KAMIKAZE

[Inception-06]

I'm sorry I will need a link where it is clearly stated that the IA had 2000 tanks. Until then, I'll disagree with you. I've found no sources on the internet stating that the IA had 1000+ tanks. The books that you've mentioned, I cannot read and confirm.

hahahahah muahahha that is not my problem !

 

[Neo]

hahahahah muahahha that is not my problem !

Well lets make it yours!
Provide the link to support your claim or edit the post.
You have 24 hours.

 

[fatman17]

The book is not the official history of the IAF. I tried finding a reference for the "2000 tanks" from the available extracts, no go. Can you help me out? Plus I haven't come across any source which says that the IA had 2000 tanks.

Dear Vish,

pls buy the following two books written by Mr, Ravi Rikhye. this author is a staunch anti-pakistani hawk. u will get the 65 and 71 ORBAT for both india and pakistan.

The Militarisation of Mother India.
The War that never was.

as far as who was superior or not in my opinion it was a close draw. the indians took a beating in the battle of chawinda and pakistani pattons got bogged down in the river tawi area and took a beating. both countries armoured corps commanders were very hesitant in committing their tanks and reserves to take the battles to a decisive end.

if you read the official history of both countries, they do not contain IMO the correct and factual details of the vaarious battles (due to propoganda reasons). the real facts and details have come out much later by the tank commanders who have written what really happened in the tank battles.

 

[fatman17]

^^a good place to read such articles is www.defence journal.com.pk

 

[vish]

Dear Vish,

pls buy the following two books written by Mr, Ravi Rikhye. this author is a staunch anti-pakistani hawk. u will get the 65 and 71 ORBAT for both india and pakistan.

The Militarisation of Mother India.
The War that never was.

as far as who was superior or not in my opinion it was a close draw. the indians took a beating in the battle of chawinda and pakistani pattons got bogged down in the river tawi area and took a beating. both countries armoured corps commanders were very hesitant in committing their tanks and reserves to take the battles to a decisive end.

if you read the official history of both countries, they do not contain IMO the correct and factual details of the vaarious battles (due to propoganda reasons). the real facts and details have come out much later by the tank commanders who have written what really happened in the tank battles.

^^a good place to read such articles is www.defence journal.com.pk

I agree with you that the war was a tactical stalemate. But in the strategic sense, India emerged more equal than Pakistan.

As far as tank battles are concerned, the results were equal on both sides. But I guess it was a learning experience for both our forces.

I know that some if not most Indian and Pakistani sources are biased. However, the source which I've quoted is the Official Indian History of 1965 War. This document was suppressed until 1990s because it said the truth. There was a big furor when this document was released.

Further, I've come across Pakistani sources which state that in terms of armor, artillery, and self-propelled AA defense, Pakistan had an edge over India. What is ironic is that the reports that I've read are from defensejournal.

My point of contention with Ulla was the number of tanks with the IA. Neither IA nor PA had more than 1000 tanks.

You can call me naive, but I've very limited understanding of the details of military matters. I've tried reading ORBATs but have not been successful at understanding them thoroughly. I shall skip the two books mentioned by you simply because they in all likelihood are biased.

Please, do understand that I'm not trying to undermine the PA or elevate the IA, I'm merely stating what I've read from multiple sources of both the countries.

Regards.

 

[fatman17]

I agree with you that the war was a tactical stalemate. But in the strategic sense, India emerged more equal than Pakistan.

As far as tank battles are concerned, the results were equal on both sides. But I guess it was a learning experience for both our forces.

I know that some if not most Indian and Pakistani sources are biased. However, the source which I've quoted is the Official Indian History of 1965 War. This document was suppressed until 1990s because it said the truth. There was a big furor when this document was released.

Further, I've come across Pakistani sources which state that in terms of armor, artillery, and self-propelled AA defense, Pakistan had an edge over India. What is ironic is that the reports that I've read are from defensejournal.

My point of contention with Ulla was the number of tanks with the IA. Neither IA nor PA had more than 1000 tanks.

You can call me naive, but I've very limited understanding of the details of military matters. I've tried reading ORBATs but have not been successful at understanding them thoroughly. I shall skip the two books mentioned by you simply because they in all likelihood are biased.

Please, do understand that I'm not trying to undermine the PA or elevate the IA, I'm merely stating what I've read from multiple sources of both the countries.

Regards.

both sides did not want to take risks, the commanders who took risks, met with tactical successes on both sides. remember in 1947 we were part of one army,the doctrines were similar, and the commanders actually knew their opposite numbers at a personal level. my father was in infantry and was commanding a elite unit of the punjab regt (kargil) and he often told me stories how he knew his sikh opposite number.(both graduated from dehra dunn)
as far as number of tanks go, you are probably right about the numbers on both sides but remember the british centurian was a superior tank than the patton m-48 (korean vintage), whilist the french AMX was a modern light tank. pak shermans were of WWII vintage. pakistan had very few SP guns because the american policy was not to provide weapons systems in large numbers, this way the USMAG (US mil advisory group) was able keep to restrict the offensive capability of the PA.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

This discussion has totally gone away from the topic.

If anyone who has read the book SHOGUN by James Clawell would understand the japanese mentality of that time a little better. But the only way to understand it is to read the book without pejudice against the japanese traditions---then one will just learn to fathom out the mindest.

 

[Inception-06]

Well lets make it yours!
Provide the link to support your claim or edit the post.
You have 24 hours.

give me 4 days I need that time..( must do something for school.)

 

[fatman17]

Hi,

This discussion has totally gone away from the topic.

If anyone who has read the book SHOGUN by James Clawell would understand the japanese mentality of that time a little better. But the only way to understand it is to read the book without pejudice against the japanese traditions---then one will just learn to fathom out the mindest.

MK- thanks for remembering - took me a while to read this book - TV adaptation wasnt bad either with Richard Chamberlain.