BBC report on Pakistan's failed 1965 war plans.

[Irfan Baloch]

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.




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.

is this a delusional Pakistani paper or were the Australians influenced by ISI

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Operation Grandslam: Four phase military initiative intended to draw Indians away from withdrawing Gibraltar troops by making a move for Akhnur and Rajauri.

That is Right
Grand Slam was a CONVENTIONAL attack on India

The Arguement HERE since the LAST FEW DAYS is that
India Launched a Conventional OFFENSIVE ;ie FIRST attack was done by India

Indian Counter attack on Lahore and Sialkot was to STOP
Pakistani Armoured offensive The Operation Grand slam

 

[I spikes therefore I am]

Enlighten me.

What is there to enlighten you? just compare India and Pakistan objectives in 1965 war . Who accomplished their desired goals just ask those question to yourself and decide.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Both Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand Slam were designed to TAKE KASHMIR

Both FAILED ; Hence we can say that Pakistan LOST the 1965 war

India did not have any TERRITORIAL AMBITIONS in 1965

We Counter attacked in Lahore and Sialkot sectors
NOT for Territory

It was a WAR OF ATTRITION ; To DEGRADE Pakistani War machine
so that you cannot attack Kashmir again

All our territorial Gains were USED at the NEGOTIATING TABLE
to restore the status quo ANTE ie situation before the War

For example The Haji Pir pass was RETURNED
in exchange for Pakistani WITHDRAWL from Akhnoor

India had captured THREE times more territory than Pakistan

 

[Irfan Baloch]

It was a skirmish intended to take pressure of the Indian momentum off of the Gibraltar troops, it was more sacrificial than anything.

 

[Icarus]

What is there to enlighten you? just compare India and Pakistan objectives in 1965 war . Who accomplished their desired goals just ask those question to yourself and decide.

Genius.

 

[silent poison]

your comprehension of the subject matter, Failed

.
LOL? Zaid Hamid was a kid then, we never planned to capture Dehil then. we were pounding your guys at Lahore and Sialkot.

Bhai trolling attempt jese usne hamare objective define Kiea vese Maine kr diea .

But seriously , if Jaipur falls nothing was in barracks to hold Pakistani thrust till New Delhi. .

 

[Icarus]

That is Right
Grand Slam was a CONVENTIONAL attack on India

The Arguement HERE since the LAST FEW DAYS is that
India Launched a Conventional OFFENSIVE ;ie FIRST attack was done by India

Indian Counter attack on Lahore and Sialkot was to STOP
Pakistani Armoured offensive The Operation Grand slam

If it was intended to engage Pakistan in order to halt Grand Slam, then it surely came a bit late. Grand Slam had winded down by 3 Sept and was static by 4th, however India attacked on 7th.

Sorry I couldn't reply to everyone @ito, I was bogged down with over ten replies at once and thus had to choose the most compelling line of argument and address that.

 

[Neemo neemo]

your comprehension of the subject matter, Failed

.
LOL? Zaid Hamid was a kid then, we never planned to capture Dehil then. we were pounding your guys at Lahore and Sialkot.

You planned to capture Kashmir, didn't you?

 

[ito]

is this a delusional Pakistani paper or were the Australians influenced by ISI

It was not 'Pakistani Victory' over India as it seem from the newspaper title. If you read below, it clearly says that it was a Pakistani victory in repulsing India's attack on Lahore.

If it was intended to engage Pakistan in order to halt Grand Slam, then it surely came a bit late. Grand Slam had winded down by 3 Sept and was static by 4th, however India attacked on 7th.

Sorry I couldn't reply to everyone @ito, I was bogged down with over ten replies at once and thus had to choose the most compelling line of argument and address that.

I understand...given your stature on this forum, many would like to go head to head with you. Go ahead.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

What is there to enlighten you? just compare India and Pakistan objectives in 1965 war . Who accomplished their desired goals just ask those question to yourself and decide.

check this Indian objective out as reported by Australian paper

It was not 'Pakistani Victory' over India as it seem from the newspaper title. If you read below, it clearly says that it was a Pakistani victory in repulsing India's attack on Lahore.

now you are confusing me. your fellow Indians are quoting certain intellectuals saying Pakistan lost everything and now you are using Pakistan and victory in the same sentence?

am I dreaming?

 

[ito]

check this Indian objective out as reported by Australian paper

View attachment 254102


now you are confusing me. your fellow Indians are quoting certain intellectuals saying Pakistan lost everything and now you are using Pakistan and victory in the same sentence?

am I dreaming?

Pakistan was able to defend Lahore and India Kashmir...hence many consider this to be a stalemate.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

If it was intended to engage Pakistan in order to halt Grand Slam, then it surely came a bit late. Grand Slam had winded down by 3 Sept and was static by 4th, however India attacked on 7th.

Sorry I couldn't reply to everyone @ito, I was bogged down with over ten replies at once and thus had to choose the most compelling line of argument and address that.

Indians complain about us moving goal posts by declaring it a defence day instead of victory day, yet the same thread which is about Gibraltar is now changed to grand slam.

ignorant of all this, a Pakistani soldier sits beside a brave Indian mile stone

 

[GreenApple]

check this Indian objective out as reported by Australian paper

View attachment 254102


now you are confusing me. your fellow Indians are quoting certain intellectuals saying Pakistan lost everything and now you are using Pakistan and victory in the same sentence?

am I dreaming?

Pakistan may have won few battles but it was India who won the WAR.
...All of pakistani objectives for starting the war were deafeted ...
Lout ke buddhu ghar ko aaye...

Pakistan was able to defend Lahore and India Kashmir...hence many consider this to be a stalemate.

They all know that the celebrations are hollow...

 

[Icarus]

Pakistan may have won few battles but it was India who won the WAR.
...All of pakistani objectives for starting the war were deafeted ...
Lout ke buddhu ghar ko aaye...


They all know that the celebrations are hollow...

Yes, Pakistan failed to take Lahore and Sialkot despite a massive effort and a huge resource mobilization.