Kargil war:a picture to change perception.

[Xestan]

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.

Um, actually, PAF was kept in the dark and Air HQ found out about the Kargil operation from its own sources (Air Cmdr. (R) Tariq Ashraf was sent to Skardu by the PAF top brass to investigate) and as it turned out after the conflict was out in the open, PAF was left with very difficult choices, at one point it was even decided to let IAF get away with minor violations.

PAF even had to discontinue F-16s CAP missions because of lack of spares, which PAF didn't want to undertake anyway but was forced to after Army was putting all its operational failure on the Air Force.

That guy Lt. Gen. Mehmood Ahmed should have been hanged for sending our boys to their deaths at Kargil. He assured PAF leadership in the start that there was no way Indians will bring in the Artillery to kargil and secondly, he said our troops will be dug in deep on the hills and IAF would never be able to target them, as it turned out, IAF strikes hurt us the most.

So, the conclusion was, PAF can sit this one out, and then during the conflict, they came running to PAF to start CAPs.

 

[ebrahym]

Um, actually, PAF was kept in the dark and Air HQ found out about the Kargil operation from its own sources (Air Cmdr. (R) Tariq Ashraf was sent to Skardu by the PAF top brass to investigate) and as it turned out after the conflict was out in the open, PAF was left with very difficult choices, at one point it was even decided to let IAF get away with minor violations.

PAF even had to discontinue F-16s CAP missions because of lack of spares, which PAF didn't want to undertake anyway but was forced to after Army was putting all its operational failure on the Air Force.

That guy Lt. Gen. Mehmood Ahmed should have been hanged for sending our boys to their deaths at Kargil. He assured PAF leadership in the start that there was no way Indians will bring in the Artillery to kargil and secondly, he said our troops will be dug in deep on the hills and IAF would never be able to target them, as it turned out, IAF strikes hurt us the most.

So, the conclusion was, PAF can sit this one out, and then during the conflict, they came running to PAF to start CAPs.

All of what you have said is as true as sun.

but what i cannot digest is the effectiveness of IAF.
yes IAF did some damage to our troops.. but none of it was decisive or had any edge if at all. why?i am going to lay some points.
1-NLI troops successfully created an anti-air defense using 12.7mm dhsk and ANZA's as evident from shooting their 2 fixed wing and one rotatory wing aircraft.
2-This forced IAF to fly sorties above 8000 meters.

(note: in its memoirs IAF after receiving attrition from NLI and not being able to cross LOC wanted no part in the war and was forced into it by Indian Army as was with PAF)
3-at 8000 meters , its not CAS. its battlefield interdiction.
4-their effect was only psychological .
5-they introduced laser guided bombs only at Tiger hill battle and later battles involving tololing peak. and Pakistan has already decided to recall its troops by then.

 

[VCheng]

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.

So no goals of the Kargil war nor or a way to judge its success, but a nice "my rhetoric is bigger than yours" kinda competition over an "inconclusive" chapter? Okay, then.

(Please keep in mind that the great damage to Pakistan's perception continues to this day due to the Kargil misadventure, no matter who is declared the "winner".)

 

[Xestan]

All of what you have said is as true as sun.

but what i cannot digest is the effectiveness of IAF.
yes IAF did some damage to our troops.. but none of it was decisive or had any edge if at all. why?i am going to lay some points.
1-NLI troops successfully created an anti-air defense using 12.7mm dhsk and ANZA's as evident from shooting their 2 fixed wing and one rotatory wing aircraft.
2-This forced IAF to fly sorties above 8000 meters.

(note: in its memoirs IAF after receiving attrition from NLI and not being able to cross LOC wanted no part in the war and was forced into it by Indian Army as was with PAF)
3-at 8000 meters , its not CAS. its battlefield interdiction.
4-their effect was only psychological .
5-they introduced laser guided bombs only at Tiger hill battle and later battles involving tololing peak. and Pakistan has already decided to recall its troops by then.

Okay, let me get to it point by point.

1. IAF stopped most of its air operations after shooting down of its aircraft. But resumed in a few days. By mid June, they had come back with modifications to their Mirage-2000s. The laser guided bombing kits didn't prove to be very accurate until late June when direct hits were scored on our forwards posts in Kargil.

2. Jaguars flew hundreds of reconnaissance missions and they didn't just improved accuracy of Mirage-2000s' bombing but also located Pakistan's forward artillery positions. All in all, earlier bombings were basically harassment of the troops and it did work out for them, while Indian Army took time to mobilise properly, IAF made sure our troops on hill tops didn't have a second to breathe.

3. Continuous bombing disrupted our supply and communication.

4. Psychological effect also had a great impact. Kargil vets will tell you what kind of morale was by the end of the conflict.

5. That's a polite way of saying it, we actually abandoned our troops.

 

[ebrahym]

So no goals of the Kargil war nor or a way to judge its success, but a nice "my rhetoric is bigger than yours" kinda competition over an "inconclusive" chapter? Okay, then.

(Please keep in mind that the great damage to Pakistan's perception continues to this day due to the Kargil misadventure, no matter who is declared the "winner".)

rhetoric- dear sir with time becomes the truth....

 

[VCheng]

rhetoric- dear sir with time becomes the truth....

I do admire your determination and desire to change the perception already established by the record. Good luck!

 

[ebrahym]

Okay, let me get to it point by point.

1. IAF stopped most of its air operations after shooting down of its aircraft. But resumed in a few days. By mid June, they had come back with modifications to their Mirage-2000s. The laser guided bombing kits didn't prove to be very accurate until late June when direct hits were scored on our forwards posts in Kargil.

2. Jaguars flew hundreds of reconnaissance missions and they didn't just improved accuracy of Mirage-2000s' bombing but also located Pakistan's forward artillery positions. All in all, earlier bombings were basically harassment of the troops and it did work out for them, while Indian Army took time to mobilise properly, IAF made sure our troops on hill tops didn't have a second to breathe.

3. Continuous bombing disrupted our supply and communication.

4. Psychological effect also had a great impact. Kargil vets will tell you what kind of morale was by the end of the conflict.

5. That's a polite way of saying it, we actually abandoned our troops.

yes, exactly if we would have kept the supply going or in your words would not have "abandoned" our troops.
and that is the real reason for our retreat, not IAF.

I do admire your determination and desire to change the perception already established by the record. Good luck!

truth is but the perception of reality.

 

[Xestan]

yes, exactly if we would have kept the supply going or in your words would not have "abandoned" our troops.
and that is the real reason for our retreat, not IAF.

Refer to point 3 in my last post. Indians effectively bombed your supply lines and communication. Abandonment was when you disowned your troops in front of the whole world and refused bodies.

 

[ebrahym]

Refer to point 3 in my last post. Indians effectively bombed your supply lines and communication. Abandonment was when you disowned your troops in front of the whole world and refused bodies.

supply lines can be dug out again. PA has experience in that. also pumas could have slinged it if they wanted to.
abandonment was when refused to send reinforcements as NLI had already lost nearly half of its strength before Indians launched their offenses to weather, keeping in mind that winter had just started. and these losses were never patched as no reinforcements were received. long exposure to harsh terrain also significantly effected the health of our soldiers despite being locals. these things are well discussed in the thesis of US naval war college postgraduate Marcus P. acosta's thesis on Kargil war which i have quoted above in this thread. please find it. you would find it very helpful.

 

[Xestan]

supply lines can be dug out again. PA has experience in that. also pumas could have slinged it if they wanted to.
abandonment was when refused to send reinforcements as NLI had already lost nearly half of its strength before Indians launched their offenses to weather, keeping in mind that winter had just started. and these losses were never patched as no reinforcements were received. long exposure to harsh terrain also significantly effected the health of our soldiers despite being locals. these things are well discussed in the thesis of US naval war college postgraduate Marcus P. acosta's thesis on Kargil war which i have quoted above in this thread. please find it. you would find it very helpful.

I was recommended Nasim Zehra's book by a Kargil veteran, and it's the best writing on this conflict I have read.

 

[ebrahym]

I was recommended Nasim Zehra's book by a Kargil veteran, and it's the best writing on this conflict I have read.

well, one cannot put their faith on one source only.one must read all available sources and come to their own "intuitive and comprehensive" conclusion.
it is a well written book but in my opinion it talks and stressed much more about what happened outside the Battlefield then what happen in it. nothing in this book can be said "in depth".
but i dont think she is actually a veteran, i dont think she ever joined the military.

 

[loanranger]

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.

So what were the people sitting in air conditioned rooms thinking when they planned this op. Did they not ask for a feasibility report from PAF. I agree its not PAFs fault . Its the armies fault. There were too many assumptions made by them. India will not do this and wont do that etc etc.