pakdefender
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 5,671
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
Toot gaya hay Hindustan , Ban gaya ha Pakistan!
Aur bhi totay ga Hindustan , Kashmir banay ga Pakistan!
1965 War Documentary Fath-e-Mobin
- Thread starter WaLeEdK2
- Start date
Toot gaya hay Hindustan , Ban gaya ha Pakistan!
Aur bhi totay ga Hindustan , Kashmir banay ga Pakistan!
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Incidentally, since you mentioned the performance in the air, there is a story, never established in fact, about it. Apparently, during the Rann of Kutch incident early in 1965, Asghar Khan, then head of the PAF, and Arjan Singh had a quiet chat and agreed not to escalate the already pretty bad situation on the ground. Soon after this, Asghar Khan retired and his equally dynamic and charismatic successor, Nur Khan, took over. This would have been in or around July 1965. Arjan Singh assumed the pact held; Nur Khan had had nothing to do with it, and like any good chief, aware of the odds, pushed in a very heavy wave of strikes right at the outset. The IAF lost a number of planes on the ground because elementary precautions were not taken at the time, end August 1965, just as things were hotting up in Kashmir.
I first read this in the reminiscences of some senior Air Force officers, who had been posted at bases where the then base commander simply refused to take any protective measures until it was too late.
Not needed.
Just present cold, hard facts. Pakistani civilians are never told these. This in spite of the fact that Pakistani military men have written very fine memoirs about their times.
Just the facts.Anything more is demeaning. My personal experience, FWIW.
Talwar e Pakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2014
- Messages
- 6,525
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Pakistan was caught by surprise as they did not expect a full invasion of Pakistan by India. India attacked regions that Pakistan least expected to be attacked; this was credited to better tactics by better officers employed by the Indian military and deserves at least some praise.
But again; surprisingly - halved garrisons managed to halt the combined Indian invasions, all though the Indian forces had successfully captured some Pakistani territory; the conditions and circumstances for the Indian forces was looking bleak, if they'd stay any further - it would've turned into a logistical nightmare (similar to Napoleon's invasion of Russia).
Any strong counter-attack; and the Indian lines would've easily been broken. Reversing Indian gains and paving the way for an invasion of Indian Punjab. The Indian Army had gambled all it's momentum on Punjab; a short term victory but what would've turned into a long term defeat.
As Pakistan was slapped awake; massive reinforcements were grouping to counter-attack Indian forces in Pakistan. Not to mention: armed tribes from both sides of the Afghan-Pak border were preparing for an invasion of IOK.
Indian forces which were facing logistic problems and were completely worn out by stern resistance, wouldn't have stood against the upcoming counter-attack. What India spent most it's strength on, Pakistan was just warming up.
But would it be worth it? Pakistan knew, due to international pressure; it wouldn't be able to hold onto any territory in Indian Punjab and invading Kashmir in the current circumstances would be a huge gamble (risked further losing territory in Punjab).
By the time the arrow was drawn; the ceasefire was signed. Pakistan had successfully held off the Indian forces in Punjab and won over majority air superiority - meanwhile India had made gains in Punjab, countered the incursions in Kashmir and destroyed a half of Pakistan's armored corps.
I would say no one won. Although India had a slightly more favourable stance near the ending of the war; that situation would've quickly changed if the war continued.
I highly doubt that; but even so - Pakistani pilots were better trained and more experinced. Even in air-to-air they were very much superior.
This was an interesting BBC interview to a group of Pakistani pilots who had just finished shooting down over a dozen Indian jets.
But again; surprisingly - halved garrisons managed to halt the combined Indian invasions, all though the Indian forces had successfully captured some Pakistani territory; the conditions and circumstances for the Indian forces was looking bleak, if they'd stay any further - it would've turned into a logistical nightmare (similar to Napoleon's invasion of Russia).
Any strong counter-attack; and the Indian lines would've easily been broken. Reversing Indian gains and paving the way for an invasion of Indian Punjab. The Indian Army had gambled all it's momentum on Punjab; a short term victory but what would've turned into a long term defeat.
As Pakistan was slapped awake; massive reinforcements were grouping to counter-attack Indian forces in Pakistan. Not to mention: armed tribes from both sides of the Afghan-Pak border were preparing for an invasion of IOK.
Indian forces which were facing logistic problems and were completely worn out by stern resistance, wouldn't have stood against the upcoming counter-attack. What India spent most it's strength on, Pakistan was just warming up.
But would it be worth it? Pakistan knew, due to international pressure; it wouldn't be able to hold onto any territory in Indian Punjab and invading Kashmir in the current circumstances would be a huge gamble (risked further losing territory in Punjab).
By the time the arrow was drawn; the ceasefire was signed. Pakistan had successfully held off the Indian forces in Punjab and won over majority air superiority - meanwhile India had made gains in Punjab, countered the incursions in Kashmir and destroyed a half of Pakistan's armored corps.
I would say no one won. Although India had a slightly more favourable stance near the ending of the war; that situation would've quickly changed if the war continued.
I highly doubt that; but even so - Pakistani pilots were better trained and more experinced. Even in air-to-air they were very much superior.
This was an interesting BBC interview to a group of Pakistani pilots who had just finished shooting down over a dozen Indian jets.
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Let me answer that in some detail, since you have outlined the course of the war succinctly.
So is it a Unit or a Brigade?
What is the difference between an armoured unit and an armoured brigade? Recheck your post which was quoted by @Joe Shearer
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
As it happens, I have read this - several times, in fact, being a fan of sorts of Poona Horse and Col. Tarapore, and a great admirer of Lt. Khetrapal.
How does this in any way support your bragging statement? Have you read it yourself? The record reflects great credit on the regiment, and just two excerpts may suffice (the first excerpt has been summarised in many places already):
The battles of Libbe and Phillaurah ended with the destruction of a minimum of 50 enemy tanks, to nine of our own. These actions exploded the myth of the superiority of the Patton tank, whilst at the same time instilling in the enemy an awe and fear of the Centurion. However these successes were not immediately exploited. Further advance was halted and the Pak territory so far secured was systematically cleared of the enemy.
I am not an admirer of Brigadier K. K. Singh, whose excessive caution was responsible for allowing Pakistan's Iron Regiment, the 25th, to bluff him into slowing down and losing the opportunity for a breakthrough. But, for what it's worth, the next passage also contains his summation:
Pakistani propaganda had worked overtime to successfully convince its people that they had won major victories during the 1965 war. However, the truth could not be concealed for long. As Altaf Gauhar, Secretary in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s government, states in his Foreword to Air Marshal M.Asghar Khans Book The Fist Round, “few people outside the armed forces realize how close Pakistan came to a disaster in the 1965war…” And the Poona Horse can proudly claim rather more than its fair share of this success achieved by the Indian Army. To quote the words of Brig K.K Singh, MVC, under whose command the Regiment fought; “The performance of the Poona Horse was beyond Praise”
@Sneaker
In particular, check the kill ratios, tank to tank.
Signalian
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,608
- Reaction score
- 305
- Country
- Location
If you are mentioning attack by PA 1st armoured Division in 1965, the need for infantry accompanying tanks was soon realised. But like in the posted video, infantry was not mechanized or motorized. Tanks always remained ahead of foot infantry.
Induction of M-113 has solved this issue.
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
He has cited the regimental history to prove that the Poona Horse was wiped out! What a character.
First, let me apologise for closing this thread in order to do this post; it is in a way abuse of my power but I do it with the need to ensure that any further to & fro trades are done after reading this and done with measured responses. Perhaps I should make a new thread of this, but for now this will suffice.
Piecing the 1965 Indo-Pak war- A short hypothesis
Now, Pakistan has, is and will continue to be in a state of on and off hot and cold war with India. This forum is where we converse with our enemy just an many nations have with theirs on neutral ground since mankind learnt war.
The whole thread is based off the premise in what is clearly a propaganda film and hence is always going to have skewed facts and metrics. This is NO different than a propaganda film from India, Turkey, China or even the United States. What propaganda is and what it represents is better left for people of understanding to explore, appreciate and critique altogether and people of lesser understanding, dead faith along with patriotism(Bless you Samuel Johnson)
""In a time of war the nation is always of one mind, eager to hear something good of themselves and ill of the enemy. At this time the task of the news-writer is easy; they have nothing to do but to tell that a battle is expected, and afterwards that a battle has been fought, in which we and our friends, whether conquering or conquered, did all, and our enemies did nothing."
While many have written from both ends on the 65 war, any many "neutral" efforts have been made where the term "neutral" teeters on the fulcrum of available information, personal opinion and honesty of character of the narrator. So it is here that I decide to put my character to a meagre exercise of trying to piece together as to how and who did what in the 65 war.
The result of this is a rather different yet familiar narrative to what is taught in school to both sides of the border, yet conveniently leaves out the people factor. PDF(among other social media) is a farce when it comes to knowing about who lies on the other side of the border. One learns about a people by being with them, by eating with them, by talking to them in the same room, by sharing accommodation and chump change for food.
To make the post short, Ill try to sum up important points and I leave it to the readers to tear apart or appreciate as they wish. I would endeavour my best to name the sources but unlike many of our self proclaimed clergy in Pakistan; I cannot parrot out the exact paragraphs of books
From the earliest of understanding via hearing the conversations of elders in the TV lounge while I played with model airplanes, Kashmir solicited a rather vague narrative of how Kashmir was ours and India had captured it. With the textbooks of school it grew to how the Indians had manipulated a Hindu Raja to accede to them as he was losing his seat to a Massive muslim uprising within the princely state of Kashmir. Due to this unfair decision, Pakistani forces were sent to support the freedom fighters under the orders of Quaid-e-Azam even though the British C-in-C of the Pakistan Army would not fight ( why so much angst and blame was placed on the British officers is rather odd considering that anyone from the same country would be aghast at fighting their fellow countryman). The result was that if not for the UN ceasefire, the Kashmiri freedom forces would have overtaken the Raja and all of Kashmir would be Pakistan's. That is the crux of what was taught and while it evolved with greater details and changing pieces of the puzzle; besides numerical mentions of UN resolutions and its texts along with the newer textbooks pushing the "right of Kashmiri self-determination" instead of "Kashmiris want to be with Pakistan".. not much more is elucidated unless you are a student of social or political sciences( I wonder what they learn?).
So the lessons on Kashmir had to be self taught; from the autobiographies of seasoned diplomats to military veterans, on both sides. From the passionate and respected likes of Qudratullah Shahab to Isphanai to Zafrullah Khan, to books by veterans such as A.C Mansour Shah, Sajjad Haider, those by Shuja Nawaz and Maj. Amin. Books by Naul on personal accounts and then countless others by IFS have been skimmed through via visits to a certain Defence Housing Authority Library in Karachi.
The problem of Kashmir:
The greatest crime that the British committed during their years of rule on India was that they never treated it as part of their Empire and continued the approach taken by the EiC. Instead treating it as a gold mine for resources. That meant minimising losses whilst maximising profits. This meant trying to forge alliances of convenience wherever possible and planting toadies where they could. Kashmir was no exception.
As mentioned by others earlier in this thread, the land of Kashmir has evolved both in composition of its peoples and its geographic domain. The origin of Kashmiris associated less with races and more with geography. So whilst a resident of the vale of Kashmir would be aghast at acknowledging one from Mirpur as Kashmiri, they also do not acknowledge many others within the Vale as Kashmiri and identify them as belonging to Jammu. On the other hand, those that do identify themselves as Kashmiri are also not incorrect since the various rulers that have created and abolished administrative lines over their empire have all expanded and cropped areas under a singular nomenclature which has led to many more areas in the subcontinent with differing opinions on who really gets to use that moniker.
It is prudent then to skip the origins and demarcations of who is Kashmiri and who is not and concentrate on the Princely state of Kashmir and all those that resided in it; as Kashmiris. There was a Dogra Raja that ruled it courtesy of Ranjit Singh and essentially represented the people of Jammu rather than the entirety of his "state"(which interestingly was exactly a 100 years old at the time of partition). However, due to the nature of the valley and its previous history under Muslim rule as being a piece of land fairly less interested in who ruled it as long as business was usual( Hence the angst against the Sikh empire which tried to make up for its high expenses by raising taxes in the then resource rich valley along with their usual anti-muslim efforts to avenge the excesses of Aurangzeb). The Dogra's inherited this skewed distribution of wealth due to their Sikh benefactors, and therein lies the beginning of the problem of Kashmir and the root cause; economic inequality.
To be continued. Part 2.
Piecing the 1965 Indo-Pak war- A short hypothesis
Now, Pakistan has, is and will continue to be in a state of on and off hot and cold war with India. This forum is where we converse with our enemy just an many nations have with theirs on neutral ground since mankind learnt war.
The whole thread is based off the premise in what is clearly a propaganda film and hence is always going to have skewed facts and metrics. This is NO different than a propaganda film from India, Turkey, China or even the United States. What propaganda is and what it represents is better left for people of understanding to explore, appreciate and critique altogether and people of lesser understanding, dead faith along with patriotism(Bless you Samuel Johnson)
""In a time of war the nation is always of one mind, eager to hear something good of themselves and ill of the enemy. At this time the task of the news-writer is easy; they have nothing to do but to tell that a battle is expected, and afterwards that a battle has been fought, in which we and our friends, whether conquering or conquered, did all, and our enemies did nothing."
While many have written from both ends on the 65 war, any many "neutral" efforts have been made where the term "neutral" teeters on the fulcrum of available information, personal opinion and honesty of character of the narrator. So it is here that I decide to put my character to a meagre exercise of trying to piece together as to how and who did what in the 65 war.
The result of this is a rather different yet familiar narrative to what is taught in school to both sides of the border, yet conveniently leaves out the people factor. PDF(among other social media) is a farce when it comes to knowing about who lies on the other side of the border. One learns about a people by being with them, by eating with them, by talking to them in the same room, by sharing accommodation and chump change for food.
To make the post short, Ill try to sum up important points and I leave it to the readers to tear apart or appreciate as they wish. I would endeavour my best to name the sources but unlike many of our self proclaimed clergy in Pakistan; I cannot parrot out the exact paragraphs of books
From the earliest of understanding via hearing the conversations of elders in the TV lounge while I played with model airplanes, Kashmir solicited a rather vague narrative of how Kashmir was ours and India had captured it. With the textbooks of school it grew to how the Indians had manipulated a Hindu Raja to accede to them as he was losing his seat to a Massive muslim uprising within the princely state of Kashmir. Due to this unfair decision, Pakistani forces were sent to support the freedom fighters under the orders of Quaid-e-Azam even though the British C-in-C of the Pakistan Army would not fight ( why so much angst and blame was placed on the British officers is rather odd considering that anyone from the same country would be aghast at fighting their fellow countryman). The result was that if not for the UN ceasefire, the Kashmiri freedom forces would have overtaken the Raja and all of Kashmir would be Pakistan's. That is the crux of what was taught and while it evolved with greater details and changing pieces of the puzzle; besides numerical mentions of UN resolutions and its texts along with the newer textbooks pushing the "right of Kashmiri self-determination" instead of "Kashmiris want to be with Pakistan".. not much more is elucidated unless you are a student of social or political sciences( I wonder what they learn?).
So the lessons on Kashmir had to be self taught; from the autobiographies of seasoned diplomats to military veterans, on both sides. From the passionate and respected likes of Qudratullah Shahab to Isphanai to Zafrullah Khan, to books by veterans such as A.C Mansour Shah, Sajjad Haider, those by Shuja Nawaz and Maj. Amin. Books by Naul on personal accounts and then countless others by IFS have been skimmed through via visits to a certain Defence Housing Authority Library in Karachi.
The problem of Kashmir:
The greatest crime that the British committed during their years of rule on India was that they never treated it as part of their Empire and continued the approach taken by the EiC. Instead treating it as a gold mine for resources. That meant minimising losses whilst maximising profits. This meant trying to forge alliances of convenience wherever possible and planting toadies where they could. Kashmir was no exception.
As mentioned by others earlier in this thread, the land of Kashmir has evolved both in composition of its peoples and its geographic domain. The origin of Kashmiris associated less with races and more with geography. So whilst a resident of the vale of Kashmir would be aghast at acknowledging one from Mirpur as Kashmiri, they also do not acknowledge many others within the Vale as Kashmiri and identify them as belonging to Jammu. On the other hand, those that do identify themselves as Kashmiri are also not incorrect since the various rulers that have created and abolished administrative lines over their empire have all expanded and cropped areas under a singular nomenclature which has led to many more areas in the subcontinent with differing opinions on who really gets to use that moniker.
It is prudent then to skip the origins and demarcations of who is Kashmiri and who is not and concentrate on the Princely state of Kashmir and all those that resided in it; as Kashmiris. There was a Dogra Raja that ruled it courtesy of Ranjit Singh and essentially represented the people of Jammu rather than the entirety of his "state"(which interestingly was exactly a 100 years old at the time of partition). However, due to the nature of the valley and its previous history under Muslim rule as being a piece of land fairly less interested in who ruled it as long as business was usual( Hence the angst against the Sikh empire which tried to make up for its high expenses by raising taxes in the then resource rich valley along with their usual anti-muslim efforts to avenge the excesses of Aurangzeb). The Dogra's inherited this skewed distribution of wealth due to their Sikh benefactors, and therein lies the beginning of the problem of Kashmir and the root cause; economic inequality.
To be continued. Part 2.
third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Hamza913
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2015
- Messages
- 8,954
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
Well if you go for it numerous times, despite failing all those times, it's obviously the objective isn't it?
You know what I meant.
Going after East and West at the same time in 65 would be a risk decision, again, it was only taken in 71 because East was in a civil war, and India was suffering because of the civil war in the East. Hence why the decision was made 6 years later, not in 65. Also, we did not do fine after taking in the Afghan refugees, just look at what's happened to us now because of it.
India was most certainly bothered about taking Lahore and Sialkot, you continued offensives right until we stopped you dead in your tracks. You could have easily defended Kashmir alone and applied minimal pressure on the Punjab, but instead you chose to try and take Lahore and Sialkot, I am sorry but I don't believe 800,000 troops would struggle against 200,000 troops if they chose to fight on the defensive.
As for US violating our airspace, their drones are operating with permission of the PA, it's only the government that whines.
I am not twisting anything, just because I don't fit your narrative doesn't mean they are twisted.
I don't care what a persons status is on an online forum, it means nothing. Just because they have the word professional under name doesn't make them one.
As for 1965 being a "political defeat", we got any lost territory back through negotiations, so I can hardly see that as a political defeat, since your PM was so willing to do so.
They were still disputed, so India setting up posts there would naturally trigger some sort of response from Pakistan, not saying it was the right response, but still a response none the less.
@dsr478
Your logic of getting your territory back is something like claiming Germany never lost World War Two, it exists today, economically the strongest EU member state. Are you really that naive or simply too daft to appreciate a counter narrative?
You are sounding exactly like some Indians who claim that China initiated the 1962 war and we won it too. There are idiots like that around aplenty, so one more wont be a surprise.
Anyways ours is not to convince you otherwise. You may continue in your fools paradise. It's yours after all.
@Oscar A great start. Looking forward to part 2. Request collate as a single piece if you are kind enough to take the trouble.
@Joe Shearer you were right about historians here. I give up
Your logic of getting your territory back is something like claiming Germany never lost World War Two, it exists today, economically the strongest EU member state. Are you really that naive or simply too daft to appreciate a counter narrative?
You are sounding exactly like some Indians who claim that China initiated the 1962 war and we won it too. There are idiots like that around aplenty, so one more wont be a surprise.
Anyways ours is not to convince you otherwise. You may continue in your fools paradise. It's yours after all.
@Oscar A great start. Looking forward to part 2. Request collate as a single piece if you are kind enough to take the trouble.
@Joe Shearer you were right about historians here. I give up
Hamza913
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2015
- Messages
- 8,954
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
No, it's not like Germany in WW2, because your army was actually halted, the invasion was stopped, unlike in WW2 where Germany was overrun. And unlike Germany, we were not subject to Indian terms, if anything the terms of the ceasefire were more beneficial to us.
Your the only one living in fools paradise here, bitter truth that hurts, I know, but your going to have to accept it.
Good, give up. I don't really want to talk to you either.
the only objective of India was to ease the pressure in Kashmir .. where it was at disadvantage ! we achieved that perfectly.
Hamza913
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2015
- Messages
- 8,954
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
False my friend, you clearly also tried to take Lahore and Sialkot but we put your hand invasion at a stop, so you didn't achieve your objectives either.
Similar threads
