What's new

Indo-Pak War 1965 (Pictures Only)

Can't Pakistani threads like this be indian free? Can't we have our own discussion and celebration forums free from our eternal and biggest enemies?. indians are like insects, rats and vermin. They're rodents that are everywhere. Can't get rid of them. Mods do your thing.
 
It hurts because "1965 Pak victory" was infact destruction of Pakistani mard e momin army's pride and even @HttpError knows it, thats why he doesn't want repeat of 1965 even in his dreams.
'71 was just an icing on the cake, but the reason Bangladesh's freedom was achieved so easily was the inability of Pakistan to get out of its 1965 stupor. A already defeated and dejected nation was hard pressed to muster courage to face Indian forces resulting in - check my profile pic :p
Indians can post all the pictures they want to their heart's content and make unrealistic claims, the stark reality is how the neutral observers and world media saw and reported this war. Here are some extracts from that period's reporting. You can thank Windjammer for finding these.


SUNDAY TIMES, London, September 19, 1965.
"Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies if they had not already run away.
Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan's pilots and Indian officer's leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces".

Peter Preston, The Guardian, London.
September 24, 1965.
"One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds.
Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air power, expected an easy air superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, factor of the whole conflict.
Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years until July he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan civil airline, which in a country, where now means sometime and sometime means never, is a model of efficiency. He talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble about figures, immediately one has confidence in what he says. His estimates proffered diffidently, but with as much photographic evidence as possible, speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks are in something like the ratio of ten to one.
"The Indians had no sense of purpose, the Pakistanis were defending their country and willingly taking greater risks. The average bomber crew flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on".
" This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots themselves, and you get the same intense story".

Patrick Seale, The Observer, London.
September 12, 1965.
"Pakistan's success in the air means that she had been able to deploy her relatively small army___ professionally among the best in Asia___ with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust.
By all accounts the courage displayed by the PAF pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war".

Roy Meloni, Correspondent of ABC,
September 15, 1965.
"I have been a journalist now for 20 years and want to go on record that i have never seen a more confident and victorious groups of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan right now.
"India is claiming all out victory, i have not been able to find any trace of it. All i can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front.
If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?
The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes. These Muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none.
In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propaganda claims on either side are likely to be startling, but if i have to take bet today, my money would be on Pakistan side.
Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like one third of the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that the actual kills may be even higher, but the PAF authorities are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting PAF only those killing that can be checked and verified from other sources.


INDONESIAN HERALD,
September 11 1965.
"The chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-India Radio also admitted that Indian Air Force had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses.........".
 
You are wrong there. That is exactly how victory is defined for them, giving the bigger power a bloody nose.
I'll suggest you a book.

www.amazon.com/Fighting-End-The-Pakistan-Armys/dp/0199892709

Thanks for the recommendation...Looks like a good read.

Nevertheless, Giving India a bloody nose while suffering debilitating casualties itself is NOT victory!
And if that is their way, then lord have mercy on them!
Pakistan lost the plot (as far as taking Kashmir from India) the minute they resigned their faith to the bomb!
At this point, Pakistan has ZERO clue on how to attain Victory on any front!

Indians can post all the pictures they want to their heart's content and make unrealistic claims, the stark reality is how the neutral observers and world media saw and reported this war. Here are some extracts from that period's reporting. You can thank Windjammer for finding these.


SUNDAY TIMES, London, September 19, 1965.
"Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies if they had not already run away.
Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan's pilots and Indian officer's leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces".

Peter Preston, The Guardian, London.
September 24, 1965.
"One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds.
Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air power, expected an easy air superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, factor of the whole conflict.
Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years until July he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan civil airline, which in a country, where now means sometime and sometime means never, is a model of efficiency. He talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble about figures, immediately one has confidence in what he says. His estimates proffered diffidently, but with as much photographic evidence as possible, speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks are in something like the ratio of ten to one.
"The Indians had no sense of purpose, the Pakistanis were defending their country and willingly taking greater risks. The average bomber crew flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on".
" This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots themselves, and you get the same intense story".

Patrick Seale, The Observer, London.
September 12, 1965.
"Pakistan's success in the air means that she had been able to deploy her relatively small army___ professionally among the best in Asia___ with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust.
By all accounts the courage displayed by the PAF pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war".

Roy Meloni, Correspondent of ABC,
September 15, 1965.
"I have been a journalist now for 20 years and want to go on record that i have never seen a more confident and victorious groups of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan right now.
"India is claiming all out victory, i have not been able to find any trace of it. All i can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front.
If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?
The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes. These Muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none.
In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propaganda claims on either side are likely to be startling, but if i have to take bet today, my money would be on Pakistan side.
Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like one third of the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that the actual kills may be even higher, but the PAF authorities are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting PAF only those killing that can be checked and verified from other sources.


INDONESIAN HERALD,
September 11 1965.
"The chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-India Radio also admitted that Indian Air Force had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses.........".

Once again...I beg to ask..What did Pakistan win?
Admiration from England? Was that the purpose of this war?
 
Thanks for the recommendation...Looks like a good read.

Nevertheless, Giving India a bloody nose while suffering debilitating casualties itself is NOT victory!
And if that is their way, then lord have mercy on them!
Pakistan lost the plot (as far as taking Kashmir from India) the minute they resigned their faith to the bomb!
At this point, Pakistan has ZERO clue on how to attain Victory on any front!



Once again...I beg to ask..What did Pakistan win?
Admiration from England? Was that the purpose of this war?
Well for starters we still control the Chamb region which we won in 1965. But second the war initially was for land but then the war turned into something greater than that. The 1965 war was probably the most important war. Since both sides were level it showed to the other what we are capable of. Pakistan armed forces was 1/3 of India's. India couldn't even capture Lahore with their massive force and lost the biggest tank battle since WW2 and were beaten in the air.
 
Well for starters we still control the Chamb region which we won in 1965. But second the war initially was for land but then the war turned into something greater than that. The 1965 war was probably the most important war. Since both sides were level it showed to the other what we are capable of. Pakistan armed forces was 1/3 of India's. India couldn't even capture Lahore with their massive force and lost the biggest tank battle since WW2 and were beaten in the air.

10000K Indian forces fought against 60K from the Pakistani side..
Hardly 1/3rd...
Both countries moved back to the pre war lines...so how did Pakistan manage to retain Chamb?
Next..
If Pakistan won in the air and on land as you claim, why is there a stark difference in the amount of land captured by India as compare to Pak? Why didnt Pakistan walk into Kashmir if it had air dominance over India? Wasn't that what cause the war. Kashmir? And wouldn't that be a more resounding statement wrt. "capabilities"?
In addition, why was Ayub Khan ousted as a result of a 'victory"? Shouldn't he have been lauded as a victorious General?

I have no problem giving Pakistan the victory...as soon as you define what "victory" is...


Also, other quotes from the war that don't quite sing your tune...
    • Retired American diplomat Dennis Kux: "Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated."
    • English historian John Keay: "The war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate."
    • American author Stanley Wolpert: "The war ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on US ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the ceasefire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to [Pakistani president] Ayub's chagrin."
 
Well for starters we still control the Chamb region which we won in 1965. But second the war initially was for land but then the war turned into something greater than that. The 1965 war was probably the most important war. Since both sides were level it showed to the other what we are capable of. Pakistan armed forces was 1/3 of India's. India couldn't even capture Lahore with their massive force and lost the biggest tank battle since WW2 and were beaten in the air.

Excellent post. Sir we need more posters like you and less savage indian trolls.
 
Well for starters we still control the Chamb region which we won in 1965. But second the war initially was for land but then the war turned into something greater than that. The 1965 war was probably the most important war. Since both sides were level it showed to the other what we are capable of. Pakistan armed forces was 1/3 of India's. India couldn't even capture Lahore with their massive force and lost the biggest tank battle since WW2 and were beaten in the air.

Please go back one page and read the article @Peshwa posted sourced from your nations daily and based on a book written by your general.
Chote ho koi baat nahi haar gaye to kya hua, ismein rone ki kya baat hai??
 
10000K Indian forces fought against 60K from the Pakistani side..
Hardly 1/3rd...
Both countries moved back to the pre war lines...so how did Pakistan manage to retain Chamb?
Next..
If Pakistan won in the air and on land as you claim, why is there a stark difference in the amount of land captured by India as compare to Pak? Why didnt Pakistan walk into Kashmir if it had air dominance over India? Wasn't that what cause the war. Kashmir? And wouldn't that be a more resounding statement wrt. "capabilities"?
In addition, why was Ayub Khan ousted as a result of a 'victory"? Shouldn't he have been lauded as a victorious General?

I have no problem giving Pakistan the victory...as soon as you define what "victory" is...
That claim which says that Pakistan captured less land than India is from the book "Indian Official History of 1965 War" released by the Indian Ministry of Defence P.319-321. Meanwhile there is a Pakistani book by Abdul Sattar (a great Pakistani diplomat, which once covered the Indians in an agreement I forgot which one )which is recognized and praised which says that Pakistan captured more territory than Indian around 1600. I'm not sure about Ayub Khan but I guess it had to do with the economy. Pakistan's economy was booming but after the war I guess it wasn't doing as well. Still that is no reason to say it wasn't a Pakistani victory. Obviously fighting a war against a neighbour will have negative implications. Btw where did u get 60k and 100 000 from. India had 700 000 and Pakistan had 260 000 infantry soldiers.
 
That claim which says that Pakistan captured less land than India is from the book "Indian Official History of 1965 War" released by the Indian Ministry of Defence P.319-321. Meanwhile there is a Pakistani book by Abdul Sattar (a great Pakistani diplomat, which once covered the Indians in an agreement I forgot which one )which is recognized and praised which says that Pakistan captured more territory than Indian around 1600. I'm not sure about Ayub Khan but I guess it had to do with the economy. Pakistan's economy was booming but after the war I guess it wasn't doing as well. Still that is no reason to say it wasn't a Pakistani victory. Obviously fighting a war against a neighbour will have negative implications.

You can have the victory...
many unanswered questions from your side, but if you think you won, who are we to tell you otherwise...
1965 is the past and will remain so for us...
 
You can have the victory...
many unanswered questions from your side, but if you think you won, who are we to tell you otherwise...
1965 is the past and will remain so for us...
lol that's why after 50 years the great modi Ji is now creating a carnival of 1965 "victory" lol in the past my ***. Where was this carnival in the past lmao? Deluded *** nation. Even voted in a mass murderer..
 
Excellent post. Sir we need more posters like you and less savage indian trolls.

sorry to bust your bubble....10k on Indiaan side to 60k on Pak side is not exactly 1/3. send your hero sir to school first. This is why you need Indians in your thread - otherwise your seniors will make up stuff and continue misleading you all.
 
lol that's why after 50 years the great modi Ji is now creating a carnival of 1965 "victory" lol in the past my ***. Where was this carnival in the past lmao? Deluded *** nation. Even voted in a mass murderer..

What are you really mad about? Having a self proclaimed victory or Modi? Its unclear and you're all over the place!

Either way, 65 remains the past whether you like it or not...and not even Modi can change that!
If I were you, I'd be worried about whether Pakistan can even stand shoulder to shoulder with India, now or in the coming decade..instead of mental masturbation over a questionable past!
But like I said, if you prefer to call 65 a "victory", so be it...makes shit of a difference to the common Indian!
 
Back
Top Bottom