The 1965 Indo-Pak war

[toxic_pus]

OMG.... talk about being delusional...

Not a single claim is made by Indonesian Herald... in fact it was "A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio" all along!

As expected you missed the point. The fact that it was a publication from a country which was an ally of Pakistan in 1965, that had referred to a dateless, timeless broadcast of AIR to attribute an indirect quote to Mr Moraes, makes the whole reference null and void. Unless of course, you can prove that Mr Moraes did actually say those words, on All India Radio, (and if possible, also provide the date and time of broadcast) as reported by Indonesian Herald.

Consider this as your homework. But complete your school homework first.

BTW what else do you have to say now? Was Britian also one of our "ally" who would lie just for heck of it?

The ground forces of the two countries appeared to be evenly matched, and their respective offensives (although involving approximately 6000 casualties on each side) were indecisive. The Pakistan Air Force, however, emerged with great credit from its conflict with the Indian Air Force, destroying 22 IAF aircraft in air-to-air combat for the loss of only eight of its own - a remarkable achievement considering that the PAF faced odds of nearly four to one.

(Anthoney Robinson, former staff of the RAF Museum, Hendon and now a free lance Military aviation writer . Book: Elite Forces Of The World)

During the height of cold war, every regional conflict was viewed through the prism of Western democracy v/s Russian communism. Pakistan did indeed belong to the camp of ‘Western democracy’ while India to the later.

Anyway. I did find something interesting about ‘Elite Forces of The World’ by Anthoney Robinson.

Amazon search: Amazon.com: Elite Forces Of The World Anthoney Robinson

“Your search "Elite Forces Of The World Anthoney Robinson" did not match any products. Did you mean: elite forces of the world anthony robinson”

A search on their suggestion: Amazon.com: elite forces of the world anthony robinson


Barnes & Nobles search: No Results
“Sorry. We did not find any results with the search terms you provided.”

Google search of the words ‘Elite Forces Of The World by Anthoney Robinson’: Elite Forces Of The World by Anthoney Robinson - Google Search

It yielded only one website. No prize for guessing what that site is. Yes, PakDef.info.

Google search on their suggestion: Elite Forces Of The World by Anthony Robinson - Google Search

Google search of the words ‘Anthony Robinson RAF’: Anthony Robinson RAF - Google Search

This yielded quite a number of hits. It seems, Mr Robinson has written about the Battle of Britain. But still no mention of the book that has been referred to by you.

Seems another reference bites the dust. Unless of course……

 

[nightrider_saulat]

please anyone tell me how many tanks india and pakistan lost in 1965 war

 

[Myth_buster_1]

As expected you missed the point. The fact that it was a publication from a country which was an ally of Pakistan in 1965, that had referred to a dateless, timeless broadcast of AIR to attribute an indirect quote to Mr Moraes, makes the whole reference null and void. Unless of course, you can prove that Mr Moraes did actually say those words, on All India Radio, (and if possible, also provide the date and time of broadcast) as reported by Indonesian Herald.

you are sooooo deluded by that thick could of dust known as bharat-raksak! so you are telling me that Indonesians made up this story?

Consider this as your homework. But complete your school homework first.

considering the amount of in depth investigation of sources you want from me you should by now have taken a hike from defence.pk because the only source you have provided are pathological liar indian once.

During the height of cold war, every regional conflict was viewed through the prism of Western democracy v/s Russian communism. Pakistan did indeed belong to the camp of ‘Western democracy’ while India to the later.

that is so lame of you... seriously is this your analogy? you do know pakistan was a DICTATORSHIP back then! Britain France still supported you indians!

Anyway. I did find something interesting about ‘Elite Forces of The World’ by Anthoney Robinson.

even i have to admit... however highly likely to be some sort of typo error.
how ever i found another book which mentions pretty much the same stuff in the previous post with unknown author and book name.



Note yet again this quote has a mistake with author full name. Christopher Shores not Christopher Sivores...

Combat Over The Indian Subcontinent
"In September 1965 a festering border dispute between India and Pakistan erupted into full scale war. The Indian possessed the larger air force numerically, composed maily of British and French types- Hawker Hunter, Folland Gnat and Dassault Mystere fighters, Dassault Ouragon fighter-bombers and English electric Camnberra bombers. The smaller but highly trained Pakistan air force was equipped in large part with F-86F Sabers, plus a few F-104 Starfighters. Fighting lasted little more than two weeks, but during that time, Pakistan gained a definite ascendancy in the air……….. It was the well proven Sabers that emerged with honors, being credited with all but five of the 36 victories claimed. The Indians claimed 73 victories - undoubtly a considerable overestimate - for an admitted loss of 35."

(Christopher Sivores, Book: Air Aces)

remarkably i found another site with accurate information..


this list only includes AIR-to-AIR victories.
1965 India Pakistan War

page generated: June 15, 1999

compiled by Allan Magnus

References:

1. Pakistan Institute for Air Defence Studies
2. Air Warriors of Pakistan, revised edition, S.M.A. Hussaini, Ferozsons (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore, Pakistan 1992
3. Air Aces, Christopher Shores, Presidio Press, Novato, California 1983
4. Battle for Pakistan: The Air War of 1965, John Fricker, Ian Allen, London, 1979

lol its not even worth mentioning IAF combat kills because its really sad.

 

[arihant]

lol - accurate information - Check the reference first.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

lol - accurate information - Check the reference first.

jealous? deluded? ohhh that agony!
at least its more credible and accurate then joker bharat-raksak.
3. Air Aces, Christopher Shores, Presidio Press, Novato, California 1983
4. Battle for Pakistan: The Air War of 1965, John Fricker, Ian Allen, London, 1979

 

[arihant]

jealous? deluded? ohhh that agony!
at least its more credible and accurate then joker bharat-raksak.
3. Air Aces, Christopher Shores, Presidio Press, Novato, California 1983
4. Battle for Pakistan: The Air War of 1965, John Fricker, Ian Allen, London, 1979

I am talking about First Two. I can produce good source without help of BR but what value it has. Media was not in the combats plane when operation was going on, to calculate how much. We are believing on the source of both nations.

Your claim like Pakistan was having just 100 and India 1000 are just jealousy and irrelevant. You don't agree on neutral sources and that is the reason, ..............

 

[sensenreason]

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965
The second Indo-Pakistani conflict (1965) was also fought over Kashmir and started without a formal declaration of war. The war began in August 5, 1965 and was ended Sept 22, 1965.

The war was initiated by Pakistan who since the defeat of India by China in 1962 had come to believe that Indian military would be unable or unwilling to defend against a quick military campaign in Kashmir, and because the Pakistani government was becoming increasingly alarmed by Indian efforts to integrate Kashmir within India. There was also a perception that there was widespread popular support within for Pakistani rule and that the Kashmiri people were disatisfied with Indian rule.

After Pakistan was successful in the Rann of Kutch earlier in 1965, Ayub Khan (by nature a cautious person) was pressured by the hawks in his cabinet (led by Z.A. Bhutto) and the army to infiltrate the ceasefire line in Kashmir. The action was based on the incorrect premise that indigenous resistance could be ignited by a few saboteurs. Ayub resisted the idea as he foresaw India crossing the international frontier in retaliation at a point of its choosing. The Bhutto faction, which included some prominent generals, put out the canard that Ayub's cowardice stemmed from his desire to protect his newly acquired wealth. It was boasted at the time that one Pakistani soldier was equal to four Indian soldiers and so on.

On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15.

The initial battles between India and Pakistan were contained within Kashmir involving both infantry and armor units with each country's air force playing major roles. It was not until early Sept. when Pakistani forces attacked Ackhnur that the Indians escalated the conflict by attacking targets within Pakistan itself, forcing the Pakistani forces to disengage from Ackhnur to counter Indian attacks.

The largest engagement of the war occurred in the Sialkot region where some 400 to 600 tanks squared off. Unfortunately the battle was indecisive.

By Sept 22 both sides had agreed to a UN mandated cease-fire ending the war that had by that point reached a stalemate.

Overall, the war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

Pakistan was rudely shocked by the reaction of the United States to the war. Judging the matter to be largely Pakistan s fault, the United States not only refused to come to Pakistan s aid under the terms of the Agreement of Cooperation, but issued a statement declaring its neutrality while also cutting off military supplies. The Pakistanis were embittered at what they considered a friend's betrayal, and the experience taught them to avoid relying on any single source of support. For its part, the United States was disillusioned by a war in which both sides used United States-supplied equipment. The war brought other repercussions for the security relationship as well. The United States withdrew its military assistance advisory group in July 1967. In response to these events, Pakistan declined to renew the lease on the Peshawar military facility, which ended in 1969. Eventually, United States-Pakistan relations grew measurably weaker as the United States became more deeply involved in Vietnam and as its broader interest in the security of South Asia waned.

Iran, Indonesia, and especially China gave political support to Pakistan during the war, thus suggesting new directions in Pakistan that might translate into support for its security concerns. Most striking was the attitude of the Soviet Union. Its post-Khrushchev leadership, rather than rallying reflexively to India's side, adopted a neutral position and ultimately provided the good offices at Tashkent, which led to the January 1966 Tashkent Declaration that restored the status quo ante.

The aftermath of the 1965 war saw a dramatic shift in Pakistan's security environment. Instead of a single alignment with the United States against China and the Soviet Union, Pakistan found itself cut off from United States military support, on increasingly warm terms with China, and treated equitably by the Soviet Union. Unchanged was the enmity with which India and Pakistan regarded each other over Kashmir. The result was the elaboration of a new security approach, called by Ayub Khan the "triangular tightrope"--a tricky endeavor to maintain good ties with the United States while cultivating China and the Soviet Union. Support from other developing nations was also welcome. None of the new relationships carried the weight of previous ties with the United States, but, taken together, they at least provided Pakistan with a political counterbalance to India.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I am talking about First Two. I can produce good source without help of BR but what value it has. Media was not in the combats plane when operation was going on, to calculate how much. We are believing on the source of both nations.

You guys are the most deluded human beings on planet earth! you guys cant stand any facts aganist india.
so what if the first two sourse are pakistani?? even if pakistani claim 500 IAF plane shot down does the list say that? but nooo.. on the other hand you are being deluded and try to run away from the facts.. you are the one who is blindly believing on the sources of your country's which is based on false propaganda.

Your claim like Pakistan was having just 100 and India 1000 are just jealousy and irrelevant. You don't agree on neutral sources and that is the reason, ..............

how long are you going to drag this??? didnt i already corrected myself? 200 vs 1000 includind all types.

@ sensenreason
i dont feed trollers. stop posting your rubish over and over again...

 

[arihant]

You guys are the most deluded human beings on planet earth! you guys cant stand any facts aganist india.
so what if the first two sourse are pakistani?? even if pakistani claim 500 IAF plane shot down does the list say that? but nooo.. on the other hand you are being deluded and try to run away from the facts.. you are the one who is blindly believing on the sources of your country's which is based on false propaganda.


how long are you going to drag this??? didnt i already corrected myself? 200 vs 1000 includind all types.

@ sensenreason
i dont feed trollers. stop posting your rubish over and over again...

No, each military will claim lesser no. of destruction and higher no. of targets than the real one so that it's credibility in war remains intact. Whether it's India or Pakistan, both credibility in terms of loss and gains will be inaccurate. So, I believe neutral rather then your PAF or IAF or BR.

So you have now 200 vs 1000 - Good, keep going up or down.

India carried more sorties than Pakistan, so always destruction will remain higher. On Air to Air Combat, destruction ratio remain same while Pakistan gained advantage in the Ground Destruction. As there is ground destruction, it is highly not possible for true losses. Should we end debate on IAF vs PAF.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

No, each military will claim lesser no. of destruction and higher no. of targets than the real one so that it's credibility in war remains intact. Whether it's India or Pakistan, both credibility in terms of loss and gains will be inaccurate. So, I believe neutral rather then your PAF or IAF or BR.

You are insane!
Allan Magnus is not claming every one of PAF victories which is about 80+ or so including ground kills.. Infact he decided to do his own research. contacted Pakistan Institute for Air Defence Studies read books and varified with other western nutral sourses..
he came to conclusion and so did many western defense anaylsts that in air PAF shoot down about 30-36 IAF plane with the lost of only 8-12.

So you have now 200 vs 1000 - Good, keep going up or down.

okay so i have been doing most of the work and now its your turn to do some research and tell me what were the figures?

India carried more sorties than Pakistan, so always destruction will remain higher. On Air to Air Combat, destruction ratio remain same while Pakistan gained advantage in the Ground Destruction. As there is ground destruction, it is highly not possible for true losses. Should we end debate on IAF vs PAF.

uhhh dhuuuh! obviously! i mean IAF operated almost 8 times more air crafts then PAF... obviously they are going to fly more you genius! and lol..... just because IAF conducted more sorties does not mean they inflicted more damage! your anology does not work here at all.. and please provide your sources...

like i have said before..
PAF out numbered almost 200-1000
PAF operated technically inferior technology
but still shoot down 36 IAF planes in air combat with the loss of only 8 or so.. while destroyed entire IAF 14 mig-21F-13 type-74 fleet (and not a single Mig-21F-13 were ever seen post 65 war) along with 20+ or so IAF fighters on the ground.
PAF is clearly a victorious here.. only a deluded person cant see this.

 

[arihant]

There are conflicting claims by either side on this issue. however, it is certain that Indian aircraft losses were higher than Pakistani aircraft losses. Sources suggest that Indian losses were in the range of 59–110 and Pakistani losses were around 18–43. Recent works have, however, attempted to move beyond the raw statistic of the number of losses each side incurred, arguing that in terms of aircraft lost to sorties flown, the Indian Air Force's attrition rate (1.5&#37 was lower than the Pakistani attrition rate (1.82%). Arguably this incidates that had the war continued, the PAF would have found it increasingly difficult to sustain operations at the same level. Nevertheless, a similar argument can be made about the IAF also, although it did have a significant size advantage that might have proved telling if the war had been prolonged.

Another factor which makes it difficult to determine the outcome of the 1965 air war is the issue of aircraft lost in the air in air-to-air combat or to ground fire as opposed to aircraft lost on the ground due to bombing. A large number of Indian aircraft losses occurred on the ground during the attacks on Kalaikkunda and Pathankot—up to 60 per cent by some accounts—while most of the Pakistani losses were in aerial combat. Some Indian sources claim that they lost 24 aircraft in air-to-air combat and ground-to-air fire, while claiming to have shot down 37 Pakistani aircraft in the air. Against this some Pakistani sources claim to have shot down 22 Indian aircraft in air-to-air combat for the loss of eight aircraft.

An independent source has put the figures as 13 confirmed aerial victories for the IAF, along with four damaged and four probable or unconfirmed. On the Pakistani side, the same source claims 17 confirmed victories for the PAF during the conflict, as well as one prior, along with 24 probable or unconfirmed.

 

[sensenreason]

The reasoning is that PAF was smaller in size and with inferior tech and still scored more kills.

Only one of the above is a well accepted fact. PAF in size was much smaller than IAF. Tech comparisons are tougher to prove decisively one way or the other.Who scored more kill is disputed though at worst PAF matched IAF. So, for a asmaller force....well done !!

Now comes the second part, why ask this question in 2009? If the reason isto correct the universal acceptance of the Indian version of 1965 amongst Indian members here; then same is true for the Pak members, most of whom will believe the Pak version...No big deal.

But anyhow...How does it matter??? Does it prove Pakistani's to be better pilots...is the agenda to prove 'that'....In my opinion, the whole martian races thingy is at play here.

Growler - Just posted something found on the net, if its not to your liking it doesnt become trolling. If I posted it earliar..then my apologies..Im not keeping track...

 

[Myth_buster_1]

the Indian Air Force's attrition rate (1.5&#37 was lower than the Pakistani attrition rate (1.82%). Arguably this incidates that had the war continued, the PAF would have found it increasingly difficult to sustain operations at the same level. Nevertheless, a similar argument can be made about the IAF also, although it did have a significant size advantage that might have proved telling if the war had been prolonged.

OMG.....

look... its very obvious that a side with small fleet is going to have more attrition rate compared to larger fleet... i have failed to understand that why cant you comprehend this.. and its not Indian air force who were dominating over us but the only reason why you got away is because of the numerical and technical factor! not any kind of achievement. and oh... back in the days friends of pakistan were very willing to provide their equipments to pakistan.. and it wouldn't have taken long to provide pakistan with Hunters, F-104s, F-86 etc..

at the end of the day no matter how you represent this on your favor.. it was PAF who dominated the skies in 65 war and 71.

 

[toxic_pus]

you are sooooo deluded by that thick could of dust known as bharat-raksak! so you are telling me that Indonesians made up this story?

considering the amount of in depth investigation of sources you want from me you should by now have taken a hike from defence.pk because the only source you have provided are pathological liar indian once.

Not sure how BR popped up, because my post had nothing to do that site. But given your obsession with BR, I won’t be surprised if one day you blame BR for your irregular bowel movements.

Other than that, it is probably safe to assume now, that you have realized pretty well that any reference to Indonesia, circa 1965, is bad reference. Also, given the manner in which you have responded, I would assume, you have no way of confirming, if what was being claimed by that publication was true. So that’s that with that then.

Regarding the ‘amount of in depth investigation of sources’, I have a feeling that if I take a look into it, I will be able to bring out some more skeletons. So, yes, you can continue patting your own back, for I am not going after your 'in depth investigation'.

One more thing. Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, not a valid argument.

that is so lame of you... seriously is this your analogy? you do know pakistan was a DICTATORSHIP back then! Britain France still supported you indians!

There was no analogy in it. Anyway, it doesn’t matter if Pakistan was a dictatorship or something else. Pakistan still represented Western interest, more so of the Americans, and India, of Soviets.

even i have to admit... however highly likely to be some sort of typo error.

Finally. Probably now you realize, that blindly copy/pasting from your favourite site may give you that ‘gotcha’ moment, for the time being, but if you are not careful, particularly when you are basing your derision and condescension on these sources, you might just end up having eggs on your face, eventually.

how ever i found another book which mentions pretty much the same stuff in the previous post with unknown author and book name.

Note yet again this quote has a mistake with author full name. Christopher Shores not Christopher Sivores...

I am glad that now you are counter checking your sources. I will consider this a positive outcome of our conversation.

However, given the fact that it is now established that you have yourself not read the book and is actually depending on third party sources, to somehow shoehorn that quote into something, that you feel would be acceptable to others, I will again take it with a pinch of salt. It might so happen that the quote is there in the book, although one may wonder what relevance does India-Pakistan war of 1965 has in the narratives of WW 1 & 2 air battles and aces, but, yours is case of lost credibility. So is PakDef.info's.

remarkably i found another site with accurate information..


this list only includes AIR-to-AIR victories.
1965 India Pakistan War

On the same web site, the author enlists Indian claims. And just look at his first source. Lo and behold, it’s the much hated Bharat-Rakshak. So apparently, BR is not as vile as some people would have us believe.

Anyway, carry on finding 'delusional' motives in every post.

 

[arihant]

OMG.....

look... its very obvious that a side with small fleet is going to have more attrition rate compared to larger fleet... i have failed to understand that why cant you comprehend this.. and its not Indian air force who were dominating over us but the only reason why you got away is because of the numerical and technical factor! not any kind of achievement. and oh... back in the days friends of pakistan were very willing to provide their equipments to pakistan.. and it wouldn't have taken long to provide pakistan with Hunters, F-104s, F-86 etc..

at the end of the day no matter how you represent this on your favor.. it was PAF who dominated the skies in 65 war and 71.

There is no doubt that PAF performed well in 1965 as they destroyed lots of IAF Planes on ground. I was going to end with that.

But now you have open debate for 1971 too. Can you prove that PAF was any way superior in the 1971 war.