An account of 1965 | Book review posted in India Today

[EagleEyes]

Sir @Muradk sent me this today.

“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.”

“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.”

Patrick Seale, The Observer, London, September 12, 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 are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources.”

Roy Meloni, American Broadcasting Corporation, September 15, 1965.
Aerial combat comes alive in 'Fiza'ya: Psyche of The Pakistan Air Force' : Books - India Today

 

[janon]

The link gives nothing posted here. @webmsater

Here is what the 'India today' article contains:

From American comic book heroes of the '60s to the flying aces of World War II and the more recent success of movies like Top Gun, the fascination for aerial combat has remained undimmed.
The art of aerial combat may have changed with technology; today's fighter pilots are closeted in cockpits where electronics dictate responses and guide missiles to targets, and one-on-one dogfights and 'seat-of-the pants' flying have become as outmoded as Spitfires. But interest in the machines that defy gravity and the men who fly them, is still extant.
Against the backdrop of the two Indo-Pakistan wars in which air power played a major role, a book like this should excite more than usual interest. The authors - all eminently qualified to write on the subject - have produced what is perhaps a definitive analysis of the Pakistani Fiza'ya (air force).

Much of the book is history. But it is a necessary exercise in the book's ultimate objective: of tracing the operational growth of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and its exalted status in Pakistan's strategic evolution.
Indian military planners, after the virtual rout of the PAF in the 1971 war, tend to play down the threat from the PAF. That, as the authors point out, could be a dangerous indulgence.
In fact, by focusing on the PAF rather than the armed threat from across the border in its totality-as most armchair analysts do - the authors have given teeth to their theory that the build-up of the PAF and the choice of its inventory is part of a calculated approach planned in the context of future threat perceptions and Pakistan's financial limitations. More so, when compared to the ad hoc manner in which the Indian Air Force (IAF) has filled its hangars.
From its dependence on a succession of Mirage variants, a large inventory of Chinese fighter aircraft and the top-of-the-line F-16s from the US, the PAF has clearly crafted its strategic gameplan for optimum operational effect.
The book's bottomline is that, while the IAF has maintained its 1971 edge of 3:1 in terms of interdiction tonnage, the PAF has increased its long-range strike and ground-attack capability to levels on a par with India.

Moreover, by maintaining continuity at its highest levels, having younger men commanding fighting squadrons, providing better service conditions and training, and restricting its inventory to five basic aircraft- compared to 25 types in the IAF - the PAF has done better than its Indian counterpart. Having a smaller area to defend has also added to efficiency.
Admittedly, the technical treatment of the subject will limit the book's readership to aviation enthusiasts. Nevertheless it should be required reading for military strategists ensconced in the rarified air of South Block and Vayu Bhavan.

 

[jaibi]

The 1965 war had been studied very deeply by the Americans because it was one of the few wars where the belligerents were more or less evenly matched and had a short time to complete their war objectives; something of a forerunner to what today is called: 'Small Wars' (not COIN annotated term). Even in the academia it has been noted that the the PAF did a good job and the reason for that is that by this time the air war had been a game of numbers (more planes generally equals a better air control upto this point) this war illustrated that better tech and highly motivated/trained pilots can be decisive; the Germans put out jets but 1944 but as they could not sustain the number needed they did not dent the Allied effort.

This also has large significance as the Soviet strategy had been to mass produce military strength against the better technology of the West in a small war and having a centralised industrial system they could achieve that. The Americans were also worried about that as there was a time the Soviet war machine could possibly overwhelm the West.

The Indian indigenous capabilities, at the time, could not ensure air superiority. There were tactical blunders on both sides, yes, but let's give credit where it's due.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Do not forget that in 1965, there was an all out effort by the Americans to credit PAF more than they achieved.

First, Pakistan was member of CENTO and SEATO military groupings of American origin.

Second, US wished to take huge credit for their built military hardware's success against British and French built military hardware which the Indian Armed forces fielded. The Soviet Military hardware had not shown up in South Asian battlefields in 1965.

I suggest that joy of great amount of success of Pakistani Airforce or Pakistani military which some forum members express is not well founded.

At the end of the war in 1965, there were 340 Pakistani Patton tanks destroyed. Some brand new were in Indian hands because they Risaldars were not fully trained in the computers of the Patton Tanks.

It is irony to state that supersonic F104 and F86 fighter fell to slow but highly but slow Indian Gnats.

The above need to be considered before a self praise of victory that too by highly dubious sources is proclaimed.

I would say that A

lol @ computers in pattons,fake credits,340 pattons destroyed... F-86s n Starfighters getting owned..

 

[Ajatashatru]

Pakistan lost more men, more machine and more territory in 1965 war. They also could not achieve their objective of taking Kashmir. Pak's performance was impressive but India won the war by all definitions.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Pakistan lost more men, more machine and more territory in 1965 war. They also could not achieve their objective of taking Kashmir. Pak's performance was impressive but India won the war by all definitions.

A claim, no doubt, assiduously gleaned from highly myopic accounts of Indian nationalists.

For starters, lets have the numbers and sources upon which the said numbers are based. I could say that India lost more men than Pakistan, lost more territory, and that Kashmir was not an objective of open warfare. But then I should be ready to substantiate these claims. Can you provide credible references?

 

[dray]

In 1965 Pakistan had better planes and better tanks than us, yet our soldiers were courageous to take on a better equiped military and defeat it. And in case some people still had any doubt about the defeat, our soldiers convinced them further in 1971.

But that is history now.

 

[Vinod2070]

Pakistan entered the war with delusions of Muslim superiority over Hindus (1 Pakistani Muslim = 10 Indian Hindus). There were also the delusions that Kashmiris will wwlcome them.

The war taught them the reality. They have never tried a full scale war with India again, just sending 16 year olds to blow themselves and die.

The only PA victories have been by the 111 brigade and they have all been bloodless and entirely within the country's boundaries.

 

[GURU DUTT]

he he he he even mods are baised about 1965 lolzzz

ok tell me what were the objectives of 1965 whn ayub khan launched operation gibralter and operation grand slam
1.-:why did Ayub khan went for intigating 1965

Operation Gibraltar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Grand Slam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2:and what did they achive

Tashkent Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


3:and what did they lost

Battle of Asal Uttar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1971 surrender of 93000 pakistani officers and soldiers in dhaka and division of pakistan


4:and what are the repucurtions of 1965 war that pakistanies are still paying for

a) doors were shut for normal relations between india and pakistan for ever and we were locked in a constant war like situation

b) to feul a war with a much bigger imagined and delebratelli made enemy pakistan neede latest wepons for which they accepted USAs slvery

c)this brought them to fight with USSR for which they created Talban& other tabliqui jamats for recruitement to fight as proxies in afgahnistan against USSR which brought millions of poor faghan refugees resulting in demographick changes which morphed into Gun culture , drug Culture and lawlwessness

d)after demise of USSRISI/PA Backed Talban controled afghanistan and made it peacful once again but started taking pange with pakistan's masters=USA by sheltring osama and not giving USA easy acsess to central asia resulting in WOT

e)since Taliban was ISI/PAs& Saudias illigitemate child they were reluctant to kill it so pakistanies played a double game which got exposed soon thanks to 9/11& WOT which led to drone strikes and crack down on lawless pakistani militants in FATA, NWFP, Kashmir & Punjab which resulted in a serious implosion called the rise of TTP and other anty PA owtfits most of whome were once blue eyed boys of PA/ISI and things are owt of control and some pakistanies are relli worried that will pakistan be able top surwive it now


So now tell me pakistan freinds what and why are pakistanies stil clebrating 1965 when all the pakistani publick is paying with there blood for that stupid misadventure in 1965 and they dint learn from there mistakes and did it again in 1999

 

[janon]

Pakistan entered the war with delusions of Muslim superiority over Hindus (1 Pakistani Muslim = 10 Indian Hindus). There were also the delusions that Kashmiris will wwlcome them.

The war taught them the reality. They have never tried a full scale war with India again, just sending 16 year olds to blow themselves and die.

The only PA victories have been by the 111 brigade and they have all been bloodless and entirely within the country's boundaries.

They started the war to take our kashmir from us, and today they write odes about how they bravely defended lahore. Trying to take somebody else's territory and ending up desperately defending their own is a victory for some of them.

Their operation gibraltar was based on the assumption that local kashmiris would welcome their SSG as liberators. Instead the locals directed the commandoes to police stations, where they enjoyed their stay under Indian hospitality for the rest of the war. Some pakistanis still persist in the delusion that if they can somehow send a few mujahids into Indian kashmir, kashmir will soon be theirs. Which is why you see so many infiltrators dying every now and then, killed by kashmiri policemen or RR. Some people never learn; anyway it doesn't matter to India, we can keep this game of blood going as long as they want, as long as they want to send their men to die for a non existent cause.

@WebMaster - Once more I have to point out that the thread and the title are misleading. The 'India today' article does not contain anything you have posted. Please change the title to something like 'Yet another thread to celebrate dubious past glories that failed to achive anything'.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The link gives nothing posted here. @webmsater

Here is what the 'India today' article contains:

LOLLL; Murad and Webby are pushing a part of a book-review here! The book being reviewed was wrttten by a British Aviation Journo called John Fricker who was commissioned (i.e. employed and paid) by AM Nur Khan to write a hagiography of the PAF.
Oddly enough Murad seems to have overlooked that point while quoting only a selected portion of the text from India Today ( if at all the part quoted, appeared in India Today in the first place at all).
Searching the link provided does not show that yet!

 

[Vinod2070]

They started the war to take our kashmir from us, and today they write odes about how they bravely defended lahore. Trying to take somebody else's territory and ending up desperately defending their own is a victory for some of them.

They forget that and start claiming that just fighting against a bigger India was itself a victory.

A war that they started themselves!

 

[janon]

The 1965 war had been studied very deeply by the Americans because it was one of the few wars where the belligerents were more or less evenly matched and had a short time to complete their war objectives; something of a forerunner to what today is called: 'Small Wars' (not COIN annotated term). Even in the academia it has been noted that the the PAF did a good job and the reason for that is that by this time the air war had been a game of numbers (more planes generally equals a better air control upto this point) this war illustrated that better tech and highly motivated/trained pilots can be decisive; the Germans put out jets but 1944 but as they could not sustain the number needed they did not dent the Allied effort.

This also has large significance as the Soviet strategy had been to mass produce military strength against the better technology of the West in a small war and having a centralised industrial system they could achieve that. The Americans were also worried about that as there was a time the Soviet war machine could possibly overwhelm the West.

The Indian indigenous capabilities, at the time, could not ensure air superiority. There were tactical blunders on both sides, yes, but let's give credit where it's due.

You are right that India's air force at that time was technologically inferior to pakistan's, but I don't think that your attribution of that to soviet v/s western fighting doctrines had anything to do with it. (If you were implying that.) Although the Indian military relied almost completely on Soviet hardware at that time, their training and methods and culture was still that of the British raj. (Which was outdated and unsuited for the needs of a sovereign nation in the 60s, as opposed to a colonial power of the 40s.)

India had completely neglected to develop a proper military doctrine or culture, due to various factors that are too numerous to go into here. We got a very rude wake up call in the border conflict with China in '63. The IAF's technological inferiority vis-a-vis the PAF in 65 was also a result of this neglect of the military. What I'm trying to say is that it was our own fault. The good news for us is that we learnt that lesson in the 60s, and at least our air force remarkably modernised itself by '71, by inducting mig-21s and also by expanding vastly. As for the army - it too expanded, and the number of mountain divisions more than doubled. The result was seen in '71.

The next big neglect of the military IMO happened in the 90s, the so called lost decade. In this case it was because our economy nosedived, and there simply was no money to modernize the military - and this unfortunately at a time when there was a revolution in military affairs going on. And that is why we are where we are today, spending huge amounts to modernize yet again. This time though, our only solace is that pakistan also went through difficult times, and hasn't been able to modernize itself enough to get a qualitative edge over us. 

LOLLL; Murad and Webby are pushing a part of a book-review here! The book being reviewed was wrttten by a British Aviation Journo called John Fricker who was commissioned (i.e. employed and paid) by AM Nur Khan to write a hagiography of the PAF.
Oddly enough Murad seems to have overlooked that point while quoting only a selected portion of the text from India Today ( if at all the part quoted, appeared in India Today in the first place at all).
Searching the link provided does not show that yet!

Nope; I can't see those parts yet. And now that you have explained who paid the writer...the bias becomes rather comically evident. I would have reported the thread for the misleading title, but when the webby himself did it...

 

[Kompromat]

Gents - the source is this book - the India today article is just a review.

 

[janon]

Gents - the source is this book - the India today article is just a review.

Right. So wouldn't you say that that makes the tile of the thread....ummm, how do I put it...a wee bit misleading? To give the impression that those quotes are from India today, rather than from the review of a book written by an author who was paid for by a pakistani air marshal?