Tactical & Operational Side of 65 Saga

[R.A.W.]

RAW you do work for RAW dont you by the looks if it you do. Now how did you come up with this analysis that it was a stalemate and all by yourself.
Any Tom, Dick Harry can go on Winp and write what ever they want that site is full of bull and a lot of Shi-t

Not yet sir ji. Sir ji if you want I have already posted one more link. If you want I can post you one more. The war did not had an outcome on both sides. Because no one was able to achive its objectives. India was not able to capture Lahore and Pakistan was not able to capture Kashmir. Each one was holding land of each other before the stalemate. PAF was superior in the air and Indians caused damage on the ground. Sir if you want I can post some more links from further neutral resources.

 

[Muradk]

Who the hell is mudrak, hi guys do we have a member named mudrak.

Hehehe...sounds like a character from Star Wars...mudrak the dark sith...

Xeric, yes i think you should have opened this on TT...

Few observations i have....

Stalemate is between two evenly matched opponents...if Pakistan with much smaller Army, Air force and Navy is considered an equal by India then surely it was a stalemate...

However to me 65 was a case of Pakistan achieving something which India may not understand...a sense of everlasting pride in keeping a much larger military at bay and giving it a lot of punishment as well...i do not know how this can be called a stalemate since by all accounts, Pakistan should have been roundly beaten by India...if we take traditional comparative parameters into account...

India claimed 100 odd aircraft kills which was the height of exaggeration...PAF had prewar strength of nearly 152 fighters and bombers and displayed 77% of its aircraft in a post war military parade for all the world to see after the War...the PAF claim of 20 odd losses and dozen odd damaged aircraft was pretty much proven in this parade as well...

Now compare these losses with the relevant strengths of the two air forces and one wonders why it cannot be called a great achievement in face of overwhelming odds...

Not yet sir ji. Sir ji if you want I have already posted one more link. If you want I can post you one more. The war did not had an outcome on both sides. Because no one was able to achive its objectives. India was not able to capture Lahore and Pakistan was not able to capture Kashmir. Each one was holding land of each other before the stalemate. PAF was superior in the air and Indians caused damage on the ground. Sir if you want I can post some more links from further neutral resources.

Your Avatar is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO cute I can't say anything to you so please by all means do post some more links but it has to be from neutral party.

 

[R.A.W.]

Your Avatar is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO cute I can't say anything to you so please by all means do post some more links but it has to be from neutral party.

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

Second Kashmir War - Pakistan, India and the Second Kashmir War (1965)

Indo-Pakistan Wars - MSN Encarta

 

[All-Green]

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

Second Kashmir War - Pakistan, India and the Second Kashmir War (1965)

Indo-Pakistan Wars - MSN Encarta

very interesting neutral article...and i quote from the global security article...

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.

1) Focus on Pakistan's loss of 20 aircraft and 200 tanks and no mention of Indian Air force's huge losses and the Indian Armour's destroyed assets...very neutral perspective indeed.

2) A theory that even though Indian military failed to defeat Pakistan, continuation of War would only have resulted in Pakistan's defeat...

3) Refused to accept the possibility of a military defeat by Hindu India?

Sounding a bit too neutral to my ears... to change stance from militarily inconclusive war to a lack of acceptance of a military defeat by the ignorant and overconfident Pakistanis...and that too in the same paragraph of the article..

 

[R.A.W.]

very interesting neutral article...and i quote from the global security article...

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.

1) Focus on Pakistan's loss of 20 aircraft and 200 tanks and no mention of Indian Air force's huge losses and the Indian Armour's destroyed assets...very neutral perspective indeed.

2) A theory that even though Indian military failed to defeat Pakistan, continuation of War would only have resulted in Pakistan's defeat...

3) Refused to accept the possibility of a military defeat by Hindu India?

Sounding a bit too neutral to my ears... to change stance from militarily inconclusive war to a lack of acceptance of a military defeat by the ignorant and overconfident Pakistanis...and that too in the same paragraph of the article..

It is believed when India went to UN the Indian PM was wrongly informed about the state of War and the ammunition left....

 

[Xeric]

Another thread sent down the drain...love the indians for that...

And no Mod is lurking here....

Anywaz... Sir MK, i'll like to know about that conversation which took between senior officers of the tri-services where Noor Khan gave a thought about the fact that what would we do if an all out war broke out. i mean i want to know who all were present there who didnt pay any head to his foresightedness?

 

[Comet]

Nice Info. thanks for it xeric

 

[thebeatless]

thanx bro keep it up