What's new

1965 war by international & Indian observers.

Wrong. The forces in the Lahore sector had no significant river crossing equipment. Hence they stopped at the canal. In the final settlement India returned almost 4 times the amount of land Pakistan took. We had to sign the ceasefire because of a Chinese veild ultimatum and signs from the Soviet Union that they would not have our back for longer.

They stopped at canal out of fear that Pakistani forces can encircle them by cutting the skies. By destroying the bridges on BRB canal Advancing Indian troops was easy to trap in Pakistani territory...... that's why they retreated....

And saying LAHORE WAS NOT MEANT TO BE CAPTURED is the latest CHOOSNI Indian media and analysts have offered to Indian nation to justify "VICTORY" in 65'...... no one attack a major city from three directions at night to enjoy suffer cans........

Indian Goal in 1965 - prevent Pakistan from taking Kashmir
Indian strategy - Attack along the IB & force Pakistan to divert its forces while degrading its fighting machine

ROFL..........:omghaha:
 
.
They stopped at canal out of fear that Pakistani forces can encircle them by cutting the skies. By destroying the bridges on BRB canal Advancing Indian troops was easy to trap in Pakistani territory...... that's why they retreated....

And saying LAHORE WAS NOT MEANT TO BE CAPTURED is the latest CHOOSNI Indian media and analysts have offered to Indian nation to justify "VICTORY" in 65'...... no one attack a major city from three directions at night to enjoy suffer cans........
Please read the AARs in your Military Library nearby. You don't need bridges to cover the BRB canal. Just small pontoon bridges would have sufficed. But the Indian divisions were stupidly not prepared for ferrying any heavy weapons! Also Lahore was attacked only from one direction, which is why the Pakistani 8 Arm Brig (Pak) could counterattack from the two flanks - an impossible feat if the Indian attack was three pronged.

Plus the supply lines from Wagah to Lahore was only about 20km. PAF was incapable of putting such short lines out of action.
 
. .
Hawker Hunter

Performance


Armament

F-86 Sabre
Armament


You forgot that India even had a cruiser, even if much talked about AC is left aside, IN was superior than PN in terms of numbers and type of vessels.

When India gets a thrashing from much smaller Pakistan

than it must be technological fault or some loss some 3 years ago or some refits or some "un operational mig 21s".


How many? Are you even serious? BTW at that time, Ayub Khan proposed joint defense pact against China which was rejected by Indians...

Gen chaudry missed his peg and his men missed bara khana at Lahore gymkhana.
View attachment 253712

And meanwhile in Pakistan ; 'History in Pakistan has been badly treated' - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Well I'm quite sure about officer from 1962 war to 1965 . . !!

Now comparing IAF best to PAF second best is not called good comparison ... Where is star fighter in your comparison ? #Detailed Wiki Analyst .

And second you agree on my Point on Army and economy i guess .!!!

And about Indian navy that dismantle PN in 1971
The Para explain much about Indian Navy plans of war during 1965 .
"The Indian Fleet sailed for the Bay of Bengal in end June. No directive had been received from Government to prepare for war. It had been arranged for a British submarine to be available off Madras in July for anti submarine training, after which it was planned that ships of the Fleet visit the Andamans,Calcutta and Visakhapatnam".

"One morning, I received a file signed by HC Sarin, ICS, (then Secretary Defence Production) saying "the Navy is not to operate north of the latitude of Porbandar, and is also not to take or initiate offensive action at sea against Pakistan unless forced to do so by offensive action by the Pak forces.' If I remember correctly, both the Defence Secretary, Shri P V R Rao, ICS, and the Defence Minister, Shri Y B Chavan, were out of Delhi at that time. I rang up Sarin and told him that I could not accept that order and was seeing the Defence Minister as soon as he returned, which was the very next day.

He mentioned the fact of the aircraft carrier being in the dock and the responsibilities assigned to the Navy for the defence of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands from a possible and probable attack from Indonesia which, in the Government's order of priorities, was more crucial than naval operations against Pakistan.
"When I called on the Prime Minister, he brought up the same two points - the Navy had not been strengthened since the Sino Indian conflict and its responsibilities in the Andaman and Nicobar area were more important than in the Arabian Sea. I told him that it was wrong in principle to tie down one arm of the Defence Services to passive action in a war situation. It should have the freedom to act offensively so long as it did not bite off more than it could chew

Now about our sweet cruiser that you blasted in your reply

The Indian Navy comprised one aircraft carrier, two cruisers, nineteen destroyers/ frigates and one tanker. Of these 23 ships, 10 were under refit at Bombay - the carrier (VIKRANT), one cruiser (DELHI), three destroyers (RAJPUT, RANA and GANGA), two frigates (TRISHUL and BETWA), three ships (the training frigate KISTNA and survey ships DARSHAK and SUTLEJ). The tanker (SHAKTI) was barely servicable. Training frigate TIR was in the Andamans. Survey ship INVESTIGATOR and landing ship MAGAR were in Visakhapatnam. Two Hunt class destroyers (GODAVARI and GOMATI) were at Cochin. One cruiser (MYSORE), one destroyer (RANJIT), and six frigates ( BRAHMAPUTRA, BEAS, TALWAR, KHUKRI, KUTHAR and KIRPAN) comprised the Indian Fleet which was defending A&N from Probable Indonesia attack . The Seahawk and Alize air squadrons, which had disembarked from the aircraft carrier for the duration of her refit, were distributed between Bombay, Goa and Cochin. Indian Air Force Liberator aircraft were available for maritime reconnaissance.

Here goes your claim about navy and Air Force anything else you are welcome
 
.
And meanwhile in Pakistan ; 'History in Pakistan has been badly treated' - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Well I'm quite sure about officer from 1962 war to 1965 . . !!

Now comparing IAF best to PAF second best is not called good comparison ... Where is star fighter in your comparison ? #Detailed Wiki Analyst .

And second you agree on my Point on Army and economy i guess .!!!

And about Indian navy that dismantle PN in 1971
The Para explain much about Indian Navy plans of war during 1965 .
"The Indian Fleet sailed for the Bay of Bengal in end June. No directive had been received from Government to prepare for war. It had been arranged for a British submarine to be available off Madras in July for anti submarine training, after which it was planned that ships of the Fleet visit the Andamans,Calcutta and Visakhapatnam".

"One morning, I received a file signed by HC Sarin, ICS, (then Secretary Defence Production) saying "the Navy is not to operate north of the latitude of Porbandar, and is also not to take or initiate offensive action at sea against Pakistan unless forced to do so by offensive action by the Pak forces.' If I remember correctly, both the Defence Secretary, Shri P V R Rao, ICS, and the Defence Minister, Shri Y B Chavan, were out of Delhi at that time. I rang up Sarin and told him that I could not accept that order and was seeing the Defence Minister as soon as he returned, which was the very next day.

He mentioned the fact of the aircraft carrier being in the dock and the responsibilities assigned to the Navy for the defence of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands from a possible and probable attack from Indonesia which, in the Government's order of priorities, was more crucial than naval operations against Pakistan.
"When I called on the Prime Minister, he brought up the same two points - the Navy had not been strengthened since the Sino Indian conflict and its responsibilities in the Andaman and Nicobar area were more important than in the Arabian Sea. I told him that it was wrong in principle to tie down one arm of the Defence Services to passive action in a war situation. It should have the freedom to act offensively so long as it did not bite off more than it could chew

Now about our sweet cruiser that you blasted in your reply

The Indian Navy comprised one aircraft carrier, two cruisers, nineteen destroyers/ frigates and one tanker. Of these 23 ships, 10 were under refit at Bombay - the carrier (VIKRANT), one cruiser (DELHI), three destroyers (RAJPUT, RANA and GANGA), two frigates (TRISHUL and BETWA), three ships (the training frigate KISTNA and survey ships DARSHAK and SUTLEJ). The tanker (SHAKTI) was barely servicable. Training frigate TIR was in the Andamans. Survey ship INVESTIGATOR and landing ship MAGAR were in Visakhapatnam. Two Hunt class destroyers (GODAVARI and GOMATI) were at Cochin. One cruiser (MYSORE), one destroyer (RANJIT), and six frigates ( BRAHMAPUTRA, BEAS, TALWAR, KHUKRI, KUTHAR and KIRPAN) comprised the Indian Fleet which was defending A&N from Probable Indonesia attack . The Seahawk and Alize air squadrons, which had disembarked from the aircraft carrier for the duration of her refit, were distributed between Bombay, Goa and Cochin. Indian Air Force Liberator aircraft were available for maritime reconnaissance.

Here goes your claim about navy and Air Force anything else you are welcome
Your commanders and planners being dumb@sses and unprofessionals is none of our concern.
If your shupa dhupa navy and airforce can't train or take care of their equipment or utilize their numerical superiority is not our concern but your failure.
Claim being a shupa dhupa surma, when time comes, start making excuses for pathetic performance.

Your armed forces making blunders and not utilizing their strength is NOT our concern, put that thing in your head before posting about failures of your forces.

Where is star fighter in your comparison ?
Kiddo, starfighter was high altitude supersonic interceptors designed to take out Soviet bombers, not to engage in dogfights.....not suitable for turning dogfights where a hunter could get behind it easily as the 104 bled energy very quickly in turns. Your pilots being afraid of 104 was lack of training of your pilots or lack of knowledge about 104.
There were only 20 or so starfighters BTW.
@Windjammer
 
.
Another fine 1965 thread. BTW, who celebrates ”Defense Day"? Aren't you supposed to defend your country 365 days of the year?
 
.
Your commanders and planners being dumb@sses and unprofessionals is none of our concern.
If your shupa dhupa navy and airforce can't train or take care of their equipment or utilize their numerical superiority is not our concern but your failure.
Claim being a shupa dhupa surma, when time comes, start making excuses for pathetic performance.

Your armed forces making blunders and not utilizing their strength is NOT our concern, put that thing in your head before posting about failures of your forces.


Kiddo, starfighter was high altitude supersonic interceptors designed to take out Soviet bombers, not to engage in dogfights.....not suitable for turning dogfights where a hunter could get behind it easily as the 104 bled energy very quickly in turns. Your pilots being afraid of 104 was lack of training of your pilots or lack of knowledge about 104.
There were only 20 or so starfighters BTW.
@Windjammer

Ouch did i hurt you ???

Now you said me about cruiser and i was just trying to show you that out of two cruisers one was in refitment .. Second one was at A&N defence as per priority .

Now Airforce well any airforce of that time was scared of F-104 Starfighter . Reason are obvious . Its weakness was well learned during 1965 by IAF which was implemented in 1971 .

Rest about Planners well if PA has even continue its offence in Akhnoor sector our two important bridge would have fallen to enemy fire and today you guys will be celebrating Independence of Kashmir then defending Lahore .

Anyway , History books will help you in understanding about planners of Indian and Pakistani army .
 
. .
The war was a stalemate by every authentic and non-biased account. Both Pakistan and India won major battles, but stalled to a halt, with losses, lack of spares and of course the frontline staying where it was.
 
.
In all essence the International observers believe India lost far more than Pakistan.

Man India could not defeat Pak, unable to achieve its objectives, lost badly by loosing far more material, aircrafts, tanks, land, soldiers and lives than Pakistan.

IAF blasted out of sky by PAF:

 
.
In all essence the International observers believe India lost far more than Pakistan.

Man India could not defeat Pak, unable to achieve its objectives, lost badly by loosing far more material, aircrafts, tanks, land, soldiers and lives than Pakistan.

IAF blasted out of sky by PAF:

Not all.
As per neutral assesment we had lower losses in almost all categories.
Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

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.

  • Former New York Times reporter Arif Jamal wrote in his book Shadow War[13]
This time, India's victory was nearly total: India accepted cease-fire only after it had occupied 740 square miles, though Pakistan had made marginal gains of 210 square miles of territory. Despite the obvious strength of the Indian wins, both countries claim to have been victorious.

  • Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[130]
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",[131] 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.

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. 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 cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

  • In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[11]
India won the war. It held on to the Vale of Kashmir, the prize Pakistan vainly sought. It gained 1,840 km2(710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2(210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2(190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

  • Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,[133]
Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, 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.

  • "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[12]
India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

  • An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"[134]
A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

  • English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war[135]
The 1965 Indo-Pak 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.

  • Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"[136]
Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.

Conflict resumed again in early 1965, when Pakistani and Indian forces clashed over disputed territory along the border between the two nations. Hostilities intensified that August when the Pakistani army attempted to take Kashmir by force. The attempt to seize the state was unsuccessful, and the second India-Pakistan War reached a stalemate.
 
.
IMG_8467.JPG
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom