The 1965 Indo-Pak war

[AliFarooq]

Now how do we know the video is showing Indian or Pakistani soilders?

look at the numbers written on the tanks.

 

[third eye]

a nation that forgets its HISTORY will have no FUTURE.....and 65 my friend was a stalemate.... we had captured indian land in the RAJHISTAN sector and you had land captured in PUNJAB sector....

so ya what happened before we were born is important for us to know our roots and also move forward accordingly!!!

Well said.. " a nation that forgets..

But, the issue is that what have we learnt from out history ?? Aren't we repeating the same mistakes over & over again ?

If '65 was a stalemate as you say so what ? Where are we now .. still in a stalemate ??

What did we learn from '65 that we improved in ' 71 ? The performance was worse. You could ' justify' this with things like long distances, logistics, local population being hostile etc etc. But.. what of these were not known before the shooting war began ? Yet the performance did not improve.

Again in '84 what happened in Siachen ?.. Nothing.

In kargil too the war machine foolishly did not cater for the kind of response it got from India. Generals are supposed to think things out to their logical conclusion & cater for the ' worst case' situation. Not blunder into a situation saying it is ' disputed territory' hence I can do what I feel & expect the enemy to play by my rules.

On the domestic front things are hardly better.

What have learnt form history & what have we done better or differently.. thats the moot point.

 

[Zob]

I think that's more balanced. The war was another stalemate like the first kashmir war, where 3/5th of land was captured by India and the rest by pakistan and that's it. If only someone, either India or Pakistan had the brains or the balls to win it outright, we'd not have been wasting our time till today.

But in '65 Pakistan suffered the greater casualties and a slightly greater loss of land than India did. And politically it was kind of a defeat for the Pakistani dream of Kashmiri "liberation" which is what Op. Gibraltar set out to achieve in the first place.

ok you agree it was a stalemate and then you say slightly or not slightly....whatever

if india had complete victory then it should have been along the lines of how ISRAEL defeated its enemy or the GERMANS defeated the FRENCH in WW2.....


you got neither so yes we are still in a stalemate and no one has an upper hand these words such as "SLIGHTLY" don't count....

 

[Zob]

Well said.. " a nation that forgets..

But, the issue is that what have we learnt from out history ?? Aren't we repeating the same mistakes over & over again ?

If '65 was a stalemate as you say so what ? Where are we now .. still in a stalemate ??

What did we learn from '65 that we improved in ' 71 ? The performance was worse. You could ' justify' this with things like long distances, logistics, local population being hostile etc etc. But.. what of these were not known before the shooting war began ? Yet the performance did not improve.

Again in '84 what happened in Siachen ?.. Nothing.

In kargil too the war machine foolishly did not cater for the kind of response it got from India. Generals are supposed to think things out to their logical conclusion & cater for the ' worst case' situation. Not blunder into a situation saying it is ' disputed territory' hence I can do what I feel & expect the enemy to play by my rules.

On the domestic front things are hardly better.

What have learnt form history & what have we done better or differently.. thats the moot point.

we are 1/6 your size and still able to standup to you till today that my applaudable my friend!!

in 71 well you got involved in a civil war so that is a backstabbing....don't worry we will rightlty take our revenge when the time is right...


in 84 we still don't understand why indians want to sit on top of a SNOW CLAD MOUNTAIN it is utter stupidty on both sides and we didn't retalite cuz we till today don't understand why you want to spend so much resources keeping siachan active!!!

in 99 well look at how many soldiers you lost even got 2 fighters shot down....you ordered coffins.... so now do we take it as our victory we don't cuz again it was a stalemate...that led to pressure from the US and indian threat that it will cross the international border...and our government buckled under the combined US pressure & INDIAN threat....


so yes till today we are in a stalemate!!! if this was not the case india would have held a clear decisive edge over us like the israels enjoy over all its arabs neighbour....

 

[Patriot]

65 can hardly be called victory.We did not win any stragetic locations (Kashmir) which was the reason behind the entire OP Grandslam.The mission was very bad.Had Pakistanis Soldiers and Air Force not fought gallantly Lahore would be under Indian hands.Fortunately for us our air force as well as Soldiers performed far better then what our enemy expected.It was a bad stragety of our generals which got us intro trouble in the first place.The blood of Soldiers and Air Force Pilots saved Lahore from India.We managed to gain territory so in the end both sides gave back each other territory...in other words stalemate.

 

[third eye]

we are 1/6 your size and still able to standup to you till today that my applaudable my friend!!

Ok.. if thats how you wish to see it.

in 71 well you got involved in a civil war so that is a backstabbing....don't worry we will rightlty take our revenge when the time is right...

All Indians will I am sure join me when I say.... anytime !

in 84 we still don't understand why indians want to sit on top of a SNOW CLAD MOUNTAIN it is utter stupidty on both sides and we didn't retalite cuz we till today don't understand why you want to spend so much resources keeping siachan active!!!

Like I said, ask others on this forum.. there must be some threads on this



in 99 well look at how many soldiers you lost even got 2 fighters shot down....you ordered coffins.... so now do we take it as our victory we don't cuz again it was a stalemate...that led to pressure from the US and indian threat that it will cross the international border...and our government buckled under the combined US pressure & INDIAN threat....

You have just answered yourself.


so yes till today we are in a stalemate!!! if this was not the case india would have held a clear decisive edge over us like the israels enjoy over all its arabs neighbour....

Stalemate at what cost ?? Compare both countries , got indep together. If one is larger .. it has larger No of probs both due to its size & diversity & the fact that the nation has to be run along established lines.

I do not wish to brag, but who has emerged better & stronger world wide & within ?

Younger people must apply themselves differently to address age old probs. Not the same way their dads & grand dads saw it.

 

[digitaltiger]

* 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 analyzing the conflict,[48] reported that India held 690 Mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 Mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. 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'.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

Heavy Loss Larger territory captured... Pakistan won the War ??????

Now please for heaven sake dont say that Wikipedia and global security are Indian sites or they are hacked by some group of Indian hackers.

 

[Zob]

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

from your link my friend

and yes being 1/6 your size reaching a stalemate is as close to victory as one can get!!!!

 

[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 analyzing the conflict,[48] reported that India held 690 Mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 Mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. 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'.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

Heavy Loss Larger territory captured... Pakistan won the War ??????

Now please for heaven sake dont say that Wikipedia and global security are Indian sites or they are hacked by some group of Indian hackers.

At my indian friend anything you have studied in your lil bharat rakshak world please throw that in the bin. if you wanna live in your fairy tales then go ahead and be a wikipeedia-bharatraksak dumb***.

 

[typewriter]

and yes being 1/6 your size reaching a stalemate is as close to victory as one can get!!!!

"Nearly there" "Close to victory" doesn't mean anything. It's either a win or nothing. Pakistan set out to liberate kashmir and to say that we came "close to victory" means a defeat of the political ambition to "liberate" kashmir.

btw, Though the numbers were surely in India's favour, qualitatively the Pakistani military was well equipped and much more prepared at that point of time, whereas India was undergoing a huge modernization post '62 war that would take years to complete. The economy of Pak was also in much better shape. They also had the first mover advantage & a supposedly well "thought" out plan.

 

[Coolyo]

I think that's more balanced. The war was another stalemate like the first kashmir war, where 3/5th of land was captured by India and the rest by pakistan and that's it. If only someone, either India or Pakistan had the brains or the balls to win it outright, we'd not have been wasting our time till today.

But in '65 Pakistan suffered the greater casualties and a slightly greater loss of land than India did. And politically it was kind of a defeat for the Pakistani dream of Kashmiri "liberation" which is what Op. Gibraltar set out to achieve in the first place.

Pakistan took over 2/5 of Kashmir from India, we reclaimed part of the land that was rightfully ours!

We won the war in 1948, and you Indians were pushed back thousands of square miles!

Indians did not capture anything, rather they beggen the UN for a ceasefire, which Pakistan should not have accepted, but sadly did!

India would later lose 1/5 of Kashmir to the Chinese, making about 2/5 of Kashmir in Pakistan, 2/5 occupied by India, and 1/5 in China!

 

[third eye]

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

from your link my friend

and yes being 1/6 your size reaching a stalemate is as close to victory as one can get!!!!

Our national aims were achieved.

After the '62 debacle, Ayub's team felt that India would be a pushover. The situation in J&K was contained & the battle was taken into enemy terrirory. lahore was threatened to a point that Pk had to recoil iteslf to defend Lahore.

All this 3 yrs after we suffered a humiliating defeat.

 

[Zob]

Pakistan's for the taking had they not indulged in looting, arson, rape & murder

link please to backup such ABSURD claims!!!


secondly we were threatning to completely take over KASHMIR and hence to release the pressure you opened the PUNJAB FRONT!!! so don't say that kashmir should have been taken...as long as it was a controlled small scale war we were holding our own but once the full might of 6 times larger army came into force all we could do was reach a STALEMATE!! so yes it is a victory!!!

@thirdeye

All this 3 yrs after we suffered a humiliating defeat.

you lost to an EQUAL sized enemy 3 years ago....and against us we were always the underdog...you cannot possibly think that we will take over INDIA and then we will be victorious...cuz if you do then lol i guess i need to know what u smokin boy....

and in rajhistan sector we had almost equal amount of land captured!!!

 

[Zob]

Battle of Chawinda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

interesting read...

 

[third eye]

@thirdeye

All this 3 yrs after we suffered a humiliating defeat.

you lost to an EQUAL sized enemy 3 years ago....and against us we were always the underdog...you cannot possibly think that we will take over INDIA and then we will be victorious...cuz if you do then lol i guess i need to know what u smokin boy....

and in rajhistan sector we had almost equal amount of land captured!!!

I smoke wills Clasic Ultra Milds.

Secondly, PA has always miscalculated. When you start a mis adventure why lament on being an under dog ? Gibraltar was a mis calculated move akin to Kargil, did not cater for the reaction... No change in the approach of PA between ' 65 &'99.

Capturing real estate in Raj is of no consequence as the land was defended thinly - of lack of hi value objectives to defend. In any case capturing anything across an IB has little relevance less in Punjab as they have to be returned.

What matters is that were the objectives of going to war realised ?