Indian air chief admits Pakistan's rule in 1965’s airspace

[Areesh]

Mig-21 did not have operation clearence during 1965 war .

On the eve of 1965 war, IAF had 466 combat aircraft against 203 of the PAF. PAF had 16 aircraft in East Pakistan and the rest in West. Against this IAF had deployed 176 aircraft in the East to take care of the Chinese and East Pakistani threat. Thus, IAF had 290 aircraft facing West Pakistan. Numerically this gave IAF a superiority of 1.4:1 against PAF in the West and 11:1 in the East.


Now thing is IAF fighter from Gnat to Mig are night blind .. Gnat was half night blind !!

Indian troops of 3 Cavalry and 4 Div did not come under any air attack. If PAF had achieved air supremacy as claimed, it could have decimated Indian Army’s opposition to its major armour thrust – which some claimed was to isolate Amritsar by capturing Beas Bridges. Pak lost 108 tanks here, quite a few in working condition. Nevertheless, Nur Khan claimed air supremacy over Pak air space, even though it was the IAF which attacked Pak armour and its supplies. IAF fighters continued to operate over Pak territory and air space that can be well understood by Indian armoured and infantry division at outskirts of Lahore if PAF was under air superiority it would have destroyed IA In Lahore and overrun akhnoor which never happens .

Well it is not Pakistan's problem that you Mig 21 were only for static display only to be destroyed on ground by Sajjad Haider and the co.

IAF performance was abysmal to say the least and they did learned a few lessons from 65 war that lead to their better performance in 71. There is not much to debate when it comes IAF-PAF conflict in 65 war. PAF had the upper hand and dominated its opponent.

 

[45'22']

What matters is India won the war

 

[silent poison]

Well it is not Pakistan's problem that you Mig 21 were only for static display only to be destroyed on ground by Sajjad Haider and the co.

IAF performance was abysmal to say the least and they did learned a few lessons from 65 war that lead to their better performance in 71. There is not much to debate when it comes IAF-PAF conflict in 65 war. PAF had the upper hand and dominated its opponent.

If PAF was superior in 1965 as claimed by Many Pakistanis .. Then plz explain any good reason of PAF not bombing Indian Positions at Haji Pir pass and Lahore sector while on other side IAF totally annihilated PA armoured in Akhnoor sector ( Defence of Akhnoor Bridge )

 

[Areesh]

If PAF was superior in 1965 as claimed by Many Pakistanis .. Then plz explain any good reason of PAF not bombing Indian Positions at Haji Pir pass and Lahore sector while on other side IAF totally annihilated PA armoured in Akhnoor sector ( Defence of Akhnoor Bridge )

I don't believe that PAF had superiority. You had very decent aircraft and that too in big numbers.

And I can also ask you questions for IAF bombing its own troops in Chamb sector or for being absent when PAF was shooting down CM Gujarat aircraft deep inside Indian territory. Nothing more embarrassing than this.

What matters is India won the war

no you didn't. It was a stalemate.

 

[45'22']

I don't believe that PAF had superiority. You had very decent aircraft and that too in big numbers.

And I can also ask you questions for IAF bombing its own troops in Chamb sector or for being absent when PAF was shooting down CM Gujarat aircraft deep inside Indian territory. Nothing more embarrassing than this.



no you didn't. It was a stalemate.

Pakistan attacked Kashmir and ended up saving Lahore with India capturing more than thrice the landmass of what Pakistan did...

You can call that a stalemate but if the ceasefire was not declared and Tashkent declaration was not signed,we would have ended up with more and that's a win ....

From an Indian perspective it was a win because:
India succeeded in thwarting Pakistan's attack
We ended up with more landmass

Which was later returned though

 

[Areesh]

Pakistan attacked Kashmir and ended up saving Lahore with India capturing more than thrice the landmass of what Pakistan did...

You can call that a stalemate but if the ceasefire was not declared and Tashkent declaration was not signed,we would have ended up with more and that's a win ....

From an Indian perspective it was a win because:
India succeeded in thwarting Pakistan's attack
We ended up with more landmass

Most moronic excuse possible to claim victory. Not going to repeat the same old debate to refute something this stupid.
You can check this thread for further details.

1965 war by international & Indian observers.

 

[45'22']

Most moronic excuse possible to claim victory. Not going to repeat the same old debate to refute something this stupid.
You can check this thread for further details.

1965 war by international & Indian observers.

Tell me one thing
Is there anything wrong in what I said in my post(facts wise)??
Based on your answer I will proceed

 

[Areesh]

Tell me one thing
Is there anything wrong in what I said in my post(facts wise)??
Based on your answer I will proceed

Yes your claim that India won 65 war is wrong factually.

 

[45'22']

Yes your claim that India won 65 war is wrong factually.

No,the other things about attack on Kashmir n landmass

 

[Areesh]

No,the other things about attack on Kashmir n landmass

They don't matter if the result is stalemate.

 

[45'22']

They don't matter if the result is stalemate.

How is it a stalemate?
You are dodging my question ...that's proves you know the truth but are not willing to admit it

I ask again.....
Did India thwarted Pakistani attack or not??
Did India capture around 3.5 times the area Pakistan did or not?

 

[Areesh]

How is it a stalemate?
You are dodging my question ...that's proves you know the truth but are not willing to admit it

I ask again.....
Did India thwarted Pakistani attack or not??
Did India capture around 3.5 times the area Pakistan did or not?

It was a stalemate because:

1 Pakistan failed in its objective to liberate Kashmir
2 India failed to capture any Pakistani city despite their close presence to international border and had to give up whatever they gained due they also lost a significant part of land which they couldn't ignore.

It is all very simple.

 

[45'22']

It was a stalemate because:

1 Pakistan failed in its objective to liberate Kashmir
2 India failed to capture any Pakistani city despite their close presence to international border and had to give up whatever they gained due they also lost a significant part of land which they couldn't ignore.

It is all very simple.

1 is correct
2 was a counter attack to 1
We had to give up what we gained due to Tashkent declaration
I mentioned the same in my first post....if Tashkent was not signed we would have ended up with more landmass.......
We won the war but diplomatically we lost because we had to give up what we gained in the war....
I am not saying Pakistan didn't win any
It sure did won some battles but the war was won by India

 

[Areesh]

1 is correct
2 was a counter attack to 1
We had to give up what we gained due to Tashkent declaration
I mentioned the same in my first post....if Tashkent was not signed we would have ended up with more landmass.......
We won the war but diplomatically we lost because we had to give up what we gained in the war....
I am not saying Pakistan didn't win any
It sure did won some battles but the war was won by India

2 was not just a counter attack. It was an invasion of Pakistan to teach Pakistan a lesson. Fortunately that ambitious plan ended as a stalemate for both Pak and India.

Indians just come with stupid logic that they won 65 war because accepting a simple fact like that they couldn't beat Pakistan in 17 days is too much for bharati ego to digest.

 

[45'22']

2 was not just a counter attack. It was an invasion of Pakistan to teach Pakistan a lesson. Fortunately that ambitious plan ended as a stalemate for both Pak and India.

Indians just come with stupid logic that they won 65 war because accepting a simple fact like that they couldn't beat Pakistan in 17 days is too much for bharati ego to digest.

How you define beating
Is it like a declaration where one has to sign in saying we lost or do you think capturing 3 times the landmass of what your enemy did is a beating as well