1965 War Documentary Fath-e-Mobin

[Joe Shearer]

Yes I remember that there was armoured brigade named Puna Horse Pakistan even removed their sign form battle field

Oh? "Removed their sign form (sic) battle field." Really? What is this tricky military maneouvre?

Let me guess: you are an expert in military history, right?

 

[Pride]

This has been discussed number of times in PDF. The questions remains, how do you measure a win in war?

According to most of the people, the major factor is success in Motive : Did you get what you wanted ? Answer for Pakistan is NO. Pakistan wanted to capture or free Kashmir from Indian Army but it didn't happen as end result so Pakistan failed in its motive of attack.

In between, who killed how many and how many tools were damaged is Secondary or kind of trophy for satisfaction.

 

[deckingraj]

And I am saying doing so would have resulted in the war getting more violent, another front would have been opened up and knowing were would lose badly we would probably try to inflict some nasty damage, as would India. This was shown in 1971.

As for why India would want to do such a thing, simple. It would be a MASSIVE bargaining chip, and after that humiliation I doubt Pakistan would ever do anything major against India ever again.

Please take a moment and try to analyze what you wrote...do u see any contradiction?? Let me try to write it all over again...

So our objective was to use land for massive bargaining chip so that Pakistan would never do anything major against India ever again and yet we chose not to open East pakistan front knowing that Pakistan would loose but will inflict some nasty damage? A damage we were willing to take just 6 years later?? Don't you think this explanation has some holes??

Also please understand as per you we started the war with the objective of overrunning Lahore...so even if i go with multiple fronts case don't you think it would make sense for us to not go after lahore but go after dhaka?? So in short defensive posture on west where you are strong and aggressive posture on east(like in 71) where you were weak should have been the obvious approach, no??

Now just once try to get into my shoes and ponder...perhaps overrunning lahore and Sialkot was not the ultimate goal?? Perhaps the goal was to save the day in Kashmir?? may be ??

Edit : In fact your misadventure was the exact reason India went all the way to pay back in 71..if you check we had a rather peaceful co-existence from 48-65...thereafter we were at each other throats all the time...

 

[.]

Please take a moment and try to analyze what you wrote...do u see any contradiction?? Let me try to write it all over again...

So our objective was to use land for massive bargaining chip so that Pakistan would never do anything major against India ever again and yet we chose not to open East pakistan front knowing that Pakistan would loose but will inflict some nasty damage? A damage we were willing to take just 6 years later?? Don't you think this explanation has some holes??

Also please understand as per you we started the war with the objective of overrunning Lahore...so even if i go with multiple fronts case don't you think it would make sense for us to not go after lahore but go after dhaka?? So in short defensive posture on west where you are strong and aggressive posture on east(like in 71) where you were weak should have been the obvious approach, no??

Now just once try to get into my shoes and ponder...perhaps overrunning lahore and Sialkot was not the ultimate goal?? Perhaps the goal was to save the day in Kashmir?? may be ??



Yup i can see that...enough evidence right in this thread...

lol Evidence?I said Pakistan won ! Now go milk a cow and keep dreaming in Cow land.Godspeed

 

[MilSpec]

it was an objective, that's why India pressed on so much, but ultimately you couldn't break through.

hehe, who made that an objective? and why just lahore, we also failed to catpture, Islamabad, rawalpindi, peshawar, etc etc....
read the words of your generals clearly, both gibraltor and brasstacks were utter failure, operational awareness Pakistani army of India's response again was dismal, India responded by opening up the entire front, and Pakistani effort to annexe Kashmir capitulated.... that's that.

 

[deckingraj]

lol Evidence?I said Pakistan won ! Now go milk a cow and keep dreaming in Cow land.Godspeed

That further explains your desire not to argue with foolish Indians ...Now this is how you say something and then follow it in letter and spirit...no more discussions with you on this topic as you are not only ignorant about it however unwilling to even learn...

 

[Joe Shearer]

You know what I meant, don't be a grammar Nazi. And our claim was (last time I checked) all of Kutch, so 10% of Kutch=10% of our claim on Kutch. I'm clearly a Maths genius for coming up with that one, am I right?

<sigh> The Rann of Kutch is 30,000 sq. kms.

Pakistan's claim was to 9,100 sq. kms.

Pakistan got around 900 sq. kms.

You are a maths genius, no doubt about it. It's your ignorance of military history that worries me (it used to irritate me, but now it's become worry). There is a serious problem here.

 

[Hamza913]

Please take a moment and try to analyze what you wrote...do u see any contradiction?? Let me try to write it all over again...

So our objective was to use land for massive bargaining chip so that Pakistan would never do anything major against India ever again and yet we chose not to open East pakistan front knowing that Pakistan would loose but will inflict some nasty damage? A damage we were willing to take just 6 years later?? Don't you think this explanation has some holes??

Also please understand as per you we started the war with the objective of overrunning Lahore...so even if i go with multiple fronts case don't you think it would make sense for us to not go after lahore but go after dhaka?? So in short defensive posture on west where you are strong and aggressive posture on east(like in 71) where you were weak should have been the obvious approach, no??

Now just once try to get into my shoes and ponder...perhaps overrunning lahore and Sialkot was not the ultimate goal?? Perhaps the goal was to save the day in Kashmir?? may be ??

India was willing to take it in 71 because the influx of Bangaldeshi refugees was ruining your country, and you saw an oppurtunity to damage Pakistan thinking the civil war would have made it easy, when it obviously didn't.

If India went after Dhaka, it wouldn't have the significance of Lahore or Sialkot. East Pakistan was never considered as valuable as the Western mainland, it was an afterthought, we treated the Bangladeshis and their country poorly and couldn't care less about them, taking Dhaka wouldn't have the same affect as taking a major Pakistani city in the Western mainland, it was the smarter decision to go for the more valuable target. Going for both would have been risky, so one had to be chosen.

The goal was to also take Lahore and Sialkot, if India wanted to just apply pressure you didn't have to try and break into the main cities, you could have just stayed at the outskirts and focused more attention on Kashmir itself.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes I remember that there was armoured brigade named Puna Horse Pakistan even removed their sign form battle field

@The Next Door

Still waiting for your answer, O great one.

@hellfire

We have another amateur historian here. Would you like to watch? Or are you sensitive to excessive blood?

 

[Hamza913]

<sigh> The Rann of Kutch is 30,000 sq. kms.

Pakistan's claim was to 9,100 sq. kms.

Pakistan got around 900 sq. kms.

You are a maths genius, no doubt about it. It's your ignorance of military history that worries me (it used to irritate me, but now it's become worry. There is a serious problem here.

Sorry, my bad. But my military history is still good, you can bark about it being wrong all you want but that won't change the facts.

 

[Joe Shearer]

India was willing to take it in 71 because the influx of Bangaldeshi refugees was ruining your country, and you saw an oppurtunity to damage Pakistan thinking the civil war would have made it easy, when it obviously didn't.

If India went after Dhaka, it wouldn't have the significance of Lahore or Sialkot. East Pakistan was never considered as valuable as the Western mainland, it was an afterthought, we treated the Bangladeshis and their country poorly and couldn't care less about them, taking Dhaka wouldn't have the same affect as taking a major Pakistani city in the Western mainland, it was the smarter decision to go for the more valuable target. Going for both would have been risky, so one had to be chosen.

The goal was to also take Lahore and Sialkot, if India wanted to just apply pressure you didn't have to try and break into the main cities, you could have just stayed at the outskirts and focused more attention on Kashmir itself.

@deckingraj

Got to hand it to him. He is capable of speaking the most arrant nonsense without batting an eyelid. Let's see how you counter this breath-taking flight of logic. I'm waiting in keen anticipation.

 

[Hamza913]

hehe, who made that an objective? and why just lahore, we also failed to catpture, Islamabad, rawalpindi, peshawar, etc etc....
read the words of your generals clearly, both gibraltor and brasstacks were utter failure, operational awareness Pakistani army of India's response again was dismal, India responded by opening up the entire front, and Pakistani effort to annexe Kashmir capitulated.... that's that.

Unlike Islamabad and Rawalpindi, Lahore and Sialkot were the subject of numerous Indian assaults, you most certainty wanted it.

@deckingraj

Got to hand it to him. He is capable of speaking the most arrant nonsense without batting an eyelid. Let's see how you counter this breath-taking flight of logic.

Rich coming from you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sorry, my bad. But my military history is still good, you can bark about it being wrong all you want but that won't change the facts.

Yeah, like this fact, which mysteriously got transmuted from a 'bad' to a great effort at narrating military history!!!

 

[Hamza913]

Anyway, chatting with you guys has been fun and all but I think we're done here, see you all later.

P.S Joe you have been ignored, so don't bother replying to me.

 

[Sneaker]

I'm curious, when we got the 10% of Kutch, did our borders advance? Because if they did, it means that land was rightfully ours so had every right to be furious when India makes a post.

India had no presence in the areas awarded to pakistan. Sardar post and Vighakot (awarded to India) was set up after pakistani presence was observed at kanjarkot (awarded to India later). All the places where skirmish took place are inside India (Kanjarkot, VighaKot, Briar bet). Chad Bet and one other place was awarded to pakistan where india had no presence. these were southern portion of Rann.