1965 War:IAF raid on Pakistan's Badin Radar Station.

[MilSpec]

^^ hasn't this "in the blood" thing caused you enough problems?

 

[TOPGUN]

^^ hasn't this "in the blood" thing caused you enough problems?

Actually come to look at facts if we are talking about blood... i think our airwar records speak for them selves check your history.

 

[karan.1970]

Plzz don't start this BS all over again... in reality it is in our blood to fly simply . I belive there are only two airforces in the world that truly have it in their blood, Pakistan Airforce and Israeli Airforce given the odds both have faced and still have to face the quality of the pilots is simply unmatachable then anywhere else in the world like it or not but offcourse haters will never agree to it . Always remember it's not a shame to admit defeat in a area were you are just not good enough but what matters is that you tried now stop this dumb BS once and for all and stop wasting thread space with one or two stories while you will be rained on by too many stoires not enough for your eyes nor your soul to handle so lets not go there go take a chill pill and think about peace enough playing behind the screen heros this isn't bollywood .. welcome to PDF case closed.

Dont worry about our soul's condition to handle your stories (at least the real ones)... Because no matter how many scenes you play out, we know that for us, the ending was a happy ending

 

[TOPGUN]

Dont worry about our soul's condition to handle your stories (at least the real ones)... Because no matter how many scenes you play out, we know that for us, the ending was a happy ending

Yea right kid make some sense we all know the facts ... don't give us sesme street lines i know it hurts but it's life live with it learn to admit and all will be fine bacha

 

[MilSpec]

Actually come to look at facts if we are talking about blood... i think our airwar records speak for them selves check your history.

Yes offcourse, Your air war records supplemented with American hardware and technological gap of nearly a decade back in 60's vis-a-vis IAF speaky highly of aircombat which is in the blood. Sabre and Starfighters flying against Gnat's and Hunters indeed speaks highly of PAF pilots ensorcelled performances. With IAF starting out as defenders and taking the fight back to pak thus indicate dismal performance of indian pilot. Indian pilots equipped with gnats mostly claiming a technological superior sabre also considered as the best dogfighter of its era must be a disappointing feat for IAF pilots, who apparently arent born with exclusively formatted blood needed for piloting skills. What a loss!

 

[karan.1970]

Yea right kid make some sense we all know the facts ... don't give us sesme street lines i know it hurts but it's life live with it learn to admit and all will be fine bacha

The Indian army was in possession of 710 miles² (1,800 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (550 km²) of Indian territory. The territory occupied by India was mainly in the fertile Sialkot, Lahore and Kashmir sectors,[32] while Pakistani land gains were primarily south in deserts opposite to Sindh and in Chumb sector near Kashmir in north.[33]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Fazlu]

I was unaware that our fighter jets didn't even have the luxury of a crude radar system back then.

Much Respect to IAF.

 

[AUz]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A senior bharti member posting....wikipedia? Edited by bharti teenagers? Post all "pro-india" links as sources and leave out all the "pro-Pakistan" sources ....

Way to go. Becharay brainwashed bhartis .....

We all know what happens to a race that remained slaves for thousand upon thousand of years.....outsiders cultures were imposed on bhartis...this all cultivates into sheer expression of inferiority-complex that we see today , coming from india...

PAF always shot down more , way more , indian aircrafts then vice versa. In every conflict , PAF won the air-battle and stands today as "undefeated force" in sub-continent....We all also saw the limited conflict between Soviet Union and PAF ... Pakistan outscored soviet pilots by 16:1 ! As TOPGUN said , it is in the blood! We fly , we are aggressive , and we fight!

See what an American F-16 trainer says about PAF F-16 pilots and Israeli Air Force's F-16 pilots...

In the very early years of the Viper, we trained all the EPG folks, plus the IAF, Pakistani and Egyptian folks. Also handled USAF National Guard and Reserve units.

I flew with Pakistani folks during my pilot training back in 1965-65. 16-17 years or so later, I flew with accomplished Pakistani fighter pilots that formed the core of their Viper force.

The original cast at Hill will all tell you (ALL) that the Pakistani folks were more aggressive than the IAF folks we had. Same-oh versus the Egyptian folks.

Jan Bei's question is a great one!

(This is a comment from a "Professional" member of another forum...He served in USAF but now retired.)

But yeah , bhartis can keep believing wikipedia , afterall , this is what their poor race can do best...

 

[aanshu001]

A senior bharti member posting....wikipedia? Edited by bharti teenagers? Post all "pro-india" links as sources and leave out all the "pro-Pakistan" sources ....

Way to go. Becharay brainwashed bhartis .....

We all know what happens to a race that remained slaves for thousand upon thousand of years.....outsiders cultures were imposed on bhartis...this all cultivates into sheer expression of inferiority-complex that we see today , coming from india...

PAF always shot down more , way more , indian aircrafts then vice versa. In every conflict , PAF won the air-battle and stands today as "undefeated force" in sub-continent....We all also saw the limited conflict between Soviet Union and PAF ... Pakistan outscored soviet pilots by 16:1 ! As TOPGUN said , it is in the blood! We fly , we are aggressive , and we fight!

See what an American F-16 trainer says about PAF F-16 pilots and Israeli Air Force's F-16 pilots...



(This is a comment from a "Professional" member of another forum...He served in USAF but now retired.)

But yeah , bhartis can keep believing wikipedia , afterall , this is what their poor race can do best...

try to read Wikipedia than the facts below are given by American media (your mai-baap of that time) hard facts shows that India had upper hand than Pakistan and none of these coats are given by Indian sources.

Neutral assessments
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had a upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —
According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[77] –
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.
TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.[78] The article further elaborates,
Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.
Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[79] –
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",[80] 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.
An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[81] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,
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[8] –
India won the war. 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,[82]
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.
BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,[83]
The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.
"A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[9] –
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"[84] –
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[85] –
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"[86] –
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.
Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold of the much larger Indian Army.[87]
By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own.

 

[aanshu001]

A senior bharti member posting....wikipedia? Edited by bharti teenagers? Post all "pro-india" links as sources and leave out all the "pro-Pakistan" sources ....

Way to go. Becharay brainwashed bhartis .....

We all know what happens to a race that remained slaves for thousand upon thousand of years.....outsiders cultures were imposed on bhartis...this all cultivates into sheer expression of inferiority-complex that we see today , coming from india...

PAF always shot down more , way more , indian aircrafts then vice versa. In every conflict , PAF won the air-battle and stands today as "undefeated force" in sub-continent....We all also saw the limited conflict between Soviet Union and PAF ... Pakistan outscored soviet pilots by 16:1 ! As TOPGUN said , it is in the blood! We fly , we are aggressive , and we fight!

See what an American F-16 trainer says about PAF F-16 pilots and Israeli Air Force's F-16 pilots...



(This is a comment from a "Professional" member of another forum...He served in USAF but now retired.)

But yeah , bhartis can keep believing wikipedia , afterall , this is what their poor race can do best...

try to read Wikipedia than the facts below are given by American media (your mai-baap of that time) and western hard facts shows that India had upper hand than Pakistan and none of these are given by Indian sources.

Neutral assessments
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had a upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —
According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[77] –
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.
TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.[78] The article further elaborates,
Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.
Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[79] –
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",[80] 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.
An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[81] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,
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[8] –
India won the war. 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,[82]
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.
BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,[83]
The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.
"A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[9] –
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"[84] –
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[85] –
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"[86] –
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.
Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold of the much larger Indian Army.[87]
By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

No need to tell, they will tell what what they was taught from the beginning. Its only just now a media , which has capability to expose truth, which cant be desisted by them.

 

[Shinigami]

Plzz don't start this BS all over again... in reality it is in our blood to fly simply . I belive there are only two airforces in the world that truly have it in their blood, Pakistan Airforce and Israeli Airforce given the odds both have faced and still have to face the quality of the pilots is simply unmatachable then anywhere else in the world like it or not but offcourse haters will never agree to it . Always remember it's not a shame to admit defeat in a area were you are just not good enough but what matters is that you tried now stop this dumb BS once and for all and stop wasting thread space with one or two stories while you will be rained on by too many stoires not enough for your eyes nor your soul to handle so lets not go there go take a chill pill and think about peace enough playing behind the screen heros this isn't bollywood .. welcome to PDF case closed.

an average pakistani's knowledge in history or warfare never ceases to astound me. "since we shout down more a/c, our AF is better than theirs".
do u realize how ridiculous this claim is?

i will be opening a thread shortly explaining these things in detail, hope mods dont delete that