What's new

1965 War Documentary Fath-e-Mobin

the Russians were calling you as ''Cows sitting in the Cockpits''.....seems the mindset hasn't improved much either. :lol:


Source it. Post up a reference please.

  1. Oh no, let's not. You don't have a figleaf to cover your wild speculations. If you don't know, say so. I am stating for a fact that there was no prior clash, and you have not the slightest evidence to prove that there was.
  2. You don't come from Kashmir. You come from the Mirpur region, a region tacked on to the possessions of the Dogras by military conquest, and therefore included in his title of Maharaja of Kashmir. You have nothing to do with the Kashmiri; not language, not ethnicity, not history, nothing but religion. So put a sock in it; you are mindbogglingly ignorant of history, of geography, of anthropology and, of course, of military matters.
  3. They never did, till they were put up to it.
And, as for my last point, as we have all seen before, whenever you run out of things to say, you say, and the same to you. Pathetic.

It is when you post such masterpieces, that people get befuddled .... I hope you do realise that almost 90% of people are ignorant and simply too stupid to learn cutting across national boundaries? LOL

Please keep your elegant language and wordplay for people like me who enjoy it ... rest don't get the A of it!!!! LOL

A pleasure reading your wordplay as always sir ...!!
 
.
India & Pakistan will forever claim and counter claim on the outcome of the war, but
this is what the International observers and media saw and reported on the 1965 war. !!!!


During 1965 War, India’s General Chaudhry ordered his troops to march on Sialkot and Lahore – jauntily inviting his officers to join him for drinks that evening in Lahore Gymkhana. He did not reckon on the Pakistani troops.

“The first Indian regiment that found itself face to face with Pakistanis didn’t get clobbered,” said a report in Washington DC, America. “They just turned and ran, leaving all of their equipment, artillery supplies and even extra clothing and supplies behind”.

I have been a journalist now for twenty years, ‘reported American Broadcasting Corporation’s Roy Maloni, “and want to go on record that I have never seen a more confident and victorious group of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan, right now.

“India is claiming all-out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady towards the front … These Muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propaganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side. “

The London Daily Mirror reported, “There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India’s attacking forces came to a dead stop. “During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistani troops.”

“India”, said the London Daily Times “is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces.” In Times reporter Louis Karrer wrote, “Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death“.

“… I will never forget the smile full of nerve the conducting army officers gave me. This smile told me how fearless and brave are the Pakistani young men. “Playing with fire to these men — from the “jawan” to the General Officer Commanding — was like children playing with marbles in the streets.

“I asked the GOC how it was that despite a small number Pakistanis were overpowering the Indians? He looked at me, smiled and said: “if courage, bravery and patriotism were purchasable commodities, then India would have got them with American aid.”

“Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies, if they had not already run away.”

Sunday Times London, Sep 19, 1965: “Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistani pilots and Indian officers’ leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one three to one in size of armed forces.”

“Pakistan’s success in the air means that she has been able to redeploy her relatively small army — professionally among the best in Asia — with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust”.

Patrick Seale, “The Observer, London”, Sep 12, 1965: “By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war”.

Roy Meloni, American Broadcasting Corporation, Sep 15, 1965: “India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front.”

“If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow? The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes. “

“Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force has been scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. Pakistan Air Force is claiming credit for only those killings that can be checked from other sources.”

Peter Preston, “The Guardian, London” – Sep 24, 1965: “One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds. “

“Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air-power expected an easy air-superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, of the whole conflict.”

“Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan’s civil air-line, which, in a country where ‘now’ means sometime and ‘sometime’ means never, is a model of efficiency. He talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble about figures. Immediately one has confidence in what he says.”

“His estimates proffered diffidently but with as much photographic evidence as possible speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks, are in something like a ratio of ten to one.”

“Yet, the quality of equipment, Nur insists, is less important than flying ability and determination. The Indians have no sense of purpose. The Pakistanis were defending their own country and willingly taking greater risks. ‘The average bomber crew flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on.‘ “

“This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots and you get the same intense story.”

Everett G. Martin, General Editor, Newsweek, Sep 20, 1965: “One point particularly noted by military observers is that the Indians in their first advances, the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. In contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during its attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing.)

“By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own. “

Indonesian Herald, Sep 11, 1965: “India’s barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralisation. The huge losses suffered by the Indian Armed Forces during the last 12 days of fighting could not be kept from the Indian public and in retaliation, the Indian armed forces are indulging in the most barbaric methods.”

“The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-India radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses“.

AFP Correspondent, Reporting on Sep 9, 1965: Pakistani forces thrusting six miles deep into Indian territory the south-east of Lahore have checked the Indian offensive launched on Sep 6 against the capital of West Pakistan.

Pakistani infantry supported by armour and guns were today entrenched six miles east of the Indian border, and well beyond Indian town of Khem Karan, the capture of which last week forced Indian tanks and men to make a hasty retreat.

From Khem Karan, an evergreen village now deserted by its 15,000 people, a 40-mile road leads directly to Amritsar, holy capital of India’s restive Sikhs. And a Pakistani offensive along that road could threaten the rear of Indian forces still facing Lahore from East Punjab.

As I visited Khem Karan today with the first party of newsmen shown into India by Pakistani officers, evidence of the Indians’ hasty withdrawal lay everywhere in the flat dust blown fields. Intact mortars and American made ammunition, much of which was still crated, for 81 and 120 mm mortars, shells for 90 mm tank guns, rifle cartridges in hundred, stacks of fuel in barrel, had been left behind.

India had sent against Lahore one armoured brigade and two infantry divisions. The initial thrust on Sep 6 carried the Indians two and a half miles deep into Pakistan from Khem Karan and the Pakistanis say they were outnumbered six to one.

The Pakistanis pushed the Indians back at the cost of bitter fighting. One Pakistani armoured unit ran into an Indian armoured regiment, the Ninth Royal Deccan Horse… and no shots were spared. I saw two Indian Sherman tanks on the road to Khem Karan blown clean through, one in the rear and one in the front, each by a single Pakistani shell with the dead crew still inside. Indian dead lay unburied in the fields. An Indian border post was riddled with bullets and shells. This is real war, even though Pakistani infantry are now resting at forward posts, with Indians on the defensive and the main action in the air.

Indian British made Canberra’s, Soviet made MiG-21s and French made Mystere and Ouragons constantly swoop, strafe and bomb from a safe altitude, for Pakistani anti-aircraft units are very much on the alert. On the road from Lahore charred trucks lay twisted wrecks, one of them still aflame. It is war run by cool professionals, with every gun and tank well protected by camouflage nets, every trench where it should be, perfect discipline and very high morale.

Almost every Pakistani officer says, “We are not interested in territorial gains, but we are very keen to give the Indians a hard lesson and we won’t stop short of that”.

BBC Commentary by Charles Douglas Home, Sep 10, 1965: “Man for man, unit for unit, Pakistan’s smaller Army is at a higher standard of training than the Indian Army. The present Indian intention was to scatter Pakistan’s smaller Army by making several other thrusts apart from the main fighting area in the Lahore sector. The intense air activity had prevented the mass movement of Indian troops by air”.

Christian Science Monitor, Sep 10, 1965: The Pakistan-India conflict, in the Pentagon’s early assessment, pits tighter discipline, a higher morale, better training, and some superior equipment among the Pakistanis against considerably larger Indian Land, Air and Sea Forces.

Washington sources see Pakistan aiming to humiliate India in a short conflict. They judge India as depending on its juggernaut to crush Pakistanis under sheer military weight. Armoured strength between the two forces is about equal but the Pakistani tanks are more modern.”

The ‘New York Times’, Sep 10, 1965: Pakistan has a somewhat more homogeneous army with less ethnic and religious frictions. Its soldiers have a high reputation for will to fight; and in Mohammad Ayub Khan, the head of state and Sandhurst-trained professional soldier, the army has always had a sympathetic supporter.

Joe McGowan Jr., Washington Post, Sep 10, 1965: “We fought for you last time,” several Pakistanis told me, referring to their wartime service under British command. “But this time it is our war and we shall fight it to the finish”.

‘Top of the News’, Washington, Sep 6-10, 1965: Nehru was not worried much about aggression when India took Goa. But Shastri has plenty to worry about now, because he is facing penal and disciplinary action by one of the toughest and best trained armies in the world, excellently led, highly organized and totally dedicated. For him he has a motley, disorganized and low-morale force of four times as many men as Pakistan, but they cannot or will not fight. They only beg.

The Pakistan military hardware, including tanks, planes, and ground-warfare equipment of every kind is far superior to that of Indians, and one long time expert of the Indian-Pakistan picture told me this afternoon that in his military opinion, there is little doubt but that the Pakistanis will lick the Indians in the long run, despite the fact that the Indian army outnumbers the Pakistan army four to one.

This expert said, however, that there is great disparity between the qualities of the two armies, not to mention the disparity in equipment. The Indian soldier is soft while the Pakistan soldier is tough and determined. The Indian leadership is vacillating and uncertain, while the Pakistan leadership is well trained, highly talented, and decisive.

The Indian Air Force is somewhat larger than the Pakistan Air Force in numbers of planes, but there is no organizational pattern to the way they have been acquired or to what is on hand. It is a weird conglomeration of all sorts and conditions of aircraft from a variety of countries, even including France and the maintenance problem is staggering, even if adequate maintenance personnel were available. It means a vast stocking of replacement parts (different for virtually every type of plane they have). On the contrary the Pakistan Air Force has been intelligent enough to standardise to a very high degree, thus reducing their maintenance problem to a minimum. And this is vitally important as any war proceeds beyond the very first stages.

Furthermore, it began to develop today that the Indian claims of having shot down large numbers of Pakistan Air Force planes in the first days of conflict were highly exaggerated, and that the Pakistan losses have been virtually nil in this line.

The Indian claims, frankly, were highly suspicious from the beginning because they are notably poor aviators and their equipment is antiquated and not at all a match for the modern jet equipment of the Pakistan Air Force. It just didn’t hold water to anyone who knew the details of the Indian air inventory as against that of Pakistan, that any such victories could have been achieved by the Indians”.

USA – Aviation Week & Space Technology – Dec 1968 issue:For the PAF, the 1965 War was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel”.

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis Publications – Volume 5: “Pakistan’s Air Force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war, exploiting its opponent’s weaknesses in an exemplary style – Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen”.

Here ends the story.

Can you provide the actual sources for these?
 
.
We won a lot of battles but lost the war .How is a war lost when you win the battles?

This alone shows how noob you are to military history. Hannibal of Barca, 180 BCE, never lost a battle in italy but he lost the war as his aim was to capture Rome. Romans simply waited out, and defeated his home nation when the moment was right. They only won 1 battle and won the war. More recently, both US in vietnam and USSR in afghanistan never lost a battle (or only minor losses) but lost the war.
 
.
What?? I am not sure i get what you are saying...what do you mean "no need to get things more violent"...i am saying we should have attacked east pakistan and not the west as that was your weakest link...it is stupid not to exploit your enemy weaknesses..no?


Dude there has to be a reason behind it...however wrong it may be...but atleast some reason ...right??? why do you think India wanted to capture Lahore and Sialkot...for what??

And I am saying doing so would have resulted in the war getting more violent, another front would have been opened up and knowing were would lose badly we would probably try to inflict some nasty damage, as would India. This was shown in 1971.

As for why India would want to do such a thing, simple. It would be a MASSIVE bargaining chip, and after that humiliation I doubt Pakistan would ever do anything major against India ever again.
 
.
India & Pakistan will forever claim and counter claim on the outcome of the war, but
this is what the International observers and media saw and reported on the 1965 war. !!!!


During 1965 War, India’s General Chaudhry ordered his troops to march on Sialkot and Lahore – jauntily inviting his officers to join him for drinks that evening in Lahore Gymkhana. He did not reckon on the Pakistani troops.

“The first Indian regiment that found itself face to face with Pakistanis didn’t get clobbered,” said a report in Washington DC, America. “They just turned and ran, leaving all of their equipment, artillery supplies and even extra clothing and supplies behind”.

I have been a journalist now for twenty years, ‘reported American Broadcasting Corporation’s Roy Maloni, “and want to go on record that I have never seen a more confident and victorious group of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan, right now.

“India is claiming all-out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady towards the front … These Muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propaganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side. “

The London Daily Mirror reported, “There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India’s attacking forces came to a dead stop. “During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistani troops.”

“India”, said the London Daily Times “is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces.” In Times reporter Louis Karrer wrote, “Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death“.

“… I will never forget the smile full of nerve the conducting army officers gave me. This smile told me how fearless and brave are the Pakistani young men. “Playing with fire to these men — from the “jawan” to the General Officer Commanding — was like children playing with marbles in the streets.

“I asked the GOC how it was that despite a small number Pakistanis were overpowering the Indians? He looked at me, smiled and said: “if courage, bravery and patriotism were purchasable commodities, then India would have got them with American aid.”

“Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies, if they had not already run away.”

Sunday Times London, Sep 19, 1965: “Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistani pilots and Indian officers’ leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one three to one in size of armed forces.”

“Pakistan’s success in the air means that she has been able to redeploy her relatively small army — professionally among the best in Asia — with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust”.

Patrick Seale, “The Observer, London”, Sep 12, 1965: “By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war”.

Roy Meloni, American Broadcasting Corporation, Sep 15, 1965: “India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front.”

“If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow? The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes. “

“Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force has been scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. Pakistan Air Force is claiming credit for only those killings that can be checked from other sources.”

Peter Preston, “The Guardian, London” – Sep 24, 1965: “One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds. “

“Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air-power expected an easy air-superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, of the whole conflict.”

“Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan’s civil air-line, which, in a country where ‘now’ means sometime and ‘sometime’ means never, is a model of efficiency. He talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble about figures. Immediately one has confidence in what he says.”

“His estimates proffered diffidently but with as much photographic evidence as possible speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks, are in something like a ratio of ten to one.”

“Yet, the quality of equipment, Nur insists, is less important than flying ability and determination. The Indians have no sense of purpose. The Pakistanis were defending their own country and willingly taking greater risks. ‘The average bomber crew flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on.‘ “

“This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots and you get the same intense story.”

Everett G. Martin, General Editor, Newsweek, Sep 20, 1965: “One point particularly noted by military observers is that the Indians in their first advances, the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. In contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during its attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing.)

“By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own. “

Indonesian Herald, Sep 11, 1965: “India’s barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralisation. The huge losses suffered by the Indian Armed Forces during the last 12 days of fighting could not be kept from the Indian public and in retaliation, the Indian armed forces are indulging in the most barbaric methods.”

“The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-India radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses“.

AFP Correspondent, Reporting on Sep 9, 1965: Pakistani forces thrusting six miles deep into Indian territory the south-east of Lahore have checked the Indian offensive launched on Sep 6 against the capital of West Pakistan.

Pakistani infantry supported by armour and guns were today entrenched six miles east of the Indian border, and well beyond Indian town of Khem Karan, the capture of which last week forced Indian tanks and men to make a hasty retreat.

From Khem Karan, an evergreen village now deserted by its 15,000 people, a 40-mile road leads directly to Amritsar, holy capital of India’s restive Sikhs. And a Pakistani offensive along that road could threaten the rear of Indian forces still facing Lahore from East Punjab.

As I visited Khem Karan today with the first party of newsmen shown into India by Pakistani officers, evidence of the Indians’ hasty withdrawal lay everywhere in the flat dust blown fields. Intact mortars and American made ammunition, much of which was still crated, for 81 and 120 mm mortars, shells for 90 mm tank guns, rifle cartridges in hundred, stacks of fuel in barrel, had been left behind.

India had sent against Lahore one armoured brigade and two infantry divisions. The initial thrust on Sep 6 carried the Indians two and a half miles deep into Pakistan from Khem Karan and the Pakistanis say they were outnumbered six to one.

The Pakistanis pushed the Indians back at the cost of bitter fighting. One Pakistani armoured unit ran into an Indian armoured regiment, the Ninth Royal Deccan Horse… and no shots were spared. I saw two Indian Sherman tanks on the road to Khem Karan blown clean through, one in the rear and one in the front, each by a single Pakistani shell with the dead crew still inside. Indian dead lay unburied in the fields. An Indian border post was riddled with bullets and shells. This is real war, even though Pakistani infantry are now resting at forward posts, with Indians on the defensive and the main action in the air.

Indian British made Canberra’s, Soviet made MiG-21s and French made Mystere and Ouragons constantly swoop, strafe and bomb from a safe altitude, for Pakistani anti-aircraft units are very much on the alert. On the road from Lahore charred trucks lay twisted wrecks, one of them still aflame. It is war run by cool professionals, with every gun and tank well protected by camouflage nets, every trench where it should be, perfect discipline and very high morale.

Almost every Pakistani officer says, “We are not interested in territorial gains, but we are very keen to give the Indians a hard lesson and we won’t stop short of that”.

BBC Commentary by Charles Douglas Home, Sep 10, 1965: “Man for man, unit for unit, Pakistan’s smaller Army is at a higher standard of training than the Indian Army. The present Indian intention was to scatter Pakistan’s smaller Army by making several other thrusts apart from the main fighting area in the Lahore sector. The intense air activity had prevented the mass movement of Indian troops by air”.

Christian Science Monitor, Sep 10, 1965: The Pakistan-India conflict, in the Pentagon’s early assessment, pits tighter discipline, a higher morale, better training, and some superior equipment among the Pakistanis against considerably larger Indian Land, Air and Sea Forces.

Washington sources see Pakistan aiming to humiliate India in a short conflict. They judge India as depending on its juggernaut to crush Pakistanis under sheer military weight. Armoured strength between the two forces is about equal but the Pakistani tanks are more modern.”

The ‘New York Times’, Sep 10, 1965: Pakistan has a somewhat more homogeneous army with less ethnic and religious frictions. Its soldiers have a high reputation for will to fight; and in Mohammad Ayub Khan, the head of state and Sandhurst-trained professional soldier, the army has always had a sympathetic supporter.

Joe McGowan Jr., Washington Post, Sep 10, 1965: “We fought for you last time,” several Pakistanis told me, referring to their wartime service under British command. “But this time it is our war and we shall fight it to the finish”.

‘Top of the News’, Washington, Sep 6-10, 1965: Nehru was not worried much about aggression when India took Goa. But Shastri has plenty to worry about now, because he is facing penal and disciplinary action by one of the toughest and best trained armies in the world, excellently led, highly organized and totally dedicated. For him he has a motley, disorganized and low-morale force of four times as many men as Pakistan, but they cannot or will not fight. They only beg.

The Pakistan military hardware, including tanks, planes, and ground-warfare equipment of every kind is far superior to that of Indians, and one long time expert of the Indian-Pakistan picture told me this afternoon that in his military opinion, there is little doubt but that the Pakistanis will lick the Indians in the long run, despite the fact that the Indian army outnumbers the Pakistan army four to one.

This expert said, however, that there is great disparity between the qualities of the two armies, not to mention the disparity in equipment. The Indian soldier is soft while the Pakistan soldier is tough and determined. The Indian leadership is vacillating and uncertain, while the Pakistan leadership is well trained, highly talented, and decisive.

The Indian Air Force is somewhat larger than the Pakistan Air Force in numbers of planes, but there is no organizational pattern to the way they have been acquired or to what is on hand. It is a weird conglomeration of all sorts and conditions of aircraft from a variety of countries, even including France and the maintenance problem is staggering, even if adequate maintenance personnel were available. It means a vast stocking of replacement parts (different for virtually every type of plane they have). On the contrary the Pakistan Air Force has been intelligent enough to standardise to a very high degree, thus reducing their maintenance problem to a minimum. And this is vitally important as any war proceeds beyond the very first stages.

Furthermore, it began to develop today that the Indian claims of having shot down large numbers of Pakistan Air Force planes in the first days of conflict were highly exaggerated, and that the Pakistan losses have been virtually nil in this line.

The Indian claims, frankly, were highly suspicious from the beginning because they are notably poor aviators and their equipment is antiquated and not at all a match for the modern jet equipment of the Pakistan Air Force. It just didn’t hold water to anyone who knew the details of the Indian air inventory as against that of Pakistan, that any such victories could have been achieved by the Indians”.

USA – Aviation Week & Space Technology – Dec 1968 issue:For the PAF, the 1965 War was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel”.

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis Publications – Volume 5: “Pakistan’s Air Force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war, exploiting its opponent’s weaknesses in an exemplary style – Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen”.

Here ends the story.


A nice summary of newspapers summing up the achievements of a Baghdad Pact and CENTO member state in the era of Cold War!

Fast forward to

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33815204




Are India's plans to celebrate 1965 war 'victory' in 'bad taste'?
  • 13 August 2015


India plans to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its "victory" over Pakistan in the 1965 war with a series of events, including a "grand carnival". But critics say it is in bad taste and a waste of money, writes the BBC's Geeta Pandey in Delhi.

The war was fought on the western front after Pakistan launched "Operation Gibraltar" - a covert offensive in which up to 30,000 fighters were pushed across the ceasefire line into Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. India retaliated by crossing the international border at Lahore.

For over three weeks, more than 100,000 Indian soldiers fought against Pakistan's 60,000 troops.

"The celebrations are set to kick off on 28 August, the day Indian troops captured the strategic Haji Pir Pass," Indian defence ministry spokesman Sitanshu Kar told the BBC.

"They will go on until 22 September - the day India and Pakistan agreed to a UN-sponsored ceasefire."


The main event - a "victory carnival" with a show of military might, song and dance - is planned for 20 September on Rajpath - the wide boulevard in the city centre where the annual Republic Day parade is held and where India recently organised a record-breaking yoga event.

The celebrations will also include seminars, photo exhibitions and a concert.

"The 1965 war has been forgotten by people and this is an effort to revive the memory," said former journalist Nitin Gokhale who has been commissioned by the defence ministry to write a book on the conflict.

Gains and losses

At the end of the war, this is what India said the tally looked like:

  • India won 1,920 sqkm of territory; Pakistan won 540 sqkm
  • 2,862 Indian soldiers were killed; Pakistan lost 5,800 soldiers
  • India lost 97 tanks; 450 Pakistani tanks were destroyed or captured
Pakistan has not responded to attempts by the BBC to verify the numbers.

India captured the key Haji Pir pass - "a major ingress route for Pakistanis" - and made some big gains in Sialkot and reached the doors of Lahore in Punjab. The Pakistani army managed to repulse a takeover of Lahore, made advances in the deserts of Rajasthan and came perilously close to taking over Akhnoor in the Jammu region.

But the gains were not substantial for either side and after the ceasefire, India and Pakistan met at Tashkent in January 1966 where they agreed to withdraw to their pre-war positions.


Over the years, both sides have claimed victory. Pakistan even celebrates 6 September every year as "Defence of Pakistan Day" with a 21-gun salute and a victory parade.

Indians meanwhile believe that their forces had the clear upper hand.

"This war is important for two reasons - it wiped the humiliation of defeat India faced in 1962 against China and also allowed the Indian army to hone and tweak their strategy. This gave them confidence which led to their decisive victory in the 1971 war against Pakistan," said Mr Gokhale.

"For India, 1965 was not a grand victory, but it can certainly be called a limited victory," he added.

Did India win the war?

At least three independent authors believed India had an upper hand in the war:

  • Retired American diplomat Dennis Kux: "Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. 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."
  • English historian John Keay: "The 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."
  • American author Stanley Wolpert: "The war ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on US 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 ceasefire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to [Pakistani president] Ayub's chagrin."
Pakistan's toned down celebrations: Ilyas Khan in Islamabad
Pakistan continues to observe 6 September as "defence day", but the zest and gusto associated with the celebrations has dampened in recent decades.

One reason is the passing of the 1965 generation. Secondly, the threat of militant attacks during the last ten years have forced military parades, air shows and armament displays to become more low key.

Another is that an alternative view of the chronology and consequences of the war has gained more currency in Pakistan.

Earlier it was believed that the 1965 war had been initiated by India with a view to capturing Lahore and breaking Pakistan. Celebrations were centred on the "valiant defence" by the Pakistani armed forces defeated that aim.

More recently some influential politicians and members of the armed forces have publicly stated that all wars with India were initiated by Pakistan.

Had the 1965 war been a success, the argument goes, it would not have led to the demise and humiliation of Field Marshal Ayub Khan, Pakistan's first military ruler under whose watch the war was fought.


India has never celebrated any of its wars on such a grand scale, so why this big victory carnival now?

"It's 50 years since we won the war, if you won't celebrate it now then when will you do?" asked the defence ministry's Sitanshu Kar.

Not all Indians, however, are enthusiastic about the celebrations and the defence expert at Delhi-based Centre for Police Research, Srinath Raghavan, says the idea of the "victory carnival" is "absurd".
smacks of bad taste. What do you have a carnival for? It is not a bad idea to commemorate the war, but it should be a solemn occasion, not a frivolous display of song and dance."

He said the government's plans to spend 350m rupees ($5.5m; £3.5m) on the event was "a waste of resources".

A former army soldier who fought in the 1999 Kargil conflict against Pakistan, he said, "the commemoration should not be jingoistic, it should be used to remember all the lives lost - of soldiers and civilians - on the border".

Although Islamabad has not commented officially, the plan for the victory carnival has, as expected, drawn criticism from Pakistan with some saying it could have a negative impact on bilateral ties.

Mr Raghavan also believes that it could lead to "unnecessary unpleasantness" at a time when the two countries have said they want to restart the dialogue process.

"A better way to commemorate the war," he said, "would be to inform people what this war was really about, to get the conversation going and foster a genuine historic dialogue about it."


The counter narrative.

Does it really matter how many lives were lost or how many aircrafts you shot down? Do a comparative analysis of the military casualties of Soviet Union versus the Germans in World War 2. The ratio is much greater than 10:1 in the favour of Germany ...

So?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-7-13_21-54-3.gif
    upload_2016-7-13_21-54-3.gif
    51 bytes · Views: 51
  • upload_2016-7-13_21-54-3.gif
    upload_2016-7-13_21-54-3.gif
    51 bytes · Views: 43
  • upload_2016-7-13_21-54-3.gif
    upload_2016-7-13_21-54-3.gif
    51 bytes · Views: 33
  • upload_2016-7-13_21-54-3.gif
    upload_2016-7-13_21-54-3.gif
    51 bytes · Views: 30
Last edited:
.
http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/csas/PDF/6-Dr. Lubna.pdf

Pakistan objected to Indian setting up Sardar post near Chad Bet (in response to pakistani rangers patrolling the area), launches Operation desert hawk, but ultimately had to vacate" Biar Bet and Point 84, Pakistan will also be dismantling its post at Kanjarkot. India will continue to have its post at Chad Bet. (It had re-occupied sardar post anyways)" as per international tribunal. http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XVII/1-576.pdf

"Reviewing and appraising the combined strength of the evidence relied upon by each side as proof or indication of the extent of its respective sovereignty in the region, and comparing the relative weight of such evidence, I conclude as follows. In respect of those sectors of the Rann in relation to which no specific evidence in the way of display of Sind authority, or merely trivial or isolated evidence of such a character, supports Pakistan's claim, I pronounce in favour of India. These sectors comprise about 90 per cent of the disputed territory. However, in respect of sectors where a continuous and for the region intensive Sind activity, meeting with no effective opposition from the Kutch side, is established, I am of the opinion that Pakistan has made out a better and superior title. 570 INDO-PAKISTAN WESTERN BOUNDARY CASE TRIBUNAL This refers to a marginal area south of Rahim ki Bazar, including Pirol Valo Kun, as well as to Dhara Banni and Chhad Bet, which on most maps appear as an extension of the mainland of Sind."

The first real incident was Sardar Post where 21 of Indian police were killed by pak army. That is what make you aggressor. India got 90% of the disputed area, including the place where first incident took place....

India still set up the post there first, a totally unnecessary move which escalated things.

let's see,
what was pakistani objective - Op Gibraltor and Op Brasstack - to Liberate the State of jammu and Kashmir - FAILED.
What was Indian objective - To open conflict across the International Border and capture Pakistani territory to bargain in cease fire - Sucess. India took 1500 sqm of Pakistani territory compared to 210 sqm that Pakistan amassed.

Capture of Lahore was one of the possibilities if the war continued but never an objective.

it was an objective, that's why India pressed on so much, but ultimately you couldn't break through.

  1. Oh no, let's not. You don't have a figleaf to cover your wild speculations. If you don't know, say so. I am stating for a fact that there was no prior clash, and you have not the slightest evidence to prove that there was.
  2. You don't come from Kashmir. You come from the Mirpur region, a region tacked on to the possessions of the Dogras by military conquest, and therefore included in his title of Maharaja of Kashmir. You have nothing to do with the Kashmiri; not language, not ethnicity, not history, nothing but religion. So put a sock in it; you are mindbogglingly ignorant of history, of geography, of anthropology and, of course, of military matters.
  3. They never did, till they were put up to it.
And, as for my last point, as we have all seen before, whenever you run out of things to say, you say, and the same to you. Pathetic.

I refuse to speak to someone as rude as you, learn some manners then we resume our conversation.
 
.
India still set up the post there first, a totally unnecessary move which escalated things.
Since the area where we set up the post was awarded to us by international tribunal, we were right in setting up the post. That makes pakistan the aggressor. No one can stop us from setting anything in our own territory. It simply wasn't your business to object to our presence. If pak has not wrongfully claimed that are to be theirs, we wouldn't have set-up the post.

it was an objective, that's why India pressed on so much, but ultimately you couldn't break through.

It means we did not get the decisive victory we wanted. It is like aiming for 10-0 in a football match and ending up 8-2. We did not achieve what we aimed for, but still won the match.
 
.
Source it. Post up a reference please.



It is when you post such masterpieces, that people get befuddled .... I hope you do realise that almost 90% of people are ignorant and simply too stupid to learn cutting across national boundaries? LOL

Please keep your elegant language and wordplay for people like me who enjoy it ... rest don't get the A of it!!!! LOL

A pleasure reading your wordplay as always sir ...!!

:(

I have begun to suspect that you may be right.

India still set up the post there first, a totally unnecessary move which escalated things.



it was an objective, that's why India pressed on so much, but ultimately you couldn't break through.



I refuse to speak to someone as rude as you, learn some manners then we resume our conversation.

Oh, you don't need to speak to me. I just need to put up facts showing that your statements are meaningless and hollow, and that's it. I don't need your goodwill, after all.
 
.
Since the area where we set up the post was awarded to us by international tribunal, we were right in setting up the post. That makes pakistan the aggressor. No one can stop us from setting anything in our own territory. It simply wasn't your business to object to our presence. If pak has not wrongfully claimed that are to be theirs, we wouldn't have set-up the post.

I'm curious, when we got the 10% of Kutch, did our borders advance? Because if they did, it means that land was rightfully ours so had every right to be furious when India makes a post.

:(
Oh, you don't need to speak to me. I just need to put up facts showing that your statements are meaningless and hollow, and that's it. I don't need your goodwill, after all.

Keep telling yourself that, whatever helps you sleep at night.

It means we did not get the decisive victory we wanted. It is like aiming for 10-0 in a football match and ending up 8-2. We did not achieve what we aimed for, but still won the match.

No, it's like someone punches you, so you punch them back, and then you try to punch them harder, but he blocks it. In other words, your square.
 
.
yup...usually when run out of arguments they also make empty threats and shower lot of insults...
I'm not crazy to keep on arguing to Indians ,I'd rather talk to a holy cow

Please, don't say foolish things. We lost in 71, and 65 was a stalemate upon further review.
lol Okay then Good for you
 
.
Blah blah blah blah blah.Get Over it ,You lost miserably Now everyone can say they are kings and they won the war.The reality is that we Won every war ,Now go cry to your moms about it .
Thank you very much
My job here is done

Please, don't say foolish things. We lost in 71, and 65 was a stalemate upon further review.
 
. .
I'm curious, when we got the 10% of Kutch, did our borders advance? Because if they did, it means that land was rightfully ours so had every right to be furious when India makes a post.



Keep telling yourself that, whatever helps you sleep at night.



No, it's like someone punches you, so you punch them back, and then you try to punch them harder, but he blocks it. In other words, your square.

As usual, you got things wrong. Pakistan didn't get 10% of Kutch, Pakistan got 10% of their claim on Kutch.
 
.
Yes I remember that there was armoured brigade named Puna Horse Pakistan even removed their sign form battle field
 
.
As usual, you got things wrong. Pakistan didn't get 10% of Kutch, Pakistan got 10% of their claim on Kutch.

You know what I meant, don't be a grammar Nazi. And our claim was (last time I checked) all of Kutch, so 10% of Kutch=10% of our claim on Kutch. I'm clearly a Maths genius for coming up with that one, am I right? :D
 
.
Back
Top Bottom