# Indo-Pak War 1965 (Pictures Only)



## Maarkhoor

Indo-Pak War 1965 (Pictures Only)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maarkhoor

Captured Indian Gun
https://www.***************/pictures/data/4704/medium/1965-war-pakistan47.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
 11


----------



## Maarkhoor



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Side-Winder

Please do not create multiple threads. let the members concentrate on the one already opened. 
ISPR issue 1965 War Hero's Picture. Pakistan Zindabad

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maarkhoor



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Maarkhoor

Side-Winder said:


> Please do not create multiple threads. let the members concentrate on the one already opened.
> ISPR issue 1965 War Hero's Picture. Pakistan Zindabad


Ok but that thread dedicated to heroes here only war pictures.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Sulman Badshah

Indian Prisoners of War 1965

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## AsianLion

Beautiful, What a defeat India faced, else Tea Party in Lahore Gymkhana that Indian General was dreaming about would have been a reality !!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zeeshi

beautiful keep sharing


----------



## Maarkhoor

Captured Gnat

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## pakdefender

Beautiful pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maarkhoor



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Neutron

Pakistan zindabad

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## dray

AsianUnion said:


> Beautiful, What a defeat India faced



...and Pakistan captured Kashmir........!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maarkhoor

Rain Man said:


> ...and Pakistan captured Kashmir........!


Dear respected Indian fellow i clearly mentioned above pictures only.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Defender pk

and here comes the HERO






AND HERE COMES THE HERO.....


----------



## Bharat Muslim

VARCHASVE said:


> Dear respected Indian fellow i clearly mentioned above pictures only.





AsianUnion said:


> Beautiful, What a defeat India faced, else Tea Party in Lahore Gymkhana that Indian General was dreaming about would have been a reality !!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Azadkashmir



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## acetophenol

^^^^A recce picture of PA M-48 _Patton_ tanks in Indian territory taken by Fg. Off. Utpal Barbara of the No. 101 Sqdn. A PR Vampire was used. Barbara was awarded the Vir Chakra for this mission.






^^^^^^^A PA M-48 burns after being hit.






^^^^ An IAF Gun Camera picture of an attack on a railway yard in Pakistan under progress. The burning engine is visible at the top. The trail of dust across the railway line is a result of bullets hitting the ground.




















^^^Pakistani weapons captured in the Battle of Dera Baba Nanak in 1965

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## acetophenol



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nomi007

kash us waqt
be koi selfie leta


----------



## acetophenol



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

acetophenol said:


>


Did we pay for those tanks we got?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## acetophenol

^^^_SSG is marched off by the unimpressed Indian public in 1965 _
















^^^@ Haji Pir Pass

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jung41

Why you lie so bluntly ... even the duffer person in the world knows that how badly pakistan was defeated in 1965 war with india.


----------



## Irfan Baloch

jung41 said:


> Why you lie so bluntly ... even the duffer person in the world knows that how badly pakistan was defeated in 1965 war with india.


so are you a duffer?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Irfan Baloch

Sulman Badshah said:


> Indian Prisoners of War 1965
> 
> View attachment 251864
> View attachment 251865
> View attachment 251866
> View attachment 251867
> View attachment 251868


are these the Gorkhas of Indian army? now I know why Indians lost the war since their Gorkhas were spent or captured.
its a shame that after Gorkhas and Sikhs.. Indians are only left with Call of duty web force.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Peshwa

Irfan Baloch said:


> are these the Gorkhas of Indian army? *now I know why Indians lost the war *since their Gorkhas were spent or captured.
> its a shame that after Gorkhas and Sikhs.. Indians are only left with Call of duty web force.



I'm confused about what the Indians "lost"...

Certainly not Kashmir...so what is it?


----------



## Irfan Baloch

Azadkashmir said:


>


this Australian paper doesnt agree with Indian claim.. I thought Indians rolled through Pakistan up to Uganda..



Peshwa said:


> I'm confused about what the Indians "lost"...
> 
> Certainly not Kashmir...so what is it?


hmm good question,.. lost the bet maybe? to have a drink in Lahore Jimkhana? or was it the pride?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Azadkashmir

i dont know bro found it on some site not much clued up on pak war except Rothschild conspiracy.


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Irfan Baloch said:


> this Australian paper doesnt agree with Indian claim.. I thought Indians rolled through Pakistan up to Uganda..


We Indians wish you a thousand similar victories in battle.  Keep 1965-ing/Grand Slamming. 
Who knows, after a a few, there may not be a Pakistan left to win against us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

Irfan Baloch said:


> this Australian paper doesnt agree with Indian claim.. I thought Indians rolled through Pakistan up to Uganda..



On the same token...What did Pakistan win? 

I suppose the Aussies must be basing this on the sq. kms of land captured in war before ceasefire...that must be it!



> hmm good question,.. lost the bet maybe? to have a drink in Lahore Jimkhana? or was it the pride?



Hmm...I was under the impression the war was over Kashmir...
Lahore wasn't part of the bet, no? 

I suppose pride does take a toll Sir, when you start out trying to annex Kashmir but end up having to defend Lahore!

Interesting Read...

Gibraltar, Grand Slam and war - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Peshwa said:


> On the same token...What did Pakistan win?


A newspaper article from Australia, a destroyed economy, Indian artillery on the outskirts of Lahore, loss of the Haji Pir pass and a binocular eye view of the Highway to Kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

SarthakGanguly said:


> A newspaper article from Australia, a destroyed economy, Indian artillery on the outskirts of Lahore, loss of the Haji Pir pass and a binocular eye view of the Highway to Kashmir.



Hey now! No need to be arrogant...
They did end up defending Lahore and Sialkot...that's a victory Sir! The Australian has confirmed it..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Peshwa said:


> Hey now! No need to be arrogant...
> They did end up defending Lahore and Sialkot...that's a victory Sir! The Australian has confirmed it..


I was listing their successes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nForce

Irfan Baloch said:


> this Australian paper doesnt agree with Indian claim.. I thought Indians rolled through Pakistan up to Uganda..
> 
> 
> hmm good question,.. lost the bet maybe? to have a drink in Lahore Jimkhana? or was it the pride?



Point to be noted here. Pakistan was a part of SEATO at that time, as was Australia. Just like CENTO, it was brokered by US, which was an ally of Pakistan. We just saw that influence trickle down in the Australian newspapers. India at that time was holding hands with Nasser Hussein of Egypt, part of NAM. I must say, Pakistan had it pretty much well covered those days, diplomatically.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Capt_ghalib

Pakistani tanks from 1965!! We have 3 of those parked in Meerut cantonment, one of them was parked right in front of my old house and i used to wait for my school bus perched on top of it dreaming all sorts of patriotic things and bravery of Indian soldiers. Brought back some good old memories! 
Thank you guys.


----------



## HttpError

SarthakGanguly said:


> We Indians wish you a thousand similar victories in battle.  Keep 1965-ing/Grand Slamming.
> Who knows, after a a few, there may not be a Pakistan left to win against us.



Sorry mate you will not be there neither your kin, but Pakistan is here to stay. If Pakistan will not be there then we will make sure to take our Indian Baniyas along with us.


----------



## Peshwa

SarthakGanguly said:


> I was listing their successes.





HttpError said:


> Sorry mate you will not be there neither your kin, but Pakistan is here to stay. If Pakistan will not be there then we will make sure to take our Indian Baniyas along with us.



There's that suicidal mentality...
Why not live and let live?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HttpError

Peshwa said:


> There's that suicidal mentality...
> Why not live and let live?



If your fellow country men is wishing for our destruction, what else you want us to reply with ? Prayers ?


----------



## nForce

HttpError said:


> Sorry mate you will not be there neither your kin, but Pakistan is here to stay. If Pakistan will not be there then we will make sure to take our Indian Baniyas along with us.


I like soothsayers. I am always intrigued by their ability of fortune telling.


----------



## Peshwa

HttpError said:


> If your fellow country men is wishing for our destruction, what else you want us to reply with ? Prayers ?



I may have read this wrongly, but he just advocated more "65s...aka..Victory for Pakistan no?
Granted he was being sarcastic, but I don't think he called for destruction of Pakistan...

Nevertheless, Im not here to defend anyone....You might be right in your own way..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

HttpError said:


> Sorry mate you will not be there neither your kin, but Pakistan is here to stay. If Pakistan will not be there then we will make sure to take our Indian Baniyas along with us.


I want Pakistan to stay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt_ghalib

Peshwa said:


> I may have read this wrongly, but he just advocated more "65s...aka..Victory for Pakistan no?
> Granted he was being sarcastic, but I don't think he called for destruction of Pakistan...
> 
> Nevertheless, Im not here to defend anyone....You might be right in your own way..



It hurts because "1965 Pak victory" was infact destruction of Pakistani mard e momin army's pride and even @HttpError knows it, thats why he doesn't want repeat of 1965 even in his dreams.
'71 was just an icing on the cake, but the reason Bangladesh's freedom was achieved so easily was the inability of Pakistan to get out of its 1965 stupor. A already defeated and dejected nation was hard pressed to muster courage to face Indian forces resulting in - check my profile pic :p

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

Capt_ghalib said:


> Its hurts because "1965 Pak victory" was infact destruction of Pakistani mard e momin army's pride and even @HttpError knows it, thats why he doesn't want repeat of 1965 even in his dreams.
> '71 was just an icing on the cake, but the reason Bangladesh's freedom was achieved so easily was the inability of Pakistan to get out of its 1965 stupor. A already defeated and dejected nation was hard pressed to muster courage to face Indian forces resulting in - check my profile pic :p



That may be the case, but Pakistanis need to get this notion out of their head that destroying India is a victory...

Suicide is not winning...there is no victory if you've lost everything..


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Can't Pakistani threads like this be indian free? Can't we have our own discussion and celebration forums free from our eternal and biggest enemies?. indians are like insects, rats and vermin. They're rodents that are everywhere. Can't get rid of them. Mods do your thing.


----------



## nForce

Peshwa said:


> That may be the case, but Pakistanis need to get this notion out of their head that destroying India is a victory...
> 
> Suicide is not winning...there is no victory if you've lost everything..


You are wrong there. That is exactly how victory is defined for them, giving the bigger power a bloody nose.
I'll suggest you a book.

www.amazon.com/Fighting-End-The-Pakistan-Armys/dp/0199892709


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Capt_ghalib said:


> It hurts because "1965 Pak victory" was infact destruction of Pakistani mard e momin army's pride and even @HttpError knows it, thats why he doesn't want repeat of 1965 even in his dreams.
> '71 was just an icing on the cake, but the reason Bangladesh's freedom was achieved so easily was the inability of Pakistan to get out of its 1965 stupor. A already defeated and dejected nation was hard pressed to muster courage to face Indian forces resulting in - check my profile pic :p


Indians can post all the pictures they want to their heart's content and make unrealistic claims, the stark reality is how the neutral observers and world media saw and reported this war. Here are some extracts from that period's reporting. You can thank Windjammer for finding these.


SUNDAY TIMES, London, September 19, 1965.
"Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies if they had not already run away.
Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan's pilots and Indian officer's leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces".

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, factor of the whole conflict.
Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years until July he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan civil airline, 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 about 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 ratio of ten to one.
"The Indians had no sense of purpose, the Pakistanis were defending their country and willingly taking greater risks. The average bomber crew 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".

Patrick Seale, The Observer, London.
September 12, 1965.
"Pakistan's success in the air means that she had been able to deploy 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 PAF 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, Correspondent of ABC,
September 15, 1965.
"I have been a journalist now for 20 years and want to go on record that i have never seen a more confident and victorious groups of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan right now.
"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 propaganda claims on either side are likely to be startling, but if i have to take bet today, my money would be on Pakistan side.
Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like one third of the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that the actual kills may be even higher, but the PAF authorities are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting PAF only those killing that can be checked and verified from other sources.


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

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

nForce said:


> You are wrong there. That is exactly how victory is defined for them, giving the bigger power a bloody nose.
> I'll suggest you a book.
> 
> www.amazon.com/Fighting-End-The-Pakistan-Armys/dp/0199892709



Thanks for the recommendation...Looks like a good read.

Nevertheless, Giving India a bloody nose while suffering debilitating casualties itself is NOT victory!
And if that is their way, then lord have mercy on them!
Pakistan lost the plot (as far as taking Kashmir from India) the minute they resigned their faith to the bomb!
At this point, Pakistan has ZERO clue on how to attain Victory on any front!



WaLeEdK2 said:


> Indians can post all the pictures they want to their heart's content and make unrealistic claims, the stark reality is how the neutral observers and world media saw and reported this war. Here are some extracts from that period's reporting. You can thank Windjammer for finding these.
> 
> 
> SUNDAY TIMES, London, September 19, 1965.
> "Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies if they had not already run away.
> Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan's pilots and Indian officer's leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces".
> 
> 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, factor of the whole conflict.
> Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years until July he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan civil airline, 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 about 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 ratio of ten to one.
> "The Indians had no sense of purpose, the Pakistanis were defending their country and willingly taking greater risks. The average bomber crew 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".
> 
> Patrick Seale, The Observer, London.
> September 12, 1965.
> "Pakistan's success in the air means that she had been able to deploy 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 PAF 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, Correspondent of ABC,
> September 15, 1965.
> "I have been a journalist now for 20 years and want to go on record that i have never seen a more confident and victorious groups of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan right now.
> "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 propaganda claims on either side are likely to be startling, but if i have to take bet today, my money would be on Pakistan side.
> Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like one third of the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that the actual kills may be even higher, but the PAF authorities are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting PAF only those killing that can be checked and verified from other sources.
> 
> 
> INDONESIAN HERALD,
> September 11 1965.
> "The chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-India Radio also admitted that Indian Air Force had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses.........".



Once again...I beg to ask..What did Pakistan win?
Admiration from England? Was that the purpose of this war?


----------



## Malik abbas

Indian must read this


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Malik abbas said:


> Indian must read this



They don't need to. There's too many of them here.


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Peshwa said:


> Thanks for the recommendation...Looks like a good read.
> 
> Nevertheless, Giving India a bloody nose while suffering debilitating casualties itself is NOT victory!
> And if that is their way, then lord have mercy on them!
> Pakistan lost the plot (as far as taking Kashmir from India) the minute they resigned their faith to the bomb!
> At this point, Pakistan has ZERO clue on how to attain Victory on any front!
> 
> 
> 
> Once again...I beg to ask..What did Pakistan win?
> Admiration from England? Was that the purpose of this war?


Well for starters we still control the Chamb region which we won in 1965. But second the war initially was for land but then the war turned into something greater than that. The 1965 war was probably the most important war. Since both sides were level it showed to the other what we are capable of. Pakistan armed forces was 1/3 of India's. India couldn't even capture Lahore with their massive force and lost the biggest tank battle since WW2 and were beaten in the air.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

WaLeEdK2 said:


> Well for starters we still control the Chamb region which we won in 1965. But second the war initially was for land but then the war turned into something greater than that. The 1965 war was probably the most important war. Since both sides were level it showed to the other what we are capable of. Pakistan armed forces was 1/3 of India's. India couldn't even capture Lahore with their massive force and lost the biggest tank battle since WW2 and were beaten in the air.



10000K Indian forces fought against 60K from the Pakistani side..
Hardly 1/3rd...
Both countries moved back to the pre war lines...so how did Pakistan manage to retain Chamb?
Next..
If Pakistan won in the air and on land as you claim, why is there a stark difference in the amount of land captured by India as compare to Pak? Why didnt Pakistan walk into Kashmir if it had air dominance over India? Wasn't that what cause the war. Kashmir? And wouldn't that be a more resounding statement wrt. "capabilities"?
In addition, why was Ayub Khan ousted as a result of a 'victory"? Shouldn't he have been lauded as a victorious General?

I have no problem giving Pakistan the victory...as soon as you define what "victory" is...


Also, other quotes from the war that don't quite sing your tune...




> Retired American diplomat Dennis Kux: "Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. 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."
> English historian John Keay: "The war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate."
> American author Stanley Wolpert: "The war ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on US ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the ceasefire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to [Pakistani president] Ayub's chagrin."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

WaLeEdK2 said:


> Well for starters we still control the Chamb region which we won in 1965. But second the war initially was for land but then the war turned into something greater than that. The 1965 war was probably the most important war. Since both sides were level it showed to the other what we are capable of. Pakistan armed forces was 1/3 of India's. India couldn't even capture Lahore with their massive force and lost the biggest tank battle since WW2 and were beaten in the air.



Excellent post. Sir we need more posters like you and less savage indian trolls.


----------



## Capt_ghalib

WaLeEdK2 said:


> Well for starters we still control the Chamb region which we won in 1965. But second the war initially was for land but then the war turned into something greater than that. The 1965 war was probably the most important war. Since both sides were level it showed to the other what we are capable of. Pakistan armed forces was 1/3 of India's. India couldn't even capture Lahore with their massive force and lost the biggest tank battle since WW2 and were beaten in the air.



Please go back one page and read the article @Peshwa posted sourced from your nations daily and based on a book written by your general. 
Chote ho koi baat nahi haar gaye to kya hua, ismein rone ki kya baat hai??


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Peshwa said:


> 10000K Indian forces fought against 60K from the Pakistani side..
> Hardly 1/3rd...
> Both countries moved back to the pre war lines...so how did Pakistan manage to retain Chamb?
> Next..
> If Pakistan won in the air and on land as you claim, why is there a stark difference in the amount of land captured by India as compare to Pak? Why didnt Pakistan walk into Kashmir if it had air dominance over India? Wasn't that what cause the war. Kashmir? And wouldn't that be a more resounding statement wrt. "capabilities"?
> In addition, why was Ayub Khan ousted as a result of a 'victory"? Shouldn't he have been lauded as a victorious General?
> 
> I have no problem giving Pakistan the victory...as soon as you define what "victory" is...


That claim which says that Pakistan captured less land than India is from the book "Indian Official History of 1965 War" released by the Indian Ministry of Defence P.319-321. Meanwhile there is a Pakistani book by Abdul Sattar (a great Pakistani diplomat, which once covered the Indians in an agreement I forgot which one )which is recognized and praised which says that Pakistan captured more territory than Indian around 1600. I'm not sure about Ayub Khan but I guess it had to do with the economy. Pakistan's economy was booming but after the war I guess it wasn't doing as well. Still that is no reason to say it wasn't a Pakistani victory. Obviously fighting a war against a neighbour will have negative implications. Btw where did u get 60k and 100 000 from. India had 700 000 and Pakistan had 260 000 infantry soldiers.


----------



## Peshwa

WaLeEdK2 said:


> That claim which says that Pakistan captured less land than India is from the book "Indian Official History of 1965 War" released by the Indian Ministry of Defence P.319-321. Meanwhile there is a Pakistani book by Abdul Sattar (a great Pakistani diplomat, which once covered the Indians in an agreement I forgot which one )which is recognized and praised which says that Pakistan captured more territory than Indian around 1600. I'm not sure about Ayub Khan but I guess it had to do with the economy. Pakistan's economy was booming but after the war I guess it wasn't doing as well. Still that is no reason to say it wasn't a Pakistani victory. Obviously fighting a war against a neighbour will have negative implications.



You can have the victory...
many unanswered questions from your side, but if you think you won, who are we to tell you otherwise...
1965 is the past and will remain so for us...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Peshwa said:


> You can have the victory...
> many unanswered questions from your side, but if you think you won, who are we to tell you otherwise...
> 1965 is the past and will remain so for us...


lol that's why after 50 years the great modi Ji is now creating a carnival of 1965 "victory" lol in the past my ***. Where was this carnival in the past lmao? Deluded *** nation. Even voted in a mass murderer..


----------



## Post Colonnial

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> Excellent post. Sir we need more posters like you and less savage indian trolls.



sorry to bust your bubble....10k on Indiaan side to 60k on Pak side is not exactly 1/3. send your hero sir to school first. This is why you need Indians in your thread - otherwise your seniors will make up stuff and continue misleading you all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

WaLeEdK2 said:


> lol that's why after 50 years the great modi Ji is now creating a carnival of 1965 "victory" lol in the past my ***. Where was this carnival in the past lmao? Deluded *** nation. Even voted in a mass murderer..



What are you really mad about? Having a self proclaimed victory or Modi? Its unclear and you're all over the place!

Either way, 65 remains the past whether you like it or not...and not even Modi can change that!
If I were you, I'd be worried about whether Pakistan can even stand shoulder to shoulder with India, now or in the coming decade..instead of mental masturbation over a questionable past!
But like I said, if you prefer to call 65 a "victory", so be it...makes shit of a difference to the common Indian!


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Post Colonnial said:


> sorry to bust your bubble....10k on Indiaan side to 60k on Pak side is not exactly 1/3. send your hero sir to school first. This is why you need Indians in your thread - otherwise your seniors will make up stuff and continue misleading you all.


Indians only 10k? Lmao. India had 700 k Pakistan had 260 k.

Here's Wikipedia the site you bhartis are so fond of 






How would Pakistan have more? Your country has a bigger population which equals a bigger army.


----------



## Peshwa

WaLeEdK2 said:


> Indians only 10k? Lmao. India had 700 k Pakistan had 260 k.
> 
> Here's Wikipedia the site you bhartis are so fond of
> View attachment 252065
> 
> 
> How would Pakistan have more? Your country has a bigger population which equals a bigger army.



It's called the total available strength...
The difference between actual combatants vs. reserve/available armed forces...

Are you claiming that Pakistan threw in all 260K combatants to war in a month?

Actual Combatants...
100K India vs. 60K Pak.


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Peshwa said:


> What are you really mad about? Having a self proclaimed victory or Modi? Its unclear and you're all over the place!
> 
> Either way, 65 remains the past whether you like it or not...and not even Modi can change that!
> If I were you, I'd be worried about whether Pakistan can even stand shoulder to shoulder with India, now or in the coming decade..instead of mental masturbation over a questionable past!
> But like I said, if you prefer to call 65 a "victory", so be it...makes shit of a difference to the common Indian!


It's ok you don't need to express your concern of Pakistan whether can stand with India. We more than capable of doing so. Lol and to the common Indian I've seen them on PDF trying to convince themselves and us that they won. And don't even get me started on YouTube. Type in Pakistan and see how many Indians make vids of bashing Pakistan that's what I call obsessed. You call us obsessed and conspiracy theorists but don't look at yourselves. And modi is changing that. Might in the past for you but to so many other Indians it's not.


----------



## Post Colonnial

WaLeEdK2 said:


> Indians only 10k? Lmao. India had 700 k Pakistan had 260 k.
> 
> Here's Wikipedia the site you bhartis are so fond of
> View attachment 252065
> 
> 
> How would Pakistan have more? Your country has a bigger population which equals a bigger army.



really? you will compare blind strength numbers instead of engagement? sure then here is what the same wikipedia page says:

"Despite the qualitative and numerical superiority of Pakistani armour,[58] Pakistan was outfought on the battlefield by India, which made progress into the Lahore-Sialkot sector, whilst halting Pakistan's counteroffensive on Amritsar;[59][60] they were sometimes employed in a faulty manner, such as charging prepared defenses during the defeat of Pakistan's 1st Armoured Division at Assal Uttar."

Fact is Pakistani military always loses in wars. Pakistanis ofcourse cannot and will not say that due to patriotic reasons but they should at least know the facts internally for god's sake! They won 47, they won 65, they won 71, they work Kargil....come on!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Post Colonnial said:


> really? you will compare blind strength numbers instead of engagement? sure then here is what the same wikipedia page says:
> 
> "Despite the qualitative and numerical superiority of Pakistani armour,[58] Pakistan was outfought on the battlefield by India, which made progress into the Lahore-Sialkot sector, whilst halting Pakistan's counteroffensive on Amritsar;[59][60] they were sometimes employed in a faulty manner, such as charging prepared defenses during the defeat of Pakistan's 1st Armoured Division at Assal Uttar."


Lol and this was written by an India on Wiki how rich.
Read my previous post of a neutral source of Brits, Americans and Indonesians at the time.


----------



## Post Colonnial

WaLeEdK2 said:


> Lol and this was written by an India on Wiki.
> Read my previous post of a neutral source of Brits, Americans and Indonesians at the time.



you are the one that wanted to use that page and putout that screenshot, not me. I just quoted that same page back at you. So now you want to withdraw it? spoken like Pak army

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

WaLeEdK2 said:


> It's ok you don't need to express your concern of Pakistan whether can stand with India. We more than capable of doing so. Lol and to the common Indian I've seen them on PDF trying to convince themselves and us that they won. And don't even get me started on YouTube. Type in Pakistan and see how many Indians make vids of bashing Pakistan that's what I call obsessed. You call us obsessed and conspiracy theorists but don't look at yourselves. And modi is changing that. Might in the past for you but to so many other Indians it's not.



Great..Then we have nothing to argue about!
Wishing Pakistan the best and a "Victorious" Sept 6th!
Enjoy!


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Post Colonnial said:


> you are the one that wanted to use that page and putout that screenshot, not me. I just quoted that same page back at you.


I posted it because Indians even admit they had a larger force of infantry. The tanks were almost equal. But the information about what happens on the ground is something anybody can easily twist. The numerical facts is not. No one would believe that Pakistan would have a larger overall force than India.


----------



## Post Colonnial

WaLeEdK2 said:


> I posted it because Indians even admit they had a larger force of infantry. The tanks were almost equal. But the information about what happens on the ground is something anybody can easily twist. The numerical facts is not. No one would believe that Pakistan would have a larger overall force than India.



Now that is a sensible thing. Recall I was reacting to someone's claim of 1:3 advaanatge as if any numbers can tell the story


----------



## Peshwa

WaLeEdK2 said:


> Lol and this was written by an India on Wiki how rich.
> Read my previous post of a neutral source of Brits, Americans and Indonesians at the time.








> [*]Retired American diplomat Dennis Kux: "Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. 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."
> [*]English historian John Keay: "The war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate."
> [*]American author Stanley Wolpert: "The war ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on US ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the ceasefire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to [Pakistani president] Ayub's chagrin."



Others seem to disagree...


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Peshwa said:


> Others seem to disagree...


Why India want a ceasefire first. If then why did India accept the ceasefire. They could've taken back their land... And ur forgetting what the war turned into in my previous post. These guys focused on Kashmir. In truth Pakistan had more to celebrate. Lol and I thought u were over it..


----------



## Peshwa

WaLeEdK2 said:


> Why India want a ceasefire first. If then why did India accept the ceasefire. They could've taken back their land... And ur forgetting what the war turned into in my previous post. These guys focused on Kashmir. In truth Pakistan had more to celebrate.



India didn't initiate the war...so a ceasefire makes sense since our objective was achieved ie. Repluse Pak and secure Kashmir....And we did get our land back...The Tashkent Agreement moved all parties to pre-war lines...please read the terms.

But you failed to answer why Pakistan withdrew or even agreed to a ceasefire when they won in air and on land (as per your claim)...why didnt they walk right into Kashmir, (we had no air force and were beaten on land as per your claims)? Wasnt that what Operation Gibraltar and Grand Slam were about?
Strange for a winner to concede, no?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Post Colonnial

I think it is important to state the following in threads such as this:

1) valor is not the unique property of any country. 
2) wars are won lost or drawn based on strategy, surprise, advantage planning and theatre leadership - all 4 elements impact results
3) results especially in later days are not black and white but shades of grey
4) while all soldiers are patriotic and do put their lives in service of the country, especially in Pakistan and India and several others, most soldiers join because they need a job. We celebrate them for for effort - not intentions or results
5) we blame our own beloved chacha Nehruji (a great great statesmen par excellence) for certain mistakes he made when it comes defense - nobody is perfect; similarly unless we learn to be objective and separate jingoistic cheer from truth, what's the point? Our kudos become meaningless and we end up watering down quality.


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Peshwa said:


> India didn't initiate the war...so a ceasefire makes sense since our objective was achieved ie. Repluse Pak and secure Kashmir....And we did get our land back...The Tashkent Agreement moved all parties to pre-war lines...please read the terms.
> 
> But you failed to answer why Pakistan withdrew when they won in air and on land (as per your claim)...why didnt they walk right into Kashmir? Wasnt that what Operation Gibraltar and Grand Slam were about?
> Strange for a winner to concede, no?


The reason the war started was because Kashmiris were being massacred as they are to this day. And still ur forgetting it wasn't about Kashmir anymore. Kashmir was just a tipping off point. If it was about Kashmir, Pakistan wouldn't have went into Rajasthan and just would have defended Pakistan at the border. And again ur forgetting Pakistan's economy. But in terms what happened in the war based on performance it was Pakistan that won.


----------



## Peshwa

WaLeEdK2 said:


> The reason the war started was because Kashmiris were being massacred as they are to this day. And still ur forgetting it wasn't about Kashmir anymore. Kashmir was just a tipping off point. If it was about Kashmir, Pakistan wouldn't have went into Rajasthan and just would have defended Pakistan at the border. And again ur forgetting Pakistan's economy. But in terms what happened in the war based on performance it was Pakistan that won.



That's a whole lot of nonsense in that post...
Clearly you have no coherent answer..

Anyways..like I said..Enjoy your self proclaimed "victory"...but don't expect anyone else to give you a tally in the winners column...


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Some memories of 1965; this is from "Patton Nagar" in Khem Karan, which became a graveyard of PA's Patton Tanks:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Peshwa said:


> That's a whole lot of nonsense in that post...
> Clearly you have no coherent answer..
> 
> Anyways..like I said..Enjoy your self proclaimed "victory"...but don't expect anyone else to give you a tally in the winners column...


Same to your self proclaimed victory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HttpError

Capt_ghalib said:


> It hurts because "1965 Pak victory" was infact destruction of Pakistani mard e momin army's pride and even @HttpError knows it, thats why he doesn't want repeat of 1965 even in his dreams.
> '71 was just an icing on the cake, but the reason Bangladesh's freedom was achieved so easily was the inability of Pakistan to get out of its 1965 stupor. A already defeated and dejected nation was hard pressed to muster courage to face Indian forces resulting in - check my profile pic :p



lol stop living in fool's paradise, I was referring to the phrase "Pakistan May no exist" said by your country men, But apparently you seem to be too naive to understand what I wrote in simple English. We really want to re-do 65 to Indian and put them in their right place AGAIN.


----------



## monitor

Part of Indian Field Artillery Regiment Captured by Pakistani Forces at Chhamb. Later on, Pakistan Raised a regiment (40 FD) out of these guns for themselves

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt_ghalib

HttpError said:


> lol stop living in fool's paradise, I was referring to the phrase "Pakistan May no exist" said by your country men, But apparently you seem to be too naive to understand what I wrote in simple English. We really want to re-do 65 to Indian and put them in their right place AGAIN.



That what everyone has been asking Pakistanis since the inception of this thread. What did you guys achieve? '65 your country provoked mine and got zilch result, on the other hand '71 we started war and the result is for the world to see in form of Bangladesh. Tell me do u have anything to show for '65 other than the claim that your army went down fighting? U funny people call stalemate a victory! In that case What India achieved in '71 is rightly called total destruction of Pakistan.


----------



## AsianLion

"Indo - Pakistan War 1965, a Flashback", courtesy of ISPR: https://www.ispr.gov...A Flashback.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

__ https://www.facebook.com/










Pakistan Army soldiers during 1965 war. PHOTO: ISPR








A captured Indian army tank. PHOTO: ISPR











Captured Indian weapons in Fazilka and Sulemanki sector. PHOTO: ISPR







Captured Indian army tank. PHOTO: ISPR







A Pakistani soldier sitting next to a milestone in the Indian town of Khem Karan during the 1965 war. PHOTO:ISPR

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ghazi52



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ghazi52



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Ali

What were the losses on both sides btw?


----------



## Cuirassier

M. Ali said:


> What were the losses on both sides btw?


Pakistan lost 3,800 (estimate)
734 Pakistani PoWs
India lost 3,264
1,083 Indian PoWs.


----------



## M. Ali

TF141 said:


> Pakistan lost 3,800 (estimate)
> 734 Pakistani PoWs
> India lost 3,264
> 1,083 Indian PoWs.



oho so more pakistani troops died
I saw a video where it said india lost 8000 something soldiers in 1965


----------



## Cuirassier

M. Ali said:


> oho so more pakistani troops died
> I saw a video where it said india lost 8000 something soldiers in 1965


The exact figure of dead PA troops is unknown, this is just a estimate by foreign authored book. Pakistan Defence Ministry reported in December 1965 that only 1,033 Pakistani mily personnel were killed.


----------



## M. Ali

TF141 said:


> The exact figure of dead PA troops is unknown, this is just a estimate by foreign authored book. Pakistan Defence Ministry reported in December 1965 that only 1,033 Pakistani mily personnel were killed.



I see but what about the 1947 war?
what was the total amount of soldiers on both sides then and what were the losses?


----------



## Signalian

ghazi52 said:


>



@Inception-06 

Correct me if wrong.

Indian Army : 2 x AMX-13 
Pakistan Army: 1 X M-47 and 1 X M-24 (or M4 sherman ?)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cuirassier

M. Ali said:


> I see but what about the 1947 war?
> what was the total amount of soldiers on both sides then and what were the losses?


Pakistan lost 1,500 men. 
India lost 1,104 men.


----------



## M. Ali

TF141 said:


> Pakistan lost 1,500 men.
> India lost 1,104 men.



really pak lost more men in that as well
whats your source btw?


----------



## Cuirassier

M. Ali said:


> really pak lost more men in that as well
> whats your source btw?


Again this is from a foreign source, PA hasn't released any formal list.


----------



## Cuirassier

M. Ali said:


> really pak lost more men in that as well
> whats your source btw?


Losing slightly more men doesn't have any significant effect, especially when we compare the sizes of both forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Ali

TF141 said:


> Losing slightly more men doesn't have any significant effect, especially when we compare the sizes of both forces.



Do they have any threads explaining all these wars?
I saw on wiki in 71 india captured 15000 sq KM of west pakistan 
is that true?



TF141 said:


> Again this is from a foreign source, PA hasn't released any formal list.



do you have a link for that?


----------



## Trango Towers

dray said:


> ...and Pakistan captured Kashmir........!


Half of it yes.....we already did that before 1965 along with all the northern areas. Anything else? Aldo pakistan was part of india and we took it from you. Plus muslims ruled you for a 1000 years....want me to keep going?



jung41 said:


> Why you lie so bluntly ... even the duffer person in the world knows that how badly pakistan was defeated in 1965 war with india.


Your mamy been tellingyou lies again


----------



## Cuirassier

M. Ali said:


> Do they have any threads explaining all these wars?
> I saw on wiki in 71 india captured 15000 sq KM of west pakistan
> is that true?
> 
> 
> 
> do you have a link for that?


In 1971,Indians made gains in Thar Desert at Gadra axis, Sehjra Bulge in Pakistani Punjab, some land in Shakargarh, Kargil sector. 
Pakistan gained some land at Poonch, Sulaimanke, Hussainiwala, Opposite Lahore,and Chhamb Dewa sector. 
Exact territorial figures are not known, but i guess in a strategic sense it was more or less equal, as India permanently occupied Turtuk while Pakistan got Chhamb.


----------



## M. Ali

jung41 said:


> Why you lie so bluntly ... even the duffer person in the world knows that how badly pakistan was defeated in 1965 war with india.



How come? India was getting trashed despite having a 5 time larger force 
you can live with the shame not that denying it is gonna change anything



TF141 said:


> In 1971,Indians made gains in Thar Desert at Gadra axis, Sehjra Bulge in Pakistani Punjab, some land in Shakargarh, Kargil sector.
> Pakistan gained some land at Poonch, Sulaimanke, Hussainiwala, Opposite Lahore,and Chhamb Dewa sector.
> Exact territorial figures are not known, but i guess in a strategic sense it was more or less equal, as India permanently occupied Turtuk while Pakistan got Chhamb.



How much Sq. Km would that be on both sides?


----------



## Indus Pakistan



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yankee-stani

Indus Pakistan said:


>



Gangas rekt

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ashok mourya




----------



## Cuirassier

Canadian Military report on prelude to 1971 War, you can see his view regarding 1965. 
Indian Govt and Establishment in recent years has funded media and journos for making documentaries and reports to make it appear as an Indian Victory. But it's okay, as the next time we meet, there won't be no one to hide Indian misery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram




----------



## Trango Towers

M. Ali said:


> really pak lost more men in that as well
> whats your source btw?


His ama told him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maarkhoor

This is picture thread, So share only pictures....

regards,


----------



## M. Ali

TF141 said:


> Canadian Military report on prelude to 1971 War, you can see his view regarding 1965.
> Indian Govt and Establishment in recent years has funded media and journos for making documentaries and reports to make it appear as an Indian Victory. But it's okay, as the next time we meet, there won't be no one to hide Indian misery.
> View attachment 502093



Indeed the next time will be the last time and we will finally get rid of this nuisance on our eastern border


----------

