What's new

When a single strike reduced IAF by 30%

Squadron Leader Sajjad ‘Nosey’ Haider who led a successful strike mission against Indian Air Force (IAF) air base at Pathankot at dusk on September 6, 1965 without loss. A total of 14 IAF aircraft, including several supersonic MiG-21 fighters, were destroyed on ground in this attack.

sh_oct8.jpg

Squadron Leader Sajjad ‘Nosey’ Haider seen here before take off in a PAF F-86F Sabre.

PATHANKOT STRIKE 1965
pathankot_oct8.jpg

At 1705 hours on 6 September 65, 8 Peshawar-based F-86Fs of No. 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander MG Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAF’s Soviet supplied MiG-21s till then, none of which were seen again during the war.

Tied escorts consisted of Wing Commander M.G. Tawab and Flight Lieutenant Arshad Sami while the strike elements were led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider with Flight Lieutenants M. Akbar, Mazhar, Dilawar, Ghani Akbar and Flying Officers Arshad Chaudhry, Khalid Latif and Abbas Khattak in his formation.

Painting & Info source: ‘Air Warriors of Pakistan’ - paintings book by Syed Masood Akhtar Hussaini.
 
. . . . .
Are you such an idiot ?
why? You india brother tell us you turned off the radars in the night to save power.

I mean, if that night is not a boeing 777, but 120 H6 bombers, is IAF still alive?

brother, you fail the test.
 
. . . .
Pakistan was invaded on September 6, 1965. Why it was invaded? Because an Ahmadi General was on the point of locking several Indian army divisions in Jammu and Kashmir.

It was an amazing military feat. All these military operations were taking place in the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the "war" was only limited to the disputed territory.

Major General Akhtar Hussain Malik made a brilliant strike across Chamb-Jaurian sector. He out- manoeuvred the Indians. He captured Akhnoor and was approaching Tawai river. The enemy was dislodged and Indians were planning further withdrawal for they could not withstand the onslaught of General Akhtar Hussain Malik.

It was reported that the Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahdur Shastri directed Indian Air Force to get Gen Akhtar Hussain Mailk at any cost. He was making daring use of Helicopter directing his force.

Even an inveterate enemy of Ahmadis - Shorish Kashmiri paid a tribute in an urdu couplet,

"The Land of Delhi is calling, Oh friends, Extend a helping hand to Akhtar Malik, oh friends."
Had Gen Akhtar Hussain Malik captured Jammu, The Kashmir Problem was automatically solved. The Indians would never been able to sustain their troops in landlocked Kashmir. And they would have to leave Kashmir.

Field Marshal Ayub, who was the President of Pakistan at that time, knew what this victory would mean: It would catapult Gen Akhtar Hussain Malik in public eye.

He wanted one of his cronies to take credit of this vital victory. He asked Gen Musa, the then Commander in Chief of Pakistan Army to take Gen Yahya by helicopter to Chamb-Jurian sector and ask Gen Akhtar Hussain Malik to hand over the command of the Operations.

Gen Malik: "Why changing horses in midstream"?

These are the orders of the boss. Gen Akhtar Hussain Malik handed over the command in utter disgust.

Gen Sarfraz Khan who commanded Lahore sector in 1965 in an article in Daily Jang Lahore September 6, 1984 said about this military victory snatched out of the hands of Gen Malik.

With what brilliant planning and bravery, Gen Akhtar Malik attacked Chamb, it can only be called a great victory. He was in position to capture Jurian as the enemy had been dislodged and they were to withdraw as further Pakistani advance was anticipated.

But it was not allowed to happen, a plan was already made to make Gen Yahya take credit of this victory.

The Indian Commander in Chef, General Chaudri, who was watching with dismay the crumbling defences of the Indian army in Chamb -Juraian sector, jumped upon the opportunity and launched an attack on Lahore.

The whole game was over. Pakistan was now involved in its own battle of life and death.

Here came the another hero of Pakistan army General Abdul Ali Malik.

Indian Commander in Chief Gen Chaudri made a bet with foreign Journalists and invited them to have cocktails with him in Lahore Gymkhana on September 8, made another brilliant move, he attacked Sialkot with hundreds of tanks.

India's plan was to make a direct thrust towards Wazirabad to capture commonly known GT Road and divide West Pakistan into two.

GOC Sialkot lost his nerves and ordered withdrawal to Sambrial. However, he had anAhmadi Brigadier, Gen Abdul Ali. He told the GOC he would meet enemy right here at Chawinda and would not yield an inch of Pakistan soil. This Ahmadi had faith in Allah and the courage of his soldiers.

It was the most crucial battle of the whole war, where Indian tanks battled with Pakistan tanks. Gen Abdul Ali gave no quarter to the enemy, the tenacity and the bravery and superior skill in deployment of his tanks triumphed. Indian tanks fell back.

According to some reports, two thousands tanks on either side took part in it.

Battle of Chawinda is considered as the greatest tank battle after the battle of El Alameen fought by Field Marshal Montgomery with Field Marshal Rommel (the top German General).

This battle captured such a wide attention in Pakistan that Majlis Ulema Islam in book "Maa'rika Haq-o-ba'til" (the Battle of truth and falsehood), it carried an urdu couplet:

When Abdul Ali was commanding the Ghazis, it appeared as if Abdul Ali was raging like a storm.
This is how two Ahmadi brothers - General Akhtar Hussain Malik and Gen Abdul Aligave their best to the defence of Pakistan.

There are others, like Brigadier Iftikhar Janjua who distinguished in Rann of Katch, and Gen Iftikhar Janjua who distinguished in the Battle of Hilli in East Pakistan and scores of others Ahmadi Colonels and majors.

This bravery and selfless desire to defend the motherland was not confined to Army alone.

In a book, Air battle of Pakistan commissioned by then Air Marshal Nur Khan, there are references to Ahmadi Pilots. According to Air commodore (later Air Marshal) Abdur Rahim a dangerous Air mission was planned and volunteers were asked and it was clear that it is possible none of the pilots would be able to come back, among dozens of officers only five pilots volunteered and all of them were Ahmadis and all of them returned safely after the mission was accomplished.

This may sound astounding but events indicate that in every operation whether planning or combat in which there was a semblance of success, there was or were Ahmadis involved. Ahmadis performed their duties in a manner which make them feel humble and grateful to Allah for having afforded them this opportunity to serve Islamand Pakistan.
 
.
. .
Just Air strike and destroying enemy's air force by 30% is NOT A VICTORY. The air strikes must lead to victory of objective.

1) Pakistan could not take whole of the Kashmir and Punjab
2) Pakistan was forced to call seize fire , diplomatic failure
3) Pakistan suffered heavy infantry and air loss. India suffered but not even 50%
5) Pakistan had to call back its forces from around Kashmir in return of Lahore from India.
6)Instead of better equipments and air power, Pakistan was not able to maintain fire and lost many good equipments, financial loss.
 
.
Neutral assessments

There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war.

Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared.

Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

  • According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States –

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.

  • TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The article further elaborates,

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.

  • Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" –

The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

  • In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions", Gertjan Dijkink writes –

The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

  • An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India, summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

  • In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote –

India won the war. It gained 1,840 km2 (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2 (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

  • Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,

Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

  • BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,

The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.

  • "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –

India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own

  • An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"[80] –

A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

  • English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –

The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

  • Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan" –

Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.

  • In its October 1965 issue, the TIME magazine quoted a Western official assessing the consequences of the war —

Now it's apparent to everybody that India is going to emerge as an Asian power in its own right.

  • In his book "War in the modern world since 1815", noted war historian Jeremy Black said that —

though Pakistan "lost heavily" during the 1965 war, India's hasty decision to call for negotiations prevented further considerable damage to the Pakistan Armed Forces. He elaborates India's chief of army staff urged negotiations on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted. In fact, the army had used less than 15% of its ammunition compared to Pakistan, which had consumed closer to 80 percent and India had double the number of serviceable tanks.

  • In his book "Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies", S.M. Burke writes —

After the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 the balance of military power had decisively shifted in favor of India. Pakistan had found it difficult to replace the heavy equipment lost during that conflict while her adversary, despite her economic and political problems, had been determinedly building up her strength.

  • Rasul Bux Rais, a Pakistani political analyst wrote] –

The 1965 war with India proved that Pakistan could neither break the formidable Indian defenses in a blitzkrieg fashion nor could she sustain an all-out conflict for long.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom