Peak 5353 still under Pakistan control

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No sir. I am quoting your Prime Minister of the time Kargil happened. Linked that news item as well. Indian count was closer to 600 or so. And most of Pakistani deaths were due to Mirage 2000 sorties and post their supply lines were cut and when in the interim, Pakistan all but abandoned them

Point being, whichever number you choose to believe, the casualties of the force attempting to capture well defended heights are going to be higher than the casualties of the force defending from the heights, so if the PA lost 4000 troops, imagine the losses on the Indian side.

The Mirage sorties were directed at the peaks - you are not going to find 4 thousand soldiers camped out on the peaks, or for that matter running a "daisy chain" of a supply line just waiting to be bombed by the opposition, especially when the PA still (as the subject of the thread shows) controlled peaks and territory from which to attack Indian Army positions.

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

Point being, whichever number you choose to believe, the casualties of the force attempting to capture well defended heights are going to be higher than the casualties of the force defending from the heights, so if the PA lost 4000 troops, imagine the losses on the Indian side.

That's a logical argument in an unsupported frontal attack. But as I said, since IAF was brought into action along with Long range artillery, most of the deaths on the Pakistani side were thru these stand off weapons where Pakistani soldiers on the heights had pretty much nothing to shoot back at while the munitions rained down on them.

Now if you remove the casualties suffered by Pakistan in that manner and compare Indian losses to Pakistani losses in face to face fights, then yes, those casualties would be many times over on the Indian side. But then India had the advantage of having stand off weapons being deployed, which Pakistan could not, first to keep the ruse of PA not being involved and then due to lack of BVR capabilities of PAF jets. There for the logic you have shared does not apply so plainly.

The Mirage sorties were directed at the peaks - you are not going to find 4 thousand soldiers camped out on the peaks, or for that matter running a "daisy chain" of a supply line just waiting to be bombed by the opposition, especially when the PA still (as the subject of the thread shows) controlled peaks and territory from which to attack Indian Army positions.

Its not just one peak friend and not 1 day. Pak Army here repeated the same mistake they made during Battle of Longewala. They had no air support. That and long range Arty made short work of the militant/PA combination holding on to the positions on the peaks

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That's a logical argument in an unsupported frontal attack. But as I said, since IAF was brought into action along with Long range artillery, most of the deaths on the Pakistani side were thru these stand off weapons where Pakistani soldiers on the heights had pretty much nothing to shoot back at while the munitions rained down on them.

Now if you remove the casualties suffered by Pakistan in that manner and compare Indian losses to Pakistani losses in face to face fights, then yes, those casualties would be many times over on the Indian side. But then India had the advantage of having stand off weapons being deployed, which Pakistan could not, first to keep the ruse of PA not being involved and then due to lack of BVR capabilities of PAF jets. There for the logic you have shared does not apply so plainly.

If it were that easy, in terms of using stand-off weapons to neutralize combatants holding the heights, then Pakistan would not still control peak 5353 despite repeated Indian attempts to take control of it. In fact, the Indian argument in favor of giving up on controlling peak 5353 is that it would require taking high casualties similar to those taken when gaining control of the other peaks (the ones not abandoned by Pakistan due to political cowardice in Islamabad). Granted, the Indian Army fought valiantly in Kargil, but even with the use of stand-off weapons it suffered massive casualties in taking control of the peaks, and even with those massive casualties the IA could only take control of several features when Pakistani soldiers abandoned them.

The fact is that the use of stand-off weapons (in terms of the ones that India could deploy in 1999) helped, but certainly did not allow for the kind of 'cake walk' you are referring to

Its not just one peak friend and not 1 day. Pak Army here repeated the same mistake they made during Battle of Longewala. They had no air support. That and long range Arty made short work of the militant/PA combination holding on to the positions on the peaks

There might not have been air-support, but artillery support was present on the Pakistani side as well.

Again, an objective analysis of the events will clearly show you that even with air support the Indian Army was unable to take control of several features until a cowardly political decision in Islamabad to abandon control, and even then was unable to take control of peak 5353. The events just don't support your contention that air-support significantly reduced Indian casualties. Again, air support certainly helped, and Indian soldiers fought valiantly in taking control of the few heights that they did, but they suffered massive casualties in these cases as well as in the cases where Pakistani troops still controlled the heights prior to abandoning them.

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

If it were that easy, in terms of using stand-off weapons to neutralize combatants holding the heights, then Pakistan would not still control peak 5353 despite repeated Indian attempts to take control of it. In fact, the Indian argument in favor of giving up on controlling peak 5353 is that it would require taking high casualties similar to those taken when gaining control of the other peaks (the ones not abandoned by Pakistan due to political cowardice in Islamabad). Granted, the Indian Army fought valiantly in Kargil, but even with the use of stand-off weapons it suffered massive casualties in taking control of the peaks, and even with those massive casualties the IA could only take control of several features when Pakistani soldiers abandoned them.
The fact is that the use of stand-off weapons (in terms of the ones that India could deploy in 1999) helped, but certainly did not allow for the kind of 'cake walk' you are referring to

There is no cake walk sir. Even implying one would amount to gravely insulting the soldiers on both sides. No denying that scaling the heights with enemy on the top, India took heavy casualties, but as I said before, air attacks, arty and routing during bugging out caused most of Pakistani casualties and that had nothing to do with who was on the top.

Again, an objective analysis of the events will clearly show you that even with air support the Indian Army was unable to take control of several features until a cowardly political decision in Islamabad to abandon control, and even then was unable to take control of peak 5353. The events just don't support your contention that air-support significantly reduced Indian casualties. Again, air support certainly helped, and Indian soldiers fought valiantly in taking control of the few heights that they did, but they suffered massive casualties in these cases as well as in the cases where Pakistani troops still controlled the heights prior to abandoning them.

Well, there are enough interviews and features that clearly call out that NS was sent to Washington by Musharraf because the Pakistani soldiers on Kargil peaks were cut off and were taking heavy casualties and the only way to save them and salvage some respect out of the misadventure was to get America to intervene and get America to pressurize India into granting safe passage to the retreating Pakistani men. Unfortunately (and I mean it) that did not happen and Pakistan lost hundreds of men during the unsafe and unsecured retreat from Kargil.

 

[Green Angel]

and the world knows you lost control of national highway and point 5353 and how badly you suffered the loss...


In Waziristan we are successfully fighting against your (Indian) trained terrorists and now see how good we are at defense Alhamdulillah that indicates that our army is the best

True n Alhamdulillah.

 

[ice_man]

Why should anyone ask him his stance now. He made it clear at that time and if wants to change it, it should be him ti announce it that he was lying at that time



No sir. I am quoting your Prime Minister of the time Kargil happened. Linked that news item as well. Indian count was closer to 600 or so. And most of Pakistani deaths were due to Mirage 2000 sorties and post their supply lines were cut and when in the interim, Pakistan all but abandoned them

please send a journalist to ask Nawaz now. When he gave that statement he was

1) in Saudi arabia and personally hated Musharraf

2) He claimed to have been kept in the dark about the whole Kargil operation in the first place.

So how come a man who claims to be in the dark about the whole event claim that he knew how many had died.

However, for your questions to be answered tell an indian journalist to come and ask him. otherwise go to BR and rant there.

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

please send a journalist to ask Nawaz now. When he gave that statement he was

1) in Saudi arabia and personally hated Musharraf

2) He claimed to have been kept in the dark about the whole Kargil operation in the first place.

So how come a man who claims to be in the dark about the whole event claim that he knew how many had died.

However, for your questions to be answered tell an indian journalist to come and ask him. otherwise go to BR and rant there.

Now you are just being dumb. He was the PM at the time Kargil started and was the PM when it ended. Musharraf actually had to pull him in to get American help to try and salvage the situation. So he might have not been in the know when Kargil started, but was certainly aware of the whole disaster when it ended. And was in the right position to comment on Pakistani losses.

 

[ice_man]

Now you are just being dumb. He was the PM at the time Kargil started and was the PM when it ended. Musharraf actually had to pull him in to get American help to try and salvage the situation. So he might have not been in the know when Kargil started, but was certainly aware of the whole disaster when it ended. And was in the right position to comment on Pakistani losses.

Send an Indian journalist and ask him the question.

ANY statement given while in exile is just a political statement and cannot be accepted. Specially when the man who exiled you is the one who lead the operation that (nawaz claimed he was kept in the dark about it all). We should be thankful Nawaz said 4,000 and not an entire army wiped out.

So please either send an indian jouranalist to ask him now or just stop ranting something that cannot be verified now.

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

Send an Indian journalist and ask him the question.

ANY statement given while in exile is just a political statement and cannot be accepted. Specially when the man who exiled you is the one who lead the operation that (nawaz claimed he was kept in the dark about it all). We should be thankful Nawaz said 4,000 and not an entire army wiped out.

So please either send an indian jouranalist to ask him now or just stop ranting something that cannot be verified now.

That's a load of BS and you know it. Your present PM is on record accepting that they lost 4000 men in Kargil. Its him who has the onus to change it if he wants. Your just choosing to call that as political is just stupid and does not change a thing

 

[ice_man]

That's a load of BS and you know it. Your present PM is on record accepting that they lost 4000 men in Kargil. Its him who has the onus to change it if he wants. Your just choosing to call that as political is just stupid and does not change a thing

well clearly you just wish to rant. any statement given under duress is not even accepted in court. so if nawaz was in exile and annoyed and irritated at Musharraf he would say anything to undermine musharraf.


rather than get a statement from our CURRENT prime minister to firstly confirm or deny his stance now. So if you wish to accept a statement without reconfirming it then please go ahead and do so. However, it won't be accepted until you send someone to reconfirm it while he is in power.

Nawaz doesn't have the onus to change it now until and unless specifically asked about it.


and finally as for "its BS and you know it" well i think his statement in exile was BS. statements given out of power are usually to grab headlines or more specifically to stay in the news.

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

well clearly you just wish to rant. any statement given under duress is not even accepted in court. so if nawaz was in exile and annoyed and irritated at Musharraf he would say anything to undermine musharraf.

Now that you bring up courts, you would realize that
1. Being outside Pakistan (where he was under threat) does not qualify as duress
2. You are not an expert to testify to his state of mind

rather than get a statement from our CURRENT prime minister to firstly confirm or deny his stance now. So if you wish to accept a statement without reconfirming it then please go ahead and do so. However, it won't be accepted until you send someone to reconfirm it while he is in power.

This is really funny. Did you ask Jinnah to clarify his stand every year on Pakistan once he made it clear ?

Nawaz doesn't have the onus to change it now until and unless specifically asked about it.

True.. and unless he changes it, his previous one applies

and finally as for "its BS and you know it" well i think his statement in exile was BS. statements given out of power are usually to grab headlines or more specifically to stay in the news.

Its you who will have to prove it wrong

 

[ice_man]

Now that you bring up courts, you would realize that
1. Being outside Pakistan (where he was under threat) does not qualify as duress
2. You are not an expert to testify to his state of mind



This is really funny. Did you ask Jinnah to clarify his stand every year on Pakistan once he made it clear ?




True.. and unless he changes it, his previous one applies



Its you who will have to prove it wrong

Sorry i don't know how to multi quote. but clearly just because i have some free time on a sunday to reply to your rant i will play along. your games.

1) deposed Prime Minister complaining against the man who deposed him from power and sent him in exile without his willingness to do so and then ruled a nation is considered durress.
2) you are also no expert to hold an ex DEPOSED Prime Minister (note the word deposed) statement in high regard until ofcourse it is given by someone in power. Uusually it is done for someone to stay in the news and not be forgotten.


now as for jinnah rant. If you wish to bring in Jinnah shall i bring Gandhi and Nehru and there difference of stances? clearly don't go into a total troll mode just yet please.

as for your last rants. Like i said and i will say it last time after which you can continue to rant and go around in circles.

UNLESS & UNTIL you ask nawaz to discuss Kargil while he is running a nation you cannot accept anything to be true it is merely a news headline grab. I don't know how things work in India but in Paksitan and the rest of the world only statements made by people currently in power are taken serious. Opposition or exiled leader statements are not taken as facts or bible but instead taken as a way to undermine the ruling party or person. these are mere political point scoring statements nothing else.

Now please if you wish to go troll or rant carry on. until and unless you come up with something new. send Bharka Dutt or Nanditi Roy please.

 

[chhota bheem]

Sorry i don't know how to multi quote. but clearly just because i have some free time on a sunday to reply to your rant i will play along. your games.

1) deposed Prime Minister complaining against the man who deposed him from power and sent him in exile without his willingness to do so and then ruled a nation is considered durress.
2) you are also no expert to hold an ex DEPOSED Prime Minister (note the word deposed) statement in high regard until ofcourse it is given by someone in power. Uusually it is done for someone to stay in the news and not be forgotten.


now as for jinnah rant. If you wish to bring in Jinnah shall i bring Gandhi and Nehru and there difference of stances? clearly don't go into a total troll mode just yet please.

as for your last rants. Like i said and i will say it last time after which you can continue to rant and go around in circles.

UNLESS & UNTIL you ask nawaz to discuss Kargil while he is running a nation you cannot accept anything to be true it is merely a news headline grab. I don't know how things work in India but in Paksitan and the rest of the world only statements made by people currently in power are taken serious. Opposition or exiled leader statements are not taken as facts or bible but instead taken as a way to undermine the ruling party or person. these are mere political point scoring statements nothing else.

Now please if you wish to go troll or rant carry on. until and unless you come up with something new. send Bharka Dutt or Nanditi Roy please.

Do you where this peak 5353 is in reference to the loc.

 

[ares]

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no cake walk sir. Even implying one would amount to gravely insulting the soldiers on both sides. No denying that scaling the heights with enemy on the top, India took heavy casualties, but as I said before, air attacks, arty and routing during bugging out caused most of Pakistani casualties and that had nothing to do with who was on the top.

Casualties on retreating troops after the Pakistani political and military decision to withdraw (which would be considered a pretty cowardly action on the part of the IA, since it was obvious at both the government and military level that Pakistani troops were withdrawing and therefore no longer engaging in combat), would not be higher than the numbers actually deployed on the peaks - in essence you are arguing that the peaks were occupied by thousands of troops, and almost every single one was killed, which is just not feasible and not true. Even the numbers provided by retired Indian Army generals (for Pakistani casualties) which you would expect to be on the high side, are in the 500 to 800 range. The list of Pakistani shuhada (martyrs) in the Kargil conflict published by ISPR also stands at under 500.

Well, there are enough interviews and features that clearly call out that NS was sent to Washington by Musharraf because the Pakistani soldiers on Kargil peaks were cut off and were taking heavy casualties and the only way to save them and salvage some respect out of the misadventure was to get America to intervene and get America to pressurize India into granting safe passage to the retreating Pakistani men. Unfortunately (and I mean it) that did not happen and Pakistan lost hundreds of men during the unsafe and unsecured retreat from Kargil.

I agree that Pakistan lost the majority of her men during the withdrawal, but again, Nawaz Sharif's estimate is on the distant fringe of most estimates, even those by former Indian generals.

Your present PM is on record accepting that they lost 4000 men in Kargil.

What exactly has Nawaz Sharif based his estimates on? When he made the claim, he must have explained how he arrived at that number - was he given a briefing by the Army? Are these estimates on his part or on the part of one of his advisers?