PAF superiority over IAF in 65 war

[Myth_buster_1]

"The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."
Indonesian Herald
September 11, 1965.

Combat Over The Indian Subcontinent
"In September 1965 a festering border dispute between India and Pakistan erupted into full scale war. The Indian possessed the larger air force numerically, composed maily of British and French types- Hawker Hunter, Folland Gnat and Dassault Mystere fighters, Dassault Ouragon fighter-bombers and English electric Camnberra bombers. The smaller but highly trained Pakistan air force was equipped in large part with F-86F Sabers, plus a few F-104 Starfighters. Fighting lasted little more than two weeks, but during that time, Pakistan gained a definite ascendancy in the air……….. It was the well proven Sabers that emerged with honors, being credited with all but five of the 36 victories claimed. The Indians claimed 73 victories - undoubtly a considerable overestimate - for an admitted loss of 35."

(Christopher Sivores, Book: Air Aces)

PAF Air-to-Air victories
(note: pakistan claims 40+)
Source: Air access

"One point particularly noted by military observers is that in their frist advances the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. by contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during it's attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing.)"

"By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."

Everett G. Martin,
General Editor, Newsweek
September 20, 1965.

STRIKE AGAINST A BOMBER BASE
7 SEPTEMBER 1965

The painting shows 2 of the 5 Dhaka-based F-86 Sabres attacking the IAF bomber station at Kalaikunda. The Sabre pilots, quickly overcoming their initial surprise at finding so many bombers neatly lined up, wasted no time in making the best of it. Formation leader was Squadron Leader Shabbir H Syed with Flight Lieutenants Abdul Baseer, Tariq Habib, Abdul Haleem and Flying Officer Afzal Khan in his formation. In his memoirs written after the 1965 India-Pakistan War, Air Chief Marshal P C Lal, Chief of the Air Staff, IAF, conceded the losses suffered by the IAF during this daring attack. He wrote:"A sharp lesson ... was taught by the PAF in an attack on an IAF base near Kharagpur (Kalaikunda). In one raid that it mounted, it destroyed several Canberra bombers and Hunter fighters aircraft on the ground.

PATHAMKOT STRIKE
1705 HOURS, 6 SEPTEMBER 1965

8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, none of which were seen again during the War. Tied escorts consisted of Wing Commander M G Tawab (later Air Marshal and air chief of Bangladesh Air Force) and Flight Lieutenant Arshad Sami while the strike elements were led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider with Flight Lieutenants M Akbar, Mazhar Abbas, Dilawar Hussain, Ghani Akbar and Flying Officers Arshad Chaudhry, Khalid Latif and Abbas Khattak (later Air Chief Marshal and CAS, PAF) in his formation.

out of just few articles we have concluded that IAF lost 40 planes in air and about as many in ground. I have not included IAF losses by AAG and one could easily estimate that IAF lost well 100 planes in 65 war.

Indians you dont have to be deluded.. just admit IAF loss and move on.

 

[SQ8]

The only proper unbiased account is from Ac Sajjad Haider's book.
In which he also verifies the Indian book the Indo-Pak Air war as accurate.

 

[Patriot]

Buddy you know another indian myth?According to them PAF had better weapons in 65 and our missile seriousely demoralied them lol.While in reality there were only 3 missile kills and that Indian nutjob commander who thought flying mig21 super sonically would scare Pakistani Air Force Commandors but they could not do it though as PAF wiped out entire IAF mig21 squad in Pathankot Strike and returned without 0 losses.That's right.They went in their land blew their planes without 0 losses.Same for Sri Nagar Air Base raid in which Sir Muradk also participated and was also flying Sabre :p.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Buddy you know another indian myth?According to them PAF had better weapons in 65

you are right on the spot!
PAF had only 2 squdron of F-86 and 10 F-104 which were capable of firing 1st generation 30% kill ratio aim-9s and thats about it. those who think this is a "decisive edge" are nothing but fools.

 

[ARSENAL6]

EDIT:
sorry guys I misread the thread subject

 

[Romanch]

To be frank, Pakistani sources have their own versions, and Indian sources have their own. Therefore, it is hard to determine who actually had the upper hand. One thing that can be said for sure is that the IAF lost more aircraft than PAF did during the war. But does that mean PAF really had the upper hand? An excerpt from Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses book titled 'Emerging India: security and foreign policy perspectives' -

Although we lost a large number of aircraft on ground, the attrition rate of the IAF was 1.49 per cent compared to PAF's 2.16 per cent. Attritions rates in air-to-air combat were even more favorable to the IAF.

So, according to this book, IAF suffered high casualties because PAF successfully bombarded several of its air bases. But in air-to-air combat, IAF had the upper hand.

I'm sure Pakistanis would dispute this claim and Indians would dispute their claim. Conclusion? A never ending debate.

So, move over. Past is past. Think about what is happening now and what will happen in the future.

 

[LiberalPakistani]

@Romanch

"So, move over. Past is past. Think about what is happening now and what will happen in the future. "


History will repeat itself in the future FYI

 

[Myth_buster_1]

So, according to this book, IAF suffered high casualties because PAF successfully bombarded several of its air bases. But in air-to-air combat, IAF had the upper hand.

I'm sure Pakistanis would dispute this claim and Indians would dispute their claim. Conclusion? A never ending debate.

So, move over. Past is past. Think about what is happening now and what will happen in the future.

whats up with indian bragging so much about this irrelevant to pak-indo context of "attrition rate"... IAF had alot more planes then PAF so of course they flew more take off and landing sorties, and even if they lost as much plane as PAF entire fleet their "attrition rate" will be still much lower then PAF.
and plus we need to get all the information about how many planes IAF put into action and how many hours each planes flew before you guys jump into conclusion.


and btw.. its only india who comes up with wild claims like IAF destroyed 73 of our planes and pass on the information to anti-pak sites like globalsecurity and use that as "neutral" source to prove their point which is really sad.

 

[SQ8]

Actually.. The IAF did not have the "Upper hand" .. like.. ever In Air to air combat.
recommend you look at the lists on ACIG.
The IAF did however, perfect its tactics in 71 learning from 65.
Who is to say they haven't honed their edge since then..unlike us, they dont live in the past.

 

[DbnReaper]

According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies:
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.[47]

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.[48] The same article stated that -
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.

 

[bandit]

According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies:
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.[47]

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.[48] The same article stated that -
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.

Nahh he wont get it. The guy is fanaticized by PAF victory that he wont accept any views contrary to it. He got a thread locked because of it so what does he do he opens up another thread. Let him live in History....others got better stuff to do...nobodys even bothering to reply to him here.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies:
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.[47]

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.[48] The same article stated that -
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.

wait you are a south african indian right? and you copy pasted wikipedia? its plagiarism! next time provide credible sources not something that is passed around by indian propaganda government to satisfy anti-muslim ego.

 

[Peshwa]

^^^^ As long as he credits the source of information, which he clearly has, its Kosher....Only mistake if you want to get technical about it is maybe he could have used quotes.

Dont be petty growler!!!....

Besides....screw it ...lets give it to you, PAF was, is and will be better than IAF!!!

Does that change anything?? Has Pakistan been able to conquer Kashmir, in 47, 65, 99?
Will your air-superioirity bring back E.Pakistan?

Will your air-superiority change the status quo?...NO so lets just enjoy this as a great achievement for Pakistan....we all respect each others armed forces....and you have great personalities like Mr.MuradK to look up to...so much so that we all treat him as a hero....Indians included!!!

But please....dont try to sell us your theory of Pakistan won the '65 war....its nothing more than a "mental jerk off"....

I like the articles you've posted. Please keep up the good work!!

Cheers
Peshwa

 

[Muradk]

Guys stay on the topic , Another thing if you don't like the topic stay away from it. because If I step in and talk about 65 you will not like it , You were not there in the skies I was, I just gave you 1 piece of evidence about 71 no Indian has comments on that do you want me to show you another one. Why make a fool out of your armed forces in front of thousands of members. Let it go.

 

[Khajur]

Guys stay on the topic , Another thing if you don't like the topic stay away from it. because If I step in and talk about 65 you will not like it , You were not there in the skies I was, I just gave you 1 piece of evidence about 71 no Indian has comments on that do you want me to show you another one. Why make a fool out of your armed forces in front of thousands of members. Let it go.

sir,

None of us indians here have first hand experience of 65 or 71 war like urs ,so it wont make any sense for us to comment or contest ur version of those two wars.