Refugees of A Refugee Camp
Zeemax June 4, 2002
#101 Posted by AlephNull on June 16, 2002 8:47:26 pm
hobbyty #85
{Look at what is happening in India, with regard to picking a candidate for President. Both the Hindu nationalist right and the left have picked a Muslim as a candidate.}
Untrue. The candidate of the left is Dr. Lakshmi Sehgal (nee Swaminathan). She is not of Muslim background - even by marriage. She is however a distinguished Indian, and of completely nonsectarian outlook.
{Did they pick the most qualified, most effective - I have several times made the claim that Indians are `johnny come lately`` - they don`t quite get it - the kind who arrive fashionably early at a party. To show case the ``secular`` Indian state, they insist a token ``Muslim`` as President.}
No, perhaps it`s you and other hardline Pakistani ideologues who don`t quite get it. One connotation of token (not the one you intended, I suppose) is `symbol, exemplar`. And Dr. Kalam is indeed a powerful symbol of everything hopeful and forward-looking about India. Here is a man who rose from extremely humble origins - the son of a Rameshwaram fisherman - to positions of great responsibility; who never asked for any special favours for himself but made the most of every break he got. A talented and productive engineer and a man who has worked with, as well as effectively led, large numbers of people. A visionary who has written and spoken on his plans for India`s technological development and societal transformation. A man whose patriotism is beyond doubt and an outspoken and forceful optimist on India`s future. A poet in his native Tamil. An observant Muslim but at home with other Indic religious traditions. A national hero - and holder of India`s highest civilian award - not an obscure figure. In short, almost too good to be true.
Just who are you to call him a ``Muslim`` in quotation marks? He was born in the faith and has not repudiated it. Consequently he is as much a Muslim as you are. Perhaps you can`t stomach the fact that he finds value in other religious traditions as well. In which case, the fault lies not with Kalam but with your digestion.
And pray why is he not qualified? A large country like India may be fortunate enough to have several candidates good enough for the highest office in the land. Dr. P.C. Alexander - the NDA`s original choice - would have made a perfectly good President - was Cabinet Secretary under Indira Gandhi, has had a spotless record as Maharashtra Governor - admittedly less well-known than Dr. Kalam. But he was not acceptable to the Italian high-school dropout Sonia Gandhi.
{You are quite mistaken about what such a message sends to the world - the message is cynical manipulation, it is one of tokenism, of insincerity. The deeper reflection is that they still don`t get it: the ``secular`` state`s representative qualification is his confession.}
If Dr. Kalam is a ``token`` candidate, why should he not be regarded as a ``token`` for South Indians - for Tamilians - for engineers (he will be the first such to be President of India) - for upwardly mobile self-made men? Why this inordinate obsession with his confession? You had a CHOICE as to which of Dr. Kalam`s many attributes you decided to focus on. That YOU chose to zero in on his confession says a great deal about YOUR MINDSET - that YOU regard somebody`s religious background as the primary marker of identity - when it is at best one of many attributes, some innate or congenital, others acquired by upbringing, still others adopted by personal choice in the course of life.
{Look at what is happening in India, with regard to picking a candidate for President. Both the Hindu nationalist right and the left have picked a Muslim as a candidate.}
Untrue. The candidate of the left is Dr. Lakshmi Sehgal (nee Swaminathan). She is not of Muslim background - even by marriage. She is however a distinguished Indian, and of completely nonsectarian outlook.
{Did they pick the most qualified, most effective - I have several times made the claim that Indians are `johnny come lately`` - they don`t quite get it - the kind who arrive fashionably early at a party. To show case the ``secular`` Indian state, they insist a token ``Muslim`` as President.}
No, perhaps it`s you and other hardline Pakistani ideologues who don`t quite get it. One connotation of token (not the one you intended, I suppose) is `symbol, exemplar`. And Dr. Kalam is indeed a powerful symbol of everything hopeful and forward-looking about India. Here is a man who rose from extremely humble origins - the son of a Rameshwaram fisherman - to positions of great responsibility; who never asked for any special favours for himself but made the most of every break he got. A talented and productive engineer and a man who has worked with, as well as effectively led, large numbers of people. A visionary who has written and spoken on his plans for India`s technological development and societal transformation. A man whose patriotism is beyond doubt and an outspoken and forceful optimist on India`s future. A poet in his native Tamil. An observant Muslim but at home with other Indic religious traditions. A national hero - and holder of India`s highest civilian award - not an obscure figure. In short, almost too good to be true.
Just who are you to call him a ``Muslim`` in quotation marks? He was born in the faith and has not repudiated it. Consequently he is as much a Muslim as you are. Perhaps you can`t stomach the fact that he finds value in other religious traditions as well. In which case, the fault lies not with Kalam but with your digestion.
And pray why is he not qualified? A large country like India may be fortunate enough to have several candidates good enough for the highest office in the land. Dr. P.C. Alexander - the NDA`s original choice - would have made a perfectly good President - was Cabinet Secretary under Indira Gandhi, has had a spotless record as Maharashtra Governor - admittedly less well-known than Dr. Kalam. But he was not acceptable to the Italian high-school dropout Sonia Gandhi.
{You are quite mistaken about what such a message sends to the world - the message is cynical manipulation, it is one of tokenism, of insincerity. The deeper reflection is that they still don`t get it: the ``secular`` state`s representative qualification is his confession.}
If Dr. Kalam is a ``token`` candidate, why should he not be regarded as a ``token`` for South Indians - for Tamilians - for engineers (he will be the first such to be President of India) - for upwardly mobile self-made men? Why this inordinate obsession with his confession? You had a CHOICE as to which of Dr. Kalam`s many attributes you decided to focus on. That YOU chose to zero in on his confession says a great deal about YOUR MINDSET - that YOU regard somebody`s religious background as the primary marker of identity - when it is at best one of many attributes, some innate or congenital, others acquired by upbringing, still others adopted by personal choice in the course of life.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#100 Posted by tahmed321 on June 15, 2002 3:14:57 pm
Romair #94 So finally, after all these years, I know how that B-57 crashed that night in 1965. Thanks.
As for the bravery and sacrifice of Pakistani officers an men in these two wars, I am well aware from first-hand accounts of the bravery of these men - like the major who risked his life back in 1965 to save the life of an uncle of mine who was lying wounded in the middle of heavy artillery shelling by Indians (he drove a jeep through falling shells, and taking him away from certain death). These brave men deserve our respect and our thanks for fighting for the honor and integrity of their country. Like you, I too did not have to pay any such price, and like you I too am now an expatriate Pakistani, and we can both merely register our appreciation of the sacrifice and risks taken by others.
Where I diverge from you is here: You dont seem to question why we have to have thoughtless and unrealistic policies that lead to wars, or close calls (as most recently) in the first place. I do. Even braver than our men in uniform are the men in tattered clothes who break stones in 110 degree heat to earn a living for their families. These are the true ``unseen and unsung heroes`` of Pakistan.
As for the bravery and sacrifice of Pakistani officers an men in these two wars, I am well aware from first-hand accounts of the bravery of these men - like the major who risked his life back in 1965 to save the life of an uncle of mine who was lying wounded in the middle of heavy artillery shelling by Indians (he drove a jeep through falling shells, and taking him away from certain death). These brave men deserve our respect and our thanks for fighting for the honor and integrity of their country. Like you, I too did not have to pay any such price, and like you I too am now an expatriate Pakistani, and we can both merely register our appreciation of the sacrifice and risks taken by others.
Where I diverge from you is here: You dont seem to question why we have to have thoughtless and unrealistic policies that lead to wars, or close calls (as most recently) in the first place. I do. Even braver than our men in uniform are the men in tattered clothes who break stones in 110 degree heat to earn a living for their families. These are the true ``unseen and unsung heroes`` of Pakistan.
#99 Posted by AlephNull on June 14, 2002 7:17:52 pm
Fuzair #98
Thanks for pointing out the obvious howlers in the section of Yeager`s autobiography dealing with his experiences in Pakistan. Clearly all of his statements that mention numbers or dates should be treated with extreme suspicion; perhaps his recollections are more accurate for specific incidents that he himself witnessed. The most benign explanation is that Yeager was being careless about facts that would be of little interest to his primary readership in the US. He probably didn`t imagine when he wrote that book (nearly two decades ago), that boosters of the PAF`s combat record would trot him out as the supreme authority and cite his every word as gospel truth; that the bricks he dropped would resound down the ages.
There are a couple of reasons why Yeager might not be `neutral`, as Romair claims. First, his mission in Pakistan was specifically to aid the PAF and improve their combat capability. He would therefore be loath to admit that `his` boys didn`t perform up to scratch. Second, the IAF shot up his personal Beech Queen Air during a visit to Chaklala during the war - not exactly calculated to induce friendly feelings towards the Indians.
As to numbers of Sabres and Starfighters - the PAF received a total of 102 F-86 Sabres and 12 F-104 Starfighters from the US. They lost at least 13 Sabres during the 1965 war, and some of the other had suffered extensive battle damage. Subsequent to the US arms embargo, the PAF contrived to clandestinely acquire a further 90 Luftwaffe-surplus Sabre Mk.6s. That gives us a total of about 180 Sabres post 1965. Given that some of the less airworthy aircraft were being cannibalized for spares, the actual numbers of serviceable aircraft as of 1971 would have been considerably fewer than 180. Robert Jackson`s book on the Sabre states that 88 Sabres, mostly Mk.6s, were in service with PAF frontline units at the beginning of the 1971 war.
As to the PAFs dozen-odd Starfighters, by themselves they were not numerous enough to make a difference in 1971; nor were they the only Mach 2 fighters in service in the subcontinent, as had been the case in 1965. It is claimed that a dozen Jordanian Starfighters were transferred to the PAF in 1971, and that the IAF shot down a couple. But even so, the numbers simply don`t add up to the more than 250 Sabres and Starfighters that Yeager implies the PAF possessed.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious howlers in the section of Yeager`s autobiography dealing with his experiences in Pakistan. Clearly all of his statements that mention numbers or dates should be treated with extreme suspicion; perhaps his recollections are more accurate for specific incidents that he himself witnessed. The most benign explanation is that Yeager was being careless about facts that would be of little interest to his primary readership in the US. He probably didn`t imagine when he wrote that book (nearly two decades ago), that boosters of the PAF`s combat record would trot him out as the supreme authority and cite his every word as gospel truth; that the bricks he dropped would resound down the ages.
There are a couple of reasons why Yeager might not be `neutral`, as Romair claims. First, his mission in Pakistan was specifically to aid the PAF and improve their combat capability. He would therefore be loath to admit that `his` boys didn`t perform up to scratch. Second, the IAF shot up his personal Beech Queen Air during a visit to Chaklala during the war - not exactly calculated to induce friendly feelings towards the Indians.
As to numbers of Sabres and Starfighters - the PAF received a total of 102 F-86 Sabres and 12 F-104 Starfighters from the US. They lost at least 13 Sabres during the 1965 war, and some of the other had suffered extensive battle damage. Subsequent to the US arms embargo, the PAF contrived to clandestinely acquire a further 90 Luftwaffe-surplus Sabre Mk.6s. That gives us a total of about 180 Sabres post 1965. Given that some of the less airworthy aircraft were being cannibalized for spares, the actual numbers of serviceable aircraft as of 1971 would have been considerably fewer than 180. Robert Jackson`s book on the Sabre states that 88 Sabres, mostly Mk.6s, were in service with PAF frontline units at the beginning of the 1971 war.
As to the PAFs dozen-odd Starfighters, by themselves they were not numerous enough to make a difference in 1971; nor were they the only Mach 2 fighters in service in the subcontinent, as had been the case in 1965. It is claimed that a dozen Jordanian Starfighters were transferred to the PAF in 1971, and that the IAF shot down a couple. But even so, the numbers simply don`t add up to the more than 250 Sabres and Starfighters that Yeager implies the PAF possessed.
#98 Posted by fuzair on June 14, 2002 5:00:01 pm
Romair:
I hate to disappoint you but Chuck Yeager is absolutely wrong here. Just look at the passages you quote from his autobiography! They are so stupid as to make one wonder about his IQ.
``They [the PAF] had about five hundred airplanes, more than half of them Sabres and 104 Starfighters, a few B-57 bombers, and about a hundred Chinese MiG-19s.``
Hmmmm. Lets see, Wing Commander Alam–who is presumably in a position to know–says that the PAF had 150 planes in 1965 (actually I thought they had more like 200 total but we`ll take it as meaning 150 combat planes which seems about right; although the Indians certainly did NOT have 900 combat planes in 1965, maybe 500 tops). By 1971 the PAF have an ASTOUNDING 500 planes!!!! WOW!!!!! Even now we only have about 450 or so max. Where did these 350 extra planes come from? How did we manage to triple the size of the Air Force? Everyone else thinks that the PAF only had about 250 or so planes, max, in 1971. So he has overestimated the strength of the PAF by about 100%. Ooops. Not so good for the Defense Rep who did the planning for the PAF and taught them how to fit Sidewinders to F-6s!!! IF the PAF had 500 planes AND still performed so badly, I`d have to say that the PAF Air Marshalls were worse than the Army`s Generals.
``The Chinese MiG ... was an older airplane in their inventory, and I guess they were just getting rid of them.``
Oops, wrong again. The Chines MiG-19 (i.e., F-6) was not an ``older`` plane in the PAF`s inventory. In fact, we didn`t get the first F-6 (a supersonic plane) until 1966 or 1967 and it was meant as a REPLACEMENT for the F-86 (a subsonic one). The F-6 certainly is a piece of junk by all accounts but the PAF didn`t get rid of it until a couple of years ago. Its pretty clear that Yeager doesn`t know what the heck he is talking about. Now if Yeager doesn`t know that the Sabre is an older, muuuuuuuch older, plane than the F-6, he is not much of an authority on anything. Further errors that Yeager makes (which you haven`t reproduced) is that he refers to the 1971 war as starting in November (OK, maybe we can excuse that part of it since brigade strength actions were being fought in Nov 1971) and for only lasting three days before the Pakistanis surrendered. So either Yeager is completely confused or a complete idiot or making really stupid mistakes about things which aren`t really all that important to him.
Maybe AM Rahim Khan was telling him that we were really winning the war and that we were simply lulling the Indians into a false sense of security or something and Yeager actually bought it. The section of his biography–available on line at www.pakdef.info–that deals with Pakistan is so full of mistakes as to be seriously embarrasing. To cite Yeager as your authoritative source is to simply show poor is the case for the defense.
As far as the Wing Commander Alam article goes, I don`t disagree with it at all. Its common knowledge that IAF pilots ki to F-104 dekh kae hi phat ti thi {if you`ll pardon the vernacular ;-0}. However all this had changed by 1971 when they actually managed to shoot down at least two F-104s (although they claim four). The F-104/Alam article refers to ONLY the 1965 War, not the 1971 one.
BTW, you still haven`t answered why the PAF`s attacks on the Indian Airfields were so poorly planned and executed. Wasn`t this meant to be the PAF`s masterstroke that would knock the IAF out of the war (a la the Israelis and Egypt)? The PAF only committed 30% of its combat aircraft to the attacks. Why so few? Shouldn`t it have been more? If you are going to stake everything on one roll of the die, then gamble big! By all accounts, damage to the IAF was minimal. All the runways were repaired within a day at the most and the Indians claim that not a single plane was destroyed.
I know (knew, haven`t seen him for years) Gen. Shamim Alam fairly well and knew of his family (9 brothers in the armed forces) well before I read the article by his brother. It merely acted as one more piece of evidence for me. You see, unlike the dimwits on Pakdef, I don`t think that Pakistan is helped by yelling as loudly as we can how great we are. Pakistan is better served by critically analyzing the mistakes we made and then figuring out how NOT to make them again.
So, while the PAF has great pilots, its pretty clear that in 1971 it managed to do diddly against the Indians. If one wishes to be charitable, it was conserving its strength, waiting for the final Indian offensive against the West.
OK. Perfectly sound strategy since it knew that it couldn`t take on the IAF now and still have a plane or two left flying during the later offensive. So just admit it. No matter how loudly we try to convince ourselves that the PAF beat the IAF in 1971, it just aint so.
I hate to disappoint you but Chuck Yeager is absolutely wrong here. Just look at the passages you quote from his autobiography! They are so stupid as to make one wonder about his IQ.
``They [the PAF] had about five hundred airplanes, more than half of them Sabres and 104 Starfighters, a few B-57 bombers, and about a hundred Chinese MiG-19s.``
Hmmmm. Lets see, Wing Commander Alam–who is presumably in a position to know–says that the PAF had 150 planes in 1965 (actually I thought they had more like 200 total but we`ll take it as meaning 150 combat planes which seems about right; although the Indians certainly did NOT have 900 combat planes in 1965, maybe 500 tops). By 1971 the PAF have an ASTOUNDING 500 planes!!!! WOW!!!!! Even now we only have about 450 or so max. Where did these 350 extra planes come from? How did we manage to triple the size of the Air Force? Everyone else thinks that the PAF only had about 250 or so planes, max, in 1971. So he has overestimated the strength of the PAF by about 100%. Ooops. Not so good for the Defense Rep who did the planning for the PAF and taught them how to fit Sidewinders to F-6s!!! IF the PAF had 500 planes AND still performed so badly, I`d have to say that the PAF Air Marshalls were worse than the Army`s Generals.
``The Chinese MiG ... was an older airplane in their inventory, and I guess they were just getting rid of them.``
Oops, wrong again. The Chines MiG-19 (i.e., F-6) was not an ``older`` plane in the PAF`s inventory. In fact, we didn`t get the first F-6 (a supersonic plane) until 1966 or 1967 and it was meant as a REPLACEMENT for the F-86 (a subsonic one). The F-6 certainly is a piece of junk by all accounts but the PAF didn`t get rid of it until a couple of years ago. Its pretty clear that Yeager doesn`t know what the heck he is talking about. Now if Yeager doesn`t know that the Sabre is an older, muuuuuuuch older, plane than the F-6, he is not much of an authority on anything. Further errors that Yeager makes (which you haven`t reproduced) is that he refers to the 1971 war as starting in November (OK, maybe we can excuse that part of it since brigade strength actions were being fought in Nov 1971) and for only lasting three days before the Pakistanis surrendered. So either Yeager is completely confused or a complete idiot or making really stupid mistakes about things which aren`t really all that important to him.
Maybe AM Rahim Khan was telling him that we were really winning the war and that we were simply lulling the Indians into a false sense of security or something and Yeager actually bought it. The section of his biography–available on line at www.pakdef.info–that deals with Pakistan is so full of mistakes as to be seriously embarrasing. To cite Yeager as your authoritative source is to simply show poor is the case for the defense.
As far as the Wing Commander Alam article goes, I don`t disagree with it at all. Its common knowledge that IAF pilots ki to F-104 dekh kae hi phat ti thi {if you`ll pardon the vernacular ;-0}. However all this had changed by 1971 when they actually managed to shoot down at least two F-104s (although they claim four). The F-104/Alam article refers to ONLY the 1965 War, not the 1971 one.
BTW, you still haven`t answered why the PAF`s attacks on the Indian Airfields were so poorly planned and executed. Wasn`t this meant to be the PAF`s masterstroke that would knock the IAF out of the war (a la the Israelis and Egypt)? The PAF only committed 30% of its combat aircraft to the attacks. Why so few? Shouldn`t it have been more? If you are going to stake everything on one roll of the die, then gamble big! By all accounts, damage to the IAF was minimal. All the runways were repaired within a day at the most and the Indians claim that not a single plane was destroyed.
I know (knew, haven`t seen him for years) Gen. Shamim Alam fairly well and knew of his family (9 brothers in the armed forces) well before I read the article by his brother. It merely acted as one more piece of evidence for me. You see, unlike the dimwits on Pakdef, I don`t think that Pakistan is helped by yelling as loudly as we can how great we are. Pakistan is better served by critically analyzing the mistakes we made and then figuring out how NOT to make them again.
So, while the PAF has great pilots, its pretty clear that in 1971 it managed to do diddly against the Indians. If one wishes to be charitable, it was conserving its strength, waiting for the final Indian offensive against the West.
OK. Perfectly sound strategy since it knew that it couldn`t take on the IAF now and still have a plane or two left flying during the later offensive. So just admit it. No matter how loudly we try to convince ourselves that the PAF beat the IAF in 1971, it just aint so.
#97 Posted by fawad79 on June 14, 2002 4:42:01 pm
qns for fuzair and romair
1) pakistani women pilots ok but why no women army officers
2) if as romair asserts that there is a level of proffesionalism in the PAF cant this be applied to all armed services?
3) what about the navy is that the orphaned service?
4) does Pakistan have an Rotc type thing alternative for PMA
5) what is ur opinion on the merchant marine
qn for Romair did u know a certain Capt khawar Bakt from Lahore
1) pakistani women pilots ok but why no women army officers
2) if as romair asserts that there is a level of proffesionalism in the PAF cant this be applied to all armed services?
3) what about the navy is that the orphaned service?
4) does Pakistan have an Rotc type thing alternative for PMA
5) what is ur opinion on the merchant marine
qn for Romair did u know a certain Capt khawar Bakt from Lahore
#96 Posted by Romair on June 14, 2002 1:01:14 am
Fuzair #92: This is interesting.
It turns out I know Shuaib Sahib quite well. A very brave man, who served his country well, in war. All his relatives are (were) in the Army and Air Force, with distinguished careers. More on that later.
I don`t agree with his critique however, for reasons presented below (and primarily because I know of him, too well :-))
I am however interested in finding out whether you knew anything about him other than the information he has presented about himself. Is it valid, invalid? Have you checked, since Shuaib Sahib is in no way an internationally or nationally known journalist, or source. Are you just using his article, because you happened to have stumbled upon it, and it agreed with your views?
I can point you to ten other articles, which would present the exact opposite views, from people you do not know anything about, either. Would their articles be valid, or his?
My guess is you had no idea who he is (was) and just stumbled upon something which pointed to what you were trying to prove. Also, I think you are making too many assumptions on how much influence or knowledge a Sqn. Ldr. has (had) in the PAF plans. Rest assured, it is not nearly as much as you are assuming, or Shuaib Sahib is indicating. All Sqn. Ldrs. one meets see to indicate they know everything through the grapevine; none however know. Just like all teenagers say they are ladies men; very few, if any are, at that young an age.
Following is an article pointing in the other direction. The complete article is at http://www.piads.com.pk/users/piads/aftab.html
``Pakistan`s F-104 Starfighters in Combat
By Wing Commander (Retd.) Aftab Alam Khan (PAF)
...Pakistan got the better of the IAF, with odds of 1:6 or 150:900, and the PAF maintained Air Superiority, day and night. The genius and courage of Air Marshal Nur Khan and the F-104/F-86 team had made this possible. Undoubtedly, the F-86 was the workhorse, but the F-104 had a very special task. The PAF pilot/F-104 team had created a situation where the IAF pilots did not have the will to fight the F-104. When the F-104 was `UP`, the Indian Air Force was `Down on the Ground`. This removed a major portion of the threat. The Starfighter and its pilots had contributed immensely to achieve this victory. The pilots by flying and engaging enemy aircraft very aggressively, never losing any opportunity to engage the enemy, by day or by night. Working long hours, and flying under difficult flight conditions.``
The interesting part is not that it points to a direction opposite to what Shuaib Sahib stated. The interesting part is that it is written by his own brother, Aftab Sahib (for those wondering, Sahib is a term used by junior officers when they refer to their instructors or to retired senior officers). So who is right and who is wrong.
Perhaps it would be better to consult a neutral party, who is well-known, and has an international reputation to keep. Following is what Chuck Yeager (the world famous US pilot) writes in his autobiography:
``...When we arrived in Pakistan in 1971, the political situation between the Pakistanis and Indians was really tense over Bangladesh, or East Pakistan.....My job was military advisor to the Pakistani air force.....I met their pilots, who knew me and were really pleased that I was there. They had about five hundred airplanes, more than half of them Sabres and 104 Starfighters, a few B-57 bombers, and about a hundred Chinese MiG-19s. They were really good, aggressive dogfighters and proficient in gunnery and air combat tactics. I was damned impressed. Those guys just lived and breathed flying......
The Chinese MiG was one hundred percent Chinese-built and was made for only one hundred hours of flying before it had to be scrapped - a disposable fighter good for one hundred strikes. In fairness, it was an older airplane in their inventory, and I guess they were just getting rid of them. They delivered spare parts, but it was a tough airplane to work on; the Pakistanis kept it flying for about 130 hours......
The Pakistanis whipped their [Indians`] asses in the sky, but it was the other way around in the ground war. The air war lasted two weeks and the Pakistanis scored a three-to-one kill ratio, knocking out 102 Russian-made Indian jets and losing thirty-four airplanes of their own. I`m certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below. I counted wrecks on Pakistani soil, documented them by serial number, identified the components such as engines, rocket pods, and new equipment on newer planes like the Soviet SU-7 fighter-bomber and the MiG-21 J, their latest supersonic fighter. The Pakistani army would cart off these items for me, and when the war ended, it took two big American Air Force cargo lifters to carry all those parts back to the States for analysis by our intelligence division.`` (Chuck Yeager)
So while I respect Shuaib Sahib, I consider Chuck Yeager a far less emotional source.
As for the bomber squadrons: they received the highest no. of Sitar-e-Jurats in the PAF. Had the highest no. of Shaheeds. And according to S. M. Prasad of India, accounted for 41% of the total IAF planes destroyed by the PAF on the ground. So two squadrons did 41% of the total damage. Not bad. After all, Shuaib Sahib was recommended for an S.J. by these same squadrons.
I think you have dug yourself into a hole, in regard to the sources you are presenting :-). However we can continue this discussion, if you want. Please keep in mind, I spend over a decade in a tiny Air Force, where everyone knows everyone. Its like discussing a small Pind or village with a person who spent ten years there. I know everyone personally, serving and retired.
If you really want to get emotional information, please talk to M. M. Alam. I know him as well. He is a world reknowned ace, and war hero, who is now a maulvi and fought as a mujahid against Soviets in Afghanistan. He was told to retire because of all his regular emotional criticism. I have seen him in his pre-maulvi and maulvi phase.
P.S. Shuaib Sahib is the brother of the ex-Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Shamim Alam Khan.
It turns out I know Shuaib Sahib quite well. A very brave man, who served his country well, in war. All his relatives are (were) in the Army and Air Force, with distinguished careers. More on that later.
I don`t agree with his critique however, for reasons presented below (and primarily because I know of him, too well :-))
I am however interested in finding out whether you knew anything about him other than the information he has presented about himself. Is it valid, invalid? Have you checked, since Shuaib Sahib is in no way an internationally or nationally known journalist, or source. Are you just using his article, because you happened to have stumbled upon it, and it agreed with your views?
I can point you to ten other articles, which would present the exact opposite views, from people you do not know anything about, either. Would their articles be valid, or his?
My guess is you had no idea who he is (was) and just stumbled upon something which pointed to what you were trying to prove. Also, I think you are making too many assumptions on how much influence or knowledge a Sqn. Ldr. has (had) in the PAF plans. Rest assured, it is not nearly as much as you are assuming, or Shuaib Sahib is indicating. All Sqn. Ldrs. one meets see to indicate they know everything through the grapevine; none however know. Just like all teenagers say they are ladies men; very few, if any are, at that young an age.
Following is an article pointing in the other direction. The complete article is at http://www.piads.com.pk/users/piads/aftab.html
``Pakistan`s F-104 Starfighters in Combat
By Wing Commander (Retd.) Aftab Alam Khan (PAF)
...Pakistan got the better of the IAF, with odds of 1:6 or 150:900, and the PAF maintained Air Superiority, day and night. The genius and courage of Air Marshal Nur Khan and the F-104/F-86 team had made this possible. Undoubtedly, the F-86 was the workhorse, but the F-104 had a very special task. The PAF pilot/F-104 team had created a situation where the IAF pilots did not have the will to fight the F-104. When the F-104 was `UP`, the Indian Air Force was `Down on the Ground`. This removed a major portion of the threat. The Starfighter and its pilots had contributed immensely to achieve this victory. The pilots by flying and engaging enemy aircraft very aggressively, never losing any opportunity to engage the enemy, by day or by night. Working long hours, and flying under difficult flight conditions.``
The interesting part is not that it points to a direction opposite to what Shuaib Sahib stated. The interesting part is that it is written by his own brother, Aftab Sahib (for those wondering, Sahib is a term used by junior officers when they refer to their instructors or to retired senior officers). So who is right and who is wrong.
Perhaps it would be better to consult a neutral party, who is well-known, and has an international reputation to keep. Following is what Chuck Yeager (the world famous US pilot) writes in his autobiography:
``...When we arrived in Pakistan in 1971, the political situation between the Pakistanis and Indians was really tense over Bangladesh, or East Pakistan.....My job was military advisor to the Pakistani air force.....I met their pilots, who knew me and were really pleased that I was there. They had about five hundred airplanes, more than half of them Sabres and 104 Starfighters, a few B-57 bombers, and about a hundred Chinese MiG-19s. They were really good, aggressive dogfighters and proficient in gunnery and air combat tactics. I was damned impressed. Those guys just lived and breathed flying......
The Chinese MiG was one hundred percent Chinese-built and was made for only one hundred hours of flying before it had to be scrapped - a disposable fighter good for one hundred strikes. In fairness, it was an older airplane in their inventory, and I guess they were just getting rid of them. They delivered spare parts, but it was a tough airplane to work on; the Pakistanis kept it flying for about 130 hours......
The Pakistanis whipped their [Indians`] asses in the sky, but it was the other way around in the ground war. The air war lasted two weeks and the Pakistanis scored a three-to-one kill ratio, knocking out 102 Russian-made Indian jets and losing thirty-four airplanes of their own. I`m certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below. I counted wrecks on Pakistani soil, documented them by serial number, identified the components such as engines, rocket pods, and new equipment on newer planes like the Soviet SU-7 fighter-bomber and the MiG-21 J, their latest supersonic fighter. The Pakistani army would cart off these items for me, and when the war ended, it took two big American Air Force cargo lifters to carry all those parts back to the States for analysis by our intelligence division.`` (Chuck Yeager)
So while I respect Shuaib Sahib, I consider Chuck Yeager a far less emotional source.
As for the bomber squadrons: they received the highest no. of Sitar-e-Jurats in the PAF. Had the highest no. of Shaheeds. And according to S. M. Prasad of India, accounted for 41% of the total IAF planes destroyed by the PAF on the ground. So two squadrons did 41% of the total damage. Not bad. After all, Shuaib Sahib was recommended for an S.J. by these same squadrons.
I think you have dug yourself into a hole, in regard to the sources you are presenting :-). However we can continue this discussion, if you want. Please keep in mind, I spend over a decade in a tiny Air Force, where everyone knows everyone. Its like discussing a small Pind or village with a person who spent ten years there. I know everyone personally, serving and retired.
If you really want to get emotional information, please talk to M. M. Alam. I know him as well. He is a world reknowned ace, and war hero, who is now a maulvi and fought as a mujahid against Soviets in Afghanistan. He was told to retire because of all his regular emotional criticism. I have seen him in his pre-maulvi and maulvi phase.
P.S. Shuaib Sahib is the brother of the ex-Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Shamim Alam Khan.
#95 Posted by Romair on June 14, 2002 1:01:14 am
Fuzair #86: I will give you the information after researching it some more.
The PAF lost a lot more bombers in 71 than in 65. Infact, they had expected to lose one a day in 65, but it turned out to be quite a bit less. Primarily due to lack of preparation by India. In 71, it was as predicted.
People keep trying to point to this difference as a detoriation in the performance in the PAF. No one seems to consider an improvement in the performance of the IAF, as the factor.
In any air war, a country with larger no. of similar aircraft, will (should) invariably get a much better kill ratio. The fact that the PAF was able to get such a good kill ratio, despite being a smaller to much smaller force in 65, is really unbelievable. It shouldn`t theoretically have happened.
It didn`t happen in 71, because the IAF improved, learnt its lessons from the 65 war, and fought in line with its numerical superiority. Even then, it wasn`t able to completely overpower the PAF in the dogfights that did occur, and never had air superiority over West Pakistan.
In a crude explanation, if one aircraft of a smaller air force (A) engages one of a larger air force (B), it is an even fight. Assuming equal pilot skills, A will win half the fights and B will win the other half.
However, the larger air force (B) can immediately send one more aircraft (unlike ground resources (tank, men etc.), in air combat the resource (aircraft) can reach the point of conflict, immediately). Assuming equal pilot skills again, mathematically speaking, A should win 33.3% and B should win 66.6%. However, it is virtually impossible for one aircraft to be successful against two fighting in a team. So, assuming equal pilot skills, B will (should) actually win 100% of the dogfights, not 66.6% (in ground warfare, one soldier may be able to kill two enemy soldiers if he is on higher ground, is hiding, has better aim etc.. However in air combat, it is next to impossible for one aircraft to go against two).
Hence the fact that a much smaller air force is even able to match kill ratios with a much larger air force is amazing.
As I stated, it was nearly the exact same pilots flying the exact same planes in both wars, for Pakistan. The primary reason, for not having the same amazing performance of 65, in 71, is that India greatly improved its performance in ground and air defence in 71. Also, 65 was an amazing performance by PAF; it was like a lightweight boxer beating up on a heavyweight boxer. Sooner or later the heavyweight would figure out how to fight, also. Which is what happened in 71. The ability of the lightweight boxer was the same, but the heavyweight boxer had greatly improved, and was able to finally utilize his weight advantage. This is what everyone who was in the air war has told me, and this is what thier log books indicate, and this is what the kill ratios indicate.
You can say that in 65, India made a lot of mistakes in ground and air defence. In 71, India did a much better job, and was quite efficient in these areas. Not 100% of the reason, but the primary reason.
The PAF lost a lot more bombers in 71 than in 65. Infact, they had expected to lose one a day in 65, but it turned out to be quite a bit less. Primarily due to lack of preparation by India. In 71, it was as predicted.
People keep trying to point to this difference as a detoriation in the performance in the PAF. No one seems to consider an improvement in the performance of the IAF, as the factor.
In any air war, a country with larger no. of similar aircraft, will (should) invariably get a much better kill ratio. The fact that the PAF was able to get such a good kill ratio, despite being a smaller to much smaller force in 65, is really unbelievable. It shouldn`t theoretically have happened.
It didn`t happen in 71, because the IAF improved, learnt its lessons from the 65 war, and fought in line with its numerical superiority. Even then, it wasn`t able to completely overpower the PAF in the dogfights that did occur, and never had air superiority over West Pakistan.
In a crude explanation, if one aircraft of a smaller air force (A) engages one of a larger air force (B), it is an even fight. Assuming equal pilot skills, A will win half the fights and B will win the other half.
However, the larger air force (B) can immediately send one more aircraft (unlike ground resources (tank, men etc.), in air combat the resource (aircraft) can reach the point of conflict, immediately). Assuming equal pilot skills again, mathematically speaking, A should win 33.3% and B should win 66.6%. However, it is virtually impossible for one aircraft to be successful against two fighting in a team. So, assuming equal pilot skills, B will (should) actually win 100% of the dogfights, not 66.6% (in ground warfare, one soldier may be able to kill two enemy soldiers if he is on higher ground, is hiding, has better aim etc.. However in air combat, it is next to impossible for one aircraft to go against two).
Hence the fact that a much smaller air force is even able to match kill ratios with a much larger air force is amazing.
As I stated, it was nearly the exact same pilots flying the exact same planes in both wars, for Pakistan. The primary reason, for not having the same amazing performance of 65, in 71, is that India greatly improved its performance in ground and air defence in 71. Also, 65 was an amazing performance by PAF; it was like a lightweight boxer beating up on a heavyweight boxer. Sooner or later the heavyweight would figure out how to fight, also. Which is what happened in 71. The ability of the lightweight boxer was the same, but the heavyweight boxer had greatly improved, and was able to finally utilize his weight advantage. This is what everyone who was in the air war has told me, and this is what thier log books indicate, and this is what the kill ratios indicate.
You can say that in 65, India made a lot of mistakes in ground and air defence. In 71, India did a much better job, and was quite efficient in these areas. Not 100% of the reason, but the primary reason.
#94 Posted by Romair on June 14, 2002 1:01:14 am
tahmad #84: ``Thanks for sharing your knowledge of the PAF``
You are most welcome.
``Any knowledge of what this was about?``
It is interesting that you should mention this. One of my close friend`s father wrote a book that I am currently reading. His father was a sqn. cdr. in both wars. Here is the story. The aircraft was a B-57. Let me know if it sounds correct:
``Enroute, we were told that enemy bombers were heading towards Peshawar and that we should stay away from the area and plan to land at Risalpur...The area was observing complete blackout. I was coming to land at Risalpur after about ten years` break and things looked different there....Morever ground level visibility was very poor due to typical Risalpur haze....
The next night a section of B-57s were diverted to Risalpur. Flt Lt Mahmood Butt and his navigator Flt. Lt. Khalid took off from Maripur. While turning on finals to land at night, Flt. Lt. Butt got disoriented due to poor visibility, misjudged his approach and hit the ground - exploding into pieces, killing both himself and the navigator. I knew Khalid`s family. He was from East Pakistan. He and his wife Hasina were a fine couple. After Khalid`s death Hasina married Wg Cdr A G Mahmud, who later on became a minster in the Government of Bangladesh. Flt. Lt. Mehmood Butt hailed from Sialkot - a typical youth of Kashmiri family, very energetic and enthusiastic. God bless their souls. So far it was the third B-57 that was lost due to accident, while only one B-57 had been lost due to enemy action.`` (PAF Bomber Operations 1965 & 1971 Wars).
My aim here is to ensure that when people comment on Pakistanis who risked, and still risk, their lives for their country, there is no heresay or misdirected emotionalism involved. Everything should be factual. 1/4th of my parallel flying course died before reaching the age of 27. One of them was to leave for his marraige, immediately after the mission. He crashed and died on his last training mission, before marraige.
I also know so many friends whose fathers died in the wars. They had no political agendas, no personal hatred, etc. They were just protecting their country (in attack and in defense), doing their jobs, when ordered to do so, against a much much larger and more powerful enemy. They had (have) no say in making the orders. They just do their duty.
Some of my own colleagues in the Army are sent on top of Kargil one day, they fight bravely and die, and are then called back the next day, as if their lives matter less than Nawaz Sharif`s political career. What is even worse is that they then become the butt of ex-patriates` criticism, who rely on these same twenty-somethings to protect their own families in Defence and Clifton, when India piles up its soldiers on the borders. These same ex-patriates would never leave their cushy jobs in USA to go protect their own borders and families, if Indian tanks came rolling in. Yet they are more than happy to indulge in heresay.
The pilots who die in wars are in between there early 20s and mid 30s. Air Forces lose a disproportionately higher percentage of officers than the Army or Navy in peace and in war (specially in peace). Primarily because, only officers fight in the Air Forces. Can you imagine 1/4th of a graduating class of an IT university or medical college voluntarily risking their lives to the point of dying for their country in their 20s (and that too in peacetime; in war time the ratios are much higher).
In such a situation, when I see heresay, I try to make sure it is pointed out. I cannot think of anyone who deserves more respect than a 25 year old newly married man, with a college degree, a lot of intelligence and unlimited potential, who dies for his country (whichever country it maybe) in the prime of his life.
Expatriates, who have never risked their lives for thier country (nor would they ever) need to make sure they are presenting facts, and not fiction. If for no other reason, then to honor the Shaheeds, and in respect of their widows.
You are most welcome.
``Any knowledge of what this was about?``
It is interesting that you should mention this. One of my close friend`s father wrote a book that I am currently reading. His father was a sqn. cdr. in both wars. Here is the story. The aircraft was a B-57. Let me know if it sounds correct:
``Enroute, we were told that enemy bombers were heading towards Peshawar and that we should stay away from the area and plan to land at Risalpur...The area was observing complete blackout. I was coming to land at Risalpur after about ten years` break and things looked different there....Morever ground level visibility was very poor due to typical Risalpur haze....
The next night a section of B-57s were diverted to Risalpur. Flt Lt Mahmood Butt and his navigator Flt. Lt. Khalid took off from Maripur. While turning on finals to land at night, Flt. Lt. Butt got disoriented due to poor visibility, misjudged his approach and hit the ground - exploding into pieces, killing both himself and the navigator. I knew Khalid`s family. He was from East Pakistan. He and his wife Hasina were a fine couple. After Khalid`s death Hasina married Wg Cdr A G Mahmud, who later on became a minster in the Government of Bangladesh. Flt. Lt. Mehmood Butt hailed from Sialkot - a typical youth of Kashmiri family, very energetic and enthusiastic. God bless their souls. So far it was the third B-57 that was lost due to accident, while only one B-57 had been lost due to enemy action.`` (PAF Bomber Operations 1965 & 1971 Wars).
My aim here is to ensure that when people comment on Pakistanis who risked, and still risk, their lives for their country, there is no heresay or misdirected emotionalism involved. Everything should be factual. 1/4th of my parallel flying course died before reaching the age of 27. One of them was to leave for his marraige, immediately after the mission. He crashed and died on his last training mission, before marraige.
I also know so many friends whose fathers died in the wars. They had no political agendas, no personal hatred, etc. They were just protecting their country (in attack and in defense), doing their jobs, when ordered to do so, against a much much larger and more powerful enemy. They had (have) no say in making the orders. They just do their duty.
Some of my own colleagues in the Army are sent on top of Kargil one day, they fight bravely and die, and are then called back the next day, as if their lives matter less than Nawaz Sharif`s political career. What is even worse is that they then become the butt of ex-patriates` criticism, who rely on these same twenty-somethings to protect their own families in Defence and Clifton, when India piles up its soldiers on the borders. These same ex-patriates would never leave their cushy jobs in USA to go protect their own borders and families, if Indian tanks came rolling in. Yet they are more than happy to indulge in heresay.
The pilots who die in wars are in between there early 20s and mid 30s. Air Forces lose a disproportionately higher percentage of officers than the Army or Navy in peace and in war (specially in peace). Primarily because, only officers fight in the Air Forces. Can you imagine 1/4th of a graduating class of an IT university or medical college voluntarily risking their lives to the point of dying for their country in their 20s (and that too in peacetime; in war time the ratios are much higher).
In such a situation, when I see heresay, I try to make sure it is pointed out. I cannot think of anyone who deserves more respect than a 25 year old newly married man, with a college degree, a lot of intelligence and unlimited potential, who dies for his country (whichever country it maybe) in the prime of his life.
Expatriates, who have never risked their lives for thier country (nor would they ever) need to make sure they are presenting facts, and not fiction. If for no other reason, then to honor the Shaheeds, and in respect of their widows.
#93 Posted by fuzair on June 13, 2002 9:26:14 pm
Re: Aleph Null
Thanks for your post. I missed it somehow (not paying enough attention); would have saved me quite some time going through the Defence Journal archives!
Thanks for your post. I missed it somehow (not paying enough attention); would have saved me quite some time going through the Defence Journal archives!
#92 Posted by fuzair on June 13, 2002 9:21:41 pm
Well, he was a navigator on C-130s, transferred to Canberras, flew 18 bombing missions in 1965, was awarded the SJ, was transferred to ground duties (medical down-categorized), volunteered for combat duties in 1971 when Bengali air crews were interned (crew shortage) and flew some more bombing runs.
Seems he saw a fair bit of combat in both 65 and 71. Presumably he knows of what he speaks, at least as far as the PAF`s combat performance goes. Notice also that he refers quite often to the mishandling of the PAF`s two bomber squadrons--of which he presumably knows something about.
Air displays and ``watch and ward`` presumably refers to the PAF`s prediliction for aerobatics and shooting up recalcitrant Pathans in 48-49 rather than ground-attack exercises with the Army.
He makes it pretty clear that most of his time in Plans was spent maraoing makhis UNTIL the Rann of Kutch crisis. He never said that HE was in charge of revising the operational plans for the PAF; its pretty clear from the article that he was one of many officers, each handling his own little section. My guess is, given the size of the PAF then, that the Director (Plans) was a Group Captain and so Sqd Ldrs and a few Wing Commanders would have done almost all the real work. I don`t know about the PAF but in the Army, every job at GHQ has been jumped up at least one level--e.g., every Director (i.e, Brig rank, occasionally a Colonel since Brigs were then very high ranking officers not a dime a dozen as they are now!) is now a Director General (Major General). If he was an intelligent and inquiring officer--which I have no reason to assume he wasn`t--he would have discussed with the dozen plus other fellow officers charged with planning whatever it was that they were planning just what exactly it was that they were doing. Remember, talking shop is what every officer does. A long time ago, I spent quite some time with a bunch of junior officers (OC FIU, G3 Ops, G3 Intelligence, G3 equivalent for Artillery at Div HQ, whatever that is, GOC`s ADC, etc) in FCNA Headquarters in Gilgit and believe me, these junior officers knew what FCNA was doing and what was going on. A Captain in 8 NLI freezing his ass off on Conway Saddle wouldn`t know what time of day it was but if the G3 Ops doesn`t know what FCNA has planned if the Indians attack Skardu, then FCNA is done for.
Remember, as far as the ``Let the Navy...`` goes, he says that upon
``...entering the crew-room, I saw Gp.Capt. Rashid Rehman and Captain Bhombul the Director Naval Operations. ... The OC Wing joined us... [and after planning the attack on the Indian ships--presumably as a navigator on Canberras, he would have been integral to plotting an intercept, no?] ... we moved to the base ops-room and briefed the Base Commander recommending that we attack.... The Base Commander spoke to the Air Chief [presumably to authorize the mission] who said `LET THE NAVY FIGHT ITS OWN BATTLES!```
I suppose the stunned Base Commander repeated the CinC (Air)`s words verbatim to the assembled officers. What`s so unbelievable about this scenario? Why wouldn` Alam, as a navigator, be involved in working out the interception requirements of a mission his aircraft is going to fly? Why wouldn`t the Base Commander call from the Ops Room? Its not as if he needed to keep the details of the mission a secret from his officers until they actually launched the strike!
I certaily agree with the emotionalism aspect of your critique. The article needs a REALLY good editor to clean it up, make it less confusing and clarify sources but its still valuable nonetheless.
BTW, neither he nor you have explained why the planning of the initial strikes was so abysmal. Couldn`t the PAF figure out how to launch a preemptive strike that would be successul?
Why didn`t the PAF sortie out to attack the Indian Navy? Wasn`t defending Pakistan`s sole sea port a priority item? Or were they just incompetent?
Seems he saw a fair bit of combat in both 65 and 71. Presumably he knows of what he speaks, at least as far as the PAF`s combat performance goes. Notice also that he refers quite often to the mishandling of the PAF`s two bomber squadrons--of which he presumably knows something about.
Air displays and ``watch and ward`` presumably refers to the PAF`s prediliction for aerobatics and shooting up recalcitrant Pathans in 48-49 rather than ground-attack exercises with the Army.
He makes it pretty clear that most of his time in Plans was spent maraoing makhis UNTIL the Rann of Kutch crisis. He never said that HE was in charge of revising the operational plans for the PAF; its pretty clear from the article that he was one of many officers, each handling his own little section. My guess is, given the size of the PAF then, that the Director (Plans) was a Group Captain and so Sqd Ldrs and a few Wing Commanders would have done almost all the real work. I don`t know about the PAF but in the Army, every job at GHQ has been jumped up at least one level--e.g., every Director (i.e, Brig rank, occasionally a Colonel since Brigs were then very high ranking officers not a dime a dozen as they are now!) is now a Director General (Major General). If he was an intelligent and inquiring officer--which I have no reason to assume he wasn`t--he would have discussed with the dozen plus other fellow officers charged with planning whatever it was that they were planning just what exactly it was that they were doing. Remember, talking shop is what every officer does. A long time ago, I spent quite some time with a bunch of junior officers (OC FIU, G3 Ops, G3 Intelligence, G3 equivalent for Artillery at Div HQ, whatever that is, GOC`s ADC, etc) in FCNA Headquarters in Gilgit and believe me, these junior officers knew what FCNA was doing and what was going on. A Captain in 8 NLI freezing his ass off on Conway Saddle wouldn`t know what time of day it was but if the G3 Ops doesn`t know what FCNA has planned if the Indians attack Skardu, then FCNA is done for.
Remember, as far as the ``Let the Navy...`` goes, he says that upon
``...entering the crew-room, I saw Gp.Capt. Rashid Rehman and Captain Bhombul the Director Naval Operations. ... The OC Wing joined us... [and after planning the attack on the Indian ships--presumably as a navigator on Canberras, he would have been integral to plotting an intercept, no?] ... we moved to the base ops-room and briefed the Base Commander recommending that we attack.... The Base Commander spoke to the Air Chief [presumably to authorize the mission] who said `LET THE NAVY FIGHT ITS OWN BATTLES!```
I suppose the stunned Base Commander repeated the CinC (Air)`s words verbatim to the assembled officers. What`s so unbelievable about this scenario? Why wouldn` Alam, as a navigator, be involved in working out the interception requirements of a mission his aircraft is going to fly? Why wouldn`t the Base Commander call from the Ops Room? Its not as if he needed to keep the details of the mission a secret from his officers until they actually launched the strike!
I certaily agree with the emotionalism aspect of your critique. The article needs a REALLY good editor to clean it up, make it less confusing and clarify sources but its still valuable nonetheless.
BTW, neither he nor you have explained why the planning of the initial strikes was so abysmal. Couldn`t the PAF figure out how to launch a preemptive strike that would be successul?
Why didn`t the PAF sortie out to attack the Indian Navy? Wasn`t defending Pakistan`s sole sea port a priority item? Or were they just incompetent?
#91 Posted by Romair on June 13, 2002 7:54:14 pm
Fuzair: Who exactly is Sqn. Ldr. Shuaib Alam Khan. Is he a fighter pilot, a bomber pilot, a staff person, a disgruntled soul who did not get promoted, a patriot, a distinguished writer on the PAF, a poet?
Do you know?
How in the world can a Sqn. Ldr. be privy to all the things being discussed by the Chiefs of Staffs. I do not know of any Major or Sqn. Ldr. who has access to that kind of info. They are far too junior.
I can show you ten articles which state the opposite, and by very senior officers, and by well-established critics internationally.
One needs to validate the source first. Rather then, just following juicy comments.
I, however, do know who Shuaib Alam is. I will show you some articles by his brother, as well (which point in the opposite direction). I think I have figured it out who he is. I would first like to however find out whether you have done any research on the source you are quoting, before quoting it. So please let me know, if you have or not.
He makes some gossipy comments, as well, without validation:
``The PAF was also a circus outfit and it performed many air displays, always very good ones. Should we not have flown air combat, strike and ground support missions in Kashmir instead of `watch and ward and air displays?``
What exactly does this mean?
``Little or no training was conducted with the Army and Navy.``
What does this mean. He doesn`t provide any details. How could a Sqn. Ldr. know what training was going on throughout the PAF. Most Sqn. Ldrs. barely know what is going on outside their squadrons. Is he even a pilot?
``I was posted to Air HQ Plans Directorate in the summer of 1964.``
Sqn. Ldrs. and Majors in Plans directorate basically open doors and fill out forms. They are like interns at that level. They are not invited to combat decision making meetings. How in the world does this guy know all of this?
There are far too many inconsistencies and lack of explanations in the article, alongwith emotionalism.
For starters, no Sqn. Ldr. can know all this. Even if we assume he does, I would like to find out whether you have done any credibility checks on him, or not. Or have you just found one article, written by anyone, that met your point, and quoted it?
I will then give you the details myself, on who he is.
Do you know?
How in the world can a Sqn. Ldr. be privy to all the things being discussed by the Chiefs of Staffs. I do not know of any Major or Sqn. Ldr. who has access to that kind of info. They are far too junior.
I can show you ten articles which state the opposite, and by very senior officers, and by well-established critics internationally.
One needs to validate the source first. Rather then, just following juicy comments.
I, however, do know who Shuaib Alam is. I will show you some articles by his brother, as well (which point in the opposite direction). I think I have figured it out who he is. I would first like to however find out whether you have done any research on the source you are quoting, before quoting it. So please let me know, if you have or not.
He makes some gossipy comments, as well, without validation:
``The PAF was also a circus outfit and it performed many air displays, always very good ones. Should we not have flown air combat, strike and ground support missions in Kashmir instead of `watch and ward and air displays?``
What exactly does this mean?
``Little or no training was conducted with the Army and Navy.``
What does this mean. He doesn`t provide any details. How could a Sqn. Ldr. know what training was going on throughout the PAF. Most Sqn. Ldrs. barely know what is going on outside their squadrons. Is he even a pilot?
``I was posted to Air HQ Plans Directorate in the summer of 1964.``
Sqn. Ldrs. and Majors in Plans directorate basically open doors and fill out forms. They are like interns at that level. They are not invited to combat decision making meetings. How in the world does this guy know all of this?
There are far too many inconsistencies and lack of explanations in the article, alongwith emotionalism.
For starters, no Sqn. Ldr. can know all this. Even if we assume he does, I would like to find out whether you have done any credibility checks on him, or not. Or have you just found one article, written by anyone, that met your point, and quoted it?
I will then give you the details myself, on who he is.
#90 Posted by hobbyty on June 13, 2002 7:54:14 pm
Fawad
Affirmative action????? You acknowledge that they are not really good enough? They really can`t make it on their own?? They are not the problem, it`s the rest of us, who are so comfortable with our prejudices - actually for the most part they are not even prejudices - they more in line with plain ignorance.
No Sir! Just an opinion, but based on some study, what we in Pakistan can do with more of, is interaction - positive interaction - inter-faith groups, social service groups, literary groups and publicity, and most especially a universal national service, to begin, for all, at the age of 18 or 19. After basic and specialized training, these national service trainees would be sent to every corner, every mountain, range, village, jungle, desert - as teachers, as park rangers, as assitants in a rural constabulary, as para-medics. What ends up happening is that first the youthful citizens get to be sober, change from boys and girls to men and women, they actually get to know the lay of their country and countrymen and within the overall discipline and structure of national service, youthful citizens form every nook and corner get to know and have to cooperate with each other. We produce a surplus of workers and national service delays their entry into the job market and training offered in National service creates a skilled worker and an educable and serious student. I have seen this work and I must tell you that as an engine of social interaction in a directed national cause, it creates social mobility. A huge shared national experience, for the national service persons and their parents and family; making better citizens, enhancing national unity, providing a force multiplier, so to speak, to the nation as a whole.
#89 Posted by fuzair on June 13, 2002 5:15:38 pm
Romair:
Here is the source for ``Let the Navy fight its own battles,`` alleged response of CinC PAF to Base Commander Masroor upon relaying to him the PN`s request for assistance.
http://www.defencejournal.com/may98/fightergap1.htm
You should read the article. Very interesting and quite critical of the PAF.
Regards.
Here is the source for ``Let the Navy fight its own battles,`` alleged response of CinC PAF to Base Commander Masroor upon relaying to him the PN`s request for assistance.
http://www.defencejournal.com/may98/fightergap1.htm
You should read the article. Very interesting and quite critical of the PAF.
Regards.
#88 Posted by fawad79 on June 13, 2002 5:15:35 pm
i agree but i think there should be at least some form of affirmative action..............ill tell you something
i have 2 friends both pakistanis born in pak and raised there ............one didnt know the other was xian .........one day the muslim guy asks that other guy,``yaar ye jo ring aaapna payna hai chooray paayn thay hai`` the xian dude staired at him and said,:``uuuuuuuuuuh im xian `` there was an awkard silence and the muslim apologized profusely ................... stereotypes should be eliminated and often sterotypes are formed because of a basis in truth.........promoting a few xians regardless of their ability they cant be totally incompetant isnt gonna hurt pakistan but it will go a long way to make them and the world feel better
also another qn i wanna ask you i am aware of a parsi girl born in karachi who only speaks gujarati and yet refers to herself as persian and not pakistani are other parsis in pakistan so anti pakistani????????????????
i have 2 friends both pakistanis born in pak and raised there ............one didnt know the other was xian .........one day the muslim guy asks that other guy,``yaar ye jo ring aaapna payna hai chooray paayn thay hai`` the xian dude staired at him and said,:``uuuuuuuuuuh im xian `` there was an awkard silence and the muslim apologized profusely ................... stereotypes should be eliminated and often sterotypes are formed because of a basis in truth.........promoting a few xians regardless of their ability they cant be totally incompetant isnt gonna hurt pakistan but it will go a long way to make them and the world feel better
also another qn i wanna ask you i am aware of a parsi girl born in karachi who only speaks gujarati and yet refers to herself as persian and not pakistani are other parsis in pakistan so anti pakistani????????????????
#87 Posted by AlephNull on June 13, 2002 5:15:35 pm
Fuzair #83
Another major failure of the PAF in 1971 (or in PA-PAF coordination, depending on your POV) was neglecting to provide air cover to the the Army`s ambitious plan to capture Jaisalmer and Ramgarh. Supposedly the PAF chief Air Marshal Rahim gave an assurance in Novemeber that the required air support would be provided, but the army was informed on December 2nd 1971, on the eve of the operation, that air support would not be available as Jacobabad airfield had not been activated. PAF sources of course have a different story ... The upshot was that half-a-dozen IAF Hunters from Jaisalmer shot up the Pakistani forces at Loganewala in repeated sorties from dawn to dusk on December 5th 1971 knocking out a score or more of Pakistani tanks. That more or less put paid to the operation. An account from the Pakistan Army`s perspective can be found in the Defence Journal interview with Brigadier (Retd) Zaheer Alam Khan, below:
http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/april/zakhan.htm
The PN ship that the PAF shot up in 1971 was PNS Zulfiqar. If the link I`m going to provide is to be believed, the Indian naval task force headed for Karachi was actually sighted by a PIA Fokker steaming south-east. It was in that context that the remark ``LET THE NAVY FIGHT ITS OWN BATTLES!` was supposedly made by Air Marshal Rahim. The rest is history ... the IN convoy doubled back towards Karachi, released their Osa-class missile boats, set the Karachi oil terminal alight, sank PNS Khaibar and crippled PNS Shahjahan, etc. The strafing of PNS Zulfiqar occurred in the state of heightened alertness following the first Karachi attack.
The only Pakistani attempt to critically review the PAFs peformance in 1965 and 1971that I`ve seen occurs in an article by Sqn Ldr (Retd) Shoaib Alam Khan (who, I think, is a younger brother of Brigadier Z A Khan whose interview is referenced above), in an article somewhat misleadingly entitled ``The Fighter Gap``.
http://www.defencejournal.com/may98/fightergap1.htm
``Has the PAF performed well? There has been no critical appraisal. The PAF like the other services must have made mistakes or even blunders but these have not been debated. Truth is stranger than fiction. The PAF except for a very short period in `65, performed well below the required. It is a relatively small force, the support that it can provide to the Army and Navy must be its main role. Has the PAF provided such assistance? Why not? Because the PAFs role remains a debate. It should assist the Army and the Navy and not fight its own war. The three services must fight the same war and not their own separate battles. To enforce this should the Air Force be placed under command of the Army and Navy?``
Etc. The article provides a breakdown of the PAFs operational statistics in 1965 and 1971 in terms of sorties for air defence. strike, reconnaissance. These seem to indicate that the PAF spent most of its effort simply protecting itself, comparatively little in furthering war aims. The thrust of the article seems to be that the PAF - allegedly a support arm - ends up going off and doing its own thing and thereby fails to deliver what is required.
Re the 1971 war - it is significant that the IAF`s greatest losses were in attack aircraft - Sukhoi Su-7s, (a dedicated ground attack type), Hunters (which were used exclusively in the ground attack role in 1971), a few Mysteres. It also appears that, even in the Western theater, the overwhelming majority of these were lost to ground fire rather than PAF air defence sorties. The IAF flew about 1500 Su-7 sorties through the war for the loss of 19 Sukhois. The IAF lost very few Mig-21s and Gnats (the primary IAF fighters in 1971), almost none in air combat with the PAF. That is, if the BR statistics are to be believed.
Re. flight safety and aircraft attrition - the IAFs annual attrition rates during the 1990s have been in the vicinity of 1 per 10,000 flying hours. The PAFs appear to have been somewhat higher - an average of 1.37 per 10,000 hours in the 1990s. To do a fair study one would really have to isolate the different types and do a type-by-type comparison. I get the clear impression that PAF crashes do not receive the extensive and unsympathetic media coverage that IAF crashes do, except when PAF aircraft crash into heavily populated areas.
Another major failure of the PAF in 1971 (or in PA-PAF coordination, depending on your POV) was neglecting to provide air cover to the the Army`s ambitious plan to capture Jaisalmer and Ramgarh. Supposedly the PAF chief Air Marshal Rahim gave an assurance in Novemeber that the required air support would be provided, but the army was informed on December 2nd 1971, on the eve of the operation, that air support would not be available as Jacobabad airfield had not been activated. PAF sources of course have a different story ... The upshot was that half-a-dozen IAF Hunters from Jaisalmer shot up the Pakistani forces at Loganewala in repeated sorties from dawn to dusk on December 5th 1971 knocking out a score or more of Pakistani tanks. That more or less put paid to the operation. An account from the Pakistan Army`s perspective can be found in the Defence Journal interview with Brigadier (Retd) Zaheer Alam Khan, below:
http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/april/zakhan.htm
The PN ship that the PAF shot up in 1971 was PNS Zulfiqar. If the link I`m going to provide is to be believed, the Indian naval task force headed for Karachi was actually sighted by a PIA Fokker steaming south-east. It was in that context that the remark ``LET THE NAVY FIGHT ITS OWN BATTLES!` was supposedly made by Air Marshal Rahim. The rest is history ... the IN convoy doubled back towards Karachi, released their Osa-class missile boats, set the Karachi oil terminal alight, sank PNS Khaibar and crippled PNS Shahjahan, etc. The strafing of PNS Zulfiqar occurred in the state of heightened alertness following the first Karachi attack.
The only Pakistani attempt to critically review the PAFs peformance in 1965 and 1971that I`ve seen occurs in an article by Sqn Ldr (Retd) Shoaib Alam Khan (who, I think, is a younger brother of Brigadier Z A Khan whose interview is referenced above), in an article somewhat misleadingly entitled ``The Fighter Gap``.
http://www.defencejournal.com/may98/fightergap1.htm
``Has the PAF performed well? There has been no critical appraisal. The PAF like the other services must have made mistakes or even blunders but these have not been debated. Truth is stranger than fiction. The PAF except for a very short period in `65, performed well below the required. It is a relatively small force, the support that it can provide to the Army and Navy must be its main role. Has the PAF provided such assistance? Why not? Because the PAFs role remains a debate. It should assist the Army and the Navy and not fight its own war. The three services must fight the same war and not their own separate battles. To enforce this should the Air Force be placed under command of the Army and Navy?``
Etc. The article provides a breakdown of the PAFs operational statistics in 1965 and 1971 in terms of sorties for air defence. strike, reconnaissance. These seem to indicate that the PAF spent most of its effort simply protecting itself, comparatively little in furthering war aims. The thrust of the article seems to be that the PAF - allegedly a support arm - ends up going off and doing its own thing and thereby fails to deliver what is required.
Re the 1971 war - it is significant that the IAF`s greatest losses were in attack aircraft - Sukhoi Su-7s, (a dedicated ground attack type), Hunters (which were used exclusively in the ground attack role in 1971), a few Mysteres. It also appears that, even in the Western theater, the overwhelming majority of these were lost to ground fire rather than PAF air defence sorties. The IAF flew about 1500 Su-7 sorties through the war for the loss of 19 Sukhois. The IAF lost very few Mig-21s and Gnats (the primary IAF fighters in 1971), almost none in air combat with the PAF. That is, if the BR statistics are to be believed.
Re. flight safety and aircraft attrition - the IAFs annual attrition rates during the 1990s have been in the vicinity of 1 per 10,000 flying hours. The PAFs appear to have been somewhat higher - an average of 1.37 per 10,000 hours in the 1990s. To do a fair study one would really have to isolate the different types and do a type-by-type comparison. I get the clear impression that PAF crashes do not receive the extensive and unsympathetic media coverage that IAF crashes do, except when PAF aircraft crash into heavily populated areas.
#86 Posted by fuzair on June 13, 2002 4:30:00 pm
Romair
I went through the aircraft losses in Bharat Rakshak (both for the IAF and PAF; the claims by both sides and the acknowledged losses by both sides) and I think there was one Canberra bomber (both sides basically flew the same model bombers; slightly different engines I think) lost as the result of pilot error/crash landing. The rest were either lost as the result of AAC or AA fire.
Were you referring to training losses when you said that the major cause of bomber losses was attempting to land? I recall reading that, in WWII, inexperienced crews trying to takeoff with a full bomb load had a tendency to crash the plane. Was this what you meant?
Regards.
I went through the aircraft losses in Bharat Rakshak (both for the IAF and PAF; the claims by both sides and the acknowledged losses by both sides) and I think there was one Canberra bomber (both sides basically flew the same model bombers; slightly different engines I think) lost as the result of pilot error/crash landing. The rest were either lost as the result of AAC or AA fire.
Were you referring to training losses when you said that the major cause of bomber losses was attempting to land? I recall reading that, in WWII, inexperienced crews trying to takeoff with a full bomb load had a tendency to crash the plane. Was this what you meant?
Regards.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- muqaddam: Omar Abdulla is just... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- banneditem: Oye Ehtisham, meet us... Losing the Battle, Losing
- pinku: Indian society never persecuted... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- masadi: banneditem writes "Ras, In my... Three Cups of Tea
- masadi: He says a few... Three Cups of Tea
- masadi: BTW if by some... Three Cups of Tea
- masadi: So the CIA sends... Three Cups of Tea
- pinku: Good job by some... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
