Kargil: A Debacle or A Lost Opportunity?

[Kasrkin]

The initial mass-infantry attacks were unsuccessful, and frankly stupid.

These are the words of an Indian, not mine exactly. Speaking of which, going over the thread looking for this guys post however lead me to…

You jump the gun; you assume that me being an Indian would have trouble accepting that IA's jawans were killed by PA soldiers; you talk about logic: that my friend is a contradiction.

Where the hell is the "contradiction"? You obviously disbelieve that Operation Vijay was the primary source of the considerable Indian casualties. The Indians lost more than 1150 soldiers in 3 YEARS hard fighting in Sri Lanka, and at Kargil in the matter of weeks the Indian figure was 600 plus. How can you suggest that ‘probing parties’ are the principle cause of this bloated figure?

Most of India's losses were during the intitial stage when probing parties were regularly launched to examine and analyse the enemy's positions.

Your view is designed to discourage the notion that India lost men during hard-fast head-on decisive fighting in operations launched with over whelming numbers, firepower and definitive objectives of seizing Pakistani positions. It is unlikely that massed infantry attacks were used in ‘probing’ operations, even if it is true to some extent then it represents shocking incompetence. If you experience more resistance than expected and failed to achieve the intended objectives, the mission should not be branded a ‘probing’ operation in an attempt to dilute the failure no matter how tempting that might be.

This would indicate that you are having inconvenience believing that India lost their bulk of men to Pakistani boys in decisively planned confrontations.

The reason we did not cross the LoC had nothing to do with our "fragile" (perhaps only according to you) international position.

There was immense pressure on India not to widen the conflict, you cannot pretend that India could have launched a full scale war then and crippled Pakistan (which in itself would take considerable time according to the most India-friendly ‘experts&#8217 without severe international repercussions and at the same time justify your military setbacks due to international pressure not to cross the LoC. Not that crossing the LoC and engaging other fresh (regular) Pakistani formations would have benefited IA’s unbalanced and over-committed disposition.

If you were honorable you would admit that in face of the unrealistic and probably futile option of trying to use your already committed forces and equipment to wrestle control of (well defended) logistics routes inside Azad Kashmir from the regular PA formations, the generals and the politicians decided to stick to Occupied Kashmir and receive the international “good will” for using self-proclaimed “restraint”. An Indian Mig was shot down in Pakistani territory, so it’s not like the Indians were particularly careful about provoking us either...fustration was there which I dont deny.

I don’t see how anyone can delude themselves to the gravity of the situation the Indians faced, according to Brian Cloughley in a book the Indian DGMO Gen. V.R. Raghavan says is ‘written by an observant military author who is both candid and objective’, the Pakistanis evacuated from the 14 posts the Indians attacked, while the remaining 120 or so posts were only vacated on orders from across the LoC. Also that Indian casualties would have been ‘very much higher’ had the Pakistanis decided to stay. I just don’t see how bringing the bulk of Pakistani forces into the fray would solve India’s problems. Unless you have any concrete proof to suggest the contrary?

Impailed by own rhetoric; glad to hear your generalization and personal slur.

It wasn’t a ‘slur’, just an expression. But I can keep it up if you’re glad to hear it so much.

I said that had an all-out war broken out Pakistan would have lost much more; you assume something particularly contrary.

Ofcourse I know you have more to lose, i.e. population, economy, investment, etc…

So, let me get this straight, "hahahaha" implies you have nothing to say.

Ofcourse I have nothing to express other than amusement for the uneducated opinions some overly nationalistic Indians have expressed in this thread.

 

[chindit]

The Indians lost more than 1150 soldiers in 3 YEARS hard fighting in Sri Lanka, and at Kargil in the matter of weeks the Indian figure was 600 plus. How can you suggest that ‘probing parties’ are the principle cause of this bloated figure?

the list of casualities along with dates of death are available online on indian army website. it should not take much for either of you to compile them and prove otherwise.

What were the official pak army casualities for kargil? how many of these were in indian territory and how many were inside pak?

 

[Zob]

See from my point of view the mistakes of the Pakistan Army was that it never took into equation the media war as well as the Airforce into consideration. PAF at the time did not get involvled in any offensinve operation. thus the IAF was un challenged and could conduct 5000 sorties. The problem with every greay Army General is they completely omit AIRFORCE out of there equation. situation would have been very diffrent if PAF took active part in the conflict. but as far as losing is concerned pakistan didnot lose due to favourable terrain conditions however the objective was not achieved!

 

[Zob]

one more thing why are Indian army websites considered unbias...i mean seriously...no country will ever admit on there army websites that we lost!! i think the current stand off that india is trying to have with Pakistan and the stand off in 2001 are all a mitilary reaction plan to the operation in kargil. ofcourse u don't expect Indian military to not retalitite with a plan of thereown after we did Kargil. however thanks to the readiness of Pakistan Army and PAF indians can't intitate the plan.

 

[blain2]

the list of casualities along with dates of death are available online on indian army website. it should not take much for either of you to compile them and prove otherwise.

What were the official pak army casualities for kargil? how many of these were in indian territory and how many were inside pak?

They were half of the Indian number.

 

[chindit]

They were half of the Indian number.

So approximately 275?

 

[chindit]

So approximately 275?

answering my own question. Musharaf has written in his book that its 357.

 

[rajk20002002]

See from my point of view the mistakes of the Pakistan Army was that it never took into equation the media war as well as the Airforce into consideration. PAF at the time did not get involvled in any offensinve operation. thus the IAF was un challenged and could conduct 5000 sorties. The problem with every greay Army General is they completely omit AIRFORCE out of there equation. situation would have been very diffrent if PAF took active part in the conflict. but as far as losing is concerned pakistan didnot lose due to favourable terrain conditions however the objective was not achieved!

Don't you think Pakistani army made miscalcualtion in every war they fough with India? In 1965 they thought the war will be limited only to Kashmir, but it spread to Punjab and Rajesthan border also. Same happened in 1971 and finally Pakistan lost their eastren part. In every war there are surprises my friend. Another illusion now Pakistani army has that Nuclear weapons will deter India. In next war this myth will be broken for sure.

RK

 

[ahmeddsid]

Don't you think Pakistani army made miscalcualtion in every war they fough with India? In 1965 they thought the war will be limited only to Kashmir, but it spread to Punjab and Rajesthan border also. Same happened in 1971 and finally Pakistan lost their eastren part. In every war there are surprises my friend. Another illusion now Pakistani army has that Nuclear weapons will deter India. In next war this myth will be broken for sure.

RK

I seriously believe Nukes wont be used in any future war until and unless Pakistan is gonna be captured fully, which India wont do. The max they will do is capture some strategic points and try to cripple the Pak armed forces!

 

[Moscow]

dear indian and pakistani friends i am not going into the topic of who won and who lost.
the real fact war was fought wasnt it, and in every war you fight you have casulties now it dosent matter who lost more or who lost less.
every life that is lost it matters ask the thousand orphans, the thousand widows,that were created by these war.spare a thought for them what is the big point if you have lost 100 or 1000 , the idea is in a war you always loose never win.

now back to kargil there are conflicting and biased views both parties involved had thier own figures and agenda.
i would not coment on the win or loss but just point to some positives and negatives from both side, you might agree with me or disagree.

1--- pakistan goverment's handling<diplomatic front> of the whole situation was woefull to say the least.

2. --- the indian establishments underestimating the situation and their false belief of superiority caused most of their troubles.

3--- the indian political establishment was found napping and acted late in every decision they took until the last half where they were little better if put positively.

4--- pakistan was stunned by the indian media, it acted better than its goverment did,it covered the whole world with stories from the indian prespective pakistan did not have a proper answer to this.

5--- the war proved to the indian army that their days of false claims about superiority has come to an end, their arms and ammunitions were found wanting at times<there are conflicting reports i dont want to engage in this, but post war indian defence budget was highly hiked and the modernasitation process was quickened thats enough proof>


6--- major pakistani failure was that paf was not brought into the equation, why wasnt it time for the moral support to be strengthed by military support also, its a very major diplomatic failure they could not convince the world about their position.


7--- indian intelligence --------- need i say more about its failure.

all in all you see that there were drawbacks from both countries actually kargil was an eye openar to both just see for your self how pakistani media has worked in recent times,also indias defence procurement has being highly enhanced and modernised.

pakistan won the war in terms of INTELLIGENCE,ENDING india's military superiority claims.
india won the war in terms of MEDIA, DIPLOMATIC

other than this there is no change except for the hundreds of life lost, materials lost, billions of money lost. the ground position is still the same so where is the question of winning, both parties had partial wins.

thanks

 

[chindit]

Good post moscow but

pakistan won the war in terms of INTELLIGENCE,ENDING india's military superiority claims.

Can you elaborate? How can you win a war of Intelligence? If the Pakistansi did not forsee the Indian massive response - it is actually a failure of intelligence on the Pakistani side.

ENDING india's military superiority claims

is this even a measurable parameter?

 

[Moscow]

Good post moscow but



Can you elaborate? How can you win a war of Intelligence? If the Pakistansi did not forsee the Indian massive response - it is actually a failure of intelligence on the Pakistani side.



is this even a measurable parameter?

yes sir i shall elaborate on this how can so many occupy the the heights for so long time without the indian administration or army not knowing it, why didnt the intelligence agencies have any report about this
my post was related to this the pakistani intelligence and planning succeded in beating the indian counterparts who were kept in the blind for long only to be awakned too late.
and yes pakistan i think always knew that indians would mount a massive offencive against this but they failed diplomatically to counter this this is where pakistans loss lies, they knew what would happen but still could not avert it.

thanks.

 

[Amanpuneet Singh]

dear indian and pakistani friends i am not going into the topic of who won and who lost.
the real fact war was fought wasnt it, and in every war you fight you have casulties now it dosent matter who lost more or who lost less.
every life that is lost it matters ask the thousand orphans, the thousand widows,that were created by these war.spare a thought for them what is the big point if you have lost 100 or 1000 , the idea is in a war you always loose never win.

now back to kargil there are conflicting and biased views both parties involved had thier own figures and agenda.
i would not coment on the win or loss but just point to some positives and negatives from both side, you might agree with me or disagree.

1--- pakistan goverment's handling<diplomatic front> of the whole situation was woefull to say the least.

2. --- the indian establishments underestimating the situation and their false belief of superiority caused most of their troubles.

3--- the indian political establishment was found napping and acted late in every decision they took until the last half where they were little better if put positively.

4--- pakistan was stunned by the indian media, it acted better than its goverment did,it covered the whole world with stories from the indian prespective pakistan did not have a proper answer to this.

5--- the war proved to the indian army that their days of false claims about superiority has come to an end, their arms and ammunitions were found wanting at times<there are conflicting reports i dont want to engage in this, but post war indian defence budget was highly hiked and the modernasitation process was quickened thats enough proof>


6--- major pakistani failure was that paf was not brought into the equation, why wasnt it time for the moral support to be strengthed by military support also, its a very major diplomatic failure they could not convince the world about their position.


7--- indian intelligence --------- need i say more about its failure.

all in all you see that there were drawbacks from both countries actually kargil was an eye openar to both just see for your self how pakistani media has worked in recent times,also indias defence procurement has being highly enhanced and modernised.

pakistan won the war in terms of INTELLIGENCE,ENDING india's military superiority claims.
india won the war in terms of MEDIA, DIPLOMATIC

other than this there is no change except for the hundreds of life lost, materials lost, billions of money lost. the ground position is still the same so where is the question of winning, both parties had partial wins.

thanks

Moscosw i feel ur post not full of facts
1) Pakistan was aggressor in this war, they wanted to highlight Kashmir and want to repeat siachen in which they failed.
2) India never believed in superiority on the contrary our armed forces were in woeful state modernization was slow all our leaders thought that after testing nuke no one will make this kinda misadventure.
3)India used there air force that's why they lost jets on contrary their jets were resting in sheds so how can they say our air force was doomed whn there never took to skies.
4)Their P.M was going on the world tour to convince,mind u friend when ur wining u don't need to convince anybody.
5)They say withdrew coz USA told them so otherwise they were winner before the withdraw Pakistan have lost all the major peaks in kargil and drass sector u can check that from neutral source urself.
6)Pakistan first said they were freedom fighters so how many were killed there pakistan will never except as thy were from army so how can u believe nation who wont even accept his soldiers bodies whn they die in battlefield.
7)Media can never win u war as u said in end otherwise USA would have won vietnam and iraq longtime ago.
8)Last but not least pakistan invaded we push them back whichever way we won the war coz our soilder and indian flag is there,so its Vijay divas for us whn we pushed back the invader.

 

[Moscow]

Moscosw i feel ur post not full of facts
1) Pakistan was aggressor in this war, they wanted to highlight Kashmir and want to repeat siachen in which they failed.
2) India never believed in superiority on the contrary our armed forces were in woeful state modernization was slow all our leaders thought that after testing nuke no one will make this kinda misadventure.
3)India used there air force that's why they lost jets on contrary their jets were resting in sheds so how can they say our air force was doomed whn there never took to skies.
4)Their P.M was going on the world tour to convince,mind u friend when ur wining u don't need to convince anybody.
5)They say withdrew coz USA told them so otherwise they were winner before the withdraw Pakistan have lost all the major peaks in kargil and drass sector u can check that from neutral source urself.
6)Pakistan first said they were freedom fighters so how many were killed there pakistan will never except as thy were from army so how can u believe nation who wont even accept his soldiers bodies whn they die in battlefield.
7)Media can never win u war as u said in end otherwise USA would have won vietnam and iraq longtime ago.
8)Last but not least pakistan invaded we push them back whichever way we won the war coz our soilder and indian flag is there,so its Vijay divas for us whn we pushed back the invader.

sir i already posted that you might agree with me or you might not now i dont agree to some of your ipoints i will say why so.

1-if pakistan was realy the aggressor then they would not have shyed away from using their air-force in the operations, now why didnt they its because it wantnt a full scale official war from the pakistani establishment.

2-you say sir that india never believed in their superiority yet you claim that after the nuclear tests the leaders thought no one would dare an adventure,isnt this contradictory< this is more like a satisfactory feeling> which i refered to as superiority thought.
your post explains my full point sir.

3--i have never posted on my previous post that indian jets were doomed, please do not equate others opinion with mine.
india lost the jets in patrolling mission before the actual operations started so i did not claim anything about IAF OR PAF in my previous post.

4--yes pakistani P.M. went on tour to gather international support and opinion in its favour and i already posted that they failed in this effort so there is no difference on this point.

5--sir again do not mix others opinion with mine i never claimed anything about winning peaks in my post, iam not at all interested in getting into this kind of claims.

6-- your sixth point is explained by my previous post when i wrote that pakistani establishment was woeful in its effort in managing the whole issue.

7--sir i think you underestimate the media,its a mass medium it can change the opinions of masses by the way it operates. i didnt claim that indian media won it the war i said in the war among the media between the two the indian part were more successful i their efforts inchanging world opinion.


8---yes you did push back the invaders but at what cost you did win on one front sir but in the other front you lost a lot of life, property, for someof your citizens this war changed thier lives for ever for the worst isnt it. didnt you lose on that front sir, could this not have being averted by better inteligence.


sir now i think i answered all your points one on one if you still have questions regarding my posts<only my posts> we can always discuss iam ready for it.
moreover sir i have repeatedly said i dont want to get into the who won and who didnt fight.

thanks

 

[Amanpuneet Singh]

sir i already posted that you might agree with me or you might not now i dont agree to some of your ipoints i will say why so.

1-if pakistan was realy the aggressor then they would not have shyed away from using their air-force in the operations, now why didnt they its because it wantnt a full scale official war from the pakistani establishment.

Mr mascow Pakistan was aggressor in this war because they crossed L.O.C
simply by crossing it they have become aggressor if they don't use their air power its their problem and their military was involved u cannot deny tht fact.

2-you say sir that india never believed in their superiority yet you claim that after the nuclear tests the leaders thought no one would dare an adventure,isnt this contradictory< this is more like a satisfactory feeling> which i refered to as superiority thought.
your post explains my full point sir.ting
Sir its not superiority complex we never boasted if we had boasted then u have been rite on the contrary our generals was demanding more funds for arms.


8---yes you did push back the invaders but at what cost you did win on one front sir but in the other front you lost a lot of life, property, for someof your citizens this war changed thier lives for ever for the worst isnt it. didnt you lose on that front sir, could this not have being averted by better inteligence.

Mascow sir as your countary have been in deadliest wars and suffered lot in eastern front u know better the only front in war, how much land u gain not how many people died r how many soldiers died if we look that way then so your beloved Russia never won this front,its called war coz people and solider die for their countary only front that matter is when it all ends where are your soilders you must be knowing this better after all the NAZI's were at Mascow door in 1942.and yes it was big intelligence failure but it canot be criteria of rating this front coz in end pakistani intelligence failed to when they could not pik the response of india whn it all started.