PN's First Since World War-2

[democracyspeaks]

Ghazi was not sunk by depth charges thats for sure, it must have been some internal explosion. Go to official Indian Navy and read abt Ghazi.

also in the same website mentioned above i came acroos some interesting stuff.
CHAPTER-9

The WSAG Minutes of 8 December state:

"Mr Helms (CIA) opened the meeting by briefing the current situation. In the East, the Indians have broken the line at Comilla. Only major river crossings prevent them from investing Dacca. The Indians are advancing rapidly throughout East Pakistan. All major Pak L.O.C.'s in the East are now vulnerable. In the West, the Paks are now claiming Poonch, inside the Indian border. However, the Paks are admitting fairly heavy casualties in the fighting. Tank battles are apparently taking place in the Sind/Rajasthan area. Mrs Gandhi has indicated that before heeding a UN call for cease-fire, she intends to straighten out the southern border of Azad Kashmir. It is reported that, prior to terminating present hostilities, Mrs Gandhi intends to attempt to eliminate Pakistan's armor and air force capabilities.

"Mr Sisco inquired how long the Paks might be expected to hold out in East Pakistan, to which Mr Helms replied 48 to 72 hours. The time to reach the ultimate climax is probably a function of the difficulties encountered in river crossings.

"Assessing the situation in the West, General Ryan indicated that he did not see the Indians pushing too hard at this time, rather they seem content with a holding action.

"Dr Kissinger asked how long it would take to shift Indian forces from East to West. General Ryan said it might take a reasonably long time to move all the forces, but that the airborne brigade could be moved quickly, probably within a matter of five or six days.

"Dr Kissinger suggested that the key issue if the Indians turn on West Pakistan is Azad Kashmir. If the Indians smash the Pak air force and the armored forces, we would have a deliberate Indian attempt to force the disintegration of Pakistan. The elimination of the Pak armored and air forces would make the Paks defenseless. It would turn West Pakistan into a client state. The possibility elicits a number of questions. Can we allow a US ally to go down completely while we participate in a blockade? Can we allow the Indians to scare us off, believing that if US supplies are needed they will not be provided?

"Mr Sisco stated that if the situation were to evolve as Dr Kissinger had indicated then, of course, there was a serious risk to the viability of West Pakistan.Mr Sisco doubted, however, that the Indians had this as their objective. He indicated that Foreign Minister Singh told Ambassador Keating that India had no intention of taking any Pak territory. Mr Sisco said it must also be kept in mind that Kashmir is really disputed territory.

"Mr Helms then stated that earlier he had omitted mentioning that Madame Gandhi, when referring to China, expressed the hope that there would be no Chinese intervention in the West. She said that the Soviets had cautioned her that the Chinese might rattle the sword in Ladakh but that the Soviets have promised to take appropriate counter-action if this should occur. Mr Helms indicated that there was no Chinese build-up at this time but, nevertheless, even without a build-up they could `make motions and rattle the sword'.

"Dr Kissinger stated that what we may be witnessing is a situation wherein a country equipped and supported by the Soviets may be turning half of Pakistan into an impotent state and the other half into a vassal. We must consider what other countries may be thinking of our action.

"Mr Helms asked about our CENTO relationships with Pakistan. Ambassador Johnson stated we had no legal obligations towards Pakistan in the CENTO context. Dr Kissinger agreed but added that neither did we have legal obligations toward India in 1962 when we formulated the air defense agreement. We must consider what would be the impact of the current situation in the larger complex of world affairs.

"After discussing various possible commitments to both Pakistan and India, Mr Packard stated that the overriding consideration is the practical problem of either doing something effective or doing nothing. If you don't win, don't get involved. If we were to attempt something it would have to be with a certainty that it would affect the outcome. Let's not get in if we know we are going to lose. Find some way to stay out.

"Turning to the question of the blockade, Ambassador Johnson said that both India and Pakistan have taken blockade action, even though the Pak blockade is essentially a paper blockade. Dr Kissinger said that we should also protest to the Paks. Ambassador Johnson indicated we do not have a legal case to protest the blockade. The belligerent nations have a right to blockade when a state of war exists. We may think it unwise and we may question how it is carried out. We have, in fact, normally expressed our concern. On the other hand we have no problem in protesting the incident of the SS Buckeye State which had been strafed in a Pakistani port.

"Dr Kissinger said that we are not trying to be even-handed. There can be no doubt what the President wants. The President does not want to be even-handed. The President believes that India is the attacker. We are trying to get across the idea that India has jeopardized relations with the United States. Dr Kissinger said that we cannot afford to ease India's state of mind. `The Lady' is cold-blooded and tough and will not turn into a Soviet satellite merely because of pique. We should not ease her mind. He invited anyone who objected to this approach to take his case to the President".

 

[Windjammer]

http://orbat.com/site/cimh/iaf/IAF_1971_kills.pdf

Here is a reality check, apart from all the other wild claims and clumsy discrepancies, It has been proved that PAF started operations with seven F-104s and still had four at the end of hostilities, similarly all Mirage aircraft in PAF inventory were paraded before the media and confirmed by the OFEMA in....... New Delhi.
As for the rude awakening, this is the official PAF record and not some worthless blog.

 

[Windjammer]

I have two question for you.....

1) How do Pakistan comes to know 'what exactly the reason behind PNS Ghazi's sinking'?

Obviously the authorities who detailed and briefed the Sub for it's mission are in more knowledge and have more info than any weekend warriors on this forum. Even India only made half hearted conflicting claims.

2) PNS Ghazi had a test depth of 120m that means the operational depth might be far less. Like Russian Akula has test depth of 600 m but operational depth of 480 m. Than how it is possible to go 'hundreds meters below dark ocean'?

Hundred of Meters or Feet, the main fact is it was operating in the sea depths in hostile waters under war conditions.

 

[Kinetic]

Obviously the authorities who detailed and briefed the Sub for it's mission are in more knowledge and have more info than any weekend warriors on this forum. Even India only made half hearted conflicting claims.

The authorities must detailed and briefed it for mission but there was no communication system available then to know how the submarine sank. There is no way Pakistani authority can know how exactly Ghazi sank near Vishakhapatnam coast.

As the Indian navy sank it and sank near Indian coast, their claims are more reliable than PN's.

If you know tell us that 'this way PN knows how Ghazi sank'.

Hundred of Meters or Feet, the main fact is it was operating in the sea depths in hostile waters under war conditions.

1 meter = 3.2808399 feet

How it is meter or feet?

 

[Areesh]

As the Indian navy sank it and sank near Indian coast, their claims are more reliable than PN's.

If you know tell us that 'this way PN knows how Ghazi sank'.

Lollzzz you are a genius. Can't you read the different articles given by both Pakistani and Indian members. Ignorance is on it's height guys. He is an Indian which defines it all.

Commodore KS Subra Manian recalls:

"In the course of the diving operation, I interrogated the divers to find out how exactly the damage had happened to the submarine. From what I gathered, it looked to me that there had been an internal explosion. The hull had blown outwards. That could only be attributed to an internal explosion of a mine which was still in the tubes. Again a hydrogen explosion inside could also be the cause. At that time, I put down the cause of the GHAZI's sinking as a case of internal explosion due to her own mines blowing up or due to hydrogen. Looking back now after the lapse of so many years, it seems to me that the cause of her blowing up was most probably a hydrogen explosion. I base this conclusion on the fact that the hull had blown outwards near the mid section of the submarine and not right forward near the torpedo tubes. Had a mine exploded in the tube or in the forward compartment while being handled, the damage would have been for'd.

Ghazi sank due to an accident

 

[Kinetic]

Lollzzz you are a genius. Can't you read the different articles given by both Pakistani and Indian members. Ignorance is on it's height guys. He is an Indian which defines it all.



Ghazi sank due to an accident

You seems to agree with part of the Indians claim where it needed. lol My point was there is also a Pakistani point of view as well but I wanted to know how is it possible for Pakistan navy to know how Ghazi sank. I am not going into details of depth charge, torpedo or accident.

Lt Cdr (SDG) Inder Singh was the Commanding Officer of INS RAJPUT in 1971. He recalls:

"When the ship was half way in the channel, it suddenly occurred to me that "what if the Pakistan submarine which I was looking for the last two days, was waiting outside harbour and it torpedoes RAJPUT while disembarking pilot at the Outer Channel Buoy." I immediately ordered to stop engines, and disembarked the pilot. I slowly increased speed and was doing the maximum speed I could manage by the time I reached Outer Channel Buoy.

"Shortly after clearing Outer Channel Buoy at about midnight of 3/4 December, when the Prime Minister was addressing the nation, the starboard lookout reported disturbance of water, fine on the starboard bow. As the ship was already doing maximum speed and nearing the disturbed water patch and since the ship was already closed up at action stations, appropriate depth was set on the depth charges and two depth charges were dropped at the reported position. The ship got a heavy jolt after the deafening blasts. Then the ship turned and the area was searched for any sign of a contact. Satisfied that there was no sign of any contact or anything on the surface, the ship resumed course.

"There were a few reasons which prompted me to carry out an immediate attack. First, as stated earlier, I had an intuition while leaving harbour when the ship was in mid channel. Secondly knowledge of a Pakistan submarine in the area, for which RAJPUT had been operating for the last two days to mislead her. Thirdly plain speaking by the FOCINC to me when he had called me to his office on 1st December and told me that RAJPUT mistaken as VIKRANT, would be torpedoed by the Pakistani submarine on outbreak of hostilities. And lastly the disturbed water patch made me to think that the submarine had just dived".

Cdr (E) (later Rear Admiral) GC Thadani was the Staff Officer Engineering in Headquarters Eastern Naval Command in 1971. He recalls:

"I was with the C-in-C in the MOR on the 3rd evening when CO RAJPUT was being briefed by him. As CO RAJPUT was leaving the MOR, he mentioned to me that his ship did not have wooden shores for damage control. I instantly went with him to the Shipwright Shop, gave him some shores and accompanied him to the jetty where RAJPUT was fuelling. I personally saw RAJPUT cast off. Thereafter, I went home which was on a hill which overlooked the sea. The distance from the jetty to my home was a 15 minute drive. After I reached home, whilst I was listening to All India Radio, an announcement was made that the Prime Minister's speech had been delayed. It was during this delay period that I heard a massive explosion and the windows of my house rattled.

"The next morning at 8 o' clock I went to the Jetty. The Commander in Chief and the Chief of Staff were talking about the GHAZI. The C-in-C went on board a boat and I went with him. We went to the site of the explosion where, I remember, Lt Sajjan Kumar was diving. He came up and told the C-in-C that he had put his hand on the ships side and felt the letters of GHAZI".

 

[Areesh]

You seems to agree with part of the Indians claim where it needed. lol My point was there is also a Pakistani point of view as well but I wanted to know how is it possible for Pakistan navy to know how Ghazi sank. I am not going into details of depth charge, torpedo or accident.

Your point is that you want to unnecessarily glorify IN and want to live under an illusion. Get mature kid. Living under an illusion and then defending it is not a wise thing to do.

Lt Cdr (SDG) Inder Singh was the Commanding Officer of INS RAJPUT in 1971. He recalls:

"When the ship was half way in the channel, it suddenly occurred to me that "what if the Pakistan submarine which I was looking for the last two days, was waiting outside harbour and it torpedoes RAJPUT while disembarking pilot at the Outer Channel Buoy." I immediately ordered to stop engines, and disembarked the pilot. I slowly increased speed and was doing the maximum speed I could manage by the time I reached Outer Channel Buoy.

"Shortly after clearing Outer Channel Buoy at about midnight of 3/4 December, when the Prime Minister was addressing the nation, the starboard lookout reported disturbance of water, fine on the starboard bow. As the ship was already doing maximum speed and nearing the disturbed water patch and since the ship was already closed up at action stations, appropriate depth was set on the depth charges and two depth charges were dropped at the reported position. The ship got a heavy jolt after the deafening blasts. Then the ship turned and the area was searched for any sign of a contact. Satisfied that there was no sign of any contact or anything on the surface, the ship resumed course.

"There were a few reasons which prompted me to carry out an immediate attack. First, as stated earlier, I had an intuition while leaving harbour when the ship was in mid channel. Secondly knowledge of a Pakistan submarine in the area, for which RAJPUT had been operating for the last two days to mislead her. Thirdly plain speaking by the FOCINC to me when he had called me to his office on 1st December and told me that RAJPUT mistaken as VIKRANT, would be torpedoed by the Pakistani submarine on outbreak of hostilities. And lastly the disturbed water patch made me to think that the submarine had just dived".

Exactly this is the place where we are proven. Lt Cdr (SDG) Inder Singh wanted to earn a gallantry award so he crafted a story to get one. But the contradiction in IN verdict proves our point. So logically it was impossible that IN would have destroyed Ghazi and then the contradiction in IN verdict proves our part of story. If you still want to live in this perception, then we have nothing to say about you. You are an Indian

 

[Windjammer]

The authorities must detailed and briefed it for mission but there was no communication system available then to know how the submarine sank. There is no way Pakistani authority can know how exactly Ghazi sank near Vishakhapatnam coast.

As the Indian navy sank it and sank near Indian coast, their claims are more reliable than PN's.

If you know tell us that 'this way PN knows how Ghazi sank'.

As said earlier both the Indian and Pakistan Navies didn't have the true capability back in 1971 to track and hunt a Sub, there is no way the IN would have known it's location, besides the several Indian versions
may float your boat but amongst historians it holds no water.

1 meter = 3.2808399 feet

How it is meter or feet?

Are you vouching to be the next nit pick, say even if Ghazi could operate down to 100 meters, that's well over 300 feet. The main factor is that it was submerged in deep waters while conducting it's duty.

 

[Kinetic]

Your point is that you want to unnecessarily glorify IN and want to live under an illusion. Get mature kid. Living under an illusion and then defending it is not a wise thing to do.

Thats your answer??? lol Couldn't have something more logical or reasonable? Neglected the main question, how did PN comes to know that?

Exactly this is the place where we are proven. Lt Cdr (SDG) Inder Singh wanted to earn a gallantry award so he crafted a story to get one. But the contradiction in IN verdict proves our point.

Why make people laugh dude? Where it says its an accident you agree, where it says INS Rajput destroyed it you don't agree!!!
Above all Commodore KS Subra Manian was not the C-in-C of INS Rajput but Lt Cdr (SDG) Inder Singh.

---------- Post added at 04:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 AM ----------

As said earlier both the Indian and Pakistan Navies didn't have the true capability back in 1971 to track and hunt a Sub, there is no way the IN would have known it's location, besides the several Indian versions
may float your boat but amongst historians it holds no water.

Are you vouching to be the next nit pick, say even if Ghazi could operate down to 100 meters, that's well over 300 feet. The main factor is that it was submerged in deep waters while conducting it's duty.

OK.

 

[Windjammer]

You seems to agree with part of the Indians claim where it needed. lol My point was there is also a Pakistani point of view as well but I wanted to know how is it possible for Pakistan navy to know how Ghazi sank. I am not going into details of depth charge, torpedo or accident.

Let me put it this way, Pakistan's highest gallantry award is Nishan-e-Haider (Posthumous). Less than a dozen Pakistan Military Heroes have earned it, all but one are from the army. The award is bestowed upon those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in an outstanding feat of bravery beyond any example or call of duty. One of the main witness taken into account is the testimony of the opposite commander, I.E Indian. There is no doubt that people who matter would have shared information on the fate of Ghazi in due course.

 

[Areesh]

Thats your answer??? lol Couldn't have something more logical or reasonable? Neglected the main question, how did PN comes to know that?



Why make people laugh dude? Where it says its an accident you agree, where it says INS Rajput destroyed it you don't agree!!!
Above all Commodore KS Subra Manian was not the C-in-C of INS Rajput but Lt Cdr (SDG) Inder Singh.

---------- Post added at 04:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 AM ----------



OK.

Another post which obnoly proves your ability to comprehend the truth. Commodore KS Subra Manian told us he was our spy

Why make people laugh dude? Where it says its an accident you agree, where it says INS Rajput destroyed it you don't agree!!!
Above all Commodore KS Subra Manian was not the C-in-C of INS Rajput but Lt Cdr (SDG) Inder Singh

That's what you won't understand kid. Inder Singh wanted to decorate himself so he crafted a story to get gallantry award but his version wasn't even accepted in his own navy. He crafted a story to fool people like you.

 

[Windjammer]

The main topic is that a PN Sub managed to sink an IN Ship.
The feat is outstanding since it was achieved first time in over 25 years after the Second World War.
There is no controversy about it and no conflicting claims.
India herself has admitted it was the biggest loss of lives after an air raid on an IAF base by the PAF B-57 Bombers, during which over 200 personnel were killed.

 

[Areesh]

The main topic is that a PN Sub managed to sink an IN Ship.
The feat is outstanding since it was achieved first time in over 25 years after the Second World War.
There is no controversy about it and no conflicting claims.
India herself has admitted it was the biggest loss of lives after an air raid on an IAF base by the PAF B-57 Bombers, during which over 200 personnel were killed.

Yup that is the crux of the matter.

 

[indiarocks]

Yup that is the crux of the matter.

ok areesh ...let me even think to agree to all your terms....but dont forget.......after the war there was no east pakistan......karachi port was nearly destroyed and rest of the ships were forced to stay at ur ports due to lack of fuels.....our gnat got the name of sabre slatey by late.sir gen.v .m.marshal.....british military attache to pakistan at that time....
u were fprced to sign agreements...
u lost sir creek...fully...
i feel yes our khukri sank but u bleeded more than us....

 

[Areesh]

ok areesh ...let me even think to agree to all your terms....but dont forget.......after the war there was no east pakistan......karachi port was nearly destroyed and rest of the ships were forced to stay at ur ports due to lack of fuels.....our gnat got the name of sabre slatey by late.sir gen.v .m.marshal.....british military attache to pakistan at that time....
u were fprced to sign agreements...
u lost sir creek...fully...
i feel yes our khukri sank but u bleeded more than us....

Why are you presenting your dreams as historical facts in this thread?