Talk:Battle of Chawinda

Territorial changes

The territorial changes section says that

India captures around 460 km (180 sq mi) of Pakistani territory

While the source cited to it doesn't say that it was captured during the Battle of Chawinda, rather it was captured in the Sialkot region. So it should be removed as the Indian advance was halted at Chawinda they didn't gain any territory in this battle. LiamKhan469 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a fair observation of the actual battle. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157:Then please remove it.LiamKhan469 (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Request was made by a user banned for sockpuppetry bop34 • talk • contribs 12:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should the result be changed to Indian defeat or Pakistani victory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In light of the sources mentioned below, should the result be changed from "inconclusive" to Indian defeat or Pakistani victory? Thanks --101.53.225.41 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

Following are some independent sources that state that this battle result was an Indian defeat or a Pakistani victory:

Independent sources that states that this battle was a Indian defeat or a Pakistani victory

#Arming without Aiming: India's Military Modernization India did not press the advantage and soon after suffered its own debacle in the Battle of Chawinda. When the Soviets offered mediation, New Delhi accepted, and India’s strategic condition remained unchanged Zaloga, Steven J. (1980), The M47 & M48 Patton Tanks, London: Osprey Publishing, ISBN 0-85045-466-2 both [India and Pakistan] proved adept with smaller forces in a defensive role such as the 2nd Armd. Bde. at Asal Uttar and the 25th Cavalry at Chawinda, where they defeated their better equipped but clumsier foes M48 Patton vs Centurion: Indo-Pakistani War 1965 Roughly two Pakistani infantry companies held the area near each objective, but as these were reinforced, applying Indian armour was considered unwise, and an opportunity was lost. Even so, although Pakistan forces had halted the Indian offensive in the Sialkot region, they had shot their bolt and were exhausted. Pakistani armour had been battered, and stocks of artillery ammunition were nearly expended. Commanding Military Power: Organizing for Victory and Defeat on the Battlefield Among the notable defensive victories, however, were the Soviet defeat of the Japanese at Changkufeng Hill in 1938, Japan's repeated failures to retake Henderson Field on Guadalcanal between August and November 1942, the Indian failure to defeat the Pakistanis in the tank battle at Chawinda in the 1965 war fought between those countries, and Egypt and Syria's ultimately unsuccessful assaults on Israel through the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights during the Yom Kippur War. Valour Enshrined: 1947-1979 an Indian source In the overall context, the Chawinda attack was a failure and in the confusion after an unsuccessful operation, the valour of those who fought and died went unheard and unsung. But in the Regiment, the battle of Chawinda will always be remembered and honoured as one more example of bravery in the unending saga of Maratha chivalry. From Kutch to Tashkent: The Indo-Pakistan War of 1965 with their successful defence of Chawinda, and the Indians' inability to take the town must have been demoralising for the troops. The casualties inflicted on Indian troops in the last assault on 19 September effectively meant that 1 Armoured Division was also no longer able to carry out major offensive operations from that date. It appears that tensions amongst the senior commanders of this operation did not assist and it seems that there was also a failure to command from the front, from brigade commanders down. The Indian commander on the whole western front was highly critical of his own forces Tank: 100 Years of the World's Most Important Armored Military Vehicle During the Battle of Chawinda, the largest armoured engagement since Kursk, Pakistani forces halted an Indian invasion of their country. In September 1965, the Pakistanis blunted a thrust by the Indian 1st Armored Division as each side fielded more than 250 tanks. Pakistani armor included the M48 and improved Sherman tanks of World War II vintage, while the Indians committed both Centurions and Shermans to the fight. When it was over, the Pakistanis had lost an estimated 44 tanks, while the Indians suffered up to 120 destroyed, although they later asserted that they had lost only 29 armored vehicles A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, Volume 2 The Indians then reinforce and push the Pakistanis back to their base at Chawinda, where the Indians are again halted on September 10. After the Indians defeat a counterattack, the Pakistanis take up defensive positions. Both sides now reinforce. Although the Indians substantially outnumber the Pakistanis in manpower, many of the Pakistani tanks are superior to those of the Indians, and their artillery has greater range. The Pakistanis are ultimately able to push most of the Indian forces back across the international border. Pakistan is the victor in the battle. A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections On 12 September the Pakistanis tried without success to retake Phillora, and next day the Indians attempted to outflank Chawinda from the east but, in an impressive display of flexibility, the Pakistanis moved 19 and 20 Lancers and 1 FF (of 1 Armd. Div.) to its defence, and the Indian advance was halted after fierce fighting... An attack against Chawinda was planned for the 14th, but in a classic employment of good intelligence and efficient artillery the Pakistanis located the forming-up place of the Garhwali battalion that was to lead the assault and brought fire down on it. The battalion was forced to withdraw and the attack did not take place... On the night of 15/16 September the Indians again tried to outflank the main Pakistani force, this time by pressing west to Jassoran... then south to cut off Chawinda from the rear. Once the village was isolated, the Indians considered it would fall... but their armour was engaged so heavily by Pakistani anti-tank weapons that it could not advance further. The battalion held out until 17 September, when it was forced to withdraw to Jassoran The Independent He was credited with contributing to what has been regarded as a victory for Pakistan in the Battle of Chawinda, by holding back the Indian offensive towards Sialkot. The action has been described as the greatest tank battle since the Second World War, and Pakistan commentators called it “the graveyard of Indian tanks”. Hostilities were ended by a UN ceasefire. The Diplomat The Indian and Pakistani armies fought each other another 15 days, during the course of which both armies won their share of tactical victories — India in Phillora and Khem Karan, Pakistan in Chawinda — but none decisive enough to alter the ultimate result of the war. A ceasefire was called by the UN on September 22 and the Tashkent Declaration was signed between Ayub and Shastri in January 1966, thus bringing an end to hostilities. Blocked sock

*WT:MILHIST notified.--101.53.225.41 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Comment: I also have noticed that this source is mentioned in the result field even though the source is talking about a stalemate at the whole Sialkot Front, not in this battle which was a part of Sialkot Front. --101.53.225.41 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

Comment: As Mar4d has pointed out. Adding the link to previous RFC 2015 RfC, here the consensus was for "Pakistani victory" but then it was removed with a one-sided 2018 "RfC". 101.53.225.41 (talk) Blocked sock

Comment Could I suggest that you provide fuller bibliographic details for the sources cited above. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC) It would also be useful to indicate which of these sources were not considered in the course of the previous RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Should the result be changed to Indian defeat or Pakistani victory)

• Comment sources that describe India failing to achieve operational goals at this battle do no necessarily conflict with the "inconclusive" interpretation. I'd be curious if there are any military journals that look at this outcome. Since this is generally a contested subject, I suggest avoiding newspapers like The Independent or The Diplomat. The independent even says "what has been regarded as a victory" which begs the question, regarded by who? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

::The sources that describe it as India's failure they at best fall in the Indian Defeat interpretation. If editors disagree with adding newspaper then I have no problem with it.-101.53.225.41 (talk) Blocked sock

• 101.53.225.41, what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 8,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The complex formatting may be exacerbating the problem. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • To editor Redrose64: fixed format of initial statement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 18:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

    my pleasure! Paine  10:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Inconclusive/Speedy close MOS:MIL is the applicable guidance, with X victory and Inconclusive but not X defeat being permitted parameters for the result field. The parameter should represent the consensus of [good quality, independent] sources. We are explicitly cautioned against WP:OR. We should also consider the "immediate result" and not subsequent events that may have resulted from. Indy beetle would suggest avoiding newspapers. I would agree. Furthermore, I would be cautious in using popularist histories (ie Bloomsbury and Osprey). The OP would state: Now in the light of the sources mentioned above should the result be changed to Indian Defeat or Pakistani Victory? However, a goodly number of these source were explicitly considered during the preceding RfC only 18 months ago. I am not seeing what is new or changed that might reasonably lead to a different outcome. The sources would clearly indicate that the Indians failed to achieve their objective. However, this is not the same as a defeat for one side or a victory for the other. Leaving aside the newspaper sources, only two make anything like a categorical statement. Zologa would say: the 25th Cavalry at Chawinda, where they defeated their better equipped but clumsier foes. But the 25th Cav was only part of the Pakistani force and the statement would be referring to an early phase of the battle, so we can scratch that one. Spencer Tucker (A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, Volume 2) would say: The Pakistanis are ultimately able to push most of the Indian forces back across the international border. Pakistan is the victor in the battle. The problem is, the article is not telling us this and that India still retained control of Pakistani territory? The OP would ask us to read the other sources and draw a conclusion that this is either a Pakistani victory or an Indian defeat. However, when the sources aren't specifically saying as much, that would be WP:SYNTH. On the other hand, we do have two or three sources that are specifically calling it inconclusive, indecisive or a stalemate (the immediate result following Chawinda). Both sides got a bloody nose and lacked the will to continue. One side withdrew and the other side couldn't follow. There is nothing new to discuss. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Without being too familiar with the particulars, I would add that an option is always to add a bullet point under "Inconclusive" that says "See Outcome section". -Indy beetle (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) taken in their overall balance, and mostly in particular, these sources endorse "Inconclusive", and none speaks of a clear victory/defeat AFAI can see - without WP:OR interpretation of their content. sources that describe India failing to achieve operational goals at this battle do no necessarily conflict with … "inconclusive". I endorse everything Indy beetle & Cinderella157 say below. Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Previous RFC stands - Two sections above, you find a six-month long RfC barely a year ago, with wide-ranging comments from a variety of editors. It came out with the result of "no consensus"/"inconclusive". What has changed so that a new RfC is warranted again? WP:RFCBEFORE is not satisfied. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment In before we get further comments along the lines of "but past RfC was inconclusive"; the question wasn't answered then, and the closure itself acknowledged this; again, which of the multiple sources available on the subject clearly negated the Indian military's tactical failure in this battle? Quoting one of the participants from the last RfC, the "Indian military were unable to take Chawinda". Mar4d (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Link to the 2015 RfC, where the consensus was for "Pakistani victory" before it was removed post the one-sided 2018 "RfC". Mar4d (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Pakistani victory. Sources have been clear all along that it was the overall conflict that was "inconclusive". The final battle of that conflict, at Chawinda, was a decisive victory for Pakistan. Had it not been so, then the overall outcome would not have been so "inconclusive", imho. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• I was the closer of the 2015 RfC, and I've been asked to comment here by a message on my talk page. When I closed the 2015 RfC I knew nothing about the Battle of Chawinda, but since then I've learned a lot about it, having been required to defend my close against attempts to overturn it and having read a lot of commentary and sources.
  The battle of Chawinda was the final battle of an inconclusive war. Territorial changes after the battle were minimal and not material, and the Indian side likes to portray the Battle of Chawinda as a draw. This case is arguable, and if you cherry-pick the right reliable sources and pretend the others don't exist, you can justify the outcome of the 2018 RfC. But really, this ignores the fact that India outnumbered and outgunned Pakistan at Chawinda. The Indian Army attempted a set piece assault on fortified positions and was bloodily repulsed. The Pakistani side likes to portray it as a glorious last stand that held off the enemy onslaught until peace was achieved.
  Personally, I think the Pakistani side of it is less wrong than the Indian side. Pakistan was trying to hold India off, and succeeded. This was the best result for Pakistan that was militarily possible.—S Marshall T/C 19:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Hear hear, well put – much to be said for the ability of people to defend their home territory. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment For the record, I am confident that the IP editor who started this RfC is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC on the Result - Pakistani Victory/Indian defeat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As already mentioned, an RFC concluded that it was a Pakistani Victory. The decision was further reviewed and consensus was once again in favor of the RFC - Pakistani Victory.

The participants of this short talk page discussion concluded the battle was inconclusive.

Should the result of the Battle of Chawinda be "Pakistani Victory" or "Indian defeat"? Joooshhh (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Pakistani Victory It's cut and dry - as the reliable sources state - the Indians failed to attack, the Pakistanis successful defended themselves. Joooshhh (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Close RfC This seems ridiculous to make an RfC after a block evading IP created one a few weeks prior and now an account with 17 edits on a page that is ECP? This does not seem like the correct protocol. – The Grid (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2023

Please add the following sections

==Other 1971 battles in the vicinity==

• Battle of Asal Uttar
• Battle of Chumb
• Battle of Chawinda
• Battle of Ichogil Bund
• Battle of Kasur
• Battle of Pul Kanjri

== See also ==

• Indo-Pakistan Wars
• Operation Grand Slam

Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  04:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)