Talk:Battle of Asal Uttar

Query

Asal Utter was not the largest tank battle in the history of the sub continent, that would be Battle of Chawinda.

Biased source?

This article refers to only one source from an Indian based website.

This article definitely needs the Pakistani side. Whoever wrote whatever is extant obviously has an Indian POV.

Now that a Pakistani went through this article, it has been totally destroyed and needs to be rewritten. It used to be informative earlier. Indian forces fought the battle in front of the village of Khem Kheran, the pakistanis advanced from the northwest, at no time did the town ever leave indian possession so there is no question of taking it back. As is written this article makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.8.61 (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

casualties

hi, this reference The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks By Steve Zaloga says that "india claimed" to have destroyed 67 pakistani tanks at the battle. The article mentioned 97 tanks ??? so what is it ? is there no one watching for POVs here ????

more over i am still waiting to see a reference that mentioned indian casualties (i.e tanks destroyed or damaged) there is no reference here that mentions it. beside those fake references that dont have figures for casualties at all. When talking about a reference i mean to say a reliable wikipedia refrence a third party reference. An indian reference if included here must have a note with it saying "indian claim". Only this way we can achieve the neutrality of article for the time being i am removing indian casualties untill a refreence is provided.

regards.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have did some copy editing to the article making it more like a military article. I think now it reads like a neutral article isn't it ?

Any thoughts ? regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Khem Karan never fell, this article literally makes no sense now that its been re=written by Pakistanis. Sorry boys, can't re-write the article to have Pakistan win in the end.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.10.25 (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

HEAVILY BIASED INDIAN-MADE STORY

this article is heavily biaed on the indian side. this article is only written frm the indian point of view. i hav sme reasons to forward.(1)the main reason for the pakistani failure was the 48 hrs delay which was caused wen a tank stuck on the bridge made by pakistani engineers upon the canal. which gav indians enough time to regroup.(2)the patton was no doubt a super tank bt was vry heavy and subsequently it bogged down in the deep mud making them easy targets.(3)the sherman and amx-13 tanks were only inferior in speed to the patton not in fire power.an american reserch showed the the gun of a sherman and amx-13 could penetrate the armour of the patton.(4)the entire 1st armoured division was not pumped in only 2 brigades were and those 2 brigades too were not thrown forward simultaneously bt one after the other in regmental size thus decreasing their fire power and strenghth.(5)it wasnt the pkakistani armour bt the infantry tat failed to link up with the tank squadron tat had actually reached its objective of point 300 at asal uttar and tat too due to the divisional commanders death cuz he was leading frm the front.(6)asal uttar was never the turning point of war.it had no effects on the 30 mile pak advance in chummb-jurian secter,the capturing of 1200 sq.miles of area in rajistan including munabao and kishengargh, the crushing indian defeat in chawinda and the subsequent withdrawl of the indian 1 corps and 1st armd div.,the pakistani area capturings in sulemanki,and the tenacious resistance of lahore against overwelhming indian troops.(7)asal uttar was never a beffiting answer or equivilant to chawinda.in chawinda 1 regment halted and made to retreat an over sized armoured division while in asal uttar their was 1 indian btank brigade against 2 pak tank brigades. pak recaptured all lost territories in sialkot while india never recaptured khemkaran and its 4 mountain division suffered heavy losses in its 9 failed attacks.(8) in the end the pakistan losses r very exagerrated. 24 tanks were never captured only a squadron sized were captured at point 300 where the pak tank regt commander surrendered cuz the infantry failed to link up. india also parked just 60 pak tanks at bikiwind which is another clear proof for rejecting the 97 figure.indian losses r not correctly mentioned. the article has to b rewritten or just simply deleted cuz it holds no water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.88.125 (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for proving how pakistan lost. the fact still remains the same.Please note that wiki articles dont rely on self published sources or forum talk. You can give verifiable and reliable citations to prove your point. but sorry dude just because pakistan lost this and some boys dont like the article does not mean it needs to be deleted. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who won the battle. For those who are here with an agenda about proving should read WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia's purpose is to neutrally present information. On the other hand the tone of this article and many other articles is pretty much implying the tone of Indian sources which is not right. Even in the ones a specific country won a battle, neutral or technical military words should be used rather than aggressive ones. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that facts are fact even if they are not pleasant. our Pakistani Brothers often think that wiki articles are biased towards India. IMO The main reason behind this is not teh Wiki articles but the propaganda based education .I encourage them to look into reliable and neutral sources to have more truthful information. i will quote the blog of a pakistani news reporter

The public was led to believe that India had launched a ‘surprise attack’ on Pakistan, and that ‘Hindu India’ would be taught a lesson. Thus the armed forces had full public support. http://mehmal.blogspot.com/2007/09/myth-of-september-6-1965.html you can read more if you are interested. to offend anyone is never an intention here, the blog here is just an opinion but it tells us a lot of things. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not deviate from the topic. We are not discussing Pakistan's or India's educational system here. Also, now we give blogs to base our arguments on? And yes, your arguments are offensive, please refrain from irrelevant and offensive debate. "Please understand that facts are fact even if they are not pleasant" is a typical sign of WP:TRUTH. The fact is that no story from Pakistani side has been written in this article. This article needs a lot of improvement and neutrality. Even the battle is not fully explained. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Blog was not a proof of any claim etc, it was just a food for thought. an opinion that tries to give a neutral approach. yes lets get back to the topic, suggestions to improve the topic welcome. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Self published sources aren't any more significant than you're own plain opinion on an issue. I guess some additions from the events during this battle should be added, especially from Pakistani side since they are lacking. Regardless of which won, so many significant events take place from both sides in battles which are mostly missing here. Some one with more knowledge about the incident is welcome to add some sourced material. I'm also adding wiki project Pakistan's tag to the talk page so as to attract more relevant editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The article above is not claimed as a source its just a neutral opinion from a pakistani reporter. thats all, if you dont agree with it. its all right.i have already said that it was never here to prove any point.It was just a response to user 119.153.88.125 --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Opinions are disregarded here. Also refrain if they are offensive as this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Stalemate?

I am unable to find this in the source provided by SMS[1] However this source says the battle was a crushing defeat for Pakistan. The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks p33 Darkness Shines (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Reason for outcome

The Pakistani forces were defeated because they were lured into a flooded plain. This is not "the Pakistani forces being repulsed [due to]... the conditions of the plains, better Indian tactics and a successful Indian strategy", but rather the absence of effective reconnaissance, and a successfully Indian tactic of encircling the Pakistani forces and restricting their mobility by the use of flooding.119.224.100.246 (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is not intended for general discussion of the subject matter, but for discussion on how to improve the article. Do you have something to say on that subject? BMK (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Asal Uttar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070101073406/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/LAND-FORCES/Army/Patton2.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Patton2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)