How India brought down the US’ supersonic man

[Dalai Lama]

Let's see... an old man in a twin beechcraft, vs. the Indian Air Force. Yeah that's something to boast about.

He wasn't literally shot down. It was a metaphor for his huge ego.

 

[Chogy]

The whole article was a giant metaphor. My statement stands. An old man in a twin Beech vs. India.

I am no huge Yeager fan, but the man had talent.

Yeager possessed outstanding eyesight (rated as 20/10, once enabling him to shoot a deer at 600 yards (550 m)[7]), flying skills, and combat leadership; he distinguished himself by becoming the first pilot in his group to make "ace in a day:" he shot down five enemy aircraft in one mission, finishing the war with 11.5 official victories, including one of the first air-to-air victories over a jet fighter (a German Messerschmitt Me 262).

You don't do that without skills.

 

[RazPaK]

So now the Indians won air war in 1971? What's next, India won the war in 1962 against China as well?

 

[Dalai Lama]

^^^
Sure, we can appreciate his talent.

But at the end of the day, he was vehemently anti-India and we pissed him off by destroying his aircraft (even if it was unintentional).

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

So now the Indians won air war in 1971? What's next, India won the war in 1962 against China as well?

There was no air combat in 1962, oopsy!

 

[Kaniska]

So now the Indians won air war in 1971? What's next, India won the war in 1962 against China as well?

Dude...do you have still doubt that who won 1971 and 1962 war? At least we know that we lost 1962 and won 1971.

 

[RazPaK]

There was no air combat in 1962, oopsy

Never said there was. But this entire piece sounds like a propaganda article, and the man clearly seems anti-Yeager.

 

[Adnan Faruqi]

1971 was not indo pak war, it was the state terrorism that interfered in out east wing

I agree with you 100%.

Otherwise there is no explanation for killing and raping hundred thousands of innocent Muslims in East Pakistan (now, Bangladesh).

Yes, it was state terrorism by pakistan.

 

[Dalai Lama]

Never said there was. But this entire piece sounds like a propaganda article, and the man clearly seems anti-Yeager.

How about this article then?

The right stuff in the wrong place - Chuck Yeager's crash landing in Pakistan | Washington Monthly | Find Articles

 

[RazPaK]

Ingraham is anti-Yeager,

While the author of this article is obviously anti-Pakistan.



Here's the funny part.

Beyond the fog of war


The reality is that it took the IAF just over a week to achieve complete domination of the subcontinent’s skies. A measure of the IAF’s air supremacy was the million-man open air rallies held by the Indian prime minister in northern Indian cities, a week into the war. This couldn’t have been possible if Pakistani planes were still airborne.

Sure, the IAF did lose a slightly larger number of aircraft but this was mainly because the Indians were flying a broad range of missions. Take the six Sukhoi-7 squadrons that were inducted into the IAF just a few months before the war. From the morning of December 4 until the ceasefire on December 17, these hardy fighters were responsible for the bulk of attacks by day, flying nearly 1500 offensive sorties.

Pakistani propaganda, backed up by Yeager, had claimed 34 Sukhoi-7s destroyed, but in fact just 14 were lost. Perhaps the best rebuttal to Yeager’s lies is military historian Pushpindar Singh Chopra’s “A Whale of a Fighter". He says the plane’s losses were commensurate with the scale of effort, if not below it. “The Sukhoi-7 was said to have spawned a special breed of pilot, combat-hardened and confident of both his and his aircraft's prowess,” says Chopra.

Sorties were being launched at an unprecedented rate of six per pilot per day. Yeager himself admits “India flew numerous raids against Pakistani airfields with brand new Sukhoi-7 bombers being escorted in with MiG-21s”.

While Pakistani pilots were obsessed with aerial combat, IAF tactics were highly sophisticated in nature, involving bomber escorts, tactical recce, ground attack and dummy runs to divert Pakistani interceptors from the main targets. Plus, the IAF had to reckon with the dozens of brand new aircraft being supplied to Pakistan by Muslim countries like Jordan, Turkey and the UAE.



Most missions flown by Indian pilots were conducted by day and at low level, with the pilots making repeated attacks on well defended targets. Indian aircraft flew into Pakistani skies thick with flak, virtually non-stop during the 14-day war. Many Bengali guerrillas later told the victorious Indian Army that it was the epic sight of battles fought over their skies by Indian air aces and the sight of Indian aircraft diving in on Pakistani positions that inspired them to fight.

Indeed, Indian historians like Chopra have painstakingly chronicled the details of virtually every sortie undertaken by the IAF and PAF and have tabulated the losses and kills on both sides to nail the outrageous lies that were peddled by the PAF and later gleefully published by Western writers.

In this backdrop, the Pakistani claim (backed by Yeager) that they won the air war is as hollow as a Chaklala swamp reed. In the Battle of Britain during World War II, the Germans lost 2000 fewer aircraft than the allies and yet the Luftwaffe lost that air war. Similarly, the IAF lost more aircraft than the PAF, but the IAF came out on top. Not even Yeager’s biased testimony can take that away from Indians.

 

[Night_Raven]

Never said there was. But this entire piece sounds like a propaganda article, and the man clearly seems anti-Yeager.

I disagree , this is what is REAL propaganda :

Dec 17, 1971 -- Pakistan Army in East Pakistan surrenders

Dec 18 , 1971

 

[RazPaK]

Good Job for your only victory.

 

[T90TankGuy]

I disagree , this is what is REAL propaganda :

Dec 17, 1971 -- Pakistan Army in East Pakistan surrenders

Dec 18 , 1971

wow. Dawn existed even then? did not know . though it was started just a decade or so back . learn something new everyday .

 

[true_indian]

wow. Dawn existed even then? did not know . though it was started just a decade or so back . learn something new everyday .

Dawn exited since pre-independent India. Dawn was kind of mouth piece for Muslim league.

It was founded in 1941 by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in Delhi, British India

 

[harpoon]

The Western media keeps printing Yeagers' kill ratio claims to try and show the superiority of Western fighters to Soviet fighters. Nice to see just how delusional he was.

Not to mention his reports are the basis of the supposedly superior Pakistani pilot skills peddled around so often in the cyberworld.

 

[KS]

Let's see... an old man in a twin beechcraft, vs. the Indian Air Force. Yeah that's something to boast about.

Chogy, I dont know if you give a damn to it..but apparently superhero Chuck Yeager gave an absolute damn and wanted US bombing of India in return for his destroyed Beechcraft.

Good Job for your only victory.

Are you sure that was our "only" victory ?

• According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States –
  
  The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.​
  
  
• TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The article further elaborates,
  
  Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.​
  
  
• Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" –
  
  The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.​
  
  
• In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions", Gertjan Dijkink writes –
  
  The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.​
  
  
• An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's "India", summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,
  
  In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. 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 cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.​
  
  
• In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote –
  
  India won the war. It gained 1,840 square kilometers of Pakistani territory: 640 square kilometers in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 square kilometers of the Sailkot sector; 380 square kilometers far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 square kilometers on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 square kilometers of Indian territory: 490 square kilometers in the Chhamb sector and 50 square kilometers around Khem Karan.​
  
  
• Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,
  
  Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New 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.​
  
  
• BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.
  
  
• "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –
  
  India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.​
  
  
• An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment" –
  
  A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.​
  
  
• English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –
  
  The 1965 Indo-Pak 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.​
  
  
• Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"–
  
  Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.​