Kargil War Thread - VI

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 18 Jun 2009 23:36

DDM Manu Pubby claims

Contrary to the Indian view that he was shot down, Tufail claims that Flt Lt Nachiketa’s MiG-27 went down due to engine trouble “caused by gas ingestion during high altitude strafing.” He writes: “Flt Lt Nachiketa, who ejected and was apprehended, had a tete-a-tete with this writer during an interesting ‘interrogation’ session.”

I believe that the Indian view was always that Nachiketas engine had a flame out, it is the Pakistanis that claim that he was shot down.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 19 Jun 2009 01:07

"Sources told Sify.com that the decision was purportedly taken to avoid `rubbing salt into Pakistan`s wounds` at a time when the peace process was once again being re-initiated."

Those who do not respect themselves are entitled to be shown none by others.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 19 Jun 2009 01:24

VinodTK wrote:No Kargil Divas this year

"Sources told Sify.com that the decision was purportedly taken to avoid `rubbing salt into Pakistan`s wounds` at a time when the peace process was once again being re-initiated."

Height of A*s Kissing; wonder as to what GOI want's to say to the dead solders mothers, fathers, wife’s and children!!!

VinodTK ... As per the article, this trend of Paki a*s-kissing was started under NDA regime.. Goes to show that inspite of claims of nationalism, all politicians seem to forget the soldiers once the job is done.
Sad state of affairs when a country does not even want to honour those who laid down their lives for it but will readily put out candle light vigils and welcome receptions for bollywood stars and cricketers ..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2009 01:51

Nothing stops people from observing the anniversary themselves. Why not collect funds to have flowers placed at Amar Jawan site in Delhi on that day?

At a minimum find out how to order flowers to the shrine so people can send in flowers from where ever they are.

mmasand · Post by **mmasand** » 19 Jun 2009 09:45

This is sick....really makes me vomit...even the aussies and NZ govts recognize ANZAC day for an incident that happened during WW1..we ought to learn something from countries hat respect their forces.its a shame not just for the govt but for all of us for allowing this to go unnoticed and taking the sacrifices of the jawans for granted.Aren't most of us guilty of not appreciating the freedom we have on a day to day basis.

tomorrow we will not recognize independence day since it might hurt the pakis conscience?

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 19 Jun 2009 11:21

mmasand wrote:This is sick....really makes me vomit...even the aussies and NZ govts recognize ANZAC day for an incident that happened during WW1..we ought to learn something from countries hat respect their forces.its a shame not just for the govt but for all of us for allowing this to go unnoticed and taking the sacrifices of the jawans for granted.Aren't most of us guilty of not appreciating the freedom we have on a day to day basis.

tomorrow we will not recognize independence day since it might hurt the pakis conscience?

shame that this how we value our heroes , really sad this country forget there ultimate sacrifice so easily and we do it for sake of who .. so that enemy does not get irked .... and then we wonder that why parents don't send there kids to services ....

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 19 Jun 2009 12:05

Lt Gen Mohinder Puri, PVSM, UYSM, Former GOC, 8 Mtn Div -which played a key role in the Kargil war-argues that not crossing the LoC and accepting a cease fire when the enemy was on the run were strategic blunders which continue to haunt useven a decade later..The Fog of War

Any link to Mohinder Puri advocating crossing the LC?

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 19 Jun 2009 16:42

RayC wrote:Any link to Mohinder Puri advocating crossing the LC?

Officers question NDA govt not allowing LoC crossing in Kargil
http://www.zeenews.com/news333670.htm

New Delhi, Nov 05: Two former officers who had commanded forces during the Kargil conflict have questioned the then NDA government's decision not to allow armed forces to cross the Line of Control (LoC) and said it had resulted in considerable losses and operational problems.

Lt Gen (Retd) Mohinder Puri, then General Officer Commanding of 8th Mountain Division, and Air Marshal (Retd) Narayan Menon, then Air Officer Commanding of Jammu and Kashmir, said the decision led to "strategic and tactical losses" for the Army and "considerable problems" for the IAF.

In separate articles on the 1999 conflict in the forthcoming issue of Indian defence review, the two officers said while the Army lost the option of conflict termination in an earlier timeframe and taking large number of prisoners of war by encircling them, the caveat of not crossing the LoC under any circumstances restricted the attack profiles of fighter aircraft.

Asking whether it was correct to politically lay down stringent restrictions of not crossing the loc, Puri said "while we may have earned some brownie points, but strategically and tactically we lost more than we gained.

"By accepting, under international pressure to restrict operations to our side of the LoC, we have willy-nilly given de facto recognition to the LoC as the international border. Statements made by political leaders that there will be no redrawing of borders merely reinforces this hypothesis," said the officer who was given charge of the volatile Drass sector.

Puri said "tactically, by not crossing the LoC we closed our options of conflict termination in an earlier timeframe and perhaps lost the opportunity to take a large number of prisoners who would have got entrapped by our encirclement".

This led to prolonging the operations and suffering avoidable casualties while recovering territory by evicting the enemy from the dominating heights of Kargil, he said.

By the time ceasefire was declared, "We had the enemy on the run, but by accepting it we offered them the easy route to withdraw to their country".

"As expected, the enemy did not respect the terms of the ceasefire and planted anti-personnel mines along their route of withdrawal: a route along which we had to move to clear the area upto the LoC," Puri said, adding the army suffered a large number of casualties due to such move which reflected the "unsoldierly qualities of the Pak Army".

In his article, Menon said he had received on May 25, 1999, "the codeword to commence offensive operations from the next day" but with a caveat that under no circumstances should any aircraft cross the LoC.

Bureau Report

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2009 19:43

It wasnt international pressure but practical/realist reading of the aftermath. Crossing the LOC or whatever might be useful militarily but if own territory isn't vacated it will end in loss of territory just as Chaamb was lost in 1971. And confining the conflict ot localized area stopped the 'flash point' rhetoric of the US which most likely gave Mushy green signal based on the frequent visits of Zinni to Msuhy pre-Kargil.

Folks should recall Clausewitz's dictum " War is an extention of politics". So war is not fought for valor sake but to achieve poltical objectives.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 19 Jun 2009 20:56

It never ceases to amaze me how we let our political biases (party preferences) cloud our judgement. War is an extension of politics it seems. Ramana, for a moment, think about the article only and not about your party/person preference and see if you come up with the same response.

Why do you think that if IAF had been allowed to operate as they thought best (and not tie their hand with the engagement rule used) we would have been unable to have the Pakistanis vacate our territory? If supply lines from behind had been cut would that have helped reduce IA's losses?

The enemy was inside our house, we should have fought the "aar paar ki ladai" then.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2009 21:41

No Vivek K of all the people!

I guess you havent read the whole KRC and the tons of papers written in the aftermath. From a military standpoint in a two person conflict, crossing the border and hitting the enemy is the right thing. However its not a two-person conflict. You have PRC and US in the backgorund egging on the snake. By escalting India would have given these two players the chance they want to intervene to broker a ceasefire. When that happens the land those buggers have occupied will still be in their control. And that means India lost territory. Yes we might have gained some but still we lost what is ours.

I am an India firster. And that is recognized by on and off forum.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 19 Jun 2009 21:58

8 and 3 Div in Op Vijay were not in any way impeded in their operations with reinforcement or supplies coming to the Pakistanis who occupied the heights since the Pakistanis had no line of communication (i.e. Supply routes) open as such except the ridges which were thin and narrow.
Therefore, one wonders if unleashing the Div on a stand by mode West of Zojila, would have made any difference.

It would have surely escalated the war in other sectors and it would have become an all out war!

The Kargil War was localised. It had equipment from other sectors, which denude these sectors of the equipment. Each sector is organised so that it will give the optimum result desired. If they are denuded, can they?

I would not like to go into details, but if one notices there was a flurry to buy equipment etc during the war. Why so? I leave it to your judgement as to the operational readiness as was the operational readiness after the Mumbai blast!

One must be pragmatic and not be blessed with Dutch Courage. If the enemy was on the run, then why should there be the controversy raked up by Tehelka?

So, Let us not blame the govts or the Army hierarchy.

As far as IAF ops is concerned in HAA, why not ask Mohinder and 1 NAGA?

Edited

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 19 Jun 2009 22:28

Ramana, point taken. My bad.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 19 Jun 2009 22:43

RayC wrote: The Kargil War was localised. It had equipment from other sectors, which denude these sectors of the equipment. Each sector is organised so that it will give the optimum result desired. If they are denuded, can they?

I would not like to go into details, but if one notices there was a flurry to buy equipment etc during the war. Why so? I leave it to your judgement as to the operational readiness as was the operational readiness after the Mumbai blast!

Please understand we talk big, but the resources are dry!!

Ray Sir,
It is very interesting that you make this point. Bharat Karnad in his latest nook (India's Nuclear Policy) says the same regarding the procurement policy of Indian armed forces. According to Bharat Karnad, the war reserves of Indian armed forces is just about enough to fight a 15 day war and it is on purpose reserve is maintained that level! Most of the wargames are dog and poney shows where equipemnts from many units are combined together to make a impressive show! He rues the fact that while we are fast buying latest gizmos, we are doing precious little to improve the situation with respect to war reserves.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2009 23:45

Vivek K wrote:Ramana, point taken. My bad.

No problem.

On BR we should have this daily chant. "Will root for best option that ensures India comes ahead in all ways. All others are fluff."

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2009 23:52

Vivek K wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how we let our political biases (party preferences) cloud our judgement. War is an extension of politics it seems. Ramana, for a moment, think about the article only and not about your party/person preference and see if you come up with the same response.

Why do you think that if IAF had been allowed to operate as they thought best (and not tie their hand with the engagement rule used) we would have been unable to have the Pakistanis vacate our territory? If supply lines from behind had been cut would that have helped reduce IA's losses?

The enemy was inside our house, we should have fought the "aar paar ki ladai" then.

Kargil was the first war after the overt Nuclear test in 1998. And hence had to be fought in a very credible manner.

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Jun 2009 00:51

^ All this is plain bahanabaazi ; we Indians always manage to pull out some sort of excuse for strategic/tactical blunders as in this case why is that Mirages and even the Floggers were not pressed into action until Mi-17's drew enemy fire , so much for the escalation argument..

.

The truth is Kargil war was definitely not one of those wars which one would enumerate as a classic example of carrying out mountain warfare , the glaring differences between the service chiefs and the twiddling thumbs in the GOI made a mockery of our force projection.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 23 Jun 2009 01:11

SO the tenth anniversary of the kargil war will likely go unsung, seems like.

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 23 Jun 2009 01:24

Kargil was a golden opportunity for India to draw the pukis in to a full scale war and finish them off once and for all. As usual India let a chance slip away like we did many times before. The 1971 Bangladesh war for instance, we should've permanently crippled the pukis then. All post Kargil analysis indicated Pakistan would not have survived a full scale war at that time. If we had done that, we may even have prevented the 9/11 terrorist attack on the U.S. incidentally. If we had taken care of business in 1971 or Kargil we wouldn't have to face a nuclearized TSP these days. We need to be cunning like the Chinese. The Chicoms knew back then in 1962 that India was its weakest at that time and didn't waste the opportunity.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Jun 2009 02:16

Luxtor - any additional ventures in 1971 would have drawn in the US and China on Pakistan's side, and the USSR may not have been willing to start WW3 on our behalf for the sake of motheatenistan

kargil - we know that once again unkil put substantial pressure on us directly and indirectly to not cross the LOC or escalate. part of the calculus being that musharraf must have threatened to lob his shiny green mijjiles at anyone in range. that seems to bother unkil quite a bit

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 23 Jun 2009 02:54

ramana wrote:No Vivek K of all the people!

I guess you havent read the whole KRC and the tons of papers written in the aftermath. From a military standpoint in a two person conflict, crossing the border and hitting the enemy is the right thing. However its not a two-person conflict. You have PRC and US in the backgorund egging on the snake. By escalting India would have given these two players the chance they want to intervene to broker a ceasefire. When that happens the land those buggers have occupied will still be in their control. And that means India lost territory. Yes we might have gained some but still we lost what is ours.

I am an India firster. And that is recognized by on and off forum.

I am not aware of a precedent where a nation with the upper hand in a military conflict is forced to accept a ceasefire while the enemy that initiated the conflict is in occupation of its territory.

sum · Post by **sum** » 23 Jun 2009 08:39

Kargil was a golden opportunity for India to draw the pukis in to a full scale war and finish them off once and for all. As usual India let a chance slip away like we did many times before.

Possibly but have to remember that our conventional forces/equipment/reserves were in total disarray at that time due to years of criminal neglect and there is no way our forces could have sustained a all out war for long given that we have o virtually beg Israelis to provide ammo for just one sector of howitzers.

jimmy_moh · Post by **jimmy_moh** » 23 Jun 2009 10:35

as per our claim the casualities from our side is aroud 550 and for paki it is 1500..

here i have a newbie question -- the ratio for casualities will be 3:1 and if we are considering the position of the enemy the casulalities for the attacking side should be more..
but here the casualities for the enemy is more than the attacking side.... how it will be..?

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 23 Jun 2009 10:44

jimmy_moh wrote:as per our claim the casualities from our side is aroud 550 and for paki it is 1500..

here i have a newbie question -- the ratio for casualities will be 3:1 and if we are considering the position of the enemy the casulalities for the attacking side should be more..
but here the casualities for the enemy is more than the attacking side.... how it will be..?

honestly jimmy , that is something I never understood either - If TSP initiated infiltration discreetly and occupied all strategic peaks before operation Vijay began , it's hard to envisage how their casualty count could be 3 times higher.

kancha · Post by **kancha** » 23 Jun 2009 11:25

Nihat wrote:
jimmy_moh wrote:as per our claim the casualities from our side is aroud 550 and for paki it is 1500..

here i have a newbie question -- the ratio for casualities will be 3:1 and if we are considering the position of the enemy the casulalities for the attacking side should be more..
but here the casualities for the enemy is more than the attacking side.... how it will be..?

honestly jimmy , that is something I never understood either - If TSP initiated infiltration discreetly and occupied all strategic peaks before operation Vijay began , it's hard to envisage how their casualty count could be 3 times higher.

One Answer - ARTILLERY - The God of War

jimmy_moh · Post by **jimmy_moh** » 23 Jun 2009 11:29

Nihat wrote:
jimmy_moh wrote:as per our claim the casualities from our side is aroud 550 and for paki it is 1500..

here i have a newbie question -- the ratio for casualities will be 3:1 and if we are considering the position of the enemy the casulalities for the attacking side should be more..
but here the casualities for the enemy is more than the attacking side.... how it will be..?
honestly jimmy , that is something I never understood either - If TSP initiated infiltration discreetly and occupied all strategic peaks before operation Vijay began , it's hard to envisage how their casualty count could be 3 times higher.

i hope our experts can give the right answer..

kancha · Post by **kancha** » 23 Jun 2009 11:42

^^
It is not a template that you have to lose 3 men for 1 that you kill. The circumstances facing us in Kargil were entirely different. I'll try and summarize some of these -

The Pakis had never infiltrated their regular troops (or so they said). It was only the 'Mujahideen'. Hence, they could not be seen as directly supporting the holy warriors occupying the kafir land. And mind you, warfare in mountains is more about logistics than anything else.

The Indian reaction was totally unexpected in their 'tactically brilliant' plan. The Indian Army, as per some reports, amassed a huge quantum of artillery in the area even at the cost of denuding the artillery from other sectors. The amount of firepower that preceded every infantry attack was tremendous and extracted a huge cost - both in terms of men and material as well as morale.

Next is the terrain - true that mountains are easier to defend, but the kind of ranges at which you can use your weapons is quite restricted in many cases because you cannot actually see the attacker till he is quite close.

Air - After learning its lessons from the early crashes, the IAF did a highly commendable job of $crewing their happiness day and night, meaning that even if the bombing may not have been as accurate, but the 'mujahideen' didn't get much sleep either.

Lastly, It being mountainous territory, the pakis would have thought that lesser troops could hold more territory and sent in the troops accordingly. Otherwise, who knows, the number of Paki casualties might have been much more

Hope this satisfies you guys

jimmy_moh · Post by **jimmy_moh** » 23 Jun 2009 11:51

kancha wrote:^^
It is not a template that you have to lose 3 men for 1 that you kill. The circumstances facing us in Kargil were entirely different. I'll try and summarize some of these -

The Pakis had never infiltrated their regular troops (or so they said). It was only the 'Mujahideen'. Hence, they could not be seen as directly supporting the holy warriors occupying the kafir land. And mind you, warfare in mountains is more about logistics than anything else.

The Indian reaction was totally unexpected in their 'tactically brilliant' plan. The Indian Army, as per some reports, amassed a huge quantum of artillery in the area even at the cost of denuding the artillery from other sectors. The amount of firepower that preceded every infantry attack was tremendous and extracted a huge cost - both in terms of men and material as well as morale.

Next is the terrain - true that mountains are easier to defend, but the kind of ranges at which you can use your weapons is quite restricted in many cases because you cannot actually see the attacker till he is quite close.

Air - After learning its lessons from the early crashes, the IAF did a highly commendable job of $crewing their happiness day and night, meaning that even if the bombing may not have been as accurate, but the 'mujahideen' didn't get much sleep either.

Lastly, It being mountainous territory, the pakis would have thought that lesser troops could hold more territory and sent in the troops accordingly. Otherwise, who knows, the number of Paki casualties might have been much more

Hope this satisfies you guys

got the point......... but if the artillery is the case , we introduced our artillery in the middle of our operation right..? , and the pakis are defending with the RT support from the beginnng it self..that indicates casualities due to RT firing will be more for our side right..?

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 23 Jun 2009 12:01

seriously though why are we even questioning this ? I can understand paki's questioning it but iam having a hard time understanding the motive of my fellow BR'ites here.
Seriously what you wanna hear.... that only 10 pakis died or that we lost 3 times the number.

Lately BR seems to be loosing its art of "chanakian" thinking.

jimmy_moh · Post by **jimmy_moh** » 23 Jun 2009 12:16

Srivastav wrote:seriously though why are we even questioning this ? I can understand paki's questioning it but iam having a hard time understanding the motive of my fellow BR'ites here.
Seriously what you wanna hear.... that only 10 pakis died or that we lost 3 times the number.

Lately BR seems to be loosing its art of "chanakian" thinking.

no bad thinking dear......... just curious about the figures.. thats all...

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 23 Jun 2009 13:35

Srivastava.. what do you want to hear.. that we killed 10000 pakis and lost only 10??

whay are you so apprehensive if somebody is questioning the figures?? i think all of us want to hear the truth ( which is impossible to arrive at IMHO) ..thats all. I dont know the true figures ... but atleast logic suggests that the attacking force should have more casualties... and India was the attacking force to the best of my knowledge.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 23 Jun 2009 14:08

manjgu wrote:Srivastava.. what do you want to hear.. that we killed 10000 pakis and lost only 10??

whay are you so apprehensive if somebody is questioning the figures?? i think all of us want to hear the truth ( which is impossible to arrive at IMHO) ..thats all. I dont know the true figures ... but atleast logic suggests that the attacking force should have more casualties... and India was the attacking force to the best of my knowledge.

I never said anything bout any kind of want or need to hear numbers.....If you read my statement iam not the one whos is questioning the numbers. Also what is this need to question the numbers.

You say that you dont know the real numbers either but that you are looking for truth(based on particular logic).

Speaking of logic, India used heavy artillery, bombing runs by IAf, etc dont you think force multipliers like these would
affect this logic of attackers "losing more combatants". Hey i dont know the numbers either, and iam sure very few people know the fact, but unless proven otherwise ill give the benefit of doubt to the army and GOI.

Please also remember that most of us dont have idea of things like our soldiers morale, pakistani morale or how many soldiers did they lose just because of the environmental conditions like avalanches, cold etc then in actual combat, things like these would definately affect the final numbers.

Anyways i come back to my original question, why would you think that someone is lying or that the numbers are fudged other than this "logic" iam hearing off. There are myriad variables which can effect this logic, unless you are telling me that this "logic" is gospel and change in circumstances/variables do not affect it.

In the end if you want to accuse me of being a fanboy who wants to see 10:10000 ratio in favor of india, then go ahead.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 23 Jun 2009 14:26

Srivastava.... I am sure Indian troops moral (s) are good though PA troops moral ( s) have always suspect been suspect, even before Kargil

))

Aha.. so your logic is ..India fired 50000 shells and PA fired 5000 shells so PA casualties should be more !!

and 1 IAF bombing run = 50 paki dead !!

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 23 Jun 2009 14:43

manjgu wrote:Aha.. so your logic is ..India fired 50000 shells and PA fired 5000 shells so PA casualties should be more !!

and 1 IAF bombing run = 50 paki dead !!

One liners with no substance behind them neither strengthen youre point nor weaken my stand on this issue.

1 IAF run doesnt equal 50 paki dead, but 50 IAF runs definately will do some damage, dont you think ?

We can keep on going like this where iam trying to explain my point of view to you but you keep coming back with these one liners which make complete mockery of a healthy discussion.

So i humbly resign, youve won and thanks for making youre point. I stand corrected

dnivas · Post by **dnivas** » 23 Jun 2009 14:45

manjgu wrote:Srivastava.. what do you want to hear.. that we killed 10000 pakis and lost only 10??

.... and India was the attacking force to the best of my knowledge.

i am pretty sure the US lost 3 times more than the iraqis in 2003.coz you know iraqis were defending and US was attacking.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 23 Jun 2009 14:55

For those who are looking for a healthy discussion, here is a link from the question hour of the lok sabha, where the then defense misnister specifically mentions the number of deceased in kargil.
http://164.100.24.208/lsq/quest.asp?qref=51302 (some members might be getting a virus/trojan warning from this link...so i would advise not taking the risk by clicking it)

now if we follow the above logic, then what some of us are getting to is that the defense minister lied to the country.

from the above Lok Sabha, Question Hour link ->

MINISTER OF DEFENCE (SHRI GEORGE FERNANDES)

(a)The number of soldiers killed during Kargil Conflict is as under:

Officers 26
Junior Commissioned Officers 23
Other Ranks 473

Total 522

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 23 Jun 2009 15:08

^^^^
this site has some drive-by worms/viruses...??

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 23 Jun 2009 15:11

dnivas... vow... thats so clever. You look like a very capable attorney. BR members will be happy to use your services.

srivastava .... i will never go by what the def min is saying ( they are hired to lie for the govt ...dont we know that??). i would rather believe a independent source ( if it exists at all).

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 23 Jun 2009 15:18

rajpa sir i dont get a virus or trojan warning through my anti virus but still precaution is better than cure.

jimmy_moh · Post by **jimmy_moh** » 23 Jun 2009 15:30

Srivastav wrote:For those who are looking for a healthy discussion, here is a link from the question hour of the lok sabha, where the then defense misnister specifically mentions the number of deceased in kargil.
http://164.100.24.208/lsq/quest.asp?qref=51302 (some members might be getting a virus/trojan warning from this link...so i would advise not taking the risk by clicking it)

now if we follow the above logic, then what some of us are getting to is that the defense minister lied to the country.

from the above Lok Sabha, Question Hour link ->
MINISTER OF DEFENCE (SHRI GEORGE FERNANDES)

(a)The number of soldiers killed during Kargil Conflict is as under:

Officers 26
Junior Commissioned Officers 23
Other Ranks 473

Total 522

sir nobody in this forum want to hear IA lost more than the PA..
but still i am worrying something goes fishy in these numbers.....