I was going through the thread since I came on this late.
And so I thought I could clarify some of the issues.
On the losses inflicted during the withdrawal, which per Musharraf was when the majority of the Pakistani Military losses occurred, were these losses inflicted after the withdrawal was imminent?
That is the GoI and IA were aware of it, in which case was this not akin to attacking someone when their back was turned?
It must be understood that when the PA came in, none knew in India.
When discovered, the battle began.
When the posts were retaken, obviously, either the defenders fled or were killed! The choice is yours to decide whether they fled or were killed. Ghazi ya Saheed as someone commented.
When any troops withdraw, they do not pack their bags and move. It is a military operation and no one keeps his back towards the adversary.
The attacks were not on the paths but on the posts created by the PA.
NO one executed PsW. I am surprised to learn that PA claims that their casualties were there when they were withdrawing. Let's look at it practically. When the posts created by Pakistan were attacked, do you think the Pakistanis just took off and fled? Would any soldier of any Army worth his salt just run away and not give a fight? If one fights, won't some die also? Please see the awards given to the Pakistani Army soldiers and officers and check the citations.
On the issue of targeting the supply routes when the withdrawal is on, where is the question of supplies if one is withdrawing. Where do you think the supplies are to be stored when one is withdrawing? Therefore, that is not a correct premise.
As regards the thumb rule for attack:defence, in the plains it is 3:1 and in the High Altitude it is 11:1
Artillery (Bofors) was used in direct firing role and that was an important action taken.
Artillery is not so effective on the mountains since there are many ''overs'' and ''unders'' that miss the peak and fall beyond or short and hence the amount of rounds to be fired for effect increases and that means a whole lot more ammunition is required; and that means a huge burden on the logistics!!
******************
In so far as the number of caskets bought to send back the dead, (23March) it was for all operations in J&K. Earlier, the bodies were buried/ cremated in situ with military honours. Then the mode was changed to sending bodies back to their home towns in wooden crates. And later since the wooden crates looked rather pathetic, these caskets were bought. These caskets are reusable.
As far as Kasrkin feeling that India would only make noise if Siachen was isolated, it appears he does not understand geopolitics and national imperatives.
It is also interesting to note that Karskin feels that Indian casualties occurred due to ''stupid mass infantry attacks''! One wonders what is mass infantry attack and why attacking in overwhelming strength is stupid. In fact, it would be stupid to attack without overwhelming strength since it would only mean defeat! Odd logic and odd statement, Karskin.
Sniperwolf's PA gave a good stick to India post is like the story of the wolf and the sour grapes!
Ejaz's "If you have managed to achieve surprise against your enemy and caught the defenders sleeping that too is a victory. While no regular army units were used by Pakistan India used its regular army and Pakistan gained valuable information about their tactics and capabilitites. IAF performance was also observed and would be considered while planning any future mission" post is interesting in so far as the comparison goes - no news is good news! A good attempt to make the best of a disaster.
Similar is Engima947's "Ask your senior military leadership...havent they started peeing in their pants since Kargil... lets see if now india has the guts to attack Pakistan.....except making their soldiers to lay eggs on the borders and LoC as done in 2001-02 escalation between indian and Pakistan." Does this make any sense except venting bile to wipe the wounds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TALWAR View Post
1. Why would the Pak Army withdraw if they were in a strong position ?
2. Do you think the Pak Army would have obeyed the withdrawal orders of the PM who was later thrown away ?
They withdrew because they had no other option. No arti , and no air-support. What will the Infentary do without cover ?
They with drew because the political leadership offered them no support. An Army relies on its politicians to support it, which did not happen here.
A weak argument.
If the Army went in without political support, then they should have fought on without political support. One can't backflip and then claim that they had no political support just because the Army comes a cropper!
