Talk:Indo-Pakistani air war of 1965

Neutrality disputed

It seems to me that the article specifically chronicles only the Indian side of things and significantly neglects the Pakistani side. It appears lopsided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.73.14.62 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've edited some of the text in the Main Battle section, first para. It stated that the IAF Vampire was outdated and the PAF F-86's were more modern, so the latter bested the former. While India obtained the Vampires earlier in 1949, whereas the PAF obtained the F-86's in 1955, both aircraft are of the same era, and both were obsolete by Western standards by the end of the '50s. I will not add references here-this can be verified by the main Wikipedia articles on the Vampire and the F-86. There was, however, a major performance difference, as the F-86 had a higher top speed, ceiling, and acknowledged better performance than the Vampire. The Mystere was developed in the '50s so it's more modern. In fact, it was used by the French upto the '80s. This I've put into the article. Also made some grammatical/typo corrections Philcal213 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I have updated the assessment of this article from Stub to Start as there is too much content now for it just to be a stub. I have attempted to fix some of the problems that I found with this article, but I have no knowledge of the subject at all. I can only help with copy editing. As such it requires a few experts to bring this article up to a B class standard. I believe that the following improvements could be made:

• add a lead or introductory paragraph that concisely summarises the whole article; Done
• add some pictures; Done
• add in line citations: for a successful B class rating an article needs at least one in line citation per paragraph, more if multiple sources are used, or if multiple contestable comments are made.

Just a few ideas. Hope this helps. Once these have been done, you might consider re-assessment. This can be done by adding the article to the list at WP:MHA. If you would like more detailed comments, please consider adding the article for peer review. This can be done by adding it to the list at WP:MHPR. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

I have removed the following text from the article as it is just a list of quotes, which is not encyclopedic. Also, they were just taken from the PAF website, hence I don't believe that they can be considered exactly neutral. Nevertheless, I am placing them here on the talk page for safekeeping and debate.

The source of the quotes could be used, if they were to be added into the article in an encyclopedic manner, say for instance in an analysis section, however, just having a list of quotes is not good practice. This isn't meant to be an advertisement. Also, having them in the article as they currently stand creates neutrality issues. It would be better to actually locate the original sources, rather than just quoting the PAF website, as even if it is true (I am making no judgements as I am completely neutral on this issue) it just looks like a non independent source. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added on these quotes (here) as they need verification from their original quoted sources. I'll add them back in an encyclopedic manner in due time and add the verification needed tags to the ones whose original sources are not present on internet. It seems this has not received any attention since quite some time. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Independent Accounts of Aerial Warfare

Despite the Indians claiming superiority over Pakistani Airforce in Aerial Warfare, Independent sources however present a different potrait. Some of the overviews by Western Defence analysts and Defence Issues are given as under.

“By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war.” (Patrick Seale, The Observer, London, September 12, 1965.)

“Pakistan’s air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style – Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen.” (Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis Publications – Volume 5)

“Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources.” (Roy Meloni, American Broadcasting Corporation, September 15, 1965.)

“India’s barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralisation. The huge losses suffered by the Indian Armed Forces during the last 12 days of fighting could not be kept from the Indian public and in retaliation, the Indian armed forces are indulging in the most barbaric methods.”

“The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses.“ (Indonesian Herald, September 11, 1965.)

“For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel. (USA – Aviation Week & Space Technology – December 1968 issue.)

“India is claiming all-out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady towards the front … These muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propoganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side.“ (Roy Maloni- American Broadcasting Corporation)

"Indian pilots are inferior to Pakistan’s pilots and Indian officers’ leadership has been generally deplorable. India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by a four and a half to one in population and three to one three to one in size of armed forces.” (Sunday Times, London, September 19, 1965.)

Info and sources for inclusion

Two sources are presented here, one is an article published in the Flight International magazine, written by the British author John Fricker, the other is a book authored by Pradeep P. Barua. URLs are provided. Whether claims in the Flight International article are true or not, surely the info merits inclusion because of the prestigious source.

Reference: John Fricker, "Pakistan's Air Power", Flight International magazine, published 1969 (page 89), can be viewed at flightglobal.com archives (URL: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%200111.html?search=Pakistan%20Mirage%205), Retrieved: 21 September 2009

• PAF outnumbered 5:1 by InAF
• Both sides claimed to down around 100 aircraft of opposing force
• PAF fleet comprised 12 F-104 Starfighters, some 120 F-86 Sabres, around 20 B-57 Canberra bombers.
• Close air support to the Pakistan Army was very effective, PAF widely considered to have single-handedly neutralised difference in military strength of India and Pakistan.

John Fricker, "Pakistan's Air Power", Flight International magazine, published 1969 (page 90), can be viewed at flightglobal.com archives (URL: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%200112.html), Retrieved: 21 September 2009

• Indian claim of 100 PAF aircraft downed proven to be highly exaggerated when 86 F-86 Sabres, 10 F-104 Starfighters and 20 B-57 Canberra bombers flown in a parade after the war.
• The InAF is later believed to have admitted loss of at least 75 aircraft
• PAF admitted to losing 19 aircraft.
• PAF's claim was confirmed by the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group.
• PAF also claims to have had complete air superiority over the battle area from the second day of operations

The State at War in South Asia, by Pradeep P. Barua, pages 193-194 (can be viewed at URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FIIQhuAOGaIC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=Dassault+Mirage+1971+war&source=bl&ots=-0DHCO00yR&sig=U7ZTAI86rgnWH1Lr3GpoeBYh3kM&hl=en&ei=4ZWlSsGSONCOjAfJhaHcAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=Dassault%20Mirage%201971%20war&f=false)

• Indian Army agrees to some extent with PAF claim of having air superiority over battle area.

--Hj108 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Judgement of Victory

M.A.R 1993 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC) However it is very difficult to judge the true victorious air force in the air war of 1965. Many facts have been remain unknown. However, if we look at the losses incurred on aircrafts and bases, it is vividly verified that the PAF have an upper hand over IAF. PAF lost hardly a squadron of its fighting force whereas IAF lost 75-110 aircrafts. PAF destroyed 38 aircrafts in air-to-air combats and IAF almost 10. PAF continously crater Pathankot, Halwara, Adampur and Jamnagar and most of the time these air bases were almost inoperable, and IAF had to flow sorties from farther airbases like Agra. On the other hand PAF bases were not battered profusely. Isn't this prove the fact that PAF gained wartime air dominance over Indo-Pakistani skies? Air war has been described on all PAF websites and Battle for Pakistan by John Fricker is the most authentic book regarding air war of 1965. So, be fair and result of Air war must be edited because beliveing in one's victory doesn't make your armed forces fragile. As when there is a war one has to win and one has to lose. Am I right?

"As when there is a war one has to win and one has to lose. Am I right?" Ergm, well, and there's no way of being gentle about this, no, you're not. (Sorry!) The object of war is, as Clausewitz put it, "the continuation of policy by other means". If one side implements its policy and the other one doesn't, then there is indeed a winner and a loser. However, it may be that neither side successfully implements its policy, or both do, or both do partly, or one side could achieve a Pyrrhic victory, or ... or ... or ... Losses are not particularly useful for figuring out who won and can be actively misleading. Jutland is a good example: Britain lost on numbers, but won both tactically (the Germans retreated from the battlefield) and strategically (the blockade of Germany remained in place). I can't speak for who won this air battle, I don't know anything about it other than what is written here. 78.86.229.20 (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am feeling glad as you at least accepted a PYRRHIC PAF victory at least. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you did not understood well. A "Pyrrhic victory" is a victory in which the victor though talking greater losses than the defeated side is able to achieve it's objectives.

I this war the Air Forces of both nations were deployed in supporting role which though important was not tatical, strategic and definately not decisive. None of them was able to force back enemy troops or prevent attacks on it's territory by Air Force of other nation(which would have been tactical victory), or to "almost" completely decimate enemy air or ground force and place partial or complete air blockade(which would have been strategic victory), and finally to achieve complete air superiority(which would have been decisive victory). Moreover talking into account only air-to-air combats India lost 24 planes while Paksitan lost 18, which is almost equal.

However talking about the war as whole, Pakistan went to war with the objectives-

• To forment rebellion in Kashmir
• To capture Kashmir

Both of these objectives were complete failure and not achieved.

India, on other hand went to war with objectives-

• To prevent rebellion in Kashmir
• To prevent capture of Akhnoor in Jammu, so that supply lines remain open
• To force Pakistani Armed Forces to pre-war borders

All of these objectives were achieved. So in deciding victory it does not matter who took more losses until they achieved their aims. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandals at work possibly

the article has been edited several times by vandals and i'm guessing by biased trolls who favor the Pakistani side here and somehow apparently it's become the war of "1969" according the template on the very top left of the page, the result before stated the PAF achieved tactical air superiority (which they didn't) and it was there victory admins please act put the page on semi protection...........--Honorprevails123 (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

M M Alam ← Pushpendr's book

IT says only 2 planes shot by Alam, so changed accordingly--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is out weighed by sources, do you see? There are some problems with your new addition as well. "Others including Indian govt." is a mislead phrase and a single phrase "Indian sources dispute this" would be more accurate. In addition, the mention that Indian sources dispute this is of no value since it is supported by Pakistani and International sources. Fricker's book is an international publication. I think your citation itself says that atleast three were shot down. Kachar was taken pow are you not counting that? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Pushpendra's book does not support the text anymore after you have changed the text from the earlier version. it was a citation for the earlier content not for this one. and so you are using it wrongly, --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The earlier content was not having the references that I added. And I'm not using the Pushpender's book to base the content or my arguments on (though I might have mistakenly left it there, as you might have noticed a lot of content didn't load and got removed because my internet was slow). It should be removed if its in the contradiction. I want you to review the citation esp. fricker's book. Your source here is out weighed and Indian dispute doesn't matter in that regard. I guess you have already been informed that it is an international publication on the 65 war article where you were aiming to remove Pakistan Air Force's performance. So a consensus is already there supporting fricker as a more reliable source than yours. If you weigh the neutrality of our sources, you have only the Indian sources in your favor while I gave you both Pakistani and International neutral sources. You have no case here. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The Earlier content was correctly cited before you changed it , also Its imp to note that your net becomes slow only when you have completed adding Paki PAKISTANI POV and blanked content related to INDIA, (it has already happened earlier also) Just Because you think does not make the point i have raised redundant. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't need to give proof for the obvious, I'm giving it to in good faith. Here is another similar edit that I made around the same time and I self reverted it due to blanking (and I didn't notice or I would have fixed this one too) [1]. And mind you, you've already been warned for personal attacks and this is the last time I'm going to take that from you! I'm very sure that you are aware of this List of ethnic slurs#Paki. And the earlier content was not correct, I've provided established citation. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• oops thanks for correcting, you are wrong , i was just trying to shorten it. by the way do have a look at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter5.html to get more understanding of the citations that you are wrongly using.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you were wrong to shorten it, I doubt your intentions. And this source is outweighed. It has no specified process of fact checking as specified in the RSN along with other objections, and is no match for the Flight Magazine or fricker's book. My source is previously established on consensus. WP:POINT. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

With Recent Edits , there has been multiple attempts to include claims about MM ALAM in the article and removing any content that disputes it. and thereby completely ignoring various facts related to the incident. do have alook http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter5.html and it seems the artivcle now needs immediate cleaning after the recent edits. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lets not create repetitive headings for the same discussion since it was already going on in the section "Pushpendr's book". The source I gave are already established sources and supported by consensus. This is another form of WP:POINT. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merged repetitive headings created by User:DBigXray from: "M M Alam" & "Pushpendr's book" to "M M Alam ← Pushpendr's book". --lTopGunl (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Move Page

I think this page should be moved to Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 and the current one should be redirected to that. For example see: Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971 and all other Indo-Pakistani war articles' name format. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done WP:Silent consensus & WP:Bold. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Civilian Aircraft downed

Saw a content removal [2] by User TopGun. also the edit summary by the same user shows the attitude of the editor. googling is not your responsibility agreed but then the content removal is also not your responsibility. If you cant or dont want to look for truth and citations, then its better to leave it for others too look for. Thats why the tags are for. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the wiki's policies before the blame game. All uncited content that can be challenged by another editor and is not something trivial is subject to removal. See WP:V, WP:BURDEN & WP:VOLUNTEER. I do put tags where I feel appropriate. You are wasting everyone's time here. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

POV

[3] Is hardly written in a neutral manner. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Globalsecurity is a respected source and is far more neutral than any indian source in the article 109.150.60.235 (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Globalsecurity tries to install malware on your PC. - DVdm (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't encountered any issues with the site....109.150.60.235 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)