1965 Biggest Tank Battle since WW II - Pakistani Victory : The Australian

[Shadow_Hunter]

LOL. So, in your opinion Pakistan won the 1965 war?

Haven't you been listening you piece of sh!t? Do hell with attrition rate and higher losses of soldiers, or the fact that India achieved its war objectives and pakistan didn't. Pakistan defended Lahore so they won the war. If they had lost Lahore, they would have said they defended Islamabad so they won the war. But pakistan always wins.

 

[A1Kaid]

LOL. So, in your opinion Pakistan won the 1965 war?

Pakistan won a tactical victory, inflicted heavy losses on all Indian units that invaded Pakistan, forced them all to retreat, successful counter-attacks, Battle of Chawinda was the decisive crushing blow against the Indian First Armored Division in the 1965 war, Air war was unequivocally won by PAF. Though main strategic objective such as Kashmir wasn't achieved and in fact abandon in the war.

Had Pakistan's counter-attacks pursued fleeing Indian units who were escaping on their last tank of petro and many just on foot, it could have been open slaughter but cease fire was called into effect hence why your side was quick to agree with the cease fire. Pakistan agreed to it as it was being pressured by US at the time, considering US supplied a lot of military hardware to PM.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

Some people only discuss for the sake of discussion.

 

[A1Kaid]

Haven't you been listening you piece of sh!t? Do hell with attrition rate and higher losses of soldiers, or the fact that India achieved its war objectives and pakistan didn't. Pakistan defended Lahore so they won the war. If they had lost Lahore, they would have said they defended Islamabad so they won the war. But pakistan always wins.

Islamabad didn't even exist at the time of 1965 you idiot. You're point is also invalid because defending against an armed invasion with a successful defense is considered a military victory in the battle. Strategic victory is different than tactical victory. Overall objective in my opinion seems to have been abandon and the focus was changed to IB.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

Islamabad didn't even exist at the time of 1965 you idiot. You're point is also invalid because defending against an armed invasion with a successful defense is considered a military victory in the battle. Strategic victory is different than tactical victory. Overall objective in my opinion seems to have been abandon and the focus was changed to IB.

Yes I now firmly believe that pakistan won the 1965 war. What can one do when definition of victory is different in Pakistani dictionary. Losers never say that they lost.

 

[A1Kaid]

Now accept it dude. And you have no neutral source to say that More Indian soldiers got killed than Pakistani. While we have shown you many still you are not accepting. You are claiming much but showing no neutral sources while asking us to show neutral sources and still not accepting those sources.

I've already provided a source from the BBC of actual reporting not opinion piece from 1965. Besides, a lot of my information of the 1965 comes from books not internet readings, not all sources have links to them. I think I'm better read than many of you in the 1965 war, I've read personal accounts, of retired commanders and officers from both sides of the war, analysis, and other data. Internet sources on the 1965 war don't even come close to the detail of books authored by retired military staff.



BBC ON THIS DAY | 6 | 1965: Indian Army invades W Pakistan

Here is a BBC report from those days in 1965 which tells of Pakistani ground victory in 1965.

Reports from the Pakistani city of Karachi say forces have beaten back the Indian Army from Lahore.

They said advances at the border towns of Jasar, Wagah and Bedian had all been "fully stopped".

Pakistani officials say the number of Indian dead in the Lahore sector is 800, their own casualties are reported to be "very light".

 

[kaykay]

Yes I now firmly believe that pakistan won the 1965 war. What can one do when definition of victory is different in Pakistani dictionary. Losers never say that they lost.

hahahaha true story even though.....
1. their they start war and then run saving their a$$.
2. They lost more soldiers.
3. They lost more lands
but still they claim victory. Hahahaha outsiders must be laughing.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

hahahaha true story even though.....
1. their they start war and then run saving their a$$.
2. They lost more soldiers.
3. They lost more lands
but still they claim victory. Hahahaha outsiders must be laughing.

If anyone still has any doubts about who won the war, he should just look at the title. The title says Pakistan won a "battle", not a war.

 

[kaykay]

If anyone still has any doubts about who won the war, he should just look at the title. The title says Pakistan won a "battle", not a war.

I know dude. But don't you feel this would be shameful for anyone who "starts war and then run saving his a$$". Hahaha

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

I know dude. But don't you feel this would be shameful for anyone who "starts war and then run saving his a$$". Hahaha

And then they claim that they won the war since Ceasefire was signed. Going by their logic, Saddam won the first Gulf war since US did not capture Bagdad.

 

[waz]

India lost more in materials and men in Kargil (including several aircraft), so I take they lost? That seems to be the line being pushed here by some of the Indian posters.

The 1965 war was a strategic stalemate.

 

[Slayer786]

Aray bhai kiyu zakham may namak cherak rahay ho indians kay. Becharo ka dil tut jayga.

 

[jaiind]

 

[anilindia]

Pakistan has won 65 war in the same way as they won 47, 71, 99, Siachen, Sircreek,.....

 

[notsuperstitious]

India lost more in materials and men in Kargil (including several aircraft), so I take they lost? That seems to be the line being pushed here by some of the Indian posters.

The 1965 war was a strategic stalemate.

War can be won and lost in terms of objectives only.