Air Support in Shakargarh – 1971 War

The Shakargarh Salient juts into Indian territory in a particularly threatening way – the northern boundary of the salient runs not too far from the road between Pathankot and Jammu. The Kathua-Samba stretch is a mere 5-6 miles away, offering the possibility of developing operations astride the road towards the vital Madhopur Headworks. Such a manoeuvre could also serve as a ruse while a major offensive in the shape of a riposte was launched towards one of several important objectives like Gurdaspur, Batala or even Amritsar. Pakistan Army appreciated that a riposte in this sector would likely draw elements of the Indian strategic reserves into the salient and embroil them, thus preventing or delaying their extrication to face the main Pakistani offensive in the Ganganagar-Suratgarh area. The configuration of the salient lends itself well to operations on ‘interior lines,’ whereby a Pakistani threat could be radiated from a single point in several directions with minimal logistic problems. The enemy, conversely, would be compelled to operate on ‘exterior lines,’ having to position a larger quantum of forces all along the periphery of the salient.

Indian Army’s over-riding concern was to protect the vital Jammu-Pathankot artery while capturing important territory through its main offensive by I Corps. This formation had 39 Infantry Division and 54 Infantry Division, each supported by an armoured brigade, as the spearheads of its two-pronged offensive. 36 Infantry Division and two brigades of ad hoc ‘X-Sector’ covered the flanks, while an additional brigade covered the central base, all in a holding role.

For the defence of Shakargarh Salient, Pakistan Army’s (similarly numbered) I Corps had fielded 15 Infantry Division and 8 Infantry Division on the western and eastern sides of Degh Nadi respectively, both divisions supported by 8 Independent Armoured Brigade. The offensive formation tasked to launch a riposte at an opportune time and place, was the so-called ‘Army Reserve North.’ It consisted of 6 Armoured Division and 17 Infantry Division. Though nominally under I Corps, it was directly controlled by GHQ.

The Indian I Corps opened up with its offensive at dusk on 5 December. Facing the brunt of the Indian offensive was Pakistan Army’s lone 8 Division, as 15 Division remained tied up against ‘X-Sector’ force (guarding I Corps right flank) as well as Indian 26 Division (XV Corps), on a wide frontage between Degh Nadi and Pukhlian Salient.

Indian 39 Division, tasked to capture Shakargarh, crossed the international border from a north-easterly direction on the evening of 5 December, but the advance ran into trouble as it hit the first belt of a well-laid out minefield on 7 December. “This, coupled with heavy artillery fire and air attacks frustrated the attempts … to make headway,” reasons the Indian Official History of 1971 Indo-Pak War.[1] Another attempt to attack from the north the following day, was foiled when a second belt of the minefield was encountered. It was evident that the inability to breach the minefield and, stout resistance by Pakistani 8 Division had a demoralising effect. “Standard of stage management for the battle so far displayed was uninspiring and weak,” was the assessment of 39 Division’s performance by the Corps Commander Lt Gen K K Singh.[2] He was compelled to abort his plan of investing Shakargarh and decided to redeploy 39 Division forces in another sector.

The Indian 54 Division launched its attack from a northerly direction on the night of 5 December, with the aim of capturing Zafarwal and, in the process, destroying Pakistani 8 Armoured Brigade. By 11 December, peripheral border villages and small towns had been captured, the flanks of the Corps’ forces secured and, the minefield breached. A bridgehead was established for the final assault on Zafarwal by 15 December, but Pakistani forces counter-attacked fiercely, duly supported by the PAF. While 54 Division’s effort was better planned and executed than that of 39 Division, it failed to penetrate the main defences and was able to advance just eight miles in two weeks of fighting. The objective of Zafarwal remained elusive as fighting ceased on 17 December. Pakistan’s 8 Armoured Brigade paid a heavy price by losing as many as 50 tanks during the counter-attack, but it was some consolation that the Zafarwal-Shakargarh chain of defence remained intact.

Indian 36 Division had been performing a holding role on the eastern side of the salient. After failure of 39 Division to take Shakargarh, 36 Division was hastily charged with an offensive task, with the aim of developing operations towards Shakargarh in yet one more attempt. A rearguard brigade of 36 Division had secured a bridgehead across the border on 9 December. Together with an infantry and an armoured brigade mustered from 39 Division, Indian forces advanced up to Bein River and, an assault was planned on Shakargarh on the night of 14/15 December. Pakistani forces were rushed from other sectors to Nurkot-Shakargarh area, which was already well prepared with deep minefields. Intense artillery shelling and exploding mines caused heavy casualties on the Indian forces, which delayed the advance and exposed the troops to more precise fire from well-concealed platoons having adequate recce support. The Indian armour got bogged down while attempting to cross the soggy bed of Bein River and, the advance fizzled out as soon as it had commenced. 39 Division was thrown completely off-balance, its plight only worsened by the absence of IAF which was said to be committed heavily in the Chamb Sector.

Lying within the area of responsibility of Pakistani 15 Division, at the western flank, was the narrow Pukhlian Salient. Its defences were sloppily left to the para-military 1 Wing of Rangers, along with a regular infantry company. The Indian 19 Brigade (ex-26 Division) attacked the salient on the night of 5 December so as to pre-empt any threat to Akhnur materialising from the southern direction. The Rangers were easily pushed out and, a menacing threat to the nearby Marala Headworks was posed, before the regular Pakistani troops salvaged the situation.

PAF Hastens to Help

With Murid, Sargodha and Risalewala optimally located in relation to Shakargarh Sector, air support could be made available promptly. Peshawar, though distant, could also chip in with the aircraft flying a modified flight profile. All together, two squadrons of F-6 and three squadrons of F-86E/F were available for air support operations. Seemingly an adequate force, the F-86s were, however, ill-armed to conduct anti-armour operations with their small calibre 0.5” Browning guns and 2.75” unguided rockets, the latter neither acclaimed for accuracy, nor penetration. The F-86s were even configured with general purpose bombs to blast out armour, not quite the recommended method to stop a tank onslaught, but the situation demanded that everything be thrown in anyhow. It was surmised that relentless bombing would, at least, have a devastating effect on the enemy's morale. The F-6s, were relatively better endowed for close air support, having three powerful NR-30 30mm cannon which were absolutely lethal, as might be expected of the heaviest aircraft round (.93 lbs) then in use on any aircraft.

As the Indian 39 Division ran into the first minefield belt, PAF’s F-6s and F-86s managed to get some good hits at the stalled armour. For the most part however, PAF had to make-do with sporadic and reactionary air support which, in the given, situation was a godsend for the Army, nonetheless. The vital and vulnerable bridgehead operations and subsequent breakout of all three Divisional offensives, escaped punishment from the air as these took place under cover of the night. A pontoon ferry bridge over Ravi River was destroyed on 11 December, two days after crossing by the main elements of Indian 39 Division had already taken place. While the destruction of the bridge did not induce any delay in the commencement of this offensive, it did possibly hamper subsequent reinforcements, as the stalled offensive seemed to indicate.

An exciting situation developed in one of the close air support missions on the morning of 7 December, when four F-6s of No 11 Squadron found themselves vying for airspace with four Su-7s, which also happened to be on a similar mission near Zafarwal. The moment the Su-7s sighted the F-6s pulling up for their attack, they lit afterburners and started to exit eastwards. At that time, the No 2 called that he had been hit by AAA so he was asked by the mission leader, Flt Lt Atiq Sufi, to pair up with No 4 and recover back. Atiq then smartly ordered a split, so that two F-6s were chasing a pair of Su-7s each. “I remember accelerating to 1,100 kph despite the rocket pods which were retained, as I could not afford to take my eyes off the prey to look inside for the selective jettison switches,” says Atiq. He barely managed to arrest his rate of closure and opened fire on his target with the centre gun. “I had expended the ammunition in the centre gun so I switched to the two side guns and continued firing. A well-aimed volley struck right behind the cockpit and the Su-7 rolled over its back,” remembers Atiq. It was later learnt that Sqn Ldr Jiwa Singh, the senior flight commander of Adampur-based No 26 Squadron had gone down with the aircraft, south-west of Samba just over the border. The F-6 deputy leader, Flt Lt Mus’haf Ali Mir also fired at one of the fast-receding Su-7s but it accelerated away, apparently unscathed.

In another close air support mission on 11 December, a formation of three F-86Es from No 18 Squadron led by the enthusiastic Squadron Commander, Wg Cdr Ali Imam Bokhari, had a scrap with a flight of Su-7s, also on a similar mission. Bokhari had just released a salvo of rockets on a cluster of vehicles in the battlefield near Nainakot when his No 2, Flt Lt Momin Arif yelled, “Lead, three Su-7s at 2 o’clock.” Bokhari ordered all to jettison their fuel tanks and turned the formation hard right, to position behind the Su-7s. Bokhari manoeuvred on to the tail of one Su-7 and was about to shoot when his No 3, Sqn Ldr Cecil Chaudhry, came charging in from the other side, trying a pot shot at the same aircraft. Cecil requested, “Leader, leave it for me, please.” Bokhari abandoned the attack and switched to the other Su-7 which was not too far off. Centring the enemy aircraft in his gun sight, Bokhari pressed the trigger and saw a stream of bullets rip into the Su-7. Moments later, there was an orange flash and then the aircraft exploded, with bits and pieces showering down. Commendably, this was PAF’s first subsonic versus supersonic aircraft kill.[3] It was later learnt that Flt Lt K K Mohan of Ambala-based No 26 Squadron went down with his aircraft. Cecil also fired at his quarry and claimed a Su-7, but firing from long-range resulted in a missed shot; no details of aircraft wreckage or pilot status have emerged since.

On 14 December, Sqn Ldr Salim Gauhar of No 26 Squadron, while on a close support mission in Shakargarh area, spotted a light observation aircraft and easily shot it down with his F-86’s guns. There were some anxious moments for Salim after he returned from the mission, as a Pakistan Army L-19 was reported to have been flying in the area at the same time. Their was immense relief when it was learnt that the L-19 had landed safely. It later transpired that the downed aircraft was an Indian Army Krishak. Its pilot, Capt P K Gaur of No 660 Squadron, went down with the flaming aircraft.

During the course of air support operations in Shakargarh Sector, PAF lost three aircraft to ground fire. On 7 December, an F-6 flown by Flt Lt Wajid Ali Khan of No 11 Squadron was shot down by AAA, as he was attacking ground targets near Marala. He ejected and was taken POW. The same day, Sqn Ldr Cecil Chaudhry of No 18 Squadron was apparently hit by own AAA, near Zafarwal. He was lucky to fall into Pakistan Army hands as he parachuted down after ejection, only a few hundred yards away from Indian positions. Cecil was also fortunate to be in good shape and was able to fly again, the very next day. On 17 December, the last day of the war, Flt Lt Shahid Raza of No 25 Squadron volunteered for a mission from which he was fated not to return. During ground attack, his F-6 was hit by enemy AAA near Dharman, close to Shakargarh. He was heard to be ejecting but sadly, nothing more was ever learnt about him. He was awarded a Tamgha-i-Jur’at posthumously.[4]

The PAF flew a total of 296 sorties in Shakargarh Sector,[5] which made up 41% of PAF’s total tactical air support effort. Interference by enemy fighters was not prohibitive and, the PAF was able to perform its task without let, by and large. The missions were mostly close air support and armed recce. 183 sorties were considered successful, while 113 sorties were rated as failures.[6] Poor visibility caused by winter haze was the bane of pilots, though an equally frustrating issue was the discovery of lack of enemy activity on reaching the target area. Apparently, time delays – from air support request, till fighters reached overhead the target area – resulted in a completely changed situation than what was expected. The dense foliage and built-up areas also complicated the visual pick-up problem.

Even if assessed on the basis of a high probability of ‘one target hit per sortie’ (assuming a single attacking pass), it can be seen that not more than 186 targets could have been possibly destroyed in the successful sorties flown in the sector. However, actual claims exceed this figure and, include 115 vehicles, 74 tanks, 13 tank transporters and 6 guns, besides a pontoon bridge. Since such claims cannot be verified accurately in a one-sided assessment based on fuzzy gun camera ciné film, it would only be fair to reduce these claims considerably. Attack parameter inaccuracies induced by the heat of the battle, unfavourable weapon-target compatibility and weapon failures, are important factors that cannot be overlooked.

For an academic discussion, even if the claims are reduced by an arbitrary factor of half, the results still remain fairly impressive. It can be clearly seen that Pakistan Army’s 8 Division was effectively supported by the PAF and, was thus able to deny the Indian I Corps the twin strategic objectives of Zafarwal and Shakargarh, despite repeated attempts to capture them. In the bargain, 8 Division suffered considerable losses in men and material, along with the loss of 265 square miles of territory in the Shakargarh Salient.[7] (Additionally, about 40 square miles were lost in Pukhlian Salient.) Any plan to recoup the losses could not be put in place, as the Army Reserve North had already been denuded to the point of futility. Two brigades of its constituent 17 Infantry Division, along with the complete artillery assets, had been detached to other sectors that were confronted with equally critical situations.[8] It is some consolation that the enemy was denied a foothold for developing operations towards the core areas of Punjab – a chilling prospect that could well have followed on the heels East Pakistan’s loss.

_________________________

[1] Chapter - IX, The Punjab and Rajasthan Front,' page 357.

[2] Chapter - IX, The Punjab and Rajasthan Front,' page 359.

[3] Besides the aerial kill, Wg Cdr Bokhari has the singular distinction of having flown 20 offensive sorties in Shakargarh Sector, which was the maximum flown by any pilot during the 1971 War. Unfortunately, a gallantry award eluded him, despite his sterling contribution to the war effort. He remains an unsung hero of the PAF.

[4] Earlier, on 5 December, Flt Lt Shahid Raza had shot down a Hunter that was exiting after attacking Sakesar radar.

[5] More precisely, of the total 296 air support sorties, 285 were flown in Shakargarh Salient proper, while 9 sorties were flown in Marala area.
[6] Official PAF War Records.
[7] Territory lost in Shakargarh Salient was spread over a frontage of approximately 33 miles, with an average ingress of 7-8 miles.
[8] 17 Division’s 66 Brigade was detached to 23 Division (Chamb Sector) while 88 Brigade was detached to 10 Division (Lahore Sector). The Divisional Artillery was detached to HQ 23 Division.

© KAISER TUFAIL

This article was published in Defence Journal, May 2010 issue.

Helpless at Sea – 1971 War

At the outbreak of the war, PAF’s maritime support capability of any consequence was limited to night bombing of a couple of Indian Navy’s coastal installations on the Saurashtra Coast and, daytime strafing and rocketing of not-too-distant surface vessels. Measures to locate these vessels were largely of passive nature and, rested on Pak Navy’s shore and sea-based signals intelligence gathering network. Unhappily, at the outbreak of hostilities, much of the communications and radar transmissions had gone discrete and, signals intelligence had all but dried up. Active measures included surface surveillance by a SUPARCO[1]-loaned radar located at Manora, which had been picking contacts as far as 100-nm on occasions, when the somewhat irregular phenomenon of ‘anomalous propagation’[2] was experienced. Ships at sea were good only for more localised flotilla surveillance and, at great risk of giving away their position while their radars transmitted.

Airborne maritime reconnaissance was the optimum and most reliable method, but with Pak Navy lacking any organic air capability, employing the services of PAF’s small transport fleet of six C-130s remained the next best alternative. However, with the planned commitment of the C-130s for unconventional bombing missions, these could not be spared, reportedly. Instead, the C-in-C directed the Managing Director PIA, Air Vice Marshal Zafar Chaudhry to make some assets available to Pak Navy. One Fokker F-27 along with its volunteer civilian crew was put at the disposal of the Navy before the war started. The weather radar of the F-27 aircraft could also provide rudimentary search capability over a calm sea and could, therefore, be utilised at night as well. The Indian Navy, of course, understood that in practical terms Pak Navy’s search capability was of little consequence and, it was surmised that the window of the night offered the maximum chances of sneaking in, unobserved.

According to Indian Navy’s appreciation, if it could take the battle to Pakistani waters at the outset, it would force Pak Navy to abort any offensive plans and, bottle up her surface fleet inside the harbour for the remaining period of war. The planners were also confident that such a move could wipe off Indian Navy’s craven image going back to the 1965 War, when the puny Pak Navy had carried out a daring and morale-shattering raid on Dwarka naval establishment, without being challenged.

Borrowing a leaf from the Dwarka annals – but planning more cerebrally – the Indian Navy decided to hit Pak Navy warships patrolling the outer and inner cordons of Karachi harbour. With the newly-acquired Soviet Osa missile boats, there was no need to get close and exchange broadsides in the old manner. By hugging the Saurashtra-Kutch coast at high speed, the task force would be able to avoid the Pakistani submarines prowling not too far. Arrival at nightfall was a clever safeguard against visual spotting from the air, as the flotilla broke off westwards to take up battle station south of Karachi. A night visual attack on the ships by PAF aircraft was, thus, also out of question.

By 2 December, the main body of the Indian Western Fleet, comprising 13 ships, had already set sail for an area 200-nm south of Karachi and beyond to interdict merchant shipping, but with a more immediate purpose of diverting attention from Operation ‘Trident’ that was to unfold shortly.

The Cordon is Pierced

On the night of 4 December, at 2010 hrs (all times PST), the duty officer at Manora radar picked up a surface contact at a distance of 75-nm on a bearing of 165° from Karachi. The contact was immediately reported to Maritime Headquarters (MHQ). Half an hour later, another contact was picked up at a distance of 100-nm south of Karachi and, duly reported. After an inexplicably long delay, a signal was issued by MHQ at 2200 hrs, warning ships at sea of two surface groups[3] heading towards Karachi. PNS Khaibar, a destroyer which was patrolling the outer cordon, was ordered to investigate. Apparently not responding due to radio silence measures on board, it headed south, as per orders.[4]

At 2245 hrs, watches on board Khaibar reported what appeared like a bright light heading towards them at high speed; everyone took it to be an attacking aircraft in afterburners. The Commanding Officer, Cdr M N Malik, who had rushed to the bridge, ordered the ship’s anti-aircraft guns to open fire. Just then, a deafening explosion was heard as the glowing object slammed into the aft galley, below deck, and blew up the boiler room. Flames leapt upwards as sailors rushed helter-skelter, some trying to jettison the torpedoes, others trying to put out the fires. A hasty message was transmitted to MHQ, informing that, “enemy aircraft attacked…, boiler hit, ship stopped.” A few minutes later, another eerie glow was observed heading towards the stricken ship and, in no time, it tore into the second boiler room with an intense explosion. Uncontrollable fires enveloped the ship and ammunition started to explode. As it started to list, some men jumped overboard from the sinking ship. PNS Khaibar finally went down, taking with her 222 ill-fated hands.

PNS Muhafiz, a minesweeper, sailed out to relieve the survey vessel PNS Zulfiqar, which was patrolling Karachi harbour’s inner cordon. Arriving on station at 2245 hrs, she was just in time to witness the fireworks in the outer patrol area. Altering her course and heading south to investigate the fiery glow on the horizon, Lt Cdr M S Usmani, the Commanding Officer of Muhafiz feared the worst. Suddenly, a speeding light was seen to be headed towards his own ship. Moments later, a swishing object smashed into the minesweeper and exploded with such force that it disintegrated the wooden vessel into pieces. Some of those who had been thrown overboard on impact managed to swim away, but 33 others went down in this second deadly attack, barely twenty minutes after the first one.

The Indian Navy task force had included two frigates for submarine screening and three missile boats for the actual attack. INS Nirghat was the first to engage and it fired two Styx missiles that hit PNS Khaibar. The next to fire two missiles was INS Nipat but its victim remained a mystery for some time till the sunken wreck of SS Venus Challenger, a Liberian merchant ship, was found by navy divers 26-nm south of Karachi, some days after the war ended. Nipat also fired a third missile at the harbour a little later, which hit some oil storage tanks at Keamari terminal. Last to fire was INS Veer whose single missile hit PNS Muhafiz.

Having resoundingly achieved its objective, the task force sped back under cover of darkness to rendezvous with a waiting tanker for refuelling. By dawn of next day, the task force had cleared the estimated strike range of PAF fighters and, was homeward bound. An IAF fighter patrol had been arranged to cover the task force just in case, but no PAF fighters were encountered.

Shocked and demoralised by the surprise attack, a hapless Pak Navy struggled to cope with the crisis that had literally exploded at her doorstep. The PAF, none too happy about its own plight in the south, could only sympathise with its sister service in this sombre situation.

In the aftermath of the attack, an urgent Air Priority Board meeting was asked for (on 5 December) and, Pak Navy was able to muster a motley fleet of aircraft[5] including some more from PIA and different government departments, for the purpose of enhancing maritime reconnaissance measures. Most of them were light aircraft and might have been suitable for daytime ‘coast guard’ duties, at best. Nonetheless, with the warships bottled up in the harbour or hidden away around Cape Monze and Gadani, additional aircraft for patrolling were considered a welcome help for the overworked PIA F-27. It was to be seen if the desperate measure meant anything.

Hitting Back

In the wake of the missile attack, Pak Navy felt – almost as an after-thought – that the home base of the missile boats at Okha needed to be taken out. In all likelihood, the tit-for-tat raid serving as a retribution of sorts would have been uppermost in the minds of the Naval Staff. In any case, the necessity of tackling the threat of missile boats also sank in at PAF’s COC and it was agreed to attack Okha harbour. Of course, it was not expected that the missile boats would still be berthed at the quay-side in Okha. As a matter of fact, these had already been dispersed to smaller locations along the Saurashtra Coast, even before the war had started. Nonetheless, it was the considered opinion of Pak Navy that a hit on the infrastructure could hamper missile boat operations to some extent.

On the evening of 5 December, Flt Lt Shabbir A Khan was standing out on the B-57 tarmac watching preparations for the night missions, when he was informed about being detailed for a strike on Okha harbour. He, along with his navigator, Sqn Ldr Ansar Ahmad, rushed off to the operations room to start planning the mission. Two hours after moonrise seemed like a good selection of the TOT, as the glimmering sea would clearly outline the edges of the darkened harbour.

Taking off at 2210 hrs, the B-57 got a fiery send-off as the AAA opened up in the nearby Karachi harbour, signalling an air raid. Continuing the take-off, Shabbir and Ansar settled down to watch – with unnerving anticipation – the moonbeams dazzling the creeks and estuaries of the Kutch Coast to their port side. Finally, turning to the attack heading, they picked up a sizeable flotilla on their radar, about 20-nm to their starboard. There was a temptation to go for the ships, but discipline prevailed and they continued for the designated target. Reaching the pull-up point, Shabbir pushed the throttles to 100% power, while Ansar started to guide him into the attack. Just when Shabbir pressed the bomb release button and there was no release, Ansar realised that he had forgotten to arm the release switch. In a fraction of a second he flipped the switch on and Shabbir pipped the button again, pulling out of the dive narrowly. After some 10-odd seconds, there was a tremendous flash of light and the aircraft shook up with the blast. A direct hit had been achieved as nine 500-lb bombs slammed into fuel tanks and other stores at the harbour. In the meantime AAA had started to fire and the sky seemed ablaze. Shabbir and Ansar saw the shells continuously exploding along the aircraft’s flight path but luckily, the bomber escaped unscathed.

The attack had been a tremendous success and, news that the home base of the missile boats was in flames turned out to be thoroughly cathartic for all and sundry in the Pak Navy and PAF. A pair of F-104s which visited Okha for another attack four days later, reported that the harbour was still smouldering and the smoke could be seen from as far as 60-nm. The Indian Official History of 1971 Indo-Pak War notes that, “two air attacks were also carried out on Okha and some fuel tanks were set ablaze, thereby denying the missile boats any further use of this port as a forward base.”[6]

Harbour in Flames

Seeing the success of Operation ‘Trident’ which had resulted in huddling up of Pak Navy ships in the harbour, Indian Navy decided that the main force of the Western Fleet would carry out a similar attack from the unexpected south-westerly direction, the very next night. However, breakdown of two vessels forced the withdrawal of a group of five,[7] which sailed back home and consequently, the attack had to be postponed. Subsequent snags, and then bad weather, delayed the operation further.

On the night of 8/9 December, at around 2245 hrs, lookouts at Manora suddenly picked up the infamous glow hurtling towards them, then crossing overhead and slamming into the nearby oil tank farms at Keamari.[8] A tremendous fire engulfed the terminal and the whole harbour lit up, visible from miles. Distressingly, fires lit by an earlier air attack on the morning of 4 December had been laboriously put out just a day earlier.

A few minutes after the first attack, another missile hit the anchored British-owned merchant ship Harmatton, causing it to sink in no time. This was immediately followed by a third missile which hit the SS Gulf Star, also anchored, flying the Panamanian flag. It survived the attack with serious damage.[9]

A fourth missile hit PNS Dacca, the Navy’s supply ship which was idling in the harbour for maintenance, having been out at sea for 25 days at a stretch. A portion of the ship caught fire but, due to the courage and presence of mind of its Officer Commanding, Cdr S Q Raza, the steam smothering system was operated and a major explosion averted; the fires were put out by midnight. By next evening, power had been restored and the ship was moved further inshore, where she remained till the end of the war.

The attacking force had consisted of three frigates escorting the missile boat INS Vinash. All four missiles were fired by this boat from a distance of 12 miles from the harbour. After the attack, the group was able to make a getaway without any hitch and, rendezvoused with the Western Fleet flagship INS Mysore for a return to Bombay.

The operation had again been thoroughly successful and rendered Pak Navy’s surface fleet incapable of any operation during the war. However, it must be said that if international conventions on declaring and enforcing a blockade had been heeded to by the Indian Navy, at least the loss of lives on-board foreign merchant shipping could have been avoided.

Whither PAF?

With ‘do-it-yourself’ maritime reconnaissance in the hands of PIA and Pak Navy, PAF was expected to only carry out anti-surface vessel attacks during daytime. It is alleged that PAF was called out many times but the usual refrain was that ‘effort was not available’. What is known is that PAF flew 22 day missions (F-86E and F-104) and 10 night missions (B-57 and T-33) searching for enemy missile boats and other ships, none of which were successful. Regrettably, the reports of sighting of enemy ships were either bogus or, the ships were incorrectly located. On one occasion, for instance, PNS Zulfiqar was strafed west of Cape Monze by a pair of F-86s, after the target was repeatedly confirmed by a frantic MHQ as being hostile.

It is evident that the fundamental problem of maritime support lay in the inadequacy of airborne maritime reconnaissance, as the platforms were under-equipped and crew untrained. With Pak Navy officers on-board the F-27 aircraft having no prior experience in this role and their PIA pilots literally finding themselves at sea, the outcome could not have been any better. Sadly, but not surprisingly, the PIA Fokker F-27 (AP-ALX) crashed on the night of 12/13 December off the Makran Coast while on a recce mission, killing its crew of four.[10] In all probability, the fatigued pilots were disoriented in a pitch dark night, as the aircraft descended uncontrollably into the coastal Ras Malan Hills. The wreckage of the F-27 was found after the war.

On at least three occasions at night, Indian Navy task groups were reportedly located by the recce aircraft,[11] but these reports could not be followed up with actual strikes as PAF aircraft were not equipped with any aids for sighting and attacking ships at night. In all three cases, the ships had taken evasive measures and had broken off from the area by daybreak and, were not traceable. It is open to question if the attacking aircraft would have been able to successfully penetrate the formidable AAA screen of the task groups for a close-in dive attack, even at daytime. Not the least, lacking any practical training in the anti-shipping role whatsoever, PAF pilots were not expected to blast away bridges and boiler rooms during their first lessons at sea.

It may also be opportune to clarify that of the 127 visual reconnaissance sorties that were ‘made available’, as the Story of the Pakistan Air Force – Saga of Courage and Honour states,[12] PIA flew 59 sorties while other civilian aircraft flew 68 sorties, all with their own crew. Even though the effort did not yield any concrete results, the dedication of the volunteer pilots is, indeed, commendable.

On one occasion on 10 December, while on an unusual maritime recce mission in a F-104 searching for Osa boats, Wg Cdr Arif Iqbal chanced upon an Indian Navy Alizé maritime patrol aircraft off Jakhau on the Saurashtran Coast. The hapless aircraft jinked and thrashed about very low over the water as Arif settled behind it with some difficulty. The Alizé was seen to tumble into the sea eventually; whether it was the result of gunfire or, was due to a wingtip grazing the swells, remains moot.[13] The patrolling Alizé was part of a massive hunt for Pak Navy submarine PNS Hangor in the eastern Arabian Sea, after she had sunk an Indian Navy frigate INS Khukri the previous morning and escaped successfully.

The sum total of all the help that PAF could provide to Pak Navy was only one successful strike against the enemy missile boat facility at Okha harbour. Planners at both services headquarters must have rued their vacillation in striking a couple of harbours on Saurashtra Coast as an opening gambit of the war. An audacious and imaginative plan might have included a staged-through attack on Bombay harbour too, à la Agra strike.[14] Arguably, the Styx missile attacks of 4/5 December may have been preventable after all, if the later raid on Okha was anything to go by.

_______________________

[1] Space and Upper Atmospheric Research Committee.

[2] Long ranges are possible under conditions of anomalous propagation of radio waves that is particularly prevalent in winter months in the Arabian Sea.

[3] The one nearer to Karachi was the group of three missile boats and the further one was the pair of frigates.

[4] Contrary to some writings that PNS Khaibar was caught unawares, the Indian Official History of 1971 Indo-Pak War confirms that the first target that INS Nirghat engaged had been “zigzagging, revealing hostile intentions,” before heading towards the task force. “This ship continued coming towards the task force and was quickly reducing distance.” (Chapter-XI, ‘Naval Operations in the Arabian Sea,’ page 472.)

[5] These additional aircraft included: 1xF-27 & 2xTwin Otters (PIA), 1xCessna 310 (Governor Punjab), 1xBeaver DHC-2 (Plant Protection Dept), 2xCessna 150 (Karachi Aero Club) and 1xAero Commander (PAF).

[6] Chapter-XI, ‘Naval Operations in the Arabian Sea,’ page 474.

[7] This was the group of vessels picked up by Flt Lt Shabbir A Khan and Sqn Ldr Ansar Ahmad on the B-57 radar while proceeding to attack Okha.

[8] Only one tank containing crude oil caught fire during the attack on the night of 8/9 Dec. This was stated by Mr M Niaz, who was the Sales Development Engineer of ESSO in 1971 and, led the team that put out the fire.

[9] The New York Times correspondent Henry Kamm reported in his 11 December despatch that the wife and child of the Greek captain of Gulf Star were killed in the attack. He also reported that seven seamen were killed in the attack on Harmatton.

[10] The PIA crew included Captain Mubashir Hameed, First Officer Syed Khalid Javaid and Navigator B D Cheema. The PN observer on board was Lt Cdr A I Nagi. The loss of the F-27 has been recorded by CAA and PIA as 'missing on flight from Karachi to Zahedan, Iran.'

[11] The Indian Official History of 1971 Indo-Pak War confirms these three occasions: 1) "From evening of 3 Dec till 0200 hrs on 4 Dec, the Main Fleet was shadowed by three maritime aircraft." 2) "On 6 Dec, several enemy aircraft were shadowing additional vessels (Saurashtra Group) that were to join the Main Fleet south west of Karachi; as a consequence, the group had to turn back without joining the Main Fleet." 3) "At 2040 hrs on 8 Dec, two slow flying aircraft shadowed the Makran Group (INS Mysore, flagship of the Western Fleet)." The number of aircraft reported to be shadowing the ships far exceeds their availability with Pak Navy and, the author is inclined to believe that some of these aircraft may have belonged to foreign forces (likely USA), which may have entered the fray for keeping a tab on what was going on.

[12] 'A War Against Secession,' page 466.

[13] The aircraft belonged to Bombay-based No 310 Squadron of Indian Navy. The crew included the pilot Lt Cdr Ashok Roy and observers Lt H S Sirohi and Aircraftman Vijayan, none of whom survived.

[14] A two-ship B-57 strike on Bombay harbour, staged through Talhar, was planned but cancelled at the last moment, later during the war, according to Wg Cdr Akhtar Bukhari, the B-57 detachment commander at Masroor who was to fly the mission alongwith the Base Commander, Air Cdre Nazir Latif. Some B-57s had been modified to carry four F-86 drop tanks under the wings to be able to fly a lo-lo-lo profile. Two similar long-range strikes had been flown earlier by Mianwali-based B-57s when they staged-through Rafiqui (Shorkot) to attack distant Agra.

Acknowledgements are due to Air Marshal Zafar Choudhry (Retd), Vice Admiral Asif Humayun (Retd), Rear Admiral M A K Lodhi (Retd), Air Vice Marshal M Akhtar Bukhari (Retd) and Captain 'Johnny' Sadiq (PIA), for providing useful information for this article.

© M KAISER TUFAIL

This article was published in Defence Journal, April 2010 issue.

The Mirage III/5/50 Family

Mirage 5 PA3 with AM-39 Exocet anti-ship missile

“Like a desert vision, so that enemy pilots should see it but never catch up with it.” Thus, Marcel Dassault lyrically interpreted the French Air Staff Requirement (ASR) of 1953 for ‘a lightweight all-weather interceptor, capable of climbing to 18 kilometres in six minutes, with level flight speed of Mach 1.3’. Sud-Ouest’s Trident, Sud-Est’s Durandal and Avions Marcel Dassault’s MD-550 were the three contenders bidding for the contract. The single-seat, tailless delta-winged MD-550 flew for the first time on 25 June 1955, powered by two non-afterburning Armstrong Siddeley Viper turbojets. After some redesign including installation of afterburners and a rocket motor, and reduction of tailfin size, Dassault figured that the aircraft was evocative of his ‘desert vision’ and aptly renamed it Mirage I. While it went Mach 1.3 in level flight with the assistance of a booster rocket motor, it did not have the endurance, and was too small to carry an effective payload. Dassault decided to substantially redesign the aircraft while retaining the tailless delta on an area-ruled (‘wasp-waisted’) fuselage, and enlarging the latter to house a single afterburning SNECMA Atar 101-G turbojet [1]. The prototype Mirage III made its maiden flight on 17 November 1956 with the test pilot Roland Glavany at the controls. The prototype also featured moving inlet shock cones which later helped attain speeds up to Mach 1.8.

When some NATO air forces and Luftwaffe selected the F-104G as the replacement for the F-86 Sabre, it became clear that versatility was the name of the game. The French government accordingly asked Dassault to proceed with a multi-role aircraft. The prototype of this version, the Mirage IIIA, flew on 12 May 1958. On 14 October 1958 it exceeded Mach 2 in level flight at 41,000 ft, making it Europe’s first bisonic fighter, and prompting a pre-series production order of 10 aircraft by the French Air Force. These featured a bigger wing and were powered with SNECMA Atar 9B turbojet engine of 13,230-lbs static thrust with a variable (‘eyelids’ type) exhaust; the last six of them were also equipped with the production standard Cyrano I bis airborne intercept (AI) radar.

Mirage IIIC (Chasse – Interceptor)

The first production model of the Mirage series, the Mirage IIIC interceptor first flew in October 1960. It was largely similar to the IIIA, though 18 inches longer and brought up to full operational fit. It was powered by the SNECMA Atar 9B turbojet engine.

The Mirage IIIC was armed with twin 30mm DEFA-552 revolver-type cannon, fitted in the belly with the gun ports under the air intakes. Early production Mirage IIIC had three stores pylons, one under the fuselage and one under each wing, but a second outboard pylon was added to each wing, for a total of five. The outboard pylons were designed to carry a pair of heat-seeking air-to-air missiles.

Although provision for the rocket motor was retained, by this time the threat of the Soviet high-altitude bomber seemed to be over, and the booster rocket was rarely fitted in practice. The space for the rocket motor could be used for additional fuel.

Mirage IIICs were procured by the French Air Force, with initial deliveries in July 1961. The type was also exported to Israel and South Africa with one example going to Switzerland as a sample for licensed production.

The Israelis put their Mirage IIIC fighters to particularly good use in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. This advertisement, and the low cost of the relatively simple and flexible Mirage fighter, helped make it a major French export.

Mirage IIIB (Biplace) was the two-seat version of the Mirage IIIA as well as the IIIC. It was without radar but was suitable for ground attack missions, in addition to training.

Mirage IIIE (Électronique)

While the Mirage IIIC was being put into production, Dassault was also considering an ‘electronically advanced’ all-weather fighter-bomber variant which eventually materialized as the Mirage IIIE. Its prototype flew in April 1961, followed by the first delivery to French Air Force in January 1964.

The Mirage IIIE differed from the IIIC in having a 12-inch forward fuselage extension to increase the size of the avionics bay behind the cockpit. The stretch also helped increase fuel capacity slightly. The Mirage IIIE is powered by an afterburning SNECMA Atar 9C turbojet having a variable (‘flower petals’ type) exhaust with a thrust rating of 13,670 lbs; it retains the rocket motor option.

The Mirage IIIE avionics featured a Thompson-CSF Cyrano II dual-mode (air, ground) radar in the nose and a Marconi Doppler navigation radar under the forward fuselage, the two components being central to the ‘all-weather’ capability. The Cyrano II radar was compatible with the Matra 530 semi-active radar homing missile, one of which could be carried under the fuselage.

A sizeable number of Mirage IIIEs were built for export, being purchased in small quantities by Argentina, Brazil, Lebanon, Pakistan, South Africa, Spain, and Venezuela. Each had its own sub-type and country designation, with minor variations in equipment fit.

Two versions of the Mirage IIIE that were manufactured outside France, under license, were the Australian Mirage IIIO and Swiss Mirage IIIS (both dispensed with the ‘E’ sub-type label and only used the country codes). The Australian version had two further variants, attack and fighter, essentially differing in avionics. The Swiss version had a Hughes TARAN-18 fire control radar compatible with the Hughes Falcon semi-active radar-guided missile.

The equivalent two-seat trainer for the French Air Force was designated as Mirage IIIBE while for the rest of the export customers it came to be known as Mirage IIID (Dual).

Mirage IIIR (Reconnaissance)

The Mirage IIIR reconnaissance variant first flew in November 1961. It retained the twin DEFA 30mm cannon and external stores capability of the Mirage IIIE but instead of the AI radar, it housed five OMERA optical cameras in the nose. Later models (known as Mirage IIIRD in France) had the Doppler navigation system under the forward fuselage similar to the IIIE; these also had the provision for carrying the Long Range Aerial Panoramic (LORAP) photographic system, and an infra-red line scan pod.

Mirage 5

The next major variant, the Mirage 5, grew out of a 1966 Israeli Air Force requirement for deletion of avionics (normally stored in a bay behind the cockpit) from the standard Mirage IIIE and replacing it with more fuel storage for the ground attack mission. As a consequence, fuel capacity was increased by 500 litres. When introduced, the Mirage 5 did not feature the Cyrano II AI radar; instead, it had a small Aida II ranging radar in a long, slender nose. Like its predecessors, the Mirage 5 carries twin 30mm DEFA-552 cannon, and can lift a payload of four tonnes (8,800 pounds). It features two more stores pylons, fitted at the rear junctions of the fuselage and wings, for a total of seven stations.

The Israelis had placed an order for 50 Mirage 5 aircraft, the first of which flew in May 1967. Rising tensions in the Mid-East led French President Charles De Gaulle to embargo the Israeli Mirages on the eve of the 1967 War. The aircraft continued to roll off the production line, even though they were embargoed. By 1968, the batch was complete and the Israelis had made final payments but, unable to get the impounded aircraft, they reluctantly accepted a refund. The 50 aircraft eventually found their way into the French Air Force as Mirage 5Fs.

Like the Mirage IIIE, the Mirage 5 was popular with export customers, with different variants sporting a wide range of different avionics. While the Mirage 5 had been originally devised for the clear-weather ground attack role, it was reoriented for the multi-role mission with some avionic fits. As electronic systems became more compact and powerful, it was possible to squeeze the avionics in the nose alongwith the Cyrano II AI radar and Doppler navigation equipment. This variant combined the best of range, payload and electronics, and aptly came to be known as Mirage 5E (Électronique). A Mirage 5 version equipped with the Agave radar, optimised for use with the Exocet AM-39 anti-shipping missile, was also produced.

Reconnaissance and two-seat versions of the Mirage 5 were sold under the designation Mirage 5R, and Mirage 5D respectively. There was no clear dividing line between the configuration of a Mirage III reconnaissance or trainer version and that of a Mirage 5 equivalent, and in fact they were one and the same in many cases. A study of the differences shows that these designations were simply a clever marketing ploy to complete the particular Mirage sub-type package.

The Mirage 5 was sold to Abu Dhabi, Belgium, Colombia, Egypt, Gabon, Libya, Pakistan, Peru, Venezuela, and Zaire, with the usual list of sub-type designations and variations in kit. (Abu Dhabi, Egypt and Libya ordered a mix of the no-frills Mirage 5 and the more capable Mirage 5E, while one of Pakistan's later orders included the Agave radar-equipped Mirage 5 with Exocet missile capability.) The Israelis eventually built their own copy of the Mirage 5 named ‘Nesher’, which was purportedly based on clandestinely obtained blueprints.

At the time of inception of Mirage 5, the experimental Mirage IIIV (three Vee) was undergoing flight trials for vertical flight. To avoid confusion, Dassault decided to switch from Roman to the Arabic numeral notation for the new Mirage 5 variant. In the event, it also helped avoid confusion when Venezuela bought the Mirage 5V.

Mirage 50

A fully-equipped prototype rebuilt from a Mirage IIIR flew in May 1970, powered by the uprated SNECMA Atar 9K-50 engine, with 15,900-lbs afterburning thrust. Fit of this engine led to the next Mirage variant, the Mirage 50. The uprated engine gave the Mirage 50 better take-off, climb and acceleration characteristics, and better sustained turn rates than its predecessors.

While the Mirage 50 also incorporated newer avionics, it did not prove popular in export sales, as the first-generation Mirage series was becoming obsolescent, and the new swept-wing Mirage F1 offered better capabilities. Chile ordered a small quantity, receiving both the new Mirage 50 with Agave radar (later replaced by IAI’s Elta 2001 radar), as well as some ex-French Mirage 5s upgraded to Mirage 50 standard. Venezuela also ordered a few Mirage 50 fitted with the improved Cyrano IV radar and AM-39 Exocet missile, while survivors of the earlier Mirage IIIEs and 5s were upgraded to Mirage 50 standard. South Africa’s Atlas Aircraft produced a few Atar 9K-50 engines under license, which formed the basis of the uprated Mirage IIID2Z dual-seaters that came to be known as Cheetah D.

Canard Mirages

While the canard feature on Mirages did not constitute a new sub-type, the modification was sufficiently unique to warrant a separate mention. The canards concept started with the experimental Milan joint French-Swiss programme in 1968, which featured pop-out foreplanes (‘moustaches’) in the nose of a retrofitted Mirage IIIC. The nose foreplanes had been found to serve the purpose of improving take-off performance and low speed control, but also had the disadvantage of causing turbulence inside the air intakes, besides reducing pilots’ downward visibility to some extent.

Fixed canards mounted on the intakes were a feature of the Mirage IIING (Nouvelle Génération), a variant that did not go into production but came to be a demonstrator of some of the newer technologies, when it was rolled out in 1982. These canards served the desired purposes and had none of the aerodynamic vices that had dogged the Milan project. Mirages of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, South Africa, Switzerland and Venezuela sported canards as part of their mid-life upgrade programs.

Production Run

Over 1,400 Mirage III, 5 & 50 were produced by Dassault or manufactured under license by Australia and Switzerland, till production ended in 1992. Besides reasonable price and easy availability, customisation was the key to export success of the first generation Mirage family. Dassault was glad to accommodate changes in equipment as per customer needs and budget requirements. Even whimsical country codes that played, for instance, on the Australian accent, Jewish religion, Libyan environment, and former Zaire’s egoistic leader were agreed to, if it satisfied the customer!

Country Codes

Argentina – A; Australia – O (‘Oztralia’); Belgium – B; Brazil – BR; Chile – C; Colombia – CO; Egypt – E, SD (cancelled Saudi order); France – F (Mirage-5 only); Gabon – G; Israel – J (‘Jewish’); Lebanon – L; Libya – D (‘Desert’); Pakistan – P (Mirage III), PA (Mirage-5); Peru – P (Mirage-5); South Africa – Z (Zuid Afrika); Spain – E (Espana); Switzerland – S; UAE – AD (Abu Dhabi); Venezuela – V; Zaire – M (‘Mobuto’)

________________________

[1] SNECMA - Société Nationale d'Étude et de Construction de Moteurs d'Aviation (National Company for the Design and Construction of Aviation Engines). ATAR - Atelier Technique Aéronautique Rickenbach (Rickenbach Aeronautics Technical Workshop)

[2] DEFA - Direction des Études et Fabrications d'Armement (Armament Research and Development Directorate)
________________________

Appendix to 'THE MIRAGE III/5/50 FAMILY'

Delta Wing Aerodynamics

Sweep angle of the wing leading edge helps delay drag rise with increase in speed. In a swept wing, the velocity of the airflow normal to the leading edge is reduced by a factor of the cosine of the sweep angle, with a corresponding delay in drag rise. High sweep angles are, however, associated with the problem of wing-tip stalling which results due to the airflow drifting span-wise across the wing, causing the tips to stall before the rest of the wing. The result is usually a violent pitch up followed by a spin. Wing fences and notches are a stop-gap solution as they generate a vortex over the wing which virtually arrests the span-wise airflow.

On a swept wing, the torsional stresses during manoeuvring flight are enormous and indeed, dangerous at high Mach numbers. Greater structural strength can only be obtained by paying a greater weight penalty.

There is one way in which sharp sweep angles can be used without a lot of problems: delta wing. The shape is optimum for high speed flight. The extremely broad chord (average distance between leading and trailing edges) means that a low thickness-to-chord ratio needed for high speed flight can be achieved. The structure can be made rigid, has sufficient volume for fuel, and there are hardly any practical limits to the angle of sweep.

The low aspect ratio (square of the wingspan to wing area) of the delta wing gives excellent supersonic performance by presenting a smaller frontal area to the airflow. At lower speeds, however, the poor lift-drag ratio of the low aspect delta planform demands higher angles of incidence to generate the same amount of lift compared to a conventional wing. This causes greater induced drag resulting in speed bleed-off during manoeuvring flight; it also increases take-off and landing distances. It may be worth noting that the Mirage III/5/50 as well as the double-delta winged Draken, held the dubious distinction of having the lowest (read worst) aspect ratio of any fighter to date ie, 1.94 and 1.8 respectively, but this record has now been surpassed, surprisingly, by the very modern Indian Tejas with a ratio of 1.75!

By its very shape, a delta wing has a large area which tends to give a relatively low wing loading (aircraft weight per unit area of lifting surface ie, the wings). This helps offset its poor sustained turn performance and enables it to turn tightly at low speeds – often below its normal landing speed – especially in descending manoeuvres in which it can trade height for energy.

Woes of Tailless Deltas

To date, only a few tailless delta fighters have been produced besides the Mirage III/5/50. These include the F-102 Delta Dagger, F-106 Delta Dart, J-35 Draken, J-37 Viggen, Mirage 2000 and Tejas.

In a tailless delta, lift augmentation devices like trailing edge flaps cannot be installed for want of space (though in the Viggen, these are cleverly placed on the large fixed canards). Also, upgoing elevons diminish wing lift which needs to be compensated by higher take-off and landing speeds, worsening short-field performance. Many a pilot who ended up in the arrester barrier has ruefully wished for a longer runway when confronted with a take-off emergency.

Two modern tailless delta fighters, the Mirage 2000 and Tejas feature relaxed static stability. A benefit of this design is that it confers an unstable nose-up moment which reduces the pitch-up required for take-off and landing, or during manoeuvres; the harm done to wing lift by upgoing elevons is, thus, minimised to a considerable extent. Leading edge flaps/slats on these fighters also add to the total lift when they automatically activate at slow speed, thus allowing lower take-off and landing speeds.

Canards acting as control surfaces work essentially like tailed deltas, except that the ‘tails’ are located at the front. They obviate the need for elevons to change the pitch, hence saving precious main wing lift. Modern delta-winged fighters like Chengdu J-10, Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale have fully active canard controls.

Some of the older Mirage III/5/50, Cheetah D2Z and Kfir C-II found a partial remedy to their congenital woes through retrofit of small fixed canards, while the Viggen had fixed canards designed from the outset. These canards added to the overall lift in ways similar to the leading edge flaps/slats, except that they remained stuck out even when not needed in high speed flight!

_______________________________

Marcel Dassault

Marcel Dassault's especially autographed picture for the author

Marcel Dassault, née Marcel Bloch, was born to Jewish parents in Paris, on 22 January 1892. He graduated from the prestigious SUPAERO (National Superior School of Aeronautics and Space) in Electrical Engineering. Bloch worked at the French Aeronautics Research Laboratory at Chalais-Meudon during World War I, and invented a type of aircraft propeller subsequently used by the French army during the conflict. In 1916, he, along with Henry Potez and Louis Coroller, formed a company, the Société d'Études Aéronautiques to produce the SEA series of fighters. In 1928 Bloch founded the Société des Avions Marcel Bloch aircraft company which produced its first aircraft in 1930.  Following nationalization of his company in 1936, he stayed on as a director. 

During the occupation of France by Nazi Germany in World War II, France’s aviation industry was virtually disbanded, other than the compulsory manufacturing, assembly and servicing of German designs. After the war Bloch changed his name to Dassault, converted to Roman Catholicism, and founded the foremost military aircraft manufacturing company in France, Avions Marcel Dassault. In 1971 Dassault acquired Breguet, forming Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation (AMD-BA). He died on 17 April 1986.

 © M KAISER TUFAIL

F-6s at War

The US embargo on military sales to Pakistan at the outbreak of 1965 Indo-Pak War was received with dismay and disbelief by the PAF, whose combat and training aircraft were totally of US origin. Already starting to get outclassed by more modern aircraft, the F-86Fs, F-104s and B-57s were now plagued by spares support problems that rendered them virtually worthless in the PAF. The C-in-C of the PAF, Air Marshal Nur Khan who had cannily led the force during the war, sensed the criticality of the situation and started an immediate search for suitable aircraft from new sources.

Unfortunately for Pakistan, geopolitical realities restricted most available options. Pakistan’s CENTO and SEATO memberships hardly endeared her to the Soviets. The Indians had already made inroads to Moscow and the first shipment of six MiG-21s had made its operational debut during the 1965 War. The Soviets saw India not only as a socialist ideologue that could be helped militarily, but as its influential proxy and mouthpiece in the Non-Aligned Movement. The prospect of Soviets and Pakistanis developing any kind of patron-client linkage, thus, came to be a non-starter.

China, in the throes of the Cultural Revolution, had not shown much interest in developing newer aircraft technologies for the time being. Content with the copy of Soviet-supplied MiG-19s, China mass-produced this single-role fighter in thousands. When Pakistan approached China for military help in 1966, she was only too glad to offer the F-6 as a token of friendship, the initial batch of 60 being free of cost. Though limited in range, speed and weapons payload, PAF inducted the aircraft and assigned it the day interceptor role with a secondary close air support task, which it dutifully went on to perform over the next 36 years.

A Quirky Fighter

The MiG-19 (Mikoyan and Gurevich) was the first supersonic fighter of the Soviet-bloc, making its prototype debut in late 1953; it was contemporaneous with the North American F-100 Super Sabre, the first supersonic fighter of the West. The MiG-19 sported audaciously swept-back wings which, at 55 degrees, were considered the right answer to drag rise during high speed flight, but were also problematic at low speeds due to the lower lift-generating ability of such wings. Designers increased wing thickness to ensure enough lift at low speeds, but more lift meant more drag in another form. Two powerful afterburning RD-9B turbojet engines pushed the aircraft out of this jumble and gave it a respectable status of a transonic fighter which could race through to a top speed of Mach 1.3. A set of three hard-hitting 30-mm cannon and, in later versions, two first-generation K-13 heat-seeking missiles completed the weapons suite as the Soviet bloc’s frontline missile-armed interceptor.[1] (PAF modified the aircraft to carry AIM-9B Sidewinder missiles.) The same set of cannon armed with armour-piercing bullets, along with two rocket pods, served a useful secondary close air support role.

Pilots discovered that they could manoeuvre the aircraft with abandon as long as their speed was not below 500 kph and, they could effortlessly chase their prey if the speed was not above 1,000 kph. Outside these limits lay severe testing grounds requiring special nerves and lots of muscle.

Ready for War

PAF pilots did not take long to master the quirky complexities of the F-6 at the limits of its flight envelope. They often relished the no-holds-barred dogfights with Mirages and Starfighters which could easily be out-turned, if not out-run, in dissimilar air combat. F-6 pilots boasted of some of the best gunnery and rocketry scores in the PAF. Operationally, the pilots seemed pleased to get so much out of so less, as it were. Maintenance of the aircraft was, however marred by a very low time-between-failure of components, as well as a low time-between-overhaul of the aircraft and engine. This was something that the engineers and technicians were able to overcome only when the PAF set up its own F-6 Rebuild Factory at Kamra in 1980 and, rapid overhauls became possible. At the outbreak of the war, PAF had 90 F-6 on its inventory, but due to these maintenance issues, a mere 48 were available for operations. [2]

The F-6s were distributed amongst Nos 11, 23 and 25 Squadrons, each with 16 aircraft. No 11 Squadron, based at Sargodha, was commanded by Wg Cdr Sikandar M Khan. No 23 Squadron, the first Unit to be equipped with the F-6 in early 1966, was commanded by Wg Cdr S M H Hashmi; it had moved from its parent base Sargodha to the forward base at Risalewala, which formed the first tier of air defence against intruders from the east. No 25 Squadron, commanded by Wg Cdr Sa’ad A Hatmi, was split into two detachments of eight aircraft each, based at Sargodha and Mianwali. At the latter base, the detachment had the somewhat unconvincing task of guarding the ‘back-up’ strike assets including 10 B-57 and 5-odd Mirage IIIE for the all-important phase of Army’s main offensive.

Defending the Skies

Air defence cover in West Pakistan was patchy at best, but at low level it had wide gaps and only 7% of the border had radar coverage. Raid reporting by the few rear-located low level radars was not expected to provide enough reaction time for a ground scramble. Similarly, reporting by mobile observers – which is based on visual or aural information – was likely to cause delays. An expedient solution was to mount combat air patrols over possible enemy ingress routes, round the clock, effort permitting. Wasteful though it was, it was decided to man several points in the air and all fighters were ordered up for this task. The F-6 came to be the workhorse for day air defence in the northern region.

The morning of 4 December promised action as the IAF was expected to retaliate in response to PAF’s strikes against some of the Indian airfields the previous evening. The PAF was ready, with fighters continuously patrolling the skies since first light. No 23 Squadron pilots at Risalewala had been tidily scheduled for the day’s proceedings. Around 0930 hrs, as F-6s for the day’s sixth mission were taxiing out of their pens, an air raid warning was sounded. A mission abort was ordered and loudspeakers relayed instructions for everyone to take cover. Flt Lt Javed Latif who was on cockpit standby, started to unstrap from his F-6 for a quick egress. Momentarily glancing out of the pen opening to see what was going on, he was aghast to see a Su-7 diving down straight at his aircraft. “The scary sight of an intake pointing at me is still etched fresh in my memory,” recalls Latif. As he jumped out of his F-6 to take cover, a salvo of rockets landed smack on the pen.[3] Still scampering towards a trench, Latif was rattled by cannon fire from the second Su-7 as the bullets landed a few yards away. Then the raid was over as suddenly as it had started, and the AAA died down too, as if heralding an all-clear. Dusting himself and recovering his composure, Latif rushed to his pen to help put out the fire caught by the hessian camouflage covering. Luckily, his F-6 was unharmed except for a few nicks from slivers of falling plaster. “I was seething with anger at having been violated thus, and hurried to strap up again to settle the score,” remembers Latif. Shortly thereafter, a scramble was ordered for the next pair but confusion reigned as the taxi way had been blocked by the F-6s of the previous aborted mission. This led to yet another abort at a critical time but the situation was salvaged when Latif, who was standing by for a later mission, took charge and hit the starter button on his own. Just as he was taxiing out, his crew chief came rushing towards the aircraft, signalling for a switch off as yet another air raid warning had been notified. “My mind was racing and I had already decided in a split of a second – I was going to take my chances flying and I was not going to repeat the fiasco of the last pair,” Latif recollects. Over-ruling the Air Traffic Control’s somewhat confused recall message, Latif checked if his No 2 was also taxiing out. Hearing no response, he decided to take-off alone. Changing over to the radar frequency, he heard an eager voice wanting to join up as his wingman. It was Flt Lt Riffat Munir on patrol from the fifth mission, whose leader had aborted due to a technical problem. The new partners were only too glad to find themselves as a viable combat entity again. It wasn’t long before the ground radar handed the pair over to ‘Killer Control,’ a cleverly-perched look-out tasked to visually guide the interceptors about the raiders’ position with the help of geographic landmarks. Flt Lt Ahmed Khattak’s confident voice called out that two Su-7s were pulling up for an attack from the north-westerly direction and pointed out their position over the main water tank. After jettisoning their drop tanks and charging their guns, Latif and Riffat confirmed visual contact with both Su-7s. As the attackers approached the airfield, Latif easily positioned behind one of them while Riffat cleared tails. Firing all three of his cannon, Latif waited for some fireworks. Noticing that the aircraft was still flying unharmed, he fired another long burst till all his ammunition was exhausted. Just as he was expecting his quarry to blow up, he felt a huge thud. Thinking that he had been hit by the other Su-7, he broke right and then reversed left but found no one in the rear quarters. Checking for damage, he found that the left missile was not there and the launcher was shattered. The AAA shells bursting in puffs all around the airfield confirmed his suspicion that he had taken a ‘friendly’ hit, but luckily the aircraft was fully under control. Pressing on, he started to look for the escaping Su-7s and within moments, was able to pick one of them trailing a streak of whitish smoke. Convinced that it was the same one he had hit earlier and, assuming it to be crippled, Latif decided to go for the other Su-7. He spotted it straight ahead, flying over the tree tops at a distance of two miles. Engaging afterburners, he closed in for a Sidewinder shot but could not get a lock-on tone. To his dismay, he realised that the missile tone was routed through the circuitry of the left missile which had been shot off. Getting below the Su-7, he fired without a tone nonetheless, half expecting it to connect, if at all it fired. Moments later, he heard Riffat’s excited voice on the radio, “Good shooting, leader, you got him!” Not sure if he had really hit him as he had not seen any explosion, Latif was soon relieved to see the Su-7 roll over inverted and hit the ground. [4] Flt Lt Harvinder Singh of Halwara-based No 222 Squadron went down with his aircraft near Rurala Railway Station. Riffat’s chase of the second Su-7 (flown by the mission leader, Sqn Ldr B S Raje) had to be cut short as he was getting low on fuel and his leader was out of ammunition. No 23 Squadron had drawn first blood after an eventful morning that saw Latif doggedly in business after surviving rocket and AAA hits. For his heroics on the ground and in the air, Latif was awarded a Tamgha-i-Jur’at (Medal of Valour).

Shortly before sunset on the same day, Sakesar radar reported a raid heading towards Mianwali. Sqn Ldr Ehsan and Flg Off Qazi Javed of No 25 Squadron, who were on ‘cockpit standby’ in the hessian-covered pens, started their F-6s and within minutes, were taxiing out for take-off. Just then, Javed reported seeing two Hunters pull up for an attack. Sensing that they had been caught on the ground at the wrong time, Ehsan decided on a hasty take-off and pushed up the throttles to execute a sharp turn on to the runway. Unfortunately, use of excessive power caused him to veer off into the ‘kutcha.’ Stuck in the mud, he became an unwitting spectator as the Hunters delivered their attacks. In the meantime, Javed decided to take-off without his leader. Just as he lined up, he saw the lead Hunter strafing way far to the left of the runway. With half his worries suddenly over, Javed started rolling but danger from the second Hunter remained, as it had all the time to aim carefully and take a hearty shot. Anxious, Javed craned his neck back only to see the Hunter’s cannon blazing at him. “I thought his dive was too shallow and, at the close distance he was, the bullets would overshoot,” Javed recalls his rather masterly prediction. Mercifully, the bullets did land 200 feet ahead and towards the left, so Javed continued his take-off. Once airborne, keeping the Hunter in sight was a problem in the fast-fading light. Speeding at 900 kph, Javed remembered that he had not jettisoned his drop tanks. When he did get rid of them at such a high speed, he induced a porpoise but was somehow able to ride it out. Charging in at 1,100 kph, he had closed in to about a mile and a half, which was just the right range for a Sidewinder shot. He fired his first missile and when he did not see it connect, fired the second one. That too went into the ground. “All this while the Hunter pilot seemed totally oblivious of what was going on and his leader was nowhere in sight, so I gleefully decided to press on for a gun attack,” says Javed. “Since things had been happening too fast, I had forgotten to charge my guns after take-off. Having done that, I first fired with my centre gun till all its ammunition was spent. [5] With the Hunter still flying unharmed, I decided to continue firing with the side guns. After a few frustrating bursts, I closed in to about 1,000 ft and fired a real lengthy one. Luckily, the last few bullets of the volley struck the right wing as I noticed a flash. The aircraft pitched up and rolled over to the right. I only learnt of the pilot’s ejection later, as I had to break away to avoid overshooting the out-of-control Hunter.” The aircraft fell about 14 nautical miles north-east of Mianwali. Flg Off Vidyadhar Chati of the Pathankot-based No 27 Squadron, when interrogated about the circumstances of his shooting down, said he suspected he had been brought down by ground fire! Duck shoot it was, over the idyllic Khabbaki Lake, but Chati should have known better where the bullets really came from. Ironically, the pilots of No 27 Squadron who had been declared the ‘Top Guns’ of IAF’s Western Air Command during a gunnery meet prior to the war, had failed to shoot up the conspicuously exposed F-6s on the runway. [6] For the rookie Javed, who was freshly out of operational training on the F-6, remaining cool under fire was a most worthy achievement and he deservedly won a Sitara-i-Jur’at (Star of Valour) for his daring deed.

The high-powered FPS-20 radar at Sakesar, had received considerable attention on the first day of the war. Shortly after mid-day on 5 December, a pair of Hunters from No 27 Squadron was again able to sneak in and attack the radar with rockets and cannon. Patrolling nearby, over the picturesque Salt Range, were two F-6s of No 25 Squadron flown by Wg Cdr Sa’ad Hatmi and Flt Lt Shahid Raza. They were immediately vectored by the radar towards the exiting Hunters but it was a while before Hatmi spotted the pair. As the Hunters sped away over the hilly terrain, Hatmi wisely decided not to waste his missiles in the unfavourable background clutter. Using his guns instead, he made short work of one of the Hunters which fell 15 miles east of Sakesar. The pilot, Flg Off Kishan Lal Malkani, was killed. Next, Flt Lt Shahid Raza, who had all along kept the second Hunter in sight, closed in and opened fire with his guns which found their mark. The pilot, Flt Lt Gurdev Singh Rai, who was the leader of the mission and, had twice visited Sakesar on the previous day, ran out of luck this time. He met his end when his Hunter crashed near the small town of Katha Saghral at the foothills of Salt Range.

On the afternoon of 8 December, two patrolling F-6s of No 23 Squadron flown by Wg Cdr S M H Hashmi and Flt Lt Afzal Jamal Siddiqui were vectored on to two Su-7s, just as they were exiting after attacking Risalewala airfield. Hashmi caught up with one of the pair, about ten miles east of the airfield, and let off a Sidewinder. The missile homed on unmistakably and the Su-7 exploded above the tree-tops; the pilot was not seen to eject. The remains of Flt Lt Ramesh Gulabrao Kadam [7] were later discovered around the wreckage near the small town of Khalsapur. Hashmi immediately started looking for the other Su-7 and, to be sure of his No 2’s safety, called out for his position. Afzal replied but the transmission was garbled, which Hashmi interpreted as his No 2 being visual with him and, assumed that he was somewhere in the rear quarters. Just then Hashmi picked contact with the second aircraft and did not think twice before launching a missile. If there was any difference between the similar-looking planforms of the Su-7 and F-6, this was surely one time to have had a closer look. His No 2 was nowhere in sight and his frantic unanswered calls to Afzal seemed to confirm Hashmi’s worst fear. Had he mixed up his quarry in the murky winter haze? Afzal, who was chasing the second Su-7 at high speed and had ended up ahead of his leader, was not able to clearly convey his position on a broken radio. Hashmi, an otherwise unflappable squadron commander, should have known better, for he had been too eager for a second kill which unfortunately ended up as a horrific fatality for his wingman. [8]

On one occasion the F-6 was completely outwitted by a Su-7. Flt Lt S S Malhotra of No 32 Squadron, who was on a photo recce mission over Risalewala on 13 December, spotted a patrolling F-6 and took a pot shot before exiting. It was only later that Malhotra learnt of Flt Lt Ejazuddin’s ejection over his home Base.

F-6s flew a total of 674 day air defence sorties (including 42 sorties over the battle area) which was 40% of PAF’s day air defence effort. Five enemy aircraft were downed during the air defence missions, or a kill rate of 0.74% in the role of an air defence fighter. All interceptions took place after the raiders had released their weapons on their targets, which was a reflection of the inadequacy of the air defence system that had been unable to provide sufficient early warning. The saving grace was the ability of the powerful F-6 to accelerate fast and nab the escaping raiders.

Over the Battlefield

PAF’s concept of air support to the land forces was biased towards direct support (close air support, armed recce and battlefield interdiction), as it was seen to yield immediate results in the ongoing battle. Indirect support in the form of deep interdiction beyond the battlefield was considered an exercise wrought with uncertainties in a short war, as the severance of the supply chain was likely to take some time before it showed its effects on a well-stocked front. The F-6 fitted well into the scheme of direct support as its powerful 3x30-mm cannon were ideal for strafing of convoys and rolling stock during armed recce, while two pods holding 8x57-mm rockets [9] each, offered the option of firing a salvo in the midst of an armour concentration.

F-6s found their calling in Shakargarh sector, where the Indians had launched a two-pronged offensive with two infantry divisions along with two armoured brigades, while a third division was deployed in a defensive role. Against this force was Pakistan Army’s beleaguered 8 Infantry Division trying to fight off the massive onslaught, while 8 Armoured Brigade, staunchly but unsuccessfully, tried to launch a belated counter-attack. This sector saw PAF intervening in great force, with the bulk of air support missions flown for 8 Division. F-6s flew all but 9 of their 139 close air support and armed recce sorties in this sector [10] but, regrettably, the mission success was very low; almost half the sorties were wasted as no enemy activity was observed in the area of interest. Hazy winter conditions as well as abundance of natural camouflage and dense habitation contributed majorly to the problem, though wrong reports by the Army were also partly to blame. While it must have been very frustrating for the pilots not to find the ‘armour concentrations’ that the tasking orders promised, they more than made up whenever they stumbled upon them.

An exciting situation developed in one of the close air support missions on the morning of 7 December, when four F-6s of No 11 Squadron found themselves vying for airspace with four Su-7s, which also happened to be on a similar mission near Zafarwal in the Shakargarh salient. The moment the Su-7s sighted the F-6s pulling up for their attack, they lit afterburners and started to exit eastwards. At that time the No 2 called that he had been hit by AAA so he was asked by the mission leader, Flt Lt Atiq Sufi, to pair up with No 4 and recover back. Atiq then smartly ordered a split, so that two F-6s were chasing a pair of Su-7s each. “I remember accelerating to 1,100 kph despite the rocket pods which were retained, as I could not afford to take my eyes off the prey to look inside for the selective jettison switches,” says Atiq. He barely managed to arrest his rate of closure and opened fire on his target with the centre gun. “I had expended the ammunition in the centre gun so I switched to the two side guns and continued firing. A well-aimed volley struck right behind the cockpit and the Su-7 rolled over its back,” remembers Atiq. It was later learnt that Sqn Ldr Jiwa Singh, the senior flight commander of Adampur-based No 26 Squadron had gone down with the aircraft, south-west of Samba just over the border. The F-6 deputy leader, Flt Lt Mus’haf Mir also fired at one of the fast-receding Su-7s but it was lucky to have accelerated away, apparently unscathed.

A brief scrap took place between ‘relatives’ of the MiG family on 14 December when three F-6s of No 11 Squadron, which were on an armed recce mission in Shakargarh area, sighted four patrolling MiG-21s. Flt Lt Aamer Sharief manouvred behind one of the trailing aircraft and fired a Sidewinder. The outcome of the claim has remained moot as the engagement took place in enemy-controlled territory and, no further details of the wreckage or pilot status have emerged ever since.

PAF lost two F-6s to ground fire during the tactical air support campaign. Flt Lt Wajid Ali Khan of No 11 Squadron was shot down by AAA near Marala Headworks on 7 December; he ejected but ended up as a POW after being picked up by Indian troops which were in the vicinity. The other casualty was Flt Lt Shahid Raza of No 25 Squadron who was shot down by AAA near Shakargarh on 17 December, the last day of the war; he was heard to be ejecting in enemy-controlled territory but his fate remained unclear. He was awarded a Tamgha-i-Jur’at for devotion to duty, as well as professionalism shown in his earlier Hunter kill.

The 139 sorties of close air support flown by the F-6 were a mere 20% of PAF’s daytime tactical air support effort, with the bulk flown by F-86E & F. Considering the eminent suitability of the F-6 for the task, a larger share could have been more advantageous. The F-6 detachment at Mianwali was hardly any help in this regard, as it was too far removed from the battle scene; it belatedly flew into Sargodha for air support duties a day before the war ended. Nonetheless, a total of 33 tanks, 42 vehicles and 4 guns were claimed by F-6 pilots in the 80 sorties that were considered successful. [11] It can be seen that this was a useful contribution by the F-6 squadrons to 8 Division’s efforts in stemming the Indian offensive in Shakargarh salient.

Report Card

During the 14-day war, the F-6s flew a total of 821 sorties which was 28% of PAF’s overall war effort of 2,955 sorties. For a relatively new weapon system, the F-6 could have achieved an aircraft Utilisation Rate better than the 1.6 sorties per aircraft per day during the war. [12] While it fell short of the planned 2.2 sorties daily, it reflected a cautious conduct of the war, whereby the PAF was held back so that everything could be thrown in during the army’s main offensive which, in the event, never came through.

Besides the individual gallantry awards won by F-6 pilots, Nos 23 and No 25 Squadron were awarded Squadron Colours for distinguished performance during the war. The battle honours are as much a tribute to the F-6 as its spirited pilots, who forged this spartan aircraft into one of PAF’s most robust and dependable war machines.

_______________________
[1] A later model, the MiG-19PM, had a rudimentary radar and could carry four beam-riding missiles, while dispensing with the cannon.
[2] Official PAF Records.
[3] The pilot of this Su-7 was OC of No 222 Squadron, Wg Cdr Allan Albert da Costa.
[4] A warhead’s proximity detonation, unlike a direct hit, may not cause an explosion every time.
[5] It was advisable to fire the centre gun and side guns separately to prevent rattle and vibrations, which could loosen or dislodge electrical connectors of radios, etc.
[6] http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1960s/27Sqn.html
[7] The pilot belonged to the Tactics & Air Combat Development Establishment based at Ambala.
[8] Wreckage of Afzal’s F-6 revealed Sidewinder warhead shrapnel embedded in the exhaust area, which quashed speculation that the F-6 may have flown through Kadam’s exploding Su-7.
[9] PAF modified the F-6 to carry 68-mm rocket launchers in 1979.
[10] Official PAF Records.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Utilisation Rate is based on an average aircraft serviceability of 75%. The F-6 wartime UR is calculated thus: UR = 821 sorties ÷ 36 aircraft ÷ 14 days = 1.6.

© M KAISER TUFAIL

This article was published in Defence Journal, December 2009 issue.

Air Support in Thar – 1971 War

Spiny-tailed lizards scamper across the dunes that make up the vast Thar Desert straddling the Sindh-Rajasthan Border. Buzzards soar on the desert currents during day and caracals prowl the scattered scrub at night. Staking out territory is no easy matter, and every creature treads prudently in this desolate and forbidding expanse.

The 1971 Indo-Pak War saw rival armies face off in the inhospitable Thar Desert, each aiming to unbalance the other’s strategic formations and capturing vital territory in the bargain. The desert offered few objectives of strategic value, as these lay deeper, away from the border. Indian Army’s formidable Southern Command, consisting of two regular infantry divisions (12 Division and 11 Division) and two brigade-sized formations (‘Bikaner’ and ‘Kutch’ Sector HQs) of BSF and Territorial Army troops, was arrayed against Pakistan Army’s single 18 Division required to cover a frontage of over 700 miles. Both of India’s infantry divisions were poised to create footholds inside southern Pakistan for threatening deeper objectives; this, in turn, was expected to unhinge the Pakistani strategic reserves, whose elements would have been detached helter-skelter to cope with the dangerous situation thus obtaining.

The predicament of 18 Division was well-understood by the GHQ at Rawalpindi, and it was decided to pre-empt any Southern Command incursion by undertaking a most unexpected foray into Indian territory. A two-pronged offensive of brigade-strength each was hastily put together for the capture of Ramgarh, and for neutralising Jaisalmer Airfield – the latter, a rather quixotic task dictated by the absence of PAF in the area. It is also open to conjecture if the Pakistani GHQ had wishfully imagined the dislocation of Indian strategic reserves as a consequence of the daring 18 Division sortie. In the event, the offensive bogged down at Longewala soon after initiation on the midnight of 4 December. However, due to the boldness and surprise of the move, Indian 12 Division was knocked off-balance and remained mired in efforts to counter the Pakistani offensive, as well as screening the area for any more surprises. It could not progress beyond the initial capture of a desert outpost of Islamgarh, and failed to develop operations towards Rahim Yar Khan, which were charged with the ambitious objective of severing the rail-road link to northern Pakistan. There is also evidence of panic entraining of some elements of the crack Indian 1 Armoured Division for providing relief, a task that was quickly taken over by a detachment of six IAF Hunters belonging to No 122 Squadron stationed at Jaisalmer.

With no air opposition to menace them, the Hunters carried out text book strafing and rocketing attacks during the 38 sorties [1] flown over two days, in which they wreaked havoc on Pakistani tank columns caught in the open desert. By 7 December, Pakistani brigades were in full retreat, having suffered heavy losses, including at least 20 tanks [2] and scores of other vehicles destroyed or abandoned. At the end of the venture, Major General B M Mustafa, the ill-starred Commander of 18 Division, stood relieved of his command for an undertaking that went awry under his watch.

Costly Oversight

The rout of 18 Division armour at the hands of IAF has been conveniently blamed on GHQ for not forewarning AHQ about the offensive, as a result of which PAF fighters could not be positioned at the nearest airfield of Jacobabad. It has been claimed that AHQ had asked for at least four days notice (and preferably ten days) for activating the airfield with all the operational, logistic and air defence wherewithal. Intriguingly, the vital issue of air support that may have been required by an army formation even if it was not undertaking offensive operations, has been glossed over by air tacticians and official historians alike. This requirement should also have been seen as enormously vital in view of the vulnerability of Rahim Yar Khan rail-road link, whose proximity to the border could result in effortless severance by the enemy, thus practically truncating West Pakistan into two. Air cover was equally crucial due to the overwhelming numerical superiority of Indian Southern Command which was comprehensively supported by fighters stationed at Jaisalmer, Uttarlai, Jodhpur and Jamnagar. The PAF C-in-C, Air Marshal A Rahim Khan, who was accompanying the COAS General Abdul Hamid during a visit to Rahim Yar Khan in October, must not have failed to notice the utter vulnerability of 18 Division elements to air attack. A suitable complement of fighters should, therefore, have figured out for deployment at Jacobabad from the onset of war, irrespective of the offensive or defensive operations 18 Division may have been tasked for.

In a talk to National Defence College some time after the war, PAF's Director of Operations, the late Group Captain M Arshad, reiterated PAF’s viewpoint that, “with the limited resources available at our disposal, it was not feasible to activate Jacobabad without thinning out in the northern sector.” While the plight of the resource-constrained PAF was well-highlighted, it can be pointed out that the half-squadron detachment of F-6s (belonging to No 25 Squadron) at Mianwali could have been relieved, as the base which is sufficiently deep, was well-defended by two successive tiers of over 60 interceptors based at Risalewala and Sargodha; it also had its own integral force of five-odd Mirage IIIE for point defence. It must also be noted that the Mianwali-based F-6s were too far removed from the battle scene in the northern sector, and could not be employed in their proper tactical air support role. Half a squadron of F-6s based at Jacobabad could have, if nothing else, at least mitigated the painful and odious withdrawal of 18 Division elements by providing them much needed air cover.

It is another matter that 18 Division offensive had been planned hastily, had not been war-gamed, and the logistics requirements had been treated most superficially. It was easy to see why it floundered as it did. Even though some diehard strategists make much of the initial advantage of surprise, it must be realised that, had the overstretched Pakistani force somehow reached its objective at Ramgarh, it would have been eventually destroyed by a realigned 12 Division charging in from the left flank.

Despite the battering that it took at Longewala, it can be said that 18 Division’s venture, foolhardy though it was, did not go in vain, and it was somehow able to prevent a befuddled 12 Division Commander, Major General R K Khambata, from achieving his main task of truncating West Pakistan. The Indian Official History of 1971 Indo-Pak War succinctly sums up 12 Division’s disappointment thus: “Had it detected the Pak thrust on 4 December, the Division could have met and dissipated it, and gone ahead with its offensive as originally planned [3].”

Action at Chor

Further south, Indian 11 Division was tasked to capture Naya Chor by launching an offensive along Monabao-Khokhrapar-Naya Chor axis with the help of two brigades, and subsequently to develop operations into the green belt of Sindh. Additionally, the division’s third brigade was to outflank and capture Chachro along the Gadra-Khinsar-Chachro axis. Apparently no link-up of the two widely divergent incursions was planned, and neither complemented the other. The Indians had envisaged that a threat to towns like Mirpurkhas and Umarkot would force Pakistan’s II Corps to detach its elements for the assistance of 18 Division’s single brigade in this sector, thus depleting the former’s offensive potential.

As the two Indian brigades advanced towards Naya Chor on the night of 4 December, they met little resistance at first. The disrupted rail link between Monabao and Khokhrapar was repaired, and it was hoped that a regular logistics supply chain would hasten progress of the onslaught. The rail connection, which had been in disuse for years, had many more snags than expected. The vulnerable rail link proved to be the very bane of the Indian brigades as Pakistan Air Force swung into action and started a concerted day and night interdiction campaign that precipitated the ‘overstretch’ which the Official History of 1971 Indo-Pak War much bemoans [4].

Half the fighter and bomber force of No 32 Fighter Attack Wing, based at Masroor (Karachi) had been detached to bases in the north. What remained included No 19 Squadron with 26 F-86E/F, [5] No 9 Squadron with 7 F-104 (9 more RJAF F-104 became available from 14 December onwards) and half-strength No 7 Squadron with 8 B-57 bombers. The intrepid No 2 Squadron chipped in with 11 T-33 trainers. A small detachment of 4 F-86E was stationed at the forward base of Talhar, to promptly respond to the first-tier mobile observer reports in the absence of low level radar warning.

The rapid Indian push towards Naya Chor had all the portends of a grave situation developing, and immediate air support had to be provided to ward off the threat. The Base Commander at Masroor, Air Commodore Nazir Latif, along with the OC of No 32 Wing, Group Captain Wiqar Azim responded swiftly and decided to throw in everything the Base could muster. Composite missions, including different types of aircraft, were ingeniously flown. The OC Wing and two of his Squadron Commanders, Wing Commander Shaikh Saleem (No 19 Squadron) and Wing Commander Asghar Randhawa (No 2 Squadron) were at the forefront of this air action and led many missions themselves. Many interdiction and armed reconnaissance missions targeted trains laden with fuel and ammunition along the Khokhrapar-Naya Chor railway line. Tanks and vehicles exposed in the open also turned out to be lucrative targets, and in the surprising absence of air opposition, multiple attacks were carried out without much trouble.

One daring mission involving the only daylight B-57 sortie of the war, manifestly inspired the pilots of the Wing to fight fearlessly. On 7 December, Flight Lieutenant Shabbir A Khan, alongwith his navigator Squadron Leader Shoaib Alam, carried out an afternoon bombing raid (9x500-lb bombs) on a concentration of tanks and vehicles and followed it up with several strafing passes on a stationary train. Such was the fervour that Shabbir spent nearly twenty minutes taking steady pot shots, as if on a training sortie at his home firing range.

The same night Wing Commander Randhawa bombed an important POL bulk supply node that served the theatre of operations, while flying in a T-33. “The oil tanks at Barmer railway station were hit and set on fire,” reports the Indian Official History of 1971 Indo-Pak War [6].

Another remarkable mission involved a motley of aircraft flown by No 32 Wing, and it was boldly led by its enthusiastic OC, Group Captain Wiqar Azim. On the afternoon of 14 December, a 9-ship composite formation of 4 F-86Fs and 4 T-33s, escorted by a lone F-86E, and covered on top by 2 F-104s, struck three trains laden with POL and explosives near Naya Chor. In the same mission, a convoy was struck and many vehicles destroyed.

In all, 175 sorties (including 24 night sorties by B-57, T-33 and even C-130) were flown in support of 18 Division in Chor, Ramgarh and Kutch Sectors; this formed one quarter of the total air support effort provided by PAF during the war [7]. In addition, 40 combat air patrol sorties were flown by F-86E and F-104 to cover the vital troop and armour reinforcements arriving by train from the central zone to Naya Chor. The inability of the IAF to interfere with the reinforcements only underscores the effectiveness of PAF’s air umbrella.

Unlike the PAF’s air support in the northern battle zones, where as many as one-third of the air support sorties were unsuccessful (mainly because the enemy tanks and vehicles could not be sighted in the natural camouflage of Punjab), the success rate in Thar was nearly 100% as the desert offered the enemy no sanctuary. A total of 20 tanks, 63 vehicles, 5 trains, 3 bulk fuel stores and an ammunition dump were claimed by the pilots, according to PAF’s official history [8]. During the course of the tactical air support campaign by the PAF, no aircraft were lost to ground fire. IAF, however, lost three Uttarlai-based HF-24s to vigilant Pak Army AAA while on air support missions in Naya Chor area [9].

It is evident that the PAF was able to operate with such impunity in Naya Chor Sector because IAF planners had not paid heed to countering it in earnest, both on the ground and in the air. An incessantly disruptive anti-airfield campaign against the single Base at Masroor, alongwith aggressive fighter sweeps in Naya Chor area, could have helped. After all, IAF had four fighter bases which directly served the Southern Sector, and there was no dearth of air effort. Had IAF’s counter-air campaign been more whole-hearted, Major General R D Anand, Commander 11 Division, may well have been planning his next moves from the district headquarters at Mirpurkhas!

Own Offensive Foreclosed

The third Indian brigade which had Chachro as its objective, was able to overcome minor resistance at various points on the way and managed to capture it by afternoon of 8 December. Later, on 13 December a battalion-sized foray towards Umarkot was launched from Chachro, but was beaten back by a Pakistani counter-attack. The Indian raid did, however, raise concerns at GHQ in Rawalpindi as the ‘green belt’ had been trespassed, as it were. So as not to distract 55 Brigade which was putting up a brave stand at Naya Chor, and to provide it with much-needed relief, it was decided to bolster it with a brigade pulled out from II Corps’ 33 Infantry Division. 55 Brigade and the newly-arrived 60 Brigade, with zealous air support from PAF’s No 32 Wing, were thus able to repel renewed Indian efforts to push forward towards Naya Chor.

Earlier, another of 33 Division’s brigade had been detached to I Corps in Shakargarh, where the ground situation was equally grim. This all but meant that General Tikka Khan’s offensive stood aborted. II Corps, which had been somehow hoping for an improvement in the relative strength ratio of forces, actually found itself denuded to the point of impracticality as far as launching its offensive was concerned.

Though vast stretches of desert amounting to over 1,740 square miles were captured by 11 Division in Naya Chor and Chachro sub-sectors, it is of academic interest to know that the Indian Division Commander was still denied his operational objective. As stated earlier, the significance of Pakistani forces being able to hold on to Naya Chor lay in the enemy being denied a foothold for developing operations deeper, into the core areas of Sindh. This apparently came at the cost of Pakistan’s main offensive, but in retrospect, it can be clearly seen that II Corps’ elements had a ‘fire-fighting’ role chalked out from the outset, and the much talked about offensive was rather delusory in its strategic conception.

___________________

[1] ‘Tank Busting in the Hunter’, Air Commodore Narendra Gupta, Take Off magazine, Issue 103. [2] The late Brigadier Zahir Alam, who commanded 38 Cavalry Regiment during the operation, confirms the loss of 20 tanks, all to air action. He gives a blow-by-blow account of the fiasco in his book The Way it Was, Dynavis (Pvt) Ltd, Karachi, 1998.[3] Chapter – IX, The Punjab and Rajasthan Front, page 395.[4] Ibid, page 406.

[5] These included 12 F-86F which were attached to the squadron three months prior to the war.[6] Chapter – X, The IAF in the West, page 427.[7] Of the total 175 sorties, 158 were flown in Chor Sector, 13 were flown in Ramgarh Sector and 4 sorties were flown in Kutch Sector. Official PAF Records.[8] The Story of Pakistan Air Force – A Saga of Courage and Honour, page 464.

[9] Flt Lt P V Apte, 220 Sqn, shot down on 4 Dec (KIA); Flt Lt J L Bhargava, 220 Sqn, shot down 5 Dec (POW); Flt Lt A V Kamat, 10 Sqn, shot down 9 Dec (POW).
© M KAISER TUFAIL

This article was published in Defence Journal, September-October 2009 issue.