Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pakistan's army was extremely underdeveloped
underdeveloped doesn't mean weak, it means that the army doesn't have the capabilities it should have. It can still fight a war, but it would be hard pressed to keep attrition rate in it's favor.Underdeveloped?
You couldn't be more wrong!
Post azadi, the only country in the region that could match Pakistan was India.
The Chinese were a joke and the Arabs and Persians had no regular professional standing armies.
it means that the army doesn't have the capabilities it should have
A vast majority of the equipment was given to India, which is why India had a large military advantage over Pakistan. Pakistan was given what was needed to defend itself, nothing more. It had no offensive capabilities. A vast chunk of the Pakistani army was simply filled with militia groups, many of whom ended up becoming what is today known as the frontier corps. What Pakistan got were a few military bases, and basic equipment. Look at Pakistan's early military history, hell, Pakistan's military was so underdeveloped, it's first COAS was a white british General.In 1947, what capabilities were the Pakistanis lacking?
They had a well trained and well equipped standing army with up to date British and American equipment. Both of my grandfathers were in the military at the time and the elder, like many of his counterparts had seen combat in Burma and Bengal as part of Slim's army.
The Air Force was similarly on a good footing and had been so since the 1920s when the British established airlinks and ground stations in the country.
The training and logistics were in place and established along the North South Karachi-Punjab axis.
You may have a small point in pointing out the naval capabilities at the time but if you look back, the Indians were facing a similar predicament with established naval ports but minimal surface fleet capabilities and with the RN and USN controlling the sea lanes, there wasn't any threat.
Pakistan was forced to accept a smaller share of the armed forces as most of the military assets, such as weapons depots, military bases, etc., were located inside the new Union of India, while those that were in the new Dominion of Pakistan were mostly obsolete. Pakistan also had a dangerously low ammunition reserve of only one week.[11] By August 15, 1947, both India and Pakistan had operational control over their armed forces. GeneralSir Frank Messervy was appointed as the first Army Commander-in-Chief of the new Pakistan Army. General Messervy was succeeded in this post in February 1948, by GeneralSir Douglas Gracey, who served until January 1951.
View attachment 30903
TIME April 22-1948
In 1947, what capabilities were the Pakistanis lacking?
They had a well trained and well equipped standing army with up to date British and American equipment. Both of my grandfathers were in the military at the time and the elder, like many of his counterparts had seen combat in Burma and Bengal as part of Slim's army.
The Air Force was similarly on a good footing and had been so since the 1920s when the British established airlinks and ground stations in the country.
The training and logistics were in place and established along the North South Karachi-Punjab axis.
You may have a small point in pointing out the naval capabilities at the time but if you look back, the Indians were facing a similar predicament with established naval ports but minimal surface fleet capabilities and with the RN and USN controlling the sea lanes, there wasn't any threat.
A vast chunk of the Pakistani army was simply filled with militia groups
A vast majority of the equipment was given to India, which is why India had a large military advantage over Pakistan
It had no offensive capabilities.
What Pakistan got were a few military bases, and basic equipment.
Look at Pakistan's early military history, hell, Pakistan's military was so underdeveloped, it's first COAS was a white british General.
I did no such thing. Are you suggesting that those that aren't a part of the official military, but want to sacrifice for their country are dishonorable people? If anything, you're dis servicing those same people. Besides, look at the history of Pakistani military history. Look at the history of the frontier corpsYou do a great disservice to the men who served in the regular regiments which constituted the bulk of the Pak army by referring to them as 'militia men'.
The Frontier Corps was created in 1907 by Lord Curzon, the viceroy of British India, in order to organize seven militia and scout units in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan: the Khyber Rifles, the Zhob Militia, the Kurram Militia, the Tochi Scouts, the Chagai Militia, the South Waziristan Scouts and the Chitral Scouts.
After independence in 1947, Pakistan expanded the corps further by creating a number of new units, including the Thal Scouts, the Northern Scouts, the Bajaur Scouts, the Karakoram Scouts, the Kalat Scouts, the Dir Scouts and the Kohistan Scouts. British officers continued to serve in the Frontier Corps up to the early 1950s. The corps was split into two major subdivisions with FC Balochistan incorporating the Zhob Militia, the Sibi Scouts, the Kalat Scouts, the Makran Militia, the Kharan Rifles, the Pishin Scouts, the Chaghai Militia and the First Mahsud Scouts.[1] In 1975, three of the units (the Gilgit Scouts, the Karakoram Scouts and the Northern Scouts) were merged to form a new paramilitary force called the Northern Light Infantry, which is now a full infantry regiment of the Pakistan Army.
Look at Pakistani military history, Pakistani army as a whole (not just the Punjab regiment) was grossly underdeveloped. The total amount of military officers numbered below 2500, when Pakistan had a requirement of 4000. Not just that, the total man-strength was lower than what was needed, (around 150,000, which was well below urgent requirement).I suppose in your eyes, the Punjab regiment magically popped up in '47.
That changes my point very little.India in terms of area and pop was much greater.
That's because the region had hitherto little need for those capabilities. There were no tank battles with the Japanese in the Burmese bush and the Brits only half-heartedly fielded one armoured division.
Again, how does this change what I said? If anything, it proves Pakistan was under-equipped. It got less than what it required.To simplify logistics, the British placed most of the armament and munitions factories near Bengal (Ishapore for example) which provided many seaports and which also provided access to railroads through to Dhaka. Given the bankrupt economy and weary malaise affecting Britain in '47, it would have been unreasonable to have stripped the assembly lines down and ship them to Pakistan proper.
I know, it was just a fun fact that I thought I would share, but it does highlight that India's military was also underdeveloped, but was far better off that Pakistan.Much of the Indian army staff were Brits too Bulcher, Goddard etc.