![]() The Tench-class submarine in the U.S. Navy's service as Diablo in 1964.
| |
History | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Name | USS Diablo |
Builder | Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine, United States[1] |
Laid down | 11 August 1944[1] |
Launched | 1 December 1944[1] |
Commissioned | 31 March 1945[1] |
Decommissioned | 1 June 1964[1] |
Stricken | 4 December 1971[2] |
Identification | SS-479 |
Fate | Transferred to Pakistan on 1 June 1964[1] |
![]() | |
Name | PNS Ghazi |
Cost | $1.5 million USD (1968) (Refit and MLU cost)[8] |
Acquired | 1 June 1964 |
Refit | 2 April 1970 |
Homeport | Karachi Naval Base |
Identification | S-130 |
Honours and awards | |
Fate | Lost under unknown circumstances with 93 personnel onboard on 4/5 December 1971 in Bay of Bengal in East of Indian Ocean.[3][4][5][6][7] |
General characteristics | |
Class and type | Tench-class diesel-electric submarine[2] |
Displacement | |
Length | 311 ft 8 in (95.00 m)[2] |
Beam | 27 ft 4 in (8.33 m)[2] |
Draft | 17 ft (5.2 m) maximum[2] |
Propulsion |
|
Speed | |
Range | 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km; 13,000 mi) surfaced at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)[9] |
Endurance |
|
Test depth |
|
Complement |
|
Armament |
|
PNS/M Ghazi (S–130)[14] (previously USS Diablo (SS-479); reporting name: Ghazi), SJ, was a Tench-class diesel-electric submarine, the first fast-attack submarine in the Pakistan Navy. She was leased from the United States Navy in 1963.[15]: 68
She served in the United States Navy from 1945 to 1963 and was loaned to Pakistan under the Security Assistance Program (SAP) on a four-year lease after the Ayub administration successfully negotiated with the Kennedy administration for its procurement.[16] In 1964, she joined the Pakistan Navy and saw military action in the Indo-Pakistani theatres in the 1965 and, later in the 1971 wars.[8]
In 1968 Ghazi executed a submerged circumnavigation of Africa and southern parts of Europe through the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, due to the closure of the Suez Canal, in order to be refitted and updated at Gölcük, Turkey. The submarine could be armed with up to 28 Mk.14 torpedoes and had the capability of mine-laying added as part of her refit.[8][5]
Starting as the only submarine in the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, Ghazi remained the Pakistan Navy's flagship submarine until she sank under mysterious circumstances near India's eastern coast while conducting naval operations en route to the Bay of Bengal.[17] While the Indian Navy credits Ghazi's sinking to its destroyer INS Rajput,[18][19][20][21][22] the Pakistani military oversights and reviews stated that "the submarine sank due to either an internal explosion or accidental detonation of mines being laid by the submarine off the Visakhapatnam harbour".[23][24][25][26][27]
In 2010, it was revealed the Indian Navy destroyed all records of their investigations into this matter in 1980 after the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.[6][28][29][30] Nonetheless, Indian historians consider the sinking of Ghazi to be a notable event; as they have described the sinking as one of the "last unsolved greatest mysteries of the 1971 war."[27][31][32]
The mysterious sinking of Ghazi took place on 4 December 1971 during its hunt to find Vikrant and/or during the minelaying mission on the Visakhapatnam Port, Bay of Bengal.[44] The cause of the sinking is still unknown, and Indian and Pakistani sources have different views.
On 16 November she was in contact with the Navy NHQ and Commander Khan charted the coordinates that reported that she was 400 kilometres (250 mi) off Bombay.: 82 [46] On 19 November she was off to Sri Lanka and entered the Bay of Bengal on 20 November 1971.: 82 [46] Around this time the Top Secret files were opened as instructed and the hunt for INS Vikrant began on 23 November and PNS Ghazi was off to Madras where reportedly the Indian aircraft carrier was stationed, but she was 10 days late and INS Vikrant was now actually somewhere near the Andaman Islands.: 82 [46][47] Unable to detect her target, PNS Ghazi's commanders became disillusioned about their hunt for Vikrant and turned back to Visakhapatnam to start laying mines off the harbour with a confidence that it would take a swipe at INS Vikrant or at least bottle up the Indian Navy's heavy units clustered in this major Indian naval base on the night of 2–3 December 1971."[41]
On 1 December 1971, Vice Admiral Nilakanta Krishnan briefed Captain Inder Singh, the commanding officer of INS Rajput, that a Pakistani submarine had been sighted off the Sri Lankan coast and was absolutely certain that the submarine would be somewhere around Madras or Visakhapatnam.[48] He made it clear that once INS Rajput had completed refueling she must leave the harbor with all navigational aids switched off.[48]
According to Indian claims at 23:40 on 3 December 1971, taking on board a pilot, INS Rajput moved through the channel to the exit from Visakhapatnam.[48][49]
At midnight, shortly after passing the entrance buoy, the starboard lookout reported a breaker on the surface of the water right on the nose. According to the Indian Navy's claims, Captain Singh changed the course at full speed across the specified point and ordered to drop two depth charges, which was done.[48] The explosions were "stunning", and Rajput suffered a serious material concussion to its structure. However, visible results of this attack are not given.[48] INS Rajput for some time surveyed the area dumping bombs, no longer found any contact — either visual or acoustic. A few minutes later the destroyer continued her way to the coast of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).[48][49]
On the night of 4–5 December 1971, Ghazi sank with all 93 servicemen on board (11 officers and 82 enlisted[50]) under mysterious circumstances: 157 [44][51] off the Visakhapatnam coast, allowing the Indian Navy to effect a naval blockade of East Pakistan.: 157 [51]
See also: Military deception |
According to Indian DNI's director Rear-Admiral Mihir K. Roy, Ghazi's existence was revealed when a signal addressed to naval authorities in Chittagong was intercepted, requesting information on a lubrication oil only used by submarines and minesweepers.[44][52]
Indian Navy intelligence tracked Ghazi with a codename issued as Kali Devi,[4] and the Indian Navy began to realize that the Pakistanis would inevitably be forced to send their submarine Ghazi to the Bay of Bengal, as the sole ship which could operate in these waters.[4]
Vice Admiral Nilakanta Krishnan of the Eastern Naval Command had maintained that it was clear that Pakistan would have deployed Ghazi in the Bay of Bengal and a part of its plan was an attempt to sink the Indian aircraft carrier Vikrant.[8] At the same time concerted action was taken to disseminate misinformation designed to mislead the enemy about the true location of the aircraft carrier, and to foster confidence that the carrier was stationed at Visakhapatnam.[8][48] In particular the D 41 Rajput was instructed to move from Vishakhapatnam to Madras, sending signals as if it were the Vikrant.
All these activities were apparently successful in deceiving Ghazi when on 25 November 1971, the Navy NHQ communicated with Ghazi that stated: "Intel indicates carrier in port".[49]
On 26 November 1971, Ghazi was expected to communicate with the Navy NHQ to submit its mission report but did not communicate with its base.[53] The Navy NHQ repeatedly made frantic efforts to establish the communication and anxiety grew as days passed for her return to the base.[53] Before the naval hostilities broke out, commanding officers had started worrying about Ghazi's fate but the Navy NHQ senior command had replied to their junior officers that several reasons could be attributed to the failure of the submarine to communicate.[53]
On 9 December, the Indian Navy issued a statement about the fate of Ghazi. The first indication of Ghazi's fate came when a message from the Indian NHQ, claiming sinking of Ghazi on the night of 3 December, was intercepted.[53] The Indian NHQ issued the statement a few hours before the loss of INS Khukri, and prior to launch of second missile attack on Karachi port.[53]
After the ceasefire in 1971, the Government of India undertook an investigation into the incident and immediately claimed that the submarine was sunk following the series of manoeuvres by the Indian Navy.[53] A submarine rescue vessel, INS Karanj was sent to check the debris and India later built a "Victory at Sea Memorial" on the coast near where Ghazi was sunk.[54] India credits the INS Rajput for sinking Ghazi and her crew were honored with gallantry awards for this event, but the actual details of Ghazi's sinking became unclear, as new narratives soon began to emerge after the war.[2]
The claim of sinking Ghazi has been the centre of controversy between the Indian authors, giving doubts in their theories of mysterious sinking of the submarine.[53] With Commodore Ranjit Roy testifying that "very loud explosion effects were heard at the beach that came from underwater."[53] Commodore Roy also concluded that "...at that time, how the Ghazi was sunk remained unclear as it does today."[53]
The official history of the Indian Navy, Transition to Triumph, authored by retired Vice-Admiral G.M. Hiranandani, gave an exhaustive account of the sinking of Ghazi. He quoted naval records and top naval officials who commanded operations on the eastern seafront as saying that INS Rajput was sent from Visakhapatnam to track down Ghazi. The book also noted that the time of dropping of the charges, the explosion which was heard by the people of Visakhapatnam and that of a clock recovered from Ghazi, matched.[55] However, Admiral Hiranandani maintained that the submarine almost certainly suffered an internal explosion but its causes are debatable.[27]
Admiral Roy of India stated: "The theories propounded earlier by some who were unaware of the ruse de guerre (attempt to fool the enemy in wartime) leading to the sinking of the first submarine in the Indian Ocean gave rise to smirks from within our own (Indian) naval service for an operation which instead merited a Bravo Zulu (flag hoist for Well Done)".[52]
Admiral S. M. Nanda, Chief of Naval Staff of the Indian Navy during the conflict, stated : "In narrow channels, ships, during an emergency or war, always throw depth charges around them to deter submarines. One of them probably hit the Ghazi. The blow-up was there, but nobody knew what it was all about until the fisherman found the life jacket".[56]
In 2003, the Indian Navy again sent its divers to overlook its investigation and the divers recovered some items including the war logs, official backup tapes from her computers, and mission files that were sent to the Eastern Naval Command of the Indian Navy. The divers who studied the wreckage confirmed that the submarine must have suffered an internal explosion which blew up its mines and torpedoes.[57] Another theory suggests an explosion of hydrogen gas which built up inside the submarine while its batteries were being charged underwater.[27]
In 2010, Lieutenant-General J. F. R. Jacob of Eastern Command mentioned in an article that "Ghazi was destroyed in an accident in which Indian Navy was not involved. There were many opinions from authors of the Indian side who also shared this scepticism of the Indian Navy’s official stance."[58] Jacob also stated in the article that the Indian Navy had no information about the sinking of Ghazi until they were informed by the local fishermen the next day.[30]
In 2010, it was reported that the Indian Navy had destroyed all records of the sinking of the submarine Ghazi.[28][29][30] Vice Admiral G. M. Hiranandani, who was tasked with writing the official history of the navy, said that he was unable to obtain any old files regarding Ghazi sinking.[59] One of the retired navy officer who saw action in 1971 said that the destruction of the Ghazi papers and those of the army in Kolkata depicts the many instances when Indian war history has been deliberately falsified. He further stated that 'We have enough heroes. In the fog of war, many myths and false heroes may have been created and many honest ones left unsung'.[6]
In 2011, former Indian naval chief, Admiral Arun Prakash quoted in the national security conference that [Ghazi] had sunk under mysterious circumstances, "not by INS Rajput as originally claimed."[60][61] Parkash later published an article in Indian media in 2021 in which he stated that PNS Ghazi sank due to an internal explosion.[62]
Main articles: High-test peroxide, Nickel–hydrogen battery, and Endothermic process |
In 1972, the Hamoodur Rahman Commission (HRC) never carried out an investigation into this incident despite its formation to assess the military and political failures of the country in the war of 1971.[63]
It was only on 10 February 1972, when the incident was officially recognised by the Government of Pakistan and then-President Zulfikar Bhutto met with the grieving families and loved ones of the officers and sailors who served in Ghazi, and told them that they may have all perished due to this incident as many of the slain family members were pushing for repatriation to the Government of Pakistan as they were keeping the hope alive that they may have survived and rescued by India.[53]
The Naval Intelligence conducted its own investigations and its military oversights stated that Ghazi sank, when the mines it was laying, were accidentally detonated.[64] Pakistani military oversights into this incident were not immediate. Instead, the Naval Intelligence took time to conclude its investigations that went on for several years.[8] Over the decades, the military oversights were kept hidden and were not known to the public until 1990s when the Navy made an announcement over the completion of its insights into this incident.[8][41] Following this announcement, Pakistan addressed the problems connecting the electromechanical failures, computer problems, and Mk.14 torpedoes' "circular deep running" once launched from the firing ship.[8]
Pakistan never accepted the theory from the Indian Navy but provided its alternative insights into this disaster based on the investigations on the Mark 14 torpedoes and other vintage military equipment installed in Ghazi.[8] According to the Pakistan Navy's investigation, there were two probable reasons connecting to this mishappening:
Another theory from foreign experts, also favoured by Pakistan, is that the explosive shock waves from one of the depth charges set off the torpedoes and mines (some of which may have been armed for laying) stored aboard the submarine.[48][53] The Navy NHQ counter-argued: Ghazi itself may have inadvertently passed over the mines during the mine laying operations; patrolling Indian vessels or Indian depth charges might also have tripped the count mechanism of one or more mines.[53] Credibility is added to this story by the later discovery made by Indian Coast Guard divers in 2003, that the damaged parts of the submarine had been blown inside out.[48][67]
From information found in the investigation conducted on the cause of the loss of the American submarine USS Cochino, it is possible that the lead-acid battery vented explosive hydrogen gas while charging underwater.[68]: 215 Henceforth the hydrogen gas, if not properly vented, could have accumulated into an explosive concentration.[68]: 215
In addition, the NI's investigations also exposed the deployment of Ghazi when it was indicated that there was no indication that Ghazi's crew had ever practiced with mines, and most of its crew including its commanding officer were relatively new to the submarine for the magnitude of this type of deployment.[8] As opposed to the U.S. Navy service which had restricted to the personnel of 81, the Ghazi's complement was about 93, the award, Star of Courage, acknowledged that were there were 12 extra personnel aboard the boat at the time of its sinking.[69] An increase in the sub's total complement would put a strain on the logistical capabilities of a patrol because it reduces its duration.
In 2006, Pakistan, citing their evidences, rejected India's claim of sinking Ghazi and termed the claims as "false and utterly absurd".[3]
An independent testimony stems from an Egyptian naval officer who was at that time serving on an Egyptian submarine which was undergoing refit in the harbour. He has confirmed the occurrence of a powerful explosion in the vicinity of the harbor late at night. There were no naval ships, as reported by this officer, outside the harbor at that time and it was not until about an hour after the explosion that two Indian naval ships were observed leaving harbor.[70][71]
Some independent writers and investigators maintained Ghazi was sunk mysteriously not by two depth charges alone, Ghazi may have sunk either by the hydrogen explosion produced when the batteries were charging, or by the detonation of a mine, or either by the sea floor impact while trying to avoid the depth charge released by INS Rajput.[8][27][4]
In 2012, Pakistani investigative journalists from The Express Tribune who were affiliated with the Express News USA based in Washington D.C. were able to get in touch with Diablo's retired and now-aged former US Navy crew members who were allowed to study the sonar pictures and sketches of the sunken vessel where they believed that: "an explosion in the Forward Torpedo Room (FTR) destroyed the Ghazi."[58] This view is also shared by Indian journalist Sandeep Unnithan, who specializes in military and strategic analysis.[58][72]
In 1972, both the United States and the Soviet Union offered to raise the submarine to the surface at their expense.[52] The Government of India, however, rejected these offers and allowed the submarine to sink further into the mud off the fairway buoy of Visakhapatnam.[52]
In 2003, Indian Navy divers recovered a few items from the submarine and brought up six bodies of Pakistani servicemen when they blasted their way into the submarine.[27] All six servicemen were given military honorary burial by the Indian Navy. Items recovered were the back-up tapes of the radar computers, war logs, broken windshield, top secret files, as well as one of the bodies of a petty officer mechanical engineer (POME) who had a wheel spanner tightly grasped in his fist.[27] Another sailor had in his pocket a letter written in Urdu to his fiancée.[27]
In 2003, additional photos were released by the Indian Navy of the vessel.[27]
Main article: PNS Ghazi (S134) |
In 1972, Ghazi and her serving officers as well as crew members were honoured with gallantry awards by the Government of Pakistan.[7][73] After the war, President Richard Nixon forgave the remaining debt of Ghazi to Pakistan when the U.S. Navy's CNO Admiral Elmo Zumwalt visited Admiral Mohammad Shariff in Calcutta in 1972.: 219–226 [52] In addition, she remained the first and to-date the only U.S.-built submarine to have served in the Pakistan Navy, although in successive years, only surface warships had been acquired through transfers from the United States as Pakistan worked towards building its own long-range submarines, the Agosta 90B, through a technology transfer from France.[74]
At the Naval Dockyard in Karachi, a 'Ghazi Monument' was built to perpetuate the memory of the submarine and its 93 men.[69] In 1974, the naval base, PNS Zafar, was commissioned and constructed in the memory of Commander Zafar Muhammad Khan that now serves as the headquarter for Northern Naval Command.[69] In 1975, the Navy acquired the Albacora-class submarine from the Portuguese Navy and named it Ghazi (S-134), in memory of PNS Ghazi.[75]
Her loss to the Pakistan Navy through an accident was a watershed and a significant event, leading the Navy's engineering to the implementation of a rigorous submarine safety programme.[53]
In 1998, the Inter-Services Public Relations produced and released the film, Ghazi Shaheed which starred Shabbir Jan as commander of Ghazi, and Mishi Khan as Commander's wife; the film is based on the events involving Ghazi's mission and the lives of men who served in Ghazi.[76] Another movie, Untold Stories: Ghazi and Hangor were sponsored and released by the ISPR to commemorate Ghazi and her crew during their missions in 1971.[73] In 2017, an Indian film was based on this submarine attack named The Ghazi Attack.
In 2016, PNS Hameed was commissioned where Ghazi was honoured and is a namesake of her first officer, Lt-Cdr. Pervez Hameed.[77]
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() | |||
Sitara-e-Jurat (Awarded in 1965 and 1971) |
President's Citation (Citation in 1965) |
Tamgha-i-Jurat (Awarded in 1965) |
Sword of Honour (Awarded in 1965) |