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 It stated that the IAF Vampire was outdated and the PAF F-86's were more modern, so the latter bested the former.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) it seems more as if it is anti india article, and i dont know how it came on wikipedia. dragonphoenix (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2012 (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.) * http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/ “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)*http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/

“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.)*http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/

“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.)http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/

“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.)http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/

“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.)http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/pakistan-air-force-a-proud-history/ 00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

```this is the most pathetic piece of nonsense i have ever seen, india has never lost a battle against pakistan, i have a feeling that all india pakistan articles have a heavy pakistan influence, and have nothing but biased INformation``` dragonphoenix (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your personal feelings and knowledge is not a source of wikipedia, rather reliable sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

I have. Stay away from it as far as you can. - DVdm (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read again what I have written, I never said the source was not neutral, I said it was not written in a neutral manner. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:PAFF-86s.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PAFF-86s.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing maintenance tags

I'm removing the maintenance tags as I don't see any bias in the article or see the article written as a person essay. warrior4321^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit war, etc

A bunch of POV pushers and likely socks are making this article even more messed up than it already is. Full protection may be imminent. In the meantime, editors of good faith need to sort this stuff out. This edit, for instance, is pretty idiotic since there is no Coggins citation anywhere. The same applies to the Van Creveld-sourced claim in the lead: there is no entry for Van Cleveld in a Works Cited list. Besides, the main text is written in just godawful English and needs a copy edit, as well as some structure. It contains random sentences like this one, "On 4 September, an F-86 Sabre was lost. The PAF claimed the cause to be friendly ground fire[21] while the IAF claimed to have shot it down", sourced to some wholly unreliable warloving hobbyist's website. I don't see how Bharat Rakshak can be called a reliable source in this context (see this edit--but that editor has already been blocked as a Nangparbat sock--yawn). There are problems all over the place. Fix them please. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090502014813/http://www.defenceindia.com:80/defenceind/mahavir_chakra.html to http://www.defenceindia.com/defenceind/mahavir_chakra.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090502014813/http://www.defenceindia.com:80/defenceind/mahavir_chakra.html to http://www.defenceindia.com/defenceind/mahavir_chakra.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Editing ban

High level of bias from both sides, hence I would like the admin to enforce a ban on editing. Hamza 33 99 (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060613025308/http://www.acig.org:80/artman/publish/article_321.shtml to http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_321.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130706030406/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130706030406/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130105022240/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1965War/Tango-Chamb.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Tango-Chamb.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130706030406/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter3.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927220140/http://mangalorean.com/browsearticles.php?arttype=Feature&articleid=637 to http://mangalorean.com/browsearticles.php?arttype=Feature&articleid=637

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927040737/http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/alam.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/alam.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105015854/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Kill1965.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Kill1965.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120929074854/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter09.pdf to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter09.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927185738/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Loss1965.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Loss1965.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319114802/http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/defence_day_supp_05/p5.html to http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/defence_day_supp_05/p5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117032228/http://yespakistan.com/memorialday/Rebirth%20of%20MMAlam.asp to http://www.yespakistan.com/memorialday/Rebirth%20of%20MMAlam.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117222535/http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter8.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1965War/Chapter8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Addition/Integration of Data : IAF vs PAF in East Pakistan

Hullo, I have some data on IAF's activity or lack of it vs PAF in East Pakistan. It differs slightly from the existing text and needs to be reworded and integrated with the text that appears in this article:
Of the 460 aircraft that the IAF had in total, approximately 270 combat-worthy IAF aircraft were on the western front against about 170 PAF combat aircraft. Another author indicates that the IAF had a large deployment of squadrons on the eastern front, leaving it with only around 290 aircraft in the west, against his researched Pakistani aircraft strength of 203.
Aggressive but ill-directed IAF Canberra and Hunter strikes on the night of 6 September and in the early hours of 7 September against PAF airfields in Chittagong, Kurmitola and Jessore drew a strong response from 14 Squadron PAF against Kalaikunda, Central Air Command’s pivotal base in Bengal. Sadly, IAF had such poor intelligence about the location of the only Sabre squadron in East Pakistan that it attacked every base there except Tejgaon, the air base outside Dacca, where 14 Squadron PAF had a detachment of 12 F-86 Sabre Jets. With zero air defence and aircraft parked in the open at Air Force Station Kalaikunda, IAF lost eight aircraft (four Canberras plus four Vampires) to two Sabre strikes on 7 September. However, PAF’s 14 Squadron was bested in an epic aerial battle over Kalaikunda the same morning as a young ace with 14 Squadron of the IAF, Flt Lt A Cooke, flying a Hunter, shot down two Sabres. Mohan, Jagan; Chopra. "The India–Pakistan Air War of 1965, n. 10, p. 178". Journal of Defence Studies, New Delhi. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription= (help)
I note that F/L Cooke's wingman is not named. He was Fg Offr Subodh Chandra Mamgain 6760 GD(P), who was awarded a VrC. Comments welcome. I'll wait till May 10...That OK? --Moitraanak (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Pakistani edge?

@Anaguaydf: with this edit you are doing same mistake as USaamo by assuming that source exists on the article about Pakistan having edge over India in the air war but there is no reliable source which can confirm so.  We cannot rely on a supposed Guardian report from 1965 because it is not WP:HISTRS. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I am surprised with the amount of edit-warring on this ARBIPA-covered page [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], with no effort to reach a WP:CONSENSUS.

The source added by USaamo, after repeatedly claiming an "edge", was an on-the spot report by Guardian reporter Peter Preston. This was written from the Pakistan Air Force Operational Headquarters on 23 September 1965, the day cease-fire was accepted. Evidently, whatever he reports is what the Pakistanis claimed. This is hardly a neutral or reliable source. See WP:PRIMARY.

The other source cited, Werrel, is also not great, because he freely admits "The claims and admissions by the two sides in the conflict are terribly frustrating," which means basically that he couldn't figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth. Most of the authors labelled as "neutral claims" on the page are also hardly neutral. They are American writers trying to write about American equipment, prone to taking Pakistani claims at face value or at least tending to remain credulous in their own interest.

The most thorough analysis I have seen is from the orbat web site, which points out the following curious facts:

• PAF had 6 squadrons of F-86Fs at the start of war, claimed to have lost only one, but had only 2 squadrons left by 1971. (The ground swallowed the rest?)
• It had 26 B-57B's at the start, but had only 18 left by 1971 (even though it claimed to have lost at most 4).
• Pakistan was seeking emergency aircraft from Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and China, within 10 days of the war.

These facts indicate that the Pakistani claims have no credibility, and all the writers who subscribe to them must be clubbed in with Pakistani claims themselves. Pakistan's compulsive tendencies of bragging are admitted by their own generals.

• It appears that 1965 war was not rationally analyzed in Pakistan at all. In this regard the Pakistani military decision-makers were swept away in the emotional stream of their own propaganda!. (Agha Humayun Amin)
• Since the war was based on a big lie and was presented to the nation as a great victory, the Army came to believe its own fiction and used Ayub as a role model and continued to fight unwarranted wars--the 1971 war and the Kargil fiasco in 1999. (Nur Khan)

I would advise USaamo and Anaguaydf to seek WP:CONSENSUS and refrain from edit warring. Or they will end up at WP:ARE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed the part from lead now since no response and one editor (Anaguaydf) has been blocked as a sock. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

• Yes it was definitely Pakistan's edge in the aerial warfare. At first when I added it according to already mentioned sources and assessment of losses from all the neutral, Pakistani and Indian sources, I thought it to be a simple and plane fact which was necessary to be mentioned but you guys started reverting it and indulged in an edit war. First I was asked to cite sources even though the sources were well cited already about the lead and I added another source as well which was a well reputed British newspaper The Guardian after which you guys started refuting it and asked for consensus. I just don't understand what is consensus according to you people, the thing on which Indian editors agree and what is a neutral source according to you people, the one which favours India's narrative as the only source in this discussion claimed to be neutral by you is the one which in a typical Indian analyst's tone questioning some points which itself needs verification while most of the Indian account in this article is from Indian military sites like bharat-rakshak.com, defenceindia.com and indiandefencereview.com which are not even noteworthy and then tribuneindia.com, zeenews.com, theprint.in and rediffnews.com whose credibility is also questionable being Indian sources. Moreover the ongoing discussion is about Indo-Pakistani Air War not the whole 1965 war and I'm claiming edge for Pakistan in aerial warfare as per sources, the whole 1965 war is also debatable topic as to who got edge but not for here. Anyhow since you people wanted more explicit mention of it so here I come up with more. Most of the neutral sources, international observers, international media and aviation journals not just mention about Pakistan Airforce's edge over Indian Airforce in 1965 aerial warfare but clearly states about the Pakistan's victory in aerial warfare of 1965.

quotations

Pakistan Air Force kills and Indian Air Force kills in 1965 Indo-Pakistani Air War. "During the last days of the war Pakistani aircraft flew over Indian cities and airbases without any response from the opposing side. Thus the outnumbered PAF emerged triumphant over a four times larger force." “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”. “Pakistan’s Air Force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war, exploiting its opponent’s weaknesses in an exemplary style – Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen”. "Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies, if they had not already run away." "Another way in which the PAF satisfies the imbalance with regard to numbers viz a viz IAF is through pursuit of excellence with regard to its combat echelons." "The ground forces of the two countries appeared to be evenly matched, and their respective offensives (although involving approximately 6000 casualties on each side) were indecisive. The Pakistan Air Force, however, emerged with great credit from its conflict with the Indian Air Force, destroying 22 IAF aircraft in air-to-air combat for the loss of only eight of its own – a remarkable achievement considering that the PAF faced odds of nearly four to one." "In Sep 1965 a festering border dispute between India and Pakistan erupted into full scale war. The Indian possessed the larger air force numerically, composed mainly of British and French types- Hawker Hunter, Folland Gnat and Dassault Mystere fighters, Dassault Ouragons fighter-bombers and English electric Canberra bombers. The smaller but highly trained Pakistan Air Force was equipped in large part with F-86F Sabers, plus a few F-104 Starfighters. Fighting lasted little more than two weeks, but during that time, Pakistan gained a definite ascendancy in the air." "The 23-day conflict in September 1965 represented the zenith of the Pakistan Air Force and could justify claims to be its country's crowning glory." “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“ "One point particularly noted by military observers is that the Indians in their first advances, the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. In contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape. By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own." Pakistan’s success in the air means that she has been able to redeploy her relatively small army — professionally among the best in Asia — with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust. “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” One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds. References

USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is all rhetoric, impressionistic statements based on the cooked-up facts presented by Pakistanis themselves. I am asking for critical analysis. If any of them is able to answer the question what happened to 3 squadrons worth of Pakistani F-86F's between 1965 and 1971, please let us know. Why was Pakistan begging for emergency aircraft from friends within 10 days of the war ending? I gave you the citations. Check up on them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of your quotations also don't check out. Your citations don't even have authors, and titles, let alone page numbers. It looks like you have copied some material from some Pakistani defence forum web site. Nobody knows whether these statements actually appeared in print. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I'm not surprised as to what you said and even if a couple of them have missing titles, most of them have their source available. And even if just one of it is working, it has edge and are better and credible than bharat-rakshak.com and indiandefencereview.com since they are mentioning original sources. And to what you're referring as critical analysis, the points you are presenting themselves needs to confirmed and as to going for new aircraft, that's not rocket science, every body does so after war and PAF was a smaller Air Force than IAF. Since Pakistan's edge is mentioned in various sources(not talking about those which cannot be confirmed), there's not a single source which mention India's edge. Moreover Indian official figures as well as neutral figures support Pakistan's edge argument for which you have nothing reasonable to refute. Rest stupid loopholes can be found from anywhere which are good for timeless. So in the light of this discussion more discussion with you people is useless as we both have presented what could have been presented. I think we should go for arbitration. USaamo ^(t@lk) 01:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeating yourself is not going to make a case for you. You need WP:HISTRS to verify your claim that Pakistan had a edge over India in air war. It should be not hard if there is any merit in your claims. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not at all hard but it's not something to be decided by you people that what's on merit since you people have made it battleground. It's actually hard for you guys to accept it! USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the Pakistan's edge and victory in the aerial warfare

Should this article be mentioning Pakistan's edge and victory in the aerial warfare owing to the already added sources in the article and new sources in above section? USaamo ^(t@lk) 11:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes@USaamo: it should be mentioned.NomanPK44 (^talk) 11:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• No Not one WP:HISTRS supports the information that Pakistan had a edge over India in air war. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not explicitly, and not in the lead As part of my research on the F-104 Starfighter, I ended up reading quite a bit about the Indo-Pakistani air wars of 1965 and 1971. Accounts vary widely on who came out on top, in large part depending on who provided the information (Indian vs. Pakistani sources). I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to definitively call a winner, or even an edge for one side or the other; in my opinion, we should concentrate on providing more detail on what the two sides claim in terms of kills, admit in terms of losses, and add reliable third-party commentary as to the validity of these claims (e.g., evidence that planes claimed as kills actually survived the war, documented inventories before and after the war, etc.). CThomas³ (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• No It's up to the reader to decide who was victorious instead of Wikipedia explicitly telling them. War, anyways, is a sensitive topic and its winners are decided by which side accomplished their objective instead of which side lost more units. --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - Farooq Bajwa's From Kutch to Tashkent, generally regarded as one of the best accounts of the 1965 war [9] says the following (pp. 276-279): (1) Pakistan did pre-emptive strikes on forward Indian airbases and was successful (2) India retaliated by strikes on Pakistani airbases which were unsuccessful (3) there was a "falling off" in air activity from 10 September and both forces prioritised support for ground operations. "The air war therefore, although dramatic, did not alter the strategic balance to any large degree". "Air war appears to have gone in Pakistan's favour". "Ultimately, ... the reliance on US spart parts hurt the PAF more than the IAF and, in a long conflict, PAF would have struggled to maintain its level and effectiveness". I don't even believe that the air war went in Pakistan's favour. It only "appears so" because of Pakistan's own published numbers, which I think are fake. Those planes were out of commission even till the 1971 war, as I mentioned in the above discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• No Casualties or losses cannot be used to judged the victor. The victor is the one who is able to achieve the strategic & political aim. Just see Battle of Britain as an example. The British suffered lot more losses than the Nazis. Still they were the victors. Because the Royal Air force could achieve its objective. And the Luftwaffe couldn't. The IAF was able to fulfill its aim of ground attack and support to Indian Army. The PAF was also able to defend its airspace. Neither of them could achieve any strategic victory or any edge in terms of actual gains. Trojanishere (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
• No It is not necessary to declare one side or the other having an edge. Editors above show that this might not even be the case. AnomalousAtom (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@Aman.kumar.goel: I think your comment is not necessary here since you are a party to this ongoing dispute and you had given your opinion above and we have had long discussion as to it. Let others examine these all sources and give opinion. Thanks! USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors can conclude consensus but anybody in good standing can comment. Any user participating in any RfC is obviously an involved editor and has his set of reasons to support particular version of article. And, I here acted as proponent of particular reason in this RfC. There is no single reliable source meeting WP:HISTRS documenting history for your version. You need to focus only on arguing about it. Regards Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well your accreditation for above sources upon WP:HISTRS doesn't needed at all since you have double standards for it. I have highlighted at multiple points your defination of reliability as to which bharatrakshak, indiandefence and other Indian media outlets are reliable but Aviation Week, GlobalSecurity, The Guardian and multiple other acclaimed newspapers, journals and authors including Indian journalists accepting Pakistan's edge are not reliable because they are accepting the Pakistan's victory in the aerial conflict which is hard for you to accept. Anyhow things are plane and clear for neutral editors to determine it, let's see where it goes. USaamo ^(t@lk) 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the article should try to avoid declaring which side has a superiority or not, as I have mentioned in my comment above already. Secondly, what is the basis of Pakistani 'edge' anyway? The losses of IAF in terms of air craft were more but that doesn't give the complete picture because Indian aircraft were mostly destroyed on the ground, which doesn't show the offensive strength of IAF. 36 were destroyed by bombing by PAF but while fighting over Pakistan only 14 were lost in air. If one analyses the aerial combat, one really can't say that Pakistan had achieved anything strategically over the IAF at all. If causalities defined Victory, the Soviets wouldn't have won on the Eastern Front. Thankfully, it's the objectives being fulfilled, and the objective of the Air Force was to support the advancement of the army. Note: I still don't believe that the wiki needs to explicitly tell which side had an edge, be it Pakistan or India. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Field Marshal Aryan: this is a subpage about the aerial conflict of 1965 war, victory or edge is not being claimed in whole of 1965 war here. Most of the pages about battles of 1965 war are mentioning explicitly about the victory so does this subpage should. Also if the main article about Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 mentions about the edge as per assessment of losses then why not here... Moreover what you are mentioning about kills on ground are Indian claims, I've attached a nearly a dozen of neutral sources that clears confusion in this regard that who edged aerial battle. USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Because the theory about having 'edge over' is your own creation. Why it would be discussed by reliable sources? --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

And I have presented a dozen references from neutral sources to back it up while a couple were already there to prove this edge. While on other hand there's nothing to refute it other than empty rhetoric. USaamo ^(t@lk) 08:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cthomas3: Wikipedia should mention about the victor if neutral and reliable sources says so. Main article of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 is mentioning Indian edge as per assessment of losses then why not this subpage about aerial battle. Moreover most of the neutral sources presented in above discussion explicitly mention about Pakistan's edge and victory. Indian editors here are refuting them as per their narrative but I want them to be examined by neutral editors. It is ironic of them that Indian military sites and local news outlets are reliable for them which are cited in the article and giving most of Indian account while they refute Pakistan's account even when it is from neutral and reputable sources of international media. Moreover there is no source to refute Pakistan's edge and victory in aerial warfare as well, no one mentioned about Indian victory or edge in in it, not even Indian sources themselves. USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: what you're saying is a typical denial and twisting of facts. The account you've added and claiming to be the best is simply saying about the aerial battle of 1965 that Pakistan edged in it. Rest about whether air war altered the strategic balance to a large degree or not is not important for here since we are only concerned with aerial battle here, not the whole war. Even if according to you it didn't alter strategic balance to a large degree, so what, Indian Air Force still suffered and Pakistan Air Force surprised them in the war even being much inferior in numbers and had clear edge in their domain according to neutral sources. So I think howsoever strategic balance was, let the main 1965 war page deal with it. USaamo ^(t@lk) 14:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see some of the editors like Aman Kumar Goel and Kautilya3 who were involved in this edit dispute with me and had long discussions about it in the above section have also voted against the proposal over which I have reservations and I think it was not necessary and should not be considered by the neutral editors while concluding this RfC. We all have given our detailed views and opinions already in the above discussion which failed consensus. I've requested for comments in the light of that discussion so there is no point of their coming again and voting in it. USaamo ^(t@lk) 14:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• This RfC was started as consensus building measure on the edit dispute going on here to get opinions and views from neutral and uninvolved editors, however it was canvassed in either way, meat puppetry was done to influence the RfC in democratic style which is against Wikipedia policies. Anyhow RfC is not a binding thing, I seek other way of dispute resolution in this regard. USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)