What's new

Peak 5353 still under Pakistan control

. .
What's with the rancor?
I have to side with @Armstrong and @Xeric on this - I have no idea what exactly you are trying to get at by posting the maps and asking people to spot X, Y, Z feature.

What is the goal here?

In this day and age of surveillance drones and real time satellite imagery, you sacrificed 4000 of your army men to win a surveillance point :woot: ?
You are mixing up the Indian casualty count with the Pakistani one.

I understand nationalism, but even sane "nationalists" who are somewhat familiar with military tactics, who recognize that the Indian and Pakistani military were essentially 'balanced' in terms of the training and deploy-able assets available during Kargil, will admit that it is the offensive force (attempting to push out a well entrenched defensive force on heights) that will take larger casualties.
 
Last edited:
.
I have to side with @Armstrong and @Xeric on this - I have no idea what exactly you are trying to get at by posting the maps and asking people to spot X, Y, Z feature.

What is the goal here?

Oh man, that was specially for Armstrong, since this very irritating issue was hashed out between us long back, Point 5353 as you all know it straddles the CFL/LOC (which is but a line drawn on paper, and a "thin" one at that). The foot of the peak descends into what one would see as Indian territory as per the LOC and the peak within Pakistani territory, of course this is not entirely accurate, since its more akin to no man's land, its not as if an actual "line" exists there which can be referenced to and is accurate to the meter.

In 95 we drew back from Point 5353 allegedly sighting inability to keep troops deployed there for any reasonable amount of time. As Kargil winded up in the year 2000 clashes continued with both sides exchanging fire, some incidents occurred well into the next year. We even attempted to retake the Point since it was now occupied by the PA and were unable to do so without resorting to deploying air power or the costly frontal assaults utilized in Tololing and Tiger Hill.

The point of the map, for those who can spot the point is to show them where it actually is, and what its relevance is in comparison to say Tololing, in the case of the latter the NH is right at the foot of the hill and can in its vast entirety be viewed clearly till a real bend comes along on the road.

The hoopla with 5353 is that its the highest peak in the immediate region, and not by much, it most definitely is not something which can be used to spin "we won in Kargil".
 
.
Oh man, that was specially for Armstrong, since this very irritating issue was hashed out between us long back, Point 5353 as you all know it straddles the CFL/LOC (which is but a line drawn on paper, and a "thin" one at that). The foot of the peak descends into what one would see as Indian territory as per the LOC and the peak within Pakistani territory, of course this is not entirely accurate, since its more akin to no man's land, its not as if an actual "line" exists there which can be referenced to and is accurate to the meter.

In 95 we drew back from Point 5353 allegedly sighting inability to keep troops deployed there for any reasonable amount of time. As Kargil winded up in the year 2000 clashes continued with both sides exchanging fire, some incidents occurred well into the next year. We even attempted to retake the Point since it was now occupied by the PA and were unable to do so without resorting to deploying air power or the costly frontal assaults utilized in Tololing and Tiger Hill.

The point of the map, for those who can spot the point is to show them where it actually is, and what its relevance is in comparison to say Tololing, in the case of the latter the NH is right at the foot of the hill and can in its vast entirety be viewed clearly till a real bend comes along on the road.

The hoopla with 5353 is that its the highest peak in the immediate region, and not by much, it most definitely is not something which can be used to spin "we won in Kargil".
That's how the CFL/LoC is. A spur is with you, and the peak very well be with us. But that doesnt negate the fact that the point under discussion is still held by us.
 
.
That's how the CFL/LoC is. A spur is with you, and the peak very well be with us. But that doesnt negate the fact that the point under discussion is still held by us.

Of course it doesn't, did I dispute that Xeric, at all?

But do you think the rest of the posters here appreciate the nature of the CFL, of the geography of the area?

Tell me, if you were on that point, how much of the NH could you see once it passes under the "shadow" of Tololing?

The point is, that it is used to put forward the notion that the objectives of the Kargil war were met by the PA by dint of holding said point and the war was won since the point is held by PA. Furthermore that it constitutes some loss of territory for us. You and I, perhaps, can understand the difference between sitting on a peak straddling the CFL and sitting on Tiger Hill in terms of which is more important if forward observation and recon of the NH were the task at hand.
 
.
Of course it doesn't, did I dispute that Xeric, at all?

But do you think the rest of the posters here appreciate the nature of the CFL, of the geography of the area?
Yes they do.

There's nothing 'unique' about it.

Tell me, if you were on that point, how much of the NH could you see once it passes under the "shadow" of Tololing?
The question is NOT how much can i see. The question should be, can i throw artillery at it? With UAVs and ISR, these days it shan't be an issue.

The point is, that it is used to put forward the notion that the objectives of the Kargil war were met by the PA by dint of holding said point and the war was won since the point is held by PA. Furthermore that it constitutes some loss of territory for us. You and I, perhaps, can understand the difference between sitting on a peak straddling the CFL and sitting on Tiger Hill in terms of which is more important if forward observation and recon of the NH were the task at hand.
These days wars are not won or lost. You know that. It's the long term objectives that can be met that matters.
 
.
Yes they do.

There's nothing 'unique' about it.

The question is how much can i see. The question should be, can i throw artilery at it? With UAVs and ISR, these days it shant an issue.


These days wars are not won or lost. You know that. It's the long term objectives that can be met that matters.

I agree with everything but the first, I have rarely ever met a poster from either side of the fence or even other countries who understands the tyranny of topography.

Otherwise a CH-3 out of CASC on your side could probably provide the FOV and observation range required for the job.
 
.
What's with the mystery, you're like Penguin, he refuses to shed any light on his background.

Still, do help Buttsy out, soon enough he will try to emotionally blackmail you if you don't, he even tries to butter me up when he wants something even though the rest of the time he graphically describes how he will have me stoned for my sins.

If you had read Saf Shikan thread, you wouldn't be asking Xeric if he is a serving officer of PA or not.
 
.
I agree with everything but the first, I have rarely ever met a poster from either side of the fence or even other countries who understands the tyranny of topography.

Otherwise a CH-3 out of CASC on your side could probably provide the FOV and observation range required for the job.
If that had been the case, we both could just leave the LAC/LoC alone, sit back and sip on pinacoladas while the UAVs did their job :)
 
Last edited:
.
If you had read Saf Shikan thread, you wouldn't be asking Xeric if he is a serving officer of PA or not.

Let us see.

If that had been the case, we both could just leave the LAC/LoC alone, sit back and sip on pinacoladas while the UAVs do their job :)

Ground domination. Besides an UAV can't take the hill.
 
. . . .
please check post 67 were you quoted in it? however, you chose to reply to it. so clearly you jumped in without anything.

as for Nawaz he doesn't need to until questioned about it. did anyone question him on it? please sk indian journalists to come and ask him his stance now.
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

You are mixing up the Indian casualty count with the Pakistani one.

I understand nationalism, but even sane "nationalists" who are somewhat familiar with military tactics, who recognize that the Indian and Pakistani military were essentially 'balanced' in terms of the training and deploy-able assets available during Kargil, will admit that it is the offensive force (attempting to push out a well entrenched defensive force on heights) that will take larger casualties.

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
 
.
Back
Top Bottom