Kargil war:a picture to change perception.

[ebrahym]

It was IAF which pushed PA back not IA.

no IAF was practically useless
most importantly international pressure pushed PA back when India presented the tapped audio of gen musharraf with chief of army staff. confirming Pakistan's involvement
that was the turning point of the war

Indian has captured far more valuable Point 5310 which is located on the Pakistani side of LoC.

Plus Point 5353 is surronded by 3 Indian mountains.

Which is why if you check latest Planetlabs sat images of the peak you will see that while there are Indian or Pakistani posts in all the peaks in the area but Point 5353 is empty without any post.

incorrect.
point 5310 was taken in 2000 in april. not during Kargil war and was captured without any resistance because it was left unmanned.
as i have stated above point 5353 is empty because Pakistan no longer needs exposed obervers to direct artillery fire as that is now done by drones and hence capturing higher territory is pointless.
also if you could find in google a thesis of US army on mountain warfare, you would realize that occupying higher ground in mountain warfare is not that tactically advantageous
case studies: Afghan war, Kargil war, war in north west Pakistan.

 

[Sine Nomine]

no IAF was practically useless
most importantly international pressure pushed PA back when India presented the tapped audio of gen musharraf with chief of army staff. confirming Pakistan's involvement
that was the turning point of the war

@Oscar Sir,your time is needed Gentleman says that IAF played no role in taking back kargil,while i hold view that Usreli laser guided PGM's played a decisive role in dislodging our troops from heights.
Your expert opinion is needed.

 

[ebrahym]

@Oscar Sir,your time is needed Gentleman says that IAF played no role in taking back kargil,while i hold view that Usreli laser guided PGM's played a decisive role in dislodging our troops from heights.
Your expert opinion is needed.

Kindly read Michael p. acosta's thesis on mountain warfare with the case studis of Kargil war and 2002 american war in Afghanistan
it is here somwhere on this forum and sheds a light on IAF and its role in Kargil war @Oscar i'll try to find and quote it .

@Oscar Sir,your time is needed Gentleman says that IAF played no role in taking back kargil,while i hold view that Usreli laser guided PGM's played a decisive role in dislodging our troops from heights.
Your expert opinion is needed.

http://docplayer.net/43312847-Naval...-conflict-and-the-future-marcus-p-acosta.html
@Oscar here is a link , it is not very intuitive but does the job.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Kindly read Michael p. acosta's thesis on mountain warfare with the case studis of Kargil war and 2002 american war in Afghanistan
it is here somwhere on this forum and sheds a light on IAF and its role in Kargil war @Oscar i'll try to find and quote it .

From what i learned on ground,those sitting on heights have advantage,they can pick who are trying to climb+observe whole area.

 

[bananarepublic]

its called facts which have been twisted to infer Pakistan "lost" kargil war(which in its entirety was little more than skirmish)
also while Pakistan gave up or lost strategic mountains like toloing and jubar hills and tiger hill........ Pakistan retained some 5 to six mountain points not very deep into Indian controlled point but still strategic points on LOC or in case off point 5353 "inside indian territory"
in Wikipedia and other forums Kargil war is considered as "Indian victory" and territorial changes as "status quo ante bellum" (in common tongue-no change in territory)
both are false: Kargil war was atleast a "tactical victory" i.e lower number of troops and subsequent casualities than Indians if not strategic victory(as Pakistan gained control of keypoints on or beyond LOC.

while the victory cannot be given to any side in terms of "skirmish" (limited non aggressive military maneuver)
it has been usually said Inida "won" kargil war
all this stupidity says is that the facts prove otherwise.

We mau have “won” the kargil war
But at the cost of disowning our soilders who fought there and calling them militants

 

[ebrahym]

From what i learned on ground,those sitting on heights have advantage,they can pick who are trying to climb+observe whole area.

yes they can
high altitude is a great asset in surveillance
but when things turn hot
the soldiers in high mountains are sitting ducks and priority targets ......
thus in a modern battlefield surveillance drones take precedence as they can see further and are immune to counter attack in high mountains as general anti drone SAMs are not present in the area and only air defence is !@.7 dhsk and MANPADS

We mau have “won” the kargil war
But at the cost of disowning our soilders who fought there and calling them militants

that was the biggest blunder
as it prohibited us from resupplying them
( a feat necessary for military)

 

[Sine Nomine]

yes they can
high altitude is a great asset in surveillance
but when things turn hot
the soldiers in high mountains are sitting ducks and priority targets ......
thus in a modern battlefield surveillance drones take precedence as they can see further and are immune to counter attack in high mountains as general anti drone SAMs are not present in the area and only air defence is !@.7 dhsk and MANPADS

Theory is different from practical,you can't pick every small man team,which is mobile and is raining bullets on you.
By deploying SAM missiles,such positions can be covered from hostile aerial threats.

 

[ebrahym]

Theory is different from practical,you can't pick every small man team,which is mobile and is raining bullets on you.
By deploying SAM missiles,such positions can be covered from hostile aerial threats.

yes but deploying SAMs at that height is not very easy and still has not actually been done by either side.
Small man teams are the actual assets in mountain warfare in fact the thesis of Marcus p. acosta validates that and Kargil war is also decisive in that factor......
again acquiring higher altitude is an asset.(there is no argument about it)
but in no way is "decisive" in mountain warfare.

 

[batmannow]

Pakistan retains some of territory it intruded into .... i.e "took territory" (albeit not very strategically important) so the war was not "status quo ant bellum"
also keep in mind the total number of Indian troops was larger than 30,000 that were involved in war and had complete aerial and political support while Pakistan forces numbered as per Indian Claims "1700 intruder"(which is also the non-official estimates of independent sources) these troops were no receiving political , logistic and aerial support.
and India was able to take back most of its territory only after Nawaz sharrif in US announced to recall its troops.

Pak troops were near 5ks bt thts not included the ones who been on supply duties

 

[ebrahym]

Pak troops were near 5ks bt thts not included the ones who been on supply duties

that is incorrect
first of all Pakistan's total strength as per all independent sources was not more than 2k.
as for troops fro supply?
that was the biggest reason for our retreat as
first of all it was winter, second we have already declared them to be militants and hence could not supply them-at least not very effectively-and hird was the leaked recording of gen musharraf with chief of general staff which forced Pakistan to recall its troops.
you must be getting 5k figure from wikipedia..... i must remind you that all the citations in Wikipedia are from Indian resources.... heck wikipedia even says 1965 was Indian victory despite the fact that it was well established Pakistani strategic victory and in fact Indian rhetoric of 1965 victory started recently and up untill Modi they used to admit this fact but now since modi is in quest to rewrite history,(they celebrated 1965 victory officially only after modi came to power)

 

[SQ8]

Kindly read Michael p. acosta's thesis on mountain warfare with the case studis of Kargil war and 2002 american war in Afghanistan
it is here somwhere on this forum and sheds a light on IAF and its role in Kargil war @Oscar i'll try to find and quote it .


http://docplayer.net/43312847-Naval...-conflict-and-the-future-marcus-p-acosta.html
@Oscar here is a link , it is not very intuitive but does the job.

Not sure how you are interpreting it but the link attributes the defeat more so down to poor leadership more than anything else. The senior officers that approved the operation sent the men to their deaths for personal glory without proper planning for environment and logistics.

In any other country they would be court martial and hanged but in Pakistan they got their plots and retired happily.

 

[Nasr]

Musharraf never listened to Nawaz anyway. So why did we withdraw when Nawaz announced. The kargil fiasco was heartbreaking and tragic. Why did we disown our own boys. Please Pak Army never do this again. Fight with full heart. Many will be surprised to know PAF did not even take part in kargil. While IAF bombed our boys unchallenged. As the current DG ISPR once said had we had the media of today we may not have committed the wrongs of the Past. Hinting to Pak Armys generals wrong doings in east Pakistan. Never again. Learn from history.

In 1999, Pakistan Air Force could not have intervened, since Pakistan Air Force did not have BVR missiles. On the other hand, Indian Air Force has had BVR missiles (Soviet & Frenc made) in their arsenal. Pakistan Air Force was ready to engage even in such conditions, as they trained to fight at this tactical disadvantage. However the military leadership held-off Pakistan Air Force from engaging the enemy on account of any attrition accrued.

 

[ebrahym]

Not sure how you are interpreting it but the link attributes the defeat more so down to poor leadership more than anything else. The senior officers that approved the operation sent the men to their deaths for personal glory without proper planning for environment and logistics.

In any other country they would be court martial and hanged but in Pakistan they got their plots and retired happily.

that is exactly the final assessment of the battle of Kargil by everyone.
Pakistan went to war without any set goal in mind.
however if you would read the Original post, it is only directed towards the rhetoric that we "lost" the Kargil war, this seems to be prevalent even among a lot of Pakistanis(along with 1965 war)
probable reason might be the fact that most people consider Wikipedia as reliable source.

in short, no matter how you look at it
ground facts does not support that Pakistan lost Kargil war.
in fact its quite the opposite. perception is everything. rhetoric-with time becomes truth.
hence its essential to set the record straight.

In 1999, Pakistan Air Force could not have intervened, since Pakistan Air Force did not have BVR missiles. On the other hand, Indian Air Force has had BVR missiles (Soviet & Frenc made) in their arsenal. Pakistan Air Force was ready to engage even in such conditions, as they trained to fight at this tactical disadvantage. However the military leadership held-off Pakistan Air Force from engaging the enemy on account of any attrition accrued.

sir with all due respect. not entirely correct. PAF was out of the war as we did not want to escalate further(and the fact that they were not even aware of it)
second Pakistan could have engaged IAF regardless of BVR or not as most BVR shots have been taken little over 50km and aim-9s(35km range) in PAF service with F-16s could have taken on them.
our boys were inside Indian territory and thus bombing that territory would have caused escalation or downing anything in their territory would also have sparked tensions.

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan went to war without any set goal in mind.

If there were no set goals for the operation, then how can one judge whether it was successful or not?

 

[ebrahym]

If there were no set goals for the operation, then how can one judge whether it was successful or not?

one can not.
even in execution Kargil war was a mere skirmish which can not be attributed to any one.
but there is a large rhetoric that pakistan "Lost" and India "won" this waror all 4 wars, neither of which is true
in military doctrine 1971 was the only time Pakistan lost a war or India won the war.

but the rhetoric is there and it must be countered. and while kargil "skirmish" was inconclusive(as the nature of skirmishes are) if one really has to attribute victory- Pakistan has much better claims than Indians.