BBC report on Pakistan's failed 1965 war plans.

[danish_vij]

Op Gibraltar was designed to punish India for annexing Kashmir illegally. The objective was not to capture Kashmir.

 

[Icarus]

Pakistani Objective

1. Capture Kashmir ; Failed .
2. capture Amritsar ; Failed .
3. Capture Jaipur and then New Delhi ; Failed .

Defend territory ya if starts from 8Km from Lahore . Or haji pir pass .!!! Just example of how well defended was that .

When were these ever Objectives? Your sources please? You must not know the course of the conflict right since this is probably the first time you ever heard of it so let me break it down for you.

1. The plan was never to capture Kashmir, if a few hundred men could do that, trust me we would have sent a few more in reserve. The idea was to spark insurrection in Kashmir which again was part of UNCONVENTIONAL STRATEGY.

2. There were never going to be moves on the city of Amritsar because it would have been difficult to hold and Pakistan with fewer troop needed to keep its lines fluid to adapt to Indian movements.

3. Delhi? Seriously? Are you suggesting that Pakistan intended to March on the Indian Capital? Either you are truly ignorant or severely underestimate our assessment of India's defence capability.

8Km from Lahore is still 8km from Lahore, if that is the criteria for anything, then I have spent a good number of my days stationed 80m from Uri sector, that's metres, I must be hailed as a hero in that case if I got so close to India. Remember 14.2 Bloody Miles.

but did india start it ... or was it afridies in 1948 which forced dogra king to join indian union and operation gibralter in 1964 by ayub khan .... so tell me who and why started it both times and did you get kashmir ..... so how are your nation victors lolzz after USAs snubb to save your nations izzat both ayub khan and Z A Bhutto ran to USSR and did tashkent and ayub khan was so frustated that he had to write a book called "friends not masters"

so tell me sir why was 1964 war initiated and did you army get for what it started it all when actualli it was not needed what do you call such a mis calculation and also tell me sir what were the after efeects of this miscalculation on pakistani nation as a whole from then on ....

I will reply to you when you learn to make a coherent sentence in either proper english or shudh hindi. As it is, your intangible diatribe is greek to me.

 

[GURU DUTT]

I will reply to you when you learn to make a coherent sentence in either proper english or shudh hindi. As it is, your intangible diatribe is greek to me.

ok sir here we go again try answer now

but did india started it .

.. or was it afridies in 1948 which forced dogra king to join indian union and operation gibralter in 1964 by ayub khan .... so tell me who and why started it both times and did you get kashmir .....

so how are your nation victors lolzz after USAs snub to save your nations izzat both ayub khan and Z A Bhutto ran to USSR and did tashkent

and ayub khan was so frustated that he had to write a book called "friends not masters"

so tell me sir why was 1964 war initiated and did you army get for what it started it all

when actualli it was not needed what do you call such a mis calculation

and also tell me sir what were the after efeects of this miscalculation on pakistani nation as a whole from then on ....please do answer my masoom se sawaal now saeen ji

 

[ito]

1. India attacked without formal declaration of hostilities, escalating the conflict from unconventional to conventional.
2. Launched Multi-pronged assaults against an unprepared Pak Army.
3. Was repulsed at all fronts.

Indian Objectives: Capture Lahore, Sialkot (Failed)
Pakistani Impromptu Objectives: Defend territory against Indian advance and engage in war of attrition (Successful)

This is the simplest terms I can explain it in.

I guess India's objective was never to capture Lahore and Sialkot....what would India do with Lahore and Sialkot? The strategy behind India's attack on Lahore and Sialkot is to say that if you attack Kashmir, India would take that war to anywhere along the international boundary. The same strategy behind unconventional and conventional. It is India's way of saying that they don't differentiate between unconventional and conventional war. All this led to Pakistan agreeing to a ceasefire. In strategic terms Pakistan lost 1965.

 

[Yaduveer]

Op Gibraltar was designed to punish India for annexing Kashmir illegally. The objective was not to capture Kashmir.

1. India annexed Kashmir legally . You may call it against the wishes of local population but it was perfectly legal.
2. So You started a war with objective of defending Lahore and Sialkot.Very good.

 

[Icarus]

I guess India's objective was never to capture Lahore and Sialkot....what would India do with Lahore and Sialkot? The strategy behind India's attack on Lahore and Sialkot is to say that if you attack Kashmir, India would take that war to anywhere along the international boundary. The same strategy behind unconventional and conventional. It is India's way of saying that they don't differentiate between unconventional and conventional war. All this led to Pakistan agreeing to a ceasefire. In strategic terms Pakistan lost 1965.

India had every intention to capture these cities and its military hierarchy is on record stating so, the reason behind taking these cities is

1. Their large population
2. Strategic significance
3. Proximity to the border

The cities, if captured, would become Pakistan's wrist which could be twisted to take it any-which way, a unilateral agreement on Kashmir, withdrawal of all territorial claims, exchange of cities for RoK marshes. There was a a lot to gain from the capture of these cities.
This "India doesn't differentiate between conventional and unconventional" narrative is exactly why they launched the attack in the first place, however, despite escalating the conflict to an entirely different plane, Indian got nowhere with its plans and that is why Pakistan claims it as a victory. A war is seldom black or white, with clear cut victors and losers and there are many battles within the war that go to either side but it is based on a holistic view of the picture that you claim victory. If merely attacking Pakistan was a victory regardless of its fruitless outcome, then it is a very shallow victory to claim and would almost be like saying that Pakistan won the war of 1971 because they held Hilli for a week after India had one, it was a brave act but a futile won which did nothing to alter the course of events, much like the Indian offensive of 1965.

.. or was it afridies in 1948 which forced dogra king to join indian union and operation gibralter in 1964 by ayub khan .... so tell me who and why started it both times and did you get kashmir .....

If we are tracing origins here, why not start with Alexander the Great fro attacking Raja Porus?

so how are your nation victors lolzz after USAs snub to save your nations izzat both ayub khan and Z A Bhutto ran to USSR and did tashkent

As if Shastri did not sign that accord, walked out of the hall and announced that he would fight to the bitter end? Any document has two sets of signature buddy.

and ayub khan was so frustated that he had to write a book called "friends not masters"

Once again, irrelevant. But you know a book, good for you.

so tell me sir why was 1964 war initiated and did you army get for what it started it all

Read conventional and unconventional warfare post.

when actualli it was not needed what do you call such a mis calculation

Read conventional and unconventional warfare post.

and also tell me sir what were the after efeects of this miscalculation on pakistani nation as a whole from then on ....please do answer my masoom se sawaal now saeen ji

We got a new public holiday.

 

[airuah]

Op Gibraltar was designed to punish India for annexing Kashmir illegally. The objective was not to capture Kashmir.

Oh the ever changing goals of the war even after the war.

First it was - capture Kashmir.
The punish India for occupying Kashmir
Now it is - showcase Kashmir problem to the world ( where no other country cares)

There has been a good down grading of Pakistani reasoning with the passing years.

Don't worry - one day will come when you will shout - We are going to showcase to the world how India illegally occupied Azad Kashmir / Azad Kashmir

 

[I spikes therefore I am]

Do I have to go to every thread and draw a line between conventional and unconventional plane of war?
For the thousandth time:

Operation Gibraltar: Unconventional warfare, no heavy weapons, no troop concentration, political objectives.
Indian Attack: Conventional Warfare, heavy weapons and air/armour/arty support, massive troop mobilization, pol/mil obj.

Whether its conventional Warfare/unconventional Warfare is not matters. Who attained success is matters how they did it is not. Is it really difficult for you to comprehend in every thread.

 

[Icarus]

Whether its conventional Warfare/unconventional Warfare is not matters. Who attained success is matters how they did it is not. Is it really difficult for you to comprehend in every thread.

Enlighten me.

 

[Rau]

I guess India's objective was never to capture Lahore and Sialkot....what would India do with Lahore and Sialkot? The strategy behind India's attack on Lahore and Sialkot is to say that if you attack Kashmir, India would take that war to anywhere along the international boundary. The same strategy behind unconventional and conventional. It is India's way of saying that they don't differentiate between unconventional and conventional war. All this led to Pakistan agreeing to a ceasefire. In strategic terms Pakistan lost 1965.

There is lack of fore-site in Pakistan generals, they can make good tactics but worst strategist.Problem is that in all the war they assume India too much, like Kargil, they assume that India will go to UN or pressurized by world to ceasefire to avoid nuclear war.One more thing they lacks, patience required to drawn any military operation (may be due to uncertainity/ lack of trust/rivalry between them) specially Operation Gibraltar. when such operation needed atleast year or two training and most importantly logistic/supply to soldier to fight in enemy territory, instead of looking into such aspect they hope that local population help them which they didnt get and obviously they dont have any PLAN B in such case.

 

[ito]

India had every intention to capture these cities and its military hierarchy is on record stating so, the reason behind taking these cities is

1. Their large population
2. Strategic significance
3. Proximity to the border

The cities, if captured, would become Pakistan's wrist which could be twisted to take it any-which way, a unilateral agreement on Kashmir, withdrawal of all territorial claims, exchange of cities for RoK marshes. There was a a lot to gain from the capture of these cities.
This "India doesn't differentiate between conventional and unconventional" narrative is exactly why they launched the attack in the first place, however, despite escalating the conflict to an entirely different plane, Indian got nowhere with its plans and that is why Pakistan claims it as a victory. A war is seldom black or white, with clear cut victors and losers and there are many battles within the war that go to either side but it is based on a holistic view of the picture that you claim victory. If merely attacking Pakistan was a victory regardless of its fruitless outcome, then it is a very shallow victory to claim and would almost be like saying that Pakistan won the war of 1971 because they held Hilli for a week after India had one, it was a brave act but a futile won which did nothing to alter the course of events, much like the Indian offensive of 1965.

There is always two sides to the same event. My take is....India responded to Pakistan's aggression, hence the possibility of India having designs on Lahore is taking things a little bit far. Moreover, it would have been impossible for India to hold Lahore given the hostile population.

The precise reason why 1965 is celebrated in India is not because India won any territory, but because India rendered Pakistan designs to capture Kashmir unsuccessful.

.

 

[Sankpal]

hahahaha…… if we lost the war then I m ready to lose next war again........

 

[Icarus]

Step 1: Fail at objectives

Step 2: Cry

Step 3: Change the objectives to suit the result....so you can stop crying

Step 4: Lose half your country in the next war

Step 5: Refer to step 1

India's take on this:

1. Attack a smaller country without formal declaration and attack major cities.
2. Fail to take cities.
3. Declare that cities were never the target and the strike corps got lost whole going to the Corp Commander's Birthday.
4. Further revise and say that they wanted to share cake with Pakistanis.
5. Forget that the war ever happened.
6. Suddenly remember 50 years later of that time when the strike corps celebrated a birthday, celebrate anniversary of birthday.

There is always two sides to the same event. My take is....India responded to Pakistan's aggression, hence the possibility of India having designs on Lahore is taking things a little bit far. Moreover, it would have been impossible for India to hold Lahore given the hostile population.

The precise reason why 1965 is celebrated in India is not because India won any territory, but because India rendered Pakistan designs to capture Kashmir unsuccessful.

.

1. India indeed attacked in response to Op Gibraltar, there's no debate there.
2. If India did not intend to take Lahore then why did it bother to mobilize an entire Strike Corp in three prongs? Surely it wasn't for the giggles.
3. Hostile population? That's the whole point of an occupation, you take over a city with a hostile population and then tell them to leave, imposing curfew for the rest.
4. Once again, If Pakistan intended to "Capture Kashmir", we wouldn't have sent in a coy size strength.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@Icarus

You have very conveniently OMITTED Operation GRAND SLAM

That was a CONVENTIONAL ATTACK on India

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Do I have to go to every thread and draw a line between conventional and unconventional plane of war?
For the thousandth time:

Operation Gibraltar: Unconventional warfare, no heavy weapons, no troop concentration, political objectives.
Indian Attack: Conventional Warfare, heavy weapons and air/armour/arty support, massive troop mobilization, pol/mil obj.

you might have better luck convincing a brick wall. you are talking to people who on one hand equate this operation by small Pakistani force to a conventional war and on the other hand want the world to cower with fear and awe over some Indian forces raid on the militants in Mayanmar .. Indian minster became so intoxicated that he declared this "stunning" victory as a direct challenge to Pakistan and its occupation.

back to 65, to our covert operation in Kashmir Indians replied with conventional war along the international border and were halted well before they could have their drinks in Lahore Gymkhana club.