Indian Army "Faked" Battle of Laungewalla

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Army faked battle of Laungewala’​

The splendid victory achieved by our army in the battle of Laungewala during the 14-day 1971 India-Pakistan war was faked, a soldier awarded a military decoration in those operations has said. It was actually our air force that crushed the Pakistanis.

Major General Atma Singh (retd), who won the Vir Chakra for gallantry at Laungewala, told Hindustan Times that no ground battle was fought and the army had merely rehearsed it on a sand model after the ceasefire to cover up the incompetence of senior military commanders.

The army had last week presented Defence Minister AK Antony a blow-by-blow account of how Major KS Chandpuri (later brigadier) leading just 100 men had frustrated a formidable attack by a Pakistani brigade (some 2,800 troops) backed by an armoured regiment of 45 tanks. Chandpuri was given the Maha Vir Chakra. His alpha company (23 Punjab) won six gallantry awards. The army’s role in the battle had motivated generations and also inspired the Bollywood hit Border.

Atma Singh was then commanding the No 12 Air Observation Post (AOP) flight, tasked with directing close air support firepower towards enemy targets on the ground. “I dispute the ground battle completely. It is a mockery of army ethos,” he said. “We are teaching military history to future commanders citing battle accounts with no credibility. IAF’s Hunter fighters saved the day.” Atma Singh’s AOP flight of five Krishak light recce aircraft undertook 80 sorties and logged more than 110 flying hours.

Colonel PS Sangha (retd), who also served 12 AOP and was awarded a VrC, said Laungewala was an air force victory without doubt. Fighter pilots won eight Vir Chakras in that battle.

A senior officer in the army headquarters dismissed doubts on the army’s accomplishments in the battle.

The officer said: "It was a moment of glory. The combat ratio of 27:1 was in the enemy's favour. That's why we presented a simulated version of the action at Laungewala to the defence minister." Antony had dubbed it a "fascinating battle".

According to the army, Chandpuri's and his men -- equipped with recoilless guns, medium machine guns, 81 mm mortars and small arms -- had engaged enemy armour. Atma Singh refuted it. "There were no signs of ground battle. I was out there in no man's land after an emergency landing at the Laungewala helipad. The enemy suffered no casualty in men or material till a Hunter hit their first T-59 tank."

Chandpuri regretted that the army's role in the battle was being questioned. He said the contribution of ground troops was in no way inferior to the IAF. "The troops on the ground fought against the enemy. The IAF hardly faced any opposition. The air force operated freely as the enemy had not scrambled its fighters," he said.

The scary prospect of being overrun by the enemy had made Chandpuri's men slightly edgy. But the army says his high standards of leadership motivated his men to fight to finish.

Major General Ian Cardozo (retd), who has authored several books on military history, said, "Truth is the first casualty of war worldwide. The fact is that the air force saved the day. But the army deserves credit for standing fast and holding the line despite overwhelming enemy forces."

‘Army faked battle of Laungewala’ - Hindustan Times

Venkat:

On a side note, I think this validates our assertion that your criticism of Murad's recollections, on the basis of "official" Indian records, is not completely valid, since "official records" are not necessarily all encompassing.

 

[solid snake]

This is gold. Someone should add this to Wikipedia.

 

[con]

Wasn't it already known that IA held the lines till morning,after which IAF attacked the armour? IAF's planes did not have night fighting capabilities.
Hence they could attack only after the sunrise.

What is new in this?

 

[A.Rahman]

Venkat:

On a side note, I think this validates our assertion that your criticism of Murad's recollections, on the basis of "official" Indian records, is not completely valid, since "official records" are not necessarily all encompassing.

Like I said before , I would take word of Mr Murad against any of these "officials".

 

[sparten]

It was a debacle allright. Blame goes to AH Khan not Gul Hasan. THey should have warned PAF and they would have attacked. And it achieved its main objective, which was to pre-empt as assualt across the desert to RYK or Sukkhur.

 

[Neo]

Excellent find Agno

 

[Venkat]

The reporter is commenting on a 'show' put up for the Defence Minister when he visited Longewala - thats not the official history, that is entertainment

Here is the link to the Indian Official History

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1971War/PDF/1971Chapter09.pdf (Refer to Page 48)

Does it suggest anywhere that the Indian Army company at Longewala destroyed the Pakistani tanks - it clearly mentions that IAF dest the tanks and full credit should go to the IAF. The only credit the Indian company gets is for "holding out tenaciously against heavy odds till reinforcements arrived". Which is exactly what happened. The company faced the prospect of being attacked by a full armoured regiment and getting massacred - But they didnt scatter, they didnt panic, they didnt run away. They held their post. There are NO claims of the company on ground inflicting casualities on the pakistani forces.

So yes, i will take the Indian Official sources over the inaccurate recollections from someone from forty years ago anyday

 

[Muradk]

did you mean me 40 year old or some one else.

 

[Muradk]

It was a debacle allright. Blame goes to AH Khan not Gul Hasan. THey should have warned PAF and they would have attacked. And it achieved its main objective, which was to pre-empt as assualt across the desert to RYK or Sukkhur.

Sparten they did warn PAF that they are going for this mission, PAF on the other hand told Army straight-up that they do not have the capabilities to reach there and dog fight ( Fuel) , Our f-86s would have made it alright but have no fuel for dogfight, If we had the capabilities hunters were no match because only there CO was an experienced pilot rest of them were very inexperienced that is why they were placed there on the first place because Indian Army Knew PAF cannot reach there. The IAF took there time and took our tanks out and actually the blames goes to pak Army for that, They teach to much of Romel in Staff College.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

sir murad, i thought that the PAF wasn't able to repulse any attack because the only airforce base in E pakistan was destroyed?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Venkat:

And the point remains that "official history", based upon "recollections" of the people involved, can not be claimed to be all encompassing.

Nonetheless, the point has been argued before, no need to get into it again. As Blain said, feel free to believe whatever you want.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

I meant you.
The first post mentioned that the indian official sources are inaccurate and your recollections are accurate.

yeah actually that's correct

no disrespect - but we have to stick to facts as we establish them - not as we believe them

yes, that's why the indian army shouldn't have stuck with such claims for over 30 years.

 

[Muradk]

I meant you.

The first post mentioned that the indian official sources are inaccurate and your recollections are accurate.

I dispute that. (like the story about indian gnats shooting down a civilian helicopter - do we need to go thru that again?)

no disrespect - but we have to stick to facts as we establish them - not as we believe them

-Venkat

Now this is where my mode goes pathan , If you ever take my name or discuss anything I mentioned you are banned from this forum.
Now its upto the mods , I stay or he stays decide and let me know.
Some stupid kid whos egg was'nt even hached when I was fighting the war tells me that I am wrong. I have a appox 6436 hours in which 1800 hr were off combat flying. Most people in PAF retire before they even reach 3000 hr . And you come and want proof, proof of what that we kicked IAF in air everytime. OH and I did;nt say this phrase Chuck mentioned it in his book. According to you he is a fool too.

 

[Muradk]

The admins dont need to ban me - if you post a scan of your logbook that shows you flew the sortie where you claim
1)you shot down an indian fighter (From a very old thread)
2)that you flew this so called mission in which indian fighters were encountered and that they shot down a helicopter)

I will self ban myself

I cant believe that someone with your wisdom and experience actually believs chuck yeager to the fullest!

I am sorry I have to do this too you.
PL forward me your email PM . why I am asking because you wount be here and I want when my article comes out should email it to you.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM , I agree to a point. But 'Official Histories' are also based on official documents, sit reps, signals and the lot. So personal recollections have to be backed by official documents.

In this case - the Indian Official History clearly states that the company on the ground did not inflict casualities on the pak tanks but merely 'held out'. so which part of the official history is 'fake'?

Venkat:

My point was related to "official history" in general, not this particular instance, and no one is arguing about inserting Murad's accounts into official history, but coming from a veteran of the war, it is interesting to hear about the events that got overshadowed or possibly unreported. I think that is where you are nit picking a tad much.