What's new

1965 war: How India almost lost to Pakistan

Sir, you are posting from ISPR website wheras you tell indian to be biased!!! Is ISPR neutral source???? :lol:
Questn is what did you win in 1965 war?? No doubt PAF did very well... but overall india had upper hand... but no clear victory at the end due to ceasefire and negotiations.... neutral sources like us congress reports(though usa was close to pak those days) clearly stated indian upper hand in 1965....

Bring picture from your website then.. or leave pictures out and bring some evidence of victory and win this case.
 
.
Hafiz Saeed was to tell you how emotionally flown you are and how your media portrays a picture different from reality.
We can very well handle our reality, we do it everyday. That's why we go out in the streets at protest, create awareness among our people when events like that of the Delhi-rape cases happen. We light candles too, when children get killed in Peshawar. And then there are people like you, who try to make fun of that, totally oblivious of the fact that the same social evils are present in much larger scale in your own society. That's why I call you people a drag - those who can't do any good for themselves but take pleasure in others' problems.
So, take it from me, clear and concise, I don't need a reality done by a Pakistani like you for me, we live and fight in the real World everyday. You do that to yourself, probably that will be of some help.
 
.
We can very well handle our reality, we do it everyday. That's why we go out in the streets at protest, create awareness among our people when events like that of the Delhi-rape cases happen. We light candles too, when children get killed in Peshawar. And then there are people like you, who try to make fun of that, totally oblivious of the fact that the same social evils are present in much larger scale in your own society. That's why I call you people a drag - those who can't do any good for themselves but take pleasure in others' problems.
So, take it from me, clear and concise, I don't need a reality done by a Pakistani like you for me, we live and fight in the real World everyday. You do that to yourself, probably that will be of some help.

Don't bring a book in your argument.. I have given you specific case of Hafiz Saeed. Go check your own country's status as well as status at USA to know what is the status of his conviction. But after learning, go and check your media and see what picture you see there.

You are pretty angry and emotional today. Take it easy - we are not winning or loosing a war but debating who won. Mostly my emphasis is on evidence of victory from India and there is none. Indians also don't want to look at their war-losses neither consider that India fought against a 5 times smaller army and still couldn't win. That is our definition and perspective of victory.
 
.
Very funny. The Indian's are the biggest pussies on earth.Nothing but pure pussy. No doubt about it.There they are 1,270, 000,000 of them and after 68 years later they can't slap down a country 7 yes seven times smaller than them. Now what does that tell you?
Population does not matter , Army strength matters where we have 1.3 million strong Army (Nearly half deployed on Chinese front) & You have .7 million (all deployed against India).
So, please tell me , who is the biggest pussy that despite being aggressor 4 times achieved nothing & lost Eastern wing
We take Siachen for which your pussies are still moaning.
They just dont have the balls period. They can spin, talk big but the sober reality is Pakistan is still annoying them after decades of causing trouble to India,.


We checked the ball of 60000 active military personal from 93000 POW ,found that defective.
We behave with you like a normal man behave with road side mad, just slap hard & move away.
Only thing save you is your nuclear rhetoric neither 1971 & 1984 are testament of your pussies.
 
Last edited:
.
India too claims Pakistani part of Kashmir and it was at-least 5 times bigger, stronger and more equipped than Pakistan. India has zero gains on the ground and Pakistani Kashmir is still with Pakistan. Now rethink who was the winner.

Sir, we did not launch operation gibralter to regain pak occupied kashmir!!! So we didn loose our objective of war!! You on other hand did loose coz you went ahead to take kashmir by force ending in defending own territory and later to move inside your borders.... now say who lost???
 
.
Don't bring a book in your argument.. I have given you specific case of Hafiz Saeed. Go check your own country's status as well as status at USA to know what is the status of his conviction. But after learning, go and check your media and see what picture you see there.

You are pretty angry and emotional today. Take it easy - we are not winning or loosing a war but debating who won. Mostly my emphasis is on evidence of victory from India and there is none. Indians also don't want to look at their war-losses neither consider that India fought against a 5 times smaller army and still couldn't win. That is our definition and perspective of victory.
To hell with it...
Did India start a war there to begin with ? No, it's Pakistan.

What was the objective ? For Pakistan it was to win Kashmir, for India, it was offensive defence.

Did India have any territorial ambitions ? No, it was Pakistan that had that.

I leave the rest to you to draw your conclusions. I will leave this thread now.
 
.
Don't bring a book in your argument.. I have given you specific case of Hafiz Saeed. Go check your own country's status as well as status at USA to know what is the status of his conviction. But after learning, go and check your media and see what picture you see there.

You are pretty angry and emotional today. Take it easy - we are not winning or loosing a war but debating who won. Mostly my emphasis is on evidence of victory from India and there is none. Indians also don't want to look at their war-losses neither consider that India fought against a 5 times smaller army and still couldn't win. That is our definition and perspective of victory.
In every discussion you bring argument 5 time big Indian army ?
Can you back with proof ?
Civilian nos. didn't count.
IA strength 1.3 million ( nearly half deployed along Chinese border)
PA strength .7 million ( all deployed against India)
And PA is well funded compared to IA as its a driver of Pakistan & IA acquisitions mostly delayed due to bureaucracy.
 
.
Bring picture from your website then.. or leave pictures out and bring some evidence of victory and win this case.

  1. a b c d "Pakistan :: The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965". Library of Congress Country Studies, United States of America. April 1994. Retrieved 2 October 2010. Quote: 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.
 
.
But Pakistanis are Mujahids and Mard-e-Momeens with the strength of one soldier equal to 10 Indians!

You could not wrestle Kashmir from skinny, small baniyas. Now rethink, who was the winner!
India too claims Pakistani part of Kashmir and it was at-least 5 times bigger, stronger and more equipped than Pakistan. India has zero gains on the ground and Pakistani Kashmir is still with Pakistan. Now rethink who was the winner.
 
.
Also pakistani people had been fed with misinformation from govt... the fact that pride of "matial race" was so prominent that most people denied the loss that hindu india inflicted on pakistan.... here is a US confidential document later made public...
Mcconaughy20oct1965a.jpg


The Indian's are the biggest pussies on earth.Nothing but pure pussy.

You are a think tank... so start behaving like one... name calling, hurling abuses cannot change fact... behave properly with others if you want others to behave properly with you....
 
.
Roy Meloni,
American Broadcasting Corporation
September 15, 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 propaganda 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."


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, 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 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 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."


Everett G. Martin,
General Editor, Newsweek
September 20, 1965.


"One point particularly noted by military observers is that in their first 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."


Indonesian Herald
September 11, 1965.


"India's barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralization. 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...."


Patrick Seale,
The Observer, London,
September 12, 1965.


"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."


The London Daily Mirror (during the coverage of the war of 1965)

"There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India's attacking forces came to a dead stop.During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistanis"

London Daily Times (covering the 65 war reports)


" India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces."

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".


USA - Aviation Week & Space Technology - December 1968 issue says :-

“"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel."
 
Last edited:
.
India too claims Pakistani part of Kashmir and it was at-least 5 times bigger, stronger and more equipped than Pakistan. India has zero gains on the ground and Pakistani Kashmir is still with Pakistan. Now rethink who was the winner.
Are you middle passed :enjoy:I mean your apprehension skills are :D:D:D
 
Last edited:
.
In all sources you'll read that PAF crippled the IAF, The PAF defending the skys excellently, On the ground the pak army lost Many tanks, more then the indians, the 1965 was a stalemate, Pakistan failed to take kashmir which was its original objective, India failed to neutralise pak army advances and take key cities like lahore, the pak army l.ost more men this is a bone hard historical fact. I think the soldiers and air men of Pakistan deserve to be celebrated I have nothing against that but to claim victory is absurd. Had Jammu been seized from the indians it would have been a victory but they failed in doing this. So my dear Pak brother's please develop some objectivity and sensibility when discussing these issues.
 
.
Roy Meloni,
American Broadcasting Corporation
September 15, 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 propaganda 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."


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, 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 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 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."


Everett G. Martin,
General Editor, Newsweek
September 20, 1965.


"One point particularly noted by military observers is that in their first 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."


Indonesian Herald
September 11, 1965.


"India's barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralization. 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...."


Patrick Seale,
The Observer, London,
September 12, 1965.


"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."


The London Daily Mirror (during the coverage of the war of 1965)

"There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India's attacking forces came to a dead stop.During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistanis"

London Daily Times (covering the 65 war reports)


" India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces."

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".


USA - Aviation Week & Space Technology - December 1968 issue says :-

“"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel."
You forget the Cold War. Pakistan was in the American camp. India was not in any at that point of time. Look at the American, British and other NATO/pro American countries, and you will find a similar reporting. :)

Take a look at these docs - most of them provide a pro Pak view of wars. Including that of 1971.
Newspaper Reports 1971 | December'1971
I have included mostly the ones from the West.
 
.
No sir, we are the winner and we knew it since war and we celebrate that day as National Holiday every year. India has only discovered its victory 50 years later. Good on you.



You also judge the winner from the time he washes his teeth and by which hand he drinks water. Come on mate, cut his crap.. look at statistics, charts and fact sheets. We are all perfectly capable to do that.

But I also understand why Indians do not touch fact-sheets and war losses for their sense of victory... as there is none and the only "high" they get it from table talk and the way stories are told to you. Go on, buy them and but then do not look at the fact sheets ever as your drams will bust there.



You are so lost in your emotions that you couldn't read me properly.. Tiger Hills was Kargil not 1965. Now how can I talk to you when you are that lost.. but you never learned about Tiger Hills from Indian resources didn't you?
When did the timing and terms of post war agreement become washing hand and teeth? When you are winning a war, why will you go to the negotiation table and if you go, why can't you pull out the agreement on terms favourable to you?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom