What's new

The real Red Flag facts...USAF briefing about IAF participation

Agno, please support your claims. The actual figures are not known, but all the neutral sources i could find dispute the figures you quoted.

India: 524 KIA, 1363 wounded. Pak: 696 killed
1999 Kargil Conflict

India: 527 KIA, 1363 wounded. Pak: 357-500 KIA, 686 Wounded
NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Kargil War

Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif
The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif

The last one is an Indian source, and reports the highest figures for Pak losses. But the other 2 are neutral sources. Estimates of Pak casualities vary, but estimated Indian deaths are more or less the same as the ones quoted above.

I can quote more sources if necessary.
I really don't buy the numbers issued by each side. Both stand to lose (Pakistan because it denied the incursion took place by regular troops in the first place, and India because of the numbers involved). I therefore applied some logical analysis keeping in mind potential casualty ratios.

The ratio (11 to 1 - attackers to defenders in mountainous terrain) is from an exchange on the forum with our dear departed brigadier (Salim) himself. Given that the Indian and Pakistani forces are equally well trained, I doubt that India would have been able to retake any of the positions without incrementally higher losses - the Indian's aren't supermen, and the PA is not the army of Trinidad and Tobago.

This is just simple logic.

Even if the ratio was lower, the claims of Indian casualties being lower than Pakistani casualties is absurd, given the terrain that the Indians had to work with.

I shudder to think what the Indian casualty numbers were if NS's claim on the 4000 casualties is correct.
 
.
Not the same thing. The russians would have loved to bring the SR-71 down if they were capable of it. Bringing down a recce plane is more important than a fighter.

Not a good analogy - the atlantique was still within the border region, a possible accidental overflight - whereas the SR-71 was definitely on a monitoring mission over USSR airspace.
 
.
Which does not take away form the fact that they claimed Indian actions were out of line.

So, kargil was only an adventure then. Pak actions were way out of line. Atlantique was only a small incident waiting to happen. Not to mention both happened in the aftermath of the nuclear tests.
 
.
So, kargil was only an adventure then. Pak actions were way out of line. Atlantique was only a small incident waiting to happen. Not to mention both happened in the aftermath of the nuclear tests.

I didn't compare Kargil with Atlantique, you did, and I did not say that Kargil was 'only an adventure'. One must remember that India did something similar to Kargil in Siachen as well, there has been a history of military conflicts in the disputed region of Kashmir initiated by both sides.

Shooting down an airplane along the IB, when the traditional thing to do would have been to turn it back or force it to land, is a different issue altogether, and as pointed out by those defense attaches, was out of line.
 
.
Which does not take away form the fact that they claimed Indian actions were out of line.

May be India over reacted, but technically speaking, they did the right thing (Even pakistan would have done same thing). In fact, pakistan went to International court of Justice, but nothing came out. They had no jurisdiction in this matter. Link
 
.
Not a good analogy - the atlantique was still within the border region, a possible accidental overflight - whereas the SR-71 was definitely on a monitoring mission over USSR airspace.

There is no guarantee on what the Atlantique was actually doing so close to the border. Some say it was a training mission while some say it was a recon mission. If it was a training mission, then why so close to the border.

The Bilateral agreements in 1991 say that IAF and PAF planes must not come within 10km of the border. A possible accidental flight cannot happen for over 10km. I have not seen a single incident of "training" flight in the subcontinent which happened an inch from the border.
 
.
Shooting down an airplane along the IB, when the traditional thing to do would have been to turn it back or force it to land, is a different issue altogether, and as pointed out by those defense attaches, was out of line.

Official sources say the Migs ordered the plane to land. They did not. So, they were shot.
 
.
May be India over reacted, but technically speaking, they did the right thing (Even pakistan would have done same thing). In fact, pakistan went to International court of Justice, but nothing came out. They had no jurisdiction in this matter. Link

No jurisdiction does not mean that India was not guilty.

Would Pakistan have done the same thing? That cannot be determined by mere speculation alone.
 
.
Official sources say the Migs ordered the plane to land. They did not. So, they were shot.

The second option was escorting back into its airspace (which the atlantique may have been in anyway, or at least not in Indian airspace). Atlantique was flying deeper into Pakistan, and as such the purpose of scrambling the fighters had been served. The 'shooting down' was an 'extreme step that was out of line. I am going to stick with the judgment of the international observers on that.
 
Last edited:
. .
Stimson - Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises

Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises


Whereas Pakistan and India recognize the need to jointly formulate an agreement at the Government level on giving advance notice on exercises, manoeuvres and troop movements in order to prevent any crisis situation arising due to misreading of the other side's intentions.

Therefore, the Governments of Pakistan and India jointly decide that:

1. Their Land, Naval and Air Forces will avoid holding major military manoeuvres and exercises in close proximity to each other. However, if such exercises are held within distances as prescribed in this Agreement, the strategic direction of the main force being exercised will not be towards the other side, nor will any logistics build up be carried out close to it. The following will constitute a major military manoeuvre/exercise for the purposes of this Agreement:

a. Land Forces
1. India-Pakistan International Border
Concentrations of Corps level (comprising two or more divisions) and above.
2. Line of Control and the area between the Manawar Tawi and Ravi Rivers.
Division level and above.

b. Naval Forces: Any exercise involving six or more ships of destroyer/frigate size and above, exercising in company and crossing into the other's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

c. Air Force: Regional Command level and above.

2. Both sides may not conduct exercises of Land Forces at Divisional level and above within five kilometers (Kms) of the areas specified at Paragraph (1).a. (1) and (2).

3. Both sides will provide notice regarding exercises of Land Forces as follow:

a. All exercises/concentrations at Divisional level in areas specified at Paragraph (1).a(2).

b. All exercises/concentrations at Corps level within a distance of seventy five Kms in areas specified at Paragraph (1).a. (1) and (2).

c. All exercises above Corps level irrespective of the distance.

4. Both sides will give fifteen days prior notice when formations with defensive roles are moved to their operational locations for periodic maintenance of defences.

5. The schedule of major exercises with troops will be transmitted in writing to the other side through diplomatic channels in advance as follows:

a. Air exercises at Regional Command level and above. -- Fifteen days

b. Divisional level exercise, and major Naval exercises involving six or more ships of destroyer/frigate size and above, exercising in company and crossing into the other's EEZ.

c. Corps level exercises -- Sixty days

d. Army level exercises -- Ninety days

Provided that the above provisions relate to the commencement of moves of formations and units from their permanent locations for the proposed exercises.

6. Information on the following aspects of major exercises will be intimated:

a. Type and level of exercises.

b. General area of the exercise on land, air and sea. In respect of air and sea exercises, these will be defined in latitude and longitude.

c. Planned duration of the activity.

d. Number and type of formations participating.

e. Any shifting of forces from other Commands/Corps/Strategic formations envisaged.

f. The move of strategic formations, particularly armored division, mechanized divisions, air assault divisions/reserve infantry formations and artillery divisions/air defence artillery divisions.

Provided that in respect of major Air and Naval exercises, only the information at Paragraphs (a) to (c) need be intimated.

7. In case some change in exercise area/grouping of participating formations from the previously notified composition is necessitated, the country carrying out the exercise will intimate the details of changes so as to reach the other country at least thirty days in advance in respect of Corps level exercises and above, and fifteen days in advance in respect of divisional level exercises and Naval exercises. In respect of Air exercises, if minor changes to the previously notified details are necessitated, an advance notice of seven days will be provided.

8. Any induction/concentration of additional troops of a division size force and above, within one hundred and fifty kms of areas specified at Paragraph 1.a.(1) and (2), for internal security duties and/or in aid of civil power will be notified to the other side at least two days before the start of their movements, whenever possible. In case of immediate movements, information may be passed on Hot Line to the Army Headquarters of the other country. The force so employed will not move forward their logistic bases/installations and armor/artillery.

9. Each country will be entitled to obtain timely clarification from the country undertaking military manoeuvres/exercises concerning the assembly of formations, the extent, direction of the exercise and the duration.

10.The Naval ships and submarines belonging to the other country are not to close less than three Nautical Miles (NMs) from each other so as to avoid any accident while operating in international waters.

11.Combat aircraft including fighter, bomber reconnaissance, jet military trainer and armed helicopter aircraft will not fly within ten kms of each other's airspace, including the Air Defence Identification Zones (ADIZ), except when such aircraft are operating form Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar and Suratgarh air bases on the Indian side, as well as Pasrur, Lahore, Vehari and Rahimyar Khan air bases on the Pakistan side, in which case they will maintain a distance of five kms from each other's airspace. Unarmed transport and logistics aircraft including unarmed helicopters and Air Observation Post (AOP) aircraft will be permitted to operate up to 1000 meters from each other's airspace including the ADIZ.

12.Aircraft of either country will refrain from buzzing surface units and platforms of the other country in international waters.

13.This Agreement supersedes all previous understandings in so far as the above points are concerned.

14.This Agreement is subject to ratification. It shall come into force with effect from the date on which the Instruments of Ratification are exchanged.

15.Done at New Delhi on this sixth day of April, 1991.

Shaharyar M. Khan
Foreign Secretary
For the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Muchkund Dubey
Foreign Secretary
For the Government of the Republic of India
 
.
^^^ Thanks, but where does it legitimize the Indian actions?

Most experts agree that the Atlantique was in the 10KM zone, and not in Indian airspace. The plane had been 'buzzed', warned, and was on a trajectory back into Pakistan.
 
.
^^^ Thanks, but where does it legitimize the Indian actions?

Most experts agree that the Atlantique was in the 10KM zone, and not in Indian airspace. The plane had been 'buzzed', warned, and was on a trajectory back into Pakistan.

The plane was buzzed....ok
The plane was warned....ok

But, as soon as the plane was buzzed, it would have already turned back towards pak. Warnings dont happen in seconds. The MIGs would have given time for the Atlantique to respond when warned. By that time The plane is inching closer to the border. The plane travels at 650km/hr. There is no way it would take more than 1 minute to cross 10 km, ~10km/ minute. Even at half the speed it would have been 10 km every 2 minutes. If Atlantique was 10km inside pak then it would have escaped easily. Plus, the missile used by the Mig-21 was a R-60, which has a range of 8km. At best it had an operational range of 4km compared to the speed of the Atlantique, since it was a tail shot.
To top it off, all the neutral officials were American and Brits. They considered India as an Enemy that crossed the line by the nuke tests. They would never have supported anything that India did. They wouldn't have tolerated India being a hero like China became later due to the EP-3 incident.
 
.
Occupying territory in a disputed region vs shooting down a recce AC?

I am pretty sure the upwards of 3000 Indian soldiers who died (11 to 1 ratio of attackers to defenders in mountainous terrain), died with weapons in hand in full combat.

The GOI mentions ~600 deaths for Indian soldiers. What is your source for this fantastic figure?

otoh, the then PM of Pakistan who ran to the USA to pull the Army's chestnuts out of the fire admitted to more than 4000 Pakistani army deaths. There are other reports that entire NLI was more or less destroyed during the war.

PS: I see that some of it is already discussed.
 
Last edited:
.
Yeah Nawaz sharif should come clear about figure of 4000 deaths and elimination of Nothern Infantry division.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom