What's new

Blunders of the 1971 war

Status
Not open for further replies.

ssheppard

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
776
Reaction score
0
ON March 25, 1971, Gen Yahya Khan ordered the army to restore the writ of the state in East Pakistan. On Dec 16, 1971, East Pakistan was no more.

That afternoon in Dhaka, the Pakistan Army lost its honour on the battlefield when Lt Gen A.A.K. Niazi (Tiger) and his Eastern Command surrendered to the Indian Eastern Command — honour that can be regained only on the battlefield. Until then, the ignominious defeat will continue to haunt the armed forces and succeeding generations in Pakistan.

After he chose to solve a political problem by military means, Yahya Khan should have foreseen that at some point in the foreseeable future, India would intervene to achieve its longstanding aim — the breakup of Pakistan. Consequently, he should have prepared for war by focusing on defending Dhaka at all cost, and on invoking the concept of defending the east from the west. He did neither.

On the other hand, the Indian Army, in line with their aim, had chosen to adopt a strategic defensive posture in the west, and a strategic offensive posture in the east. They had correctly identified Dhaka as their objective and subordinated all other considerations to the accomplishment of this single aim. But the aim could not be accomplished quickly if Dhaka, the terrain around which favoured the defender, was defended in strength. Therefore, something had to be done to induce the Pakistanis to uncover Dhaka. Thus started the Indian psychological operations to delude the Pakistanis into thinking that the Indian military aim was limited to the capture of a small chunk of Pakistani territory adjacent to the international border, from which an independent state of Bangladesh would be proclaimed.

To reinforce this impression, on Nov 20, they launched small-scale offensive operations all along the border, aimed at drawing the Pakistani forces outwards and imposing on them an exaggerated forward defensive posture. Niazi obliged them by ordering his forces to deploy along the 1,700-mile long border — as a consequence, he diluted his forces in space and uncovered Dhaka. East Pakistan, as it stood on Dec 3, 1971, was ready to fall like a ripe plum. And fall it did when on Dec 14, the Indian troops marched into Dhaka unopposed as there were no Pakistani regulars available to defend it.

The Pakistani concept of defending the east from the west was fashioned by geographic compulsions. It was a sound concept as the armed forces, like their adversary, were not strong enough to fight a war on two fronts 1,000 miles apart, for any attempt to do so would have denuded them of strategic offensive capability on both fronts.

“In war, opportunities come but once, the great art is to seize them,” said Napoleon. The first opportunity to implement this concept came in September 1971 when the Indian defences in the west had not yet been fully energised. At this point, a strategic offensive in the Ravi-Chenab corridor, centred on armoured forces, could have severed Indian Kashmir from the mainland by securing line Samba-Madhopur Headworks, then exploiting towards Jammu. From the geo-strategic, operational and logistics standpoint, this was the most suitable corridor for an offensive that could not only salvage the forces in the east, but also recompense for the probable loss of East Pakistan, given that the people there had risen in rebellion against the Pakistani state.

In mid-October, while the strike formation of India’s 1 Corps, under Lt Gen K.K. Singh, was being inducted into the Ravi-Chenab corridor, Singh commented, “Our weakest hour is now; another four days and Yahya would have missed the opportunity.” On Dec 5, his corps started its tactical offensive in the eastern half of the corridor between Degh Nadi in the west and Ravi in the east.

The second opportunity came a week later when this corps was fully committed and struggling to make headway. At this point, the western half of the corridor, which was lightly held, presented an opening which went unnoticed by Yahya and his war directing team. A counter-offensive through this opening could have turned the western flank of the corps and created a critical situation for them.

On Dec 3, Yahya Khan opened the western front and frittered away three infantry divisions and an armoured brigade on operations that had no strategic significance. In what was essentially a defensive offensive, an infantry division and an armoured brigade were launched against Chhamb. Another infantry division was tasked to capture Jaisalmer, which entailed traversing 60 miles of desert; while moving towards the border the division’s vehicles got stuck in the sand, and the only unit that managed to cross the border was a T 59 tank unit, but as the area was outside PAF’s fighter range, it was devastated by relentless air attacks.

It was a criminal offence to assign a mission in desert terrain to a foot mobile division — a mission that could only be undertaken by armoured forces with assured air support.

Another infantry division was tasked to capture Poonch in Indian Kashmir. It planned to do this in two phases. In Phase 1 a corridor would be created through which, in Phase 2, the remaining force would pass to secure their objectives. Phase 1 failed, yet Phase 2 was launched, which also failed — in the process, 100 officers and men lost their lives.

In yet another tragic operation, an armoured brigade was ordered to eliminate a foothold Singh’s corps had gained across the defensive minefield in the area of Jarpal. It was said to hold a tank squadron (14 tanks) and an infantry battalion. On Dec 16, as the first unit moved forward it was devastated by tank fire. The second unit then attacked from another direction and met the same fate. It later transpired that there were four tank squadrons (60 tanks) and an infantry brigade in the foothold. Moreover, although 16 artillery batteries were available, only three were used to support the piecemeal attack.

In the most tragic of all operations, an infantry battalion was ordered to capture Jarpal which, 24 hours earlier had decimated an armoured brigade. When its request to delay the attack by 24 hours was denied, at 5:30 am on Dec 17, the battalion attacked — without artillery fire support. It was mown down.

The commanders and their staff at army, corps, division and brigade headquarters were guilty of crass incompetence. As for the soldiers who fought and died bravely, ‘theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die’!

DAWN.COM | Editorial | Blunders of the 1971 war
 
.
Not for a moment am I trying to defend Yahya or Niazi. However, the easiest thing to do as most armies know is to fight ( re fight?) the last battle – not with a view to learn but to castigate the Commanders and to lament on ‘ if only’.

The editorial remarks thus :

On the other hand, the Indian Army, in line with their aim, had chosen to adopt a strategic defensive posture in the west, and a strategic offensive posture in the east. They had correctly identified Dhaka as their objective and subordinated all other considerations to the accomplishment of this single aim. But the aim could not be accomplished quickly if Dhaka, the terrain around which favoured the defender, was defended in strength. Therefore, something had to be done to induce the Pakistanis to uncover Dhaka. Thus started the Indian psychological operations to delude the Pakistanis into thinking that the Indian military aim was limited to the capture of a small chunk of Pakistani territory adjacent to the international border, from which an independent state of Bangladesh would be proclaimed.

To reinforce this impression, on Nov 20, they launched small-scale offensive operations all along the border, aimed at drawing the Pakistani forces outwards and imposing on them an exaggerated forward defensive posture. Niazi obliged them by ordering his forces to deploy along the 1,700-mile long border — as a consequence, he diluted his forces in space and uncovered Dhaka. East Pakistan, as it stood on Dec 3, 1971, was ready to fall like a ripe plum. And fall it did when on Dec 14, the Indian troops marched into Dhaka unopposed as there were no Pakistani regulars available to defend it.


What were Niazi’s options ? He could do what he did or let the Indians ‘ nibble’ at the extremities of EP without a declaration of war ( which happened on 3rd Dec 71). Could he have allowed this for two weeks before the war started ? The resources he had were not good enough both to defend & attack. This issue has been war gamed numerous times.

His predicament was similar to that of FM Von Paulus’s German 6th Army who was encircled by the Soviets. Hitler expected him to fight to the last – with no resources or hope for relief.

As for the rest , PA has the reputation of planning bold moves – thoughtlessly executed with no contingency planning. The examples given in the editorial of the Western front bear testimony to that.

The more important issue is ‘ what has been learnt ‘ ?

Kargil is an example of not having thought out a military action to its logical end. This subject has been bashed about a great deal here . But without going into details Mush should have built in Indian reaction tempered with that of a civilian Govt in Islamabad before embarking on the misadventure. Two actions by Generals Yahya & Mush 28 yrs apart indicate that very little was learnt. It may be argued that J&K has been brought to world focus but has it ? .. and was this the only way the desired intent could be achieved?.More so after 9/11 which turned the focus back on Pk.

A soldier can only give his life – it is for the Generals to extract the best price for it from the enemy.
 
.
and due to this great great yayha khan, in 1965 war we lost to capture kashmir, when he replaced gen akhter malik
 
.
truthful discussion or summation of past experience based on the full and honest official decoded documents......otherwise it will not be fruitful...
 
. . .
A Pakistan stamp depicting the 90,000 PoWs in Indian camps. This stamp was issued with the political aim of raising global awareness of the POW issue to help secure their release.
 
.
Pakistan's PNS Ghazi, was the only submarine operated by either of the warring nations in 1965. The Ghazi sank off the fairway buoy of Visakhapatnam near the eastern coast of India under unclear circumstances during the 1971 war, making it the first submarine casualty in the waters around the Indian subcontinent.

b1058e59e7d71f2cde1066db17697f68.jpg
 
.
Pakistan's PNS Ghazi, was the only submarine operated by either of the warring nations in 1965. The Ghazi sank off the fairway buoy of Visakhapatnam near the eastern coast of India under unclear circumstances during the 1971 war, making it the first submarine casualty in the waters around the Indian subcontinent.

b1058e59e7d71f2cde1066db17697f68.jpg

Thats interesting, any idea what made it sink.
 
. .
Thats interesting, any idea what made it sink.

Indian Navy claimed that it was sunk by them. I was advised by a PN officer with whom I regularly played squash in Fleet club that Ghazi had been specially modified for deep see mine laying. She was on a mine laying mission off the Vizag Coast (HQ of IN Eastern Command). It is probable that Ghazi was accidentally blown up by one of her own mines. No one knows the cause for sure.
 
.
Indian Navy claimed that it was sunk by them. I was advised by a PN officer with whom I regularly played squash in Fleet club that Ghazi had been specially modified for deep see mine laying. She was on a mine laying mission off the Vizag Coast (HQ of IN Eastern Command). It is probable that Ghazi was accidentally blown up by one of her own mines. No one knows the cause for sure.

Here is an interview with our then Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral S M Nanda in which he explains exactly what happened to PNS Ghazi.

What about the Pakistani submarine which tried to attack the Vikrant?

I knew they would try and attack the Vikrant, and so when things were hotting up, you know before the war really began they shot down two of our aircraft over East Pakistan, I decided to send the Vikrant to the Andamans.

Then they (his subordinates in the navy) said we don't have enough ships to escort the aircraft carrier in the Bay of Bengal. I looked at the charts around the Delta of the Ganges, and found it was too shallow to support a submarine for about 50 miles or so. So I said the aircraft carrier will operate only in this area.

If the submarine has to get at her it will have to surface, because it cannot stay down in shallow waters. We don't need escorts, I said. Only two ships were kept with her.

On December 3, when war was declared, I sent out the Vikrant with orders to operate along the coastline. The Pakistanis had planned out this war, so they sent the Ghazi, an American-built submarine and the only long-range one that they had, to Vizag, and then to Madras, where the fleet was.

The other submarines they had, from France, did not have that kind of range. They were all operating on the western front. In November, our fleet had been sent out to the Andamans. They thought the Vikrant was still at Vizag because we had worked up a lot of fake wireless traffic, about requiring supplies that could only be meant for a carrier, out of Vizag.

What happened to the Pakistani submarine?

Until the Second World War, no fishing boats were allowed out during wartime. I said this was a ridiculous way of doing things. So about two months before the 1971 war, I decided to issue orders that fishing trawlers would be allowed to go out. I said they should go out in a bunch, from each village or port, and if they find anything unusual, they should report it immediately.

How did that help?

It was a fisherman who discovered a lifejacket which had 'Made in America' written on it. At that time there was only one ship in harbour, the Rajput which needed some repairs. All the others had sailed to the Andamans. She left a few days later, about 8 in the evening or so.

In narrow channels, ships, during an emergency or war, always throw depth charges around them to deter submarines. One of them probably hit the Ghazi. The blow-up was there, but nobody knew what it was all about until the fisherman found the lifejacket.

We asked this fisherman where exactly it was found. I got hold of boats with sonar equipment. Finally they said there is something down below. The position was marked, and we sent some deep sea divers, who returned with the submarine's log book. It was the PNS Ghazi. We then knew where it had been, and what it had been doing.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/22inter.htm
 
.
Here is an interview with our then Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral S M Nanda in which he explains exactly what happened to PNS Ghazi.

Probably, not sure himself. Again a guess, so in reality no one is 100% sure what sank it. Indians will definitely try to get the kill to their name, while Pakistan will try it is not shown as a kill for IN.

We may never in know in this life what in reality happened to it.
 
. .
IAF has always maintained that it only lost one MIG-21 in air engagements, while PAF official log book shows at least three shot down in air combats and eight by ground fire while an other was destroyed by a second MIG-21 who mistook it for an intruding PAF Mirage. I have managed to obtain this image of an Indian MIG seen through the gun sight of PAF aircraft.

273dc4ef543085381685aa1661fd41b7.jpg
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom