Dont make me laugh kiddo the bolded lines r taken from wikipedia's siachin conflict page.
Its even funnier to me that indian news papers also copy wikipedia's info.
MARCOS being best.........
Sure we all know that very well.
After reading yr post all i can do thisand this
Who r u a comic master??
Comparing A Battle with Covert militant attacks is best u can come up with?
The reason u won that battle was because of air support and questionable tactics used by field commander of Army in that area.
We did not had air support in that battle.
Now as u have shared this let me tell u abt our Soldiers like Major Shabbir Sharif Shaheed and Sepoy Lalak jan Of NLI in the defence of Tiger Hill etc etc. Read about the Defence of Lahore, Battle of Chawinda which is called the second largest tank battle of human history in 65 and Battle of Chamb in 65. Also the reason we surrendered in 71 was because of no air support+navy and Supplies because u had blocked us and we had to fight the terrorists of Bengal too in one end and indian forces in other end.
In the end if u listen to Gen Niazi speech while surrendering he clearly said that there was no use of keep on fighting when specially the locals have turned against u hence surrender is better option in this scenario.
Regarding 99 well the courage of our NLI is an example for itself where 4500 took 30,000 men. and still reached up to tiger hill which is the highest point in area. That alone speaks volumes again no SSG was involved there.
Our PM is bull **** he is merely taking out his personal frustrations here not talking abt the facts. Even we people of Pakistan dont believe him and yr believing him sitting in outside Pakistan.
But i thought we were discussing the SFs here not the battle or were we?
Regarding these attacks i have already cleared u enough that the damage which was bound to have happen has already happened there was no point in delaying it now which according to u was 59 hrs but we believe it took u 72 hrs. In that op u also had heli support too.
Still just 44 minutes and 59 hrs is a very crazy difference.
Like i said we didnt had intel on that if it were we would have not allowed them to have done the damage which they already did.
Still this shows who better prepared to face any type of hostilities in any given time with out even being alert.
Any ways bro i know u have a little knowledge specially after reading this post of yrs and honestly i thought we were having a fruitful discussion. But u exposed yr self when u had started comparing battles with XYZ covert militant ops.In the past indians i have meet in pdf r just stupid people who seem to believe what they read or hear in TV and News papers/internet.
Sorry dude but im not anymore interested in and more conversations with u hand also nuclearpak has also warned to not post off topic posts.
But remember that 65,71,99 was in last century but history shows that the successful nations r those who live in today not in past.
Any how goodbye friend. It was nice talking to u and u have good analytical power as i can see before u started comparing the battles and these SF ops.
Keep on gaining more knowledge u may have bright future ahead.
i wasn't comparing a conventional war. i was comparing the courage of both armys.
rest of things you said are just junk. navy blocked is part of war and the problem created in BD and the handling the problem makes people of east pakistan turn against you. the generals lacks quality that is why they use military action against political problems.
SSG were in kargil war. musharraf himself agreed this after SHAHID AZIZ wrote a book on kargil. SHAHID AZIZ also said that the causality were over 2000. these things are agreed by your ret. military commanders, your denial will not make any sense.
there are many advantages to an attacking country(pakistan) over a india, pakistan was the first one who attacked that means pakistan was fully prepared and also have better equipment than india during both 1965 and 1971. but pakistan failed because its low quality soldiers and low morale of soldiers of pakistan. for a mountain warfare an attacking force need 1:3 superiority, if the defending force is on higher ground then the attacking force need 1:5 superiority over the enemy. in kargil war india cannot deployed more than division of troops at a time because the highway was on continuous artillery shelling. causality was high because india was in the valley and and under artillery attack.
any way, as nuclearpak said keep this thread about indian special forces. this is the last discussion on this topic
What u r comparing r Just apples with oranges, again in kargil u had air support too we didnt had that. Shahid Aziz n co r just individuals and the official statements matter inm this case. Here is something yr own General who was field commander Has to say abt it.
Now its upto u to take the trouble of convening him........
Again he and Gen Aziz r just individuals their say dont matter in the end because do accept that we had lost battle.
Also let me tell u that Covert ops and actual battlefied scenarios r way off target to be compared with.
Only a novice can do what even in number of soldiers died and courage comparisons.
In a covert ops its being stealthy and surprising the enemy is something which matters in the end.
In wars and other stuff u always have protections of bunkers, Unlimited supply in Ammo reserves on both sides+ no shortage in Air support+ Naval Support and fighting equipment too but in covert militant style ops u the attacking party dont have such leverages but defending party have!!!
So the defending party logically must have to come in the upperhand in the end of the day. Its more about How early the defending party can do her job and prevent further damage. In delaying such ops, well u will be victorious in this sense that u were able to wipe them out but the attackers will achieve their goal, which is to cause as much damage as possible before dying.
In the war the rule is simple gain enemy grounds or cripple their forces, while defenders goals r to defend yr positions against the enemy no matter what they through at u.
In wars, well u will be stupid to believe that Pakistan had started them because we were nvr in an advantageous position to do so. And in 99 the conflict was in response of Siachin invasion from yr arm,ed forces. If there was no siachin there had been no Kargil Saga.
Bur like i said before ur just comparing wars with ops. and that too of 20th century. Things r different now and now nobody can attack someone with that power anymore because of Nukes.....
Covert Military Style Ops r the new age of modern warfare.
Any how goodbye friend. It was nice talking to u and u have good analytical power
Obviously u do my argument nvr like that.
Yeah right we all saw their greatness in Mumbai saga.
and yr point is??
