Indo-Pak War 1965 (Pictures Only)

[WaLeEdK2]

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.

Indians only 10k? Lmao. India had 700 k Pakistan had 260 k.

Here's Wikipedia the site you bhartis are so fond of

How would Pakistan have more? Your country has a bigger population which equals a bigger army.

 

[Peshwa]

Indians only 10k? Lmao. India had 700 k Pakistan had 260 k.

Here's Wikipedia the site you bhartis are so fond of
View attachment 252065

How would Pakistan have more? Your country has a bigger population which equals a bigger army.

It's called the total available strength...
The difference between actual combatants vs. reserve/available armed forces...

Are you claiming that Pakistan threw in all 260K combatants to war in a month?

Actual Combatants...
100K India vs. 60K Pak.

 

[WaLeEdK2]

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!

It's ok you don't need to express your concern of Pakistan whether can stand with India. We more than capable of doing so. Lol and to the common Indian I've seen them on PDF trying to convince themselves and us that they won. And don't even get me started on YouTube. Type in Pakistan and see how many Indians make vids of bashing Pakistan that's what I call obsessed. You call us obsessed and conspiracy theorists but don't look at yourselves. And modi is changing that. Might in the past for you but to so many other Indians it's not.

 

[Post Colonnial]

Indians only 10k? Lmao. India had 700 k Pakistan had 260 k.

Here's Wikipedia the site you bhartis are so fond of
View attachment 252065

How would Pakistan have more? Your country has a bigger population which equals a bigger army.

really? you will compare blind strength numbers instead of engagement? sure then here is what the same wikipedia page says:

"Despite the qualitative and numerical superiority of Pakistani armour,[58] Pakistan was outfought on the battlefield by India, which made progress into the Lahore-Sialkot sector, whilst halting Pakistan's counteroffensive on Amritsar;[59][60] they were sometimes employed in a faulty manner, such as charging prepared defenses during the defeat of Pakistan's 1st Armoured Division at Assal Uttar."

Fact is Pakistani military always loses in wars. Pakistanis ofcourse cannot and will not say that due to patriotic reasons but they should at least know the facts internally for god's sake! They won 47, they won 65, they won 71, they work Kargil....come on!

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

 

[WaLeEdK2]

really? you will compare blind strength numbers instead of engagement? sure then here is what the same wikipedia page says:

"Despite the qualitative and numerical superiority of Pakistani armour,[58] Pakistan was outfought on the battlefield by India, which made progress into the Lahore-Sialkot sector, whilst halting Pakistan's counteroffensive on Amritsar;[59][60] they were sometimes employed in a faulty manner, such as charging prepared defenses during the defeat of Pakistan's 1st Armoured Division at Assal Uttar."

Lol and this was written by an India on Wiki how rich.
Read my previous post of a neutral source of Brits, Americans and Indonesians at the time.

 

[Post Colonnial]

Lol and this was written by an India on Wiki.
Read my previous post of a neutral source of Brits, Americans and Indonesians at the time.

you are the one that wanted to use that page and putout that screenshot, not me. I just quoted that same page back at you. So now you want to withdraw it? spoken like Pak army

 

[Peshwa]

It's ok you don't need to express your concern of Pakistan whether can stand with India. We more than capable of doing so. Lol and to the common Indian I've seen them on PDF trying to convince themselves and us that they won. And don't even get me started on YouTube. Type in Pakistan and see how many Indians make vids of bashing Pakistan that's what I call obsessed. You call us obsessed and conspiracy theorists but don't look at yourselves. And modi is changing that. Might in the past for you but to so many other Indians it's not.

Great..Then we have nothing to argue about!
Wishing Pakistan the best and a "Victorious" Sept 6th!
Enjoy!

 

[WaLeEdK2]

you are the one that wanted to use that page and putout that screenshot, not me. I just quoted that same page back at you.

I posted it because Indians even admit they had a larger force of infantry. The tanks were almost equal. But the information about what happens on the ground is something anybody can easily twist. The numerical facts is not. No one would believe that Pakistan would have a larger overall force than India.

 

[Post Colonnial]

I posted it because Indians even admit they had a larger force of infantry. The tanks were almost equal. But the information about what happens on the ground is something anybody can easily twist. The numerical facts is not. No one would believe that Pakistan would have a larger overall force than India.

Now that is a sensible thing. Recall I was reacting to someone's claim of 1:3 advaanatge as if any numbers can tell the story

 

[Peshwa]

Lol and this was written by an India on Wiki how rich.
Read my previous post of a neutral source of Brits, Americans and Indonesians at the time.

• [*]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."

Others seem to disagree...

 

[WaLeEdK2]

Others seem to disagree...

Why India want a ceasefire first. If then why did India accept the ceasefire. They could've taken back their land... And ur forgetting what the war turned into in my previous post. These guys focused on Kashmir. In truth Pakistan had more to celebrate. Lol and I thought u were over it..

 

[Peshwa]

Why India want a ceasefire first. If then why did India accept the ceasefire. They could've taken back their land... And ur forgetting what the war turned into in my previous post. These guys focused on Kashmir. In truth Pakistan had more to celebrate.

India didn't initiate the war...so a ceasefire makes sense since our objective was achieved ie. Repluse Pak and secure Kashmir....And we did get our land back...The Tashkent Agreement moved all parties to pre-war lines...please read the terms.

But you failed to answer why Pakistan withdrew or even agreed to a ceasefire when they won in air and on land (as per your claim)...why didnt they walk right into Kashmir, (we had no air force and were beaten on land as per your claims)? Wasnt that what Operation Gibraltar and Grand Slam were about?
Strange for a winner to concede, no?

 

[Post Colonnial]

I think it is important to state the following in threads such as this:

1) valor is not the unique property of any country.
2) wars are won lost or drawn based on strategy, surprise, advantage planning and theatre leadership - all 4 elements impact results
3) results especially in later days are not black and white but shades of grey
4) while all soldiers are patriotic and do put their lives in service of the country, especially in Pakistan and India and several others, most soldiers join because they need a job. We celebrate them for for effort - not intentions or results
5) we blame our own beloved chacha Nehruji (a great great statesmen par excellence) for certain mistakes he made when it comes defense - nobody is perfect; similarly unless we learn to be objective and separate jingoistic cheer from truth, what's the point? Our kudos become meaningless and we end up watering down quality.

 

[WaLeEdK2]

India didn't initiate the war...so a ceasefire makes sense since our objective was achieved ie. Repluse Pak and secure Kashmir....And we did get our land back...The Tashkent Agreement moved all parties to pre-war lines...please read the terms.

But you failed to answer why Pakistan withdrew when they won in air and on land (as per your claim)...why didnt they walk right into Kashmir? Wasnt that what Operation Gibraltar and Grand Slam were about?
Strange for a winner to concede, no?

The reason the war started was because Kashmiris were being massacred as they are to this day. And still ur forgetting it wasn't about Kashmir anymore. Kashmir was just a tipping off point. If it was about Kashmir, Pakistan wouldn't have went into Rajasthan and just would have defended Pakistan at the border. And again ur forgetting Pakistan's economy. But in terms what happened in the war based on performance it was Pakistan that won.