Jammu is indeed a hard bone, the Pakistani army stormed for 3 days, not only did not make much progress, but suffered relatively heavy losses.

Although the Pakistani army did not admit it, during the urban battle in Jammu, at least thirty "Khalid 2" were lost.

Because the environment of the city is too complicated, many of the tanks destroyed on the front line were directly abandoned, and only a few were snatched back.

In fact, this also reflects the problems of the Pakistani army from one side.

What's the problem?

Lack of tackling difficulties.

In Srinagar, the Pakistani army did not fight urban warfare at all, and after completing the encirclement and launching an attack, the Indian army surrendered.

This is even more true in Lahore, where most of the fighting is fought outside the city.

During the urban war, the Pakistani army was defending the ancient city of Lahore, and attacking the Indian army.

Obviously, it was in Jammu that the Pakistani army fought urban warfare for the first time as an attacker, and also experienced the difficulties of urban warfare for the first time.

It is undeniable that the front-line officers and men of the Pakistani army fought very bravely.

The problem is that without the right weapons, without the right tactics, valiant will not lead to any other than huge casualties.

Of course, in some cases, morale can be devastated.

What is most needed to fight urban warfare?

Weapons, or tactics?

Obviously, it's all wrong.

The most important thing to attack a city that is well fortified by the enemy is time.

In terms of tactics, the best option for attacking a city is actually to besiege but not attack, and to break the morale and fighting spirit of the defenders through encirclement as much as possible.

Attacking is actually the next strategy.

It's just that, in many cases, the attacker does not have a time advantage.

Why?

A siege can indeed achieve the goal of striking the enemy, but in the face of a well-prepared enemy, a long siege is required to achieve the goal.

Modern warfare, is it possible to besiege for a long time?

Or is it possible that there are several years of circumference, as in ancient times?

The answer is clearly no.

Modern warfare is fought with quick battles, not to mention politicians, even generals, none of them are like being stationed outside the enemy's city for several years.

Then, all that remains is to storm it.

The Indian army in Jammu had no intention of surrendering, so the only option for the Pakistani army was to launch a strong assault and try to take this vital city in the shortest possible time.

In fact, in these three days, the Pakistani army swept through other Indian-administered Kashmir areas except Jammu.

That is, now only Jammu remains.

It's just that there is not much time left for the Pakistani army.

On the 19th night of the war, the Pakistani army launched its last large-scale assault on Jammu, throwing in 3 brigades in an attempt to take the city in one go.

Unfortunately, the fighting continued until dawn, and the Pakistani army was still unable to capture the city center.

Interestingly, in these days, the Pakistani army has scheduled offensive operations at night.

Why?

The Pakistani army has better equipment for night battles, and its combat effectiveness at night is stronger, to be precise, compared with the Indian army, the Pakistani army is better at fighting at night.

At this point, India has no other choice.

Although the defenders of Jammu are still fighting, as long as the Pakistani army invests enough troops, it is only a matter of time before Jammu is defeated.

Rush to the aid of Jammu?

Obviously, overthinking.

Not to mention anything else, the two Indian armored brigades that set out from New Delhi are still north of New Delhi, and they have not advanced for 2 days.

In Uttar Pradesh, all the Indian army was able to mobilize was infantry.

Send infantry to the aid of Jammu?

Obviously, as long as the commander of the Indian army is not confused, he will not let the officers and soldiers go to death.

More importantly, with Indian-administered Kashmir occupied by Pakistani forces, the Indian army needs to redeploy its defensive line along the border, and there are not enough troops to rush to Jammu.

If troops are sent to reinforce Jammu, then there will be loopholes in other directions.

There's no way to fight, so what should I do?

On the morning of the 20th day of the war, the Indian authorities took the lead in proposing a ceasefire.

However, instead of accepting the mediation of China, the ceasefire was achieved in accordance with the framework proposed by the United Nations, that is, the two sides retreated to the positions before the outbreak of the conflict.

Is it possible?

It must be admitted that the Indian authorities are indeed brazen.

When the 200,000 Indian troops were still besieging Lahore, why didn't the Indian authorities do it, or why didn't they withdraw and cease fire with Pakistan?

Now that the Pakistani army has regained all the lost ground and occupied Indian-administered Kashmir, the Indian authorities know about the ceasefire and know that they are going to return to where they were before the conflict?

Obviously, the Pakistani authorities will definitely not agree.

Only, the UN Security Council cannot be refused.

In the afternoon of the same day, the Pakistani prime minister made it clear that a ceasefire with India could be achieved, but on the basis of the existing one.

That is, a ceasefire on the spot.

Moreover, instead of blocking the door to negotiations, the Prime Minister of Pakistan proposed that negotiations be held after a ceasefire, with the outcome of the negotiations determining the Line of Actual Control.

To put it bluntly, it is possible to talk, but there is no guarantee that it will be able to achieve any results.

Subsequently, at 18:30 Fort ***, the Pakistani authorities announced a unilateral ceasefire for 12 hours to allow the Indian authorities to make a decision.

What decision?

It is to say whether to cease fire first and then negotiate.

Of course, the Pakistani army also has a conditional unilateral ceasefire, that is, the Indian army must not disrupt the status quo, otherwise the Pakistani army on the front line will definitely fire back.

It can be seen that the so-called unilateral ceasefire is actually just a cessation of the offensive.

Why stop the offensive?

Quite simply, the Pakistani army is in trouble in Jammu and may not be able to achieve victory if it continues to fight, so it is better to let the front-line troops rest for a night.

Of course, this is also to win the support of the international community and seize the initiative politically.

Isn't India going for a ceasefire?

Now, Pakistan has unilaterally ceasefired.

Although 12 hours is not much, it is enough for the Indian authorities to decide whether to negotiate with Pakistan, that is, it is India's turn to show good faith.

For the Indian authorities, this is a big problem.

Why?

If we negotiate with Pakistan on the existing basis, it will be tantamount to admitting the loss of Indian-administered Kashmir and accepting a fait accompli.

What you can't get on the battlefield, you can get at the negotiating table?

In fact, as long as the Pakistani army continues to besiege Jammu and the negotiations drag on for a year and a half, it is very likely that the Indian army guarding Jammu will surrender to the Pakistani army after running out of ammunition and food.

In fact, it is impossible to just admit that Indian-administered Kashmir has been lost.

You know, for the Indian authorities, especially the ruling party of the Prime Minister, this means losing everything and even possibly being liquidated during the next government.

The problem is that if India does not agree to a ceasefire, it will lose the initiative politically.

So, to talk or not to talk?

This is a big problem for the Indian authorities.