Four Indian soldiers killed, two posts destroyed on LoC

[DJ_Viper]

Nah, not a doctor or IT! I lend $$$ for homes. Mostly VA deals.

Nice, off thread, but I have a question (weird timing). Someone ask me today that they want to become a loan officer. How much do these guys make in a normal year? I don't know you so your secret will be safe with here

 

[Hamza913]

Boot polishers celebrating the loss of life and a step closer to a bigger conflict. Whats wrong with you people?

1. There won't be another war between Hindustan and Pakistan

2. Next time, don't kill our civilians if you hate loss of life so much

Just don't cry even you get what's comming your way soon

>Hindustan kills civilians

>Pakistan fires on Hindustani troops in retaliation

>Hindustani says Pakistan will get what's coming it's way

Logic?

That they had planned in 1965 and 1971 but it happened exactly other way. So a new attempt is needed.

In both wars Hindustan suffered higher casualties... nice try though.

 

[Smoking Snakes]

1. There won't be another war between Hindustan and Pakistan

2. Next time, don't kill our civilians if you hate loss of life so much



>Hindustan kills civilians

>Pakistan fires on Hindustani troops in retaliation

>Hindustani says Pakistan will get what's coming it's way

Logic?



In both wars Hindustan suffered higher casualties... nice try though.

 

[Hamza913]

Very nice excuse

How 48 or 65 was success ?

In 48, kashmir was independent and india entered only when pakistani recruits almost reached well inside kashmir.

In 65, a war started ended in defending lahore.

In Kargil, pakistan occupies vacant post's and call it their victory ?

In 48, Kashmir refused to cede to Pakistan and was inclined to join Hindustan. So we took as much of it as possible. We gained over 1/3 of Kashmir as a result. That's a definite win.

In 65, Pakistan tried to wrestle Kashmir free from Hindustan covertly, got caught, and Hindustan decided to up the scale of things and open another front on the main border. Pakistan successfully defended itself, but failed to wrestle Kashmir free of Hindustani rule. Hindustan successfully defended Kashmir, but failed to take Lahore and crush Pakistan through its main border as intended. The war was a stalemate.

In 99, Pakistani troops went into Kargil without air support and outnumbered 6 times over, managing to hold the area for 2 months, with Hindustani troops unable to regain control of the entire region. Due to political pressure from both foreign nations and those within Pakistan itself, Pakistani troops backed out of Kargil, but still to this day keep specific strategic points which Hindustan tried and failed to take back. Hindustan lost this war.

It's rather sad that the only two wars Hindustan could win against Pakistan were the Siachen war and the 1971 war, when you consider that Hindustan's military has always outnumbered Pakistan's several times over. Even now, Hindustan is unable to sucessfully invade Pakistan, backing down several times from doing so despite making paper tiger threats, like in 2009.

It gets even worse when you realise Hindustan still suffered higher casualties in 1971 and the Siachen conflict, and that neither conflict actually came to benefit Hindustan much if at all. In the aftermath of the 1971 conflict, Hindustan agreed upon terms that gave back Pakistan POW's and all land taken in West Pakistan (minus a few strategic points) whilst Pakistan got to keep most of the territory it took during the war and kept POW's from 1971, and Hindustan spends significantly more than Pakistan when it comes to operating the Siachen, and also suffers from more natural accidents. Also, in 1971 Hindustan still didn't manage to penetrate deep into western Pakistan as intended, and had several months of preparation, catching Pakistan by surprise. Eastern Pakistani forces were also worn out from a long civil war and outnumbered 13:1 according to Sam Maneckshaw (one of your generals).

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

Nice, off thread, but I have a question (weird timing). Someone ask me today that they want to become a loan officer. How much do these guys make in a normal year? I don't know you so your secret will be safe with here

6 figures with hard work. My branch is hiring !

 

[Gurjot.S]

In 48, Kashmir refused to cede to Pakistan and was inclined to join Hindustan. So we took as much of it as possible. We gained over 1/3 of Kashmir as a result. That's a definite win.

In 65, Pakistan tried to wrestle Kashmir free from Hindustan covertly, got caught, and Hindustan decided to up the scale of things and open another front on the main border. Pakistan successfully defended itself, but failed to wrestle Kashmir free of Hindustani rule. Hindustan successfully defended Kashmir, but failed to take Lahore and crush Pakistan through its main border as intended. The war was a stalemate.

In 99, Pakistani troops went into Kargil without air support and outnumbered 6 times over, managing to hold the area for 2 months, with Hindustani troops unable to regain control of the entire region. Due to political pressure from both foreign nations and those within Pakistan itself, Pakistani troops backed out of Kargil, but still to this day keep specific strategic points which Hindustan tried and failed to take back. Hindustan lost this war.

It's rather sad that the only two wars Hindustan could win against Pakistan were the Siachen war and the 1971 war, when you consider that Hindustan's military has always outnumbered Pakistan's several times over. Even now, Hindustan is unable to sucessfully invade Pakistan, backing down several times from doing so despite making paper tiger threats, like in 2009.

It gets even worse when you realise Hindustan still suffered higher casualties in 1971 and the Siachen conflict, and that neither conflict actually came to benefit Hindustan much if at all. In the aftermath of the 1971 conflict, Hindustan agreed upon terms that gave back Pakistan POW's and all land taken in West Pakistan (minus a few strategic points) whilst Pakistan got to keep most of the territory it took during the war and kept POW's from 1971, and Hindustan spends significantly more than Pakistan when it comes to operating the Siachen, and also suffers from more natural accidents. Also, in 1971 Hindustan still didn't manage to penetrate deep into western Pakistan as intended, and had several months of preparation, catching Pakistan by surprise. Eastern Pakistani forces were also worn out from a long civil war and outnumbered 13:1 according to Sam Maneckshaw (one of your generals).

1) Pakistan firstly attacked kashmir and reached well inside. King asked for indian help due to which indian troops landed in kashmir first time. Otherwise, Kashmir was not a part of india pre 47 but pakistani attack on kashmir made it. if such a land grab is pakistani win then what abt indian land grab ? bigger win ?

2) India never wanted an inch of pakistan. if india intruded lahore, its because of releasing pressure on kashmir. Its does not mean india wanted pakistani territory.
Another reason is lack of communication b/s govt n military of india. They were not sure abt ammunition stock they had. if you celebrate it as defence day for defending lahore, then india shud also do so for defendnig kashmir. Conclusion is-> Pakistan never met its objectives so failed and india never had any objective.

3) Pakistan intruded in kargil because there were no indian troops in kargil. Post's were vacant as they used to be as per tradition. Musharaf only decided to vacate kargil because their supply lines were bombed by IAF and pakistan was in no position to continue war. Another is, vajpayee warned clinton about opening of another front by I.A if pakistan dont go back, means attacking punjab border. Again pakistani objectives were never met.

What wud india do by invading pakistan ? If india had some intention, its abt pakistani kashmir. Why wud india want a hostile muslim population inside it ? Dont sell this theory of invasion.

4) Pakistan was not in any position to dictate india in 71 war or after. We cud easily invade east pakistan or ask for anything in the exchange of 90k POW's but din't. Indira wanted to attack west pakistan but U.S-Russia made sure that it never happens.


Pls dont bring this theory of outnumbered, 6 times smaller. if you have this in mind, then dont start a war.

On September 15, 1965 American broadcasting Corporation’s Roy Malone reported that “I have been a journalist now for twenty years and want to go on record that I have never seen a more confident and victorious group of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan, right now.”

On September 17, Time Magazine reported that “Pakistan’s small highly trained army is more than a match for the Indians.”

According to the London Daily Mirror of September 1965 “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 the size of armed forces.”

In its October 1965 issue, the TIME magazine quoted a Western official assessing the consequences of the war[157] —

Now it's apparent to everybody that India is going to emerge as an Asian power in its own right.


In his book "War in the modern world since 1815", noted war historian Jeremy Black said that though Pakistan "lost heavily" during the 1965 war, India's hasty decision to call for negotiations prevented further considerable damage to the Pakistan Armed Forces. He elaborates[160] —

India's chief of army staff urged negotiations on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted. In fact, the army had used less than 15% of its ammunition compared to Pakistan, which had consumed closer to 80 percent and India had double the number of serviceable tanks.


In 2015, Marshal of the Indian Air Force Arjan Singh, the last surviving armed force commander of the conflict, gave his assessment that the war ended in a stalemate, but only due to international pressure for a ceasefire, and that India would have achieved a decisive victory had hostilities continued for a few days more:[161]

For political reasons, Pakistan claims victory in the 1965 war. In my opinion, the war ended in a kind of stalemate. We were in a position of strength. Had the war continued for a few more days, we would have gained a decisive victory. I advised then prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri not to agree for ceasefire. But I think he was under pressure from the United Nations and some countries.


However, the Pakistani government was accused by foreign analysts of spreading disinformation among its citizens regarding the actual consequences of the war.[168] In his book "Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies", S.M. Burke writes[119] —

After the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 the balance of military power had decisively shifted in favor of India. Pakistan had found it difficult to replace the heavy equipment lost during that conflict while her adversary, despite her economic and political problems, had been determinedly building up her strength.


There are mixed reactions abt both sides in case of 65 war. Go and see the speech of bhutto in U.S where he was screaming and did a walk out. why ? Pakistan wan winning war ?

 

[Eagle_Nest]

Good job , may China take notice and give them a hard pounding as well

Yeah bro!! you are good to go.

 

[abrar khan]

Wow quoting your friends during a war will boost your confidence.
Chuck Yeager, by the way how did he feel when IAF destroyed his personal plane in 1965. And his personally trained PAF couldn't save his aircraft??

You cannot deny the facts without quoting a reliable source, though I have given several here.

 

[m3milk]

I dont think Chinese can..

Indeed we can't, it's not wise for China to fight India in Donglang area since they have already deployed massive troops there over these years. Their supply line is much shorter and easier than ours and that area was surrounded by Sikkim and Bhutan. Also Chinese main stream views never treat India as a threat, it is just a trouble. We thought India is just seeking a perfect target to release their domestic tensions due to their current economic reforms. Our primary interests contemporary is still South China sea. However if India push too far, we definitely will fight back. When you hear that PLA troops in Tibet are activated means we are preparing for unexpected battles may breakout with India. And when you hear that PLA troops in Chengdu and Lanzhou military regions are activated, that means a large scale hot war is coming....
the first sentence of the 'art of war' is 兵者 國之大事 死生之地 存亡之道 不可不察也. Some Indian are yelling that China is coward not dare to mess up with great India, you may right, we can't be too careful about war. You will understand that if war eventually comes.

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

https://twitter.com/x/status/884134499889500160

Another fake .... LOL... it just gets better and better....

 

[abrar khan]

In his book "War in the modern world since 1815", noted war historian Jeremy Black said that though Pakistan "lost heavily" during the 1965 war, India's hasty decision to call for negotiations prevented further considerable damage to the Pakistan Armed Forces. He elaborates[160] —

India's hasty decision to call for negotiations shows her weakness at war front and unexpected outcomes of war as mentioned earlier in my post,

 

[Gurjot.S]

India's hasty decision to call for negotiations shows her weakness at war front and unexpected outcomes of war as mentioned earlier in my post,

As I said, There was lack of communication b/w armed forces and govt. Same happened in 62 war.
Gen told nehru that we can fight but cud not.

 

[abrar khan]

India's chief of army staff urged negotiations on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted. In fact, the army had used less than 15% of its ammunition compared to Pakistan, which had consumed closer to 80 percent and India had double the number of serviceable tanks.

If you go in depth to your above quote a careful and neutral analysis will show Indian weaknesses in 1965 war.
Please answer my question why your statement is clearly contradictory here or need more brief? if Indians were aware of the fact that Pakistan have consumed 80% of its ammunition vs india's 15% , and you had double the number of serviceable tanks, but either the indian chief was so incompetent that he assumed on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted and india may loose a war, or either this statement is false?

As I said, There was lack of communication b/w armed forces and govt. Same happened in 62 war.
Gen told nehru that we can fight but cud not.

Shows indias weakness in communication during 1962 and 1965 wars as you accepted here, and lack of communication in war means total disaster you will loose. Whole debate is useless, here you only highlighting the weaknesses of indian army, thanks for such arguments.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

If you go in depth to your above quote a careful and neutral analysis will show Indian weaknesses in 1965 war.
Please answer my question why your statement is clearly contradictory here or need more brief? if Indians were aware of the fact that Pakistan have consumed 80% of its ammunition vs india's 15% , and you had double the number of serviceable tanks, but either the indian chief was so incompetent that he assumed on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted and india may loose a war, or either this statement is false?

Indian staff incompetence was clear. Though Indian tanks penetrated deep into the Sialkot salient, Chawinda could have been taken as well. Chances were missed. Pakistan's brass was equally if not more incompetent - which was why PA could not exploit some advantages. Rushing Pattons into a swampland is just plain suicide.
Post war, India reformed the officer corps from scratch - Manekshaw, Jacobs, Arora etc came into the forefront - climbing several posts of seniority. They were tactical and operational geniuses.

 

[Hamza913]

1) Pakistan firstly attacked kashmir and reached well inside. King asked for indian help due to which indian troops landed in kashmir first time. Otherwise, Kashmir was not a part of india pre 47 but pakistani attack on kashmir made it. if such a land grab is pakistani win then what abt indian land grab ? bigger win ?

2) India never wanted an inch of pakistan. if india intruded lahore, its because of releasing pressure on kashmir. Its does not mean india wanted pakistani territory.
Another reason is lack of communication b/s govt n military of india. They were not sure abt ammunition stock they had. if you celebrate it as defence day for defending lahore, then india shud also do so for defendnig kashmir. Conclusion is-> Pakistan never met its objectives so failed and india never had any objective.

3) Pakistan intruded in kargil because there were no indian troops in kargil. Post's were vacant as they used to be as per tradition. Musharaf only decided to vacate kargil because their supply lines were bombed by IAF and pakistan was in no position to continue war. Another is, vajpayee warned clinton about opening of another front by I.A if pakistan dont go back, means attacking punjab border. Again pakistani objectives were never met.

What wud india do by invading pakistan ? If india had some intention, its abt pakistani kashmir. Why wud india want a hostile muslim population inside it ? Dont sell this theory of invasion.

4) Pakistan was not in any position to dictate india in 71 war or after. We cud easily invade east pakistan or ask for anything in the exchange of 90k POW's but din't. Indira wanted to attack west pakistan but U.S-Russia made sure that it never happens.


Pls dont bring this theory of outnumbered, 6 times smaller. if you have this in mind, then dont start a war.



In its October 1965 issue, the TIME magazine quoted a Western official assessing the consequences of the war[157] —

Now it's apparent to everybody that India is going to emerge as an Asian power in its own right.


In his book "War in the modern world since 1815", noted war historian Jeremy Black said that though Pakistan "lost heavily" during the 1965 war, India's hasty decision to call for negotiations prevented further considerable damage to the Pakistan Armed Forces. He elaborates[160] —

India's chief of army staff urged negotiations on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted. In fact, the army had used less than 15% of its ammunition compared to Pakistan, which had consumed closer to 80 percent and India had double the number of serviceable tanks.


In 2015, Marshal of the Indian Air Force Arjan Singh, the last surviving armed force commander of the conflict, gave his assessment that the war ended in a stalemate, but only due to international pressure for a ceasefire, and that India would have achieved a decisive victory had hostilities continued for a few days more:[161]

For political reasons, Pakistan claims victory in the 1965 war. In my opinion, the war ended in a kind of stalemate. We were in a position of strength. Had the war continued for a few more days, we would have gained a decisive victory. I advised then prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri not to agree for ceasefire. But I think he was under pressure from the United Nations and some countries.


However, the Pakistani government was accused by foreign analysts of spreading disinformation among its citizens regarding the actual consequences of the war.[168] In his book "Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies", S.M. Burke writes[119] —

After the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 the balance of military power had decisively shifted in favor of India. Pakistan had found it difficult to replace the heavy equipment lost during that conflict while her adversary, despite her economic and political problems, had been determinedly building up her strength.


There are mixed reactions abt both sides in case of 65 war. Go and see the speech of bhutto in U.S where he was screaming and did a walk out. why ? Pakistan wan winning war ?

1. Kashmir was going to cede to Hindustan, that was extremely clear by the fact that the leader was a kafir and didn't want to join Pakistan. We made a move to take as much of Kashmir as possible. We succeeded. Hindustan only lost territory, as it was already going to gain the Kashmir region.

2. Rubbish. Hindustan wanted Lahore, your army pressed vigorously to take it and penetrate deep into Pakistan as a whole, but it couldn't. You need to go back and research, the Hindustani army literally said "Lahore is our aim". You didn't suceed. We celebrate as defence day because Pakistan defended itself more then adequately.

3. Did you read what I said? Pakistan still holds strategic points in Kargil, if a war or another conflict in Kargil broke out Pakistani forces can pound Hindustani forces in the area. Pakistan only dropped out from most of Kargil because of political pressure, militarily it was more than capable of holding the place, despite lacking air support and being outnumbered several times over. Hindustan wanted to expand the war like in 1965, but Pakistan was more prepared then expected so Hindustan backed down. This pattern has occurred several times since then, Pakistan has learned from 1971 to be constantly prepared for war.

Hindustan simply wants to cripple Pakistan. In 1971, Hindustan tried to completely crush Pakistan, but western Pakistan wasn't the cake walk east was, proving difficult to invade and was actually able to bomb Hindustan in retaliation, because western Pakistan hadn't been going through an intense civil war and wasn't outnumbered 13:1. Hindustan planned to do it again with Israeli help in the 80's, but held off due to fears of the cost of war. As you stated, during Kargil Hindustan tried to expand the conflict and do the same, as it did in 1965. Hindustan prepared itself to do it again in 2002 and 2009 too. Hindustan is so hell bent on invading Pakistan, it has developed the cold start doctrine to try and quickly cripple Pakistan whilst keeping engagements limited enough to prevent nuclear conflict, and has also been trying to build ABM systems to protect itself from nuclear attack so it can invade Pakistan without nuclear backlash. If you really don't think Hindustan wouldn't invade Pakistan tomorrow if it could, your head is in the sand.

4. Bangladeshis were not pacified despite Pakistan killing 3 million of them and launching an 8 month long campaign of supression. I highly doubt the Hindustani army would fare any better.

As for those POW's, we would have left them for you to deal with if you put up demands that were too high. And then, you would have had a treaty of versailles scenario where we would despise Hindustan 10 times more and never commit to peace with Hindustan. Hindustan simply couldn't afford that, so the agreements made after 1971 had to appease Pakistan to some extent, in order to maintain some level of decency between the two countries and prevent a Nazi Germany scenario.

I will bring size into this, it shows how disciplined our military is.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Defence.pk mobile app