The Story of "Ghazi Submarine"
- Thread starter NEHA
- Start date
Ghareeb_Da_Baal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2008
- Messages
- 6,654
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
bhai, durbeen bhee post kar do takeh parhnay mein asani ho!
must7
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 295
- Reaction score
- 0
The sinking of PNS Ghazi is another false claim of India that they had sunk it .. This claim was done when PNS Hangor took out INS Kukri + made another similar vessel of action (lucky IN) ...
Later on it was concieved that PNS Ghazi had been sunk due to an internal accident.
It is just a pity that Pakistani polticians did not have the balls to allow PNS Ghazi to attack the Indian naval assets .. otherwise the figures would have been quite different today !
Later on it was concieved that PNS Ghazi had been sunk due to an internal accident.
It is just a pity that Pakistani polticians did not have the balls to allow PNS Ghazi to attack the Indian naval assets .. otherwise the figures would have been quite different today !
must7
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 295
- Reaction score
- 0
Had PN been having poor quality of training than they would not have the luxury to boast the credentials to be the first naval force in the world after WWII to have destoryed a surface vessel though a sub (PNS Hangor : INS Kukri).
Also I suppose you must have missed out in your Hindustan Times that just a couple of years back PN commandos had won laurels internationally while performing in a international competition.
& you seem to have forgottent that PNS Ghazi kept waiting for accord from their rulers in West Pakistan to unleash it's torpedoes on the IN vessels but as usual Pakistan were much more respective of declaration of war and avoided attacking Indian vessels before the outbreak of real war.
Yes if lack of training can be attributed than it should be to the Indian navy , who even in the 1971 war mistook civilian mercantile ships as PN ships & attacked them ... just like seen at the time of the Thai trawlwer .. oops the Pirate mother ship .. It is a pity that Indian govt. has not given as yet a official medal to the Indian Ships captain as seen on such imaginary situations created by IN in the past
Sure I wil take your word that the crew were best trained and the submarine was best maintined.
then how did the submarine sink by itself? Unless you acknowledge that it was sunk in combat?
You see, you cant have all. You can deny the Indian Navy credit by saying the Ghazi sank by accident. But accidents do not happen to well trained crews on well maintained ships. One of the two key factors (training / maintenance) HAS to be missing. Now even if one of these is missing, then it is the incompetency of the top brass to send the submarine into the combat.
so you tell me why the ghazi sank - Poor Training? Poor Maintenance? Poor PN Leadership? Or you have a new theory on why submarines sink by accident?
Beskar
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,176
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
must7
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 295
- Reaction score
- 0
Sure I wil take your word that the crew were best trained and the submarine was best maintined.
then how did the submarine sink by itself? Unless you acknowledge that it was sunk in combat?
You see, you cant have all. You can deny the Indian Navy credit by saying the Ghazi sank by accident. But accidents do not happen to well trained crews on well maintained ships. One of the two key factors (training / maintenance) HAS to be missing. Now even if one of these is missing, then it is the incompetency of the top brass to send the submarine into the combat.
so you tell me why the ghazi sank - Poor Training? Poor Maintenance? Poor PN Leadership? Or you have a new theory on why submarines sink by accident?
Again you are discounting the fact that Ghazi was in front of Indian port for 3 days loaded to the teeth & seeking "go ahead for attack" from the command & control centre in Pakistan.
Of course this is fully accepted that in 1971 our top leaders were totally out of order & the debacle happened.
Now talking about a loaded sub in enemy zone without any cover & sitting on the bottom does expose it to risk.
In front end operational arrangements accidents do happen. Take for example US has many aircraft accidents ? Does this make them untrained pilots ? Why because they are having planes flying from every corner of the world in different weather conditions & unknown areas (including landing on aircraft carriers on daily basis).
We are not denying the credit to IN cause it was a blatant lie as I have seen statements of some IN professionals who have confirm this ..
Unfortunately I will keep searching for them .. In the meantime I found a very interesting find from Indian source (of course Pakistani source for our Indians would find it non-neutral) !
WHAT
The Words Of Admiral Tasnim
After Hangor sank the Khukri on the night of 9th December, the Indian Navy hunted us for over two whole days and nights. They lobbed over a hundred and fifty squids and depth charges at us during this time. First, we could feel and hear the explosions through the hull, though they were at a distance : later they could be heard only through the sonars as the Indians vented their frustration and blasted away at innocent shoals of fish in the distance. The situation on board was quite tense and uncertain and we got away. The full details are in Rais newly researched book.
A Brazen Cover-Up That Rewrote Indian Naval History
By Josy Joseph
Sunday, April 16, 2006 01:50 IST
NEW DELHI/MUMBAI: Mistakes committed by naval officers, including the commanding officer (CO) of INS Khukri, led to the sinking of the warship and the death of 200 of its crew during the 1971 war with Pakistan, according to documents with DNA.
The findings overturn official naval claims and published history on the sinking of the Khukri by Pakistani submarine PNS Hangor at the height of the 1971 Indo-Pak war. It also raises uncomfortable questions about numerous gallantry awards given out by the government to many involved in the incident.
DNA has two letters written to President APJ Abdul Kalam by Commander Benoy Bhushan, one of 12 pages and the other of 24, who was directed by the flag officer commanding-in-chief, Western Naval Command, to establish where the Khukri was sunk. The findings remain under wraps till date.
Bhushan confirmed the authenticity of the two letters, and their claims have been substantiated by at least one survivor and other sources.
Though the principal director of naval operations told Bhushan that his report was declassified in early 2005, naval headquarters refused DNA a copy and also failed to respond to a detailed questionnaire sent by DNA.
According to the official version, a Pakistani submarine torpedoed and sank the Khukri on the night of December 9, 1971. It is the single biggest wartime casualty of independent India. There was never a court of inquiry to find out if anyone was responsible for the ship going down.
DNAs investigation reveals that in their last moments some 250 officers and sailors of the Khukri were abandoned by INS Kirpan, an accompanying naval ship that should have carried out an immediate counterattack.
It also reveals that the navys claim that it hunted and sank the Pakistani submarine a few hours later to be false. The Hangor returned to Karachi harbour safely.
Cdr Bhushan, in his letter, says, The circumstances in which the Khukri was torpedoed and sunk were never disclosed for decades. ... Truth needs to be brought to light to set the record straight and also to learn valuable lessons.
Bhushan was CO of INS Investigator when he was asked to probe the incident.
The Khukri, in company with another A/S (anti-submarine) ship Kirpan, was torpedoed and sunk without even an engagement with the enemy. Eighteen officers and 176 sailors perished with the Khukri. Both the COs deserved to be punished, but the higher authorities gave them gallantry awards. INS Khukri and INS Kirpan violated every principle of A/S doctrine for hunter killer operations, Bhushan told DNA.
Bhushan says he was forced to open his mouth after so many years after he accidentally stumbled upon the official history of the Indian Navy, Transition to Triumph, published by the historical cell of naval headquarters. The details of the Khukri sinking and the appended maps stunned me, he said.
Higher authorities in the navy during the 1971 war manipulated facts to write a false history of heroism and courage whereas the truth points a glaring finger at the level of training at its lowest ebb, inefficiency, incompetence, dereliction of duty, and erosion of moral and ethical values.
In his letter to the President, Bhushan has appealed to Kalam to bring truth to light to expose the persons who have misused their powers to suppress the truth regarding the circumstances in which Khukri was torpedoed and sunk; and to hide blunders committed by themselves (sic).
DNA investigated Bhushans claims with at least one survivor and some others who were privy to the incident and the inquiry.
(Additional reporting in Mumbai by Shweta Karnik and Dharmendra Tiwari)
then how did the submarine sink by itself? Unless you acknowledge that it was sunk in combat?
You see, you cant have all. You can deny the Indian Navy credit by saying the Ghazi sank by accident. But accidents do not happen to well trained crews on well maintained ships. One of the two key factors (training / maintenance) HAS to be missing. Now even if one of these is missing, then it is the incompetency of the top brass to send the submarine into the combat.
so you tell me why the ghazi sank - Poor Training? Poor Maintenance? Poor PN Leadership? Or you have a new theory on why submarines sink by accident?
Again you are discounting the fact that Ghazi was in front of Indian port for 3 days loaded to the teeth & seeking "go ahead for attack" from the command & control centre in Pakistan.
Of course this is fully accepted that in 1971 our top leaders were totally out of order & the debacle happened.
Now talking about a loaded sub in enemy zone without any cover & sitting on the bottom does expose it to risk.
In front end operational arrangements accidents do happen. Take for example US has many aircraft accidents ? Does this make them untrained pilots ? Why because they are having planes flying from every corner of the world in different weather conditions & unknown areas (including landing on aircraft carriers on daily basis).
We are not denying the credit to IN cause it was a blatant lie as I have seen statements of some IN professionals who have confirm this ..
Unfortunately I will keep searching for them .. In the meantime I found a very interesting find from Indian source (of course Pakistani source for our Indians would find it non-neutral) !
WHAT
The Words Of Admiral Tasnim
After Hangor sank the Khukri on the night of 9th December, the Indian Navy hunted us for over two whole days and nights. They lobbed over a hundred and fifty squids and depth charges at us during this time. First, we could feel and hear the explosions through the hull, though they were at a distance : later they could be heard only through the sonars as the Indians vented their frustration and blasted away at innocent shoals of fish in the distance. The situation on board was quite tense and uncertain and we got away. The full details are in Rais newly researched book.
A Brazen Cover-Up That Rewrote Indian Naval History
By Josy Joseph
Sunday, April 16, 2006 01:50 IST
NEW DELHI/MUMBAI: Mistakes committed by naval officers, including the commanding officer (CO) of INS Khukri, led to the sinking of the warship and the death of 200 of its crew during the 1971 war with Pakistan, according to documents with DNA.
The findings overturn official naval claims and published history on the sinking of the Khukri by Pakistani submarine PNS Hangor at the height of the 1971 Indo-Pak war. It also raises uncomfortable questions about numerous gallantry awards given out by the government to many involved in the incident.
DNA has two letters written to President APJ Abdul Kalam by Commander Benoy Bhushan, one of 12 pages and the other of 24, who was directed by the flag officer commanding-in-chief, Western Naval Command, to establish where the Khukri was sunk. The findings remain under wraps till date.
Bhushan confirmed the authenticity of the two letters, and their claims have been substantiated by at least one survivor and other sources.
Though the principal director of naval operations told Bhushan that his report was declassified in early 2005, naval headquarters refused DNA a copy and also failed to respond to a detailed questionnaire sent by DNA.
According to the official version, a Pakistani submarine torpedoed and sank the Khukri on the night of December 9, 1971. It is the single biggest wartime casualty of independent India. There was never a court of inquiry to find out if anyone was responsible for the ship going down.
DNAs investigation reveals that in their last moments some 250 officers and sailors of the Khukri were abandoned by INS Kirpan, an accompanying naval ship that should have carried out an immediate counterattack.
It also reveals that the navys claim that it hunted and sank the Pakistani submarine a few hours later to be false. The Hangor returned to Karachi harbour safely.
Cdr Bhushan, in his letter, says, The circumstances in which the Khukri was torpedoed and sunk were never disclosed for decades. ... Truth needs to be brought to light to set the record straight and also to learn valuable lessons.
Bhushan was CO of INS Investigator when he was asked to probe the incident.
The Khukri, in company with another A/S (anti-submarine) ship Kirpan, was torpedoed and sunk without even an engagement with the enemy. Eighteen officers and 176 sailors perished with the Khukri. Both the COs deserved to be punished, but the higher authorities gave them gallantry awards. INS Khukri and INS Kirpan violated every principle of A/S doctrine for hunter killer operations, Bhushan told DNA.
Bhushan says he was forced to open his mouth after so many years after he accidentally stumbled upon the official history of the Indian Navy, Transition to Triumph, published by the historical cell of naval headquarters. The details of the Khukri sinking and the appended maps stunned me, he said.
Higher authorities in the navy during the 1971 war manipulated facts to write a false history of heroism and courage whereas the truth points a glaring finger at the level of training at its lowest ebb, inefficiency, incompetence, dereliction of duty, and erosion of moral and ethical values.
In his letter to the President, Bhushan has appealed to Kalam to bring truth to light to expose the persons who have misused their powers to suppress the truth regarding the circumstances in which Khukri was torpedoed and sunk; and to hide blunders committed by themselves (sic).
DNA investigated Bhushans claims with at least one survivor and some others who were privy to the incident and the inquiry.
(Additional reporting in Mumbai by Shweta Karnik and Dharmendra Tiwari)
must7
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 295
- Reaction score
- 0
Why would you think that India is not ready let them float back the sunken sub :-
Molten Eagle: January 2007
The Ghazi, formerly USS Diablo SS-479, was a long-range submarine leased to Pakistan in 1963. The lease was renewed in 1967. The sub was the flagship of Pakistan's Navy until it sank in 1971. Able to carry up to 28 torpedoes and fitted for minelaying capability, she was still considered a potent threat. During the 1965 Indo-Pakistani war, the Ghazi had won 10 awards including two decorations of Sitara-i-Jurat and the President's citations.
A floating, American-made lifejacket hinted to the Indian Navy that the Ghazi had been sunk with all hands on 4 December 1971. The position was marked, and divers returned with the sub PNS Ghazi's logbook.
India's Navy claims the submarine was sunk by two depth charges from the destroyer INS Rajput after it sighted Ghazi diving diving from periscope depth. Pakistan, however, maintains that Ghazi sank in a mine-laying accident.
The United States and the Soviets offered to raise the submarine at their expense, but India's Government rejected both offers. The Ghazi's log book, and official Pakistani tapes were later displayed in India's Eastern Naval Command.
Molten Eagle: January 2007
The Ghazi, formerly USS Diablo SS-479, was a long-range submarine leased to Pakistan in 1963. The lease was renewed in 1967. The sub was the flagship of Pakistan's Navy until it sank in 1971. Able to carry up to 28 torpedoes and fitted for minelaying capability, she was still considered a potent threat. During the 1965 Indo-Pakistani war, the Ghazi had won 10 awards including two decorations of Sitara-i-Jurat and the President's citations.
A floating, American-made lifejacket hinted to the Indian Navy that the Ghazi had been sunk with all hands on 4 December 1971. The position was marked, and divers returned with the sub PNS Ghazi's logbook.
India's Navy claims the submarine was sunk by two depth charges from the destroyer INS Rajput after it sighted Ghazi diving diving from periscope depth. Pakistan, however, maintains that Ghazi sank in a mine-laying accident.
The United States and the Soviets offered to raise the submarine at their expense, but India's Government rejected both offers. The Ghazi's log book, and official Pakistani tapes were later displayed in India's Eastern Naval Command.
Typical distracting behaviour - bringing in Khukri when the thread is about Ghazi
A submarine waiting for three days in a battle area - that sinks due to an accident points to only poor training or bad maintenance. . If I take the example of Hangor and say - PN was well trained - then there is only one reason why ghazi went down - Poor Maintenance. And PN admirals didnt really do a great job if they let a poorly maintained submarine with inherents risks travel all the way to Vizag .
Do we allow US to recover shot down americn aircraft? no! - they are an adversary and why would we allow them access? As far as Soviets - who said they didnt have access
I also found this http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/11962-fate-pns-ghazi.html#post163986
If Ghazi hit its own mine -> Poor Training / Situational Awareness / Bad Navigation
If Ghazi had internl epxlosion -> Bad maintenance, poor condition / seaworthiness / bad leadership by admirals
If ghazis mine exploded before being released -> Poor maintenance / OR bad weapon handling.
A submarine waiting for three days in a battle area - that sinks due to an accident points to only poor training or bad maintenance. . If I take the example of Hangor and say - PN was well trained - then there is only one reason why ghazi went down - Poor Maintenance. And PN admirals didnt really do a great job if they let a poorly maintained submarine with inherents risks travel all the way to Vizag .
Do we allow US to recover shot down americn aircraft? no! - they are an adversary and why would we allow them access? As far as Soviets - who said they didnt have access
I also found this http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/11962-fate-pns-ghazi.html#post163986
If Ghazi hit its own mine -> Poor Training / Situational Awareness / Bad Navigation
If Ghazi had internl epxlosion -> Bad maintenance, poor condition / seaworthiness / bad leadership by admirals
If ghazis mine exploded before being released -> Poor maintenance / OR bad weapon handling.
Last edited:
must7
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 295
- Reaction score
- 0
Typical distracting behaviour - bringing in Khukri when the thread is about Ghazi
Quote:
Again you are discounting the fact that Ghazi was in front of Indian port for 3 days loaded to the teeth & seeking "go ahead for attack" from the command & control centre in Pakistan.
Now talking about a loaded sub in enemy zone without any cover & sitting on the bottom does expose it to risk.
A submarine waiting for three days in a battle area - that sinks due to an accident points to only poor training or bad maintenance. . If I take the example of Hangor and say - PN was well trained - then there is only one reason why ghazi went down - Poor Maintenance. And PN admirals didnt really do a great job if they let a poorly maintained submarine with inherents risks travel all the way to Vizag .
Typical Indian reply .. somebody claimed PN not the crew of GHAZI as incompetent, whereas when I pointed out that the same sub force of the PN was able to do a feat than .. Indians claim otherwise.
It is itself a feat that a above 20 year old sub of Diablo class (which has fought in Second world war) was able to stark nearly 5,000kms away from it's base without the IN even knowing that the sub is lurking at full capacity.
I am sure being an Indian it is very difficult to realize the difference & risk involved when equipments perform duties loaded with arnaments.
Do we allow US to recover shot down americn aircraft? no! - they are an adversary and why would we allow them access? As far as Soviets - who said they didnt have access
Well India is a country which does not even do third party checks on it's Air Force inventory .. I am sure after allowing control of their Airspace & letting dogs piss on the ashes of Gandhi .. for your they are adverseries !
Regarding your comments of USSR being allowed access, please show us the link ?
Quote:
Again you are discounting the fact that Ghazi was in front of Indian port for 3 days loaded to the teeth & seeking "go ahead for attack" from the command & control centre in Pakistan.
Now talking about a loaded sub in enemy zone without any cover & sitting on the bottom does expose it to risk.
A submarine waiting for three days in a battle area - that sinks due to an accident points to only poor training or bad maintenance. . If I take the example of Hangor and say - PN was well trained - then there is only one reason why ghazi went down - Poor Maintenance. And PN admirals didnt really do a great job if they let a poorly maintained submarine with inherents risks travel all the way to Vizag .
Typical Indian reply .. somebody claimed PN not the crew of GHAZI as incompetent, whereas when I pointed out that the same sub force of the PN was able to do a feat than .. Indians claim otherwise.
It is itself a feat that a above 20 year old sub of Diablo class (which has fought in Second world war) was able to stark nearly 5,000kms away from it's base without the IN even knowing that the sub is lurking at full capacity.
I am sure being an Indian it is very difficult to realize the difference & risk involved when equipments perform duties loaded with arnaments.
Do we allow US to recover shot down americn aircraft? no! - they are an adversary and why would we allow them access? As far as Soviets - who said they didnt have access
Well India is a country which does not even do third party checks on it's Air Force inventory .. I am sure after allowing control of their Airspace & letting dogs piss on the ashes of Gandhi .. for your they are adverseries !
Regarding your comments of USSR being allowed access, please show us the link ?
must7
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 295
- Reaction score
- 0
If you should be concerned .. than .. it should be about the blatant lie of IN in which they are making claims & have got promotions too !
This also means that not only in the past but in the future too Indian Navy including it's top officials are invovled in falsification of facts :-
India did not sink Ghazi: Pak commander-India-The Times of India
India did not sink Ghazi: Pak commander
24 Dec 2006, 1601 hrs IST, PTI
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
NEW DELHI: Reviving past controversies, a former Pakistan Navy (PN) commander has said the Indian "claims" that PN submarine 'Ghazi' was sunk by
them during the 1971 war was "false and utterly absurd".
However, former top Indian Navy officers say the Pakistani submarine was destroyed in explosion of depth-charges dropped by destroyer INS Rajput, which the attacking Pakistani vessel had mistaken for aircraft carrier INS Vikrant and was pursuing it.
In an article sent to the premier journal 'Indian Defence Review', Commander (Retd) Muhammad Azam Khan said PNS Ghazi, which was then PN's only submarine with a capacity to reach Bay of Bengal and undertake operations on India's eastern sea, sank on the night of December 3-4, 1971 off Vishakhapatnam after an explosion.
"Since all the 82 crew members embraced shahadat (martyrdom), it is unlikely that the mystery surrounding the circumstances in which Ghazi met her end will ever be unveiled," he said.
"Still, the Indian claims of sinking Ghazi are not only false but utterly absurd, to say the least", Khan said.
He claimed that if PNS Ghazi had survived, the possibility of Indian aircraft carrier INS Vikrant operating in Bay of Bengal or deploying its fighter fleet or the Indian Navy carrying out a landing on the shores of then East Pakistan "would have only remained a pipedream".
However, the official history of Indian Navy 'Transition to Triumph', authored by Vice Admiral (Retd) G M Hiranandani, quotes naval records and top naval officials who commanded operations on the eastern waterfront as saying that INS Rajput was sent from Vizag to track down Ghazi.
This also means that not only in the past but in the future too Indian Navy including it's top officials are invovled in falsification of facts :-
India did not sink Ghazi: Pak commander-India-The Times of India
India did not sink Ghazi: Pak commander
24 Dec 2006, 1601 hrs IST, PTI
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
NEW DELHI: Reviving past controversies, a former Pakistan Navy (PN) commander has said the Indian "claims" that PN submarine 'Ghazi' was sunk by
them during the 1971 war was "false and utterly absurd".
However, former top Indian Navy officers say the Pakistani submarine was destroyed in explosion of depth-charges dropped by destroyer INS Rajput, which the attacking Pakistani vessel had mistaken for aircraft carrier INS Vikrant and was pursuing it.
In an article sent to the premier journal 'Indian Defence Review', Commander (Retd) Muhammad Azam Khan said PNS Ghazi, which was then PN's only submarine with a capacity to reach Bay of Bengal and undertake operations on India's eastern sea, sank on the night of December 3-4, 1971 off Vishakhapatnam after an explosion.
"Since all the 82 crew members embraced shahadat (martyrdom), it is unlikely that the mystery surrounding the circumstances in which Ghazi met her end will ever be unveiled," he said.
"Still, the Indian claims of sinking Ghazi are not only false but utterly absurd, to say the least", Khan said.
He claimed that if PNS Ghazi had survived, the possibility of Indian aircraft carrier INS Vikrant operating in Bay of Bengal or deploying its fighter fleet or the Indian Navy carrying out a landing on the shores of then East Pakistan "would have only remained a pipedream".
However, the official history of Indian Navy 'Transition to Triumph', authored by Vice Admiral (Retd) G M Hiranandani, quotes naval records and top naval officials who commanded operations on the eastern waterfront as saying that INS Rajput was sent from Vizag to track down Ghazi.
ahmeddsid
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,196
- Reaction score
- 0
Diablo fought in the 2nd World War?? Please provide a Source. I read that it was constructed during the world war.
Similar threads
