Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121314151617181920 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 295

Thread: What if Nixon Succeeded

  1. #166
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    *** Grinning like a cat ***

    Thank you for reminding me of that EUREKA moment. Something so obvious ... that until two thinkers started looking at all the facts ... and the traditional explanations didn't fit ... and then ... BAM!!!! That was fun ... and then, we had to convince others of what we saw. Unconventional thinking ... and that could not happen without two thinkers challenging each other. I don't think we could have came up with that without you debating and challenging me at every point.

    The better question is what would happened if Pakistan had better Generals in East Pakistan. No one wanted that command, at least no one of worth.
    Sir,

    Could certainly be true. However, the logistics that could sustain Pakistan's war efforts in the East would eventually crumble even if the command was with a better General.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  2. #167
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    But the reason wasn't Indian or Soviet strength but Nixon's desire to get a date with China.



    Or the US played an incredibly cynical game and won the big prize in her eyes for the least amount of cost- China. India, Bangladesh and the US all got the big prizes they wanted and Pakistan got told thanks for playing...

    Delta,

    Sir,



    Sir, this is something I've tried to explain in the past and have apparently failed so I will try again. In a global nuclear war situation with the Soviets the US isn't the words most powerful democracy, she isn't the leader of the free world, SHE IS DEAD. She is burned to a cinder and all her promise, hope, dreams as well as her ills and evils dead with her. Her only remaining action is to take all those who wished her ill in what ever capacity with her. India falls into that category twice, first as a defacto ally of the Soviets. Secondly, she had nukes and was not a US ally and an enemy of US allies.

    That is why I call it a deadman's party.
    Jason,

    You could be very well correct, but then it appears to be a cultural difference of perception. India, or atleast the political leadership of India, till date has a anti-colonial hangover. Even though US was viewed through the Pakistani prism as an anti-India power, it was never considered as a Colonial power, rather a democracy catring to its own geo-political ends. I doubt, the leadership viewed your line of logic of a global-thermonuclear spill, gulping in the bulk of the nations, just because they were perceived to be "Not standing in the American Camp". Another slight correction, India as on 1971, was not a Nuclear Power.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  3. #168
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    Deltacamelately, the dismantling of the PA back in west pakistan was in fact on the cards.

    The russians advised indira against launching the offensive on PA.
    That's utter bullcrap. At max this was false flag by a mole in the Indian side that was suppossedly singing to the CIA.

    There is ZERO credible evidence to suggest that the Indian Armed Forces had any verdict for dismantling of the Pakistani Military or even the PA.
    There is nothing to suggest from the mobilization pattern, allocation of resources to actual deployment that could predict such grand war objectives.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  4. #169
    Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    727
    Yes it was that report. We don't know if the source was true but it definitely compelled the americans to send a letter to the soviets revealing the kennedy commitment treaty to the soviets, which I've posted earlier.

    Central Intelligence Agency Intelligence Information Cable

    Washington, December 7, 1971.

    SUBJECT: Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Briefing [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] on the IndoPakistani War

    SOURCE: [5 lines of source text not declassified]

    6. Mrs. Gandhi concluded her briefing by reiterating India's war objectives:

    A. The quick liberation of Bangladesh,

    B. The incorporation into India of the southern part of Azad Kashmir for strategic rather than territorial reasons, (because India has no desire to occupy any West Pakistan territory); and, finally,

    C. To destroy Pakistani military striking power so that it never attempts to challenge India in the future.
    Last edited by anil; 26 Aug 13, at 08:55.

  5. #170
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    Yes it was that report. We don't know if the source was true but it definitely compelled the americans to send a letter to the soviets revealing the kennedy commitment treaty to the soviets, which I've posted earlier.
    Anil,

    That was a false flag. Nothing to corroborate that dismantling the PA or the Pakistani Military was even considered. The US indeed must have cabled their commitments to the Soviets. The Soviets by all probablities must have been briefed up before hand, about the extent of our war ambitions. The IA on its part was plain satisfied to have 2 fronts to contend with instead of 3.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  6. #171
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    Sir,

    Could certainly be true. However, the logistics that could sustain Pakistan's war efforts in the East would eventually crumble even if the command was with a better General.
    The Pakistani Army simply could not win a war of attrition. However, they could win big. What I'm thinking of is to lure the InA into a trap, surround it, and force it to surrender. Then, they have hostages to negotiate an end to the war.

  7. #172
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The Pakistani Army simply could not win a war of attrition. However, they could win big. What I'm thinking of is to lure the InA into a trap, surround it, and force it to surrender. Then, they have hostages to negotiate an end to the war.
    Sir,

    There was no way in hell, the PA could trap and make the IA surrender in East Pakistan. Let's look at what both the sides fielded in the battle-field.
    The majority of the Tanks fielded by the PA were older models, especially the M24s and PT-76s. The PA fielded four infantry divisions, totalling about 40 battalions of infantry, with two light armoured units in support. Look at the overwhelming odds - The 9th Infantry Division was facing the Indian II Corps. The 16th Infantry was deployed between the Ganges and Jamuna Rivers, opposite XXXIII Corps. The 36th PA Infantry Division was opposite IV Corps and the 14th Infantry Division in the Northern part, opposite to the 101 Communication Zone. These PA units were supported by a small number of M-24 Chafee, and even few PT-76 tanks as I've mentioned above.

    It should be mentioned here, that this Pak force had to hold an area with a population of about 70 million and a border of nearly 2250km long. The PA’s task was therefore utterly impossible, had it not been for the fact that with so many rivers dissecting EP, the IA had to make all their efforts along narrow and restricted fronts. Strongly defended positions, held in depth, could be used to attack Indian advances. The PA was therefore deployed forward in order to hold the IA at the border, the intention being to strengthen the Pakistani diplomatic position, waiting it out for the US/UK/China to force a cease fire. This was not to be.

    Practically speaking, in 1971, India had the capability to wage atleast a two-month war on two fronts, possibly three, if at all the Chinese could muster the resolve to open the southern theatre. In comparison to the PA, the IA deployed about one Armoured, 13 Infantry, and ten Mountain Divisions, 2 Armoured and a variety of other Independent Brigades. Overall, the IA deployed about 250000 men the for invasion.

    In contrast to the PA's plan of fighting from heavily defended and fortified position, the the IA's plan for invasion, envisaged attacks from all directions to break EP into fragments, by-passing fortifications and then drive directly Dacca, as fast as possible. The IA simply concentrated on eliminating, surrounding and/or by-passing salients and strongpoints held by the PA. It ensured that the enemy formations could not withdraw to Dacca. At no point of time did the IA gave the PA any incentive to channel it into killing zones and entrap it, let alone surrender en-mass. The PA's fall was inevitable and I have still not brought in the IAF and IN's exploits to the bigger picture.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  8. #173
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Major,

    As I stated, if Pakistan had better Generals. I can see one plan right off the bat that could give East Pakistan a tactical victory but not a strategic one.

    Operation MARS in which Model and Kluge ignored the penetrations and kept the strong points strong. This in turn had the effect of cutting off the LOCs to the penetrating units.

    But then, this required Generals on the level of Model and Kluge. I'm not one of them.

  9. #174
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Pakistan had officers of that caliber?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  10. #175
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Nope. That's why they lost so big.

  11. #176
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Nope,they hadn't

    Colonel,Sir,they still needed soldiers&officers of the caliber 9th Army had in 1942.Otherwise,they'll lose heart when isolated.

    Major,Sir,numbers alone mean nothing.The Syrians and the Israelis proved it in 1973,if the Axis in the East wasn't enough proof .
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  12. #177
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    Jason,

    You could be very well correct, but then it appears to be a cultural difference of perception. India, or atleast the political leadership of India, till date has a anti-colonial hangover. Even though US was viewed through the Pakistani prism as an anti-India power, it was never considered as a Colonial power, rather a democracy catring to its own geo-political ends. I doubt, the leadership viewed your line of logic of a global-thermonuclear spill, gulping in the bulk of the nations, just because they were perceived to be "Not standing in the American Camp".

    We toppled governments in Africa and the Middle East, bombed the snot out of multiple Asian countries, tens of thousands of nukes, had until just a few months previous a robust bio and CW program, would betray Taiwan in short order..... Ya make no mistake America is a cynical and more capable of a "fuck everyone then, see ya'll at God's place" move than the Soviet's ever were.

    Another slight correction, India as on 1971, was not a Nuclear Power.
    True, post 74 she is in the club though.

  13. #178
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Major,

    As I stated, if Pakistan had better Generals. I can see one plan right off the bat that could give East Pakistan a tactical victory but not a strategic one.

    Operation MARS in which Model and Kluge ignored the penetrations and kept the strong points strong. This in turn had the effect of cutting off the LOCs to the penetrating units.

    But then, this required Generals on the level of Model and Kluge. I'm not one of them.
    Interesting. This made me go and read up more on Op. Mars. While the situations were similar, the PA's main problem I feel was Dhaka. They couldn't let the IA take it. That's what eventually ended the war anyway. The IA's casualties would have been much higher if they had tried to take the other strong points.

    Model and Kluge had nothing like that to worry about. They also had nearly equal numbers of tanks as the Soviets. The PA had other problems too. East Pakistan had been blockaded by the IN and there were no supplies coming in. And the IAF had achieved complete air superiority within a few days. They could bomb Dhaka whenever they wanted with nothing more than AAA batteries opposing them.

    The PA was understrength in the East by design. It was part of their "Defense of the east lies in the west" concept. They never planned on doing anything more than a holding and delaying action in the east while their western units which had significantly more mobile assets and firepower went on the offensive. Their best chance of a (big) tactical victory was at Longewala which they squandered.

  14. #179
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    The point I was trying to make is to have better Generals instead of the crap the Pakistanis have. Their position was immediately unattainable because they didn't do the work needed. The axis of attack were all well known and though strong points were erected, fall back points were not.

    I can do without equal number of tanks but I do want a superiority of artillery. I really don't care about the InAF. They didn't have B52s nor were they numerous enough to collapse the LOCs. AAA kept them high enough to deny them any accuracy at all.

    But I understand it was a very unpopular command and those who took it were on the dead end of their career. It was their only chance to shine to get another promotion ... which they didn't deserve.

  15. #180
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Major,Sir,numbers alone mean nothing.The Syrians and the Israelis proved it in 1973,if the Axis in the East wasn't enough proof .
    Mihais,

    Its just not about numbers, but rather the fromations and their deployment that's an easy give away as to what was inveitable and coming. Add in the topography to the mix.

    Attachment 33692
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Only Nixon can go to China
    By gunnut in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 20 Sep 10,, 20:54
  2. Richard Nixon Good or Bad President?
    By Freeloader in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 16 Sep 09,, 15:56
  3. Troopergate : When Nixon met Sarah
    By Traps in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Oct 08,, 07:36
  4. Great Rulers Succeeded by Nincompoops
    By Amled in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07 Jun 06,, 01:48
  5. Nixon's approach to cold war
    By Hindle in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15 May 06,, 20:57

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •