What's new

PAF 1965 air war explained (John Fricker)

Status
Not open for further replies.
. .
are we talking only about the air war or the whole 1965 war?

If you are talking only about the airwar then its just a "battle" not a "war". and yes Pakistan did win some battles. but who won the war is what matters.

Pakistani Air Force has won every encounter against the Indian Air Force

HeavyMetal 3/13/2005 3:42:30 AM

Indian resources have naturally refuted and denied PAF air superiority over the FIVE times larger IAF in the 65 and 71 wars. Indian and Pakistani claims and counter claims are pointless on this subject as they tend to be biased and blurred with nationalism. The only way to assess this is through the neutral and qualified international opinion, which has now become aviation history. Check out autobiography of Gen. Chuck Yeagers (yes, the one who broke the sound barrier), who 'refereed' the 1971 war and flew up and down the region collecting wreckage of IAF aircraft shot down by the PAF. Here is what he says, "the Pakistanis scored a three-to-one kill ratio knocking out 102 Indian jets and losing 34 of their own. I am certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below. I counted wrecks, documented them by serial numbers, identified the components such as engines and rocket pods" Now he is not exactly a Pakistani, is he?

Check out the following world reputed aviation journals.

USA - Aviation week & space technology - December 1968 issue.
"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

UK - Air International - November - 1991
" the average PAF pilot is almost certainly possessed of superior skills when compared with, say, an average American pilot. As to those who are rated above average, they compare favourably to the very best "

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis publications - Volume 5

"Pakistan's air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style - Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen.

If you feel more at ease with German and French, then also checkout the followings
Air Action (France) December 1988 and January 1989
Flugzeug (Germany) February (2) 1989

In addition to this, PAF put on show for inspection, its entire fleets after BOTH of the wars in presence of world dignitaries and aviation community. The five times bigger IAF should have annihilated the tiny PAF to prevent such displays!!!!!!
Now these are FACTS - what rides on a wave of nationalism is just fiction.

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/72-9278.aspx

:pakistan:
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistani Air Force has won every encounter against the Indian Air Force

HeavyMetal 3/13/2005 3:42:30 AM

Indian resources have naturally refuted and denied PAF air superiority over the FIVE times larger IAF in the 65 and 71 wars. Indian and Pakistani claims and counter claims are pointless on this subject as they tend to be biased and blurred with nationalism. The only way to assess this is through the neutral and qualified international opinion, which has now become aviation history. Check out autobiography of Gen. Chuck Yeagers (yes, the one who broke the sound barrier), who 'refereed' the 1971 war and flew up and down the region collecting wreckage of IAF aircraft shot down by the PAF. Here is what he says, "the Pakistanis scored a three-to-one kill ratio knocking out 102 Indian jets and losing 34 of their own. I am certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below. I counted wrecks, documented them by serial numbers, identified the components such as engines and rocket pods" Now he is not exactly a Pakistani, is he?

Check out the following world reputed aviation journals.

USA - Aviation week & space technology - December 1968 issue.
"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

UK - Air International - November - 1991
" the average PAF pilot is almost certainly possessed of superior skills when compared with, say, an average American pilot. As to those who are rated above average, they compare favourably to the very best "

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis publications - Volume 5

"Pakistan's air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style - Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen.

If you feel more at ease with German and French, then also checkout the followings
Air Action (France) December 1988 and January 1989
Flugzeug (Germany) February (2) 1989

In addition to this, PAF put on show for inspection, its entire fleets after BOTH of the wars in presence of world dignitaries and aviation community. The five times bigger IAF should have annihilated the tiny PAF to prevent such displays!!!!!!
Now these are FACTS - what rides on a wave of nationalism is just fiction.

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/72-9278.aspx

:pakistan:

dude this post needs to be in Paf's hall of fame..you know what im just going to make a thread for it :cheers:
 
. . .
Chuck Yeager. Isn't he the guy who was an adviser/consultant to PAF during the 65 war? Hmmm...now he won't have any incentive to write favourably about PAF exploits, would he.....? :azn:
 
.
Chuck Yeager. Isn't he the guy who was an adviser/consultant to PAF during the 65 war? Hmmm...now he won't have any incentive to write favourably about PAF exploits, would he.....? :azn:

Hi,

When Chuck Yeager spoke, people stood quiet and listened. I doubt you have any clue about the integrity of that man---he was the most recognized man on the face of the planet EARTH in the world of aviation---he didnot have to favour anyone or mince any words to make one look good or bad.
 
.
Hi,

When Chuck Yeager spoke, people stood quiet and listened. I doubt you have any clue about the integrity of that man---he was the most recognized man on the face of the planet EARTH in the world of aviation---he didnot have to favour anyone or mince any words to make one look good or bad.

yeah thats why i didnt even bother replying to him lol
 
.
Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

The second Indo-Pakistani conflict (1965) was also fought over Kashmir and started without a formal declaration of war. The war began in August 5, 1965 and was ended Sept 22, 1965.

The war was initiated by Pakistan who since the defeat of India by China in 1962 had come to believe that Indian military would be unable or unwilling to defend against a quick military campaign in Kashmir, and because the Pakistani government was becoming increasingly alarmed by Indian efforts to integrate Kashmir within India. There was also a perception that there was widespread popular support within for Pakistani rule and that the Kashmiri people were disatisfied with Indian rule.

After Pakistan was successful in the Rann of Kutch earlier in 1965, Ayub Khan (by nature a cautious person) was pressured by the hawks in his cabinet (led by Z.A. Bhutto) and the army to infiltrate the ceasefire line in Kashmir. The action was based on the incorrect premise that indigenous resistance could be ignited by a few saboteurs. Ayub resisted the idea as he foresaw India crossing the international frontier in retaliation at a point of its choosing. The Bhutto faction, which included some prominent generals, put out the canard that Ayub's cowardice stemmed from his desire to protect his newly acquired wealth. It was boasted at the time that one Pakistani soldier was equal to four Indian soldiers and so on.

On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15.

The initial battles between India and Pakistan were contained within Kashmir involving both infantry and armor units with each country's air force playing major roles. It was not until early Sept. when Pakistani forces attacked Ackhnur that the Indians escalated the conflict by attacking targets within Pakistan itself, forcing the Pakistani forces to disengage from Ackhnur to counter Indian attacks.

The largest engagement of the war occurred in the Sialkot region where some 400 to 600 tanks squared off. Unfortunately the battle was indecisive.

By Sept 22 both sides had agreed to a UN mandated cease-fire ending the war that had by that point reached a stalemate.

Overall, 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.

Pakistan was rudely shocked by the reaction of the United States to the war. Judging the matter to be largely Pakistan s fault, the United States not only refused to come to Pakistan s aid under the terms of the Agreement of Cooperation, but issued a statement declaring its neutrality while also cutting off military supplies. The Pakistanis were embittered at what they considered a friend's betrayal, and the experience taught them to avoid relying on any single source of support. For its part, the United States was disillusioned by a war in which both sides used United States-supplied equipment. The war brought other repercussions for the security relationship as well. The United States withdrew its military assistance advisory group in July 1967. In response to these events, Pakistan declined to renew the lease on the Peshawar military facility, which ended in 1969. Eventually, United States-Pakistan relations grew measurably weaker as the United States became more deeply involved in Vietnam and as its broader interest in the security of South Asia waned.

Iran, Indonesia, and especially China gave political support to Pakistan during the war, thus suggesting new directions in Pakistan that might translate into support for its security concerns. Most striking was the attitude of the Soviet Union. Its post-Khrushchev leadership, rather than rallying reflexively to India's side, adopted a neutral position and ultimately provided the good offices at Tashkent, which led to the January 1966 Tashkent Declaration that restored the status quo ante.

The aftermath of the 1965 war saw a dramatic shift in Pakistan's security environment. Instead of a single alignment with the United States against China and the Soviet Union, Pakistan found itself cut off from United States military support, on increasingly warm terms with China, and treated equitably by the Soviet Union. Unchanged was the enmity with which India and Pakistan regarded each other over Kashmir. The result was the elaboration of a new security approach, called by Ayub Khan the "triangular tightrope"--a tricky endeavor to maintain good ties with the United States while cultivating China and the Soviet Union. Support from other developing nations was also welcome. None of the new relationships carried the weight of previous ties with the United States, but, taken together, they at least provided Pakistan with a political counterbalance to India.


from : Indo-Pakistan War of 1965
 
.
and also:

....
Pakistan Air Force was born on 14th of August 1947, with the independence of Pakistan. The growth of PAF is a story of unusual sacrifice. A tiny auxiliary Service, with a small number of personnel and insignificant equipment, emerging as a powerful weapon of the country’s defence, was a thrilling phenomenon. The dedication of its pioneers shaped the future of a force, destined to gain respect, after proving its worth in the wars of 1965 and 1971, where it was unfortunately vanquished by a much more powerful enemy, India. The story of PAF is a tale of development, despite heavy odds and limitations....


from: Pakistan Air Force
 
.
Hi,

When Chuck Yeager spoke, people stood quiet and listened. I doubt you have any clue about the integrity of that man---he was the most recognized man on the face of the planet EARTH in the world of aviation---he didnot have to favour anyone or mince any words to make one look good or bad.

Guess I would have to take your word on that.
 
.
Guess I would have to take your word on that.

while his word is as good as anyone's if you really dont know who this man was have a look at these reads

Chuck Yeager: The Man Who Broke the Sound Barrier
By Nancy Smiler Levinson

Chuck Yeager
By Colleen Madonna Flood Williams

Yeager, an autobiography
By Chuck Yeager, Leo Janos

Here's from his autobiography

"General Chuck Yeager, the greatest test pilot of them all -- the first man to fly faster than the speed of sound . . .the World War II flying ace who shot down a Messerschmitt jet with a prop-driven P-51 Mustang . . .the hero who defined a certain quality that all hotshot fly-boys of the postwar era aimed to achieve: the right stuff."
 
.
Hi,

When Chuck Yeager spoke, people stood quiet and listened. I doubt you have any clue about the integrity of that man---he was the most recognized man on the face of the planet EARTH in the world of aviation---he didnot have to favour anyone or mince any words to make one look good or bad.
True, he was one of the most recognised person in history of military aviation. But does it imply we have to take all his words as undisputable? Was not he the same person who made an insane remark at the starting of 1971 war (It was not 65 war as one of our Indian friend quoted) that Pakistan Army would be in Delhi within 1 week

Infact he took the war agaiast India too personally after an IAF pilot smashed his aircraft in first Indian retaliatory strike, at least his associate in US embassy testified that.


…….Pakistan in 1971 encompassed both the present-day country and the more populous East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. The country's two wings were separated by a thousand miles of Indian territory and a massive cultural barrier. From its inception, Pakistan had been ruled by the politicians and soldiers of the West Wing, whose view of their Eastern compatriots was best expressed to me by a Pakistani general: "Our East Wing, you see, is a low-lying country inhabited by . . . heh, heh . . . low, lying people.'….
In early 1971, the Western rulers inexplicably permitted a free, nationwide election--the first in the country's history. The downtrodden masses of East Pakistan united behind a single candidate, swept the polls, and ended up in complete control of the nation's parliament. The dumbfounded Westerners promptly annulled the election, tossed the victorious Eastern leaders in jail, and shipped a good part of Pakistan's army to the East to ensure tranquility. The result was a campaign of brutal oppression, followed quickly by a civil war, the flight of ten million refugees into neighboring India, and, in due course, Indian intervention in support of the resistance.
Back in Islamabad, we at the embassy were increasingly preoccupied with the deepening crisis. Meetings became more frequent and more tense. The ambassador fulminated against our consulate in Dhaka, East Pakistan's capital, for reporting to the State Department the enormity of the slaughter. We argued over what we should recommend to Washington, and we were troubled by the complex questions that the conflict raised.

That is, most of us were troubled. No such doubts seemed to cross the mind of Chuck Yeager. I remember one occasion on which Farland asked Yeager for his assessment of how long the Pakistani forces in the East could withstand an all-out attack by India. "We could hold them off for maybe a month,' he replied, "but beyond that we wouldn't have a chance without help from outside.' It took the rest of us a moment to fathom what he was saying, not realizing at first that the "we' was West Pakistan, not the United States. After the meeting, I mumbled something to Yeager about perhaps being a little more even-handed in his comments. He gave me a withering glance. "Goddamn it, we're assigned to Pakistan,' he said. "What's wrong with being loyal?!' Disloyally, I slunk away.

The dictator of Pakistan at the time, the one who had ordered the crackdown in the East, was a dim-witted general named Yahya Khan. Way over his head in events he couldn't begin to understand, Yahya took increasingly to brooding and drinking. Somehow he also took a fancy to Farland, who had met with him on several occasions to deliver suggestions and ukases from Washington. He would invite the reluctant ambassador over to his office to drink and brood with him. It would have been fun to hear their conversations: Major Hoople chatting with Caliban. The link proved less useful than we hoped, however, as it became clear that Yahya was more interested in having a drinking partner than an advisor.

In December of 1971, with Indian-supplied guerrillas applying more and more pressure on his beleaguered forces, Yahya decided on a last, hopeless gesture of defiance. He ordered what was left of his armed forces to attack India directly from the West. His air force roared across the border on the afternoon of December 3 to bomb Indian air bases, while his army crashed into India's defenses on the Western frontier.

Yahya's attack caught the embassy more than normally unprepared. As it happened, Farland's deputy, the career officer who had actually been running the embassy, was halfway around the world on a long-delayed vacation. Although he rushed back, it was several days before he could reach war-torn Islamabad. Meanwhile, Farland was quite uncomfortable, since he was now in actual, rather than nominal, control of the embassy. Faced with a host of urgent decisions, he sat frozen behind his desk, unable to decide on much of anything (which, in retrospect, turned out to be the best thing to do). Yeager, meanwhile, spent the first hours of the war stalking the embassy corridors like Henry V before Agincourt, snarling imprecations at the Indians and assuring anyone who would listen that the Pakistani army would be in New Delhi within a week.

It was the morning after the initial Pakistani strike that Yeager began to take the war with India personally. On the eve of their attack, the Pakistanis had been prudent enough to evacuate their planes from airfields close to the Indian border and move them back into the hinterlands. But no one thought to warn General Yeager. Thus, when an Indian fighter pilot swept low over Islamabad's airport in India's first retaliatory strike, he could see only two small planes on the ground. Dodging antiaircraft fire, he blasted both to smithereens with 20-millimeter cannon fire. One was Yeager's Beechcraft. The other was a plane used by United Nations forces to supply the patrols that monitored the ceasefire line in Kashmir.

I never found out how the United Nations reacted to the destruction of its plane, but Yeager's response was anything but dispassionate. He raged to his cowering colleagues at a staff meeting. His voice resounding through the embassy, he proclaimed that the Indian pilot not only knew exactly what he was doing but had been specifically instructed by Indira Gandhi to blast Yeager's plane. ("It was,' he relates in his book, "the Indian way of giving Uncle Sam the finger.') At this meeting, I ventured the timid suggestion that, to an Indian pilot skimming the ground at 500 miles per hour under antiaircraft fire, precise identification of targets on an enemy airfield might take lower priority than simply hitting whatever was there and then getting the hell out. Restraining himself with difficulty, Yeager informed me that anyone dumb enough not to know a deliberate attack on the American flag when he saw one had no business wearing his country's uniform. Since I was a civilian wearing a gray sweater at the time, I didn't fully grasp his nuances, but the essential meaning was clear.

Our response to this Indian atrocity, as I recall, was a top priority cable to Washington that described the incident as a deliberate affront to the American nation and recommended immediate countermeasures. I don't think we ever got an answer.
The destruction of the Beechcraft was the last straw for Yeager. He vanished from his office, and, to the best of my knowledge, wasn't seen again in Islamabad until the war was over. It wasn't a long period; the Indians took only two weeks to trounce the Pakistanis. East Pakistan, known as Bangladesh, became an independent country, and Yahya resigned in disgrace. He was so drunk during his televised farewell speech that the camera focused not on him but on a small table radio across the room.


And where had Yeager been during these dramatic two weeks? The slim entries in his autobiography aren't much help. Yeager says that he "didn't get involved in the actual combat because that would have been too touchy.' He then goes on to explain casually that he did "fly around' on such chores as picking up Indian pilots who had been shot down, interrogating them, and hauling them off to prison camps. There are clues, however, that suggest a more active role. A Pakistani businessman, son of a senior general, told me excitedly that Yeager had moved into the big air force base at Peshawar and was personally directing the grateful Pakistanis in deploying their fighter squadrons against the Indians. Another swore that he had seen Yeager emerge from a just-landed jet fighter at the Peshawar base. Yeager was uncharacteristically close-mouthed in succeeding weeks, but a sly grin would appear on his leathery face when we rehashed the war in staff meetings. I once asked him point-blank what he had been up to during the war. "I went fishing,' he growled.

The right stuff in the wrong place - Chuck Yeager's crash landing in Pakistan - page 4 | Washington Monthly

If the equation Yeagar gave in favour of PAF (104:34) were true, Pakistan would surely continue to kick Indian A$$ for long even after fall of East Pakistan. With that level of Air supiriority PAF could easily assisted its ground force to knock out their Indian counterparts. But none of these happened.

My intention is not to take credit from Pakistan Air Force. Even many Indian sources praised their qualititive supiriority and their professionalism and preparedness to fend off a very large enemy. But the Chuck Yeagar's claim I think Just to save his own pride (For a man of his stature which was very high indeed). I dont know how he counted the IAF and PAF planes which were shot down in Indian side of border.
 
.
It so seems some members in their enthusiasm or even hell bent in discrediting the other party seem to ignore the fact that the topic relates to the 1965 war, where as General "Chuck" Yeagar was part of the US military observer group during the 1971 crisis, even then due to the American sanctions imposed on Pakistan, Yeagar's role was limited in salvaging wreckages of shot down Indian aircraft. In any case, he wasn't part of the equation in the 65 war.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom