When a single strike reduced IAF by 30%

[Astra-2013]

India won all 4 wars against Pakistan (indain text books)
And you guys say that we brainwash our children with lies
pathetic!

vo to 1971 me pakistan ko faadke aadha kar diya humne otherwise pakistani text books me 1971 bhi pakistan hi jitta.

 

[Screambowl]

Why would you need any one else when you have your own Jairam Ramesh to shower you with all the compliments.

Looking at the figures quoted by you, Justice Katju does come to mind, as elsewhere the total losses suffered by the IAF is quoted by the Indian sources as 75 aircraft (see table below)...which it'self is highly debatable, for the Indian authorities themselves admit to losing at least 12 Canberras on the ground following the famous Tailchoppers strike on IAF base Kalaikunda.....the table ostensibly shows as only four such aircraft lost on ground throughout the war.......so i suggest, you rather than being frivolous, get your figures right first.


Indian Air Force Losses - 1965 War

The Indian Air Force never released an official list of casualities The tables here is a result of painstaking research and has been compiled after referring to various sources including retired officers and unclassified documents . Though the figures for Air to Air combat and AA Losses were accurate, we missed out the figures for Operational Accidents and those destroyed on ground. The revelations of the Official Indian History of the 1965 War has set right these anamolies.

Aircraft.................Air Action...........Opl Accidents......... Lost on Ground............ Aircraft
Vampires.................4....................................-........................................6...................................10
Mystere....................6...................................3(1)....................................9...................................18
Hunters...................10..................................4(1)....................................3...................................17
Gnats........................2..................................3(1)....................................2....................................7
Canberra..................1....................................1.......................................4....................................6
MiG-21.....................................................................................................3....................................3
Packet--...................................................................................................3....................................3
Dakota--...................................................................................................5....................................5
Auster......................1(1)...............................1...............................................................................2
Sea Hawk.....................................................1................................................................................1
Dakota--...................................................................................................1.....................................1
Caribou--..................................................................................................1.....................................1
Beechcraft......................1...............................................................................................................1
TOTAL..........................25........................13...........................................37.................................75

1)Ok appreciated, PAF was in a much better possession of aircraft technology. Did it help you to achieve your target?

2)Instead of bombing strategic locations, PAF took sorties to kill the IAF, where as IAF flew sorties to hit right at the back bone, like oil installations, radar, runways, ministries, ammo dump deep inside Pak Air space. And During that operation, the IAF went down with such a high number of aircrafts.

How many PAF fighters, flew sorties deep inside India except for the first 1-2 surprize attack? I remember reading, Canbarras flying till Peshawar, and Kohat bombing the runway and coming back safely. That's called as strike!!



Now Pakistanis will say, we held Indians advancing towards Peshawar, and Lahore. But my friend please tell me, was that the objective of Afwaaj e Pakistan( Military of Pakistan)?

No, Indian forces forced Pakistan to change their objective of Capturing Kashmir to defend Lahore, Sialkot. Releasing Pakistan's grip on Kashmir.

 

[Devil Soul]

Maj Gen Niranjan Prasad who commanded the Indian 15 Division which attacked Lahore abandoned his jeep after battling a massive Pakistani counterattack near BRB canal on the outskirts of Lahore.

 

[he-man]

Well we will realize the aim easily in the next war,,,don't worry.
And this time we are much much better than pakistan

 

[INDIC]

 

[Screambowl]

Maj Gen Niranjan Prasad who commanded the Indian 15 Division which attacked Lahore abandoned his jeep after battling a massive Pakistani counterattack near BRB canal on the outskirts of Lahore.

Please refer post #112

If you see Lahore, it is on the east bank of Ravi. India should have bargained to declare river Ravi as International Border in Punjab sector. This point must be noted, in future discussions.

 

[Ramesh N]

Cut the aggressor's nose? What cheap weed are you smoking? In all the wars, people on BOTH sides lost their lives. It was never a one sided affair, as Trolls like you think it to be because your shyt textbooks and media told you so.

If Indian books are teaching shyt, than for the world Pak books are (shyt)square.
I do agee both party lost lives of soldiers but pak lost honour.
And don't worry I won't steal the troll trophy from you.

 

[Mav3rick]

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.

1) Punjab was never intended to be taken as Pakistan was never going to cross the border. Our intention was only to liberate Kashmir before India had a chance to call diplomatic support.
2) One can only laugh at this points pathetic joke of a lie. No wonder India was so desperate for a cease fire that it signed the agreement a day ahead of Pakistan!
3) Again, the pathetic lies continue. The air war of 1965 could be considered the highest mark of PAF when it not only neutralized the IAF but gave it a beating that IAF can not forget. So much so that IAF declined PAF's request of neutral arbitration to audit losses!
4) An India who cannot even count.....where is the damned No. 4?? Or were you so desperately ashamed of another lie that you decided to skip it?
5) Pakistan recalled it's forces back from Kashmir due to intense diplomatic pressure and the cease fire. The Indian forces that had closed in on Lahore were already repulsed back behind the Indian border!
6) Perhaps you were looking for the word 'in spite' as opposed to the word 'instead'. Let me also rubbish any such notion, or propaganda if you must, that India has to hide behind for the humiliation that they received at the hands of a country that is many times smaller both in size and military.

The war was a stalemate and both sides won major battles. Armour and infantry losses were comparable, but with India having far greater numbers, Pakistan felt it more.

The sources regarding how much land each side are questionable to say the least. I have seen Indian analysts put this figure out, which was quoted in by the several Western sources above. Can anyone point to where international observers especially the UN can confirm this? I have looked far and wide for it, but have't been able to find it.

720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own

How can you, or anyone else for that matter, find neutral sources when India rejected Pakistani offer of neutral arbitration of losses?

 

[Mav3rick]

Neutral assessments

Neutral assessments were conducted how? The question is especially intriguing when India rejected neutral arbitration of losses and ground observations. I mean someone with even an ounce of common sense would conclude in an instant that India forces were on the verge of collapse having exhausted their supplies and being pounded day in and day out by a much smaller military.

Actually, Indian Prime Minister Shastri wanted to teach Pakistan a lesson by inflicting a decisive defeat on Pakistan and attempted to delay the much pressed U.N. sponsored ceasefire. However, the final nail in the coffin was the revelation by the Army Chief, General Chaudhari, who informed Shastri that the Indian army had exhausted a major portion of ammunition and that the tanks and armour had been depleted greatly in strength and also that there were large casualties and losses on Indian side that could not be sustained any longer!

 

[kurup]

Neutral assessments were conducted how? The question is especially intriguing when India rejected neutral arbitration of losses and ground observations.

You can direct that querry to those people who wrote that including BBC , Times , Congress Library , etc .

I mean someone with even an ounce of common sense would conclude in an instant that India forces were on the verge of collapse having exhausted their supplies and being pounded day in and day out by a much smaller military.

Says who .

Actually, Indian Prime Minister Shastri wanted to teach Pakistan a lesson by inflicting a decisive defeat on Pakistan and attempted to delay the much pressed U.N. sponsored ceasefire. However, the final nail in the coffin was the revelation by the Army Chief, General Chaudhari, who informed Shastri that the Indian army had exhausted a major portion of ammunition and that the tanks and armour had been depleted greatly in strength and also that there were large casualties and losses on Indian side that could not be sustained any longer!

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.

 

[Mav3rick]

vo to 1971 me pakistan ko faadke aadha kar diya humne otherwise pakistani text books me 1971 bhi pakistan hi jitta.

Chalo, phir bhi woh adha hamare hi logon ke paas hai na, jo 1947 mei tumhare Bharat ko phaar dia tha us ka kia keroge?

You can direct that querry to those people who wrote that including BBC , Times , Congress Library , etc .

You mean observations that were based on releases by severely exaggerated Indian press releases? Can you explain why India refused neutral arbitration? I wonder what could have been the reason, perhaps India wanted to hide their outright victory over Pakistan?

Says who .

The then Indian Army Chief, General Chaudhari

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.

And did he also, in the same book, recount how he had personally audited the war supplies of Indian Military to dent and discredit the authority and competence of Indian Army and the then Army Chief Chaudhari who were under the, apparently 'false', impression that they had exhausted the ammunition and could not fight on any longer. The ledgers were apparently so corrupted that the false information hastened Shastri to sign the ceasefire a day earlier then Ayub!

Perhaps, we should request Mr. Jeremy to conduct another audit of the Indian war reserves as the Indian Army still believes they are at 20% capacity! Is it possible that the Indian Military simply does not know how to hold accounts and balance?

 

[kurup]

You mean observations that were based on releases by severely exaggerated Indian press releases? Can you explain why India refused neutral arbitration? I wonder what could have been the reason, perhaps India wanted to hide their outright victory over Pakistan?

The then Indian Army Chief, General Chaudhari

And did he also, in the same book, recount how he had personally audited the war supplies of Indian Military to dent and discredit the authority and competence of Indian Army and the then Army Chief Chaudhari who were under the, apparently 'false', impression that they had exhausted the ammunition and could not fight on any longer. The ledgers were apparently so corrupted that the false information hastened Shastri to sign the ceasefire a day earlier then Ayub!

Perhaps, we should request Mr. Jeremy to conduct another audit of the Indian war reserves as the Indian Army still believes they are at 20% capacity! Is it possible that the Indian Military simply does not know how to hold accounts and balance?

And yet with all those failure on Indian part , Pakistan decided to accept ceasefire even when the Indian forces were on the verge of collapse .

But that does not sound fishy , does it ??

 

[Mav3rick]

And yet with all those failure on Indian part , Pakistan decided to accept ceasefire even when the Indian forces were on the verge of collapse .

But that does not sound fishy , does it ??

Abandoned by the ally on whom we were critically dependent for military supplies, the US, and politically isolated throughout the world......we couldn't do anything else but to accept the ceasefire.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

India on the other hand has initiated hostilities only once, in 1971. And we all know how that went

Just on the side note.
India supported separatists in 1971 war in response to Pakistan assisting North-East Insurgencey all over 1960s
and formally declared war after operation Chengiz Khan.

 

[Mav3rick]

Just on the side note.
India supported separatists in 1971 war in response to Pakistan assisting North-East Insurgencey all over 1960s
and formally declared war after operation Chengiz Khan.

And Indian support to TTP and BLA is, in response to the provision of information by Benazir Bhutto to Rajiv Gandhi that led to Operation Blue Tulsi that eliminated the hot Khalistan movement?