Why has Pak lost against India every time?

[sword9]

There was no rout. The only "rout" in the contemporary South Asian history has been the Chinese route of the IA in 62. Nothing else comes even close to the definition of the term in Indo-Pak context.

That war lasted a month, but is was a rout, no boubt about that. We know that reality and learnt from it. What about you?

The 1971 war was a "surrender" without any real fighting since the Indian forces avoided any major combat by bypassing Pakistani defensive positions (which had huge gaps due to shortage of manpower).

The Chinese did the same in 1962, its called maneuver. I am sure you know that manuever is one of the basic principles of warfare.

Units like Pakistani 26FF etc., made sure that Indians could not get away with terminology such as a "rout".

Those units were exceptions, just like our units like "C" Coy 13 Kumaon at Razang La. Although battles are won by defeating ground units, the main aim is to defeat the will of the enemy commander - his will to fight.

In Kargil, the Pakistani Army left the heights on its own accord due to International pressure (and not due to pressure put on by the IA). So please lets keep away from unfounded claims of routs in the Indo-Pakistan context.

You may ignore facts, but that is your perogative.
The fact remains that the Indian army was limited to ops on the Indian side of the LOC, due to political and international pressure. In normal circumstances, one would have left the troops in Kargil to tweedle their thumbs, and gone for encirclement across the LOC.

 

[sword9]

I am wondering.... if the IA routs when it wants why doesn't it do it all the time then? And why do they need nukes? They rout whenever they want.

India would if it initiated a conflict. In 4 conflicts (1948, 1965, 1971, 1999) between India & Pakistan 3 were initiated by Pakistan ('48, '65, & '99), and 1971 was initiated by India - you know the result of that. It takes months of preparation for decisiove victory.

India requires nukes for more pressing reasons than say UK requires nukes, in todays world.

 

[Keysersoze]

India would if it initiated a conflict. In 4 conflicts (1948, 1965, 1971, 1999) between India & Pakistan 3 were initiated by Pakistan ('48, '65, & '99), and 1971 was initiated by India - you know the result of that. It takes months of preparation for decisiove victory.

India requires nukes for more pressing reasons than say UK requires nukes, in todays world.

Sorry mate.......now you are saying it takes months to prepare for a decisive victory? I thought The IA decides when it wants to create "routs"????

Rout--
1. a defeat attended with disorderly flight; dispersal of a defeated force in complete disorder: to put an army to rout; to put reason to rout.

Where were the "routs" in 48 or 65 or 99 (or even the chinese)or are there only "routs" when you decide that there are routs?
The only rout I have seen in recent history was the Iraqi army in the gulf in 91

Making statements like "IA routs when it wants" is a silly statement when they patently haven't routed when they wanted.
The recent war in Iraq shows that even The US can't "rout" all the time, so somehow i doubt the IA can.

 

[Spring Onion]

LT yes

i undertsand that there were no reinforcements and as far as i had understood that unless u dont have a regular safe supply line u cant maintain it in enemy's territory. and i think it was the basic mistake or flaw that we couldnt planned properly .
If ur suply line is cut off how can there be full-flegde counter attacks

 

[sword9]

Sorry mate.......now you are saying it takes months to prepare for a decisive victory? I thought The IA decides when it wants to create "routs"????

keysersoze,
Do you understand logistics?

Rout--
1. a defeat attended with disorderly flight; dispersal of a defeated force in complete disorder: to put an army to rout; to put reason to rout.keysersoze,

keysersoze,
Thanks for the definition. Now put that in 2 weeks.

Where were the "routs" in 48 or 65 or 99 (or even the chinese)or are there only "routs" when you decide that there are routs?

You must have an understanding of the 4 Indo-Pak conflicts in some detail, or you may go off the mark.

The only rout I have seen in recent history was the Iraqi army in the gulf in 91

Yes, and how much preparation time was required for that?

Making statements like "IA routs when it wants" is a silly statement when they patently haven't routed when they wanted.

We had a decisive aim in 1971 and we did it. The war was started by us and finished by us, in 2 weeks time.

The recent war in Iraq shows that even The US can't "rout" all the time, so somehow i doubt the IA can.

Do you know the difference between conventional warfare and guerilla warfare?

 

[sword9]

LT yes

i undertsand that there were no reinforcements and as far as i had understood that unless u dont have a regular safe supply line u cant maintain it in enemy's territory. and i think it was the basic mistake or flaw that we couldnt planned properly .
If ur suply line is cut off how can there be full-flegde counter attacks

Jana,
You are correct. The Kargil conflict threw up many lessons for both of us, and also the world armies too.

The basics for warfare never change, inspite of sat phones and digital missiles.

 

[Keysersoze]

Ok the quote button is not working so let me break it down for you.

I understand logistics ......by your definition a rout is only possible with lots of preperation. a divided country with a fractious civilian population and a army cut off from resupply and reinforcement. Which kinda puts paid to the idea that the "IA routs when it wants" please note there are no proviso's to that statement. Which seem to be popping up now


I have seen routed forces (On a smaller scale albeit) and yes i do know the difference between conventional and guerilla warfare having participated in both.

If we look at wars fought by Indian forces since 45 how many routs are there?

 

[sword9]

I understand logistics ......by your definition a rout is only possible with lots of preperation. a divided country with a fractious civilian population and a army cut off from resupply and reinforcement. Which kinda puts paid to the idea that the "IA routs when it wants" please note there are no proviso's to that statement. Which seem to be popping up now

What do you know of the creation of Mukti Bahini guerilla forces? Read up and you will get the answer to your above posted statement.

I have seen routed forces (On a smaller scale albeit) and yes i do know the difference between conventional and guerilla warfare having participated in both.

Then that is whats happening in Iraq - Urban guerilla warfare. One cannot rout an insurgency, unless you use Ghengiz Khan tactics.

If we look at wars fought by Indian forces since 45 how many routs are there?

At the strategic level, 1971 ops in East Pakistan would be the only operation to qualify.

 

[blain2]

1. What is the meaning of "leaning" on a Ichogil canal? What did the IA achieve?
2. What was achieved by IA threatening Sialkot?

Ponder over the above questions and analyse what happened to the PA threat to Akhnoor. Then tell me if the 1965 IA ops were to rout or to remove the threat from Akhnoor.

Leaning is something that has appeared in the recent books and is subject to debate. The fact of the matter is that had the IA been allowed to cross over Ichogil canal (or BRB in our case), they would have gone in further...please don't tell me that the IA stopped out of some considerations other than stubborn Pakistani defences. Indian operational planning has always been to exploit the lack of depth on the Pakistani N-S axis. The only reason that IA has never been able to do that is because PA has never been routed by the IA on the defensive on its eastern borders.

"What was achieved by IA threatening Sialkot?"

The idea behind IA threatening Sialkot was nothing but an effort to relieve pressure on the Indian units by widening the front for Pakistani defences. Indian plans were always to make as much ingress into Pakistan as possible in order to hold ground for negotiations....this happens to ones advantage when the other side is completely routed and runs for its life...sadly for the IA, this never materialized in either of the wars.

 

[blain2]

You may ignore facts, but that is your perogative.
The fact remains that the Indian army was limited to ops on the Indian side of the LOC, due to political and international pressure. In normal circumstances, one would have left the troops in Kargil to tweedle their thumbs, and gone for encirclement across the LOC.

Left to tweedle their thumbs is a more appropriate term than using hyperbolic expressions like "rout".

The above point that you make about bypassing is what I have said happened in 71. So where is this trash talk about "routing" anything coming from?

and gone for encirclement across the LOC.

You are funny ....its easier said than done.

 

[blain2]

"We had a decisive aim in 1971 and we did it. The war was started by us and finished by us, in 2 weeks time."

Another childish claim. When you freaking outnuber the defenders 1:4 and then bypass them entirely instead of duking it out with them, then you can't call it a rout! Yes it was probably a smart thing and I would have done the same but then I would not call it a rout! My sincere advice to you is to Learn the appropriate usage of this word prior to using it.

 

[sigatoka]

1. Then that is whats happening in Iraq - Urban guerilla warfare. One cannot rout an insurgency, unless you use Ghengiz Khan tactics.

1. Even Ghengis Khan tactics of mass murder are not very effective in the todays world due to the fact that in a globalised world improvements in communication technology can spread anger against such behaivour.

 

[Keysersoze]

Quote:
I have seen routed forces (On a smaller scale albeit) and yes i do know the difference between conventional and guerilla warfare having participated in both.

----Then that is whats happening in Iraq - Urban guerilla warfare. One cannot rout an insurgency, unless you use Ghengiz Khan tactics.----


It didn't start as a insurgency.......thanks for telling me what happened there

 

[sword9]

Leaning is something that has appeared in the recent books and is subject to debate. The fact of the matter is that had the IA been allowed to cross over Ichogil canal (or BRB in our case), they would have gone in further...please don't tell me that the IA stopped out of some considerations other than stubborn Pakistani defences. Indian operational planning has always been to exploit the lack of depth on the Pakistani N-S axis. The only reason that IA has never been able to do that is because PA has never been routed by the IA on the defensive on its eastern borders.

It was never the aim. In 1965 IA ops were a reactive action of Op Gibralter and Op Grand Slam.

"What was achieved by IA threatening Sialkot?"

The idea behind IA threatening Sialkot was nothing but an effort to relieve pressure on the Indian units by widening the front for Pakistani defences. Indian plans were always to make as much ingress into Pakistan as possible in order to hold ground for negotiations

So you see the aim was to relieve pressure.

....this happens to ones advantage when the other side is completely routed and runs for its life...sadly for the IA, this never materialized in either of the wars.

For smaller tactical level examples the Battle of Asal Uttar 1965, was decisive, it destroyed PAs 6 Armd Div, and in 1971 I believe you guys refer to the 18 Div retreat in Longewal as the Gadgor gallop.

 

[sword9]

and gone for encirclement across the LOC.

You are funny ....its easier said than done.

Whoever said that war was easy?