So that aircraft that is shot down...while taking off will go up? shot up? The aircraft in the ground prepearing to take off at least 20 minutes before should be called shot up?
Provide links.
Thanks.
How did the PAF looked like in 1965?
- Thread starter EagleEyes
- Start date
So that aircraft that is shot down...while taking off will go up? shot up? The aircraft in the ground prepearing to take off at least 20 minutes before should be called shot up?
Provide links.
Thanks.
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
good summation by ejaz007. i would just add that the mysteres and ouragons were grounded after 2 sabres piloted by rafiqui and his wingman younas shot down 4 mysteres over kashmir even before the declaration of war on 6th sept. this reduced the total availability of IAF from 400 to 320 improving the strength ratios of the 2 adversaries in favour of PAF.
Webmaster,
Even an aircraft that is rolling down the runway about to take off if strafed is called 'shot up' or 'strafed' but never 'shot down'. Shot down can be applied only to aircraft in the air. To make things easier, if the aircraft taking off, actually takes off, is about 10 feet in the air, and is shot at by a pursuing attacker, then it is 'shot down' and counts as an aircombat kill. But as long as the wheels are on the ground, it is not an aircombat kill.
english is a strange language..
The aircraft shot down over Chamb by Rafique and bhatti are VAmpires.
Indian Air Force | De Havilland Vampire F3, FB52, T55, PR55, NF54 [www.bharat-rakshak.com]
They were not grounded after the encounter but merely relegated to night sorties. The Vampires were one generation older and are outmatched by the Sabre. At the begining of the war, the IAF only had one squadron of vampires in the west and these were relegated to night duties. There were no Ourgans in the west so no question of grounding them. Mysteres operated in good numbr thruought the war..
Here is an interesting area of discussion for members - I have read everywhere - on Indian and Pakistani websites that the Canberra and the B-57 are one and the same. But if you look closely the B-57 is a far better weapon system than the Canberra. i will leave it to forum members to prove it otherwise 
Here is an interesting area of discussion for members - I have read everywhere - on Indian and Pakistani websites that the Canberra and the B-57 are one and the same. But if you look closely the B-57 is a far better weapon system than the Canberra. i will leave it to forum members to prove it otherwise
US bought the Canberra from UK and named it B-57 after incorporating some of their own avionics like the weapons aiming stuff for bombing. Aside from that there was no difference.
Wrong . Avionics are one thing. There are many airframe and armament changes they made on the B57 that it was a better aircraft.
At a very rudimentary level, just search the web to see what these differences were. Nothing was changed which would change the performance parameter of the aircraft to amke a huge difference. Besides, what is your point?? Is it that since PAF had B-57s, it did better than IAF in 65? One weapon system in limited numbers does not make that much of a difference. If there was any system that did matter for the PAF, then it was the F-86 and the pilot training on that system.
Thank you for your kind suggestion, but my question was posed exactly after i made all the searches - both at a rudimentary level as well as at an advanced level
There were a lot of changes in the aircraft that made a huge difference to the effectiveness of the aircraft. I can list them out, but I sense a feeling of hostility and a ' we dont give a damn what you say because you are an indian' vibe from you, so whats the point? you wont believe me either way.
Its not really that I do not give a damn. The question for that matter should not be limited to Martin B-57. Why not compare all of the weapon systems deployed in the air by both sides? If you only want to discuss it from an intellectual standpoint, lets list out the modifications and go over them. Is there something very specific that you want to point out with regards to the B-57 that other members have not noticed? I sort of feel like I am suppose to guess as to what this one immense edge was that we had on the B-57 over the IAF Canberras.
Here you go
Advantage of B-57 over its counterpart - Indian Canberra
1. Fighter cockpit and ejection seat for both crew - PAF canberra can take better risks knowing both crew can escape in an emergency. Indian canberras cannot do that. if hit and damaged at low level, navigator will surely be dead
2. Ground Mapping Radar in PAF B-57 allows rivers, bridges etc to be seen - more accurate and easier to find enemy airfields looking at the ground terrain. Indian canberras did not have this they had a navigator with compass and radio d/f , not as accurate as a ground mapping radar.
3. Better light transmission of the PAF cockpit provides both crew as look out. In Indian canberra it is only the pilot who can look out. two pairs of eyes watching out for enemy fighters are bettr than one.
4. Guns in the wings - allows B57 to still carry bombs. Indian canberra , special gun pack to be fitted if it has to be armed with guns. no bombs can be carried in bay.
Advantage of B-57 over its counterpart - Indian Canberra
1. Fighter cockpit and ejection seat for both crew - PAF canberra can take better risks knowing both crew can escape in an emergency. Indian canberras cannot do that. if hit and damaged at low level, navigator will surely be dead
2. Ground Mapping Radar in PAF B-57 allows rivers, bridges etc to be seen - more accurate and easier to find enemy airfields looking at the ground terrain. Indian canberras did not have this they had a navigator with compass and radio d/f , not as accurate as a ground mapping radar.
3. Better light transmission of the PAF cockpit provides both crew as look out. In Indian canberra it is only the pilot who can look out. two pairs of eyes watching out for enemy fighters are bettr than one.
4. Guns in the wings - allows B57 to still carry bombs. Indian canberra , special gun pack to be fitted if it has to be armed with guns. no bombs can be carried in bay.
Hunter Vs Sabre
Hunter has powerful engine, larger cannon (more effective - kill can be achieved even with single hit)
Sabre was more manueverable with combat flaps. It was smaller in size (more difficult to hit). Six guns can fire more bullets in a span of time, more likely to score hits and damage enemy due to shotgun effect but less likely to achieve kill with a single hit.
anything else?
Hunter has powerful engine, larger cannon (more effective - kill can be achieved even with single hit)
Sabre was more manueverable with combat flaps. It was smaller in size (more difficult to hit). Six guns can fire more bullets in a span of time, more likely to score hits and damage enemy due to shotgun effect but less likely to achieve kill with a single hit.
anything else?
ejaz007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,533
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Yes I think B-57 was better in some aspects than Canberra. Another aspect of 1965 war is the role of air to air missiles. PAF F-86 and F-104 were capable of carrying AIM-9B missiles. IAF only had Mig-21 capable of carrying AAM but did not play any effective role in the war due to whatever reasons. My question is what impact this new weapon had on the war.
Call it education if you will.
The purpose is to correct incorrect posts that keep appearing on this thread.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/59807-post12.html
or this
http://www.defence.pk/forums/59858-post14.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/59883-post15.html
You get the idea
Similar threads
