**This thread by Das Reich seems a fitting discussion to mark the Defence Day of Pakistan on 6 September 2007 marking the 42nd anniversary of the start of the Indo-Pak war of September 1965.
** -Haris Zuberi
**Triumph of Defence and Failure of Offence as a Form of War
1965 was a failure of offence and triumph of defence. Except in Grand Slam where initial overwhelming superiority enabled Pakistan to achieve a breakthrough, on both sides defence triumphed as a way of war. Both the armies were more used to defence because of British colonial military experience and comparative relative lack of difference in weaponry also ensured that defence triumphed over attack. Thus the attackers failed at Gadgor, Chawinda, Assal, Uttar and Valtoha regardless of religion of the defender! Both the armies lacked the dynamism to conduct attack a far more complicated form of war and totally outside the pre-1947 experience of fighting divisional and brigade level defensive battles till overwhelming superiority enabled the Britisher to resume the offensive as at Alalamein and that too with non-Indian formations like the purely British armoured divisions or in Burma where the British-Indians had overwhelming superiority against the Japanese in tanks and air.
**
The reality is different - Pkistan had the technology edge in both planes & tanks. Thanks to the cold war era. USA armed Pakistan to fight the "commies' influence (Russia & China).
Unfortunately, the Pak General & his army got overconfident due these weapons & suffered from a superiority complex - that 1 pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers, and initiated this war.
Despite all this, the final outcome was that India had captured more land than Pakistan and the end, the world acknowledged India had the upper hand.
The reality is different - Pkistan had the technology edge in both planes & tanks. Thanks to the cold war era. USA armed Pakistan to fight the "commies' influence (Russia & China).
Unfortunately, the Pak General & his army got overconfident due these weapons & suffered from a superiority complex - that 1 pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers, and initiated this war.
Despite all this, the final outcome was that India had captured more land than Pakistan and in the end, the world acknowledged India had the upper hand, and could have won the war if it had lasted 2 more weeks.
^ what technological edge ? buddy the machine gun armed F-86 mainstay of PAF was inferior to 30mm cannon armed Hunters and Mystairs of IAF plus the sidwinder of PAF B versions were notoriously unreliable
even the wonder weapon F-104 was useless in the lowlevel turning combat which was dominant in the subcontinent
The Indians had more tanks than pakistan, even though pakistani M-47/48 were pretty modern the indian chieftan and T-54/55 compared with them favourably
^ what technological edge ? buddy the machine gun armed F-86 mainstay of PAF was inferior to 30mm cannon armed Hunters and Mystairs of IAF plus the sidwinder of PAF B versions were notoriously unreliable
even the wonder weapon F-104 was useless in the lowlevel turning combat which was dominant in the subcontinent
The Indians had more tanks than pakistan, even though pakistani M-47/48 were pretty modern the indian chieftan and T-54/55 compared with them favourably
Add US sanctions that were slapped on Pak and there you have it.... Given how Pak hands were tied due to US preassure especially in 1962 and then 1965 they did pretty well.
^^ But still it doesn’t excuse what happened in 1971, now does it?!??? Our PAF and army / navy high-ups are totally pathetic. We still went and bought american stuff [leading to sanctions again in 1971 ] instead of going the china route and getting MiG-15/17/19s on good credit terms.
It is a good topic for our generals since it seems we didn’t learn lessons for 1971, in which we had more deteriorated. I think we need to talk about intelligence in the war too. After all, 67 was a testament to the high success of israeli intelligence.
The war of September 1965 was undeniably a defining moment for the Pakistani nation and its love for their Pakistan.
Any mention of the September 1965 war refreshes the memory of the heroic tales of valour, courage, sacrifice, determination and selfless devotion to the nation.
We must salute our defenders and pay them rich tributes.
PAF was obsessed with the concept of quality over quantity, e.g ayubs boast of 1 soldier equal to 10 of indians, in the end it had neither …the MiGs were far better than the F-104 as airsuperrity fighters and mystairs and hunters could carry much more ordanance than the F-86s.
similarly the 1st armoured division was wasted in a "blitzkrieg " like attack when yahya khan tried to play rommel …what was needed as elaborated in this article was flexible defence a concept practicized by true field marshals like Walter Model …not armchair generals like ayub
^^ Zia had one good plan and that was to support the khalsas in punjab. Too bad that ***** nazir decided to sell out to her playboy rajiv and pakistan lost a good chance at kashmir!
No indian ever "sold out" their terrorist proxies [balochis, sindhis etc] in pakistan.
Pakistan was close to being declared ' a terrorist sponsoring state' with crippling sanctions. This was India's strategy and it almost worked, instead BB acted and saved Pak.
Killing innocent (and unarmed) Hindu's randomly by these Pak trained & armed terrorists - lead to all moderate people (even Sikhs) from viewing them as traitors. Pakistan was seen as the main villian in this sorry saga.
I don't think India did anything in Sind & Balochistan in the 70s or 80's, since they did not want to be seen as a state sponsoring terrorism, while they were trying to show pak in a bad light.
Nowadays I am not too sure, and perhaps they are encouraging them covertly.
Read about vajpayee. He said once that he wished india had vigorously supported the "fighters" when there were camps for balochis / sindhis in the seventies and eighties [titled towards sindhudesh?] instead of being so passive about it.
US always has had an on and off relationship with india. They always have kept in mind that india could be used to counter china, since pakistan became an ally of china after the indian 1962 blunder.. The US think tanks have a very long-term strategic thinking. You are also forgetting that bhutto's relationship with US weren't that great and it was the era of the COLD WAR, where both big superpowers were actively supporting different insurgents elsewhere..
] instead of going the china route and getting MiG-15/17/19s on good credit terms.
