The Fateful Para-Commando Assault - 1965 War

[Armani]

What an idiot you are, now I'll present you with more facts and you'll continue your false bickering.

1971, India lost 3843 men, during the Indian intervention Pakistan lost 2,700 men total. Despite India being all dominant in the East with Mukti support from BEL and East Pakistani defectors.

PAF in 1971 lost 42 a/c, incld 13 self destructed, while the IAF lost 75 in total.

Pakistan Navy losses were not 1800, closer to 700, and this was due to the Navy having no air arm and early warning. Russian MOSS Early Warning system flown by Soviets was used by the IAF to counter Pakistani ground attack efforts which had given a bad blow in 1965.

On the Western Front , total Indian casualties were 6,524 (KiA,MiA,WiA) and 4,958 Pakistani casualties.

Ghaznavi Force has been extensively mentioned in your own official account, and in Indian ceasefire demands.

Gibraltar's plans for infiltration were good but the main factor which they relied on was the support from locals, which they only managed to gain in Rajauri as the populace was more sympathetic to them, while others had a bad impression due to Tribal Lashkars looting their areas back in 1947/48.

Siachen was an Indian initiated plan, and an intel failure, but except for ego gain i don't find anything for India to celebrate after capturing vacant ice.

Kargil was an another example of how even paramilitary can give you a beating.

I don't know how it's to be seen, to measure victory or failure in numbers. Instead of being measured in terms of objectives achieved and the achievement of a desirable end-state of the conflict.

Yes, more Indian troops died...they died achieving their objectives and making it so that the end-state of the war was in India's favour. That extra push for a dominant position post-war is going to cost more lives for sure. Scores of Pakistani troops also died...but they died achieving nothing. That's the point which defines what value to their country their deaths ultimately represented.

Also, in terms of tactical results, 3800 Indians did not just die killing 2700 Pakistanis, they died killing 2700 Pakistans and rendering over 90,000 others combat-ineffective (surrenders). So in essence, you actually "lost" over 95,000 men while inflicting 3,800 losses on the Indians. That's what achieving objectives is about.

Yes, more Indian aircraft were lost...they were lost because IAF had flown far, far more sorties in support of the ground war. Again, their fight and loss ultimately served to further India's goals. PAF also lost a lot of aircraft, and again achieved nothing.

Considering the kind of fighting Indian military was engaged in, and the fact that it was the Indians pushing for the offensive toward the end, the higher losses are both expected, and, speaking in terms of end-state achieved, were not in vain.

Can you imagine the losses Pakistani military would have had to endure if it was you trying to capture and wrest away half of India, and not the other way round?

All in all, going by the numbers does not get you the real picture.

 

[nahtanbob]

That comes across as quite logical but only with hindsight. By the way, during WWII, multiple such raids took place against heavily defended areas.

i think the success rate was low

special forces raids work the best when the enemy is busy looking for the your regular forces

 

[Danish saleem]

What an utter sh!t show - incredibly poor planning and management. I suggest everyone read this article. I wonder how much things have improved recently? It has been 50 years since then, so you'd hope we'd be better prepared for conflict, especially since we spent the last 15 years in a state of conflict.

what u think, any thing improved? please check the details of US seals Operations in Abbottabad