The 1965 Indo-Pak war

[Myth_buster_1]

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 !!

its only tough for you to digest. you will only harp about what has been told to you for good night sleep.
Hunters, and Gnats are a decade ahead in terms of technology, while Mystere is .5 decade ahead.
so basically these 3 type of planes were late 1950s technology.
in case of PAF... transformed from P-51 mustang and developed in 1946!
only 24 F-86 were equipped with 1st generation 30% kill ratio AIm-9.
and 10 F-104 which was the only technical equal of main bulk of IAF fleet.
only if PAF were operating Mirage-III F-4 F-105 could we say PAF had technical advantage over IAF with 130 or so combat fleet!

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.

so you are going to be deluded? and believe in your own version of victory?

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.

I didnt say that but JANE's certainly did.

Jane's International Defense (June 24, 1998)

The PAF, although outnumbered by IAF, has at least one qualitative edge over its rival: Pilot Training. The caliber of Pakistani instructors is acknowledged by numerous air forces, and US Navy pilots considered them to be highly 'professionals' during exercises flying off the USS Constellation (as co-pilots). The IAF is in an unfortunate position: it lacks an advanced training (and multi-role combat aircraft

 

[Khajur]

OMG.....

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.

This is complely fan boy delusional opinion.
No professional military historian would be judge impact of air combat alone in an isolated manner from the happenings on the ground . But only as part of the ground offensives which ultimately determines the outcome of any war.

In 65 war, pakistan failed to acheive any success in the op Grandslam and ended up loosing more terrirtorise than indian before the cease fire declaration.

In 71war, it lost war in east pakistan resulting in the surrender of tens of thousands of ur troops and liberation of east pakistan.

Now so whose skies PAF was dominating in 65 or 71 ???
India?? hell, no,read the complete historty of the 65 war from some proper neutral source,u would know that, had the war prolonged pakistan would've lost far more of its terrirtorise as most of its resouces including that PAF were already thinned out .


can any right mind say that Japan won WWII becuase of initial surprise attack of pearl harbour??NO.

Or American won the vietnamwar because far more vietcong troops died compared to no of US troops??Again no.

Hence wars alway judged on the basis of the final outcomes.

And pls be civil and dont become abusive just because its a pakistnai forum.

 

[Khajur]

I didnt say that but JANE's certainly did.

Ha ha, u are quoting 98 article when Indo - US relations was still coming out of cold war mindsets.

Though PAF was trained and equipped by USAF during all those yrs , while US and IAF had no major interactions in those times or before that arrive at sort judgement .

The first face off US and IAF had was during Cope India 2004, then cope 2005

If u can accept the truth and willing to learn then read the follwing reputed CS monitor article.

Indian training surprises US

Maj. Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing's chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India 2004, admitted that the US Air Force underestimated the Indians. "The outcome of the [2004] exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected," he told Aviation Week last year. "They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly."

One USAF controller working aboard an AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) plane told reporters at Kalaikundi Air Base that he was impressed by the speed in which Indian pilots responded to target assignments given them by AWACS. The AWACS, while operated by Americans, was acting as a neutral party, feeding target assignments to both Indian and American pilots during the exercise. In most cases, the Indians responded to target assignments faster than the American pilots did - a surprising fact, given that this was the first time Indian pilots had used the American AWACS capability.

Given India's growing economic and diplomatic aspirations, it's not surprising that many Indians would have the occasional outburst of jingoism. But Indian pilots know they still have a lot to learn.

"Whether the Indians win or lose is crew room gossip," says Mr. Patney. "The important thing is for us to be involved with the Americans; the purpose is to fly alongside each other, to learn from each other, to see if there is any interoperability. And for the Americans, the main thing is to see what we [Indians] can do with limited resources."


Indian Air Force, in war games, gives US a run | csmonitor.com



And many things have changed since 98 in terms of techical prowess of IAF,currently we posses Su-30mki ,the most advanced plane in whole of Asia.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

No professional military historian would be judge impact of air combat alone in an isolated manner from the happenings on the ground . But only as part of the ground offensives which ultimately determines the outcome of any war.

In 65 war, pakistan failed to acheive any success in the op Grandslam and ended up loosing more terrirtorise than indian before the cease fire declaration.

In 71war, it lost war in east pakistan resulting in the surrender of tens of thousands of ur troops and liberation of east pakistan.

hypocrisy at its peek!

This is complely fan boy delusional opinion.

I was merely pointing out the fact that PAF dominated the war however pakistan's main objectives were not achieved.. Vietnam war is the prime example. USAF dominated the sky but at the end..
In 71... India the mr. opportunists had the geographical advantage! East and west pakistan were 1000 miles apart and already a much much smaller forces... if east and west pakistan were not geographically divided then india would not have achieved its ambition.

Now so whose skies PAF was dominating in 65 or 71 ???
India?? hell, no,read the complete historty of the 65 war from some proper neutral source,u would know that, had the war prolonged pakistan would've lost far more of its terrirtorise as most of its resouces including that PAF were already thinned out .

wait we lost most of the land? are you again having a verbal diarrhea? making awful claims out of thin air? do you have any concert proof to back it up? not just pull out some random anti-pak claims to just satisfy your ego.

This is the most "neutral" one could get.
PAF 65 war air-to-air kill

PAF 71 war air-to-air kill

can any right mind say that Japan won WWII becuase of initial surprise attack of pearl harbour??NO.

can any right minded except you compare Jap WWII attacks which they eventually got run over which is defiantly not the case with 65 war.. i think your false ego hood bharat teaches its people to believe in myths like you guys are living in..

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Ha ha, u are quoting 98 article when Indo - US relations was still coming out of cold war mindsets.

ohh Jesus Christ! you guys are big time stubborn fanboys! 98 US still coming out of cold war mindsets? and what will they achieve from that?

Though PAF was trained and equipped by USAF during all those yrs , while US and IAF had no major interactions in those times or before that arrive at sort judgement .

and india had USSR, French, British, and even american trainings! you deluded fanboy punk!

The first face off US and IAF had was during Cope India 2004, then cope 2005

and how is this relevant to 65 war? keep impressing your skills of diverting the topic because you know IAF got its @ss whooped by PAF!
anyways.. wont comment on that.. however this video sums it up.. infact everything is referred to "center of indian military history".

Given India's growing economic and diplomatic aspirations, it's not surprising that many Indians would have the occasional outburst of jingoism. But Indian pilots know they still have a lot to learn.

blah blah blah...

Indian Air Force, in war games, gives US a run | csmonitor.com

And many things have changed since 98 in terms of techical prowess of IAF,currently we posses Su-30mki ,the most advanced plane in whole of Asia.

nothing much have changed.... India still enjoys numerical and technical superiority like its use to since 1947 when we had only 16 figher planes compared to 87 of yours.
i can go on and elaborate more but this will take me away from the main topic.

 

[Khajur]

I was merely pointing out the fact that PAF dominated the war however pakistan's main objectives were not achieved.. Vietnam war is the prime example. USAF dominated the sky but at the end..
In 71... India the mr. opportunists had the geographical advantage! East and west pakistan were 1000 miles apart and already a much much smaller forces... if east and west pakistan were not geographically divided then india would not have achieved its ambition.



wait we lost most of the land? are you again having a verbal diarrhea? making awful claims out of thin air? do you have any concert proof to back it up? not just pull out some random anti-pak claims to just satisfy your ego.

This is the most "neutral" one could get.

Oh,yaa so finally accepted that main objectives were not achieved...I see some progress here.

And what this whining about thing East and west pakistan were 1000 miles apart in during 71 ??

what stopped ur dominant PAF and pak army to make any kind of inroad or advances in to our territory on the western indian front , ha??

Isnt its the bigger and stronger indian forces who repulsed all pakistani attempts to make any advance on the western front e,g the Battle of Longewala where IAF decimated ur armour regiment destroyed or captured some 36 tanks??

On 65,i never said most pakistnai land ,all i was refering to the fact that Indian army was in possession of 710 mile² (1,840 km&#178 of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (545 km&#178 of Indian territory before cease fire was declared.

"This is the most "neutral" one could get."

The most neutral site made this report based on individual claims of both IAF and PAF. so its neutral in the sense it accepted both claims...that all about it.

 

[Khajur]

ohh Jesus Christ! you guys are big time stubborn fanboys! 98 US still coming out of cold war mindsets? and what will they achieve from that?

and india had USSR, French, British, and even american trainings! you deluded fanboy punk!


and how is this relevant to 65 war? keep impressing your skills of diverting the topic because you know IAF got its @ss whooped by PAF!
anyways.. wont comment on that.. however this video sums it up.. infact everything is referred to "center of indian military history".
MnjKt0lreo8[/media] - Cope-india 2004 USAF vs IAF

blah blah blah...








nothing much have changed.... India still enjoys numerical and technical superiority like its use to since 1947 when we had only 16 figher planes compared to 87 of yours.
i can go on and elaborate more but this will take me away from the main topic.

When u can give me yr 98 JAN's report claming that US navy thinks that PAF was very good and the report goes on to say IAF is ill equipped and badly trained... I gave u the more recent and very reputed CS monitor article about cope 2005 .

Read that article again carefully ...its about cope 2005 an yr after the cope2004(ur stupid Utube video is about cope 2004) where IAF performed exceptionally well too. And one clearly see that USAF had minimum prior engagement with IAF before that.

And ur cranck head youtube video just whines about the fact USAF couldnt use its sophisticated BVR in cope 2004 and talks up some conspiracy theory by USAF to buy more F-22 for the results ...though its true that both airforce went engaged WVR scenerios in cope 2004 and IAF did exceptionally well which only proves its world class skills in classic WVR air combat . But the CS monitor article is about cope 2005 where the same story got only repeated.

Do u think USAF would perform in avg manner in cope 2005 after bad performance of cope 2004 just to push for more F-22 and that too aganist an unthreatening developing country like india;s air force??

Me and other memebers have given enough material about 65 war and if u still cling on to some debatable glorifying stuff about PAF iof 65 war and potray it like a major achievement ,then good for u . I can understand ur compulsion and dont want to deny to feel good factor of 65 .But rememebr after 65 ...we saw 71 and then u know the histor y...history do repeat itself.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Oh,yaa so finally accepted that main objectives were not achieved...I see some progress here.

huh? what are you jumping up and down for? at the end of the day. Pakistan army pakistan air force kicked your BUTT!

during 65 war no one but India kept supply of weapons to pakistan forces while US placed sanctions and embargoes on us
Thank you india.

Indian Air Force Ouragan aircraft after being forced down by PAF fighters - 24 June 1965.

IAF Gnat which surrendered and landed at Pasrur - 3 September 1965.

Pakistani gunners are giving an expert look-over to captured Indian field guns. The Indians left enough pieces in Chamb area alone to equip two Field Regiments. (1965 War)


An operational tank squadron of the Pakistan army equipped with the Indian tanks (French-built AMXs) captured in the Chamb battle, out on manoeuvres. (1965 War)

Three Indian Army tanks (Centurian, Sherman and an AMX-13) captured during the 1965 war on display at Pakistan Army Museum Rawalpindi.

And what this whining about thing East and west pakistan were 1000 miles apart in during 71 ??

your brain can not comprehend the fact that its a strategic night mare for any force to have its land mass apart while the foe sits in the middle.
infact go and open a new thread on 71 war. you are taking it off topic.. troller.

On 65,i never said most pakistnai land ,all i was refering to the fact that Indian army was in possession of 710 mile² (1,840 km&#178 of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (545 km&#178 of Indian territory before cease fire was declared.

thats the most patriotically deluded with false claim one could get. you are leading a example of it.

The most neutral site made this report based on individual claims of both IAF and PAF. so its neutral in the sense it accepted both claims...that all about it.

what the phuck are you talking about?
you lost 65 air war... thats the end of it!

 

[Myth_buster_1]

When u can give me yr 98 JAN's report claming that US navy thinks that PAF was very good and the report goes on to say IAF is ill equipped and badly trained... I gave u the more recent and very reputed CS monitor article about cope 2005 .

Read that article again carefully ...its about cope 2005 an yr after the cope2004(ur stupid Utube video is about cope 2004) where IAF performed exceptionally well too. And one clearly see that USAF had minimum prior engagement with IAF before that.

And ur cranck head youtube video just whines about the fact USAF couldnt use its sophisticated BVR in cope 2004 and talks up some conspiracy theory by USAF to buy more F-22 for the results ...though its true that both airforce went engaged WVR scenerios in cope 2004 and IAF did exceptionally well which only proves its world class skills in classic WVR air combat . But the CS monitor article is about cope 2005 where the same story got only repeated.

Do u think USAF would perform in avg manner in cope 2005 after bad performance of cope 2004 just to push for more F-22 and that too aganist an unthreatening developing country like india;s air force??

Me and other memebers have given enough material about 65 war and if u still cling on to some debatable glorifying stuff about PAF iof 65 war and potray it like a major achievement ,then good for u . I can understand ur compulsion and dont want to deny to feel good factor of 65 .But rememebr after 65 ...we saw 71 and then u know the histor y...history do repeat itself.

troller
any irrlevent posts to 65 war and that unbiased will be ignored from now on... if you are interested in discussing joke-india 2004 2005 then open another thread.

 

[Khajur]

what the phuck are you talking about?
you lost 65 air war... thats the end of it!

Oh really we lost 65 air war??
R u sure??

I read some where that there was a cease declaration...may be it was just for the land war and air force guys kept htting each other till the end.

Yaa, as long as u piss and moan around it ...anything is possible..

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Oh really we lost 65 air war??
R u sure??

I read some where that there was a cease declaration...may be it was just for the land war and air force guys kept htting each other till the end.

Yaa, as long as u piss and moan around it ...anything is possible..

yep... we won in air and land.

 

[Khajur]

troller
any irrlevent posts to 65 war and that unbiased will be ignored from now on... if you are interested in discussing joke-india 2004 2005 then open another thread.

Thank U.

Before i leave let me remind you,Its actually u who brought up the the JANE's diary article of yr 98 to show PAF is better trained and world class and how IAF is undertrained and ill equipped.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Thank U.

Before i leave let me remind you,Its actually u who brought up the the JANE's diary article of yr 98 to show PAF is better trained and world class and how IAF is undertrained and ill equipped.

ops i am so sorry.. see what you guys did to me.. i posted the wrong article.

"India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front."

"If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?. The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes."

"These muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propoganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side."

"Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."

Roy Meloni,
American Broadcasting Corporation
September 15, 1965.

 

[Khajur]

ops i am so sorry.. see what you guys did to me.. i posted the wrong article.

Take a break..

And this Roy Meloni fellow looks like a genious to me.

 

[paritosh]

Excuse me, what is your definition of winning that war by Pakistan? Was it that Pakistan should have captured Delhi, only then you would have conceded defeat! India had at least 4 times more troops and the total strength was more than that. But, what is your specific achievements in 1965 war even with this advantage?

India lost many of its aircrafts and the IA could not make any real dent to the PA. Don't you think that this was a great humiliation and defeat for the IA? Retrospectively, it was a Pakistani win over a much larger IA.

To win even an unequal war a larger army needs brave soldiers willing to sacrifice their lives. Indians are not that willing to do this sacrifice, they want to overwhelm its adversary only with numbers.

it's very simple...a heavily defended position like a bunker with multiple mmg ports...with adequate ammunition can defeat wave after wave of enemy attacks.In the Kargil war...few Pakistanis killed many IA men.At places they killed in tens...it was because of the heavily fortified positions they had...and the ascent to recapture those positions made it all the more difficult.
the other thing is the element of surprise...it breaks the back of the enemy...
The battle of Somme in the first world war teaches us exactly that...the Anglo-French troops got a taste of the surprise they planned to inflict on the Germans.
now....

Excuse me, what is your definition of winning that war by Pakistan? Was it that Pakistan should have captured Delhi, only then you would have conceded defeat! India had at least 4 times more troops and the total strength was more than that. But, what is your specific achievements in 1965 war even with this advantage?

Why we won the war?
the events which led to the war...Pakistan considered the scrapping of the special status to Kashmir by Shastri as a move to assimilate Kashmir into the Indian union...they decide that it is time to instigate the popular separatist sentiments in Kashmir.
The mujahideens come...are led down by the Kashmiris who side with the Indians...this event in general leads to an all-out war.
In the end a cease-fire is declared with us holding more territory(I presume that you acknowledge it)
and why we did not capture Islamabad...?
Did China capture Delhi in 1962?the fighting stuck to the mountainous regions of Himalayas and yet we did lose the war.
To understand this you have to understand who ordered the cease-fire.international pressure in those days meant everything.India and Pakistan have achieved a substantial amount of self-reliance now...but things were very different in the 60s...the UN was very powerful and both India and Pakistan were sans major allies...(US cut it's support to Pakistan...the USSR was neutral...the China-Pak angle wasn't there)
If India or Pakistan had chosen to ignore the UN call for a cease-fire...there would have been severe penalties...the lifeline of both the countries was loans and aid from the UN bodies...and it would have stopped.
Take the year 1998 for example when after the nuke tests...the sanctions that followed had an adverse effect on both the nations weapon systems and the whole arsenal in general...and the 60s were only darker.
So now how do we conclude who won and who lost?
a)on the basis of who held more land
b)on the basis of the ability to have out-lived the other country in weapons and ammunition stocks(or the attrition rate of the tanks,a/c s,ships,etc) and the amount of the other vital resources(diesel,petrol...) remaining with both the countries(there is no trade during wars....countries cancel shipments...that is why you need allies)
c)on the basis of objectives met

considering all that...it's hard to see how Pakistan won the '65 war...as we held more land...our attrition rate of both the airforce and the army and the navy was lesser...we had more resources....and J&K was made an Indian state.