1971 War: When Indian missiles attacked Karachi's port

[Tornado23]

In your text books???

The fire caused from the 8x 500lb bombs dropped from the single B57 sortie was so bad, that it still raged on for another 4 days. Your harbour was on fire for another 4 days. Its fuel tanks smashed, ammo stores lit up and the jetty was cratered. Revenge is a dish best served with 500lb bombs

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

The fire caused from the 8x 500lb bombs dropped from the single B57 sortie was so bad, that it still raged on for another 4 days. Your harbour was on fire for another 4 days. Its fuel tanks smashed, ammo stores lit up and the jetty was cratered. Revenge is a dish best served with 500lb bombs

What I don't understand is, Indian Navy's Mumbai base is just nearby and it happens to be one of the largest in the region ever since Independence. Okha might be at best a refuelling base or rest station. While Karachi was your one and only Naval station and it was attacked and some of you folks get or try to get yourself sympathetic to the Okha attack.

If you had hit Mumbai base, HQ of our Western Command, then it's really a feat. Hear yourself.. just one B57. Even a squadron would have found it very tough to attack Mumbai base.

 

[JawadKKhan]

What I don't understand is, Indian Navy's Mumbai base is just nearby and it happens to be one of the largest in the region ever since Independence. Okha might be at best a refuelling base or rest station. While Karachi was your one and only Naval station and it was attacked and some of you folks get or try to get yourself sympathetic to the Okha attack.

If you had hit Mumbai base, HQ of our Western Command, then it's really a feat. Hear yourself.. just one B57. Even a squadron would have found it very tough to attack Mumbai base.

Geography! .. Karachi is way too close to indian border. Mumbai was not in range of the weapons those days. The aircrafts of those times had very limited range. F-86 Sabres the main fighters couldn't go until its a one-way trip. Navy had no missiles / capacity to fire at ranges. Airforce could go till where the max ranges allowed.

Yes, Now Mumbai is well in range, aircrafts / SOWs / cruise missiles . Now there are plethora of options. Not back then.

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

Geography! .. Karachi is way too close to indian border. Mumbai was not in range of the weapons those days. The aircrafts of those times had very limited range. F-86 Sabres the main fighters couldn't go until its a one-way trip. Navy had no missiles / capacity to fire at ranges. Airforce could go till where the max ranges allowed.

Yes, Now Mumbai is well in range, aircrafts / SOWs / cruise missiles . Now there are plethora of options. Not back then.

Exactly my point. Karachi to Mumbai land distance is 883 km. Through air it's even less. The reason is if a single B57 can attack an post means it's not defended heavily and not an place of importance. Extraordinary feats require celebration.

Our missile boats had lower range. Our frigates tugged them near to the Pakistani coasts, they came in, attacked and fleed quickly. Now that is innovation. The frigates would have tugged the missile boats again toward the end of the journey. I appreciate feats, irrespective of the nation's military involved.

 

[Super Falcon]

What land based missiles pak has to take tgese indian ship from land based mussile to destroy ships at sea today

 

[JawadKKhan]

Exactly my point. Karachi to Mumbai land distance is 883 km. Through air it's even less. The reason is if a single B57 can attack an post means it's not defended heavily and not an place of importance. Extraordinary feats require celebration.

Our missile boats had lower range. Our frigates tugged them near to the Pakistani coasts, they came in, attacked and fleed quickly. Now that is innovation. The frigates would have tugged the missile boats again toward the end of the journey. I appreciate feats, irrespective of the nation's military involved.

But you don't get it!.. Its india's advantage of larger Geography not a feat at all!

Understand why it was not possible for Pakistan to attack Mumbai. Pakistan wreck havoc on all the areas which were possible to reach due to distances but if there is no means to attack farther distances then its not a choice, its a question of technological bottleneck.

a) Karachi is 100 miles from LOC
b) Mumbai is 400 miles from LOC

Attacking Karachi was many times more easier for India as its only 100 miles from the border. Aircrafts / warships, everything has range till Karachi..

Indian boats could easily refuel from many points between Mumbai to Karachi as its all India in between. India over glorify its night ambush of firing missiles from distance and going back. India with 6 times larger Navy, such added benefit of Geography, better armaments did too little. India had all the technological means, geography at its side, but still india glorifies it as if it did something impossible. In contrasts, only PNS Hangoor managed to ruin India's celebrations by remaining in india's EEZ for weeks. 1 submarine vs 2 ASW frigates battle was epic in which 1 sank.

Mumbai is 400 miles from border, None of PAF fighter jets of that era had range till Mumbai. The PN even didn't had missiles. So practically there was no technological means to get to there..

If Mumbai or main indian naval port would have located at 100 odd miles from border, it would have been bombed for sure. As PAF did bombed whatever was in their range and fighter cover.

India always had a massive advantage of geography. Geography was even more nightmare for Pak military pre-1971. When Pak military had to divide forces from mainland to protect a piece of land 1000s miles away without any possibility of supply-line in war times. It was mission impossible. 1971 made Pakistan stronger as it could consolidate all its assets on the mainland, not 1000 miles apart.

Now with technological advancements, the limitations of ranges is also over. Now it has reach to much more depth into indian territory. For india, entire Pakistan was already in range for many decades.

 

[kris]

The fire caused from the 8x 500lb bombs dropped from the single B57 sortie was so bad, that it still raged on for another 4 days. Your harbour was on fire for another 4 days. Its fuel tanks smashed, ammo stores lit up and the jetty was cratered. Revenge is a dish best served with 500lb bombs

Source pls

 

[SQ8]

As the fires burnt - a senior naval officer was reported to have remarked “What a lovely bonfire” whilst sipping away on liquid inebriation with his son. Whether he did it in a resigned fate or not it was recalled a lot with contempt by many of the accomplished officers of the PN.

 

[blain2]

You could have taken the rest during last air skrimish, thats why i said you lost strategically.

Unless oneself is ready to stand and fight with a gun in ones hand to take back Kashmir, talk is overrated.

What does it mean "you lost strategically."? Would you care to elaborate please?

Did you want Pakistan to conduct a much larger air campaign while not realizing where it would have taken the two countries? Are you not aware of what transpired in 1948, 1965 and all through the 80s with Siachen culminating at Kargil? What are the lessons learned there?

Let's realize that Kashmir can only gain what it aspires to gain on the backs of its own people. No matter what Pakistan does, keeping the ground realities in mind, it is status quo unless the Kashmiris turn up in force and sustain their movement against foreign occupation and ethnic displacement.

On this specific thread, I agree that PAF let down the PN in terms of defending Karachi but PN's own defensive planning was also faulty. It was the PAF's Job to defend Karachi against IAF strikes and they failed to do so. ACM Raheem Khan kept 90% of his air power in reserve for a "supposed" air offensive that never materialized from the Presidency. The cost of it was that Karachi was denuded. Both PN and PAF have responsibility to bear on this issue as does the Army on the overall situation in EP.

 

[truthseeker2010]

Unless oneself is ready to stand and fight with a gun in ones hand to take back Kashmir, talk is overrated.

What does it mean "you lost strategically."? Would you care to elaborate please?

Did you want Pakistan to conduct a much larger air campaign while not realizing where it would have taken the two countries? Are you not aware of what transpired in 1948, 1965 and all through the 80s with Siachen culminating at Kargil? What are the lessons learned there?

Let's realize that Kashmir can only gain what it aspires to gain on the backs of its own people. No matter what Pakistan does, keeping the ground realities in mind, it is status quo unless the Kashmiris turn up in force and sustain their movement against foreign occupation and ethnic displacement.

On this specific thread, I agree that PAF let down the PN in terms of defending Karachi but PN's own defensive planning was also faulty. It was the PAF's Job to defend Karachi against IAF strikes and they failed to do so. ACM Raheem Khan kept 90% of his air power in reserve for a "supposed" air offensive that never materialized from the Presidency. The cost of it was that Karachi was denuded. Both PN and PAF have responsibility to bear on this issue as does the Army on the overall situation in EP.

You cannot take back territory you claim through local rebellion, if that would have been the case palestine would have been freed from Israeli occupation by now.
PAF's position in feb 2019 was something like allies were in desert storm. PAF would have have decimated IAF. The air campaign would have led to at most sanctions to both countries in short run. But if you are thinking nuclear, MAD and NFU would have provided restraint to both countries.
If you are saying that in past wars the local kashmirs were not with pak military than it looked different this time at least from the face of it. The movement that started after burhan wani looked to had momentum.

 

[blain2]

You cannot take back territory you claim through local rebellion, if that would have been the case palestine would have been freed from Israeli occupation by now.
PAF's position in feb 2019 was something like allies were in desert storm. PAF would have have decimated IAF. The air campaign would have led to at most sanctions to both countries in short run. But if you are thinking nuclear, MAD and NFU would have provided restraint to both countries.
If you are saying that in past wars the local kashmirs were not with pak military than it looked different this time at least from the face of it. The movement that started after burhan wani looked to had momentum.

Honestly, you have a very misplaced sense of understanding on how the air war and the larger war, which was a certainty had the air war escalated, would have panned out. It would have been another ugly stalemate with not much changing on the ground in IoK. Regardless of whatever tactical ascendency PAF may have had in the air, on the ground, Indians would have escalated. At the end of the day, even this ascendency would have only been tactical air superiority. What is required in Kashmir is not only sustained theater level air superiority but also a significant ground offensive to take back IoK. These are all issues that any observer of Pakistani military history and Kashmir wars has seen up close.

As such the reality is that IoK does not have a military solution unless Pakistan has a superiority similar to Russians vs. Ukraine or Azerbaijan vs. Armenia and in that situation too keep in mind, there is no nuclear overhang whereas in our case it does exist. If push comes to shove, India too would be willing to bring that capability into the equation, NFU be damned.

Pakistan would have been immediately embargoed by the US and the West, whereas Indians would have had their supplies sustained as the Russians and French would have continued to provide support. So overall, the net result at best would have been the same as 1965 or at worse Pakistan's economy would have tanked along with other damage in men and material.

Pakistan's goals must remain safeguarding our strategic interests while avoiding an open conflict. If it is not working then its time to go back to the drawing board and re-strategize. None of this will pan out in years and decades. We have to consider the long game. Think China vis a vis Taiwan or alternately some type of an arrangement with India whereby Kashmir valley population is agreeable to the agreed dispensation.

 

[SaadH]

You cannot take back territory you claim through local rebellion, if that would have been the case palestine would have been freed from Israeli occupation by now.
PAF's position in feb 2019 was something like allies were in desert storm. PAF would have have decimated IAF. The air campaign would have led to at most sanctions to both countries in short run. But if you are thinking nuclear, MAD and NFU would have provided restraint to both countries.
If you are saying that in past wars the local kashmirs were not with pak military than it looked different this time at least from the face of it. The movement that started after burhan wani looked to had momentum.

As a great man once said, fool me once, you can't get fooled again...

Pakistan tried the intervention route in 1965 in Kashmir, but the Kashmiris didn't want any part of it, in fact proceeded to sabotage the operation...

Now the onus is on the Kashmiri populace...they've repeatedly made deals with the devil, so shall they reap it's reward before fully repenting.

 

[Tornado23]

Source pls

1971 War: When Indian missiles attacked Karachi's port

1971 کی جنگ چھڑ جانے کے بعد انڈین نیوی کی تیز رفتار میزائل بوٹس کا پاکستان پر حملہ شروع ہو چکا تھا لیکن پاکستان کی نیوی جنگ لڑنے کی پوزیشن میں نہیں تھی۔ تو انہوں نے کراچی کی بندرگاہ کی حفاظت کیسے کی؟ جانیے اس آڈیو سٹوری میں After the outbreak of the 1971 war, the Indian Navy's high-speed...

defence.pk

What land based missiles pak has to take tgese indian ship from land based mussile to destroy ships at sea today

Zarb

 

[truthseeker2010]

As a great man once said, fool me once, you can't get fooled again...

Pakistan tried the intervention route in 1965 in Kashmir, but the Kashmiris didn't want any part of it, in fact proceeded to sabotage the operation...

Now the onus is on the Kashmiri populace...they've repeatedly made deals with the devil, so shall they reap it's reward before fully repenting.

Well if that's the case, kashmiris should suffer, why does pakistan take stand on kashmir.

 

[truthseeker2010]

Honestly, you have a very misplaced sense of understanding on how the air war and the larger war, which was a certainty had the air war escalated, would have panned out. It would have been another ugly stalemate with not much changing on the ground in IoK. Regardless of whatever tactical ascendency PAF may have had in the air, on the ground, Indians would have escalated. At the end of the day, even this ascendency would have only been tactical air superiority. What is required in Kashmir is not only sustained theater level air superiority but also a significant ground offensive to take back IoK. These are all issues that any observer of Pakistani military history and Kashmir wars has seen up close.

As such the reality is that IoK does not have a military solution unless Pakistan has a superiority similar to Russians vs. Ukraine or Azerbaijan vs. Armenia and in that situation too keep in mind, there is no nuclear overhang whereas in our case it does exist. If push comes to shove, India too would be willing to bring that capability into the equation, NFU be damned.

Pakistan would have been immediately embargoed by the US and the West, whereas Indians would have had their supplies sustained as the Russians and French would have continued to provide support. So overall, the net result at best would have been the same as 1965 or at worse Pakistan's economy would have tanked along with other damage in men and material.

Pakistan's goals must remain safeguarding our strategic interests while avoiding an open conflict. If it is not working then its time to go back to the drawing board and re-strategize. None of this will pan out in years and decades. We have to consider the long game. Think China vis a vis Taiwan or alternately some type of an arrangement with India whereby Kashmir valley population is agreeable to the agreed dispensation.

Sir, i would like to respectfully disagree, and yes i am a layman when it comes military. But my understanding is in modern conflicts the one who commands the sky will eventually win on ground. Even in Kargil, although PAF were kept in dark PA was able to hold ground. If you are able to have air superiority over kashmir and able to cut land supply routes of kashmir from the rest of india, which i think wont be many. The IA should capitulate. I know its easier said than done, but IA and location of J&K will have its shortcomings.

As for going nuclear, Kashmir is a disputed place, if pak invades and captures kashmir territory India using nukes will not have any justification (even if they deploy in worst case scenario) the whole world will jump in and than you can negotiate.

US and west wont have embargoed Pakistan only as India was the aggressor at that time, even in 65 they did embargoed both. But the embargoes and sanctions is a understood thing in any Indo-Pak conflict. But both parties will be supplied through backdoor channels.

I see kashmir just as to maintain military status quo from pakistan perspective. Since pak would never be able to solve this issue military and politically.