What's new

1965 | Lahore Cantonment is 'our aim'.

Yes maddog would u like to explain more of that in detail the story you have heard
also from the point i am looking at that puts a dent in Pak army's pride that they weren't there to fully defend a major city
stories i have heard state that general public militia was helping out defending
but my point is share the knowledge in a way that it helps us all remember these terrible times on both sides instead of gloating about whos army and armor is better
 
We take pride in defending our motherland against invading Indian army and we do so rightfully . We should remember that it was India who violated the International Border in 1965 with a arrogant belief that Lahore would be run over in no time . To her dismay , India failed miserably . Our Army deserves all the praise for the successful defence against a three times larger indian army . And all those stupid indians who say that Pakistan started the war by violating LoC , should know that LoC is not a recognised international border .
 
the same way pakistanis intended to do breakfast in jhodhpur, lunch in jaipur and dinner in delhi.....with just 2000 men........and 45 tanks......in 1971(longewala battle)...well thatz all past now
LOL there was no such statement but yrs of Gen Chowdhry is on records. 
India achieved its aim of shafting Op Grandslam by threatening a high value objective whose fall was unacceptable to Pak.

Pak had to recoil 12 Inf Division from Akhnur Sect to defend Lahore. This diluted whatever advantages Pak had intended to gain.

Having a Drink or a meal in the Gymkhana to the un initiated was a part of Psy warfare backed by the attack.

Yet,if posters here wish to get childish glee in finding a silver lining - be my guest.

India achieved what it wanted.
Same way how u claim of giving India a thousand cuts? 
The difference is unlike Stalingrad,the war of Lahore was imposed on Pakistanis by the Pakistanis itself.So the celebration on moral grounds (like the Russians did after their remarkable victory in 1942) does not arise at all. I respect the Pakistani armed forces for their bravery and ability of fierce fighting but the God of Morale was on the side of Indians.my friend.



We simply do not care. Lets be clear on the fact that the International boundary remained unaltered after the war.
Or maybe yr just living in a Propaganda world not dont even know what yr talking about?

There is still no prove which justifies indian claim of operation in IOK by us. Rather it is a myth generated by credit hungry and warmonger Generals of indian army to attack and destroy pur country as it is u who still hasnt accepted our liberation from u.
 
Last edited:
India achieved its aim of shafting Op Grandslam by threatening a high value objective whose fall was unacceptable to Pak.

Pak had to recoil 12 Inf Division from Akhnur Sect to defend Lahore. This diluted whatever advantages Pak had intended to gain.

Having a Drink or a meal in the Gymkhana to the un initiated was a part of Psy warfare backed by the attack.

Yet,if posters here wish to get childish glee in finding a silver lining - be my guest.

India achieved what it wanted.


The Akhnur push was by7 Div under Gen Yahya Khan, and it was not pulled back. 12 Div under Akhtar Hussain Malik was also not pulled back from Kashmir. The only people recalled were the Op Gibraltar Mujahids.
 
The Akhnur push was by7 Div under Gen Yahya Khan, and it was not pulled back. 12 Div under Akhtar Hussain Malik was also not pulled back from Kashmir. The only people recalled were the Op Gibraltar Mujahids.

One has got tired of discussing the same thing again & again.

The bottom line is that the Pak offensive petered out and India achieved its aim.
 
No one is doubting the Indian side, I didn't even mention them. The fact was that a city was besieged and she resisted and defied her besiegers. Secondly, this was a different environment of warfare, for various reasons there could not be total war as the Germans and Russians had so this metaphor of being a 'Stalingrad' in the short war we had has been applied by various researchers of the 1965 war. Shuja Nawaz, Col. Wilfer (maybe fire, not sure about his spelling) being one of them.
If UN had not intervened and forced both countries to accept ceasefire, India would have definitely captured Lahore. At the time of ceasefire, Pakistan had almost depleted all its ammunition and India still had over 85% left.


The "Official History of the 1965 War", drafted by the Ministry of Defence of India in 1992, was a long suppressed document that revealed other miscalculations. According to the document, on 22 September when the Security Council was pressing for a ceasefire, the Indian Prime Minister asked commanding Gen. Chaudhuri if India could possibly win the war, were he to delay accepting the ceasefire. The general replied that most of India's frontline ammunition had been used up and the Indian Army had suffered considerable tank losses. 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.

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.​
 
So did the Indian Army achieve their aim of having drinks in Lahore?
 
Two simple points -

1. Seriously capturing Lahore was not the objective of the Army. In that case a stronger push could have been expected. Choudhuri's move lacked the thrust from the beginning. Most likely it was a diversionary move. This is all the most possible as the Indian Army of 65 was very very defensive. It was after this that the doctrine changed.
2. Pakistani resistance was severe after a day. In the end there is no doubt if the war dragged on for another month, Lahore would have fallen. Not because the Pak Army would have been defeated - but because they would have run out of heavy ammunition.

So as a "whew, Thank God" moment for the Pakistanis, there is some reason to cheer.
 
If UN had not intervened and forced both countries to accept ceasefire, India would have definitely captured Lahore. At the time of ceasefire, Pakistan had almost depleted all its ammunition and India still had over 85% left.


Thts all nonsense.... and since you raised the issue of a ceasefire... do you know who asked for it? India! not the UN...! And how did u even know tht Pak had depleted its ammo? :lol:

If tht was the case indian military command was probably lead by fools who chose ceasefire n tashkent agreement instead of a longer fight... :lol:


jj.jpg
 
Two simple points -

1. Seriously capturing Lahore was not the objective of the Army. In that case a stronger push could have been expected. Choudhuri's move lacked the thrust from the beginning. Most likely it was a diversionary move. This is all the most possible as the Indian Army of 65 was very very defensive. It was after this that the doctrine changed.
2. Pakistani resistance was severe after a day. In the end there is no doubt if the war dragged on for another month, Lahore would have fallen. Not because the Pak Army would have been defeated - but because they would have run out of heavy ammunition.

So as a "whew, Thank God" moment for the Pakistanis, there is some reason to cheer.


There was no real strategic objective of capturing Lahore. Even if India captured Lahore, it could not have kept it for long. Any ceasefire agreement after the war would have forced India to return Lahore to Pakistan by UN and the then world powers. I agree that attack on Lahore was mostly diversery to relive pressure on Akhnur sector. If Akhnur had fallen, India was sure to loose Kashmir. 
Thts all nonsense.... and since you raised the issue of a ceasefire... do you know who asked for it? India! not the UN...! And how did u even know tht Pak had depleted its ammo? :lol:

If tht was the case indian military command was probably lead by fools who chose ceasefire n tashkent agreement instead of a longer fight... :lol:


View attachment 10510

Completely false. India never asked for ceasefire, but accepted it when UN mandated it.

The United States and the Soviet Union used significant diplomatic tools to prevent any further escalation in the conflict between the two South Asian nations. The Soviet Union, led by Premier Alexei Kosygin, hosted ceasefire negotiations in Tashkent (now in Uzbekistan), where Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan signed theTashkent Agreement, agreeing to withdraw to pre-August lines no later than 25 February 1966.

With declining stockpiles of ammunition, Pakistani leaders feared the war tilting in India's favor. Therefore, they quickly accepted the ceasefire in Tashkent. Despite strong opposition from Indian military leaders, India bowed to growing international diplomatic pressure and accepted the ceasefire. On 22 September, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution that called for an unconditional ceasefire from both nations. The war ended the following day.
 
There was no real strategic objective of capturing Lahore. Even if India captured Lahore, it could not have kept it for long. Any ceasefire agreement after the war would have forced India to return Lahore to Pakistan by UN and the then world powers. I agree that attack on Lahore was mostly diversery to relive pressure on Akhnur sector. If Akhnur had fallen, India was sure to loose Kashmir.



:rofl: .... even now i see indian trolls boasting how india captured lahore... and these statements abt having drinks at Gymkhana club by ur general incharge of ur forces at the lahore front?


Completely false. India never asked for ceasefire, but accepted it when UN mandated it.


I led a party of Pakistani and foreign journalists to the Rann of Kutch area a few days later. After the G.O.C., Major General Tika Khan, had finished briefing the party, one of the foreign journalists got up and asked, "General you say you have killed 300 Indians, the Indians say they have killed 350 Pakistanis. Who would we believe." The General was not perturbed. In his usual cool manner he replied. "I am placing all my helicopters at your disposal. If you see, when you go over the battle area, that the junk of war is in front of me then the Indians are telling the truth, but if the junk of the war is behind me then I alone could be in a position to count the dead." "fair enough" replied the foreign journalist. On his return it was the same journalist who remarked "Gosh - You made them run in the Rann."
8 Infantry Division and its troops to whom the credit goes for making the Indian soldier run in the Rann, as they had never run before, were ordered the next day, "No more offensive". Common friends had realized the danger of these two countries fighting. The outcome had not been as expected. It was, therefore, incumbent to stop the shooting match. Except capturing a convoy of seven brand new Mercedies the division, after that, confined its activities to patrolling of the area immediately in its fornt.
Cease Fire came through the efforts of the British Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister Mr. Lal bahadur Shastri consoled his nation announcing, "We will attack at a place of our own choosing." As if Rann of Kutch had been a place of somebody else's choosing. He isno more to tell the world whose advice had resulted in this choice.

Rowle Knox,
Daily Telegraph,
London, May 5, 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.


"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.
"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.
"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.


"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.



 
It appears its ' feel good week " again.

This must be the nth thread on the same subject.
 
Ok - after half century of Pakistan's defeat, a PDF Pakistani has established victory over the hated baniya. :D
:rofl: .... even now i see indian trolls boasting how india captured lahore... and these statements abt having drinks at Gymkhana club by ur general incharge of ur forces at the lahore front?



I led a party of Pakistani and foreign journalists to the Rann of Kutch area a few days later. After the G.O.C., Major General Tika Khan, had finished briefing the party, one of the foreign journalists got up and asked, "General you say you have killed 300 Indians, the Indians say they have killed 350 Pakistanis. Who would we believe." The General was not perturbed. In his usual cool manner he replied. "I am placing all my helicopters at your disposal. If you see, when you go over the battle area, that the junk of war is in front of me then the Indians are telling the truth, but if the junk of the war is behind me then I alone could be in a position to count the dead." "fair enough" replied the foreign journalist. On his return it was the same journalist who remarked "Gosh - You made them run in the Rann."
8 Infantry Division and its troops to whom the credit goes for making the Indian soldier run in the Rann, as they had never run before, were ordered the next day, "No more offensive". Common friends had realized the danger of these two countries fighting. The outcome had not been as expected. It was, therefore, incumbent to stop the shooting match. Except capturing a convoy of seven brand new Mercedies the division, after that, confined its activities to patrolling of the area immediately in its fornt.
Cease Fire came through the efforts of the British Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister Mr. Lal bahadur Shastri consoled his nation announcing, "We will attack at a place of our own choosing." As if Rann of Kutch had been a place of somebody else's choosing. He isno more to tell the world whose advice had resulted in this choice.

Rowle Knox,
Daily Telegraph,
London, May 5, 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.

"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.
"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.
"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.

"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.
:omghaha: :omghaha: The underlined statements are hilarious. Keep 'em coming.
Then again in '65 India was firmly in the Soviet camp(read anti American camp) Enough said.
 
One has got tired of discussing the same thing again & again.

The bottom line is that the Pak offensive petered out and India achieved its aim.
The bottom line is: if the war had continued another week, PA would have reached the walls of Delhi with 1 E Bengal in the vanguard.
 
The bottom line is: if the war had continued another week, PA would have reached the walls of Delhi with 1 E Bengal in the vanguard.


Ha ha...

Whatever sails your boat.

This one is for the funny book !!
 
Back
Top Bottom