 10 times smaller enemy. 



> Pak is still their but need money form other country to eat..


funny that its coming from a indian's mouth. you live in a glass house you know that. today twice the population of pakistan lives under a dollar a day in india. those poor indians are forced to eat rats and sleep on footpath.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

arihant said:


> Then I will need to put Indian Air Force Website here.
> 
> We can only conclude with neutral sources and it does that India lost more Planes than Pakistan. But Pakistan had to acquire more fighters just within 10 days of war from Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and China. Unlike the PAF, whose planes largely consisted of American craft, the IAF flew an assortment of planes, from Vampires to Hawker Hunters, many of which were outdated in comparison to PAF planes.



pure BS. 
Hawker hunter is no way infirior to sabers. only few squadrons of sabers were equipped with lame 1st generation AIM-9 which had less then 30% kill ratio. other then that the hunter out performs saber in almost every aspect. look the arabs used hunters against superior IDAF and PAF pilots did manage to shoot down couple of IDAF planes. most of the planes provided by friends of pakistan were more like force projection and saw very limited action... thats according to very reliable source non other then sir Muradk. 
other then hunters... IAF also had superior ground attack AC like Su-7, cannabera, and hunters and air superiority fighters like Mig-21, Gnat, and hunters. 




> Also, it is worth to be added that PAF begin the war by attacking on ground planes in India. So, it has first strike advantage unlike IAF which has to just reply.



nope.


----------



## arihant

Growler said:


> nope.



Sorry for wrong information. I added the information on the basis of 1971 war and not the 1965. (For first attack by Air force). Anyway thanks for atleast this.


----------



## arihant

Growler said:


> funny that its coming from a indian's mouth. you live in a glass house you know that. today twice the population of pakistan lives under a dollar a day in india. those poor indians are forced to eat rats and sleep on footpath.



India has around 6 times population of Pakistan, so it is still worth.


----------



## paritosh

Growler said:


> yes 6th september is really celebrated in pakistan because you see...
> in WWII germany just ran over entire FRANCE in just under a week while pakistan which was 10 times smaller force did not only kept indians off the bay or at the borders but also captured indian land and inflicted heavy causalities on indian army air force and bit of navy.
> IAF entire mig-21 fleet were wiped out, hunters were hunted, and IAF cr@ped in their pants.



the differences in the armor strength of India and Pakistan was not as much in the case of your analogy.
Read about the Pakistani vs Indian armor strength.


----------



## paritosh

Growler said:


> genius.
> 
> The Observer, London,
> American Broadcasting Corporation
> General Editor, Newsweek
> Indonesian Herald
> 
> and oh btw... i got these articles from pakdef..... its authentic because we can also find links for other articles (quotes).



well I haven't read the Observer any time.I would really want a neutral link that testifies that article Growler you know the rules.


----------



## paritosh

Growler said:


> pure BS.
> Hawker hunter is no way infirior to sabers. only few squadrons of sabers were equipped with lame 1st generation AIM-9 which had less then 30% kill ratio. other then that the hunter out performs saber in almost every aspect. look the arabs used hunters against superior IDAF and PAF pilots did manage to shoot down couple of IDAF planes. most of the planes provided by friends of pakistan were more like force projection and saw very limited action... thats according to very reliable source non other then sir Muradk.
> other then hunters... IAF also had superior ground attack AC like Su-7, cannabera, and hunters and air superiority fighters like Mig-21, Gnat, and hunters.



do you not know of the deadly Vulcan cannons aboard your planes?
and the Gnat is the classic example of how the IAF used it's obsolete inventory against your state-of-the-art one!


----------



## Myth_buster_1

paritosh said:


> the differences in the armor strength of India and Pakistan was not as much in the case of your analogy.
> Read about the Pakistani vs Indian armor strength.



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


----------



## paritosh

Growler said:


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



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

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

from the Library of congress-Country studies
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+in0173)


----------



## arihant

I think war of 1962 and 1965 teach us two separate lessons. First that anyone can attack you. Second that your enemy will always take advantage of your weaken defense due to other factors.


----------



## paritosh

Growler said:


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



and lpus we held more territory too...when ceasefire was declared.
"The war was heading for a stalemate, with both nations holding territory of the other. The Indian army suffered 3,000 battlefield deaths, while Pakistan suffered 3,800. The Indian army was in possession of 710 mile² (1,840 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (545 km²) of Indian territory, mostly in Chumb in the northern sector."
from...a Pakistani site.
itsPakistan - Pakistan - History of Pakistan
and
INDO-PAKISTANI WAR OF 1965


----------



## bandit

Growler said:


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



Centurions _superior_...

Please note the standard phrases of yours like "_ego satisfaction_"you throw about with such impunity may well apply more to you...especially with millitary commanders accepting that Pakistanis were fooled by your leaders about the result of the war. Plese do not make fool out of yourself with such ludicrous statements....you're a Senior member for shits sake...


----------



## luoshan

Though the 1965 war ended in a stalemate, I feel India was the Nett gainer at the end of the conflict. Here are the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

5. Also, the 1965 war was a big morale booster for the Indian military, which was rock-bottom after 1962 defeat in the hands of Chinese, and gave them the necessary confidence in 1971. For the Indian Military '65 is one of the big military lesson learnt in the learning curve starting from '62 to the ultimate victory in '71.


----------



## eastwatch

garibnawaz said:


> 9-10 MiG's claimed by PAF pilot is not a whole fleet of IAF MiG-21's.
> 
> Besides I posted (and other Indian fellow members) many articles from Pakistani authors (many of them Ex-Pakistani Sefvicemen) who don't belive that Pakistan won the 65 war.
> GB


Excuse me, what is your definition of winning that war by Pakistan? Was it that Pakistan should have captured Delhi, only then you would have conceded defeat! India had at least 4 times more troops and the total strength was more than that. But, what is your specific achievements in 1965 war even with this advantage?

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

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

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## luoshan

eastwatch said:


> Excuse me, what is your definition of winning that war by Pakistan? *Was it that Pakistan should have captured Delhi,* only then you would have conceded defeat! India had at least 4 times more troops and the total strength was more than that. But, what is your specific achievements in 1965 war even with this advantage?



Not capture Delhi, But Srinagar at least. Wasn't it the objective of Pakistan to grab Kashmir when they launched Operations Gibraltar and Grand Slam?
In the end, Pakistan could not wrest even a single square mile of Indian territory in Kashmir.


----------



## arihant

eastwatch said:


> Excuse me, what is your definition of winning that war by Pakistan? Was it that Pakistan should have captured Delhi, only then you would have conceded defeat! India had at least 4 times more troops and the total strength was more than that. But, what is your specific achievements in 1965 war even with this advantage?
> 
> India lost many of its aircrafts and the IA could not make any real dent to the PA. Don't you think that this was a great humiliation and defeat for the IA? Retrospectively, it was a Pakistani win over a much larger IA.
> 
> To win even an unequal war a larger army needs brave soldiers willing to sacrifice their lives. Indians are not that willing to do this sacrifice, they want to overwhelm its adversary only with numbers.



Our Achievement was that we were able to maintain status quo. Pakistan wanted to take away whole Kashmir in 1965 war while India didn't have intention to take the Azad Kashmir or Northern Areas at that time. Fight started operation of Pakistanis and India successfully defended it. So, it's win situation as Pakistan completely failed achieve what it wanted.


----------



## luoshan

eastwatch said:


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


The Primary role of IAF in 1965 war to provide close air support to IA in its ground operations. PAF's role on the other hand was to deny IAF air dominance and hamper IAF's operations.
During the 1965 conflict, the PAF flew a total 2,364 sorties while the IAF flew 3,937 sorties. These numbers itself says which air force was more affective. Most of IAF sorties were ground support to IA, whereas most of PAF sorties were in defence of Pakistans airspace by attacking the IAF planes. The IAF might have lost more aircrafts than PAF, but they were also able to deliver more.


*Attrition Trends*


> For the period of the war, the IAF also logged no less than 3937 combat sorties (fighters and bombers), not including the combat sorties flown by helicopters or other elements of aviation. INAS 300 of the Indian Navy also flew 106 sorties and INAS 310 also flew a number of Electronic Intelligence missions. The PAF flew 2279 combat sorties in total. As expected, claims by each side varied greatly and while the PAF admitted only 19 losses, the Indian Armed Forces claimed as many as 73 aircraft kills, although the latter would include kills from post war incidents and from Army Aviation as well. While the latter figure has been scaled down over the years, disparities still remained. For example, the PAF could boast of 120 F-86F (6 squadrons) during the 1965 war but had no more than 2 squadrons (Sqn Nos 15 and 16) of F-86F during the 1971 war. While India claimed a larger number of B-57Bs, the PAF admitted no more than 4 losses to all causes, including accidents. Yet, the PAF which started out with 26 B-57B , and 2 RB-57D/F before the 1965 war (not including another two ex-USAF RB-57F on loan ), had only 18 B-57B and a single RB-57D/F in inventory by 1971, although 2 flying accidents between the years were known. Pakistan had also claimed to have lined up its fleet of five C-130s in order to prove that none were lost but once again, the actual number of C-130s acquired was six, according to a veteran PAF author. The credibility of Pakistani versions has always taken a beating with incidents such as the MM Alam fairytale and other strange claims including ones that the IAF was operating MiG-19s and MiG-23s . A retired Pakistani
> General admits "It appears that 1965 war was not rationally analyzed in Pakistan at all. In this regard the Pakistani military decision -makers were swept away in the emotional stream of their own propaganda !". As Air Commodore Jasjit Singh AVSM VrC VM (Retd), Director, Center for Air Power Studies, also points out, demands for emergency supplies of additional aircraft from Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and China, within 10 days of the war, was hardly supportive of the claim that the PAF had lost less than a squadrons worth of aircraft in the conflict. The "Official History of the 1965 war" puts Pakistan's combat losses at 43 aircraft, although a lot of the former's information is derived from Pakistani accounts.
> Strangely, even though the IAF flew a larger offensive air campaign by devoting 40&#37; of its air effort to offensive air support alone, the majority of its losses came from aircraft destroyed on the ground through PAF air strikes. Night bombing by B-57Bs equipped with terrain mapping radar and George Peach bombing systems, was particularly effective. The PAF without doubt, had achieved far more in terms of enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground but the IAF had achieved much more in the close support role, even if the IAF's performance and mission response was viewed as far less than optimal by the Indian Army during the 1965 war, as Air Commodore Jasjit Singh and Lt. Gen Harbaksh Singh VrC point out . The Air Force's claims for Tanks, Guns and Vehicles destroyed due to air action conflict
> with the figures for the same, confirmed by the Indian Army, although the latter did confirm that its own equipment losses to enemy air action was relatively negligible. Interestingly, the Indian Army itself claims 471 Pakistani Tanks as destroyed and 38 captured.


----------



## luoshan

*Attrition rate of IAF & PAF in 1965*



> The most accurate estimate that we can put together from accounts of both sides is the attrition rate of Pakistan Air Force losses in the air-to-air warfare was 0.9 percent (that is, 9 aircraft lost for every 1,000 sorties flown) compared to 0.6 percent for the IAF.
> 
> This actually points to the IAF being the superior force in air warfare progressively gaining dominance.
> 
> But during the war the IAF lost a significant number of aircraft to enemy action on the ground, especially in the eastern sector. The total attrition rates during the war including losses to enemy action in the air and on the ground work out to 2.16 percent for the Pakistan Air Force and 1.49 percent for IAF, that is, Pakistan was losing combat aircraft in the war nearly one-and-a-half times faster than India.
> 
> This ratio would have undoubtedly tilted much more in our favour if the IAF had not been ordered by the ministry of defence not to retaliate against the PAF in East Pakistan after the Pakistanis had destroyed a large number of our aircraft on the ground parked in the open (in spite of World War II blast pens being available)!
> 
> And Pakistan expected this to happen. That is why President Ayub despatched Air Marshal Asghar Khan, the former air chief, urgently by special aircraft, to China, Indonesia, Turkey and Iran to seek arms, especially combat aircraft, with a message of help in what Ayub's letter called Pakistan's '*dire need*'


----------



## Myth_buster_1

paritosh said:


> well I haven't read the Observer any time.I would really want a neutral link that testifies that article Growler you know the rules.



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



> THE 1965 INDO- PAKISTAN WAR
> "The Partition of 1947 signalled the end of the British Empire in India, and the establishment of two independent states, India and Pakistan. They took opposite sides over Kashmir's struggle for independence in 1947-49, and although open war was averted, India lost 6000 men in the conflict. India annexed Kashmir in January 1957 and there followed a long period of tension with Pakistan. Armed clashes in the Rann of Kutch in western India during January 1965 and Pakistan's recruitment of a 'Free Kashmir' guerrilla army finally erupted into open warfare in August 1965.
> 
> The ground forces of the two countries appeared to be evenly matched, and their respective offensives (although involving approximately 6000 casualties on each side) were indecisive. The Pakistan Air Force, however, emerged with great credit from its conflict with the Indian Air Force, destroying 22 IAF aircraft in air-to-air combat for the loss of only eight of its own - a remarkable achievement considering that the PAF faced odds of nearly four to one. During the conflict India and Pakistan came under strong international pressure to end the war, and arms supplies to both sides were cut off by Britain and the US. A ceasefire imposed by the UN Security Council then reduced the conflict to a series of sporadic minor clashes, and the national leaders were persuaded to attend a peace conference at Tashkent in January 1966. Their decision to renounce the use of force finally ended the war."
> 
> (Anthoney Robinson, former staff of the RAF Museum, Hendon and now a free lance Military aviation writer . Book: Elite Forces Of The World)



ask your library to order these books for you..



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






ooops i forgot.. these are just made up stories on pakdef


----------



## Myth_buster_1

paritosh said:


> do you not know of the deadly Vulcan cannons aboard your planes?
> and the Gnat is the classic example of how the IAF used it's obsolete inventory against your state-of-the-art one!



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

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


Clearly indicates IAF operated one generation ahead of PAF fighters.. the technological gap was.... 10 freaking years! In todays standard it would be like our F-7s shooting your Mig-29s and Mirage-2000 like lil birds..  
and btw Gnat a absolute fighter after just 6 years of introduction?


----------



## Myth_buster_1

paritosh said:


> it is not like that at all...infact '65 was a wake'p call for us...and we did work on them as history beckons.
> the point is that did we lose?
> no we didn't...why do you forget that it was a war instigated by Pakistan to 'liberate' Kashmir?
> what was the purpose of the '65 war?
> 
> _"Armed infiltrators from Pakistan crossed the cease-fire line, and the number of skirmishes between Indian and Pakistani troops increased in the summer of 1965. Starting on August 5, 1965, India alleged, Pakistani forces began to infiltrate the Indian-controlled portion of Jammu and Kashmir. India made a countermove in late August, and by September 1, 1965, the second conflict had fully erupted as Pakistan launched an attack across the international line of control in southwest Jammu and Kashmir. Indian forces retaliated on September 6 in Pakistan's Punjab Province and prevailed over Pakistan's apparent superiority in tanks and aircraft. A cease-fire called by the UN Security Council on September 23 was observed by both sides. At Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in January 1966, the belligerents agreed to restore the status quo ante and to resolve outstanding issues by negotiation."_
> 
> from the Library of congress-Country studies
> http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+in0173)



really sad to know how indians have manupulated history on their text books.. Pakistani superiority in tanks and aircrafts? 
btw let me just make this short.. i dont really like feeding trolls.. they are not just worth the time but i have to do this still.. 
PA never had a intention of taking over IOK.... because a logic would be 10-1 outnumber force would never invade its bigger opponents' territory... Infact PA relied of armed freedom fighters and it was a miss calculation and thats where the plan really failed.. 
btw were PA using Abrams in 65 war? believe it or not... my indian friend once told me us pk had a superiority advantage in 71 war because we were operating F-16s


----------



## Myth_buster_1

paritosh said:


> and lpus we held more territory too...when ceasefire was declared.
> "The war was heading for a stalemate, with both nations holding territory of the other. The Indian army suffered 3,000 battlefield deaths, while Pakistan suffered 3,800. The Indian army was in possession of 710 mile&#178; (1,840 km&#178 of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile&#178; (545 km&#178 of Indian territory, mostly in Chumb in the northern sector."
> from...a Pakistani site.
> itsPakistan - Pakistan - History of Pakistan
> and
> INDO-PAKISTANI WAR OF 1965



ya BullSh1t.. as usual pathological lair indians exaggerating this claim.. i wont be surprised to know if india also included entire lahore sector in this vetdream of theirs.. and oh btw when such baseless claims are made it usual has research as well... non of indian clams have any research.. 



> During 1965 war, India's General Chaudri ordered his troops to march on Sialkot and Lahore - jauntily inviting his officers to join him for drinks that evening in lahore Gymkhana. He didn;t reckon on the Pakistani troops.
> 
> "The first Indian regiment that found itself face to face with pakistanis didn't get clobbered," said a report in Washington DC, America. "They just turned and ran, leving all of their equipment, artillery supplies and even extra clothing and supplies behind".


----------



## Myth_buster_1

arihant said:


> Our Achievement was that we were able to maintain status quo. Pakistan wanted to take away whole Kashmir in 1965 war while India didn't have intention to take the Azad Kashmir or Northern Areas at that time. Fight started operation of Pakistanis and India successfully defended it. So, it's win situation as Pakistan completely failed achieve what it wanted.



lol you are making us sound like we were 10 times more man-powered the india but infact it was the other way round. but still Pakistan inflicted heavy causality on indian side. IAF lost more planes, IA lost more equipments on ground and lol they even left their things behind and ran away.


----------



## ganeshbhat

man u are totally mad.... pakistan politicians try to fool their citizens with all the false stories i think.... and the media their is a kiss a__ of the government. If you are really interested in knowing the truth then search for the details of the war in a site like the wikipedia which is totally nuetral. 

i would like to quote some sentences from wikipedia to help u...

* TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.[48] The same article stated that -

Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N


* Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[49] -

The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.


* In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",[50] Gertjan Dijkink writes -

The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.


* An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[51] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, is as follows:

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

In his book "War in the modern world since 1815", Jeremy Black mentions that "Pakistan gambled and lost heavily"

* Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war.[53]

Although both sides lost heavily in men and materiel, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.


It was determined later that only 14% of India's frontline ammunition had been fired and India held twice the number of tanks as Pakistan. By this time, the Pakistani Army had used close to 80% of its ammunition.

However, the Pakistani government was accused of spreading disinformation among its citizens regarding the actual consequences of the war.

In his book "Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies", S.M. Burke writes[78] 

After the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 the balance of military power had decisively shifted in favor of India. Pakistan had found it difficult to replace the heavy equipment lost during that conflict while her adversary, despite her economic and political problems, had been determinedly building up her strength.


The war was heading for a stalemate, with both nations holding territory of the other. The Indian army suffered 3,000 battlefield deaths, while Pakistan suffered 3,800. The Indian army was in possession of 710 mile² (1,840 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (545 km²) of Indian territory. The territory occupied by India was mainly in the fertile Sialkot, Lahore and Kashmir sectors,[19] while Pakistani land gains were primarily south in deserts opposite to Sindh and in Chumb sector near Kashmir in north.[20]


REMEMBER NONE OF THE ABOVE FACTS ARE TAKEN FROM A BIASED ARTICLE BUT HAS BEEN QUOTED FROM THE WIKIPEDIA

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khajur

First of all pakistan started the war in 1965 as part of op Grandslam not india.
The objective was to snatch kashmir from india.

*Now the question is why pakistan with smaller forces (in numbers) would dare to attack india which had a multiple time big in size??*

The logical answer is *with liberal US assiatance in terms of both modern war machinery and training it recieved as a part of centcom gave it enough confidence that it can easlily take on india and successfully execute its missin to seize kashmir from india *who recovering from the set backs of 62war with china.And ofcourse there other peperipheral folklore based assumptions that indians were weak meek hindus and their leadership was poor compared to macho pakistanis. Its strange that militray strategists make so inane assumptions...but in indo- pak contexts comparisions are often only skin deep.

Ironically,insted of making any new headway in kashmir,soon pakistan had to show its citizen that its fighting an indian aggression.Now thats some hell of a twist...and the misconception prevails strongly in the pakistni minds till today.


----------



## eastwatch

arihant said:


> I think war of 1962 and 1965 teach us two separate lessons. First that anyone can attack you. Second that your enemy will always take advantage of your weaken defense due to other factors.


These two wars should also teach India that it should not keep on holding lands that do not rightfully belong to it. But, did India learn any lesson?


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> First of all pakistan started the war in 1965 as part of op Grandslam not india.
> The objective was to stanch kashmir from india.
> 
> *Now the question is why pakistan with smaller forces (in numbers) would dare to attack india which had a multiple time big in size??*
> 
> The logical answer is *with liberal US assiatance in terms of both modern war machinery and training it recieved as a part of centcom gave it enough confidence that it can easlily take on india and successfully execute its missin to seize kashmir from india *who recovering from the set backs of 62war with china.And ofcourse there other peperipheral folklore based assumptions that indians were weak meek hindus and their leadership was poor compared to macho pakistanis. Its strange that militray strategists make so inane assumptions...but in indo- pak contexts comparisions are often only skin deep.
> 
> Ironically,insted of making any new headway in kashmir,soon pakistan had to show its citizen that its fighting an indian aggression.Now thats some hell of a twist...and the misconception prevails strongly in the pakistni minds till today.



This is what i like to call the moment of WTF? 
this is what i keep on saying.. newer indian generation have been concealed from facts and history.. they have always portrayed india as some sort of tragic hero who fought against all odds.. btw you have clearly portrayed yourself and your fake ego satisfying pathological liar indians. 

First of all.. US warned us earlier that they will never ever support pakistan in any war. and their equipments came with condition that they will not be used in any sort of aggression. If we had American weapons (which were 1-2 decades behind) Indian had Superior British, and Soviet weapons. 

but the fact still remains.. Pakistan Forces despite being numerically and superiorly inferior to Indian force we still inflicted heavy casualty on indian side and bullied a 10 times bigger foe in front of the world.


----------



## Khajur

Growler said:


> This is what i like to call the moment of WTF?
> this is what i keep on saying.. newer indian generation have been concealed from facts and history.. they have always portrayed india as some sort of tragic hero who fought against all odds.. btw you have clearly portrayed yourself and your fake ego satisfying pathological liar indians.
> 
> First of all.. US warned us earlier that they will never ever support pakistan in any war. and their equipments came with condition that they will not be used in any sort of aggression. If we had American weapons (which were 1-2 decades behind) Indian had Superior British, and Soviet weapons.
> 
> but the fact still remains.. Pakistan Forces despite being numerically and superiorly inferior to Indian force we still inflicted heavy casualty on indian side and bullied a 10 times bigger foe in front of the world.



WTF...u said wtf??

*ITS PAKISTAN WHO STARTED THE WAR in the first place...*

Did india provoke u to a launch op Grandslam?? No not all.

Didnt u get that op Grandslam...ur objective to sieze kashmir by force *failed miserably*??

Go read some quality history books first and learn to accept truth before calling me a liar.


----------



## Khajur

eastwatch said:


> These two wars should also teach India that it should not keep on holding lands that do not rightfully belong to it. But, did India learn any lesson?



No, but india should be far more cautious before lending a helping hand for the creation of a nation like Bangladesh next time around.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> Did india provoke u to a launch op Grandslam?? No not all



no not at all.. but only occupied our territory by force when we were hardly equipped with muskets and bow/arrow.


----------



## luoshan

luoshan said:


> Though the 1965 war ended in a stalemate, I feel India was the Nett gainer at the end of the conflict. Here are the following reasons:
> 
> 1. Pakistan initiated the conflict with the goal to capture whole of Kashmir - Goal NOT achieved.
> 
> 2. India retaliated to maintain its territorial integrity - Goal achieved.
> 
> 3. After 1962 war defeat at the hands of Chinese, the morale of the Indian military was rock bottom. on top of that, Indian leaders had neglected the military completely since independence. Indian army was equipped with old and obsolete equipment and only started re-arming after 1962 wakeup call. On the other had Pakistan's alliance with the west in the cold war had got it the latest start-of-art weapons and training. Considering all this Pakistan was expected to just walk over and hand defeat to India. Pakistan was over-confident at the start of war to defeat India, otherwise it would not have initiated a military conflict to grab Kashmir. But this did not happen in the end.
> 
> 4. India learnt some valuable lessons from the war which helped 6 years later in 1971. The military doctrine in Pakistan before '71 was that 'the defense of east Pakistan lay in west'. That is to say, in case of hostilities in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) with India, West Pakistan will capture Indian territories in Kashmir, Punjab and Rajasthan to force India to withdraw from East Pakistan. '65 war taught Indian military strategists that India could checkmate Pakistan in West. This strategy worked very well in '71 and the result is for all to see today. So, if seen in isolation, the '65 war ends in stalemate. But seen from a broader perspective, the events of '65 leads to the Indian military victory in '71.
> Another twist to the war of 1965 was that it increased the disenchantment of the Bengalis in East Pakistan with West Pakistanis. During the whole of '65 war East Pakistan was left undefended and Pakistan had concentrated all its military might in the defense of West Pakistan. It was pure luck that India refrained from attacking East Pakistan in '65. This was also one of the reasons that lead to the events which unfolded in 1971.
> 
> 5. Also, the 1965 war was a big morale booster for the Indian military, which was rock-bottom after 1962 defeat in the hands of Chinese, and gave them the necessary confidence in 1971. For the Indian Military '65 is one of the big military lesson learnt in the learning curve starting from '62 to the ultimate victory in '71.


One more casualty of the 1965 war was the martial races theory.
The 1965 war also stared casting doubts in the martial races theory propagated by the Pakistan military rulers as a propaganda tool to convince Pakistanis that they were stronger than India. As per this theory, One Pakistani Muslim soldier = 10 Indian Hindu soldiers. This was accepted without any questions and so deeply ingrained in the Pakistani military psyche that it was part of the Pakistans military doctrine. All new recruits were drilled with this doctrine. After 1971, there is hardly any talk about the martial races theory


----------



## Myth_buster_1

luoshan said:


> As per this theory, One Pakistani Muslim soldier = 10 Indian Hindu soldiers.



quite right but bit overestimated... 

INDIA POSSESSES THE LARGER ARMY; Pakistan's Is Outnumbered, 825,000 to 200,000 

and not to forget...

India also possesed larger Air force with supirior planes close to 1,000 combat aircrafts campared to Pakistan who only had 120 fighters and bomber.


----------



## arihant

The PAF has 65,000 full-time personnel (including approximately 3,000 pilots) and operates approximately 700 aircraft, including 470+ combat aircraft.

With strength of approximately 170,000 personnel and 1,700 aircraft, including 852 combat aircraft in active service, the Indian Air Force is the world's fourth largest.

So, it's just double. India has around 6x Land, so 6x problems and 6x boundaries.


----------



## arihant

eastwatch said:


> These two wars should also teach India that it should not keep on holding lands that do not rightfully belong to it. But, did India learn any lesson?



Most important Lesson was that, not to produce something wasteful


----------



## Myth_buster_1

arihant said:


> The PAF has 65,000 full-time personnel (including approximately 3,000 pilots) and operates approximately 700 aircraft, including 470+ combat aircraft.
> 
> With strength of approximately 170,000 personnel and 1,700 aircraft, including 852 combat aircraft in active service, the Indian Air Force is the world's fourth largest.
> 
> So, it's just double. India has around 6x Land, so 6x problems and 6x boundaries.



what the fudge? sooo?? is this relevant to 65 war? 
didnt PAF face almost 10-1 odds? and still kicked IAF's @ss?


----------



## arihant

Growler said:


> what the fudge? sooo?? is this relevant to 65 war?
> didnt PAF face almost 10-1 odds? and still kicked IAF's @ss?



This is current stats and not the earlier.

I didn't mention who kicked whom. I just provided stats. 

Ok, as you are starting your language, let me end it. Didn't your Chief has to run towards other countries for purchase of additional aircraft within week. You were at that time even unable to protect Lahore, although some mercy came which saved whole Lahore. Your objective was to get Kashmir which you failed. On actual ground you lost 1840 sq km of land and gain some 545 sq km. So just using rough language don't make your situation win. You have to prove in battle.


----------



## eastwatch

Khajur said:


> No, but india should be far more cautious before lending a helping hand for the creation of a nation like Bangladesh next time around.


BD is not your fat*er's creation. Rather, you should be thankful to us to lend you our hands so that you have won a single decisive war in the last thousand years. Remember, what your Indira Gandhi said, "Hajaar Saalo ka Badla----." She could claim that because we supported you. 

You should come to us and kowtow us for that only win. Win another war against Pakistan single handedly and then boast. Do not make bullshit statements any more and take your hands off our territories. You are the only regional terrorist country. You terrorize even your own citizens by your JAT PAT culture. Waiting to see when India will get another big slapping on its face.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

arihant said:


> This is current stats and not the earlier.
> 
> I didn't mention who kicked whom. I just provided stats.
> 
> Ok, as you are starting your language, let me end it. Didn't your Chief has to run towards other countries for purchase of additional aircraft within week.



lol talking about Chiefs... lol... good thing that you brought up.. 
and btw... you do know states placed heavy sanctions and embargo on pakistan during and after the war?? no spares means your planes cant fly for which indians bloodly took claim of shooting them down.. 
and of course.. as a 120 or so fighters fleet and after the war PAF needed planes from china on quick base because IAF already had 10-1 numerical and technical superiority and were also buying Migs hunters gnats su-7s etc... 

here is one of the quotes pakdef.info has researched on print media. 



> "The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."
> 
> Indonesian Herald
> September 11, 1965.







> You were at that time even unable to protect Lahore, although some mercy came which saved whole Lahore. Your objective was to get Kashmir which you failed. On actual ground you lost 1840 sq km of land and gain some 545 sq km. So just using rough language don't make your situation win. You have to prove in battle.



another wild gibbering piece of ...... and lol you talk of providing "FACTS"...



> During 1965 war, India's General Chaudri ordered his troops to march on Sialkot and Lahore - jauntily inviting his officers to join him for drinks that evening in lahore Gymkhana. He didn;t reckon on the Pakistani troops.
> 
> "*The first Indian regiment that found itself face to face with pakistanis didn't get clobbered," said a report in Washington DC, America. "They just turned and ran, leving all of their equipment, artillery supplies and even extra clothing and supplies behind"*.


----------



## eastwatch

arihant said:


> This is current stats and not the earlier.
> 
> I didn't mention who kicked whom. I just provided stats.
> 
> Ok, as you are starting your language, let me end it. Didn't your Chief has to run towards other countries for purchase of additional aircraft within week. You were at that time even unable to protect Lahore, although some mercy came which saved whole Lahore. Your objective was to get Kashmir which you failed. On actual ground you lost 1840 sq km of land and gain some 545 sq km. So just using rough language don't make your situation win. You have to prove in battle.


Pakistan had only 120 aircrafts against India's 1000. So, why do you make it an issue that Pakistan went for purchasing more aircrafts? By the way, if Pakistan was after Kashmir, then India was also after Lahore. Your General invited reporters to meet him in Jimkhana club next evening. See below, it was very famous in those days:

The then Indian chief of army staff Joyanto Nath Chowdhuri had said: 'I'll have a bada (large) peg in the Lahore Gymkhana.'

So, if Pakistan failed to get you out of your illegal occupation of Kashmir, you also failed to capture Lahore and drink soda. Also, do not forget that the East Bengal Regiment had received the most number of galantry awards in that 1965 war by repulsing all the Indian attacks in Khemkaran sector.


----------



## luoshan

Growler said:


> what the fudge? sooo?? is this relevant to 65 war?
> didnt PAF face almost *10-1* odds? and still kicked IAF's @ss?



Any link to support that??
In 1965 India was only twice as big as combined Pakistan. Also, India had to allocate majority of its military assets on long and treacherous Indo-Chinese border since India had just fought & lost a bitter border war with China. Pakistan had no such compulsions and could employ 100% of military assets against India.

One more casualty of the 1965 war was the martial races theory.
The 1965 war also stared casting doubts in the martial races theory propagated by the Pakistan military rulers as a propaganda tool to convince Pakistanis that they were stronger than India. As per this theory, One Pakistani Muslim soldier = 10 Indian Hindu soldiers. This was accepted without any questions and so deeply ingrained in the Pakistani military psyche that it was part of the Pakistans military doctrine. All new recruits were drilled with this doctrine. After 1971, there is hardly any talk about the martial races theory

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hack

Growler said:


> what the fudge? sooo?? is this relevant to 65 war?
> didnt PAF face almost 10-1 odds? and still kicked IAF's @ss?



How did Pakistan win in 65...what did they achieve?Did Pakistan win more land..what was end result as Pakistan initiated the war surely with goals in mind.?


----------



## luoshan

hack said:


> How did Pakistan win in 65...what did they achieve?Did Pakistan win more land..what was end result as Pakistan initiated the war surely with goals in mind.?



If 1965 war ended with victory for Pakistan, how come the military dictator of Pakistan General Ayub Khan was forced to give up power after the war???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## arihant

luoshan said:


> If 1965 war ended with victory for Pakistan, how come the military dictator of Pakistan General Ayub Khan was forced to give up power after the war???



There is difference in India, Pakistan and China when you see the knowledge.

In India, we were taught that India lost war against China and India was never prepared about war against China. They did mention about Forward policy but they never deeply released what is Forward Policy.

In Pakistan, whole story of wars was manipulated to satisfy ego. They were told that they won almost all wars. 

In China, no idea. As there is no democracy chance of censored news is more.

See, war is won when you have achieve objectives set before the war. Pakistan was having objective of getting Kashmir, which they did fail. While for India, capturing Lahore was not full fledged objective and was just short term military objective to put divert of Pak Military in Lahore from other areas.


----------



## Khajur

eastwatch said:


> BD is not your fat*er's creation. Rather, you should be thankful to us to lend you our hands so that you have won a single decisive war in the last thousand years. Remember, what your Indira Gandhi said, "Hajaar Saalo ka Badla----." She could claim that because we supported you.
> 
> You should come to us and kowtow us for that only win. Win another war against Pakistan single handedly and then boast. Do not make bullshit statements any more and take your hands off our territories. You are the only regional terrorist country. You terrorize even your own citizens by your JAT PAT culture. Waiting to see when India will get another big slapping on its face.



If u think east pakistan could have been liberated without direct indian intervention,u are grossly mistaken.we made the vital difference to ur struggle. 

U can even ask our pakistani friend "Growler" here if he believes that the east pakistanis could have manage to secure their independence from pakistan on their own with any indian assistance???
I'm sure he gonna give an honest answer.


I can give the examples of LTTE who ferocious struggle died down after decades old fighting with Srilankan army or even kashmir's insurgency with the moral and material support from outside.

*Do u honestly believe Mukthi Bahini struggle could have survived much stronger pakistani army any longer* *than any longer LTTE did ananist Srilanka*??

Its not like we were begging u guys to give us a chance to fight pakistan,on the very contrary ,its ur millions of refugges who flooded our lands, much of who still live in india even now ,*forcing us to interven aganist the wishes and explict threats of punitive action of the mighty USA,China and we risked our own security and shed the blood of our soldiers to a create new Bangladesh nation*.

*Never i wish to remind u of our sacrifies *for the creation Bangladesh, *its ur complely ungrateful hostile attitude and absurd assertions aganist india forced me to remind u* that the Bangladesh *whose pity border disputes u constantly harping on this board and making unsolicited remarks in a threating voice would certainly have been non existence if not for valiant india endeavours*.


*"what your Indira Gandhi said, "Hajaar Saalo ka Badla----." She could claim that because we supported you" *

LOl,*give me some proof that IG ever said that BS*, 
besides i dont know aout this number "Hajaar Saal" came from?? 
And see, history didnt change us ... but i know some ppl whose identities and societies were changed for ever.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M_Saint

luoshan said:


> Any link to support that??
> In 1965 India was only twice as big as combined Pakistan. Also, India had to allocate majority of its military assets on long and treacherous Indo-Chinese border since India had just fought & lost a bitter border war with China. Pakistan had no such compulsions and could employ 100% of military assets against India.
> 
> One more casualty of the 1965 war was the martial races theory.
> The 1965 war also stared casting doubts in the martial races theory propagated by the Pakistan military rulers as a propaganda tool to convince Pakistanis that they were stronger than India. As per this theory, One Pakistani Muslim soldier = 10 Indian Hindu soldiers. This was accepted without any questions and so deeply ingrained in the Pakistani military psyche that it was part of the Pakistans military doctrine. All new recruits were drilled with this doctrine. After 1971, there is hardly any talk about the martial races theory


I got sick and tired of these shallow-bubonic chanakya's marathon lies and couldn't resist anymore on writing something about it. If your grand daddy Nehru didn't write in his 'Discovery of India', how the myth of 'Martial race' was discovered in his empire then listen up, it was neither *Pakistani army* nor *Ahmed Shah Abdali* invented that bravadoes supremacy but your daddy '*UNGREJ*' was. And by their definition, if Punjabis and Pathans were martial then Sikh, Rajputh, North Indian Jat and Gorkha also fell in that catagory. So, who were you trying to fool here? BTW it was Mohammad, who let Habshi Billal to call Azan and freed slaves thus concept of martial or non-martial & Amir or Fakir were non-existence in Islam at its birth while crowning human beings. So, don't throw segragator cow-dung at us as your types are the ones that have been presevering it for centuries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

arihant said:


> There is difference in India, Pakistan and China when you see the knowledge.
> 
> In India, we were taught that India lost war against China and India was never prepared about war against China. They did mention about Forward policy but they never deeply released what is Forward Policy.
> 
> In Pakistan, whole story of wars was manipulated to satisfy ego. They were told that they won almost all wars.
> 
> In China, no idea. As there is no democracy chance of censored news is more.
> 
> See, war is won when you have achieve objectives set before the war. Pakistan was having objective of getting Kashmir, which they did fail. While for India, capturing Lahore was not full fledged objective and was just short term military objective to put divert of Pak Military in Lahore from other areas.



This thread is about the 1965 Indo-Pak war,

It had nothing to do with China, unless you are interesting to talk

about 1962 China-indo war!

And yea; democracy with a caste system. Incredible India!


----------



## toxic_pus

eastwatch said:


> BD is not your fat*er's creation. Rather, you should be thankful to us to lend you our hands so that you have won a single decisive war in the last thousand years. Remember, what your Indira Gandhi said, "Hajaar Saalo ka Badla----." She could claim that because we supported you.
> 
> You should come to us and kowtow us for that only win. Win another war against Pakistan single handedly and then boast. Do not make bullshit statements any more and take your hands off our territories. You are the only regional terrorist country. You terrorize even your own citizens by your JAT PAT culture. Waiting to see when India will get another big slapping on its face.


There is no denying the fact that if the bangladeshis hadn't risen in revolt against Pakistan, it wouldn't have been possible for India to pull a Bangladesh on Pakistan.

That being said, your rejection, of India's role in liberation of Bangladesh, with a hand wave, is nothing short of intellectual treason. Leaving aside, India's role in training the Muktijoddhas and assisting them with safe refuge and finance, do you really believe it would have been too difficult for Pakistan to subdue the rebellion. How hard would it have been for Pakistan to load its ships with Pak soldiers, offload them on the shores of East Pakistan and let them loose on Bangladeshis. 

They would have kicked the rebellion out of your azz, had it not been for India, taking active part in the liberation war. That tied up the Pak in west, leaving east to fend for itself (not that the east put any fight worthy of a 'martial race') and for you to make the best out of the situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Myth_buster_1

luoshan said:


> Any link to support that??
> In 1965 India was only twice as big as combined Pakistan. Also, India had to allocate majority of its military assets on long and treacherous Indo-Chinese border since India had just fought & lost a bitter border war with China. Pakistan had no such compulsions and could employ 100% of military assets against India.



any link to support what? oh boy you guys are so deluded and brained washed that even north koreans would laugh at you guys.. you guys are taught to not except the reality but to deny it with their own twisted ego satisfying stories. 
funny thing about you guys.. you tell us to provide facts, links, source, but its you guys who are jabbering nonsence 24/7.. 
now you tell me with "FACTS" that india did not have 1000 combats in 1965 war and paf operated more advance and same amount of jets as india. and oh not to forget your stupid claim of "india placing 2/3 of its fleet on reserve for china"


----------



## luoshan

Growler said:


> any link to support what? oh boy you guys are so deluded and brained washed that even north koreans would laugh at you guys.. you guys are taught to not except the reality but to deny it with their own twisted ego satisfying stories.
> funny thing about you guys.. you tell us to provide facts, links, source, but its you guys who are jabbering nonsence 24/7..
> now you tell me with "FACTS" that india did not have 1000 combats in 1965 war and paf operated more advance and same amount of jets as india. and oh not to forget your stupid claim of "india placing 2/3 of its fleet on reserve for china"



@Growler: Still awaiting your backup to the claim the India had 10:1 numerical advantage over Pakistan in 1965. Also, you claimed that India had 1000 combat jets without backing it up. Link to any reliable web source will be appreciated. 
I never claimed India stationed 2/3 of fleet on Chinese border. You made up that number.


----------



## luoshan

M_Saint said:


> I got sick and tired of these shallow-bubonic chanakya's marathon lies and couldn't resist anymore on writing something about it. If your grand daddy Nehru didn't write in his 'Discovery of India', how the myth of 'Martial race' was discovered in his empire then listen up, it was neither *Pakistani army* nor *Ahmed Shah Abdali* invented that bravadoes supremacy but your daddy '*UNGREJ*' was. And by their definition, if Punjabis and Pathans were martial then Sikh, Rajputh, North Indian Jat and Gorkha also fell in that catagory. So, who were you trying to fool here?



Yes, you are right. The colonial British originated it as a part of their divide and rule policy. I never claimed that Pakistan/Islam was the originator of the martial races BS. However Pakistan, especially East Pakistanis, whole heartedly adopted it and made it part of their military doctrine. Many of the so called British designated martial races are also in India, but India never accepted it as a state policy. 
Also, as a Bangldeshi you should be aware that if it was not for India, the 'martial races men of Pakistan' would still be having a 'nice time' with your non-martial Bengali Sisters/daughters like they were doing in 1971.


----------



## Su 30mki

Some people never end with excuses..........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## luoshan

*IAF was not in favour of 1965 ceasefire: Arjan Singh *



> By Ritu Sharma
> 
> On the 43rd anniversary of the war with Pakistan, Arjan Singh, the only Marshal of the Air Force, who led the Indian Air Force (IAF) during that conflict, rues that the war was too "short" and the IAF was not in favour of a ceasefire.
> 
> Singh, one of the first few pilots in independent India, is the first and the only IAF chief to be adorned with the rank of 'Marshal of the Air Force', the only 'five-star' officer in India currently.
> 
> "When ceasefire came, IAF was not in its favour as the IAF had consumed only 8-9 percent of its resources. The war was too short," Singh reminisced in an exclusive interview with IANS. Singh became IAF chief in 1964 at the age of 44 years.
> 
> The 91-year-old Singh, who was awarded the rank in 2002, also feels that the IAF's resources were not fully utilized.
> 
> "I feel in the hindsight that had the IAF known that the war was going to be short it could have used the resources in a bigger way," said Singh.
> 
> The Pakistan Army's incursions in India culminated on Sep 1, 1965, in a massive attack in the Chhamb sector (Jammu and Kashmir) by the Pakistan forces. The IAF finally joined the conflict on Sep 6 with a full-blown war breaking out on the western frontier of India.
> 
> The Pakistani incursions in Jammu and Kashmir continued for about a month till the ceasefire was effected under the aegis of the UN Security Council on Sep 23, 1965.
> 
> Singh, his memory still razor sharp for his age, says that the IAF, after starting off at a disadvantage, soon gained advantage over the Pakistan Air Force.
> 
> "We had an impression that the Pakistan Air Force was better equipped as it had air-to-air missiles, Sabre fighter aircraft and better radars than us. On the other hand our Gnat aircraft had short reach and were smaller," Singh said sitting stiffly for a man of his age.
> 
> He added that Gnat was not famous before and nobody liked to fly it, as it was difficult to fly and did not give any scope of error.
> 
> "But as the war progressed the Gnat shot down two Sabre aircraft, boosting our morale. Its small size was also a good advantage because it could not be seen properly on radar," Singh said proudly.
> 
> The IAF was used for the first time in the history of independent India in the 1965 India-Pakistan war. *This gave important war lessons that came handy to secure a victory in the 1971 India-Pakistan war, which was won on the strategic use of the IAF.*
> 
> Close air support missions of the IAF in the Gujranwala sector, in the Sialkot-Lahore-Ferozepur axis and in the Khemkaran Kasur sector in Pakistan, contributed to the destruction of 300 Patton tanks of Pakistan.
> 
> "We had planned for a three-month war. Our strategy was to attack Pakistan's rail and communications and at the same time stopping Pakistan Air Force from attacking our bases and operation areas. *We wanted to surround Lahore and not capture it as it would have been difficult to sustain*," Singh said.
> 
> Eventually it was the "failure of communication links" that forced the Pakistan Army to retreat.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

luoshan said:


> @Growler: Still awaiting your backup to the claim the India had 10:1 numerical advantage over Pakistan in 1965. Also, you claimed that India had 1000 combat jets without backing it up. Link to any reliable web source will be appreciated.
> I never claimed India stationed 2/3 of fleet on Chinese border. You made up that number.



i was merely stating facts about PAF being technical inferior and 10-1 numerically. how about a deal.. in return i dont want to see you here for next 2 weeks if i prove these facts.. 


Pakdef.info
*100 F-86 *


> The story of Pakistani F-86 starts when in 1955 US sold 120 of F-86-F40s to Pakistan Air Force. PAF had eight squadrons of F-86Fs on its order of battle which formed squadron no 5. 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 making up a total of about *100 operational airctaft.* of these 100 aircraft, *25 were equipped with Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.*


*10 F-104*


> Sqn Ldr Sadruddin and Flt Lt Middlecoat landed the first Starfighters at PAF Base Sargodha in 1962. In the following months, Pakistan inducted a total of 10 F-104A and two dual seat F-104B training aircraft in No 9 Squadron.


*22 B-57*


> After the 1955 Pak-US agreement, the PAF received 26 Martin B-57s including 2 training versions, which formed two squadrons, Nos. 7 and 8, of No 31 Bomber Wing on 11 May 1960.





> PAF's B-57 force remained committed to the night attack of Indian airfields as its principal task throughout the war. *Its meagre force of 22* aircraft undertook a total of 195 missions delivering more than 600 tons of bombs as compared to an estimated 92 night bombing sorties against PAF targets by more than 60 IAF Canberras.



 what a technical world class super duper fleet only defeatable in the hands of "technical inferior" IAF yet very deadly?
so sad to know your country taught you to believe PAF had tremendous advantages over IAF, especially in high-technology weapons and systems.... 

so thats 132 fighter/bombers for PAF in 1965...

i cant find IAF inventory list from bharat-raksak but IAF easily operated 1000 fighter/bombers in 1965.. 





but then again... what a sight to be proud of.. a technical and numerical inferior PAF made IAF on the RUN!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Indians here on this forum are so pathetic.. i have given enough non pakistani source while they keep posting BS written by some indian pathological liars. 
brain washed..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## luoshan

Growler said:


> i was merely stating facts about PAF being technical inferior and 10-1 numerically. how about a deal.. *in return i dont want to see you here for next 2 weeks if i prove these facts..*
> 
> 
> Pakdef.info
> *100 F-86 *
> 
> *10 F-104*
> 
> *22 B-57*
> 
> 
> 
> what a technical world class super duper fleet only defeatable in the hands of "technical inferior" IAF yet very deadly?
> so sad to know your country taught you to believe PAF had tremendous advantages over IAF, especially in high-technology weapons and systems....
> 
> *so thats 132 fighter/bombers for PAF in 1965...
> 
> i cant find IAF inventory list from bharat-raksak but IAF easily operated 1000 fighter/bombers in 1965.. *
> 
> 
> but then again... what a sight to be proud of.. a technical and numerical inferior PAF made IAF on the RUN!



Thanks Growler. But you have still not backed up your 'FACTS' with suitable/reliable links. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide me with reliable information about the exact inventory of the PAF and IAF before the start of 1965 war.  Especially the inventory list showing 1000 combat aircraft in IAF. I searched for it everywhere and couldn't find it. If you could send me the links, that would be truely awesome


----------



## Myth_buster_1

luoshan said:


> Thanks Growler. But you have still not backed up your 'FACTS' with suitable/reliable links. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide me with reliable information about the exact inventory of the PAF and IAF before the start of 1965 war.  Especially the inventory list showing 1000 combat aircraft in IAF. I searched for it everywhere and couldn't find it. If you could send me the links, that would be truely awesome



You are pathologically deluded.
you clearly lack comprehension of any subject.
you are jabbering same BS over and over again.
You can not digest the reality.

i have clearly stated my source which is "pakdef.info" and got the result. i do not know why would PAF lie about its 1965 inventory of 100 operational F-86, 10 F-104 and 22 B-57. 

looks like you are not going to sleep tonight.  

its not going to be long enough before i shut you mouth again with proving IAF operated 1000 combat planes..


----------



## arihant

Growler said:


> You are pathologically deluded.
> you clearly lack comprehension of any subject.
> you are jabbering same BS over and over again.
> You can not digest the reality.
> 
> i have clearly stated my source which is "pakdef.info" and got the result. i do not know why would PAF lie about its 1965 inventory of 100 operational F-86, 10 F-104 and 22 B-57.
> 
> looks like you are not going to sleep tonight.
> 
> its not going to be long enough before i shut you mouth again with proving IAF operated 1000 combat planes..



Currently India is having 850 Combat planes and you mean that India was having 1000 in 1965 war. Bravo...


----------



## luoshan

Growler said:


> You are pathologically deluded.
> you clearly lack comprehension of any subject.
> you are jabbering same BS over and over again.
> You can not digest the reality.
> 
> i have clearly stated my source which is "pakdef.info" and got the result. i do not know why would PAF lie about its 1965 inventory of 100 operational F-86, 10 F-104 and 22 B-57.
> 
> looks like you are not going to sleep tonight.
> 
> its not going to be long enough before i shut you mouth again with proving IAF operated 1000 combat planes..



You have still not given the "link" to the reliable/neutral information on inventory list of PAF. What you have given is a source to a vague writeup. Are you sure the so called list contains all the PAF assets? Are you sure you have not missed out anything? 
There are a few discripencies in your source. It says 120 F-86 delivered. Then it says 100 in the inventory. Also, says 8 squadrons of F-86 meaning 8x20 =160 Sabres??. Also, your "source" says 26 B-57's delivered, but only 22 in the inventory. 
You still have to backup your claims of 1000 combat aircrafts in IAF..


----------



## Myth_buster_1

arihant said:


> Currently India is having 850 Combat planes and you mean that India was having 1000 in 1965 war. Bravo...



yes india was having 1000 combat planes in 1965 war because it was having to have combat planes at cheaper price... just like USAF did back in the days when it was having 6-7000 plus planes... and now today they only have 1/3rd of that.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

luoshan said:


> You have still not given the "link" to the reliable/neutral information on inventory list of PAF. What you have given is a source to a vague writeup. Are you sure the so called list contains all the PAF assets? There are a few discripencies in your source. It says 120 F-86 delivered. Then it says 100 in the inventory. Also, says 8 squadrons of F-86 meaning 8x20 =160 Sabres??. Also, your "source" says 26 B-57's delivered, but only 22 in the inventory.
> You still have to backup your claims of 1000 combat aircrafts in IAF..



are really that dumb? you can not even comprehend! 

120 F-86 delivered YES.. 20 were used as spares, or canalization.. (please dont ask me if our F-86 were literally eating each other.)
leaving only 100 F-86s. 
i do not know where you got 20 planes per squadron but back in the days PAF maintained 12-13 planes per squadron just like with the F-104.. now you are gonna tell me that since PAF operated one squadron they must have had 20 F-104s? 
26 B-57s were delivered in 1950s.. yes.. in time span of 6-8 years about 4 of them crashed... now do the maths please. 

you are funny guy btw.. 

just give me some time.. i will also pull out IAF inventory data. 
so hold on


----------



## luoshan

Growler said:


> yes india was having 1000 combat planes in 1965 war because it was having to have combat planes at cheaper price... just like USAF did back in the days when it was having 6-7000 plus planes... and now today they only have 1/3rd of that.



Hmm... You have wonderful logic.  So you claim India had 1000 combat aircrafts because they were cheaper to buy then. 
Miss those good old days when everything was soo cheap, that a economically basket case country like in India in 1960's could afford 1000 combat aircraft.
I would prefer you give solid proof for the 1000 combat aircraft claim.


----------



## luoshan

Growler said:


> are really that dumb? you can not even comprehend!
> 
> 120 F-86 delivered YES.. 20 were used as spares, or canalization.. (please dont ask me if our F-86 were literally eating each other.)
> leaving only 100 F-86s.
> i do not know where you got 20 planes per squadron but back in the days PAF maintained 12-13 planes per squadron just like with the F-104.. now you are gonna tell me that since PAF operated one squadron they must have had 20 F-104s?
> 26 B-57s were delivered in 1950s.. yes.. in time span of 6-8 years about 4 of them crashed... now do the maths please.
> 
> you are funny guy btw..
> 
> just give me some time.. i will also pull out IAF inventory data.
> so hold on



Yeah man. I'm not as smart as you. Want to learn from you though 
Looks like you are just making up the stories about spares/canibalization/crashes as you go along. Would prefer some reliable source to backup all your claims. Otherwise whatever you say is just ...


> you are funny guy btw..


 Thanks for the compliment.. You seem to be a jolly guy too ...

Still waiting for the source of the magic number *1000*.. cheers


----------



## arihant

luoshan said:


> Yeah man. I'm not as smart as you. Want to learn from you though
> Looks like you are just making up the stories about spares/canibalization/crashes as you go along. Would prefer some reliable source to backup all your claims. Otherwise its just ...
> Thanks for the compliment.. You seem to be a jolly guy too ...
> 
> Still waiting for the source of the magic number *1000*.. cheers



Don't waste time in getting 1000 combat source. He is currently busy in making the story on some site then he will come to you.  

As far other things are concern, you keep getting unknown stats from our PK Friends. They claim that they won in 1965 and 1999 while we claim that they got defeat in their objective.


----------



## luoshan

arihant said:


> Don't waste time in getting 1000 combat source. He is currently busy in making the story on some site then he will come to you.
> 
> As far other things are concern, you keep getting unknown stats from our PK Friends. They claim that they won in 1965 and 1999 while we claim that they got defeat in their objective.



This is what Mr. Growler said a while ago..


> its not going to be long enough before i shut you mouth again with proving IAF operated 1000 combat planes..



Looks like he is not going to sleep until he finds the 'proof'


----------



## Myth_buster_1

alright indians... time for yet again another reality check...

yes i have to admit that i exaggerated 10-1 ratio.... infact it should have been 200 - 1000 including entire combat and non combat fleet. 
well at least i did not go that far like most of indians.. lol they still consider 90,000 POWs as pakistani troops but little do they dont wanna know that only 45,000 were army personals. but this is entirely different topic made for different thread.. do not find this opportunity to divert the main topic here. 

http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_page.php?pg_id=98



> Republic status
> 
> In January 1950, India became a Republic within the British Commonwealth and the Indian Air Force dropped its "Royal" prefix. At this time, it possessed six fighter squadrons of Spitfires, Vampires and Tempests, operating from Kanpur, Poona, Ambala and Palam, one B-24 bomber squadron, one C-47 Dakota transport squadron, one AOP flight, a communications squadron at Palam and a growing training organisation. Training adhered closely to the pattern established by the RAF, most instructors having graduated from the CFS in the UK and in addition to No.1. Flying Training School at Hyderabad with Tiger Moths and Harvards and No. 2 FTS atJodhpur with Prentices and Harvards, there were IAF colleges at Begumpet, Coimbatore andJodhpur.Licence manufacture of the de Havilland Vampire had been initiated by HAL which, after building a batch from imported major assemblies, went on to manufacture a further 250. In addition, 60 Vampire T Mk. 55s were to be built of which 10 were assembled from imported kits. Nos.2,3 and 8 Squadrons followed No.7 Squadron on the Vampire, but, extraordinarily, 1951 also saw the formation of the last piston-engined fighter combat unit when No. 14 Squadron was raised on the Spitfire Mk. XVIII. Vampire NF Mk. 54 two-seat night fighters were obtained in May 1953 to re-equip No. 10. Sqn at Palam, thus endowing night-intercept capability upon the IAF for the first time. At this time, relations between India and Pakistan were again steadily deteriorating and the IAF, its combat strength virtually unchanged since partition in 1947, was scarcely ready for any full-scale conflict. Plans were accordingly framed for major expansion during the period 1953-57, and the Government began to seek non-traditional and alternative sources of combat aircraft procurement.
> 
> Selection of the Dassault Ouragan fighter from France at this time reflected the decision to initiate diversification of supply sources. The first four of over 100 Ouragans, or Toofanis as they were to become known in the IAF, reached Palam from France on 24 October 1953, and this type re-equipped Nos.8, 3 and 4 Squadrons in that order. The Toofanis were eventually to be passed on to newly-raised units Nos. 29 and 47 Squadrons, with the re-equipment in 1957 of Nos. 3 and 8 Squadrons with the Mystere IVA from the same Gallic stable.
> 
> Re-equipment of the combat units necessarily assumed an overriding priority in view of the growth of what were seen as threats to India's integrity, but expansion of airlift capability was also vital. A second transport squadron, No. 11, had been formed on C-47 Dakotas in September 1951, and considerable enhancement of the Service's logistic support capacity was heralded by procurement of 26 Fairchild C-119G Packets from the United States which reached India by the end of 1954. Rapidly to assume the status of an airlift backbone, the C- 119Gs were issued to No. 12 Squadron, which, for some years, operated them in concert with the C-47s, the older transports eventually passing to a newly-raised unit, No. 43 Squadron. A second batch of 29 C- 119Gs was obtained in July 1960, and the transport fleet was further augmented by another 24 C-119Gs in May 1963 under US emergency military aid.
> 
> Both the establishment of a Maintenance Command and resurrection of the Auxiliary Air Force took place in 1955, two units of the latter being formed as Nos. 51 and 52 Squadrons at New Delhi and Bombay. A third AAF unit, No. 53 Sqn, was raised at Madras in the following year, and four more added over the next two years, Nos. 54 (Allahabad), 55 (Calcutta), 56 (Bhubaneshwar) and 57 (Chandigarh) Squadrons. The AAF squadrons were equipped with the HAL-designed HT-2 trainer - officially introduced into service on 10 January 1955 - and the Harvard, although Vampire FB Mk. 52s were added in 1959.
> 
> North American T-6G Texans (Harvards)
> 
> Expansion and modernisation Particularly significant in IAF was the year 1957, which witnessed true beginnings of the major re-equipment programme that was to raise the Service fully to world standards. Deliveries began of 110 Dassault Mystere IVAs, carrying the service into the realms of transonic flight for the first time, and both Hawker Hunters and English Electric Canberras began to enter the IAF inventory. A new No. 1 Squadron was raised on the Mystere, the existing Vampire-equipped No. 1 Squadron being redesignated as No. 27 Squadron; No. 5 Squadron re-equipped with the Canberra B(l) Mk. 58, and, at the year's end, No. 7 Squadron began conversion to the Hunter FMk.56. It was perhaps appropriate that the year which saw commencement of an immense infusion of modern hardware should also witness the end of the IAF's piston-engined fighter epoch: No. 14 Squadron, the last firstline piston-engined fighter unit, flew in its Spitfire Mk. XVllls to Halwara in preparation for re-equipment with the Vampire.
> 
> The IAF's energies were now taxed heavily with implementation of an expansion programme aimed at raising the Service from a 15-squadron force to no fewer than 33 squadrons over an extremely short span of years: a Herculean task when performed simultaneously with sweeping equipment changes. Several new squadrons, such as Nos. 15, 17, 20, 24, 27 and 45, were raised on Vampire FB Mk. 52s as interim equipment; Canberra B(l) Mk. 58s had equipped two additional squadrons, Nos. 16 and 35 by 1959, No. 106 Squadron having equipped with Canberra PR Mk. 57s and by the end of the 1961, six squadrons (Nos.7, 14, 17, 20, 27 and 37) were equipped with the Hunter. Growth was not restricted to the combat elements for, in parallel, the IAF's transport force was enlarged to six squadrons, three with C-47s (Nos. 11, 43 and 49), two with C-119Gs (Nos. 12 and 19) and one with DHC-3 Otters (No.41).
> 
> IAF CanberraThe early sixties were accompanied by the IAF's induction of yet more new aircraft types, the most interesting of these arguably being the Folland Gnat lightweight fighter. With its startling agility, the Gnat proffered outstanding cost effectiveness and during the mid-fifties a licence agreement was concluded for its manufacture by HAL following delivery of 23 complete aircraft and 20 sets of components by the parent company. The first IAF unit, No. 23 Squadron, converted from the Vampire FB Mk. 52 to the Gnat in March 1960. No. 2 Squadron re-equipped with the Gnat at Ambala early in 1962, and No.9 Squadron soon followed suit.
> 
> The IAF was expanding rapidly, its personnel strength of 28,000 officers and men at the time of the Sino-lndian conflict increasing by some two-thirds by the end of 1964, but the manpower requirements of the 33-squadron force had still to be implemented fully when the scheme was overtaken by even more ambitious expansion to a 45-squadron force which was sanctioned by the Government in October 1962, this calling for the raising of IAF personnel strength to some 100,000 by the early seventies.


----------



## garibnawaz

Gents,

Leave growler alone. He is getting happy let him leave in his happy world.

GB


----------



## Myth_buster_1

garibnawaz said:


> Gents,
> 
> Leave growler alone. He is getting happy let him leave in his happy world.
> 
> GB



yep... and we will let you keep dreaming on your own... but let me tell you... this forum has no room for your dreams.. 

btw... PAF whooped IAF in 48, 65, and 71 wars even with inferior equipments.


----------



## luoshan

Growler said:


> alright indians... time for yet again another reality check...
> 
> yes i have to admit that i exaggerated 10-1 ratio.... infact it should have been *200 - 1000* including entire combat and non combat fleet.
> well at least i did not go that far like most of indians.. lol they still consider 90,000 POWs as pakistani troops but little do they dont wanna know that only 45,000 were army personals. but this is entirely different topic made for different thread.. do not find this opportunity to divert the main topic here.
> 
> History of IAF



Where do you get these numbers from? I could not find how did you arrive at the figure of 1000 from the article. May be you could help me find it.
Why did you suddenly change the figure for PAF to 200? first you started with 120 and then went to 132 and now 200.. are you making up your own numbers? You seem to be pulling out numbers out of thin air. 
What has the number of Pakistani POW in 1971 got to do with IAF and PAF combat plane strengths?
Man, are you a writer of fictional novels? Seems you have very good imagination


----------



## garibnawaz

Growler said:


> yep... and we will let you keep dreaming on your own... but let me tell you... this forum has no room for your dreams..



And you are yet to give me a link about PAF viping out an entire fleet of IAF MiG-21's.

Even your Pakistani links talk about only 3 MiG-21's.


> btw... PAF whooped IAF in 48, 65, and 71 wars even with inferior equipments.



Ahhh please elaborate us about the 1948 Air Force Engagements on both sides. I haven't heard of any PAF involvement against the IAF in 47-48.

Pity despite of all the hoopla you still dont have Kashmir and you lost East Pakistan, couldn't save Karachi from IAF/IN air attack. 

GB


----------



## Myth_buster_1

luoshan said:


> Where do u get these numbers from? I could not find how did you arrive at the figure of 1000 from the article. May be you could help me find it.
> Why did suddenly change the figure for PAF to 200? first you started with 120 and then 132 and now 200.. are you making up your own numbers? You seem to be pulling out numbers out of thin air. What has the number of Pakistani POW in 1971 got to do with IAF and PAF combat plane strengths?
> Man, are you a writer of fictional novels? Seems you have very good imagination



one thing is clear you lack the capability to comprehend! 

132 equals PAF combat strength. 
and other 70 or so equals Trainers, transport planes, and choppers. 

in the article it clearly indicates that IAF was rapidly inducting new planes in its fleet at quick pace. the article also mentions that in mid-late 1950s IAF was operating about 100 X Hunters, Ouragans, Vampires, Mystere and thats 400+ good fighter strength right there. then fallow on orders were also placed later in early 1960s along with Gnats, and canaberas... eventually possesing a strong fleet of 45 squadron by 196*4*. add another 100 planes by 1965 (estimated guess) due to their pace of induction of fallow on orders..


----------



## garibnawaz

Dear Growler,

Please enlight us on how PAF whooped IAF in 1948 as per your earlier claim?

GB


----------



## Myth_buster_1

garibnawaz said:


> And you are yet to give me a link about PAF viping out an entire fleet of IAF MiG-21's.
> 
> Even your Pakistani links talk about only 3 MiG-21's.



oh really? show me which one of my pakistani link supports your pathological lying claim? did you even watch that video about PAF pilots interviewed? the reporter even makes fun of indians when he says you two were shot down by indians before.. then the pilots says actually couple of times.. now they need to take a good look at me now... go watch the video first.. 



> Ahhh please elaborate us about the 1948 Air Force Engagements on both sides. I haven't heard of any PAF involvement against the IAF in 47-48.



please read this...



> The Opening Round  1948 Air War
> 
> On 26 October 1947 the Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir declared accession of his Muslim majority state to India in complete disregard of the principles enunciated in the documents concerning partition. He invited Indian Military help to crush his Muslim subjects uprising and the very next day, on 27 October, Indian forces moved into the state, thus exposing a pre-conceived plan for the occupation of Kashmir. When news of the Maharajas accession spread, Gilgit staged a bloodless coup and, at he invitation of local chieftains, Pakistan sent a political agent to to administer the area. Simultaneously, the people of Poonch and Mirpur districts formed the Azad Kashmir Government at Muzaffarabad. India immediately flew her army into the state to confront the Azad Kashmir forces. Gilgit Agency was totally cut off, and Pakistan as left with no option except to move its armed forces forward to protect certain strategic positions close to the border. The Indian Air Force alse went into action, not only to harass the Azad forces but also to intimidate the isolated population of Gilgit Agency into surrender.
> 
> A substantial number of Pakistans military stores were still stuck up in Indian warehouses and now India became more obstructive about releasing them. The RPAF was severely handicapped, with only 16 Tempests on its strength against the IAFs 68. Furthermore, the Pakistan government had prohibited their employment in order to avoid a full scale air war. The RPAF could, however, endeavour to respond to the SOS calls for supplies from the besieged people of Gilgit and from the Azad Kashmir forces struggling against he Indian army.
> 
> The Valley Shuttle Starts
> 
> The four months old air force had only 2 war-worn Dakotas in serviceable condition when the first call for help came in December 47. There was hardly any maintenance support at hand and, above all, the pilots had no experience whatsoever in supply dropping. These handicaps, however, failed to daunt the crews of 6 Squadron who accepted the challenge with exemplary courage and launched their mercy mission without delay. One of the 2 Dakotas, with a set of aircrew and a ground party, were immediately detached to Risalpur, where it was to operate under the command of Wing Commander M Asghar Khan, the first commandant of the RPAF College.
> 
> The task of this single-aircaft detachment was not an easy one. The worn out aircraft could not climb beyond 10,000 feet, while the supply dropping demands of the 250,000 besieged people were unimaginably large and urgent. Also, there was no replacement aicraft in the event of a mishap. The care and maintenance, and handling in the air, called for all the skills that the detachment possessed. With its ceiling limitation, the only course for the Dakota to reach Chilas, Bunji, Gilgit and Skardu, the main drop zones, was to fly into and along the Indus valley. The valley itself is flanked by peaks ranging from 7,000 to 17,000 feet, and it is so narrow that a large aircraft like the Dakota cold hardly turn around in it; there was no patch of ground fit for an emergency landing. The weather in the valley had always been very changeable and, in 1947-1948, there was no forecasting facility to cover this area. The captain of the aircraft had to make a very hard decision when faced with bad weather, weighing the risks to his aircraft against the desperate need of the intended recipients of his load.
> 
> The operation involved yet another hazard: the Indian Air Force was operating freely in Kashmir; IAF planes had already strafed Azad Kashmir army positions and bombed undefended towns in the Gilgit Agency. Their fighters patrolled the skies over this territory without any possible interference from the Pakistan Air Force. No fighter escort could be provided to the Dakotas as the Pakistan government wanted to avoid any incident leading to escalation; its chief concern at the time was consolidation of independence.
> 
> In early December 47 the first sortie, captained by Flying Officer S M A Shah was a complete success, and it paved the way for a regular air supply shuttle service operating daily from dawn to dusk. The solitary aircraft would start early in the morning, winding its perilous way along the tortuous Indus valley, often successfully skirting patches of threatening weather, occasionally slamming headlong into them, evermindful of the need to maintain a respectfull distance from the jagged peaks crowding the aircraft and its plucky crew.
> 
> The first stage of this modest but vital airlift concluded successfully on 15 April 48. But the demand for supplies had, in the meantime, grown beyond the operational capacity of a single aircraft and 2 more Dakotas had been made serviceable; these were added to the detachment which by now had become aptly known as the Valley Flight. By October 48 the Pakistan Armys demands outstripped the capacity of even the expanded detachment, and the rest of 6 Squadron was moved from Mauripur to Peshawar where its Risalpur detachment also joined it.
> 
> The Defenceless Dakota
> 
> WW II veteran Douglas Dakota winds its lonely way along Indus valley At about this time, the Indians, stung by the reverses suffered by their land forces, increased their air patrols over the area. The RPAF aircrew were warned by their commanders to expect IAF fighter interference from then on. Before long, 2 Indian Tempests appeared over Chilas to challenge an RPAF Dakota returning from a para drop mission near Skardu. Flying Officer Mukhtar Ahmad Dogar was the captain and his crew included an under-training navigator, Pilot Officer Munir and Sergeant S M Mohsin, the air signaller. Also on board were Flying Officer Alfred Jagjivan, another under-training navigator, the air supply ejection crew including Naik Mohammad Din of the army, and 3,500 lbs of load. Dogar tells us:
> 
> I took off in the early morning of 4 November 48. The weather was fine and our spirits were high. Winding my way through the now familiar Indus valley, I para-dropped my load over a sandy bed near Skardu. Pleased with yet another successful mission, I had given the controls over to Flying Officer Jagjivan on the way back so that I could relax a little. We were somewhere over over Chilas when I sighted 2 Tempests above us and I first took them for our own aircraft. In the drop area I had no visual warning from our army posts about the presence of enemy aircraft and our own Tempests did occasionally sneak over to cavort in the bracing neighourhood of Nanga Parbat. It was only when these fighters came close that I discovered their true identity and quickly took over the controls; the Indians seemed to grudge me the momentary relaxation which I thought I had earned.
> 
> The valley at Chilas is about 4 to 5 miles wide permitting easy manoeuvring of an aircraft, and I weaved along in the direction of Risalpur. On the radio the Tempests ordered me to go to the nearest Indian air field but I took no notice of this. The order was repeated three times bit I did not respond. At this point the Indians threatened to shoot me down if I did not comply, and they fired a free burst to show that they were armed. I pressed on regardless, at full throttle, my main concern being to get to the narrower portion of the valley as quickly as possible.
> 
> The army personnel on board were feeling rather queasy by now with all my evasive manoeuvring and, ignorant of the situation outside, requested me to ease off; they appeared to be under the impression that I was trying to impress them with my skill! A fateful realisation came over them when they learnt that I was fighting not only for my own life but for theirs too, and they quickly returned to their seats. Flying Officer Jagjivan and Naik Mohammad Din, however, stood watching from the open doorway of the aircraft, blissfully unaware of what was to come to them a minute later.
> 
> Youll Never Get Me!
> 
> Said Dogar: You'll never get me! 4 November 1949At this time, one of the Indians broke off, gained a little height and came in to attack. He obviously meant business now and fired a full burst of 20mm at us, fatally wounding Naik Mohammad Din and knocking Jagjivan unconscious with a profusely bleeding arm. By now, I had got to the narrow neck of the valley and had asked air signaller Mohsin to stand up in the astrohatch and kick me every time he saw the fighters coming in for a kill. Thrice I was kicked and thrice, with quick half throttle, full flaps and left rudder I successfully eluded death. I had come down to deck level now, scraping almost along the rivers surface but well out of the fighters reach. A feeling of relative security sometimes inspires defiant talk and I found myself calling out to the Indians: if you havent got me so far you will never get me! They seemed to agree and pushed off.
> 
> The encounter had lasted twenty to twenty five minutes. Earlier, when the Indian pilots had asked me to go to the nearest Indian airfield they had felt too sure of having air-arrested me. But for me it was a question not only of to be or not to be, but also one of the Pakistans prestige. Looking back I can only say that we were lucky, unarmed as we were, to reach home base at all.
> 
> For this outstanding act of gallantry Dogar was awarded the Sitara-e-Jurat.
> 
> Dusk to Dawn
> 
> Although the encounter constituted something of a triumph for the infant RPAF, daylight operations by Dakotas were forthwith suspended by Air Headquarters for obvious reasons. Wing Commander Asghar Khan and OC 6 Squadron immediately decided to explore the extremely hazardous prospects of night navigation and supply drops in that narrow and winding valley. The aircrew were given concentrated night flying practice in the hilly region near Peshawar and on the night of 17/18 November 48, a proving flight was flown with Asghar Khan himself on board. Its manifest success was quickly exploited with two more missions on the same night. And so started an instant night air drop operation which would normally have taken weeks, if not months, to plan, practice and master. The shuttle would start at dusk and continue through the night till the last Dokata landed back at Peshawar in the grey light of dawn.
> 
> The relatively low intensity of night operations, however, could not hope to keep pace with the ever increasing demand, and something else had to be thought up  and fast. Just about the same time, the RPAF had acquired 2 old Halifax bombers with some vague strategic objective in mind. These were now quickly pressed into service and locally modified for supply drop operations. The risk to these aircraft during day operations in the Indian-patrolled valley was considered minimal as the Halifaxes could fly direct to the drop zones, high across the mountaine ranges, and thus hope to escape detection. Besides, they were armed with a detached Lewis machine gun carried in the front and a Bren gun in the tail.
> 
> High Flying Halifaxes
> 
> WWII Halifax bombers were quickly converted for supply dropping in Gilgit area Flight Lieutenant A K S Ahmed spearheaded these operations as he was the most experienced pilot in 6 Squadron at the time but, needless to say, all the aircrew who flew these missions, as well as the army despatchers who accompanied them, demonstrated great disregard of, if not contempt for, personal safety. The Halifaxes were fairly old machines and in case of an emergency, the jagged terrain offered no prospects for a forced landing  only the certainty of a crash. Moreover, if spotted by Indian fighters, the large and sluggish bomber would be an easy prey. Even basic manoeuvring in the narrow drop zones demanded exceptional skill and judgement, but the RPAF pilots had vowed to see these operations through to a successful end. During one particular supply drop at Skardu, Flight Lieutenant Ahmed was warned by the secret radio network specially set up for this purpose that 3 Indian Tempests were lurking in the area. Ahmed quickly completed his drop, climbed away with full power and managed to avoid interception by remaining inside cloud till he reached 20,000 feet.
> 
> The Harvards Chip In
> 
> While the Halifaxes and Dakotas kept up a relentless cycle of air drops by day and night respectively, the abandoned landing grounds at Gilgit and Skardu were brought into commission, permitting operation of small aircraft, and Harvards from Peshawar and Risalpur, armed with a single .303 machine gun each, joined the operations. They were used to convey army command and staff personnel, and light loads, to these airstrips, sometimes diverting over enemy areas for reconnaissance. Because of their small size they were considered less vulnerable to detection by Indian fighters and their manoeuvrability gave them excellent chances of successful evasive action. The biggest danger to them was while they were on the ground at either destination when they would be sitting ducks for a roving Indian patrol.
> 
> The hub of the Kashmir operations were the RPAF stations of Risalpur and later Peshawar which provided all the admin and maintenance facilities to the 6 Squadron detachment. The preparation of load pallets, their loading, lashing and ejection from the aircraft was conducted by 603 Company, RPASC (air dispatch) unit of Pakistan Army. The latter were in constant competition with 6 Squadron to produce loads faster then the squadron could drop them! It was the team work and dedication of the two contingents together which enabled this series of operations to be brought to a succesful close: by the end of December 48, air drops alone had involved four hundred and thirty seven sorties to deliver 1,036,470 lbs of critical supplies at Bunji, Astor, Burzi, Gilgit Chilas and Skardu. With their pioneering exploits, the transport crews set very exacting standards of daring and enterprise in the very first year of the RPAFs life; in the decades to come, their example would inspire their successors to even greater heights of courage and initiative.
> 
> The Cease Fire
> 
> Pakistan, like India, was still a dominion in the Commonwealth and the C-in-Cs of all its 3 defence services were British, as were several other key officers. Pakistan had received an unmistakable warning from whitehall that in the case of open hostilities with India, all British personnel would be withdrawn immediately and the delivery of military equipment ordered in the UK would be withheld. In the absence of military supplies from abroad, the armys ammunition stocks would have lasted barely a fortnight of action in Kashmir; army cover for the rest of West Pakistan would have been nominal and East Pakistan would have remained undefended. As for any offensive use of the RPAF, the comparative figures in the table below speak for themselves:
> *
> Aircraft Held-----Pakistan-India
> Fighters---------16-------87
> Bombers--------2--------4
> Training---------30-------100
> Transport-------5--------30*
> 
> An open war with India was clearly unthinkable, and Pakistan continued, as a matter of principle as well as imperatives, to seek redress through the United Nations. The Foreign Office had duly informed the Security Council in Paris on 24 November 48 that the RPAF had not been used in a combat role and that unless the Indian offensive was halted Pakistan would have to undertake a full scale counter offensive. On new years day, 1949 a UN-sponsored cease fire, approved by the governments of both Pakistan and India, was put into effect, which halted all offensive operations along the line of control.
> 
> The cease fire brought only a temporary relief to the crews of 6 Squadron who had soon to resume air supply operations in the same area, but now for a peaceful purpose. The winter snows had as usual blocked the tenuous road links with the northern areas, and the problem of feeding and clothing the refugees from occupied Kashmir and of consolidation of army positions along the line of control, demanded an indefinite continuation of the air supply system the RPAF had evolved. The only difference the cease fire had made was that their unarmed aircraft would now not to be liable to attack by enemy fighters. In due course, 6 Squadrons vital air link with these areas became a permanent feature, and continues to this day, as does their comradelike team-work with 603 Company.
> 
> On 1 January 49, the Prime Minister of Pakistan Mr Liaquat Ali Khan in a letter to the Services Chiefs said:
> 
> Both as Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, I wish to express my appreciation and gratitude, and those of the Government and people of Pakistan, for the efforts you have made to ensure the defence of Pakistan during the past eight months. I fully realise how difficult your task has been regard to both the type of terrain and the climatic conditions in which you have been operating; also, that for political reasons your operational role has been purely defensive
> 
> To the RPAF who took part, I would say that I also realise how great a strain was imposed upon you by denial of a combatant role, the lack of fighter protection and the hazards of weather and other adverse conditions you faced in maintaining the air lift, on which the people of Gilgit mainly depend for their sustenance during these winter months. Under these conditions your work has been admirable.




_______________



> Pity despite of all the hoopla you still dont have Kashmir and you lost East Pakistan, couldn't save Karachi from IAF/IN air attack.


huh karachi under attack?

never knew few oil drums are considered as karachi.. 

but anyways.. 



> "The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."
> 
> Indonesian Herald
> September 11, 1965.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

garibnawaz said:


> Dear Growler,
> 
> Please enlight us on how PAF whooped IAF in 1948 as per your earlier claim?
> 
> GB



hmmm lets see... 

PAF out numbered.
PAF technically inferior
managed to do this..



> "The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."
> 
> Indonesian Herald
> September 11, 1965.


----------



## garibnawaz

Growler said:


> hmmm lets see...
> 
> PAF out numbered.
> PAF technically inferior
> managed to do this..



Doesnt quite fit into a termed whooped ***** in an air war which actually never took place in 1947-48.



> huh karachi under attack?
> 
> never knew few oil drums are considered as karachi..



Check out the operation trident and Operation python articles on PAKDEF. not a single PAF aircraft was avaialble when IAF pounded Karachi.

GB


----------



## garibnawaz

> "The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."
> 
> Indonesian Herald
> September 11, 1965.



I was asking you about your claim of 1947-48 where you claim that PAF whooped IAF.

Besides the above is crap. ACM Arjan Singh was made Marshal of the Air Force for a reason.

If PAF was so deadly nothing could have stopped it from total destruction of IAF forward bases and its aircrafts.




> oh really? show me which one of my pakistani link supports your pathological lying claim? did you even watch that video about PAF pilots interviewed? the reporter even makes fun of indians when he says you two were shot down by indians before.. then the pilots says actually couple of times.. now they need to take a good look at me now... go watch the video first



Why should I watch the video when PAF officially *have never said* that they wiped out an entire fleet of MiG-21's in 1965.

GB


----------



## deep.ocean

garibnawaz said:


> I was asking you about your claim of 1947-48 where you claim that PAF whooped IAF.
> 
> Besides the above is crap. ACM Arjan Singh was made Marshal of the Air Force for a reason.
> 
> If PAF was so deadly nothing could have stopped it from total destruction of IAF forward bases and its aircrafts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I watch the video when PAF officially *have never said* that they wiped out an entire fleet of MiG-21's in 1965.
> 
> GB



Why we are arguing about known facts of 1965 war. History can not be changed.. and presently they have already suffered badly due to the false claim made in the past... 
Only cowards and loosers does not accept truth.. Its in their nature to loose again and again..


----------



## Myth_buster_1

garibnawaz said:


> Check out the operation trident and Operation python articles on PAKDEF. not a single PAF aircraft was avaialble when IAF pounded Karachi.



OFF TOPIC... since you have been brained washed by your bharti books...let me enlighten you..

Indian navy yet again had HUGE technical and numerical advantage. 
PN frigates, destroyers lacked AShM capability... the missile boats which india used were very stealthy not that it had stealth technology but outdated radars had huge trouble identifying it due to size of it... its packed up to date AShM and once launched the docked frigates were sitting ducks.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

garibnawaz said:


> I was asking you about your claim of 1947-48 where you claim that PAF whooped IAF.



one of our tempest shot down one of your plane.. this is a big achievement for a small force with only 16 fighters compared to 87 of yours.. 


> Besides the above is crap. ACM Arjan Singh was made Marshal of the Air Force for a reason.


lol just becuase it does not satisfy your ego does not make factual events "cr@p". keep being deluded. 



> If PAF was so deadly nothing could have stopped it from total destruction of IAF forward bases and its aircrafts.


dont expect much from such... achieving air superiority is a big achievement for any small force. i would be laughing my butt off if i read something unusual in history like french AF kicking GermanAF butt in WWII. 



> Why should I watch the video when PAF officially *have never said* that they wiped out an entire fleet of MiG-21's in 1965.


how official should one get? i mean the pilot is not official? but those pathological liar morons sitting behind bharat-raksak claiming fake victories? 

btw.. read my previous posts.. (indian source) which mentions IAF operated 14 Mig-21F-13 type-*74*


show me any post 65 war pictures of Mig-21F-13 with 10 migs? heck show me any 2-3 different serial numbered migs. the answer is.. YOU CANT! because PAF whipped it out!


----------



## toxic_pus

Couldn't help but notice that something has been quoted from Indonesian Herald.


> "The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."
> 
> *Indonesian Herald*
> September 11, 1965.


Well, Indonesia was Pakistan's ally during that war.



> "The divergent stances adopted by Nehru and Sukarno at the First Non-Aligned Summit in Belgrade in September 1961 on anti-colonialism on the one hand and the importance of world peace in a nuclear age on the other, symbolized *the beginning of overt deterioration in Indo-Indonesian relations - a process that culminated in the 1963-5 period*, which included the Indian moral support to Malayasia in its confrontation with Indonesia and *the latter's moral and material support to Pakistan during the India-Pakistan war of September 1965*.
> 
> That the *Indonesian assistance to Pakistan could have led to a direct military confrontation between Indian and Indonesia* is borne out by the testimony of a leading expert of Indian naval power, Raju Thomas.......Later, Pakistan's Air Marshal Asghar Khan revealed in his memoirs that *Sukarno had in fact offered to divert Indian attention from Pakistan by seizing the Andaman and Nicobar islands in the Bay of Bengal*."
> 
> _India and Southeast Asia: Indian Perceptions and Policies_, by Mohammed Ayoob, pg 40-41


Did I mention that Indonesian Herald used to be a govt. mouthpiece.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

toxic_pus said:


> Couldn't help but notice that something has been quoted from Indonesian Herald.
> 
> Well, Indonesia was Pakistan's ally during that war.
> 
> 
> Did I mention that Indonesian Herald used to be a govt. mouthpiece.



OMG.... talk about being delusional... 

Not a single claim is made by Indonesian Herald... in fact it was *"A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio"* all along! 

BTW what else do you have to say now? Was Britian also one of our "ally" who would lie just for heck of it?



> The ground forces of the two countries appeared to be evenly matched, and their respective offensives (although involving approximately 6000 casualties on each side) were indecisive. The Pakistan Air Force, however, emerged with great credit from its conflict with the Indian Air Force, destroying *22 IAF aircraft in air-to-air combat for the loss of only eight of its own* - a remarkable achievement considering that the PAF faced odds of nearly four to one.
> 
> (Anthoney Robinson, former staff of the RAF Museum, Hendon and now a free lance Military aviation writer . Book: Elite Forces Of The World)


----------



## toxic_pus

Growler said:


> OMG.... talk about being delusional...
> 
> Not a single claim is made by Indonesian Herald... in fact it was *"A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio"* all along!


As expected you missed the point. The fact that it was a publication from a country which was an ally of Pakistan in 1965, that had referred to a dateless, timeless broadcast of AIR to attribute an indirect quote to Mr Moraes, makes the whole reference null and void. Unless of course, you can prove that Mr Moraes did actually say those words, on All India Radio, (and if possible, also provide the date and time of broadcast) as reported by Indonesian Herald. 

Consider this as your homework. But complete your school homework first.


> BTW what else do you have to say now? Was Britian also one of our "ally" who would lie just for heck of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ground forces of the two countries appeared to be evenly matched, and their respective offensives (although involving approximately 6000 casualties on each side) were indecisive. The Pakistan Air Force, however, emerged with great credit from its conflict with the Indian Air Force, destroying 22 IAF aircraft in air-to-air combat for the loss of only eight of its own - a remarkable achievement considering that the PAF faced odds of nearly four to one.
> 
> (Anthoney Robinson, former staff of the RAF Museum, Hendon and now a free lance Military aviation writer . Book: Elite Forces Of The World)
Click to expand...

During the height of cold war, every regional conflict was viewed through the prism of Western democracy v/s Russian communism. Pakistan did indeed belong to the camp of Western democracy while India to the later. 

Anyway. I did find something interesting about Elite Forces of The World by Anthoney Robinson. 

Amazon search: Amazon.com: Elite Forces Of The World Anthoney Robinson

Your search "Elite Forces Of The World Anthoney Robinson" *did not match any products*. Did you mean: elite forces of the world anthony robinson 

A search on their suggestion: Amazon.com: elite forces of the world anthony robinson


Barnes & Nobles search: No Results
*Sorry*. We did not find any results with the search terms you provided.

Google search of the words Elite Forces Of The World by Anthoney Robinson: Elite Forces Of The World by Anthoney Robinson - Google Search

It yielded only one website. No prize for guessing what that site is. Yes, PakDef.info. 

Google search on their suggestion: Elite Forces Of The World by Anthony Robinson - Google Search

Google search of the words Anthony Robinson RAF: Anthony Robinson RAF - Google Search

This yielded quite a number of hits. It seems, Mr Robinson has written about the Battle of Britain. But still no mention of the book that has been referred to by you.

Seems another reference bites the dust. Unless of course

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nightrider_saulat

*please anyone tell me how many tanks india and pakistan lost in 1965 war*


----------



## Myth_buster_1

toxic_pus said:


> As expected you missed the point. The fact that it was a publication from a country which was an ally of Pakistan in 1965, that had referred to a dateless, timeless broadcast of AIR to attribute an indirect quote to Mr Moraes, makes the whole reference null and void. Unless of course, you can prove that Mr Moraes did actually say those words, on All India Radio, (and if possible, also provide the date and time of broadcast) as reported by Indonesian Herald.



you are sooooo deluded by that thick could of dust known as bharat-raksak! so you are telling me that Indonesians made up this story? 



> Consider this as your homework. But complete your school homework first.


considering the amount of in depth investigation of sources you want from me you should by now have taken a hike from defence.pk because the only source you have provided are pathological liar indian once. 


> During the height of cold war, every regional conflict was viewed through the prism of Western democracy v/s Russian communism. Pakistan did indeed belong to the camp of &#8216;Western democracy&#8217; while India to the later.


that is so lame of you... seriously is this your analogy? you do know pakistan was a DICTATORSHIP back then! Britain France still supported you indians! 



> Anyway. I did find something interesting about &#8216;Elite Forces of The World&#8217; by Anthoney Robinson.


even i have to admit... however highly likely to be some sort of typo error. 
how ever i found another book which mentions pretty much the same stuff in the previous post with unknown author and book name. 



Note yet again this quote has a mistake with author full name. Christopher Shores not Christopher Sivores... 




> Combat Over The Indian Subcontinent
> "In September 1965 a festering border dispute between India and Pakistan erupted into full scale war. The Indian possessed the larger air force numerically, composed maily of British and French types- Hawker Hunter, Folland Gnat and Dassault Mystere fighters, Dassault Ouragon fighter-bombers and English electric Camnberra bombers. The smaller but highly trained Pakistan air force was equipped in large part with F-86F Sabers, plus a few F-104 Starfighters. Fighting lasted little more than two weeks, but during that time, Pakistan gained a definite ascendancy in the air&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. It was the well proven Sabers that emerged with honors, being credited with all but five of the 36 victories claimed. The Indians claimed 73 victories - undoubtly a considerable overestimate - for an admitted loss of 35."
> 
> (Christopher Sivores, Book: Air Aces)





remarkably i found another site with accurate information..


this list only includes AIR-to-AIR victories. 
1965 India Pakistan War

page generated: June 15, 1999

compiled by Allan Magnus

References:

1. Pakistan Institute for Air Defence Studies
2. Air Warriors of Pakistan, revised edition, S.M.A. Hussaini, Ferozsons (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore, Pakistan 1992
3. Air Aces, Christopher Shores, Presidio Press, Novato, California 1983
4. Battle for Pakistan: The Air War of 1965, John Fricker, Ian Allen, London, 1979











lol its not even worth mentioning IAF combat kills because its really sad.


----------



## arihant

lol - accurate information - Check the reference first.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

arihant said:


> lol - accurate information - Check the reference first.



jealous? deluded? ohhh that agony! 
at least its more credible and accurate then joker bharat-raksak.
3. Air Aces, Christopher Shores, Presidio Press, Novato, California 1983
4. Battle for Pakistan: The Air War of 1965, John Fricker, Ian Allen, London, 1979


----------



## arihant

Growler said:


> jealous? deluded? ohhh that agony!
> at least its more credible and accurate then joker bharat-raksak.
> 3. Air Aces, Christopher Shores, Presidio Press, Novato, California 1983
> 4. Battle for Pakistan: The Air War of 1965, John Fricker, Ian Allen, London, 1979



I am talking about First Two. I can produce good source without help of BR but what value it has. Media was not in the combats plane when operation was going on, to calculate how much. We are believing on the source of both nations. 

Your claim like Pakistan was having just 100 and India 1000 are just jealousy and irrelevant. You don't agree on neutral sources and that is the reason, ..............


----------



## sensenreason

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965
The second Indo-Pakistani conflict (1965) was also fought over Kashmir and started without a formal declaration of war. The war began in August 5, 1965 and was ended Sept 22, 1965. 

The war was initiated by Pakistan who since the defeat of India by China in 1962 had come to believe that Indian military would be unable or unwilling to defend against a quick military campaign in Kashmir, and because the Pakistani government was becoming increasingly alarmed by Indian efforts to integrate Kashmir within India. There was also a perception that there was widespread popular support within for Pakistani rule and that the Kashmiri people were disatisfied with Indian rule. 

After Pakistan was successful in the Rann of Kutch earlier in 1965, Ayub Khan (by nature a cautious person) was pressured by the hawks in his cabinet (led by Z.A. Bhutto) and the army to infiltrate the ceasefire line in Kashmir. The action was based on the incorrect premise that indigenous resistance could be ignited by a few saboteurs. Ayub resisted the idea as he foresaw India crossing the international frontier in retaliation at a point of its choosing. The Bhutto faction, which included some prominent generals, put out the canard that Ayub's cowardice stemmed from his desire to protect his newly acquired wealth. It was boasted at the time that one Pakistani soldier was equal to four Indian soldiers and so on. 

On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15. 

The initial battles between India and Pakistan were contained within Kashmir involving both infantry and armor units with each country's air force playing major roles. It was not until early Sept. when Pakistani forces attacked Ackhnur that the Indians escalated the conflict by attacking targets within Pakistan itself, forcing the Pakistani forces to disengage from Ackhnur to counter Indian attacks. 

The largest engagement of the war occurred in the Sialkot region where some 400 to 600 tanks squared off. Unfortunately the battle was indecisive. 

By Sept 22 both sides had agreed to a UN mandated cease-fire ending the war that had by that point reached a stalemate. 

Overall, the war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government. 

Pakistan was rudely shocked by the reaction of the United States to the war. Judging the matter to be largely Pakistan s fault, the United States not only refused to come to Pakistan s aid under the terms of the Agreement of Cooperation, but issued a statement declaring its neutrality while also cutting off military supplies. The Pakistanis were embittered at what they considered a friend's betrayal, and the experience taught them to avoid relying on any single source of support. For its part, the United States was disillusioned by a war in which both sides used United States-supplied equipment. The war brought other repercussions for the security relationship as well. The United States withdrew its military assistance advisory group in July 1967. In response to these events, Pakistan declined to renew the lease on the Peshawar military facility, which ended in 1969. Eventually, United States-Pakistan relations grew measurably weaker as the United States became more deeply involved in Vietnam and as its broader interest in the security of South Asia waned. 

Iran, Indonesia, and especially China gave political support to Pakistan during the war, thus suggesting new directions in Pakistan that might translate into support for its security concerns. Most striking was the attitude of the Soviet Union. Its post-Khrushchev leadership, rather than rallying reflexively to India's side, adopted a neutral position and ultimately provided the good offices at Tashkent, which led to the January 1966 Tashkent Declaration that restored the status quo ante. 

The aftermath of the 1965 war saw a dramatic shift in Pakistan's security environment. Instead of a single alignment with the United States against China and the Soviet Union, Pakistan found itself cut off from United States military support, on increasingly warm terms with China, and treated equitably by the Soviet Union. Unchanged was the enmity with which India and Pakistan regarded each other over Kashmir. The result was the elaboration of a new security approach, called by Ayub Khan the "triangular tightrope"--a tricky endeavor to maintain good ties with the United States while cultivating China and the Soviet Union. Support from other developing nations was also welcome. None of the new relationships carried the weight of previous ties with the United States, but, taken together, they at least provided Pakistan with a political counterbalance to India.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

arihant said:


> I am talking about First Two. I can produce good source without help of BR but what value it has. Media was not in the combats plane when operation was going on, to calculate how much. We are believing on the source of both nations.


You guys are the most deluded human beings on planet earth! you guys cant stand any facts aganist india. 
so what if the first two sourse are pakistani?? even if pakistani claim 500 IAF plane shot down does the list say that? but nooo.. on the other hand you are being deluded and try to run away from the facts.. you are the one who is blindly believing on the sources of your country's which is based on false propaganda. 



> Your claim like Pakistan was having just 100 and India 1000 are just jealousy and irrelevant. You don't agree on neutral sources and that is the reason, ..............


how long are you going to drag this??? didnt i already corrected myself? 200 vs 1000 includind all types.

@ sensenreason 
i dont feed trollers. stop posting your rubish over and over again...


----------



## arihant

Growler said:


> You guys are the most deluded human beings on planet earth! you guys cant stand any facts aganist india.
> so what if the first two sourse are pakistani?? even if pakistani claim 500 IAF plane shot down does the list say that? but nooo.. on the other hand you are being deluded and try to run away from the facts.. you are the one who is blindly believing on the sources of your country's which is based on false propaganda.
> 
> 
> how long are you going to drag this??? didnt i already corrected myself? 200 vs 1000 includind all types.
> 
> @ sensenreason
> i dont feed trollers. stop posting your rubish over and over again...



No, each military will claim lesser no. of destruction and higher no. of targets than the real one so that it's credibility in war remains intact. Whether it's India or Pakistan, both credibility in terms of loss and gains will be inaccurate. So, I believe neutral rather then your PAF or IAF or BR.

So you have now 200 vs 1000 - Good, keep going up or down.

India carried more sorties than Pakistan, so always destruction will remain higher. On Air to Air Combat, destruction ratio remain same while Pakistan gained advantage in the Ground Destruction. As there is ground destruction, it is highly not possible for true losses. Should we end debate on IAF vs PAF.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

arihant said:


> No, each military will claim lesser no. of destruction and higher no. of targets than the real one so that it's credibility in war remains intact. Whether it's India or Pakistan, both credibility in terms of loss and gains will be inaccurate. So, I believe neutral rather then your PAF or IAF or BR.



You are insane! 
Allan Magnus is not claming every one of PAF victories which is about 80+ or so including ground kills.. Infact he decided to do his own research. contacted Pakistan Institute for Air Defence Studies read books and varified with other western nutral sourses.. 
he came to conclusion and so did many western defense anaylsts that in air PAF shoot down about 30-36 IAF plane with the lost of only 8-12. 



> So you have now 200 vs 1000 - Good, keep going up or down.


okay so i have been doing most of the work and now its your turn to do some research and tell me what were the figures? 



> India carried more sorties than Pakistan, so always destruction will remain higher. On Air to Air Combat, destruction ratio remain same while Pakistan gained advantage in the Ground Destruction. As there is ground destruction, it is highly not possible for true losses. Should we end debate on IAF vs PAF.



uhhh dhuuuh! obviously! i mean  IAF operated almost 8 times more air crafts then PAF... obviously they are going to fly more you genius! and lol..... just because IAF conducted more sorties does not mean they inflicted more damage!  your anology does not work here at all.. and please provide your sources... 

like i have said before..
PAF out numbered almost 200-1000
PAF operated technically inferior technology
but still shoot down 36 IAF planes in air combat with the loss of only 8 or so.. while destroyed entire IAF 14 mig-21F-13 type-74 fleet (and not a single Mig-21F-13 were ever seen post 65 war) along with 20+ or so IAF fighters on the ground. 
PAF is clearly a victorious here.. only a deluded person cant see this.


----------



## arihant

There are conflicting claims by either side on this issue. however, it is certain that Indian aircraft losses were higher than Pakistani aircraft losses. Sources suggest that Indian losses were in the range of 59&#8211;110 and Pakistani losses were around 18&#8211;43. Recent works have, however, attempted to move beyond the raw statistic of the number of losses each side incurred, arguing that in terms of aircraft lost to sorties flown, the Indian Air Force's attrition rate (1.5&#37 was lower than the Pakistani attrition rate (1.82%). Arguably this incidates that had the war continued, the PAF would have found it increasingly difficult to sustain operations at the same level. Nevertheless, a similar argument can be made about the IAF also, although it did have a significant size advantage that might have proved telling if the war had been prolonged.

Another factor which makes it difficult to determine the outcome of the 1965 air war is the issue of aircraft lost in the air in air-to-air combat or to ground fire as opposed to aircraft lost on the ground due to bombing. A large number of Indian aircraft losses occurred on the ground during the attacks on Kalaikkunda and Pathankot&#8212;up to 60 per cent by some accounts&#8212;while most of the Pakistani losses were in aerial combat. Some Indian sources claim that they lost 24 aircraft in air-to-air combat and ground-to-air fire, while claiming to have shot down 37 Pakistani aircraft in the air. Against this some Pakistani sources claim to have shot down 22 Indian aircraft in air-to-air combat for the loss of eight aircraft.

An independent source has put the figures as 13 confirmed aerial victories for the IAF, along with four damaged and four probable or unconfirmed. On the Pakistani side, the same source claims 17 confirmed victories for the PAF during the conflict, as well as one prior, along with 24 probable or unconfirmed.


----------



## sensenreason

The reasoning is that PAF was smaller in size and with inferior tech and still scored more kills.

Only one of the above is a well accepted fact. PAF in size was much smaller than IAF. Tech comparisons are tougher to prove decisively one way or the other.Who scored more kill is disputed though at worst PAF matched IAF. So, for a asmaller force....well done !!

Now comes the second part, why ask this question in 2009? If the reason isto correct the universal acceptance of the Indian version of 1965 amongst Indian members here; then same is true for the Pak members, most of whom will believe the Pak version...No big deal.

But anyhow...How does it matter??? Does it prove Pakistani's to be better pilots...is the agenda to prove 'that'....In my opinion, the whole martian races thingy is at play here.

Growler - Just posted something found on the net, if its not to your liking it doesnt become trolling. If I posted it earliar..then my apologies..Im not keeping track...


----------



## Myth_buster_1

arihant said:


> the Indian Air Force's attrition rate (1.5&#37 was lower than the Pakistani attrition rate (1.82%). Arguably this incidates that had the war continued, the PAF would have found it increasingly difficult to sustain operations at the same level. Nevertheless, a similar argument can be made about the IAF also, although it did have a significant size advantage that might have proved telling if the war had been prolonged.



OMG.....

look... its very obvious that a side with small fleet is going to have more attrition rate compared to larger fleet... i have failed to understand that why cant you comprehend this.. and its not Indian air force who were dominating over us but the only reason why you got away is because of the numerical and technical factor! not any kind of achievement. and oh... back in the days friends of pakistan were very willing to provide their equipments to pakistan.. and it wouldn't have taken long to provide pakistan with Hunters, F-104s, F-86 etc.. 

at the end of the day no matter how you represent this on your favor.. it was PAF who dominated the skies in 65 war and 71.


----------



## toxic_pus

Growler said:


> you are sooooo deluded by that thick could of dust known as bharat-raksak! so you are telling me that Indonesians made up this story?
> 
> considering the amount of in depth investigation of sources you want from me you should by now have taken a hike from defence.pk because the only source you have provided are pathological liar indian once.


Not sure how BR popped up, because my post had nothing to do that site. But given your obsession with BR, I wont be surprised if one day you blame BR for your irregular bowel movements.

Other than that, it is probably safe to assume now, that you have realized pretty well that any reference to Indonesia, circa 1965, is bad reference. Also, given the manner in which you have responded, I would assume, you have no way of confirming, if what was being claimed by that publication was true. So thats that with that then.

Regarding the amount of in depth investigation of sources, I have a feeling that if I take a look into it, I will be able to bring out some more skeletons. So, yes, you can continue patting your own back, for I am not going after your 'in depth investigation'.

One more thing. Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, not a valid argument.


> that is so lame of you... seriously is this your analogy? you do know pakistan was a DICTATORSHIP back then! Britain France still supported you indians!


There was no analogy in it. Anyway, it doesnt matter if Pakistan was a dictatorship or something else. Pakistan still represented Western interest, more so of the Americans, and India, of Soviets.


> even i have to admit... however highly likely to be some sort of typo error.


Finally. Probably now you realize, that blindly copy/pasting from your favourite site may give you that gotcha moment, for the time being, but if you are not careful, particularly when you are basing your derision and condescension on these sources, you might just end up having eggs on your face, eventually.



> how ever i found another book which mentions pretty much the same stuff in the previous post with unknown author and book name.
> 
> Note yet again this quote has a mistake with author full name. Christopher Shores not Christopher Sivores...


I am glad that now you are counter checking your sources. I will consider this a positive outcome of our conversation. 

However, given the fact that it is now established that you have yourself not read the book and is actually depending on third party sources, to somehow shoehorn that quote into something, that you feel would be acceptable to others, I will again take it with a pinch of salt. It might so happen that the quote is there in the book, although one may wonder what relevance does India-Pakistan war of 1965 has in the narratives of WW 1 & 2 air battles and aces, but, yours is case of lost credibility. So is PakDef.info's.


> remarkably i found another site with accurate information..
> 
> 
> this list only includes AIR-to-AIR victories.
> 1965 India Pakistan War


On the same web site, the author enlists Indian claims. And just look at his first source. Lo and behold, its the much hated Bharat-Rakshak. So apparently, BR is not as vile as some people would have us believe. 

Anyway, carry on finding 'delusional' motives in every post.


----------



## arihant

Growler said:


> OMG.....
> 
> look... its very obvious that a side with small fleet is going to have more attrition rate compared to larger fleet... i have failed to understand that why cant you comprehend this.. and its not Indian air force who were dominating over us but the only reason why you got away is because of the numerical and technical factor! not any kind of achievement. and oh... back in the days friends of pakistan were very willing to provide their equipments to pakistan.. and it wouldn't have taken long to provide pakistan with Hunters, F-104s, F-86 etc..
> 
> at the end of the day no matter how you represent this on your favor.. it was PAF who dominated the skies in 65 war and 71.



There is no doubt that PAF performed well in 1965 as they destroyed lots of IAF Planes on ground. I was going to end with that.

But now you have open debate for 1971 too. Can you prove that PAF was any way superior in the 1971 war.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

sensenreason said:


> Tech comparisons are tougher to prove decisively one way or the other.Who scored more kill is disputed though at worst PAF matched IAF. So, for a asmaller force....well done !!


its only tough for you to digest. you will only harp about what has been told to you for good night sleep.
Hunters, and Gnats are a decade ahead in terms of technology, while Mystere is .5 decade ahead. 
so basically these 3 type of planes were late 1950s technology.
in case of PAF... transformed from P-51 mustang and developed in 1946! 
only 24 F-86 were equipped with 1st generation 30% kill ratio AIm-9.
and 10 F-104 which was the only technical equal of main bulk of IAF fleet. 
only if PAF were operating Mirage-III F-4 F-105 could we say PAF had technical advantage over IAF with 130 or so combat fleet! 




> Now comes the second part, why ask this question in 2009? If the reason isto correct the universal acceptance of the Indian version of 1965 amongst Indian members here; then same is true for the Pak members, most of whom will believe the Pak version...No big deal.


so you are going to be deluded? and believe in your own version of victory? 



> But anyhow...How does it matter??? Does it prove Pakistani's to be better pilots...is the agenda to prove 'that'....In my opinion, the whole martian races thingy is at play here.



I didnt say that but JANE's certainly did. 



> Jane's International Defense (June 24, 1998)
> 
> The PAF, although outnumbered by IAF, has at least one qualitative edge over its rival: Pilot Training. The caliber of Pakistani instructors is acknowledged by numerous air forces, and US Navy pilots considered them to be highly 'professionals' during exercises flying off the USS Constellation (as co-pilots). The IAF is in an unfortunate position: it lacks an advanced training (and multi-role combat aircraft


----------



## Khajur

Growler said:


> OMG.....
> 
> at the end of the day no matter how you represent this on your favor.. it was PAF who dominated the skies in 65 war and 71.



This is complely fan boy delusional opinion.
No professional military historian would be judge impact of air combat alone in an isolated manner from the happenings on the ground . But only as part of the ground offensives which ultimately determines the outcome of any war.

In 65 war, pakistan failed to acheive any success in the op Grandslam and ended up loosing more terrirtorise than indian before the cease fire declaration.

In 71war, it lost war in east pakistan resulting in the surrender of tens of thousands of ur troops and liberation of east pakistan.

Now so whose skies PAF was dominating in 65 or 71 ??? 
India?? hell, no,read the complete historty of the 65 war from some proper neutral source,u would know that, *had the war prolonged pakistan would've lost far more of its terrirtorise as most of its resouces including that PAF were already thinned out *.


can any right mind say that Japan won WWII becuase of initial surprise attack of pearl harbour??NO.

Or American won the vietnamwar because far more vietcong troops died compared to no of US troops??Again no.

*Hence wars alway judged on the basis of the final outcomes*.

And pls be civil and dont become abusive just because its a pakistnai forum.


----------



## Khajur

Growler said:


> I didnt say that but JANE's certainly did.



Ha ha, u are quoting 98 article when Indo - US relations was still coming out of cold war mindsets.

Though PAF was trained and equipped by USAF during all those yrs , while US and IAF had no major interactions in those times or before that arrive at sort judgement .

The first face off US and IAF had was during *Cope India 2004, then cope 2005 *

If u can accept the truth and willing to learn then read the follwing reputed CS monitor article.

*Indian training surprises US *

Maj. Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing's chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India 2004, admitted that the US Air Force underestimated the Indians. "*The outcome of the [2004] exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected," *he told Aviation Week last year. "They had done some training with the French that we knew about, *but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly."*

One USAF controller working aboard an AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) plane told reporters at Kalaikundi Air Base that *he was impressed by the speed in which Indian pilots responded to target assignments given them by AWACS*. The AWACS, while operated by Americans, was acting as a neutral party, feeding target assignments to both Indian and American pilots during the exercise. *In most cases, the Indians responded to target assignments faster than the American pilots did - a surprising fact, given that this was the first time Indian pilots had used the American AWACS capability*.

Given India's growing economic and diplomatic aspirations, it's not surprising that many Indians would have the occasional outburst of jingoism. But Indian pilots know they still have a lot to learn.

"Whether the Indians win or lose is crew room gossip," says Mr. Patney. "The important thing is for us to be involved with the Americans; the purpose is to fly alongside each other, to learn from each other, to see if there is any interoperability. And for the Americans, the main thing is to see what we [Indians] can do with limited resources."


Indian Air Force, in war games, gives US a run | csmonitor.com



And many things have changed since 98 in terms of techical prowess of IAF,currently we posses Su-30mki ,the most advanced plane in whole of Asia.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> No professional military historian would be judge impact of air combat alone in an isolated manner from the happenings on the ground . But only as part of the ground offensives which ultimately determines the outcome of any war.
> 
> In 65 war, pakistan failed to acheive any success in the op Grandslam and ended up loosing more terrirtorise than indian before the cease fire declaration.
> 
> In 71war, it lost war in east pakistan resulting in the surrender of tens of thousands of ur troops and liberation of east pakistan.


 hypocrisy at its peek! 


> This is complely fan boy delusional opinion.



I was merely pointing out the fact that PAF dominated the war however pakistan's main objectives were not achieved.. Vietnam war is the prime example. USAF dominated the sky but at the end..
In 71... India the mr. opportunists had the geographical advantage! East and west pakistan were 1000 miles apart and already a much much smaller forces... if east and west pakistan were not geographically divided then india would not have achieved its ambition. 



> Now so whose skies PAF was dominating in 65 or 71 ???
> India?? hell, no,read the complete historty of the 65 war from some proper neutral source,u would know that, *had the war prolonged pakistan would've lost far more of its terrirtorise as most of its resouces including that PAF were already thinned out *.



wait we lost most of the land? are you again having a verbal diarrhea? making awful claims out of thin air? do you have any concert proof to back it up? not just pull out some random anti-pak claims to just satisfy your ego. 

This is the most "neutral" one could get.
PAF 65 war air-to-air kill






PAF 71 war air-to-air kill









> can any right mind say that Japan won WWII becuase of initial surprise attack of pearl harbour??NO.


 can any right minded except you compare Jap WWII attacks which they eventually got run over which is defiantly not the case with 65 war.. i think your false ego hood bharat teaches its people to believe in myths like you guys are living in..


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> Ha ha, u are quoting 98 article when Indo - US relations was still coming out of cold war mindsets.



ohh Jesus Christ! you guys are big time stubborn fanboys! 98 US still coming out of cold war mindsets? and what will they achieve from that? 


> Though PAF was trained and equipped by USAF during all those yrs , while US and IAF had no major interactions in those times or before that arrive at sort judgement .


and india had USSR, French, British, and even american trainings! you deluded fanboy punk! 



> The first face off US and IAF had was during *Cope India 2004, then cope 2005 *


and how is this relevant to 65 war? keep impressing your skills of diverting the topic because you know IAF got its @ss whooped by PAF! 
anyways.. wont comment on that.. however this video sums it up.. infact everything is referred to "center of indian military history".







> Given India's growing economic and diplomatic aspirations, it's not surprising that many Indians would have the occasional outburst of jingoism. But Indian pilots know they still have a lot to learn.


 blah blah blah...





> Indian Air Force, in war games, gives US a run | csmonitor.com







> And many things have changed since 98 in terms of techical prowess of IAF,currently we posses Su-30mki ,the most advanced plane in whole of Asia.


nothing much have changed.... India still enjoys numerical and technical superiority like its use to since 1947 when we had only 16 figher planes compared to 87 of yours. 
i can go on and elaborate more but this will take me away from the main topic.


----------



## Khajur

Growler said:


> I was merely pointing out the fact that PAF dominated the war however pakistan's main objectives were not achieved.. Vietnam war is the prime example. USAF dominated the sky but at the end..
> In 71... India the mr. opportunists had the geographical advantage! East and west pakistan were 1000 miles apart and already a much much smaller forces... if east and west pakistan were not geographically divided then india would not have achieved its ambition.
> 
> 
> 
> wait we lost most of the land? are you again having a verbal diarrhea? making awful claims out of thin air? do you have any concert proof to back it up? not just pull out some random anti-pak claims to just satisfy your ego.
> 
> This is the most "neutral" one could get.



Oh,yaa so finally accepted that main objectives were not achieved...I see some progress here.

And what this whining about thing East and west pakistan were 1000 miles apart in during 71 ??

what stopped ur dominant PAF and pak army to make any kind of inroad or advances in to our territory on the western indian front , ha??

Isnt its the bigger and stronger indian forces who repulsed all pakistani attempts to make any advance on the western front e,g the *Battle of Longewala *where IAF decimated ur armour regiment destroyed or captured some 36 tanks??

On 65,i never said most pakistnai land ,all i was refering to the fact that * Indian army was in possession of 710 mile&#178; (1,840 km&#178 of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile&#178; (545 km&#178 of Indian territory before cease fire was declared.*

"This is the most "neutral" one could get."

The most neutral site made this report based on individual claims of both IAF and PAF. so its neutral in the sense it accepted both claims...that all about it.


----------



## Khajur

Growler said:


> ohh Jesus Christ! you guys are big time stubborn fanboys! 98 US still coming out of cold war mindsets? and what will they achieve from that?
> 
> and india had USSR, French, British, and even american trainings! you deluded fanboy punk!
> 
> 
> and how is this relevant to 65 war? keep impressing your skills of diverting the topic because you know IAF got its @ss whooped by PAF!
> anyways.. wont comment on that.. however this video sums it up.. infact everything is referred to "center of indian military history".
> MnjKt0lreo8[/media] - Cope-india 2004 USAF vs IAF
> 
> blah blah blah...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nothing much have changed.... India still enjoys numerical and technical superiority like its use to since 1947 when we had only 16 figher planes compared to 87 of yours.
> i can go on and elaborate more but this will take me away from the main topic.



When u can give me *yr 98 JAN's repor*t claming that US navy thinks that PAF was very good and the report goes on to say IAF is ill equipped and badly trained... I gave u the more recent and very reputed CS monitor article about cope 2005 .

*Read that article again carefully ...its about cope 2005 an yr after the cope2004(ur stupid Utube video is about cope 2004) where IAF performed exceptionally well too. *And one clearly see that USAF had minimum prior engagement with IAF before that.

And ur cranck head youtube video just whines about the fact USAF couldnt use its sophisticated BVR in cope 2004 and talks up some conspiracy theory by USAF to buy more F-22 for the results ...though its true that *both airforce went engaged WVR scenerios in cope 2004 and IAF did exceptionally well which only proves its world class skills in classic WVR air combat *. But the *CS monitor article is about cope 2005 where the same story got only repeated*.

*Do u think USAF would perform in avg manner in cope 2005 after bad performance of cope 2004 just to push for more F-22 and that too aganist an unthreatening developing country like india;s air force??*

Me and other memebers have given enough material about 65 war and if u still cling on to some debatable glorifying stuff about PAF iof 65 war and potray it like a major achievement ,then good for u . I can understand ur compulsion and dont want to deny to feel good factor of 65 .*But rememebr after 65 ...we saw 71 and then u know the histor y...history do repeat itself*.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> Oh,yaa so finally accepted that main objectives were not achieved...I see some progress here.


huh? what are you jumping up and down for? at the end of the day. Pakistan army pakistan air force kicked your BUTT! 

during 65 war no one but India kept supply of weapons to pakistan forces while US placed sanctions and embargoes on us 
Thank you india.

Indian Air Force Ouragan aircraft after being forced down by PAF fighters - 24 June 1965. 

IAF Gnat which surrendered and landed at Pasrur - 3 September 1965. 

Pakistani gunners are giving an expert look-over to captured Indian field guns. The Indians left enough pieces in Chamb area alone to equip two Field Regiments. (1965 War) 


An operational tank squadron of the Pakistan army equipped with the Indian tanks (French-built AMXs) captured in the Chamb battle, out on manoeuvres. (1965 War) 

Three Indian Army tanks (Centurian, Sherman and an AMX-13) captured during the 1965 war on display at Pakistan Army Museum Rawalpindi. 





> And what this whining about thing East and west pakistan were 1000 miles apart in during 71 ??


your brain can not comprehend the fact that its a strategic night mare for any force to have its land mass apart while the foe sits in the middle. 
infact go and open a new thread on 71 war. you are taking it off topic.. troller. 


> On 65,i never said most pakistnai land ,all i was refering to the fact that * Indian army was in possession of 710 mile&#178; (1,840 km&#178 of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile&#178; (545 km&#178 of Indian territory before cease fire was declared.*



thats the most patriotically deluded with false claim one could get. you are leading a example of it. 



> The most neutral site made this report based on individual claims of both IAF and PAF. so its neutral in the sense it accepted both claims...that all about it.


what the phuck are you talking about? 
you lost 65 air war... thats the end of it!


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> When u can give me *yr 98 JAN's repor*t claming that US navy thinks that PAF was very good and the report goes on to say IAF is ill equipped and badly trained... I gave u the more recent and very reputed CS monitor article about cope 2005 .
> 
> *Read that article again carefully ...its about cope 2005 an yr after the cope2004(ur stupid Utube video is about cope 2004) where IAF performed exceptionally well too. *And one clearly see that USAF had minimum prior engagement with IAF before that.
> 
> And ur cranck head youtube video just whines about the fact USAF couldnt use its sophisticated BVR in cope 2004 and talks up some conspiracy theory by USAF to buy more F-22 for the results ...though its true that *both airforce went engaged WVR scenerios in cope 2004 and IAF did exceptionally well which only proves its world class skills in classic WVR air combat *. But the *CS monitor article is about cope 2005 where the same story got only repeated*.
> 
> *Do u think USAF would perform in avg manner in cope 2005 after bad performance of cope 2004 just to push for more F-22 and that too aganist an unthreatening developing country like india;s air force??*
> 
> Me and other memebers have given enough material about 65 war and if u still cling on to some debatable glorifying stuff about PAF iof 65 war and potray it like a major achievement ,then good for u . I can understand ur compulsion and dont want to deny to feel good factor of 65 .*But rememebr after 65 ...we saw 71 and then u know the histor y...history do repeat itself*.






troller
any irrlevent posts to 65 war and that unbiased will be ignored from now on... if you are interested in discussing joke-india 2004 2005 then open another thread.


----------



## Khajur

Growler said:


> what the phuck are you talking about?
> you lost 65 air war... thats the end of it!



Oh really we lost 65 air war?? 
R u sure??

*I read some where that there was a cease declaration...may be it was just for the land war and air force guys kept htting each other till the end. * 

Yaa, as long as u piss and moan around it ...anything is possible..


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> Oh really we lost 65 air war??
> R u sure??
> 
> *I read some where that there was a cease declaration...may be it was just for the land war and air force guys kept htting each other till the end. *
> 
> Yaa, as long as u piss and moan around it ...anything is possible..



yep... we won in air and land.


----------



## Khajur

Growler said:


> troller
> any irrlevent posts to 65 war and that unbiased will be ignored from now on... if you are interested in discussing joke-india 2004 2005 then open another thread.



Thank U.

Before i leave let me remind you,Its actually u who brought up the the JANE's diary article of yr 98 to show PAF is better trained and world class and how IAF is undertrained and ill equipped.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> Thank U.
> 
> Before i leave let me remind you,Its actually u who brought up the the JANE's diary article of yr 98 to show PAF is better trained and world class and how IAF is undertrained and ill equipped.



ops i am so sorry.. see what you guys did to me.. i posted the wrong article. 



> "India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front."
> 
> "If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?. The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes."
> 
> "These muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propoganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side."
> 
> "Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."
> 
> Roy Meloni,
> American Broadcasting Corporation
> September 15, 1965.


----------



## Khajur

Growler said:


> ops i am so sorry.. see what you guys did to me.. i posted the wrong article.



Take a break..

And this Roy Meloni fellow looks like a genious to me.


----------



## paritosh

eastwatch said:


> Excuse me, what is your definition of winning that war by Pakistan? Was it that Pakistan should have captured Delhi, only then you would have conceded defeat! India had at least 4 times more troops and the total strength was more than that. But, what is your specific achievements in 1965 war even with this advantage?
> 
> India lost many of its aircrafts and the IA could not make any real dent to the PA. Don't you think that this was a great humiliation and defeat for the IA? Retrospectively, it was a Pakistani win over a much larger IA.
> 
> To win even an unequal war a larger army needs brave soldiers willing to sacrifice their lives. Indians are not that willing to do this sacrifice, they want to overwhelm its adversary only with numbers.



it's very simple...a heavily defended position like a bunker with multiple mmg ports...with adequate ammunition can defeat wave after wave of enemy attacks.In the Kargil war...few Pakistanis killed many IA men.At places they killed in tens...it was because of the heavily fortified positions they had...and the ascent to recapture those positions made it all the more difficult.
the other thing is the element of surprise...it breaks the back of the enemy...
The battle of Somme in the first world war teaches us exactly that...the Anglo-French troops got a taste of the surprise they planned to inflict on the Germans.
now....


> _Excuse me, what is your definition of winning that war by Pakistan? Was it that Pakistan should have captured Delhi, only then you would have conceded defeat! India had at least 4 times more troops and the total strength was more than that. But, what is your specific achievements in 1965 war even with this advantage?_


Why we won the war?
the events which led to the war...Pakistan considered the scrapping of the special status to Kashmir by Shastri as a move to assimilate Kashmir into the Indian union...they decide that it is time to instigate the popular separatist sentiments in Kashmir.
The mujahideens come...are led down by the Kashmiris who side with the Indians...this event in general leads to an all-out war.
In the end a cease-fire is declared with us holding more territory(I presume that you acknowledge it)
and why we did not capture Islamabad...?
Did China capture Delhi in 1962?the fighting stuck to the mountainous regions of Himalayas and yet we did lose the war.
To understand this you have to understand who ordered the cease-fire.international pressure in those days meant everything.India and Pakistan have achieved a substantial amount of self-reliance now...but things were very different in the 60s...the UN was very powerful and both India and Pakistan were sans major allies...(US cut it's support to Pakistan...the USSR was neutral...the China-Pak angle wasn't there)
If India or Pakistan had chosen to ignore the UN call for a cease-fire...there would have been severe penalties...the lifeline of both the countries was loans and aid from the UN bodies...and it would have stopped.
Take the year 1998 for example when after the nuke tests...the sanctions that followed had an adverse effect on both the nations weapon systems and the whole arsenal in general...and the 60s were only darker.
So now how do we conclude who won and who lost?
a)on the basis of who held more land
b)on the basis of the ability to have out-lived the other country in weapons and ammunition stocks(or the attrition rate of the tanks,a/c s,ships,etc) and the amount of the other vital resources(diesel,petrol...) remaining with both the countries(there is no trade during wars....countries cancel shipments...that is why you need allies) 
c)on the basis of objectives met

considering all that...it's hard to see how Pakistan won the '65 war...as we held more land...our attrition rate of both the airforce and the army and the navy was lesser...we had more resources....and J&K was made an Indian state.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## paritosh

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


Back your points by numbers or some known facts that can be verified.
3000 Indians killed vs 3,800 Pakistani killed...is the official figure.
The ratio comes out to be 0.78947 in favor of the IA.


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


and how do we overwhelm the enemy by numbers?do we dive into the enemy bunkers like frantic mice?
next time you think of posting your ridiculous findings of the IA's non performance....don't.


----------



## sensenreason

Growler said:


> its only tough for you to digest. you will only harp about what has been told to you for good night sleep.
> Hunters, and Gnats are a decade ahead in terms of technology, while Mystere is .5 decade ahead.
> so basically these 3 type of planes were late 1950s technology.
> in case of PAF... transformed from P-51 mustang and developed in 1946! only 24 F-86 were equipped with 1st generation 30% kill ratio AIm-9.and 10 F-104 which was the only technical equal of main bulk of IAF fleet. only if PAF were operating Mirage-III F-4 F-105 could we say PAF had technical advantage over IAF with 130 or so combat fleet!
> 
> so you are going to be deluded? and believe in your own version of victory? I didnt say that but JANE's certainly did.



Im no expert so what you tell me above sounds good...ok..so Im convinced..but then another guy but an Indian fellow will bring some other factor to repudiate what you've said above...

The point being size is easy to prove and tech is not as easy.

Im not claiming victory for one or the other..frankly, it does not matter to me...if for instance what you claim is right then Im happy for PAF. Well done as I said....

The only point I want to make is that the sub text that I discern in this PAF victory thread is a theory of martian races. If thats the sub text..it should be discussed in the main text....as by this logic it lies at the heart of the arguement.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

paritosh said:


> Back your points by numbers or some known facts that can be verified.
> 3000 Indians killed vs 3,800 Pakistani killed...is the official figure.
> The ratio comes out to be 0.78947 in favor of the IA.


sorry to burst your bubble but you are by far the biggest deluded, hippocrate, state propaganda brain washed, and a pathological liar fanboy. you are so happy to blindly believe in what ever baseless claim is made in favor of India but in your blind patriotism you never bother to check its credibility.. 




> and how do we overwhelm the enemy by numbers?do we dive into the enemy bunkers like frantic mice?
> next time you think of posting your ridiculous findings of the IA's non performance....don't.


You are not that smart or are you kid?


----------



## paritosh

Growler said:


> sorry to burst your bubble but you are by far the biggest deluded, hippocrate, state propaganda brain washed, and a pathological liar fanboy. you are so happy to blindly believe in what ever baseless claim is made in favor of India but in your blind patriotism you never bother to check its credibility..


did you burst my bubble...eh?
who the fck cares about what you think about me?
and I see you are not using your smilies now...if you really hate me so much then why bother dueling with me?
highlight the part that you don't like and ask questions or correct stuff you think is not right...you've been on this forum for a long time now...


> You are not that smart or are you kid?


_biggest deluded, hippocrate, state propaganda brain washed, and a pathological liar fanboy_
shows how desperate you are...yeah i guess I am smart enough.


----------



## M_Saint

luoshan said:


> Yes, you are right. The colonial British originated it as a part of their divide and rule policy. I never claimed that Pakistan/Islam was the originator of the martial races BS. However Pakistan, especially East Pakistanis, whole heartedly adopted it and made it part of their military doctrine. Many of the so called British designated martial races are also in India, but India never accepted it as a state policy.
> Also, as a Bangldeshi you should be aware that if it was not for India, the 'martial races men of Pakistan' would still be having a 'nice time' with your non-martial Bengali Sisters/daughters like they were doing in 1971.


Like Satan, Indians try to camouflage their faces with humanistic virtues but it doesn't take too long for their real colors to appear. Now listen up, people of East PAK were given enough chances to take part in PAK-MIL in the form establishing Dhaka Cadet College, calling for recruits repeatedly in 1950s but there weren't even enough enrollees, so the college had to be re-located in Mirzapur, near at Tangail that let the W Pakistanis to live up with the BRITS ran myth. Furthermore, even in British era, recruits from Bengal in Mil were much less than Punjab, NWFP etc. But W Pakistanis tried to break that stagnation by giving us enough chances but we weren't passionate to take that route rather chose to be intellectual. So, was it W Pakistanis fault on baiting on the perception that 'East PAK's defence lied in West'? And for your info., regard martial man's honeymoon with non-martial women, it seemed like all the raped women migrated to IND and gave birth the buoyed martial, who jumped on this forum that happened to surpass W Pakistanis by many folds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Narkun

Growler said:


> sorry to burst your bubble but you are by far the biggest deluded, hippocrate, state propaganda brain washed, and a pathological liar fanboy. you are so happy to blindly believe in what ever baseless claim is made in favor of India but in your blind patriotism you never bother to check its credibility..



Hmm.. so what is a credible source?

US Congress Study - 



> Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government



TIME magazine - 



> India holds 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan... Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.



Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" - 



> The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.



Gertjan Dijkink's "National identity and geopolitical visions" -



> The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.



Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" - 



> Although both sides lost heavily in men and materiel, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.



Fact remains, for Pakistanis, every non-Pakistani source is not credible. Agreed that Pakistan Air Force did perform well during the war, but the Indian Army clearly had the better of the Pakistani Army. 

And what difference it makes.. we came back and defeated both the Pakistani Army and the Air Force comprehensively six years after this war.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## paritosh

Narkun said:


> Fact remains, for Pakistanis, every non-Pakistani source is not credible. Agreed that Pakistan Air Force did perform well in the war, but the Indian Army clearly had the better of the Pakistani Army.
> 
> And what difference it makes.. we came back and defeated both the Pakistani Army and the Air Force comprehensively six years after this war.


precisely...1971 shows how we won by achieving our military goals.
Pakistan in '65 waged the war to liberate Kashmir...did not happen.


----------



## M_Saint

Narkun said:


> And what difference it makes.. we came back and defeated both the Pakistani Army and the Air Force comprehensively six years after this war.



Save false prophecy for another place. In 1965, your country didn't attack East PAK, infect there wasn't any war there at all. So how did the lesson of fighting in a completely different terrain, land and sky help you to win war in 1971 in E PAK? I meant what kind of logistics that correlated of W PAK's war in E PAK? Now listen up very carefully, IND decided to break E PAK up even before PAK came to a being. 1952s language movement was the first mean towards that end. Then in 1963, by conspiring in Agartala it recruited student, professional and political leaders, who regularly fed Intel to IB/RAW and it was mutual of both parties not to involve in quarrel in 1965 because time wasn't ripe at that time and their ultimate goal could be jeopardized by it. Then continuous agitation through six points, 70s election and decades of espionage related collaboration provided IND the golden moment in thousand years to defeat a bettered, cut off, fatigued force of 37,187 soldiers. So, tell your fellow to pet you accordingly but not by spreading smoke over here.


----------



## Narkun

M_Saint said:


> Save false prophecy for another place. In 1965, your country didn't attack East PAK, infect there wasn't any war there at all. So how did the lesson of fighting in a completely different terrain, land and sky help you to win war in 1971 in E PAK? I meant what kind of logistics that correlated of W PAK's war in E PAK?





You are talking as if India and Pakistan didn't fight a single battle on the Western front! Ever heard of Battle of Longewala and Battle of Basantar? No offense.. but you are so ignorant that I didn't even bother to read the rest of your comment.

Enjoy!


----------



## toxic_pus

A 'pun'less version of my previous post which was deleted by Mr Web. (One of course wonders what prevented him from editing the 'puns' and retaining the post). Hopefully this will be allowed in the same spirit as Growler's derisions are.

Here are some excerpt of a recently declassified telegram from US Embassy in Karachi to Secretary of State, Washington DC, US, on 20th October, 1965. [Words in parenthesis () are my amateurish editing. When in doubt, check with the origianl] 


> '*Continuing propaganda re achievements of Pak forces seems to have convinced most that only Pak forbearance *(has) *saved the Indians from disaster*.'





> 'Oddball aftermath is unshakeable conviction (in) all strata that (the) Indians (are) armed by USA to fight Pakistan, while *many refuse* (to) *believe Paks had modern American weapons*. News photo of US ammunition repeatedly cited as proof (of) diversion (of) US aid from Pakistan to India, altho some will admit US (is) only misguided, deceived by wily Hindus.'





> 'Ayub position: No audible murmurs of Dissent, but some concern over future support by army, *which has now spent six months on front lines without getting sense of accomplishment*.'





> '*Peshawar and Kohat sites of IAF bombs raids continue to be drawing card for West Pak politicians.*'
> 
> _The war officially started on 6th September of 1965 and it seems that IAF was bombing, pretty much at will, well past mid-October._
> Correction: The telegram was referring to the IAF raid of Peshawar and Kohat, on 14th September 1965.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EagleEyes

> A 'pun'less version of my previous post which was deleted by Mr Web. (One of course wonders what prevented him from editing the 'puns' and retaining the post). Hopefully this will be allowed in the same spirit as Growler's derisions are.



We dont have time to edit the moronic posts.


----------



## paritosh

M_Saint said:


> Save false prophecy for another place. In 1965, your country didn't attack East PAK, infect there wasn't any war there at all. So how did the lesson of fighting in a completely different terrain, land and sky help you to win war in 1971 in E PAK? I meant what kind of logistics that correlated of W PAK's war in E PAK? Now listen up very carefully, IND decided to break E PAK up even before PAK came to a being. 1952s language movement was the first mean towards that end. Then in 1963, by conspiring in Agartala it recruited student, professional and political leaders, who regularly fed Intel to IB/RAW and it was mutual of both parties not to involve in quarrel in 1965 because time wasn't ripe at that time and their ultimate goal could be jeopardized by it. Then continuous agitation through six points, 70s election and decades of espionage related collaboration provided IND the golden moment in thousand years to defeat a bettered, cut off, fatigued force of 37,187 soldiers. So, tell your fellow to pet you accordingly but not by spreading smoke over here.



yeah we rigged the Pakistani election results...we paid the Pakistanis to murder the east Pakistanis...and heck it was Mahatma Gandhi and not Jinnah who wanted Urdu to be the national language and Bengali to be trashed.

you are no longer East Pakistan.Respect your freedom fighters by not 'blaming' us for the coup d'etat in '71.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Narkun said:


> Fact remains, for Pakistanis, every non-Pakistani source is not credible. Agreed that Pakistan Air Force did perform well during the war, but the Indian Army clearly had the better of the Pakistani Army.



Holy Sh**. facts? what facts? 

you mean the fact that your air chief could no longer assure safty of indian air space in 65 war when PAF planes bombarded day/night... you mean facts about 65 era western journalists reporting on the scene and admiting that indian are lying and they are getting their *** humiliated by 5 times smaller enemy! 



> "India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front."
> 
> "If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?. The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes."
> 
> "These muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propoganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side."
> 
> "Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."
> 
> *Roy Meloni,
> American Broadcasting Corporation
> September 15, 1965. *





> "India's barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralisation. The huge losses suffered by the Indian Armed Forces during the last 12 days of fighting could not be kept from the Indian public and in retaliation, the Indian armed forces are indulging in the most barbaric methods."
> 
> *"The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space.* A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."
> *
> Indonesian Herald
> September 11, 1965.*





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





> "One point particularly noted by military observers is that in their frist advances the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. by contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during it's attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing.)"
> 
> "By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."
> *
> Everett G. Martin,
> General Editor, Newsweek
> September 20, 1965.*





> "One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds."
> 
> "Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air-power, expected an easy air-superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, of the whole conflict."
> 
> "Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan's civil air-line, which, in a country where 'now' means sometime and 'sometime' means never, is a model of efficiency. he talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble abobut figures. Immediately one has confidence in what he says."
> 
> "His estimates, proffered diffidently but with as much photographic evidence as possible, speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks, are in something like the ration of ten to one."
> 
> "Yet, the quality of equipment, Nur insists, is less important than flying ability and determination. the Indians have no sense of purpose. The Pakistanis were defending their own country and willingly taking greater risks. 'The average bomber crews flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on.' "
> 
> "This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots themselves and you get the same intense story."
> *
> Peter Preston,
> The Guardian, London
> September 24, 1965.*





> "Pakistan's success in the air means that she has been able to redeploy her relatively small army -- professionally among the best in Asia -- with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust."
> 
> "By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war."
> 
> *Patrick Seale,
> The Observer, London,
> September 12, 1965.*



No matter how much pathological liars indian manipulate history, at the end of the day pakistan technically/numerically outnumbered whopped indian butt! however if both sides had same equipments and same number of troops then pakistan would have walk all over india in matters of weeks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

toxic_pus said:


> 'Peshawar and Kohat sites of IAF bombs raids continue to be drawing card for West Pak politicians.'
> 
> The war officially started on 6th September of 1965 and it seems that IAF was bombing, pretty much at will, well past mid-October.



huh? what were they bombing? 90% of PAF fleet were all parked up in Sargodha in 65 war....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

OMG... indian are so deluded..... after giving over dose of reality checks they are again back to square one whit same old BS posts.


----------



## M_Saint

Narkun said:


> You are talking as if India and Pakistan didn't fight a single battle on the Western front! Ever heard of Battle of Longewala and Battle of Basantar? No offense.. but you are so ignorant that I didn't even bother to read the rest of your comment.
> 
> Enjoy!



You are so norant that you see East as West  War took place in Indian sky too in Western front and outcome for PAF was in Western front was as following,

Pakistan Military Consortium :: www.PakDef.info

but I repeat what similarities were there with riverine, canaille, paddy fieldy terrain of East PAK had with deserty Longewala,?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M_Saint

paritosh said:


> yeah we rigged the Pakistani election results.


Yes, indeed your Hindu-Jats did rig the election in 1970 in E PAK. Around 27% were shown as casted but 11% of Hindu voters voted numerous times where Muslims were mostly absent in the polling centers.



paritosh said:


> we paid the Pakistanis to murder the east Pakistanis...and heck it was Mahatma Gandhi and not Jinnah who wanted Urdu to be the national language and Bengali to be trashed..


No you didn't pay Pakistanis to kill us but you trained/paid fcuking RAWAMY-Muktis to start killing Bihari/Urdu speaking people first to instigate Pakistanis to kill us
Blood And Tears - Stranded Pakistanis, Biharis, Stateless in Bangladesh and Pakistan
Now leaving your sarcasm aside, Mahatma didn't want URDU to be PAK's national language but he didn't even want PAK to come as being. 



paritosh said:


> you are no longer East Pakistan. Respect your freedom fighters by not 'blaming' us for the coup d'etat in '71.


I know! I know!! I know!!! but can't respect Made off India trade mark though as 'Dogs and anything of Indian' are non-allowed in sacred places of BD.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

this thread has derailed into a measuring contest growler & paritosh i don't understand how calling each other names makes either country "win" the 1965 war!!!


----------



## Khajur

M_Saint said:


> I know! I know!! I know!!! but can't respect Made off India trade mark though as 'Dogs and anything of Indian' are non-allowed in sacred places of BD.



M_saint,

stop abusing members even if they dont accept ur views. As the forum rules clearly suggest everyone has the right to express their views in a civil manner.

This isnt ur home where u can talk down other members to win an argument.If anything ur offensive language suggest is bad upbringing and lack of values .

While u want nothing indian in ur sacred BD territory , thousands of Bangladeshi illegally migrating in to india from the same sacred BD lands each day.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> M_saint,
> 
> stop abusing members even if they dont accept ur views.


hypocrisy at its best! 


> This isnt ur home where u can talk down other members to win an argument.





> While u want nothing indian in ur sacred BD territory , thousands of Bangladeshi illegally migrating in to india from the same sacred BD lands each day.


because india has been illegally occupying lands from... Napal, bangladesh, Kashmir from pakistan, Khalistan from sikhs etc.. 
however its a off topic.


----------



## Khajur

Growler said:


> Holy Sh**. facts? what facts?
> 
> No matter how much pathological liars indian manipulate history, at the end of the day pakistan technically/numerically outnumbered whopped indian butt! however if both sides had same equipments and same number of troops then pakistan would have walk all over india in matters of weeks.



Only If wishes were horses... 

If going was so great for pakistan why did it accept to the cease fire declaration??

U couldnt even successfully execute op Granslam in kashmir which u instigated with full planning....and here making more boastful statements.

Is so hard to accept the final outcome of 65 war??

After 65 war, there was 71 war, Siachin operation, Kargil conflict whose outcomes were all infront of us . So if u dont know the the historty, i suggest u read some good books,*not those running commentries of news paper articles about indo-pak wars where news did change every day*...Besides that hallucination can never replace reality.

And yes, i already once said this "Roy Meloni" of 
American Broadcasting Corporation looks like a genius fellow to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Narkun

M_Saint said:


> You are so norant that you see East as West  War took place in Indian sky too in Western front and outcome for PAF was in Western front was as following,
> 
> Pakistan Military Consortium :: www.PakDef.info



Talk about credible, neutral sources! 



> but I repeat what similarities were there with riverine, canaille, paddy fieldy terrain of East PAK had with deserty Longewala, you bloody idiot-Indian?



None. There were no similarities. Who said there were?

India won the battle on both the fronts. Thanks reaffirming the versatility of the Indian armed forces.


----------



## toxic_pus

Growler said:


> huh? what were they bombing? 90% of PAF fleet were all parked up in Sargodha in 65 war....


So the only job of an air force is to bomb its rival's airbase/air assets. Accordingly, bombing PAF bases would qualify as the only valid bombing runs and rest was akin to cow tipping?

Yup. I am convinced.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

toxic_pus said:


> So the only job of an air force is to bomb its rival's airbase/air assets. Accordingly, bombing PAF bases would qualify as the only valid bombing runs and rest was akin to cow tipping?
> 
> Yup. I am convinced.



well if you consider bombing "sand dunes", bushes, trees, etc as superiority over enemy then IAF did a really great job at that  
99% of land assets during 65 war were located by indian border not afgan.


----------



## paritosh

M_Saint said:


> Yes, indeed your Hindu-Jats did rig the election in 1970 in E PAK. Around 27% were shown as casted but 11% of Hindu voters voted numerous times where Muslims were mostly absent in the polling centers.


post neutral links...otherwise it's all gibberish.


> No you didn't pay Pakistanis to kill us but you trained/paid fcuking RAWAMY-Muktis to start killing Bihari/Urdu speaking people first to instigate Pakistanis to kill us
> Blood And Tears - Stranded Pakistanis, Biharis, Stateless in Bangladesh and Pakistan


I read the article and it's very sad.The war crimes of Mukhti Bahini are well known and documented...but they were your people not ours.We armed them and trained them...now it's upto you whether you call them as liberators like most Bangladeshis of today....or as murderers and rapists and arsonists like many west Pakistanis.You forget the fact that the IA did protect many west Pakistanis trapped in Bangladesh during the mutiny.


> Now leaving your sarcasm aside, Mahatma didn't want URDU to be PAK's national language but he didn't even want PAK to come as being.


Can you list the causes for the coup?
or was it all a RAW instigated drama?


> I know! I know!! I know!!! but can't respect Made off India trade mark though as '*Dogs and anything of Indian*' are non-allowed in sacred places of BD.


[/QUOTE]
if that were true...you'd be left with a very little economy.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1168296540386/ch6.pdf


----------



## paritosh

Growler said:


> well if you consider bombing "sand dunes", bushes, trees, etc as superiority over enemy then IAF did a really great job at that
> _99% of land assets during 65 war were located by indian border not afgan._



and was the case in '71 also.The dispute in on your eastern front..and with India.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> Only If wishes were horses...
> 
> If going was so great for pakistan why did it accept to the cease fire declaration??


You clearly lack comprehend the fact that for any out numbered/outdated side creating a huge dent on a mammoth military force like india is a huge achievement! tell me in which part of the modern history have you heard of a country with lets say 100,000 troops confronted something like 700,000 army and in the proses captured enemy's land, and destroyed their military assets. 



> U couldnt even successfully execute op Granslam in kashmir which u instigated with full planning....and here making more boastful statements.


1965 war is portrayed in indian own pathological lying version to its people. so sad.... capturing entire IOK was never the goal of pakistan army no mater how much your media lies. pakistan was only supporting freedom fighters who were in forced from pakistani territory to india. thats it..
then when India declared full scale war only then did pakistan capture parts of indian territories to gain superiority which they did.

Out numbered Army captured indian territories. 


















> Is so hard to accept the final outcome of 65 war??


yep i am asking you... accept indian defeat of 65. 



> After 65 war, there was 71 war, Siachin operation, Kargil conflict whose outcomes were all infront of us . So if u dont know the the historty, i suggest u read some good books,*not those running commentries of news paper articles about indo-pak wars where news did change every day*...Besides that hallucination can never replace reality.


what ever you are reading or heard about 65 war from indians throw that in the garbage because you need a reality check. and oh if you are interested in discussing irrelevant stuff to 65 war then open a new thread. dont mistake this forum for your bharat raksak where you can troll around. 


> And yes, i already once said this "Roy Meloni" of
> American Broadcasting Corporation looks like a genius fellow to me.


yep he is a genius. unlike lala oxymoron indian journalists.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

paritosh said:


> and was the case in '71 also.The dispute in on your eastern front..and with India.



 remember you could not even destroy lone F-86 squadron and in the process lost more of your planes..


----------



## toxic_pus

Growler said:


> well if you consider bombing "sand dunes", bushes, trees, etc as superiority over enemy then IAF did a really great job at that
> 99% of land assets during 65 war were located by indian border not afgan.


On 14th September 1965, the IAF used Canberras to bomb the Peshawar and Kohat military bases. PAF had stationed its B-57 at its Peshwar air base and these B-57s were IAF target. Unfortunately though, the bombing run was unsuccessful as the Canberras unloaded their bombs on a highway, mistaking it as the runway. [I made an error in post #250, which I have now corrected]

The point however is, that Peshawar was too deep into Pakistani territory. That IAF was able to fly all the way to Peshawar, begs a question: how much IAF 'butt' did PAF really kick.

Interestingly, that site, which you claimed to be 'the most "neutral" one could get', doesn't list a Canberra kill on 14th September. In fact, no 'air-to-air' kill is recorded on 14th September. This would mean, that those Canberras not only flew deep into Pakistan, but flew out of it unscathed. That hardly warrants the chest beating that you are displaying here.

PS: Can you please post thumbnail images. Thank you.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

toxic_pus said:


> On 14th September 1965, the IAF used Canberras to bomb the Peshawar and Kohat military bases. PAF had stationed its B-57 at its Peshwar air base and these B-57s were IAF target. Unfortunately though, the bombing run was unsuccessful as the Canberras unloaded their bombs on a highway, mistaking it as the runway. [I made an error in post #250, which I have now corrected]


 



> The point however is, that Peshawar was too deep into Pakistani territory. That IAF was able to fly all the way to Peshawar, begs a question: how much IAF 'butt' did PAF really kick.


huh? wha? 
I am not sure what IAF was going to bomb in peshawar but buddy all PAF F-104s and B-57s were stationed in "Sargodha" now Masroor Air Base as seen in this photograph. 






> Interestingly, that site, which you claimed to be 'the most "neutral" one could get', doesn't list a Canberra kill on 14th September. In fact, no 'air-to-air' kill is recorded on 14th September. This would mean, that those Canberras not only flew deep into Pakistan, but flew out of it unscathed. That hardly warrants the chest beating that you are displaying here.


and.... ??? 
Your air chief could no longer could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. what more humiliation could one get from such a small opponent. 
btw our F-86s and B-57s conducted successful mission against IAF FOB and Main bases and inflicted heavy casualties on your side. remember the loss of entire Mig-21 fleet and 


> "One point particularly noted by military observers is that in their frist advances the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. by contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on *Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes* just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during it's attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing.)"
> 
> "By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."
> 
> Everett G. Martin,
> General Editor, Newsweek
> September 20, 1965.



and not only did they succeed in their missions but also came back to fight again!


----------



## Khajur

> "One point particularly noted by military observers is that in their frist advances the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. by contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: *PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during it's attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing*.)"
> 
> "By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."
> 
> Everett G. Martin,
> General Editor, Newsweek
> September 20, 1965.



wow,Newsweek reporting about an attack with specific no of IAF attritions about which* even PAF itself wasnt willing to commit*.

Three cheers cold war era professional jounalism.


----------



## sensenreason

Growler said:


> well if you consider bombing "sand dunes", bushes, trees, etc as superiority over enemy then IAF did a really great job at that
> 99% of land assets during 65 war were located by indian border not afgan.



Given the superiority you mention of Pakistani forces to the Indian forces, I suggest Pakistan send home 500 k of its army as per the contention you need only 100k men to fight 1000k indians....Why waste money? Spend it on better things? Even better give it to India...Since your pilots and navy men are also the best..u could do the same with them too....


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> wow,Newsweek reporting about an attack with specific no of IAF attritions about which* even PAF itself wasnt willing to commit*.
> 
> Three cheers cold war era professional jounalism.



like i said.... your comprehension level is really weak and that of a 6 year old kid.

did you read the bold part? AT NIGHT! yes... PAF did not claim any IAF AC due to NIGHT BOMBINGS! however the day time bombings were very successful!


----------



## Myth_buster_1

sensenreason said:


> Given the superiority you mention of Pakistani forces to the Indian forces, I suggest Pakistan send home 500 k of its army as per the contention you need only 100k men to fight 1000k indians....Why waste money? Spend it on better things? Even better give it to India...Since your pilots and navy men are also the best..u could do the same with them too....



your good suggestion is on its way to pak GHQ.


----------



## Khajur

Growler said:


> like i said.... your comprehension level is really weak and that of a 6 year old kid.
> 
> did you read the bold part? AT NIGHT! yes... PAF did not claim any IAF AC due to NIGHT BOMBINGS! however the day time bombings were very successful!



The qoute didnt give any hint any where that there were infact two raids ,one in the day and other in the night.

Anyway whatever sails ur boat.
I wont go for any further commenst...the thead is urs.


----------



## Khajur

sensenreason said:


> Given the superiority you mention of Pakistani forces to the Indian forces, I suggest Pakistan send home 500 k of its army as per the contention you need only 100k men to fight 1000k indians....Why waste money? Spend it on better things? Even better give it to India...Since your pilots and navy men are also the best..u could do the same with them too....



*He is constatly harping on the rhetoric that pakistan crushed multiple times bigger enemy with out zilch of knowledge about indian deployment .

India may had 800000 troops or many more hundred planes in IAF,but also had to keep major chunk of those troops and planes on the chinese front where it already faced an war just three yr before in 1962.

Its never the case that smaller pakistan was facing the full might of indian military machine.He wont accept this ground reality as it would hurt his fragile martial race sentiment.*


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> The qoute didnt give any hint any where that there were infact two raids ,one in the day and other in the night.



good... so finally you are thinking and realizing your bharat defeat in 65 war.
but like i said before.. your comprehension level is very weak.
read it again and again until you understand the subject.

"ATTACK*S* ON AMBALLA"


----------



## toxic_pus

Growler said:


> huh? wha?
> I am not sure what IAF was going to bomb in peshawar but buddy all PAF F-104s and B-57s were stationed in "Sargodha" now Masroor Air Base as seen in this photograph.


From an article by Gp Capt SULTAN M HALI


> For the first week of operations when most missions against the northern Indian airfields originated from Peshawar...


From an article by Arshad Hussain


> As major night operations program by the B-57s was conducted through Peshawar air base since 6th September...





> As Peshawar and Risalpur air bases were also considered too vulnerable to IAF attacks during the nights. Therefore, Samungali and Mauripur air bases were also utilized for turn around.


So it seems, that B-57s were indeed stationed at Peshawar during the war and apparently, for some unknown reason, Peshawar was considered as 'too vulnerable to IAF attacks'. Wonder why?


> and.... ???
> Your air chief could no longer could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. what more humiliation could one get from such a small opponent.


Strange. PAF could maintain air superiority over Indian air space, but couldn't do so over its own air space.



> btw our F-86s and B-57s conducted successful mission against IAF FOB and Main bases and inflicted heavy casualties on your side. remember the loss of *entire Mig-21 fleet* and


You still have to provide evidence of loss of 'entire Mig-21 fleet. Or did you forget that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

toxic_pus said:


> From an article by Gp Capt SULTAN M HALI
> 
> From an article by Arshad Hussain
> 
> 
> So it seems, that B-57s were indeed stationed at Peshawar during the war and apparently, for some unknown reason, Peshawar was considered as 'too vulnerable to IAF attacks'. Wonder why?



so what even if we did operate from peshawar? did IAF manage to create pakistan style attacks on indian air fields? did we lose like 10-15 planes in Peshawar? the answer is NO. 




> Strange. PAF could maintain air superiority over Indian air space, but couldn't do so over its own air space.


and you definition of "air superiority"? 
did IAF inflicted more damage to PAF? 
NOOO.. 



> You still have to provide evidence of loss of 'entire Mig-21 fleet. Or did you forget that.


awww. so you are being deluded again? 
now you show me a single picture of IAF Mig-21F-13 post 65 war. where did they all go?


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Khajur said:


> India may had 800000 troops or many more hundred planes in IAF,but also had to keep major chunk of those troops and planes on the chinese front where it already faced an war just three yr before in 1962.



do you have any credible proof to back up your claim or are you just being yourself?


----------



## toxic_pus

Growler said:


> so what even if we did operate from peshawar? did IAF manage to create pakistan style attacks on indian air fields? did we lose like 10-15 planes in Peshawar? the answer is NO.


So we have learned a lot today, on our 'learn as we go along' program. Haven't we? That our B-57 did actually operate from Peshawar, that Peshawar was considered as 'too vulnerable to IAF attacks', that IAF did actually fly almost all through the breadth of Pakistan to reach Peshawar, that those stone age relic Canberras were able to fly back all the way from there without loosing a single one. Imagine what we will learn tomorrow. I shudder to think.

Now, the question you have posed is called shifting of goal post. Your claim was that PAF had kicked the 'butt' of IAF in air duel. Now that you have been shown that the so called buttkicking didn't actually leave too much of scar on IAF, you have now resorted to, who could register more kills in a single bomb run. I understand. To accept that those unescorted Canberras (no fighter in Indian inventory could fly that far and even Peshawar was at the fag end of Canberra's operational range) actually flew deep into Pak territory and get out of there, without any notable interception (there was only one attempt, as far as I can recollect), requires you to swallow too much of pride, particularly when it is becoming apparent that the one, who has actually been 'delusional' all this time, is none other than you.

I guess, I have made my case. I will leave it at that.


> and you definition of "air superiority"?
> did IAF inflicted more damage to PAF?
> NOOO..


Another shift in goal post. 'Air superiority' is not always measured in terms of loss of air asset, but the ability to deny the enemy air assets to perform its functions and deter it from achieving its goals. 

Clearly, even if we concede that PAF registered more kills than IAF, PAF had failed to restrict IAF in carrying out its ground support role.



> awww. so you are being deluded again?
> now you show me a single picture of IAF Mig-21F-13 post 65 war. where did they all go?


Is that the basis of your argument? That because you can't find a picture of IAF Mig-21F post 65 war, it conclusively proves that an entire Mig 21 fleet was destroyed.

Well, following your logic, I can't find the snap of Mr Neil Armstrongs underwear that he wore on his mission to moon. So should I conclude that he wore no underwear on that mission.

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Go figure.


----------



## toxic_pus

Growler said:


> do you have any credible proof to back up your claim or are you just being yourself?


I am sure *Khajur* can reply from his sources. But from what I have got:



> The balance of capabilities in 1965 was as follows. The *Indian armed forces comprised 870,000 men in sixteen divisions* as compared to Pakistan's 230,000 under eight divisions. *Of the sixteen divisions, India had deployed two infantry divisions in Kashmir and eight along its border with Pakistan and the rest on the Chines border*. Pakistan had a total of seven divisions confronting India in West Pakistan and one division in East Pakistan. India possessed two armored divisions, one each of Centurion and Sherman tanks; while Pakistan had one armored division with American built M-47/48 Patton tanks, and a few other regiments with M-4 Sherman tanks and M-24 Chaffee light tanks. In air capability, India held over 700 aircraft, mostly the French Mystere IVs, British Canberras and Hunters, and Indian-made Gnats. Pakistan had total of 280 aircraft that included 168 Sabres, and 12 F-104A Starfighters.
> 
> _Asymmetric conflicts: war initiation by weaker powers_ by T.V.Paul, pg 107


Yes, India did have a numerical superiority, but not the degree that some would have us believe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muradk

toxic_pus said:


> So we have learned a lot today, on our 'learn as we go along' program. Haven't we? That our B-57 did actually operate from Peshawar, that Peshawar was considered as 'too vulnerable to IAF attacks', that IAF did actually fly almost all through the breadth of Pakistan to reach Peshawar, that those stone age relic Canberras were able to fly back all the way from there without loosing a single one. Imagine what we will learn tomorrow. I shudder to think.
> 
> Now, the question you have posed is called shifting of goal post. Your claim was that PAF had kicked the 'butt' of IAF in air duel. Now that you have been shown that the so called buttkicking didn't actually leave too much of scar on IAF, you have now resorted to, who could register more kills in a single bomb run. I understand. To accept that those unescorted Canberras (no fighter in Indian inventory could fly that far and even Peshawar was at the fag end of Canberra's operational range) actually flew deep into Pak territory and get out of there, without any notable interception (there was only one attempt, as far as I can recollect), requires you to swallow too much of pride, particularly when it is becoming apparent that the one, who has actually been 'delusional' all this time, is none other than you.
> 
> I guess, I have made my case. I will leave it at that.
> 
> Another shift in goal post. 'Air superiority' is not always measured in terms of loss of air asset, but the ability to deny the enemy air assets to perform its functions and deter it from achieving its goals.
> 
> Clearly, even if we concede that PAF registered more kills than IAF, PAF had failed to restrict IAF in carrying out its ground support role.
> 
> 
> Is that the basis of your argument? That because you can't find a picture of IAF Mig-21F post 65 war, it conclusively proves that an entire Mig 21 fleet was destroyed.
> 
> Well, following your logic, I can't find the snap of Mr Neil Armstrongs underwear that he wore on his mission to moon. So should I conclude that he wore no underwear on that mission.
> 
> Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Go figure.



B-57s operated form all Major bases including FOBs, It was like we has 20 bombers on monday and 2 on tuesday , We had a strategy which the IAF never could understand, India had there spies they reported every thing what landed where it landed so we said ok if you want to take a short at me I am taking off from Peshawar but landing in Sargodha or Karachi come and get me their and they used to take the bate.
I used to take of from Peshawar in a Saber attack land back at what every base was close to me. Several times I was the bate went in IAF air space they saw me got after me brought them to 3000ft and let the Saber at 20000ft take care of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

toxic_pus said:


> So we have learned a lot today, on our 'learn as we go along' program. Haven't we?


yep.. that PAF kicked IAF butt really hard. 


> That our B-57 did actually operate from Peshawar, that Peshawar was considered as 'too vulnerable to IAF attacks', that IAF did actually fly almost all through the breadth of Pakistan to reach Peshawar, that those stone age relic Canberras were able to fly back all the way from there without loosing a single one. Imagine what we will learn tomorrow. I shudder to think.


Wait i have learned today that you are a clueless boy. just to inform you... IAF flights over Peshawar were carried from "srinager", not all the way from punjab Provence. so another important lesson you have learned today.. and oh oh.. another lesson we are about to learn today is that IAF canberras were night time capable and were not venerable to "PAF Sabers" which mainly operated in day time as interceptors. unless you can prove me that IAF canberras at least destroyed 20 planes in Peshawar you need to STFU. you are jumping up and down as if entering your foe's air space in war time is some sort of victory.. lolz




> I understand. To accept that those unescorted Canberras (no fighter in Indian inventory could fly that far and even Peshawar was at the fag end of Canberra's operational range) actually flew deep into Pak territory and get out of there, without any notable interception (there was only one attempt, as far as I can recollect), requires you to swallow too much of pride, particularly when it is becoming apparent that the one, who has actually been 'delusional' all this time, is none other than you.


wha???  calm down..
those canberras flew at night from srinager away from punjab which had most of the PAF planes stationed... and what did those canberras did to PAF? how many planes did they destroy other then few bombs drooped on highways. 




> Is that the basis of your argument? That because you can't find a picture of IAF Mig-21F post 65 war, it conclusively proves that an entire Mig 21 fleet was destroyed.


you are really clueless....
did those mig-21 operate in 71 war? just where they phuck did they go? what happened to them... or did they end up in IAF top secret facility and can not be disclosed? 



> Well, following your logic, I can't find the snap of Mr Neil Armstrongs underwear that he wore on his mission to moon. So should I conclude that he wore no underwear on that mission.
> 
> Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Go figure.





no comments..


----------



## toxic_pus

Muradk said:


> B-57s operated form all Major bases including FOBs, It was like we has 20 bombers on monday and 2 on tuesday , We had a strategy which the IAF never could understand, India had there spies they reported every thing what landed where it landed so we said ok if you want to take a short at me I am taking off from Peshawar but landing in Sargodha or Karachi come and get me their and they used to take the bate.
> I used to take of from Peshawar in a Saber attack land back at what every base was close to me. Several times I was the bate went in IAF air space they saw me got after me brought them to 3000ft and let the Saber at 20000ft take care of them.


I will take your word at face value. However, from Gp Capt Sultan M. Hali's article, which I had linked earlier, it seems, that he is suggesting, that the reason was primarily logistical and also due to threat perception


> For the first week of operations when most missions against the northern Indian airfields originated from Peshawar, *the centralized spares and servicing organization for the B-57s at Mauripur necessitated the bomber crew returning to their Karachi base at the conclusion of each night's mission*. The northern bases were also considered too vulnerable to IAF attacks during the day.


Of course, it does make sense that one would not want to put all his eggs in one basket.


----------



## toxic_pus

Growler said:


> yep.. that PAF kicked IAF butt really hard.


If that gives you a peaceful sleep at night, I am cool with it. 


> Wait i have learned today that you are a clueless boy. just to inform you... IAF flights over Peshawar were carried from "srinager", not all the way from punjab Provence.


Strawman. Never claimed that. In any case that doesn't make any difference, because the point is, and will always be, that the flight took the bombers deep within, and back from, Pak territory with PAF being able to do exactly zilch.


> so another important lesson you have learned today.. and oh oh.. another lesson we are about to learn today is that IAF canberras were night time capable and were not venerable to "PAF Sabers" which mainly operated in day time as interceptors.


Another strawman. But first, congratulations on learning that Canberras were night capable. Given the amount of chest beating one would have thought you knew that. Second, and this is about the strawman, Pak did have night capable fighters, if I am not mistaken. It was F-104 and indeed it was a lone F-104 that tried to intercept the Canberras.


> unless you can prove me that IAF canberras at least destroyed 20 planes in Peshawar you need to STFU.


I have already stated that the bombers unloaded their cargo on a highway, which, because of low visibility, was taken as the target runway. But as I said, this is a shifting of goal post and is not going to earn you any brownie points.


> you are jumping up and down as if entering your foe's air space in war time is some sort of victory.. lolz


Not just entering foe's air space, but flying merrily from one end of the border to almost another end and coming back untouched. It is another matter that the bombing raid was unsuccessful, though PAF had no role to play in the failure.

Yes, given your claim, it is indeed a big deal. In fact that American telegram, seems to be insinuating that it was not exactly a comfortable situation for Pak politicians.


> wha???  calm down..
> those canberras flew at night from srinager away from punjab which had most of the PAF planes stationed...


Oh ok, I see. So IAF should have flown over those areas where PAF had an apparent advantage and during that time when it was conducive for PAF to fly.

Oh yeah. You will make a fine strategist someday.


> and what did those canberras did to PAF?


Send a nifty message that you can scream and shout and engage in every propaganda conceivable, but we can and will bomb at will, at our time and place of choosing. 


> how many planes did they destroy other then few bombs drooped on highways.


Thank low visibility for that. Hallelujah 


> you are really clueless....
> did those mig-21 operate in 71 war? just where they phuck did they go? what happened to them... or did they end up in IAF top secret facility and can not be disclosed?


You have to do a hell of a lot more than pose rhetorical questions.


> no comments..


I am sure.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

toxic_pus said:


> Strawman. Never claimed that. In any case that doesn't make any difference, because the point is, and will always be, that the flight took the bombers deep within, and back from, Pak territory with PAF being able to do exactly zilch.


strawman? pretty much reflection of yourself.... and quickly tell me what did those bombers do to peshawar AB? since the subject now is about AF how many planes destroyed? and strawman i am talking about neutral source.. Infact it was PAF who bombarded Amballa day and night out and returned back.



> Another strawman. But first, congratulations on learning that Canberras were night capable. Given the amount of chest beating one would have thought you knew that. Second, and this is about the strawman, Pak did have night capable fighters, if I am not mistaken. It was F-104 and indeed it was a lone F-104 that tried to intercept the Canberras.


strawman. this is probibly your tactics of being sorry loser strawman and in your attempt to over glorify god knows what victory for IAF canberras but you forgot that PAF had 10 F-104s not 100... 10 F-104 can not do the job of 100... 



> Not just entering foe's air space, but flying merrily from one end of the border to almost another end and coming back untouched. It is another matter that the bombing raid was unsuccessful, though PAF had no role to play in the failure.


you clearly lack the understanding of 65 era capabilities.. you could stay below 100 feet and next the ground radar knows that you are in his territory. 
i traveled from nowsharrah to lahore within 6 hours by car and i bet it would take days for one to travel from west to east of india. so one like a strawman like you could only oversimplify and present this however possible to satisfy own dirty ego. 


> Yes, given your claim, it is indeed a big deal. In fact that American telegram, seems to be insinuating that it was not exactly a comfortable situation for Pak politicians.


you are a world known bullSh***er.



> Oh yeah. You will make a fine strategist someday.
> 
> Send a nifty message that you can scream and shout and engage in every propaganda conceivable, but we can and will bomb at will, at our time and place of choosing.
> 
> Thank low visibility for that. Hallelujah
> 
> You have to do a hell of a lot more than pose rhetorical questions.



 
enough of your c88p oh btw... i am still waiting for IAF side of the story.. who won in air and ground. so far you have been a strawman with your irrelevent posts..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

Going by the way that you have used the word strawman, I get the feeling that you dont know what it means. You may read this. 


Growler said:


> toxic_pus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. Never claimed that. In any case that doesn't make any difference, because the point is, and will always be, that the flight took the bombers deep within, and back from, Pak territory with PAF being able to do exactly zilch.
> 
> 
> 
> strawman? pretty much reflection of yourself.... and quickly tell me what did those bombers do to peshawar AB? since the subject now is about AF how many planes destroyed? and strawman i am talking about neutral source.. Infact it was PAF who bombarded Amballa day and night out and returned back.
Click to expand...

Going in circles now. Not sure, if it is deliberate because you cant quite figure out how to tackle this newly acquired information that flies pretty much like a pin, into your overtly bloated balloon. Or if it is genuine inability to debate. I am assuming its the former.


> strawman. this is probibly your tactics of being sorry loser strawman and in your attempt to over glorify god knows what victory for IAF canberras but you forgot that PAF had 10 F-104s not 100... 10 F-104 can not do the job of 100...


I have no intention to glorify anything. I am only stating facts that run counter to your premise of PAF air superiority. It appears to be a glorification to you, because you realize, that all the allegations of doctoring of history books, by Pak authorities, has probably some truth in it, since no one in Pakistan had ever told you of this incidence, and hence by association, it might so happen that the glory of PAF is probably exaggerated, as well. I know it is a disturbing revelation. 

Regarding the number of F-104, well, you had assumed that the night operations of IAF couldnt be countered simply because Sabres werent equipped to do so. I merely reminded you, that PAF had F-104 which were night capable, and hence PAF response should have been with F-104 and not Sabres. Yes, numbers matter, and they always do. But since Peshawar was about 600 miles into Pakistan, and given the speed at which bombers would fly to attain maximum range, one would assume that the bombers had spent a considerable time within PAK air space. And Paks response to that was just 1 F-104. Hardly a response expected of an airforce bubbling with confidence from all that butt kicking. 


> you clearly lack the understanding of 65 era capabilities.. you could stay below 100 feet and next the ground radar knows that you are in his territory.


What you are essentially saying is that, if anybody flew at night, below 100 ft(?), and carefully plotted the flight path so as to avoid majority of PAF deployment, one could easily fly deep into Pak territory. If that was so, then one wonders, what kind of air superiority was PAF enforcing within its own airspace. What good was its supposed achievements in destroying IAF planes on the ground, if it eventually failed to protect its own airspace? One can only guess.

I understand, you are finding it hard to reconcile the supposed PAF air superiority with this disturbing revelation of IAF bombing runs. Keep trying though.


> you are a world known bullSh***er.


Peshawar and Kohat sites of *IAF bombs raids continue to be drawing card for West Pak politicians. Government ministers come for photos, tea and few words of inspiration,* but no hard cash: latest carrot was suggestion WAPDA rebuild homes destroyed but villagers reported highly skeptical. *NAP leaders spent several days "preparing report on bomb damage"* considered illogical excuse by Pak observers.
Source

I dont see anything worthwhile coming out of any engagement with you on this issue. So, probably, this will be my last post, as of now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

toxic_pus said:


> On 14th September 1965, the IAF used Canberras to bomb the Peshawar and Kohat military bases. PAF had stationed its B-57 at its Peshwar air base and these B-57s were IAF target. Unfortunately though, the bombing run was unsuccessful as the Canberras unloaded their bombs on a highway, mistaking it as the runway. [I made an error in post #250, which I have now corrected]
> 
> The point however is, that Peshawar was too deep into Pakistani territory. That IAF was able to fly all the way to Peshawar, begs a question: how much IAF 'butt' did PAF really kick.
> 
> Interestingly, that site, which you claimed to be 'the most "neutral" one could get', doesn't list a Canberra kill on 14th September. In fact, no 'air-to-air' kill is recorded on 14th September. This would mean, that those Canberras not only flew deep into Pakistan, but flew out of it unscathed. That hardly warrants the chest beating that you are displaying here.
> 
> PS: Can you please post thumbnail images. Thank you.





ok toxic-puss can you please give me a neutral source that claims that your air raid was a success!! 

the only succesful air raid recorded in 1965 was the PATHANKOT raid done by PAF....

1965 WAS A STALEMATE!! which WE PAKISTANIS consider as a victory given the fact that we are 1/6 your size!!! 

@growler please boy control yourself you are actually making them sound right!!!!


----------



## bandit

ice_man said:


> ok toxic-puss can you please give me a neutral source that claims that your air raid was a success!!
> 
> the only succesful air raid recorded in 1965 was the PATHANKOT raid done by PAF....
> *
> 1965 WAS A STALEMATE!! which WE PAKISTANIS consider as a victory given the fact that we are 1/6 your size!!! *
> 
> @growler please boy control yourself you are actually making them sound right!!!!



Now that sums up the situation pretty well...you consider it so it has to be but going by the sound logic that you failed to get to the goal after initiaing the attack pretty much counts as a failure of your millitary.

And what is this ****-and-bull story thrown about of 1/6th 1/8th sizes...size doesnt mean much if you have the technology and the equipment...germany kicked ***.e.s of ten to 15 times its geography in WW1 and again in WW2, same with japan kicking china...proof enough size doesnt have much to do with military power.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

toxic_pus said:


> Going by the way that you have used the word strawman, I get the feeling that you dont know what it means. You may read this.


and how exactly is this relevent to 65 war? your entire post is nothing but rubbish.. 
in your dictionary of "air superiority" one that sends canberras across the border achieving absolutely "nothing" over the enemies but the deluded dude that you are you simply ignore the fact that it was actually PAF who ruled the skies in sub-continent. 
time for you to drop this useless canberras subject and bring something more significant if you can. 

like Sir muradk said.


> B-57s operated form all Major bases including FOBs, It was like we has 20 bombers on monday and 2 on tuesday , We had a strategy which the IAF never could understand, India had there spies they reported every thing what landed where it landed so we said ok if you want to take a short at me I am taking off from Peshawar but landing in Sargodha or Karachi come and get me their and they used to take the bate.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

bandit said:


> And what is this ****-and-bull story thrown about of 1/6th 1/8th sizes...size doesnt mean much if you have the technology and the equipment...germany kicked ***.e.s of ten to 15 times its geography in WW1 and again in WW2, same with japan kicking china...proof enough size doesnt have much to do with military power.



typical brained washed indian. Pakistan never had a technical superiority over india at any time of the history between india pakistan. 
and seriously your last part of the posts sums up that you are not educated in this subject. your analogy is really useless.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Growler said:


> typical brained washed indian. Pakistan never had a technical superiority over india at any time of the history between india pakistan.
> and seriously your last part of the posts sums up that you are not educated in this subject. your analogy is really useless.



In addition, the US cut off military supplies to Pakistan at the time of war - and that embargo lasted till 1975 I believe.

So were handicapped on several fronts.

Though 1965 is not the only time, the PA acquitted itself rather well in 1947-48 as well, despite being hamstrung by first the British CiC who kept stalling the deployment of the PA, and then the political leadership, who wanted the PA to primaily fight defensively to merely hold onto terrain it already controlled, so as to not allow an Indian link with the NWFP and act in support of an Afghan backed insurgency or invasion.

*Thread closed for moderation.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

*DAWN.COM | Editorial | The guns of August*
By Ahmad Faruqui
Monday, 31 Aug, 2009 | 01:09 AM PST

SOME of the writing about the Indo-Pakistan war of September 1965 borders on mythology. It is no surprise that generations of Pakistanis continue to believe that India was the aggressor and that one Pakistani soldier was equal to 10 Indian soldiers.

A few have argued that the war began in August when Pakistan injected guerrillas into the vale of Kashmir to instigate a revolt and grab it before India achieved military dominance in the region. That was Operation Gibraltar.

When it failed to trigger a revolt and drew a sharp Indian riposte along the ceasefire line, Pakistan upped the ante and launched Operation Grand Slam on Sept 1. Infantry units of the army backed by armour overran the Indian outpost in Chamb, crossed the Tawi river and were headed towards Akhnur in order to cut off Indias line of communication with Srinagar.

In the minority view, the Indian response on Sept 6 across the international border at Lahore was a natural counter-response, not an act of aggression.

I asked Sajjad Haider, author of the new book, Flight of the Falcon, to name the aggressor. He retired as an air commodore in the Pakistan Air Force. A fighter pilot to the bone, he does not know how to mince words: Ayub perpetrated the war.

In April, skirmishes had taken place in the Rann of Kutch region several hundred miles south of Kashmir. In that encounter, the Pakistanis prevailed over the Indians. Haider says that the humiliation suffered by the Indians brought Prime Minister Shastri to the conclusion that the next round would be of Indias choosing.

The Indian army chief prepared for a war that would be fought in the plains of Punjab. Under Operation Ablaze, it would mount an attack against Lahore, Sialkot and Kasur. Of course, the trigger would have to be pulled by the Pakistanis.

On May 12, says Haider, an Indian Canberra bomber flew over the Pakistan border on a reconnaissance mission. To quote him: The PAF scrambled interceptors which got within shooting range of the intruder. Air Marshal Asghar Khans permission was sought to bring down the intruder. He sought clearance from the president on the newly installed direct line but Ayub denied permission fearing Indian reprisal. Laments Haider, If this was not an indication of Indian intentions, what else could have been?

Oblivious to what had just taken place in the skies above Punjab, and failing to anticipate how India was gunning to equalise the score, Ayub gave the green light to Operation Gibraltar on the advice of his foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (later president and prime minister). Bhutto had sought out the opinion about Indian intentions from Chinese Foreign Minister Chen Yi during a meeting at the Karachi airport and concluded from the latters body language that India would not respond.

So Ayub gave the green light to send 8,000 infiltrators into Indian-held Kashmir. These, says Haider, were mostly youth from Azad Kashmir who had less than four weeks of training in guerrilla warfare. The entire plan was predicated on a passive Indian response, evoking Gen Von Moltkes dictum: No war plan survives the first 24 hours of contact with the enemy.

It is also worth recalling what the kaiser said to the German troops that were heading off to fight the French in August 1914: You will be home before the leaves have fallen off the trees. The three-month war turned into the Great War which lasted for four years.

Operation Grand Slam abruptly ground to a halt. An Indian general cited by Haider says in his memoirs: Akhnur was a ripe plum ready to be plucked, but providence came to our rescue. The Pakistani GHQ decided to switch divisional commanders in the midst of the operation. The new commander, Maj-Gen Yahya (subsequently army chief and president), claimed later he was not tasked with taking Akhnur.

I asked Haider whether the Pakistani military was prepared for an all-out war with India, a much bigger country with a much bigger military. He said it was the armys war, since the other services had been kept in the dark. The army was clearly not prepared for an all-out war since a quarter of the soldiers were on leave. They were only recalled as the Indian army crossed the border en route to Lahore, a horrific sight which Haider recalls seeing from the air as he and five of his falcons arrived on the outskirts of Lahore.

Maj-Gen Sarfraz was the general officer commanding of the No.10 Division which had primary responsibility for the defence of Lahore. Along with other divisional commanders in the region, he had been ordered by GHQ to remove all defensive landmines from the border. None had been taken into confidence about the Kashmir operation. The pleas of these generals to prepare against an Indian invasion were rejected by GHQ with a terse warning: Do not provoke the Indians.

Haider notes that the gateway to Lahore was defended by the 3rd Baloch contingent of 100 men under the intrepid Major Shafqat Baluch. He says, They fought to the last man till we (No.19 Squadron) arrived to devastate the invading division. There could have been no doubt even in the mind of a hawaldar that an Indian attack would come. But the ostriches at the pulpit had their heads dug in sand up to their necks.

In the 1965 war, the Pakistani Army repeated the mistakes of the 1947-48 Kashmir war, but on a grander scale. No official history of the 1965 war was ever written even though President Ayub wanted one. Gen Yahya, his new army chief, just sat on the request until Ayub was hounded out of office by centrifugal forces triggered by the war.

Pakistans grand strategy was flawed. None of its strategic objectives were achieved. And were it not for the tactical brilliance of many mid-level commanders, the country would have been torn apart by the Indians. Ironically, in Ayubs autobiography, one would be hard pressed to find any references to the war of 1965. One is reminded of De Gaulles history of the French army which makes no reference to the events that took place in Waterloo in 1815.

War, as Clemenceau put it, is too serious a business to be left to the generals.

The writer has authored Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan.

AhmadFaruqui***********


----------



## sensenreason

The fact that India was in a position to dismember Pakistan is that the point whether Shastri signed the ceasefire agreement under some duress and was killed thereafter. The question is why would the Russians do so?


----------

