View Full Version : Afghan battle (Russia)
p$ycho+log!cal
12-19-2006, 04:50 PM
some nice bombing + air action
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=02f15973d1
i rarely see direct engagement between troops on the ground and aircraft!
enjoy
(i hope this is not a damn mudburger!!)
august
12-19-2006, 05:21 PM
some nice bombing + air action
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=02f15973d1
i rarely see direct engagement between troops on the ground and aircraft!
enjoy
(i hope this is not a damn mudburger!!)
well its a kind of repost... you can watch the rest of this documentary on google video.
august
12-19-2006, 05:22 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-140756878294549745&q=Afghanistan+Soviet
KillerBD
12-19-2006, 06:35 PM
The narrarator in this video has made one mistake so far, he said, "more effective are the Mi-8 helicopter gunships, which would soon become symbolic of this war". Which is very misleading/incorrect because the helicopter most feared by the Afghani's was the Mi-24. Also when the narrarator mentioned this the video was showing an Mi-24. Although the Mi-8 did carry missiles and other weapons, it was not as much of a fighter as the Mi-24. Just letting people know.
p$ycho+log!cal
12-19-2006, 08:40 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-140756878294549745&q=Afghanistan+Soviet
thx man, very appreciated!
BCE_CYKU
12-19-2006, 08:55 PM
15 000 dead and around 100 000 wounded for the Soviets, and for what? To pull out in 10 years, meaning that all those soldiers died for nothing, stupid government, governments would be more correct, they treat their armies as if it was a computer game
KillerBD
12-19-2006, 10:49 PM
^Afghanistan suffured much worse than the Soviet Union did.
15000<<<1800000
That's a really good score if you want to look at it that way.
Chounch McGavin
12-19-2006, 11:22 PM
Great video with that Google one.
15 000 dead and around 100 000 wounded for the Soviets, and for what? To pull out in 10 years, meaning that all those soldiers died for nothing, stupid government, governments would be more correct, they treat their armies as if it was a computer game
What else should have been done? If they didn't intervene there'd be an Islamic state which would have a strong influence on Tajikistan.
And the fight wasn't easy, it was USSR + weak DRA vs Mujadaheen aided by the western world (training), the muslim world (volunteers), and China (weapons).
Staying there while fighting the 3, that would have been true madness.
Prodigal
12-20-2006, 12:58 AM
nice video.. very informative.
khukuri
12-20-2006, 01:05 AM
^Afghanistan suffured much worse than the Soviet Union did.
so did the soviets during op barbarossa vs the germans
Xtoisè
12-20-2006, 01:08 AM
15 000 dead and around 100 000 wounded for the Soviets, and for what? To pull out in 10 years, meaning that all those soldiers died for nothing, stupid government, governments would be more correct, they treat their armies as if it was a computer game
your logic fell apart when you mentioned computer games. USSR had no computer games in the 80's
your logic fell apart when you mentioned computer games. USSR had no computer games in the 80's
i remember arcades... oh and tetris
Xtoisè
12-20-2006, 01:23 AM
i remember arcades...
Russian arcades are NOT video games, they are BETTER. Hunting and submarine torpedo attack were my favorite.
Korath
12-20-2006, 05:20 AM
Very interesting. BTW, anyone knows what happened with Gromov? Is he just a retired pensioner growing carrots at a datcha near Moscov?
august
12-20-2006, 05:27 AM
15 000 dead and around 100 000 wounded for the Soviets, and for what? To pull out in 10 years, meaning that all those soldiers died for nothing, stupid government, governments would be more correct, they treat their armies as if it was a computer game
I kind of agree. I feel bad for the soldiers that died. War is the last option, and if you get in the war, before that you should make sure that you acctualy can win, so that it isn't for nothing.
RIP to the Soviet soldiers.
KillerBD
12-20-2006, 08:56 AM
The U.S. also supplied the terrorists with anti-aircraft rocket launchers (stingers I think)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
Probably the Najibulla regime would stay in Kabul up to the present together with the Northern Alliance unless the Eltsin government betrayed it in the beginning of 1992. During 3 years DRA beat off the mujaheds’ swoops with unexpected success until the supply of fuel and ammunition was cut off by Eltsin, probably under pressure of the US authorities who wished “the final victory” in Afghanistan. On the contrary, the aid to mujaheds from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia increased constantly. As a result, Taliban took the power in 1996 at the expense of “moderate” mujaheds and all educated part of population fled from the new religious state.
Very interesting. BTW, anyone knows what happened with Gromov? Is he just a retired pensioner growing carrots at a datcha near Moscov?
B.V. Gromov is a governor of the Moscow region now - http://www.bgromov.ru/data/index.php?chapter_id=101 (http://www.bgromov.ru/data/index.php?chapter_id=101)
NEFAS
12-20-2006, 10:12 AM
August, do you've a hi res photo of your avatar? Its very interesting!!
Sorry for the off-topic...
desantnik85
12-20-2006, 10:15 AM
15 000 dead and around 100 000 wounded for the Soviets, and for what?
Just another move in the 50 years of the Cold War. It was never about Afghanistan itself, it was all about spheres of influence and forward bases (or denying such things to the enemy) in the struggle between the two super powers for global dominance.
No more or less pointless than any of the other minor conflicts that made up the Cold War, only in that it was effectively the last conflict of that era.
Nobody gives a **** about Afghanistan itself, never did, never will. It just occupies a space which strategically is important.
august
12-20-2006, 10:42 AM
August, do you've a hi res photo of your avatar? Its very interesting!!
Sorry for the off-topic...
yepp. I got it on my home pc. Right now I'm at work, so when I get home I'll post it or pm you.
desantnik85
12-20-2006, 04:45 PM
August, do you've a hi res photo of your avatar? Its very interesting!!
Yes, it is a classic photo! Some interesting details to be seen there...
Here you go Comrade:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e239/AIKozlov/afganphoto.jpg
15 000 dead and around 100 000 wounded for the Soviets, and for what? To pull out in 10 years, meaning that all those soldiers died for nothing, stupid government, governments would be more correct, they treat their armies as if it was a computer game
No matter what country it is, they never tell the truth regarding their losses in men and machines in the wars. the USSR was well known for exagerating its combat losses in Afghanistan. As far as I know they suffered over 15,000 casualties just in the first five years of the war. It is also mentioned in the french documantry Smokes of War or something. That was when Mujahideen no sophisticated weapons and after the arrival of stingers and anti tank missiles the Soviet casualities trippled. After the stringers arrival between the year 1986 and 1988 the Soviets suffered AT LEAST one aircraft a day until they learned about the weapon and addapted new tactics. I was a child during the conflict but I had many close relatives like uncles and cousins serving with the Afghan AF and army and they often talked about how brutal the conflict was.
Probably the Najibulla regime would stay in Kabul up to the present together with the Northern Alliance unless the Eltsin government betrayed it in the beginning of 1992. During 3 years DRA beat off the mujaheds’ swoops with unexpected success until the supply of fuel and ammunition was cut off by Eltsin, probably under pressure of the US authorities who wished “the final victory” in Afghanistan. On the contrary, the aid to mujaheds from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia increased constantly. As a result, Taliban took the power in 1996 at the expense of “moderate” mujaheds and all educated part of population fled from the new religious state.
B.V. Gromov is a governor of the Moscow region now - http://www.bgromov.ru/data/index.php?chapter_id=101 (http://www.bgromov.ru/data/index.php?chapter_id=101)
I agree with you on most of that. Even after the aid was cut to DRA the government managed to purchase military hardware and it kept kicking the Mujahs asses. Its collaps was based on internal issues not a military defeat by Mujahs at all. I have lots of family members that served witht he Afghan AF and army and I lived there all the way until Talibans times experiencing everything first hand.
desantnik85
12-21-2006, 03:54 AM
After the stringers arrival between the year 1986 and 1988 the Soviets suffered AT LEAST one aircraft a day until they learned about the weapon and addapted new tactics.
Which wasn't actually that long.
I don't have the figures to hand at this second, but the much vaunted Stinger's impact on the conflict is very much over-rated by amateur historians.
Not only did Soviet tactics change but changes were made to equipment to counter it too - for example the SU-25 had armour fitted between its two engines, after which aircraft were only damaged, never destroyed by Stingers.
As a further example, the most effective Afgan warlord, Massoud, never received ANY Stingers simply because of the politics between the Afgan rebels and their Pakistani backers.
Overall, Soviet casualties peaked around 1983 before trailing off quite significantly over the next 6 years. Their equipment improved, their tactics were honed and ironically in the last phase of the war they were doing FAR better than the West would have liked. However there is no denying that initially they were ill prepared to fight an anti-partisan war in Afganistan.
Lokos
12-21-2006, 07:36 AM
As far as I know they suffered over 15,000 casualties just in the first five years of the war
If by casualties you mean KIA/WIA/MIA and the sick then yes, they did. If by 15,000 you mean KIA/MIA alone, you are very much mistaken. The numbers involved are all internal Soviet government numbers, and they had no reason to falsify them (no one but the government had access to them) - especially as those numbers were used to calculate the replenishment stocks of materiel and combat/support personnel of the 40th Army during the conflict (Krivosheev).
After the stringers arrival between the year 1986 and 1988 the Soviets suffered AT LEAST one aircraft a day until
Where do you get this trash from, exactly?
I was a child during the conflict but I had many close relatives like uncles and cousins serving with the Afghan AF and army and they often talked about how brutal the conflict was.
Ah, I see, national pride must be asauged.
Excuse me if I do not take the word of your uncles, aunties, cousins, third cousins from the left, sons, daughters, nieces, nephews and their pets when it comes to the combat losses of the Soviets across Afghanistan over the course of nine years.
Lokos
august
12-21-2006, 11:28 AM
After the stringers arrival between the year 1986 and 1988 the Soviets suffered AT LEAST one aircraft a day until they learned about the weapon and addapted new tactics.
haha LOL you must be kidding... Soviets lost about 300-350 aircrafts for the whole war.
After the stringers arrival between the year 1986 and 1988 the Soviets suffered AT LEAST one aircraft a day until they learned about the weapon and addapted new tactics.
Where did you get that information? Source please!
p$ycho+log!cal
12-21-2006, 11:59 AM
Just another move in the 50 years of the Cold War. It was never about Afghanistan itself, it was all about spheres of influence and forward bases (or denying such things to the enemy) in the struggle between the two super powers for global dominance.
No more or less pointless than any of the other minor conflicts that made up the Cold War, only in that it was effectively the last conflict of that era.
Nobody gives a **** about Afghanistan itself, never did, never will. It just occupies a space which strategically is important.
i agree with you!
With all due respect to all Russian comrades, the entire Soviet history is based on pure secracy and propaganda. Eventhough that I think Afghanistan would have been far better now if the US didnt get involved and the Soviet Afghan freindship continued still one can not hide the sun with two fingers. The Soviet citizens were not even allowed to write Afghanistan on their sons' graves. According to this Russian organization of mothers of dead soldiers I dont know what is it called , they say the official losses figures are at least three times lower the the acutal number. I understand its hard for Russian guys to accept the facts, its more like a national pride issue but I am sure some day you will accept this. Now dont get me wrong I have nothing against Russians regardless of the past infact my best freind is a Russian and I am a big fan of Russian culture language and food but when it comes to politics and military issue I have a different view then yours. Dos vedania.
T-62 you haven't given a source,from where you got that information
concerning those airplane losses.
desantnik85
12-22-2006, 03:02 AM
With all due respect to all Russian comrades, the entire Soviet history is based on pure secracy and propaganda.
Sorry, for a minute there I had to check what the date was on my computer.
Now I know its 2006 I can assure you your statement is a good few years out of date!
I suppose it is Christmas... and all those James Bond films are on TV....
T-62 that would mean that the SOVIETS (I am not Russian yet my people served too) lost about 800 aircraft in just 2 years? Are you crazy dude? Yes Stingers did help but they did not destroy an air armada, you better show us some reputable source or accept that this is a just too much of an overexageration
p$ycho+log!cal
12-22-2006, 11:02 AM
exactly...no way their was 800 stingers down there...imPOSSIBLE!
its even hard to find 25-50, dont try to make us think soviet lost 800 plane from 800 stingers, LOL thats hilarious
terrier
12-22-2006, 11:16 AM
haha LOL you must be kidding... Soviets lost about 300-350 aircrafts for the whole war.
This figure is a little light.From what I have read the Soviets lost over a thousand aircraft by 1987,more than 80% have been helicopters and about a third of those lost were hinds.
This figure is a little light.From what I have read the Soviets lost over a thousand aircraft by 1987,more than 80% have been helicopters and about a third of those lost were hinds.
And where did you read this? Source please!
terrier
12-22-2006, 12:35 PM
And where did you read this? Source please!
"War in a distant Country"Afghanistan Invasion and Resistance
David C isby 1989
The USSR lost
14,453 people
118 jet aircraft
333 helicopters
147 main battle tanks
1,314 IFVs/ APCs
433 artillery and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers
p$ycho+log!cal
12-22-2006, 02:17 PM
The USSR lost
14,453 people
118 jet aircraft
333 helicopters
147 main battle tanks
1,314 IFVs/ APCs
433 artillery and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers
thx for the infos Alan! appreciated
Anonymosity
12-22-2006, 02:41 PM
The USSR lost
14,453 people
118 jet aircraft
333 helicopters
147 main battle tanks
1,314 IFVs/ APCs
433 artillery and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers
Ah yes, you got it from the wikipedia article I added this to. BTW if anyone wants the source its "Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century" by Krivosheev.
Again, Lokos has already said it. There is no reason why the USSR would underestimate its casualties because the numbers are vital for logistical concerns...if your only evidence that they did do this is because the USSR is an "evil empire" then you should honestly just leave because that is not evidence.
Alan thanks for the info.
august
12-22-2006, 07:20 PM
The USSR lost
14,453 people
118 jet aircraft
333 helicopters
147 main battle tanks
1,314 IFVs/ APCs
433 artillery and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers
thats MUCH more like it...
Chounch McGavin
12-22-2006, 09:27 PM
Yep, that's exactly the correct casulty list. The FIM Stinger missile was credited with 300+ aircraft kills
After the Vietnam war we may never find out the exact number of losses of all countries around the world in their conflicts. No matter it is in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq, Lebanon or any where else in the world. They often underestimate their losses and over estimate the damage they caused to enemy. Now to get a number that is near to the truth is to pick a number that is in between of what both sides claim.
To all those gentlemen that said thank you, you are very much welcome. :)
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/central/03/26/afghan.escape.profile/index.html
Ismail Khan: Led fight against Russians
March 27, 2000
Web posted at: 11:08 a.m. HKT (0308 GMT)
(CNN) -- Ismail Khan, an ethnic Tajik born in 1942 and a key opposition figure in Afghanistan, fought to expel the Russians from his country. Many of his battles were well publicized, including the June 1985 attack he led against Shindand air base. More than 20 MiG planes were destroyed in that battle.
In July 1987, commanders from across Afghanistan and from resistance parties, attending a conference Khan hosted, demanded Russia's withdrawal from the nation, and the Communist government's unconditional surrender.
The government's forces in Western Afghanistan surrendered to Khan on April 19, 1992, after the Communists fell. Khan was promoted to the army's top job, and trade links, schools and hospitals were reopened in Herat.
Khan eventually became governor of Herat province, which borders Iran, and served in that position when the Taliban launched an offensive against opposition groups in Afghanistan's north.
He was also supreme commander, or Amir, of Afghanistan's Herat, Ghor and Farah provinces, and reportedly helped transform Herat into a peaceful, cosmopolitan center which underwent rapid reconstruction.
Khan became frustrated by warring in other regions of his country. He called a conference in July 1994 -- and invited all party leaders, commanders and hundreds of Afghan intellectuals -- to try and find a peaceful end to the conflict.
Survivors of the fighting said Khan was a respected governor because he tried to end the looting, rapes and murders that followed the central government's collapse when the Taliban marched on the capital, Kabul.
Khan, however, was eventually overpowered, and his enemies seized control of Herat City. Khan, trying to prevent the destruction of the city's architecture, retreated. He was arrested by the Taliban and imprisoned in Kandahar.
The Shandand airbase was completely under Soviet control and no Afghan were allowed there since it was used to monitor the Americans in the Persian gulf. Now a rag tag Afghan Mujah comandar on a donkeys back can attack an airbase of such importance and destory over 20 jets on the ground, what makes you think the Russian troops in Afghanistan were partying and vecationing?
nick_ua
12-23-2006, 04:23 AM
is that me, or the guy shooting RPG on Su 24.
And how exactly the managed to shotdown one Jet using ДШК
desantnik85
12-23-2006, 04:35 AM
Yep, that's exactly the correct casulty list. The FIM Stinger missile was credited with 300+ aircraft kills
So you are telling me that in almost 10 years "other" AA systems (of which they had plenty) accounted for less than 33 kills???
As I said earlier, the Stinger's effectiveness and impact on the overall war is much over rated by amateur historians...
nick_ua
12-23-2006, 05:19 AM
here is all loses Soviet Aiforce encounter during Afgan war
http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/afgan/poteri/pot_afgan.html
here is bonus
rear picuters of Iranian F4 and Soviet Mi 1982
is that me, or the guy shooting RPG on Su 24.
And how exactly the managed to shotdown one Jet using ДШК
Why not? The DShKs and NSVTs on soviet tanks are called Anti-aircraft-gun-mount. There are also standalone AA-mounts for these guns. It's not easy to destroy an aircraft with a 12,7 but it's possible, especially when they are placed in the flight path.
I would say they lost more aircraft on the ground then losing in the air. The airport in Bagram and Kabul were almost on daily attacks and often black smoke rose them that was visible from my Soviet built Macroyan apartment black.
DaGreatRV
12-23-2006, 04:59 PM
According to Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
"Between December 25th, 1979 and February 15th 1989 a total of 620,000 soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 force at one time in Afghanistan). 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops and police. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar or manual jobs.
The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier and internal security troops came to 14,453. Soviet Army formations, units and HQ elements lost 13,833, KGB sub units lost 572, MVD formations lost 28 and other ministries and departments lost 20 men. During this period 417 servicemen were missing in action or taken prisoner; 119 of these were later freed, of whom 97 returned to the USSR and 22 went to other countries.
There were 469,685 sick and wounded, of whom 53,753 or 11.44%, were wounded, injured or sustained concussion and 415,932 (88.56%) fell sick. A high proportion of casualties were those who fell ill. This was because of local climatic and sanitary conditions, which were such that acute infections spread rapidly among the troops. There were 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis, 31,080 of typhoid fever and 140,665 of other diseases. Of the 11,654 who were discharged from the army after being wounded, maimed or contracting serious diseases, 92%, or 10,751 men were left disabled.
Material losses were as follows:
118 jet aircraft
333 helicopters
147 main battle tanks
1,314 IFV/APCs
433 artillery and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers"For those who are interrested.
AIRBORNEJOCK
12-23-2006, 05:40 PM
So you are telling me that in almost 10 years "other" AA systems (of which they had plenty) accounted for less than 33 kills???
As I said earlier, the Stinger's effectiveness and impact on the overall war is much over rated by amateur historians...
i watched a documentry on discovery there was a reporter who was imbeded with the mujahadeen he says of every stinger he seen being fired none of them hit the intended targets he wasnt impressed at all.
GreySpawn
12-23-2006, 06:03 PM
t-62, please do not post propaganda and such. attack on shindand was executed at 13 of june 1985, when troops guarding the goverment base was bribed. in result 13 goverment mig21 and 6 su7 were destroyed, 13 planes were damaged, so those losses in any way are russian. another statement, that russians lost more planes on the ground then in air are pure speculation if not the stronger word, because aerial warfare is pretty closely depicted in many works.
nick_ua
12-23-2006, 07:43 PM
T-62
Junior Member
do u speak russian?
The USSR lost
14,453 people
118 jet aircraft
333 helicopters
147 main battle tanks
1,314 IFVs/ APCs
433 artillery and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers
Thanks for the numbers man, now this is more like it 451 aircraft in TOTAL of 10 years, which is 4.51 (i know crude calculation) per year. This makes sense, but 800 in two years does not.
Fliptape
01-01-2007, 11:40 AM
451 in 10 years is 45,1 pr year which again means 0,123 pr day. or 1 every 8th day if you like.
The first month after they introduced the Stinger i can belive they lost 1 aircraft pr day but not for two years, i mean they even closed Jalabad Airbase after the first use of stingers in 1986 (25 sep) and started on creating countermeasures.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.