honour
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 0
You are way out of line here buddy, or should i say victim of your own disastrous propaganda. Albeit the thread is about the troubled history of MIG-21 in the IAF service but like a headless Chicken you are running around digressing from your hopeless case of Sabre slayer to the supposedly Indian saving grace the SU-30 and now you stoop even further by showing your desperation in true colours.
Firstly let me enlighten you with some realities, in 2002, your mighty army shifted a million men to the border along with all brick and motor, they remained there for almost one year and ended up in a humiliating withdraw after loosing several hundred men without a shot being fired. Your airforce is also equipped with MIG-21, 23, 27 and Mirage-2000, when was the last time you witnessed these single engined fighters participating in your Republic day flypast, not for the last few years at least since it only relies on the safety of twin engine Jaguars, Mig-29s and SU-30s. More over you have been gloating about various exercises, well ever heard the term, boards don't hit back, that's what happens in an exercise and when the shooting starts, this is how the fear of PAF kills your Sabre slayer.
As for your hot shot elite, read and weep.
And this is how you breathe.
Since this thread is related to Airforce i will not include the soul destroying stories of your Army and Navy, but enough of your self praising nonsense, try to comprehend the reality and trials of life.
still Pakistani sources/scans.....looks like you are out of neutral sources.........what happened in 1965 is already known by the world have a neutral assessment of it.....not to mention the humiliation on 1971,1999..
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had a upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below
* According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies:
The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavyon 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.[52]
* TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.[53] The same article stated that -
Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.
* Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[54]
The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.
* In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",[55] Gertjan Dijkink writes
The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.
* An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[56] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, is as follows:
In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.
* In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[57]
India won the war. It gained 1,840 square kilometers of Pakistani territory: 640 square kilometers in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 square kilometers of the Sailkot sector; 380 square kilometers far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 square kilometers on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 square kilometers of Indian territory: 490 square kilometers in the Chhamb sector and 50 square kilometers around Khem Karan.
* Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war.[58]
Although both sides lost heavily in men and materiel, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.
* "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[59]
India's strategic aims were modest it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 of its own.
* An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"[60]
A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.
* English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war[61]
The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.
* Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"[62]
Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.
to tell you about 2002
The time:special issue 2002
Pakistan _ Pakistani officials on Wednesday called on Indian consulate to reverse the mobilization of its military forces as tensions continued to rise between the two South Asian nations.
this is the third time Indian consulate has been summoned by Pakistan after two contentious rejections by Indian government.
this step seems to be a desperate step by Pakistan to avoid a full scale conflict which can cause severe damage to both sides,particularly the Islamic state.
"India should start returning its troops to the peacetime locations and not take the offensive and aggressive posture that they have taken," Foreign Ministry spokesman Aziz Ahmed Khan told CNN.
Both countries have mobilized forces along their borders since a Dec. 13 terrorist attack on India's parliament that India blames on Pakistani-backed militant groups. The Bush administration, which has become more closely tied to both since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on America, is concerned that the rhetoric and moves could spin out of control.The US on continuous request by Pakistan is trying to pressurize India to move its forces back.
Intelligence reports, including satellite photographs and communications intercepts, indicate that the Indian military is completing preparations for "a relatively surgical strike," probably in Kashmir, on at least one of the two Pakistani-backed terrorist groups India blames for the parliament attack, a senior U.S. official, who declined to be identified, said Wednesday.
