What's new

Authentic information about Kargil war

Shahid Aziz is not into politics and he is speaking the truth. I've met veterans who accept the fact that Army curbed all radio support and supplies once the American Pressure came up. So whom to blame here? Why begin a war will fragile strategy and overconfidence when you're ready to leave your soldiers in the middle of nowhere to lick your masters?? There were our die hard soldiers willing to face any horror of death for the flag under any circumstances. They still brought the wrath on Indian soldiers despite having no food, ammunition and radio support with the Operational HQ. It were our Soldiers who won. Not the 'Army' of Generals who betrayed them.
 
Indian leaders were not running to Washington. Nawaz Sharif did not fly to Washington on his own. He was asked by the Pakistani army to go to Washington.

Consequence of the Kargil war is no one outside Pakistan trusts the Pakistani army

there were different stories.some say that musharraf discussed nawaz and nawaz asked musharraf if the army can go as far as srinagar.clinton wanted to meet nawaz because clinton was already told by the indians to stop pak army.so they put diplomatic pressure through nawaz.this is our story.
 
there were different stories.some say that musharraf discussed nawaz and nawaz asked musharraf if the army can go as far as srinagar.clinton wanted to meet nawaz because clinton was already told by the indians to stop pak army.so they put diplomatic pressure through nawaz.this is our story.

Nawaz does not look like a fellow who wants to go to war. if Clinton put pressure on Nawaz and Nawaz asked your army to pull out why does your army have to listen to him ? They did not listen to him a few months later when Nawaz Sharif appointed a new chief.

Indian army was kicking the Pakistani army out of the occupied posts one by one. Your army wanted a way out. They used Nawaz Sharif and his visit to Washington as an excuse.
 
Nawaz does not look like a fellow who wants to go to war. if Clinton put pressure on Nawaz and Nawaz asked your army to pull out why does your army have to listen to him ? They did not listen to him a few months later when Nawaz Sharif appointed a new chief.

Indian army was kicking the Pakistani army out of the occupied posts one by one. Your army wanted a way out. They used Nawaz Sharif and his visit to Washington as an excuse.

excuse? this is your story haha. americans turned this war towards your favor.you must be thankful to clinton.as far as i know, pakistan was holding many posts before nawaz visit to washington but after the visit,we fall back with our own will.it was not because of you,it was diplomatic pressure.you can find thousand ways to please indian army but they were helpless during kargil.they even used air force to bomb posts.that was a one sided affair after diplomatic pressure.we fall back not because of indian army.we were in better position throughout this war but we don't wanted it to become a major issue or cause of concern for america.you say that you win.well you win but we managed to bring some confidence.we know from that kargil day that we can still attack you despite few in numbers.this is a strategic advantage.
 
Last edited:
Nawaz does not look like a fellow who wants to go to war. if Clinton put pressure on Nawaz and Nawaz asked your army to pull out why does your army have to listen to him ? They did not listen to him a few months later when Nawaz Sharif appointed a new chief.

Indian army was kicking the Pakistani army out of the occupied posts one by one. Your army wanted a way out. They used Nawaz Sharif and his visit to Washington as an excuse.

My brother and uncle were there and responsible for getting some special things (won't go into details about this) to Kargil. They were not from Army if you are curious, and you know what the gains of Kargil are far more than what we lost. Our soldiers refused to go back when were ordered by their officers and were crying when they were forced by the Higher Command, telling them it's over, we lost on political grounds. When they were coming back, India started shelling and bombing them, yes, that's where we lost our men, otherwise Indians were not finding a place to hide in Kargil war.
 
excuse? this is your story haha. americans turned this war towards your favor.you must be thankful to clinton.as far as i know, pakistan was holding many posts before nawaz visit to washington but after the visit,we fall back with our own will.it was not because of you,it was diplomatic pressure.you can find thousand ways to please indian army but they were helpless during kargil.they even used air force to bomb posts.that was a one sided affair after diplomatic pressure.we fall back not because of indian army.we were in better position throughout this war but we don't wanted it to become a major issue or cause of concern for america.you say that you win.well you win but we managed to bring some confidence.we know from that kargil day that we can still attack you despite few in numbers.this is a strategic advantage.

In recent history when was the last time Pakistani army listened to America ? Ignore the time after 9-11 where the Pakistani army had to

If you think you can attack India despite numerical inferiority why stop at Kargil ? Attack all across the border.
There is a good reason your generals do not do that. In fact Pakistani army showed their weakness at Kargil.

If Pakistani army refused to pull out all Uncle Sam had to do is to supply the Indian air force with a few JDAMs
BTW if you repeat Kargil now the war might be over in a week with a whole lot of body bags going to Pakistani villages

My brother and uncle were there and responsible for getting some special things (won't go into details about this) to Kargil. They were not from Army if you are curious, and you know what the gains of Kargil are far more than what we lost. Our soldiers refused to go back when were ordered by their officers and were crying when they were forced by the Higher Command, telling them it's over, we lost on political grounds. When they were coming back, India started shelling and bombing them, yes, that's where we lost our men, otherwise Indians were not finding a place to hide in Kargil war.

I am not saying anyone not affliated with the Pakistani army did not get involved. But the operation needed the planning & support from Pakistani military.
 
But no Pakistani answered my first question. Which gun was used most by Indians in 1999 Kargil war?
You want someone from Pakistan to answer what kind of guns were used in kargil by indians??
insas was one of the guns used,Bofors,bren light machine gun and Dragunov sniper.
 
The question is so obviously bait. The rifle used most during the Kargil war was Pakistani, because we killed the Indian army, not the other way around
 
Can Pakistani members here give some authentic information about Kargil war? Media - Indian or any other country’s - is not trustworthy.

There are some PDF members whose family or at least friends or relatives were on ground zero during Kargil war. They know someone who have actually fought that war.

They can give authentic answers to these questions. They should oblige.

First Query: Which rifle was used the most by Indian soldiers in that war? Rifles from various countries may have been used but which one was in majority with Indian army in 1999 Kargil?

Edit-Add: Despite categorically stating not to post from media sources, many repliers are doing same.

An example of the kind of source I want to read from: There was someone on PDF whose own father fought in 1999 Kargil and he gave detailed account on PDF of what his father did in the war. Such persons can authenticate the information.

So what was the rifle mostly used by Indians?
INSAS and G3s are null void in Cold what was in the kargil

although i dont know for sure but i would bet my money on AK 47s as both of Armies still use Ak-47 on Siachen
only these are the guns in both countries Arsenal which were specially built for and tested on such terrain

you can safely presume it was AK 47s
 
Well, each country's view would differ whether it is Pakistan or India. For some time, I was also looking for some indifferent opinion, anyway, here are some facts:

1: Kargil conflict was initiated from Pakistan - Pakistans version says it were Kashmiri militants, Indian version says it was Northern Light Infantry
2: Kargil was taken by surprise - India had no idea what was going to happen. Due to extreme winter situation, most outpost were thinly guarded or left unguarded.
3: As conflict expanded, Pakistan took control of most sectors of Kargil quickly. One interesting objective was to cut off Srinagar–Leh road. However on arrival of reinforcements, Indian military stopped further progress and also took back low resistance sectors. Cutting off Srinagar-Led Road couldn't happen.
4: Both sides suffered losses and causalities - who suffered more depends on who is telling. Though, my opinion might be biased because I'm Pakistani but I think it was India who suffered more causalities because it was taken by surprise. In military offensives, when you think given personnel and resources cannot hold position in anyway - you're ordered strategic retreat. Who was in better position for strategic retreat in this offensive - you can decide better yourself.
5: Pakistan could have more stronger position or may have succeeded if there were not gaps between military and civilian heads or between civilian govt and its cabinet.
6: India took the diplomacy channel instead of active fight to take back kargil and succeeded. Why India took diplomacy instead of active fight? Because it's harsh terrain and why would you choose to fight when you can achieve something without doing it. India got chance to play responsible nuclear state and used this event to tarnish the image of Pakistan internationally.
7: Pakistan suffered international backlash and had to give up the captured area. It was USA which induced Pakistan to do that.
8: This event set the precedence for later coup.
 
Last edited:
Can Pakistani members here give some authentic information about Kargil war? Media - Indian or any other country’s - is not trustworthy.

There are some PDF members whose family or at least friends or relatives were on ground zero during Kargil war. They know someone who have actually fought that war.

They can give authentic answers to these questions. They should oblige.

First Query: Which rifle was used the most by Indian soldiers in that war? Rifles from various countries may have been used but which one was in majority with Indian army in 1999 Kargil?

Edit-Add: Despite categorically stating not to post from media sources, many repliers are doing same.

An example of the kind of source I want to read from: There was someone on PDF whose own father fought in 1999 Kargil and he gave detailed account on PDF of what his father did in the war. Such persons can authenticate the information.

So what was the rifle mostly used by Indians?
Do these videos throw any light?


 
It is good that better sense prevailed or this war could have had disastrous consequences for both the countries.
Here is one example.

Pak-India nuclear war — avoided
Pervez HoodbhoyUpdated August 12, 2017




598e251112fd9.jpg

The writer teaches physics in Lahore and Islamabad.


PAKISTAN and India celebrate their 70th anniversaries next week. Shall they be around for their 100th one too? It depends on how long their luck holds out, and if they can stop their mad rush to increase the chances of disaster.

What’s new? Two weeks ago, a terrifying report published in the Indian Express should have scared sensible people into asking hard questions. But no one paid much attention to it — jaded publics on both sides would rather tune in to the hottest political intrigue or celebrity gossip than waste time on something that didn’t actually happen.

Here’s what was reported: on June 24, 1999, at the height of the Kargil war, an Indian Air Force Jaguar flying close to the Line of Control locked its targeting laser onto a possible base set up by Pakistani infiltrators. The second Jaguar flying close behind was supposed to bomb this chosen target. In fact, the Indian pilot had unknowingly crossed a few miles into Pakistani territory and in his cross hairs was a forward base of the Pakistan Army at Gulteri.

The Indian pilot’s mistake could have activated Pakistan’s war plans and triggered its nuclear assets.

An Indian air commodore, who was airborne at the same time, recognised that the first pilot had erred. It being a violation of combat rules to fly over the Pakistani side, he denied permission to fire. The bomb was subsequently retargeted to a point on the Indian side of the LoC.

The reported incident does not appear fabricated. First, it was revealed 18 years after the event and so there is no immediate gain. Second, the source was knowledgeable — he is retired Air Marshal Vinod Patney, who was then the head of India’s Western Command and directly responsible for air operations in the Kargil war. Third, it does not favour either country, and, in fact, points to a mistake on the Indian side.

Imagine for a moment that permission had been granted. The course of history would have totally changed because, unknown to the Indian pilots, at that very moment prime minister Nawaz Sharif and COAS Gen Pervez Musharraf were addressing troops amassed at Gulteri base. The laser-guided bomb, if released, would have eliminated Pakistan’s top leadership.

And then what? Would GHQ have waited for an explanation or accepted an apology for this horrible mistake? Or would Pakistan’s war plans have been triggered and nukes operationalised? This would take only a matter of minutes or hours.

Seeing Pakistani nuclear weapons being prepared, what would the Indians have done? Would the IAF have targeted Pakistan’s airbases and missile sites? Action and reaction. Fear fuelling misjudgement until nuclear blasts and fireballs destroy cities in both countries. Millions killed and more injured.

South Asia got hugely lucky that day. But as India rushes to put nuclear weapons on submarines — and Pakistan tries to follow suit — a whole new set of dangers has arisen. The chance of a missile being wrongly launched is greater for submarines than for aircraft or other land-based systems.

Here’s why. Submarines try to hide and adversaries try to find them. All submarines forces face this problem of antisubmarine warfare but, in the India-Pakistan case, an undersea competition is highly destabilising because Pakistan’s fleet is fairly vulnerable. Its three Agosta-90B type diesel electric submarines (eight Chinese ones are on order) are fairly noisy and trackable. Of the three, only one is actually likely to be on patrol at a given moment because the others would be refuelling or under repair. The submarine on patrol may in time be armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

While Indian capability to locate and destroy a diesel-powered submarine is unknown, this will improve with time. India already claims to have tracked the ocean trajectory of a Chinese nuclear submarine that recently docked in Karachi. Pakistan’s nervousness will drive it to build more nuclear-armed submarines, maybe even nuclear-propelled ones. Safety margins will shrink further.

To give an example: up to this point, Pakistan and India both claim that for safety reasons their nuclear warheads are kept in disassembled form with key parts kept at different physical locations. This builds in a time delay, making unauthorised use or an accident less likely. In a crisis the National Command Authority (or its Indian equivalent) would give the order to assemble a weapon. But with a submarine, all missiles must be fully ready for use before the ship leaves port.

There’s an added danger — communicating with a submarine prowling the ocean’s depth is hard since radio waves cannot travel long distances through saltwater. Typically, a deeply submerged vessel can only receive simple coded messages, not audio or video. Still worse: there can be only one-way communication — from vessel to base is impossible unless it surfaces and risks detection. Since a technical fault or enemy action can disrupt communications, the submarine commander has to be given the codes and authority to arm and launch nuclear missiles without seeking permission.

So here is a hypothetical question: suppose a Pakistani submarine is, or believes it is, under attack from some surface ship, another submarine, or aircraft. Given the impossibility of communicating with ground-based authorities, would the commander launch — or not launch — the submarine’s nuclear missiles? Of course, the attacker cannot know whether a normal sub is in its cross hairs or, instead, a nuclear-armed one.

This is not completely fictitious. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, a Soviet submarine found itself surrounded by American ships that began using underwater explosive depth charges to force it to surface. The Soviet submarine could not call Moscow for instructions without rising to the surface. The American ships did not know the Soviet submarine was armed with nuclear torpedoes.

Finding itself under attack, and believing that war had broken out, the submarine captain wanted to launch a nuclear torpedo to drive away the American ships by targeting a nearby American aircraft carrier. Other members of his crew did not agree. Eventually, the submarine decided to surface. Had the submarine captain had his way, a nuclear war could have started.

Will South Asia always stay lucky, as in Kargil? Don’t count on it.

The writer teaches physics in Lahore and Islamabad.

Published in Dawn, August 12th, 2017
https://www.dawn.com/news/1351091/pak-india-nuclear-war-avoided
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom