1965 war by international & Indian observers.

[Didact]

Why ''BRAVE'' India didn't face Gibraltar forces face to face.................?

and instead attacked major Pakistan city at NIGHT from THREE directions with so much VALOR and DIGNITY........?

Why did the Wehrmcht attack along the thinly defended Ardenne forest and not the formidable Marignot line? Why did Guerdian's FIrst Panzer Group encircle the defenders of Kiev? Why did the Allies feint an attack on Par-de-Calais, while the real target were the Normandy beaches? Why did the Pakistani armored regiment attempt a break through at Longewala, at dusk? Why did the Pakistani Army occupy the abandoned posts in Kargil?Were they all cowards? Was the Pakistani army a coward?

Why is it that the first instinct any professional unit/ soldier coming under fire is trained to pursue is to find the nearest cover, and not fire back? That goes for PA too. Are they cowards for not shooting from the middle of the street 'seena phar ke'.

 

[ayesha.a]

You must study about Raid on Pathan Kot then ................

You must study a lot of things.

The fact is that the IAF had some 6 mig-21s, and no operational squadrons. The migs were used for defensive purposes, and that experience was invaluable - it led to IAF deciding to make it their primary fighter jet.

But to claim that India had superiority because of mig-21s is just absurd, when we did not even have one squadron of them.

 

[Tipu7]

But to claim that India had superiority because of mig-21s is just absurd, when we did not even have one squadron of them.

I didn't claimed that.
But its not wise to reject the destruction of Mig21...............
Also Mind answering my old questions........?

 

[Xeric]

To India Op Gibraltar was an act of war , just like crossing the LoC at Kargil was . Both were responded in kind.

When India was about to cross the Border again in Rajasthan & Punjab, NS made the famous 4th Of July trip to US.

Does the same definition of 'act of war' also applies to 1971 War and 1984 Siachen Conflict?

 

[ayesha.a]

Bangladesh is a muslim state

It is separated from Pakistan by 1000 miles

If the highlite if your hindu military prowess is involving yourself in a civil war 1000 miles from where we could really do anything against a hostile local population

Then i repeat india is militarily pathetic

It was 0 miles away from Pakistan - it was Pakistan.

If you had lost west Pakistan instead of east, you would be saying that west Pakistan was thousands of miles away.

If you didn't know to allocate resources judiciously in both parts of your country, that's your mistake. There were more Pakistanis in the east than in the west. They all became non Pakistanis in 1971, because India cut you in two.

The population was hostile because of the idiocies of the west Pakistanis.

You can make pathetic excuses, but the fact is that your country was split into two. The only place your army has successfully conquered (repeatedly) is your own capital, Islamabad. Your army cannot conquer or defeat anybody other than their own people.

I didn't claimed that.
But its not wise to reject the destruction of Mig21...............
Also Mind answering my old questions........?

You did claim that. Or maybe it was another poster. But somebody said that IAF was superior because they had mig-21s. The fact being that IAF had a total of 6 mig-21s, and no skilled pilots trained to fly them. Just like the MKIs in 1999 - they played no role.

Which old questions?

 

[Bang Galore]

Why did the Wehrmcht attack along the thinly defended Ardenne forest and not the formidable Marignot line? Why did Guerdian's FIrst Panzer Group encircle the defenders of Kiev? Why did the Allies feint an attack on Par-de-Calais, while the real target were the Normandy beaches? Why did the Pakistani armored regiment attempt a break through at Longewala, at dusk? Why did the Pakistani Army occupy the abandoned posts in Kargil?Were they all cowards? Was the Pakistani army a coward?

Why is it that the first instinct any professional unit/ soldier coming under fire is trained to pursue is to find the nearest cover, and not fire back? That goes for PA too. Are they cowards for not shooting from the middle of the street 'seena phar ke'.

Too many Pakistanis act as if war is a sport, a boxing match more accurately. Where you get points even if you come second.

 

[ayesha.a]

Does the same definition of 'act of war' also applies to 1971 War and 1984 Siachen Conflict?

Yes. And India won in both those - because India achieved her aims.

But Pakistan did not achieve the aims of the acts of war it started, and therefore by any definition, they lost.

 

[Tipu7]

It was 0 miles away from Pakistan - it was Pakistan.

Very good.

If you had lost west Pakistan instead of east, you would be saying that west Pakistan was thousands of miles away.

Then why India attacked East Pakistan instead of West Pakistan? ............ must be a mistake of right hand or left hand.

The population was hostile because of the idiocies of the west Pakistanis.

Very good again

You can make pathetic excuses, but the fact is that your country was split into two. The only place your army has successfully conquered (repeatedly) is your own capital, Islamabad. Your army cannot conquer or defeat anybody other than their own people.

Excellent ..................

Kaki where you live............? Mole Hole??

 

[Xeric]

I do not disagree. However, then the fact remains that either side calling it a Victory is idiocy. The fact remains that whether you divide or include the war(one can divide the Vietnam war pre US troops and Post US troops but the war is taken as a whole)... Pakistan failed at getting Kashmir but at the same time India's attempt at any payback went full flat on its face.

Sure, one can parade in Dehli over making Pakistan give up on Kashmir or Parade in Islamabad about keeping the Indians from invading the motherland... but at the end of the day, if one looks at it from a pure performance point of view, with the resources it had and the majority it held; the Indian military simply did worse than the already bad performance by the Pakistani military.
Call it historical accounting(my cost, your cost, ABC etc)...but that is how I see it. Whether the Spartans did well or not, or the entire Greek Army suffered more.. the fact remains that the Greeks kept Xerxes at bay.
The David in this story was cheekier and attacked first, but at the end Goliath was an idiot to only let him get away with a few body bruises whilst he seemingly boasted of flooring him.

Oscar, atleast i am not discussing who won or who lost, that's a whole new debate and will require to point the follies nd success at both sides. It's just the pick n chose attitude that the Indians display to suit their agendas that i am after.

 

[Tipu7]

Yes. And India won in both those - because India achieved her aims.

What was aim of Siachin ................?

 

[Bang Galore]

Does the same definition of 'act of war' also applies to 1971 War and 1984 Siachen Conflict?

Pakistan did attack India in 1971, presumably because they thought so. Siachen was also something that Pakistan could have chosen to widen if it wanted or was interested to take that risk. The point here is that the side attempting a change in the status quo does not make the determination of how limited the retaliation will be.

 

[ayesha.a]

What was aim of Siachin ................?

To occupy the commanding heights of Siachen glacier.

We did so, and continue to do so today.

 

[Tipu7]

Siachen was also something that Pakistan could have chosen to widen if it wanted or was interested to take that risk.

wao ............................ So Siachin was also Pakistan mistake ............. I see .............Evil Pakistanis always messing Great and Dignified Indians...................so sad

To occupy the commanding heights of Siachen glacier.

and what you accomplished by accomplishing that goal.................?

 

[nForce]

Very good.

Then why India attacked East Pakistan instead of West Pakistan? ............ must be a mistake of right hand or left hand.

India did. You have to read your history. And that was retaliation.

India did not attack East Pakistan with much force in 1965 though.

 

[ayesha.a]

Then why India attacked East Pakistan instead of West Pakistan? ............ must be a mistake of right hand or left hand.

Because of Pakistan military's idiotic and ill conceived strategy, that "the defence of the east lies in the west". Pakistani military planners believed that concentrating forces on the west would make India afraid of attacking the east. It was a stupid doctrine, and India exploited it to the hilt.

In any war or battle, one attacks the enemy where they are weak. Pakistanis idiotically left the east thinly defended, and thought that their mighty armor and offensive power in the west would scare India. It didn't - the mighty armored thrust came to a grinding halt at Longewala, and India did not mind fighting a two front war. The front that was weakly defended collapsed. The heavily defended and armed front (west Paksitan) couldn't do anything to India.