PAF superiority over IAF in 65 war

[Romanch]

Victories are meant to be boosted and celebrated. We dont stop India to celebrate or boost about the 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh.

Uhh.. so by that logic Pakistanis can boast about 1965 war because they won it?

 

[All-Green]

PAF was the better force due to its training and the highly efficient use of its modest air assets and for that the credit still goes to PAF.
Numbers do matter and despite the numerical disadvantage PAF did a very fine job by any standard. Even in 71 PAF was still a thorn in the side and had a good kill ratio go boast.

In 65 it was the superior tactics, clinical execution and aggression which made PAF come on top in overall exchange between the two forces.
You can bring in the best aces to teach and attempt to run a high quality training facility but at the end of the day if the student is deficient in skill, motivation and confidence, he will not become a great.
Just like in sports, we have had great players as coaches for both Pakistan and India and still we managed to suck in many tournaments!

It is the entire scope of the operational and training doctrine and its implementation which has to click in order to produce a force which is second to none and PAF achieved this because of its leaders and its personel.
In addition to the pilots the air technicians and the support staff was brilliant in keeping the planes in the air and supporting multiple sorties. This was all due to the high skill and motivation of the troops and not just due to training.
PAF had great leaders like Asghar Khan and Noor Khan who have the respect of many people around the globe and were through professionals and legendary fighter pilots in their own right with a clinical attention to detail and planning throughout their careers.
These were the men of steel who made the difference and ensured that PAF was prepared to utilize its resources in an efficient and lethal fashion in case it went to war against superior numbers.
It is this genuine sense of accomplishment which makes PAF still a confident force despite the equipment and numerical disadvantage it faces.
One should not live in the history but drawing inspiration from history is not foolish, it is a very wise thing to do in face of adversity.
Surely one should not forget the lesson that skill, motivation and aggression still matter when we talk about air warfare.

It is not that IAF was a force which was toothless, their quality of opposition was the very reason that we pride ourselves in our performance.

 

[Romanch]

PAF was the better force due to its training and the highly efficient use of its modest air assets and for that the credit still goes to PAF.
Numbers do matter and despite the numerical disadvantage PAF did a very fine job by any standard. Even in 71 PAF was still a thorn in the side and had a good kill ratio go boast.

In 65 it was the superior tactics, clinical execution and aggression which made PAF come on top in overall exchange between the two forces.
You can bring in the best aces to teach and attempt to run a high quality training facility but at the end of the day if the student is deficient in skill, motivation and confidence, he will not become a great.
Just like in sports, we have had great players as coaches for both Pakistan and India and still we managed to suck in many tournaments!

It is the entire scope of the operational and training doctrine and its implementation which has to click in order to produce a force which is second to none and PAF achieved this because of its leaders and its personel.
In addition to the pilots the air technicians and the support staff was brilliant in keeping the planes in the air and supporting multiple sorties. This was all due to the high skill and motivation of the troops and not just due to training.
PAF had great leaders like Asghar Khan and Noor Khan who have the respect of many people around the globe and were through professionals and legendary fighter pilots in their own right with a clinical attention to detail and planning throughout their careers.
These were the men of steel who made the difference and ensured that PAF was prepared to utilize its resources in an efficient and lethal fashion in case it went to war against superior numbers.
It is this genuine sense of accomplishment which makes PAF still a confident force despite the equipment and numerical disadvantage it faces.
One should not live in the history but drawing inspiration from history is not foolish, it is a very wise thing to do in face of adversity.
Surely one should not forget the lesson that skill, motivation and aggression still matter when we talk about air warfare.

It is not that IAF was a force which was toothless, their quality of opposition was the very reason that we pride ourselves in our performance.

I like to mention my sources before making general remarks. Unfortunately, my likeness for sources is not shared by others it seems.

 

[TaimiKhan]

And calling me implicitly a "wise-arse" isn't flaming and trolling?

Nops it isn't.

Even Indians have heard Pakistanis numerous times boasting about PAF aerial victories as if they actually won the 1965 war. Why don't they boast about the 'heroics' of the Pakistani Army during the Battle of Asal Uttar and Operation Gibraltar?

Battles don't matter much in a war, its the outcome of the War that matters. I do hope u know the difference between a battle & war ??

For us the outcome of the 65 war is more important as Indians did not succeed in the designs which they had woven for Pakistan. So for us 65 war was a win as we did not let our enemy get what it wanted. As a defender this is the main objective of any army to not let the aggressor enemy gain a foothold which can give it an advantage.

And in 65 war, the air battle was definitely won by PAF comparing it to the strength & superiority of IAF, which could not do anything decisive.

 

[EagleEyes]

Uhh.. so by that logic Pakistanis can boast about 1965 war because they won it?

And by that logic India won the 1971 War because Bangladeshi rebels won it for them?

 

[All-Green]

I like to mention my sources before making general remarks. Unfortunately, my likeness for sources is not shared by others it seems.

As the term general remark implies...it is not specific to a certain source hence it is a general remark and is based on my study of various sources including the accounts of Chuck yeager, the comments of Israeli air chief etc. and not just Pakistani sources.

Regarding your likeness for sources, it seems you have not displayed it as well so why disappointed in others?

Anyways, my point is also simple enough.
IAF was trapped by PAF and that can also be indirectly concluded from the one Indian source you have posted about.
Even though few aircraft were available, Noor Khan ordered sorties immediately in order to open the hornets nest and entice the IAF to pounce upon PAF bases and the ensuing engagements resulted in the high attrition of IAF, which is an achievement when seen in light of its reasonable numerical advantage over PAF.

These are all facts and i think are disputed by none.

PAF superiority over IAF was a reality of the war...i did not say complete air superiority or air dominance...given its numbers, this was impossible for PAF, so within its numbers what it did was outstanding.

Between two strong forces the one that loses is usually the one that is forced into making mistakes and that is what is measured by history in the end. If IAF made mistakes, it was made to pay for the mistakes by PAF which actually enticed it to make many of the mistakes, despite being at numerical disadvantage.

It seems very simple for folks who read it as a story but such decisions and plans need a lot to execute especially when the enemy is not a walkover but has a larger force.

 

[Romanch]

Battles don't matter much in a war, its the outcome of the War that matters. I do hope u know the difference between a battle & war ??

For us the outcome of the 65 war is more important as Indians did not succeed in the designs which they had woven for Pakistan. So for us 65 war was a win as we did not let our enemy get what it wanted. As a defender this is the main objective of any army to not let the aggressor enemy gain a foothold which can give it an advantage.

And in 65 war, the air battle was definitely won by PAF comparing it to the strength & superiority of IAF, which could not do anything decisive.

Uhh.. let me get something straight.. wasn't it Pakistan which started the 1965 war by launching Operation Gibraltar and Grand Slam? If anything, it was Pakistan which did not succeed in its plan to separate Kashmir from India. In other words.. India was the defender and Pakistan the aggressor and the defender successfully defended its territory.

Regarding who actually won the war, I can point out numerous neutral sources, which I'm sure even you went through, which clearly say that India held more Pakistani territory than the Indian territory held by Pakistan and had lost lesser personnel during the conflict. So, in overall terms, India did hold a clear edge.

 

[Romanch]

And by that logic India won the 1971 War because Bangladeshi rebels won it for them?

And by that logic, why didn't the Bangladeshi rebels secure their goals before December 3, 1971?

After all, their 'Liberation War' was officially launched on March 26, 1971. Why did they secure their goals only after Indian forces intervened? As a matter of fact, for approx. 8 months (between March and December) there was nothing but chaos in that region, but everything was clear within 13 days of Indian intervention.

 

[Romanch]

As the term general remark implies...it is not specific to a certain source hence it is a general remark and is based on my study of various sources including the accounts of Chuck yeager, the comments of Israeli air chief etc. and not just Pakistani sources.

Regarding your likeness for sources, it seems you have not displayed it as well so why disappointed in others?

Anyways, my point is also simple enough.
IAF was trapped by PAF and that can also be indirectly concluded from the one Indian source you have posted about.
Even though few aircraft were available, Noor Khan ordered sorties immediately in order to open the hornets nest and entice the IAF to pounce upon PAF bases and the ensuing engagements resulted in the high attrition of IAF, which is an achievement when seen in light of its reasonable numerical advantage over PAF.

These are all facts and i think are disputed by none.

PAF superiority over IAF was a reality of the war...i did not say complete air superiority or air dominance...given its numbers, this was impossible for PAF, so within its numbers what it did was outstanding.

Between two strong forces the one that loses is usually the one that is forced into making mistakes and that is what is measured by history in the end. If IAF made mistakes, it was made to pay for the mistakes by PAF which actually enticed it to make many of the mistakes, despite being at numerical disadvantage.

It seems very simple for folks who read it as a story but such decisions and plans need a lot to execute especially when the enemy is not a walkover but has a larger force.

I wouldn't call Chuck Yeager a neutral, credible source. After all, that person persuaded USA to invade India just because the IAF destroyed his Beechcraft aircraft (acc. to Admiral Arun Prakash). He even predicted Pakistani Army to be in Delhi within a week of commencement of hostilities.

Regarding me and my sources, if you think I have written something here which can't be verified by neutral sources, please let me know and I would willingly give you the sources.

 

[ahmeddsid]

One Doubt, How can anyone say Chuck Yeager is a neutral source and Believe what he says? I mean he trained/adviced the PAF, so any shortcomings of the PAF will be his shortcoming, and that man would loose face. In this Logic, anything he says, should be taken with a pinch of salt. He has personal interests in what he says, its as simple as that. Correct me If I am wrong, its just that I can never accept a source which Reads Chuck Yeager because of the above facts!

 

[DbnReaper]

By the way ..I am South African of Indian origin and a muslim by religion . I still think that Pakistan will get a whacking from the IAF and India if they push Bharat around. Look at the war of 71 and Kaligri or Operation Vijay. Pakistan should stick to the LOC and stop messing around with its big brother. India accepts the independence and sovereignity of Pakistan. Pakistan should do the same. IAF and PAF should instead of brow beating each other, have joint exercises to secure a stronger regional territory

 

[toxic_pus]

Battles don't matter much in a war, its the outcome of the War that matters. I do hope u know the difference between a battle & war ??

For us the outcome of the 65 war is more important as Indians did not succeed in the designs which they had woven for Pakistan. So for us 65 war was a win as we did not let our enemy get what it wanted. As a defender this is the main objective of any army to not let the aggressor enemy gain a foothold which can give it an advantage.

India crossed the IB on 6th Sept. 1965 in response to Pakistan’s ‘Operation Grand Slam’, which was initiated by Pakistan in response to India’s take over of Haji Pir, which again was in response to Pakistan’s ‘Operation Gibraltar’. This sequence of events is attested by Pakistani writers themselves.

This implies that within a matter of few weeks, from being the aggressor, Pakistan had become the defender. India was not only successful in defending Kashmir, but was able to take the war right to heart of Pakistan. Instead of fighting to ‘liberate’ Kashmir, Pakistan was, during the end stages of the war, fighting to defend Lahore.

Only in a parallel universe would such turn of events, where an aggressor, set out to make territorial gains, eventually ending up having to fight for its territorial integrity, be termed as ‘victory’.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

By the way ..I am South African of Indian origin and a muslim by religion . I still think that Pakistan will get a whacking from the IAF and India if they push Bharat around. Look at the war of 71 and Kaligri or Operation Vijay. Pakistan should stick to the LOC and stop messing around with its big brother. India accepts the independence and sovereignity of Pakistan. Pakistan should do the same. IAF and PAF should instead of brow beating each other, have joint exercises to secure a stronger regional territory

nope not their yet.... you being a pathological liar. let me enlighten you with a bitter reality. i lived in south africa for 2 years and it seems to me and the reality is almost every indian muslim south african i came across be it in the cricket field, family get to gathers, or schools almost every other indian muslim had a strong anti-indian in them. so i will take your opinion as a "bad apple"... and oh i also have a strong felling that you are not even a south african muslim..

keep in mind that this thread is merely about PAF superiority over IAF in 65 war... and it was PAF who gave hard whackings on IAF head..

 

[Myth_buster_1]

India crossed the IB on 6th Sept. 1965 in response to Pakistan’s ‘Operation Grand Slam’, which was initiated by Pakistan in response to India’s take over of Haji Pir, which again was in response to Pakistan’s ‘Operation Gibraltar’. This sequence of events is attested by Pakistani writers themselves.

This implies that within a matter of few weeks, from being the aggressor, Pakistan had become the defender. India was not only successful in defending Kashmir, but was able to take the war right to heart of Pakistan. Instead of fighting to ‘liberate’ Kashmir, Pakistan was, during the end stages of the war, fighting to defend Lahore.

Only in a parallel universe would such turn of events, where an aggressor, set out to make territorial gains, eventually ending up having to fight for its territorial integrity, be termed as ‘victory’.

Toxic pus yet again proving us to me a first class troller hijacking my threads with his non relevant posts...
this is thread is merely about "PAF superiority over IAF in 65 war"... not a open general discussion about 65 war from a indian propaganda perspective.

to end this off topic matter once in for all... here is a reality check for you.

Pakistans flag flutters proudly over the romantic Rajput fort of Kishengrah in Rajasthan where Pakistan army was in occupation of over 1200 square miles of Indian Territory

Three Pakistani officers pose for picture in front of the imposing structure of the ancient Rajasthan fort at Gotaro. This was one of the chain of forts and other fortifications captured by Pakistans Desert Force in 1965 War

Army C-in-C General Mohammad Musa Khan at Khem Karan Railway Station after capturing of the town by Pakistani troops

Munabao, the important railway station of Rajasthan , loudly contradicting Indias persistent propaganda that Munabao was not taken by Pakistan

Pakistani soldiers, proudly carrying aloft Pakistans flag, pass the custom house when they captured Munabao

Khem Karan, the Indian market town, was the place from where Indians were to launch their thrust on Kasur and then on to Lahore. The milestone in the picture with Pakistani soldiers in the background in an eloquent footnote to India's defeated ambitions.

 

[Romanch]

Pakistans flag flutters proudly over the romantic Rajput fort of Kishengrah in Rajasthan where Pakistan army was in occupation of over 1200 square miles of Indian Territory

Kishangarh fort is barely 10-15 kms from the Indo-Pak border and is located in the sparsely populated Thar desert -

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...&sspn=40.732051,79.013672&ie=UTF8&z=9&iwloc=A

(27.871,70.563)

So, just because Pakistani forces captured a fort 15 kms inside Indian territory doesn't mean they held 1200 sq. miles of Indian territory. Do you have a neutral source to back your claim?