Who Won the Air War in 1971?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Chuck Yeager has been proved to be factually wrong and biased.

In terms of tallying the losses of both sides and analyzing the performance of each? How has he been proved factually wrong in those aspects of his analysis?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I disagree with limiting the air war to a numbers game of IAF Vs. PAF.

First, there is no way to confirm the numbers. Both sides have widely different claims. Then the air forces were not fighting their own personal war but were a part of the bigger effort and that perspective can't be lost in any serious debate.

The number of sorties flown, the support to the army advances, the attrition rate per sorty, the kind of secondary targets hit, the aircrafts lost in air Vs. ground (flying low to provide close air support) etc. can't be taken out of any equation. They have to form part of the overall data points.

And at no point have I suggested merely looking at the overall numbers of Aircraft lost without taking into account whether or not they were lost in Air Combat.

The thread has to be limited to this context in this discussion because the way you want to frame the discussion is pointless.

You want to argue that the IAF's primary mission was to support Indian ground forces in the war. We know which side won the war, therefore you argue that the IAF won vs the PAF. There is nothing to discuss from that perspective.

You are framing the question to fit your perspective and answering it in the same breath!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Then according to you, Taliban would be the clear winners against the war with USA in Afghanistan because USA lost more aircraft in Operation Enduring Freedom and since than Taliban.....Of course, Taliban never dared to fly their worthless aircraft if they had any aircraft to fly at all. War is not a school backyard fight that you compare numbers and come up winners (assuming IAF lost more aircraft than PAF - which anyway is not the case)... War is fought along strategic objectives backed by logistical planning and thrust of armed forces. let us talk about Chuck Yeager........it is a fact that Chuck Yeager proved horribly wrong in the 1971 war....he said PAF was the greatest air force...he also said that Pakistani army will be in New Delhi in a week.....he was wrong on both counts.....Chuck Yeager was a legendary air force warrior, no doubt about that....but he was acting as an official advisor to Pakistani Government during 1971 war, so his position was biased...did Chuck Yeager say that Soviet air force was the best in class??....even though without doubt it was the best air force during his times.......No, he did not say that because Soviets were enemy state of US, so his vantage point was different....

Since the Taliban do not have an airforce, how do you conduct a comparison of the 'USAF vs the Taliban AF'? Thats a pointless argument.

If you want to argue that Chuck Yaeger's claims about PAF vs IAF losses and performance were incorrect, then you need to actually post sources and links to show so, not merely say that 'it is a fact'. Such an exercise would be entirely within the subject of this thread, and should be what the members focus on - trying to validate or discredit Air Combat numbers.

well i guess the pakistanis need to a shoulder to cry on after they lost the war....i don't think the Indians should be complaining....after all we need to be sensitive to our neighbour's predicament

And no need to flame - if you cannot participate in a discussion with civility then don't participate. I banned two Pakistani posters yesterday for ignoring my warning on that count and I'll have no qualms about banning anyone else if you cannot be civil and stick to civil and logical discussion.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

1.we all kmow the final outcome war 71.no point in seeing air war,ground war or sea war separeately.

thats the point for this thread!

2.IAF lost majority of its fighters from ground fire during ground attack sorties.Also its widely believed that IAF did more than twise the ground attack sortie PAF did.In that process though it lost many aircrafts its also helped the ground troops bringing fast and definite outcome of the war.Which was not exactly the case with PAF ,take for instance of Longewala battle.

- IAF inflicted just about same loss on ground, air, and by air defence. that sums up close to 100! the longewala battle has been discused to death and you may get in depth answer and no PAF was not scared of IAF like your peta g likes to say.

3.Both in 65(definately) & 71 wars PAF had numerically little smaller but technically better fighters in their than IAF.PAF was also undoubtedly better trained with ace pilots like Chuck Yeager(USAF). so not surprisingly the PAF better kill ratio.

Chuck was not here to train our pilots! he served here as advisor! dont have an impression that IAF had no training with USAF infact both PAF and IAF where their togather and some were course mates?! lol..

and by the way i have failed to understand how 200 or so F-86 F-104 f-6 are supirior to mig-21 gnat hunters su-7s?? lol.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A better analysis of effectiveness of the two air forces is provided by the losses per sortie figure. The IAF flew at least double the number of combat sorties per day than the PAF, thereby exposing itself to ground fire and enemy interdiction. Despite this, the IAF's attrition rate of 0.86 per 100 sorties during the 1971 War compares favourably with the Israeli rate of 1.1 in the Yom Kippur War. The PAF's overall attrition rate works out to 2.47 (including transporters and recce aircraft lost on the ground). If aircraft destroyed on the ground are not taken into account, the rate works out to 1.12, which is still very high given that PAF aircraft never really stood back to fight.

The question of loss is important but, in the ultimate analysis, secondary. Achieving air superiority cost the IAF dearly in 1971 but in the end it managed to achieve complete dominance over the skies in both East and West Pakistan.

1971 India-Pakistan War: The Air War - Case West

This continues to focus on the overall air war, not PAF vs IAF, and that last statement is completely unsubstantiated, at least as far as the information in the article is concerned.

The IAF could not achieve dominance in the skies unless it had a overwhelming advantage in air2air combat vs the PAF, or the PAF fleet was decimated and non longer posed a challenge to the IAF.

Both of those situations are possible, but this thread is focusing primarily on the former.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well it is not a pointless argument.....Taliban did have an airforce, even though they had 10-20 aircraft....they had used it very effectively against Northen alliance prior to Operation Enduring Freedom.....so it fits very well in the mircrosm of argument that you are trying to advance against the IAF and in favour of PAF....OK let us talk of the war against Iraq....Saddam did have an air force in 2003.....but US lost more aircraft simply because it was in offensive mission and flying more sorties.....it is simple mathematics.....the more you put yourself in the line of fire, the more are your chances of being shot down......how can an air force that is not flying any sorties loose more aircraft....as for posting facts, the rules do not allow me to post links before 15 months, otherwise the information is readily available on simple googling

The argument is pointless in the context of comparing the Taliban to the USAF, since there was no air combat worth mentioning between the two. As you said, the Taliban AF was used against the NA, not the US.

Again, the argument with Iraq vs US that you bring is also one of the overall conflict, not one of the respective AF's vs each other, in which case the US has an unarguable advantage. I do not believe the US lost more AC than the Iraqis in A2A combat.

That is the context for the discussion in this thread as well - PAF vs IAF. Not losses due to ground fire, or attrition, but losses in A2A combat with each other.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In that case I would have to say that even the context is pointless....you are trying to compare IAF losses v/s PAF losses and that too only in A2A combat....can you first of all tell me what is the motivation behind this (to me) quiete pointless context....no war has ever been fought along the context that you are setting up for this discussion....in fact, with this limited single track focus, you cannot even ***** the performance of the respective air forces in a holistic manner.....and how do you tell that Chuck Yeager is telling the truth, or for that matter IAF or PAF is telling the truth....certainly no Pakistani worth his mettle is going to admit that he lost more number of aircraft....ditto India.....the only yardstick to measure the performance of respective wings of armed forces is the final result of the war and whether strategic objectives were achieved.....do you really think that PAF pilots were just given a simple brief that their only job is to shoot down IAF aircraft in 1971 war....in that case, you do not appreciate the complexities of an air force as an armed wing capable of altering situation in theatre of combat and the final result....you are equating war to a school backyard brawl and oversimplifying the context.

First of all, I didn't start this thread, and Indian did. And the title of thread is what limits the context of the discussion.

If you wish to discuss whether the IAF achieved ts objectives in providing air support to ground forces in the war, and whether or not that had a decisive impact on the result of the war, then that does not fall under the ambit of this thread.

As I told Vinod, it is pointless to start a thread comparing the performance of a particular arm of the two Military's, and then argue that the performance is tied to the final result in the overall conflict - in which case if the final result is known, what is there to discuss?

Such a discussion might be more constructive in the context of the 1965 war, where there was no clear winner.

In the case of 1971, the overall war was won by India, we know that, but how did the IAF fare against the PAF in A2A combat is the question here.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^ I am aware of the complexities of any war, but again, if you know what the final result of the war was, and you want to tie performance of a particular arm of the military to the final result, and the result is known, what is the point of discussion?

 

[Vinod2070]

In terms of tallying the losses of both sides and analyzing the performance of each? How has he been proved factually wrong in those aspects of his analysis?

His overall credibility goes down because of some of his claims that prove that he was highly opinionated and factually wrong.

Brig General Chuck Yeager's account [29] of the war, from his autobiography, is selectively quoted by Pakistanis in support of PAF claims. However, the credibility of the same is also completely destroyed through the inclusion of certain laughable gems in his own assessment, such as the claim that India wanted to keep East Pakistan for itself, that the IAF operated the MiG-21J (not inducted until 1973 as the MiG-21MF) and that F-86 and F-104 Starfighters constituted half the PAF fleet of 500 aircraft! Yeager gives away his agenda by explicitly labeling the conflict as a surrogate war between the Soviet Union (India) and America (Pakistan). Yeager also mentions that the outcome on the ground was the complete opposite of the outcome of the air war, where the PAF "whipped their (Indian) ***** in the sky ". Yet, without the IAF's dominance over the battlefield and the consequential ability to provide uninterrupted support to ground forces throughout the conflict, how could that have ever happened? Perhaps this embarrassingly false account simply added to the PAF's lack of credibility, fueled in the past by ridiculous claims.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/18071-who-won-air-war-1971-a.html#post248799

 

[Vinod2070]

And at no point have I suggested merely looking at the overall numbers of Aircraft lost without taking into account whether or not they were lost in Air Combat.

The thread has to be limited to this context in this discussion because the way you want to frame the discussion is pointless.

You want to argue that the IAF's primary mission was to support Indian ground forces in the war. We know which side won the war, therefore you argue that the IAF won vs the PAF. There is nothing to discuss from that perspective.

You are framing the question to fit your perspective and answering it in the same breath!

I think that the article sums of the objectives of the two air forces quite well.

Even if the Pakistani claim that the Indians lost more aircraft is accepted, does it suggest that the Pakistanis won the air war? The answer is a clear no. Because war, in the ultimate analysis, is not a numbers game. Winning a war has to do with achieving clear objectives. For the IAF, the aim was twofold: first, to prevent the PAF from messing with the Indian Army's advances, logistics and launching points; and second, to seriously impair Pakistan's capacity to wage war. The PAF's job was to do the opposite.

So while the head on IAF Vs. PAF kills are important, they can't be the be all and end all of the war. I started this thread not to say that because India won the war, it won the air war too but to say the IAF contributed decisively to the victory while PAF could not act decisively to prevent it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well even from your perspective also, there cannot be any discussion....publish the IAF figures (aircraft lost, shot down etc), PAF figures and figures of Chuck Yeager...discussion is complete

Let me ask you a simple question then:
What are you trying to discuss and why??

Actually at no point have I suggested that Chuck Yaegers comments are the end all of the analysis of the A2A combat results, I have questioned the comments of some members who have said Yaeger is wrong by asking them validate their assertions that Yaeger's analysis on PAF kills and performance is incorrect.

As someone else pointed out, there are varying counts on how many aircraft each side lost, the uncertainty can form the basis of a discussion.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think that the article sums of the objectives of the two air forces quite well.

So while the head on IAF Vs. PAF kills are important, they can't be the be all and end all of the war. I started this thread not to say that because India won the war, it won the air war too but to say the IAF contributed decisively to the victory while PAF could not act decisively to prevent it.

Vinod,

In that case, your thread should have been about whether the IAF contributed decisively to the 1971 victory, and not what it is titled currently.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

His overall credibility goes down because of some of his claims that prove that he was highly opinionated and factually wrong.



http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/18071-who-won-air-war-1971-a.html#post248799

i have already answered and busted that bubble of your bk vetdream!

the funny thing is he himslef has exaggerate and twisted the figers more then chuck did.. PAF with 500 aircraft?? lol

ACIG.ORG

(In summary, on 3 December 1971, the PAF had seven F-104A/B Starfighters, 23 Mirage IIIEP/RP/DP (of which some 20 were operational), a total of 136 F-86F and Sabre F.Mk.6s (118 operational), 54 F-6 and MiG-19s (48 operational), 19 B-57Bs (18 operational), one B-57C and two RB-57Fs, eleven T-33As and three RT-33As, 37 Cessna T-37As, some 40 T-6s (of which 17 were deployed in combat), at least three Fokker F.27s and nine C-130s, for a total of 263 combat-, around a dozen of transport-, and slightly over 80 training aircraft, as well as 12 helicopters.)

still 263 or even 300 combat strenth is no where close to 500 what mr. wanna be factual says.



no dough chuck is anti soviet but the fact does not change that PAF destroyed over 100 IAF fighters! not all in the air like chuck mentioned.




lol check out the professionalism in him! now he is playing "he said that he said this" game and still did not provide any accurate information! IAF did had a strenth of 1200 aircraft not all combat like this fact twister says. i dough any pak rtd officer would make such a claim like IAF operated mig-23 and 19 when even our pak military fanboys know better heck i have come across indian fanboys on youtube who claim PAF had f-16s in 1971 war.



funnily enough, it was PAF with 40 opperational F-6A not "C" varriant like this guys claims.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod,

In that case, your thread should have been about whether the IAF contributed decisively to the 1971 victory, and not what it is titled currently.

I would think they mean the same thing. IAF was successful in its objectives of doing it's bit towards the overall effort. That means success and therefore victory.

The victory came not despite the IAF's failures but because of it's very strong role and contributions.

 

[Muradk]

I would think they mean the same thing. IAF was successful in its objectives of doing it's bit towards the overall effort. That means success and therefore victory.

The victory came not despite the IAF's failures but because of it's very strong role and contributions.

I have the answer
India won every time BUSS HAPPY NOW. This discussion is like the Kashmir Issue can never be solved.