After-Action Report: Soviets Almost Won in Afghanistan

[XASA]

LA Times 12/26/04
WARFARE
Surprise! The Soviets Nearly Won Afghan War

By Mark Kramer, Mark Kramer is director of the Harvard Cold War studies program and a senior fellow at the university's Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian studies.


Twenty-five years ago, on Christmas Eve, Soviet troops marched into Afghanistan with the aim of restoring order in a few months. Nine years later they withdrew amid continued violence. In their wake, civil war erupted and the Taliban rose to power, providing a haven to Al Qaeda.

Critics of the U.S. military effort in Iraq often cite the Soviet experience in Afghanistan as evidence that using foreign troops to put down an insurgency is bound to fail. But that "lesson" is misleading because it depends on a depiction of the Soviet-Afghan war that is downright inaccurate.

When Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan, they initially failed to protect their logistical and communications lines. But Soviet commanders quickly corrected these mistakes and brought in better troops, including helicopter pilots trained for mountain warfare. From mid-1980 on, the Afghan guerrillas never seized any major Soviet facilities or prevented major troop deployments and movements.

When Soviet generals shifted, in mid-1983, to a counterinsurgency strategy of scorched-earth tactics and the use of heavily armed special operations forces, their progress against the guerrillas accelerated. Over the next few years, the Soviets increased their control of Afghanistan, inflicting many casualties — guerrilla and civilian. Had it not been for the immense support — weapons, training, materials — provided to the Afghan guerrillas by the United States, Saudi Arabia, China and Pakistan, Soviet troops would have achieved outright victory.

Even with all the outside military assistance, Afghan guerrillas were often helpless when facing the Soviet military machine. Raids conducted by Soviet airborne and helicopter forces were especially effective. In late 1985 and 1986, guerrilla units sustained heavy losses in the Kunar Valley and Paktia province and retreated from large swaths of strategic territory. The previously ineffective army of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul provided valuable support, launching fierce artillery barrages and huge armored assaults. In a long study of Soviet military progress as of mid-1987, a leading Westren military expert concluded that Soviet forces were proving "devastatingly effective against the Afghan resistance," were "presently winning in Afghanistan" and were "very close to crushing the resistance."

The announcement in 1988 by then-Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev that forces would be withdrawn from Afghanistan within a year was a political and diplomatic decision, not a military one. The "bleeding wound" that Gorbachev described was not primarily Russian but Afghan. During the nine years of fighting, more than 2.5 million Afghans (mostly civilians) were killed or maimed; millions more were displaced or forced into exile. By contrast, 14,453 Soviet troops were killed, an average of 1,600 a year. This was not a trivial number, but certainly sustainable for the Soviet army, which numbered more than 4 million.

When the last Soviet troops left Afghanistan in February 1989, the situation on the ground was relatively favorable to Moscow, in part because the Soviet air force conducted sustained bombing raids to cover the withdrawal. Aided by huge inflows of Soviet weaponry, Kabul's staunchly pro-Soviet regime led by President Najibullah remained in power for the next three years. The regime's durability represented a notable success for the Soviet war effort. Only after the Soviet Union collapsed and the new Russian government cut off military aid to Afghanistan did Najibullah fall.

What relevance does the Soviet-Afghan war have for U.S. military operations in Iraq? Very little. Soviet troops did not invade and occupy Afghanistan to oust a brutal dictator or promote democratic elections. They simply aimed to install a friendly communist regime in Kabul. The number of Soviet troops never exceeded 120,000 at any time, but they eventually laid waste to the entire country.

A dearth of training and equipment hampered the Soviet war effort. By contrast, U.S. soldiers in Iraq are much better trained, equipped and motivated than their Soviet counterparts were in Afghanistan.

The Soviet-Afghan war's main relevance to the U.S. campaign in Iraq is operational. The Soviet experience underscored the crucial importance of intelligence in fighting an insurgency, an advantage the U.S. continues to lack in Iraq. It also highlighted the enormous potential of attack and transport helicopters that can strike deep in enemy territory, and it reaffirmed the value of small, flexible units of heavily armed special operations forces that are capable of carrying out rapid strikes.

Most important, the Soviet war demonstrated that the Afghan guerrillas were not invincible and that well-designed counterinsurgency operations can inflict grave damage on, and spread turmoil among, the enemy.

Looking back 25 years later, many observers have been tempted to assume that the Soviet military effort in Afghanistan was hopeless from the start. That's a distortion. An accurate appraisal of the Soviet military experience in Afghanistan is essential if we are to avoid drawing spurious lessons for current U.S. policy in Iraq.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-soviet26dec26,0,3931407.story

[Kitsune]

Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."

[Sayeret]

Most important, the Soviet war demonstrated that the Afghan guerrillas were not invincible and that well-designed counterinsurgency operations can inflict grave damage on, and spread turmoil among, the enemy.

No one ever said the Afghans were invincible and even if someone did I don't see how the Soviet-Afghan war would've proved that if the Anglo-Afghan war hadn't.

[hist2004]

One major difference between the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the American
military operations against the Taliban-Al Qaeda, is how the Afghans perceived both
the American & Soviets during their respective operations in Afghanistan. The Soviets
were seen as invaders-so the various mujahideen factions put their differences aside
and united (for the most part) against a common enemy. The US had the assistance
of the Northern Alliance without whose cooperation the campaign would have been
considerably longer and more difficult. The articles reference to the Afghan guerrillas
not being invincible is of course spot on. Once the Soviets went on the offensive late
1983-1986,87 with the use of their SOF, the resistance almost came to the breaking
point.

Regards,
Hist2004

[Yosy]

Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."

woot

Indeed.

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

[Laworkerbee]

Kitsune wrote:
Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."



Pretty damned funny man!

[sergey31]

Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."

woot

Indeed.

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

Soviets won all the battles in Afghanistan, Mujahadeens could not stand ground against Soviet machines and technology and Special Forces operations, Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change in the government.

[NicNZ]

When dismissing the Soviet achievement in Afghanistan, it is worth noting that they had both military and political/social objectives. This meant that there was more to achieve if the campaign was to be a "success". Thus, apart from the fact that no external military force has ever taken and held Afghanistan, the Soviet objective was difficult because it required Afghanistan to be revolutionised (and there can be no more suitable word than that) as a Communist society. Because the Soviets had a broader set of objectives for the campaign in Afghanistan, the fact that they were "almost successful" is much more significant than it would be if their campaign was merely a matter of occupying territory.

Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change
Here is somebody touching on what I am getting at -- their "almost victory" was not so much a military failure as it was a socio/political misconception.

No one ever said the Afghans were invincible
If no one has ever said it outright, plenty have implied it. Firstly, it was observed during the early stages of the Soviet advance: "How can you fight people who can live in a hole and eat dirt and dust?". Secondly, as I stated earlier, no external military force has ever taken and held Afghanistan. Even Alexander the Great merely passed through there on his way into India. The Af's deserve a lot of credit, they are one of the few remaining fierce and unconquered peoples on earth! :)

[Bombtrack]

Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."

Exactly.

[sergey31]

Pfff.

Hannibal *almost* won the Second Punic War. Napoleon *almost* won at Waterloo. The Confederated States of America *almost* conquered Washington. Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI. Nazi-Germany *almost* conquered the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan *almost* won at Midway in WWII. The US *almost* won against North-Vietnam.

Too bad that *almost* just isn't enough. Or, as we say around here:
"Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei."

Exactly.

You probably can't read I take.

[Herrmannek]

Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change
Here is somebody touching on what I am getting at -- their "almost victory" was not so much a military failure as it was a socio/political misconception.


Still lost the war... political strengt is just another factor as important as military strenght..
Its plain ans simple:One Alomost Won is One Full Loose, End of story

[sergey31]

Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change
Here is somebody touching on what I am getting at -- their "almost victory" was not so much a military failure as it was a socio/political misconception.


Still lost the war... political strengt is just another factor as important as military strenght..
Its plain ans simple:One Alomost Won is One Full Loose, End of story

Were they defeated?
No!
Were they kicked out?
No!
Could they continue on doing what they were doing?
Yes.
Did they have enough forces and secured all the cities?
Yes!
Did they achieve their objective?
Pretty much so. But then there are also be people with "higher/enlightened" vision and see something else. :roll:

[Yosy]

^^^^ basically you're saying that the soviets won the war - that's false.

The peace prospect faltered because no credible consensus was attainable. By mid-1987 the resistance forces sensed a military victory. They had stymied what proved to be the last set of major Soviet offensives, the Stinger missiles were still having a devastating effect, and they were receiving an unprecedented surge of outside assistance. Defeat of the Kabul government was their solution for peace. This confidence, sharpened by their distrust of the UN virtually guaranteed their refusal of a political compromise.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan

[Yosy]

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

What's with the red? Is the sentence wrong, I mean grammatically?

[sergey31]

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

What's with the red? Is the sentence wrong, I mean grammatically?

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off. Soviets killed so many of them that eventually they could not fight like they did in the beginning and thus resorted to night time operations and ambushes or hit and run tactics.
The bottom line is Soviets were not defeated but rather changed their mind and left BUT NOT DEFEATED.
For Soviets the Afghanistan was actually VERY useful as testing ground for all kinds of newer weapons systems.
Stinger did pose a bit of a problem when it was introduced but it was more psychological problem them a real treat. It had a failure rate of 85% and after a minute of being turned on if the operator could not fire it would become useless as the battery was completely drained. Soviet aircraft were then equipped with IR flares decoys and IR jammers and this resulted in even higher failure rates then weapons design limitations.

After 1986 Soviet army played a role of a hunters rather then usual war fighting and thus they emphasized more on Special Forces operations which had 98% success rate.

[foxtrot023]

Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change
Here is somebody touching on what I am getting at -- their "almost victory" was not so much a military failure as it was a socio/political misconception.


Still lost the war... political strengt is just another factor as important as military strenght..
Its plain ans simple:One Alomost Won is One Full Loose, End of story

Were they defeated?
No!
Were they kicked out?
No!
Could they continue on doing what they were doing?
Yes.
Did they have enough forces and secured all the cities?
Yes!
Did they achieve their objective?
Pretty much so. But then there are also be people with "higher/enlightened" vision and see something else. :roll:

What were then the objectives of the USSR in A-stan?

because militarily they might have been the cat´s miau, but the end result was that the soviets, for whatever reason, left Afghanistan, never to go back.

[sergey31]

Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan because they could not fight but because of political change
Here is somebody touching on what I am getting at -- their "almost victory" was not so much a military failure as it was a socio/political misconception.


Still lost the war... political strengt is just another factor as important as military strenght..
Its plain ans simple:One Alomost Won is One Full Loose, End of story

Were they defeated?
No!
Were they kicked out?
No!
Could they continue on doing what they were doing?
Yes.
Did they have enough forces and secured all the cities?
Yes!
Did they achieve their objective?
Pretty much so. But then there are also be people with "higher/enlightened" vision and see something else. :roll:

What were then the objectives of the USSR in A-stan?

because militarily they might have been the cat´s miau, but the end result was that the soviets, for whatever reason, left Afghanistan, never to go back.

The objective was to help support Afghan-Government that was PRO-Communist. The second objective was a test-ground for experimental and new/newer weapons systems. The third objective was to show throat cutting savages that they (Soviet Union) will not tolerate such barbaric actions (pre-Soviet invasion).
They left because they saw no need to be there anymore, it was useless mountain wasteland for them. Do you really think that if Afghanistan was RICH in Gold or Diamonds Soviets would have left it alone?????
And there was no need or desire to go back especially with the new government.

[hist2004]

"What were then the objectives of the USSR in A-stan?"


The original plan was to prop up the new government and deploy troops to
guard the cities and airfields while the Afghan Government Army (DRA)
fought the mujahideen. The Soviets hoped that this presence would stabilize
the country and that they could withdraw most of their troops within 2 or 3
years.

Regards,
Hist2004

[foxtrot023]

Sergey,

So of the 3 objectives you wrote, you can say that #2 was successful, but #1 and #3 were not accomplished, right? because the communist regime lasted very little and I do not think that the afghans were convinced on point #3 given that battles between soviets and afghans were bloody.

[sergey31]

Sergey,

So of the 3 objectives you wrote, you can say that #2 was successful, but #1 and #3 were not accomplished, right? because the communist regime lasted very little and I do not think that the afghans were convinced on point #3 given that battles between soviets and afghans were bloody.

I do think that all 3 objectives were achieved.

The Communist regime lasted for 3 years after Soviets withdrew, If you ask me that is not very little time when taking in a account that Soviet Forces were no longer present.
They were bloody mostly on Mujahadeen side, What I was referring to the event that trigger the war. The throat cutting incident before Soviet invasion, Anyway there is a book written by Tom Carew "Jihad- The Secret War in Afghanistan" it's autobiography of British SAS on a mission in Afghanistan during Soviet-Afghan war. By the end of the book it shows how Mujahadeens were loosing the war. Going on a mission and loosing 90% of their fighters.

[hist2004]

For clarity, Tom Carew whose real name is Philip Anthony Sessarego,
was a member of the Royal Artillery who failed selection for both the
SAS and later for the TA Reserve, R Squadron. He was allowed to remain
with the Demonstration Troops of non-Regiment members who did jobs for
the SAS. The book was principally correct in the portrayal of combat in
Afghanistan. “Carew” left the impression he was SAS which of course
discredited him. The spetsnaz brought the fight to the mujahideen in a
way they weren’t prepared for, and of course caused a major disruption
to them. Political changes initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev was the onset
of the decision to remove Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

Regards,
Hist2004

[Yosy]

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off.

That's exactly the problem: the resistance NEVER dies off. That's why winning battles IS different than winning wars. History shows us that.

[Kitsune]

To discredit the article in another way (Sergei31 listen up):

What the Russians did in Afghanistan was not unusual. Take these conflicts:
1) France and Algeria in the 50ties
2) USA and Vietnam in the 60ties and 70ties
3) Soviet Union and Afghanistan in the 80ties
4) Israel in South Lebanon in the 80ties

These are the bigger cases of a militarily potent nation that got into a guerilla war, when it tried to impose its will on a certain region. And now take the following similiarities:

In each of those conflicts the modern army in question had vastly superior combat power at its disposal compared to those of its partisan enemies. In all cases the modern armed forces controlled all or nearly all of the cities and won all or nearly all of the battles. They inflicted a number of casualties on their enemy that was around ten times as large as their own losses. And in all conflicts above the modern army in question used ruthless and brutal means to crush the opposition, which resulted in a lot of civilian suffering.
In every case the armed forces finally withdraw.
And finally: In after all of the conflicts above the nations in question claimed after withdrawal, that they had essentially won the conflict, withdrawn out of their own free will or lost only because some politicians could not cut it.

And I suspect that in 5 to 10 years one will be able to put the Iraq conflict on the list above. Because the same will happen. Including US claims that one had won it, had withdrawn out of free will or that some politicians had screwed it up.

Bet?

[Sayeret]

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

What's with the red? Is the sentence wrong, I mean grammatically?

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off. Soviets killed so many of them that eventually they could not fight like they did in the beginning and thus resorted to night time operations and ambushes or hit and run tactics.
The bottom line is Soviets were not defeated but rather changed their mind and left BUT NOT DEFEATED.
For Soviets the Afghanistan was actually VERY useful as testing ground for all kinds of newer weapons systems.
Stinger did pose a bit of a problem when it was introduced but it was more psychological problem them a real treat. It had a failure rate of 85% and after a minute of being turned on if the operator could not fire it would become useless as the battery was completely drained. Soviet aircraft were then equipped with IR flares decoys and IR jammers and this resulted in even higher failure rates then weapons design limitations.

After 1986 Soviet army played a role of a hunters rather then usual war fighting and thus they emphasized more on Special Forces operations which had 98% success rate.

The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to. It doesn't matter that the Soviets killed many more Afghans than Afghans killed of Soviets since wars aren't won that way. The Germans killed a lot more Soviets than Soviets killed of Germans but they still lost the war. The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.

[Sayeret]

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off.

That's exactly the problem: the resistance NEVER dies off. That's why winning battles IS different than winning wars. History shows us that.

Often insurgencies have won but not always here are some examples of the counter-insurgents winning:

Malayan Emergency, Philippines Huk rebellion , Mau Mau campaign, Hungarian uprising , Uprising in Tibet, Major Kurdish uprising in Iran, Palestinian uprisings in Jordan (Black September), Greece 1944-1949, Turkey 1984-1998, Algeria 1992-2000

[sergey31]

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

What's with the red? Is the sentence wrong, I mean grammatically?

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off. Soviets killed so many of them that eventually they could not fight like they did in the beginning and thus resorted to night time operations and ambushes or hit and run tactics.
The bottom line is Soviets were not defeated but rather changed their mind and left BUT NOT DEFEATED.
For Soviets the Afghanistan was actually VERY useful as testing ground for all kinds of newer weapons systems.
Stinger did pose a bit of a problem when it was introduced but it was more psychological problem them a real treat. It had a failure rate of 85% and after a minute of being turned on if the operator could not fire it would become useless as the battery was completely drained. Soviet aircraft were then equipped with IR flares decoys and IR jammers and this resulted in even higher failure rates then weapons design limitations.

After 1986 Soviet army played a role of a hunters rather then usual war fighting and thus they emphasized more on Special Forces operations which had 98% success rate.

The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to. It doesn't matter that the Soviets killed many more Afghans than Afghans killed of Soviets since wars aren't won that way. The Germans killed a lot more Soviets than Soviets killed of Germans but they still lost the war. The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.

If I'm not mistaking I believe U.S actually lost Vietnam war, they were literally running....... Soviets did not run because Mujahadeens were not chasing or coming after them and that is a big difference. Still, Soviets left but were not driven out- in my book those are two different things.
And yes, earlier stinger missiles had VERY high failure rate, every 8th or 9th one ever hit their target and with it's light warhead (not doing too great damage) most of the time aircraft would return to base especially Su 25's.

[Dima-RussianArms]

The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. . It doesn't matter that the Soviets killed many more Afghans than Afghans killed of Soviets since wars aren't won that way. The Germans killed a lot more Soviets than Soviets killed of Germans but they still lost the war. The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.
:cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

Please show us how USSR was "loosing" war in Afghanistan by 1989?
Anxiously avaiting your educated answers.

The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to
:roll:
I guess having control of all of the 319 more or less significant Afghan population centers didn't count.

The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were
And you base this statement on.....?
So what was the acceptable number of losses for the Afghans and for the Soviets?

Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans.
I am not even going to laugh :cantbeli:
For the sake of fun: how many "stingers" did the resistance recieve and how many soviet aircraft did they shot down with them?

Hist2004 had hit the nail on the head
The spetsnaz brought the fight to the mujahideen in a
way they weren’t prepared for, and of course caused a major disruption
to them. Political changes initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev was the onset
of the decision to remove Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

Simple like that, there is nothing more to it...

[berdan]

Dear gentlements. I remember reading about this matter : 15 army had lost much more then 15,000 soldiers , and the real number is yet to be discovered .
For example , there were about 8 general attacks on Panjeer gore positions , in every attack Soviet staff loosing about up to 20 percent of the personell (I bellieve that one of those attacks become to a reason for changing of a commander on 15 army) .

What do you think ? There is a truth in it ?

Berdan .

[Dima-RussianArms]

Dear gentlements. I remember reading about this matter : 15 army had lost much more then 15,000 soldiers , and the real number is yet to be discovered .
For example , there were about 8 general attacks on Panjeer gore positions , in every attack Soviet staff loosing about up to 20 percent of the personell (I bellieve that one of those attacks become to a reason for changing of a commander on 15 army) .

What do you think ? There is a truth in it ?

Berdan .

15 Army, what is that?


lost much more then 15,000 soldiers

No, total casualties amounted to 13833 killed and 454464 wounded (sick, injuries. accidents)
Here is the breakdown by years
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm

and the real number is yet to be discovered .
Why?

For example , there were about 8 general attacks on Panjeer gore positions , in every attack Soviet staff loosing about up to 20 percent of the personell
?????????
Please elaborate with dates, numbers and sources.

I bellieve that one of those attacks become to a reason for changing of a commander on 15 army) .

??????

What do you think ? There is a truth in it ?
I think and know that "facts" in your post are a product of someones imagination.

[Sayeret]

Winning battles is different than winning wars. Like Algeria and Vietnam, Lebanon, etc, the soviet invasion of A-stan (and the US invasion of Iraq) are unwinnable wars.

What's with the red? Is the sentence wrong, I mean grammatically?

You win all the battles then you win the war, it might take a bit of time but it will happen when resistance dies off. Soviets killed so many of them that eventually they could not fight like they did in the beginning and thus resorted to night time operations and ambushes or hit and run tactics.
The bottom line is Soviets were not defeated but rather changed their mind and left BUT NOT DEFEATED.
For Soviets the Afghanistan was actually VERY useful as testing ground for all kinds of newer weapons systems.
Stinger did pose a bit of a problem when it was introduced but it was more psychological problem them a real treat. It had a failure rate of 85% and after a minute of being turned on if the operator could not fire it would become useless as the battery was completely drained. Soviet aircraft were then equipped with IR flares decoys and IR jammers and this resulted in even higher failure rates then weapons design limitations.

After 1986 Soviet army played a role of a hunters rather then usual war fighting and thus they emphasized more on Special Forces operations which had 98% success rate.

The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to. It doesn't matter that the Soviets killed many more Afghans than Afghans killed of Soviets since wars aren't won that way. The Germans killed a lot more Soviets than Soviets killed of Germans but they still lost the war. The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.

If I'm not mistaking I believe U.S actually lost Vietnam war, they were literally running....... Soviets did not run because Mujahadeens were not chasing or coming after them and that is a big difference. Still, Soviets left but were not driven out- in my book those are two different things.
And yes, earlier stinger missiles had VERY high failure rate, every 8th or 9th one ever hit their target and with it's light warhead (not doing too great damage) most of the time aircraft would return to base especially Su 25's.

The USSR's goal was to take control of Afghanistan and this wasn't accomplished, thus they left. It doesn't matter that they implemented their own government since the Afghans in the mountains and countryside couldn't be controlled.

[Sayeret]

The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. . It doesn't matter that the Soviets killed many more Afghans than Afghans killed of Soviets since wars aren't won that way. The Germans killed a lot more Soviets than Soviets killed of Germans but they still lost the war. The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.
:cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

Please show us how USSR was "loosing" war in Afghanistan by 1989?
Anxiously avaiting your educated answers.

The USSR didn't have control over the country and left because of that and the amount of casualties they had.

The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to
:roll:
I guess having control of all of the 319 more or less significant Afghan population centers didn't count.

It doesn't matter that the Soviets controlled some of country because that wasn't there goal. They wanted to take over all of Afghanistan and maintain control but couldn’t because of the guerilla attacks by the Mujahadeen.

The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were
And you base this statement on.....?
So what was the acceptable number of losses for the Afghans and for the Soviets?

I base this statement on the fact that the Soviets left. They didn't expect the war to go on as long as it did or cost as many lives as it did. The Mujahadeen continued fighting against the Soviets despite losing 1.3 million people. The Soviets pulled out after 14,453 people were killed.

Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans.
I am not even going to laugh :cantbeli:
For the sake of fun: how many "stingers" did the resistance recieve and how many soviet aircraft did they shot down with them?

If you read the rest of what I wrote I said that the Stinger didn't have a significant impact but it was still an effective weapon.

I don't know where you get all this statistics about the Stinger but the Stinger had a success rate of 70-75 per cent with the Afghans. The stinger didn't make a significant effect on the conflict but it did force the Soviets to change their tactics.

Hist2004 had hit the nail on the head
The spetsnaz brought the fight to the mujahideen in a
way they weren’t prepared for, and of course caused a major disruption
to them. Political changes initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev was the onset
of the decision to remove Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

Simple like that, there is nothing more to it...

Yes, of course the Soviet government isn't going to say it pulled out because it decided the country wasn't worth the losses or the time but that's the reason.

[NicNZ]

Hmm it would appear that people are becoming split into 'for' and 'against' on this issue. In my eyes, that isnt really the way to look at it.

It is clear that the Soviets failed to achieve the success envisioned in Afghanistan. By the time the Soviets withdrew, the campaign had dragged on for years and the military and financial losses were mounting. Perhaps more significantly, the Af's refused to settle down under the Soviet-backed government.

I dont regard the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan as a loss comparable to Vietnam -- fairly independently, and regardless of pariotic American sentiments to the contrary, I regard Vietnam as a defeat. In my eyes, the key difference between the two campaigns (Afghanistan and Vietnam) is that the Soviets could (probably) have achieved the military objectives required for success but they could not achieve the socio-political objectives that were required. There are similarities, I suppose, between Afghanistan and the ongoing US efforts to stabilise Iraq under a new Government: If (or when) the US withdraws from Iraq, the campaign could hardly be deemed an "unsuccessful military campaign" but it could be deemed a socio/political failure.

On a side note, for those who are unaware, the Af's have never settled under any form of central government. Even today, the new democratic government is ridiculously illegitimate. The bulk of Af's neither care about nor support central government, if they are even are of its existence. Thus, the new democratic government in Afghanistan is not much celebrated and receives little acclaim. It would be an unwise G W Bush who celebrates "bringing democracy to Afghanistan"! :)

[Dima-RussianArms]

Sayeret, you are simply recycling/repeating your previous statements.
What about some proof for your statements: answering my questions with facts, maps, numbers, etc...?


14,453 people were killed.
Source?

Mujahadeen continued fighting against the Soviets despite losing 1.3 million people
So all of the killed Afghani were "mujahadeen"?

I base this statement on the fact that the Soviets left
:cantbeli: rofl :cantbeli: rofl
That is the best argumentation I have ever heard.... please don't become a lawyer.

It doesn't matter that the Soviets controlled some of country
What is your definition of the term "controlled"?

They wanted to take over all of Afghanistan and maintain control
:roll:
Where do you get all of these crazy ideaqs from? Seriously.

Soviet government isn't going to say it pulled out because it decided the country wasn't worth the losses or the time but that's the reason.

What did Soviet government say?

[Dima-RussianArms]

It is clear that the Soviets failed to achieve the success envisioned in Afghanistan. By the time the Soviets withdrew, the campaign had dragged on for years and the military and financial losses were mounting. Perhaps more significantly, the Af's refused to settle down under the Soviet-backed government.

I dont regard the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan as a loss comparable to Vietnam -- fairly independently, and regardless of pariotic American sentiments to the contrary, I regard Vietnam as a defeat. In my eyes, the key difference between the two campaigns (Afghanistan and Vietnam) is that the Soviets could (probably) have achieved the military objectives required for success but they could not achieve the socio-political objectives that were required. There are similarities, I suppose, between Afghanistan and the ongoing US efforts to stabilise Iraq under a new Government: If (or when) the US withdraws from Iraq, the campaign could hardly be deemed an "unsuccessful military campaign" but it could be deemed a socio/political failure.

On a side note, for those who are unaware, the Af's have never settled under any form of central government. Even today, the new democratic government is ridiculously illegitimate. The bulk of Af's neither care about nor support central government, if they are even are of its existence. Thus, the new democratic government in Afghanistan is not much celebrated and receives little acclaim. It would be an unwise G W Bush who celebrates "bringing democracy to Afghanistan"! :)

On the spot.

[Sayeret]

Sayeret, you are simply recycling/repeating your previous statements.

14,453 people were killed.
Source?

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm, the same one you provided

Mujahadeen continued fighting against the Soviets despite losing 1.3 million people
So all of the killed Afghani were "mujahadeen"?

Actually a lot more civilians were killed by the Soviets than actual guerillas but I would still consider that part of the Afghan population.

Afghanistan lost over 1.3 million people, the bulk of them civilians, in pursuit of this war.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm
I base this statement on the fact that the Soviets left
:cantbeli: rofl :cantbeli: rofl
That is the best argumentation I have ever heard.... please don't become a lawyer.

It looks like I should be a comedian, also. ;)

It doesn't matter that the Soviets controlled some of country
What is your definition of the term "controlled"?

My definition of control is they are able to control what happens in a region. In other words being able to decide what happens in a certain region but the Soviets only had control of the cities and not the country side where guerrillas could roam around and organize attacks against the Soviets.

They wanted to take over all of Afghanistan and maintain control
:roll:
Where do you get all of these crazy ideaqs from? Seriously.

So why do you believe the Soviets went into Afghanistan?

Soviet government isn't going to say it pulled out because it decided the country wasn't worth the losses or the time but that's the reason.

What did Soviet government say?

You posted what they supposedly said:

The spetsnaz brought the fight to the mujahideen in a
way they weren’t prepared for, and of course caused a major disruption
to them. Political changes initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev was the onset
of the decision to remove Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

[callous]

Just for the record the U.S. military never lost a major battle in Vietnam. By 1971 only 10 of the country's 45 provinces were seriously affected by communist activity. In 1973 we finally pulled out of South Vietnam. The country didn't fall till 1975.

[GazB]

Still lost the war... political strengt is just another factor as important as military strenght..
Its plain ans simple:One Alomost Won is One Full Loose, End of story

Well that depends upon what the objectives of the war were. If the objectives of the war was to crush opposition and then install a government friendly to you then they succeeded in doing that. The fact that they chose not to invade again when their puppet government fell in the mid 90s is irrelevant. In fact now that the reminants of the government they supported has now be reinstalled into power by the US you could say not only did they win a short brutal war but they now have their government in power thanks to US taxpayers money. Of course ask most Soviet Veterans of the war and even if they had won they probably felt like the lost when they got home. :-( Those I have seen interviewed that didn't say they lost said it was a good Polygon... ie training ground.

Imperial Germany *almost* won WWI.

Probably the most relevant example in the sense that the Germans were not really defeated on the battlefield... rather they were economically crushed by the Royal Navys blockade.

The Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan like the US was in Vietnam. The Soviets wanted to take over Afghanistan and hold it but were unable to.

There were no sovietisation changes made to Afghanistan. The introduced communism properly into the cities... that meant that the women actually contributed to society as equal partners rather than invisible unmentionables. Something they lost when the Taliban took over in the md 90s. They did not adopt the Rouble as currency, no Soviet Maps were changed to include Afghanistan, there were no attempts to change the structure of government in any way to make it a new province of the Soviet Union.

They went in to change the government into a government that didn't kill Soviet Diplomats and their families in the streets.

The Afghans were more tolerant to losing people than the Soviets were and I believe that's a big part of why the Soviets left.

Rubbish.

The USSR's goal was to take control of Afghanistan and this wasn't accomplished, thus they left.

But they had control of all major towns and cities... why would they care about peasants in the odd village that was fighting?

It doesn't matter that they implemented their own government since the Afghans in the mountains and countryside couldn't be controlled.

There hasn't been a government in Afghanistan in the last 1,000 years that has had complete control over every tribe and village and mountain goat.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm

Venik has an interesting website, but I would hardly call it unbiased. Estimates seem to range from offical figures for just over 15,000 dead from the Soviet government side to CIA estimates of about 18,000. Spread out over a 10 year period that is still less than 2,000 a year... a force of 5 million during a bad patch could have a suicide rate higher than that. Of course there weren't 5 million men in Afghanistan but the Soviet Army militarily could take such losses indefinitely without problems.

[Javehn]

edit

[NicNZ]

But they had control of all major towns and cities... why would they care about peasants in the odd village that was fighting?

Cmon Gaz, you should know better than that. You cant really succeed in holding a country -- particularly Afghanistan -- just by controlling the handful of major cities while leaving the vast bulk of the country unoccupied.

On the spot.
Cheers Dima

[berdan]

Dear gentlements. I remember reading about this matter : 15 army had lost much more then 15,000 soldiers , and the real number is yet to be discovered .
For example , there were about 8 general attacks on Panjeer gore positions , in every attack Soviet staff loosing about up to 20 percent of the personell (I bellieve that one of those attacks become to a reason for changing of a commander on 15 army) .

What do you think ? There is a truth in it ?

Berdan .

15 Army, what is that?


Oh God , thank you . How embarrassing , my mistake . I was writting fom the memory . There was a article on German military newspaper (perhaps soldat und technik) about this matter , and I have read it long time ago .
I must have confused between 15 - Spn "Turkvo" bat. , and with 40-th Army .



lost much more then 15,000 soldiers

No, total casualties amounted to 13833 killed and 454464 wounded (sick, injuries. accidents)
Here is the breakdown by years
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm

Thank you

and the real number is yet to be discovered .
Why?

For example , there were about 8 general attacks on Panjeer gore positions , in every attack Soviet staff loosing about up to 20 percent of the personell
?????????
Please elaborate with dates, numbers and sources.
In the book I am holding , it states 4 attacks only in 1981.It doesn't state dates . Then 14 may ,1982 , under command of Ter - Gregoryantz . Then , the beginning of september , 1982 .Next , 21-th of April 1984 , the biggest operation sence war broke . June 1985 .
Source : "Wars of 20-th Centure " , ISBN-985-437-507-2

I bellieve that one of those attacks become to a reason for changing of a commander on 15 army) .

??????
Again my mistake . Commander of 40-th Army by then ,Boris Tkach was replaced by General-Lt. Viktor Yermakov , after 25-th of Aprile , 1982 . Warriors (el-mautaurik ) of Ahmad Massoud who was based in Pandjer gore attacked air strip in Bagram , destroying 23 plains and aircrafts , and killing tens of Soviet officers and commanders .

What do you think ? There is a truth in it ?
I think and know that "facts" in your post are a product of someones imagination.

Look - I have little doubt , that there is much truth in that article . Sence I have troubles recalling it , I was addresing in here to people who perhaps familiar with article , could fill the "holes" , sort of say , and explain . I have noticed , that mr. hist2004 has a good historical touch on that matter , and I was hoping he could shed light on that matter , if he bumped once with that article .
Never the less , thank you indeed for your answers .

[Sayeret]

There were no sovietisation changes made to Afghanistan. The introduced communism properly into the cities... that meant that the women actually contributed to society as equal partners rather than invisible unmentionables. Something they lost when the Taliban took over in the md 90s. They did not adopt the Rouble as currency, no Soviet Maps were changed to include Afghanistan, there were no attempts to change the structure of government in any way to make it a new province of the Soviet Union.

I'm not saying that the Soviets didn't have successes but the reason why they went to war was a failure. They didn't go to Afghanistan and fight there for ten years just to establish a government for a few years which could barely support itself.

The Armed Forces of the DRA were supposed to fight the counterinsurgency. However, as the countryside rose in revolt, it became obvious that the DRA could not handle the counterinsurgency alone and that the Soviets would have to participate--as the main partner.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm

Rubbish

If your going to say that atleast give some proof. Most modern armies don't tend to accept as many casualties as third world countries. Take Somalia for example. The US lost 18 soldiers and the Somalis lost several hundred but still consider it a victory. The fact that the Soviets lost less than 100,000 and the Afghans lost 1.3 million people shows this. The fact that bulk of the fighting against the Mujahadeen was carried out by the DRA in 1985 rather Soviets shows this. Another thing is a lot of the Soviet soldiers were conscripts and had low morale, so didn't help the matter any.

Although data on the armed forces were necessarily incomplete and speculative, informed observers in late 1985 estimated the strength of the army at no more than 40,000. Most army personnel were conscripts, and many of them had been forced into service by roving press gangs

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/cs-invasion.htm

But they had control of all major towns and cities... why would they care about peasants in the odd village that was fighting?

A lot of the people in Afghanistan didn't live in the major cities or towns anyway and if you can't control the country enough to prevent losing thousands of people a year thats a problem.

At this time, Afghanistan was a country of approximately 17 million people. Most were rural.

Afghanistan isn't a country like France or Russia where most of the people live in cities. If only a small percentage of the people live in cities that you wouldn't have very much control over that country.
The Soviets wanted to take complete control of the country over but weren't able to.

Pre-invasion Soviet military planning estimated that they would need 30-35 divisions to conquer and control Afghanistan completely. It soon became clear that the initial three Soviet divisions were inadequate. Eventually, the Soviets fielded five and 2/3rds division equivalents in Afghanistan. They needed far more, however, this was the maximum amount that could be supplied over the over-burdened Afghan road network. Soviet efforts to use theater logistics from the Soviet military districts broke down at the Afghan border.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm

There hasn't been a government in Afghanistan in the last 1,000 years that has had complete control over every tribe and village and mountain goat.

I know and I'm not saying that the Soviets didn't accomplish things but overall the war was a failure in acheiving the goals the Soviets wanted to accomplish.

If the objectives of the war was to crush opposition and then install a government friendly to you then they succeeded in doing that. The fact that they chose not to invade again when their puppet government fell in the mid 90s is irrelevant.

The objective of the war was to take complete control over the country and provided a link related to that earlier in my post. That includeed curshing the opposition which they were unable to do. The Mujahadeen continued attacking the Soviets through out the war up to 1989 and even the DRA after the Soviets left. They expected their puppet government to last like it did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia which did not happen.

Venik has an interesting website, but I would hardly call it unbiased. Estimates seem to range from offical figures for just over 15,000 dead from the Soviet government side to CIA estimates of about 18,000. Spread out over a 10 year period that is still less than 2,000 a year... a force of 5 million during a bad patch could have a suicide rate higher than that. Of course there weren't 5 million men in Afghanistan but the Soviet Army militarily could take such losses indefinitely without problems.

The Soviet losses in the war appear to be much larger than officially announced.

It was also a secret war. During the first two years of the conflict, the Soviet press covered the death of some two dozen servicemen—though thousands had already died. Whenever Afghanistan was mentioned in the Soviet press, it showed happy Soviet servicemen building orphanages—while neglecting to mention their role in filling them. The Soviet public was kept in the dark. When a dead Soviet soldier was returned to his family, the family was sworn to secrecy in order to get the body back for burial. Even the earlier tombstones did not list where the serviceman had died, only that he had died “fulfilling his internationalist duty.”

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm

[Sayeret]

I am not even going to laugh
For the sake of fun: how many "stingers" did the resistance recieve and how many soviet aircraft did they shot down with them?

One of the more controversial systems provided the Mujahideen was the US Stinger shoulder-fired air defense missile. This deadly, man-portable missile did not knock down anywhere near the number of Soviet aircraft that the Mujahideen and US backers claimed. However, this does not mean that the Stinger was ineffective. The Soviets completely revamped their aerial tactics to avoid losses to Stinger. High-performance jet aircraft flew at 15,000 feet where they were safe from the Stinger, but also ineffective. Helicopter gunships no longer ranged over the countryside, but flew in the relatively safe air space above Soviet ground forces. Transport and passenger aircraft kicked out strings of decoy flares during take off and landing.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm

They were used to destroy between 200 and 300 Soviet helicopter gunships, fighter jets and transport aircraft.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011204-attack01.htm

In 1986, the U.S. began shipping approximately 1,000 Stingers to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan for use against Soviet aircraft. Approximately 270 Soviet aircraft were downed with these missiles(a 79 percent combat success rate).

http://www.nisat.org/weapons%20pages%20linked/US/stinger_missile_system.htm

At the same time a sharp increase in military support for the mujahedin from the United States and Saudi Arabia allowed it to regain the guerilla war initiative. By late August 1986, the first FIM-92 Stinger ground-to-air missiles were used successfully. For nearly a year they would deny the Soviets and the Kabul government effective use of air power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan

When the leading Hinds were only about 600 feet from the ground Ghaffar yelled Tire’ and the Mujahideen’s shouts of AlIah o Akbar’ rose up with the missiles. Of the three, one malfunctioned and fell, without exploding, a few metres from the firer. The other two slammed into their targets. Both helicopters fell like stones to the airstrip, bursting into flames on impact. There was a mad scramble among the firing panics to reload and change over firers as everybody in the teams wanted their chance to shoot. Two more missiles were fired, with another success and a near miss wit) a helicopter that had landed. I believe one or two others were damaged due to heavy landings as the frantic pilots sought to touch down in precipitate haste. Five missiles three kills — the Mujahideen were jubilant.

http://www.afghanbooks.com/beartrap/english/15.htm

In the ten-month period from the first firing up to when J left the IS in August, 1987, 187 Stingers were used in Afghanistan. Of these 75 per cent hit aircraft.

http://www.afghanbooks.com/beartrap/english/15.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Stinger missile didn't make a significant impact on the war but it did force the Soviets to change tactics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soviets won all the battles in Afghanistan

On 28 May 1982, I led a group of four Mujahideen in an ambush at the very gates of the Soviet garrison in Kabul. At that time, elements of the Soviet 103rd Airborne Division and some other units were based in Darulaman about 10 kilometers southwest of downtown Kabul. The headquarters of the Soviet 40th Army was also located there in the Tajbeg Palace.

I selected the ambush site after we spent several days in reconnaissance and surveillance of the Soviet traffic around Darulaman. During the reconnaissance, we detected a pattern in Soviet vehicular movement along the road from Kabul to the Soviet headquarters in the Tajbeg palace. Just north of the Soviet Darulaman base is the small village of Afshar. It has a typical suburban bazaar with several grocery and fresh fruit stores and stalls. Soviet soldiers frequented this bazaar and would stop their vehicles there to buy cigarettes, food and imported vodka. Afshar looked like a good ambush site. Soviet soldiers felt secure there, there was room enough to set up an ambush and site entrance and exit were fairly easy. The path to and from the ambush was mostly concealed and we could easily reach Mujahideen bases and safe houses in the Chardehi District using this path.

We spent the day of the ambush in Qala-e Bakhtiar--a village six kilometers to the west of the ambush site. We had four AK-47s and a non-Soviet manufactured light anti-tank grenade launcher. In the early evening, we moved out toward Afshar. It was the Muslim month of Ramadan when Muslims fast during the entire day. Few people were out at sunset since this is the time to break the daily fast. Since our ambush site was in the immediate vicinity of the Soviet base, I decided to conduct a very quick attack on a single Soviet vehicle and to take prisoners if possible.

We moved through a narrow street of Afshar which opened onto the main road north of the Darulaman palace. Around 1930 hours, as my leading riflemen reached the street intersection, a Soviet GAZ-66 truck approached from the east on its way to the military camp. The truck had five passengers--a driver, a soldier in the right front seat and three soldiers in the back. One of the soldiers had a back-packed radio. I told my anti-tank gunner to fire when the vehicle was in the kill zone. He fired, but he narrowly missed the truck. The truck came to a sudden halt and its occupants jumped out of the vehicle, took up positions and started firing at random.

During the brief fire fight, we killed one Soviet soldier. Two soldiers ran away to the southwest toward their camp. One soldier crawled under the truck near the rear tires. The radio-man rushed into an open grocery store and hid there. One of my Mujahideen was close to the shop behind a concrete electric pylon. I told him to follow the Soviet radio-man into the front of the shop while I went into the shop's back door and introduced myself as a "friend". The Soviet soldier was flustered at first, but when he saw the foreign light anti-tank weapon in the hands of my Mujahideen, he uttered "dushman" [enemy]. He kept quiet as we bound his hands and led him out back. I recalled my team and we quickly left the area. The whole action lasted only a few minutes.

Fearing enemy retaliation, we moved out swiftly in the dark, heading to Qala-e Bakhtiar. From there, we went on to Qala-e Bahadur Khan, Qala-e Jabar Khan and Qala-e Qazi until we reached our Front's base at Morghgiran around 2200 hours. We kept our prisoner there for three days and then transferred him to our faction headquarters in Peshawar, Pakistan.

In November 1982, some 60 Mujahideen from Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin and Mohseni's Harakat-e Islami launched a night attack on the DRA Ministry of Defense located in the Darulaman Palace. The security in the area was very tight and the area between the Darulaman Palace and the Tajbeg Palace (headquarters of the Soviet 40th Army) was heavily patrolled. We decided to limit the attack to a short-range RPG attack. The Hezb group were armed with AK-47 Kalashnikovs, while the Mohseni group had British Sten guns and other weapons.(5) The Mohnseni had the RPG-7 we used in the attack. Both sides provided ammunition for the RPG.

We assembled in the staging area at Char Qala in the late afternoon. Char Qala is about three kilometers north of the target. From there, we moved south in groups to the intermediate villages of Qala-e Pakhchak and Qala-e Bahadur Khan and Qala-e Bakhtiar. Our attack position was a water mill outside the Juvenile Penitentiary close to the Darulaman Palace. As we moved, we dropped off security elements. Most of the men in the group were assigned to provide security during movement to and from the target area. Security elements were positioned at key locations, which facilitated our infiltration and withdrawal. Once our forward security elements secured the firing area, the RPG-7 gunner Saadat (from the Mohseni faction) took his position. He was about 250 meters from the target. He fired two rockets at the building. The enemy response was immediate. Guards from around the palace filled the night with heavy small-arms fire. We did not return their fire. Instead, we immediately began retracing our steps and pulled out along the route held by our security detail. We then scattered into hiding places and safe houses in the villages of Chardehi. Some years later, a prison inmate who was on the DRA side during the night attack told a Mujahideen contact that about 20 people were killed or injured in our attack

A Soviet regiment was garrisoned in the Balahessar Fortress in Kabul. In September or October of 1983, we decided to raid a security outpost south of Balahessar. This outpost formed part of the security belt around the fortress. I had 62 Mujahideen in my group. My armaments included eight RPG-7s and two 82mm recoilless rifles. My base was some ten kilometers south of Kabul at Yakhdara. We planned the raid in our base at Yakhdara, moved in the late afternoon to the village of Shewaki and waited until dark. We moved out at dark. On the way, there were several regime outposts. I detailed a five-man security element against each one as we passed it. The main outpost was at Akhozi and others were at Bagh-e Afzal and Qalacha. The security elements mission was to secure our return trip so that we wouldn't be ambushed by the enemy.

We reached Balahessar fortress which is surrounded by several security posts. I retained a 15-man attack group and posted the rest of my command as security elements guarding the other outposts. I divided my attack group into a five-man support group and a ten-man assault group. We crept up to the outpost, climbed the wall, got up on the roof of the outpost and then attacked it. I led the assault group. We hit the sentry with a RPG and he vaporized. We blew open the doors with RPG rockets and opened fire on the soldiers in the courtyard. We killed twelve of the DRA and captured three of their wounded. The rest escaped through a secret covered passage into Balahessar fortress. I had two KIA. One was Zabat Halim.(6) We took our dead with us. We could not carry the wounded prisoners so we left them there. We captured 16 weapons--Kalashnikovs and machine guns, a mortar and a RPG. As we left, there was a commotion in Balahessar and tanks moved out of the fortress in our direction. One tank came close to us and we destroyed it with an RPG. The other tanks then quit coming toward us--they had lost their taste for a fight. We just wanted to get out of there, so we left for our assembly area. We had a designated assembly area and, as we approached it, we were challenged and responded with the password. Once I assembled my entire group, we left. My security elements guaranteed a safe return. This raid was on the tenth day of the first month of the Islamic Lunar calendar--the Day of Ashura. This day commemorates the anniversary of the massacre of the Prophet Mohammad's grandson Hussein and his 72 followers at Karbala in Iraq. It is a day of mourning, reflection and solemn thinking for Shia and others. On this Day of Ashura, we thought of our own dead who died defending truth and righteousness. They had died appropriately on the Day of Ashura.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/nightstalker/nightstalker.htm

This is just an example of a few battles. The Afghans may have never won any conventional batttles but they won many guerilla battles. Here are some more links talking about that:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/ambush/ambush.htm

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/ambush-road/ambush-road.HTM

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/roadwar/roadwar.htm

Even Soviet commandos lost battles sometimes:

The terrorist fighters had the advantage of a mountain stronghold riddled with caves and tunnels dug over decades. In the 1980s, Afghan mujahideen leader Nassrullah Mansour killed many Soviet troops who sought to capture the base that lies at the southern end of the Shah-e Kot Valley and intersects a major supply and escape route east to Pakistan. In a nearby valley, a Soviet commando battalion of 400 men was wiped out in one day in April 1986 after making a similar assault below fortified ridgelines.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15883&highlight=afghanistan

While bigger battles may have resulted in more casualties, one of the most catastrophic fights occurred in February 1985. The “Black Stork” Mujahideen surrounded a Spetsnaz company near Asadabad. Of the 28 elite troops, only two survived.

http://www.vfw.org/magazine/soviets.htm

[jmatucd]

In my mind it is somewhat simple. It is very, very difficult (if not impossible) to conquer a people who hate you and are willing to fight to the death. Barring cases where invading armies are willing to exterminate their enemies (and civilians), there isn't much room to win that conflict. If your enemy will fight to the death, you must either kill him off completly (which is complicated by surrounding powers that will aide them and grant them shelter so they may re-enter the battlefield after their "defeat") or you will lose that conflict.

So without either having some support from the populace, or being utterly vicious toward the captive people (Soviet Union style around WWII, or simply killing off most of the males etc) - you will lose.

[Sayeret]

In my mind it is somewhat simple. It is very, very difficult (if not impossible) to conquer a people who hate you and are willing to fight to the death. Barring cases where invading armies are willing to exterminate their enemies (and civilians), there isn't much room to win that conflict. If your enemy will fight to the death, you must either kill him off completly (which is complicated by surrounding powers that will aide them and grant them shelter so they may re-enter the battlefield after their "defeat") or you will lose that conflict.

So without either having some support from the populace, or being utterly vicious toward the captive people (Soviet Union style around WWII, or simply killing off most of the males etc) - you will lose.

That is a good point since it's very difficult to occupy a country that doesn't want to be occupied and who's citizens are willing to carry out guerrilla attacks however one shouldn't forgot that there has been many successful counter-insurgencies in history. Even the Soviet Union had conducted successful counter-insurgencies prior to the Soviet-Afghan war such as with a counterinsurgency against the Basmachi in Central Asia and against the Ukraine following World War II. It's very difficult to balance how much power is needed to defeat the guerillas yet not upset the population of the country, which is the US is learning in Iraq right now. Unless your going to kill everyone in your way such as what Jordan did against the Palestinians (Black September) or the Chinese towards Tibet it can be a very long and hard process.

Here is an article which talks about how hard it is to maintain being nice but not too nice to a country your occupying, this particular one talks about Iraq:

http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/01/11/counteri.html

It seems like no matter what you do it is very hard to get the population of an occupied country to understand that your trying to help them rather than hurt them, even if the previous government was a horrible person. I only hope that the US has enough patience to remain in Iraq to get the job done and that the Iraqi people learn that the occupation will take time.

[sergey31]

This is how Mujahadeens were fighting Soviets and won.

I'm not finish with this piece yet.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Artwork/Afghanistan2.jpg
did this one about 9 years ago.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Artwork/art.jpg

[Sayeret]

This is how Mujahadeens were fighting Soviets and won.

I'm not finish with this piece yet.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Artwork/Afghanistan2.jpg
did this one about 9 years ago.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Artwork/art.jpg

So if I draw a few pictures of American tanks blowing up Soviets tanks and parked right next to a sign labeled "Moscow", that means that the US took over Moscow?

[sergey31]

So if I draw a few pictures of American tanks blowing up Soviets tanks and parked right next to a sign labeled "Moscow", that means that the US took over Moscow?

No. And if you are any smart you would know the answer before asking stupid qustion. :slap:
BTW, the painting is from actual event that took place in Panjir valley in 1996.

[Sayeret]

So if I draw a few pictures of American tanks blowing up Soviets tanks and parked right next to a sign labeled "Moscow", that means that the US took over Moscow?

No. And if you are any smart you would know the answer before asking stupid qustion. :slap:
BTW, the painting is from actual event that took place in Panjir valley in 1996.

Theres pictures of destroyed soviet tanks and helicopters but that alone doesn't mean that the Mujahadeen won. Wars aren't won by whoever kills the most people or has the most expensive weapons.

http://www.videofact.com/polska/aanowi/robocze%20today/afganista6.jpg

[sergey31]

Just because they lost some hardware DOES NOT MEAN they lost the war, loosing some equipment means nothing BUT style of fighting shows the real advantage or disadvantage who had.
I can't imagine or ever seeing hundreds of Soviets running away because Mujahadeens were coming and that does tells me something......

BTW, Mi 8 helicopter you have there is not even Soviet but Afghani- government. Soviets did give them quite a few of them... 3 Billion in military hardware.

[Thucydides]

No one ever said the Afghans were invincible and even if someone did I don't see how the Soviet-Afghan war would've proved that if the Anglo-Afghan war hadn't.


Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great to those of you who get their history from movies) said it first, actually. "Afghanistan can be invaded. But it can never be conquered."

[Sayeret]

Just because they lost some hardware DOES NOT MEAN they lost the war, loosing some equipment means nothing BUT style of fighting shows the real advantage or disadvantage who had.
I can't imagine or ever seeing hundreds of Soviets running away because Mujahadeens were coming and that does tells me something......

BTW, Mi 8 helicopter you have there is not even Soviet but Afghani- government. Soviets did give them quite a few of them... 3 Billion in military hardware.

Losing over a million people doesn't mean you lost the war either. Wars aren't fought over who kill the most people. If that were true Russia would have been defeated by the Germans in World War II. It's more important to hold strategic positions. Even if that helicopter wasn't a Soviet helicopter there were hundreds of helicopters shot down by the Mujahadeen.

This website provided by Dima-RussianArms

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm

shows that the Soviets lost 333 helicopters

[sergey31]

No one ever said the Afghans were invincible and even if someone did I don't see how the Soviet-Afghan war would've proved that if the Anglo-Afghan war hadn't.


Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great to those of you who get their history from movies) said it first, actually. "Afghanistan can be invaded. But it can never be conquered."

I bet if Alexander had some helicopters, thermal img devices and some satellites he would not have made that statement.
Any country can be conquered if the other country has overwhelming force and would rely on non stop brute force until all people are submitted or majority are exterminated. If Soviet Union wanted really bad they could have sent additional armies and simply over-run the country, but it was not that important as it was not their long term goal (conquering Afghanistan).

[Sayeret]

No one ever said the Afghans were invincible and even if someone did I don't see how the Soviet-Afghan war would've proved that if the Anglo-Afghan war hadn't.


Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great to those of you who get their history from movies) said it first, actually. "Afghanistan can be invaded. But it can never be conquered."

I bet if Alexander had some helicopters, thermal img devices and some satellites he would not have made that statement.
Any country can be conquered if the other country has overwhelming force and would rely on non stop brute force until all people are submitted or majority are exterminated. If Soviet Union wanted really bad they could have sent additional armies and simply over-run the country, but it was not that important as it was not their long term goal (conquering Afghanistan).

Yes, everyone says that, if the Soviet Union really wanted to then they could of. If the USSR really wanted to they could have realeased some kind of biological agent in Afghanistan but they didn't. Wars aren't won by whoever has the most advanced technology.

[sergey31]

Just because they lost some hardware DOES NOT MEAN they lost the war, loosing some equipment means nothing BUT style of fighting shows the real advantage or disadvantage who had.
I can't imagine or ever seeing hundreds of Soviets running away because Mujahadeens were coming and that does tells me something......

BTW, Mi 8 helicopter you have there is not even Soviet but Afghani- government. Soviets did give them quite a few of them... 3 Billion in military hardware.

Losing over a million people doesn't mean you lost the war either. Wars aren't fought over who kill the most people. If that were true Russia would have been defeated by the Germans in World War II. It's more important to hold strategic positions. Even if that helicopter wasn't a Soviet helicopter there were hundreds of helicopters shot down by the Mujahadeen.

If you can't fight on the fields and face your enemy then you pretty much lost the war. Like I mention earlier loosing military hardware was not that big of deal to the Soviets, they had thousands more that they could easily afford to loose.
In my book, you loose the war when you hide from the enemy, conduct secret transports at night and simply outnumbered and outmatched by the enemy.
Russians did loose many millions in WW2 but they actually drove the Germans out, which Mujahadeens could never do and that is a BIG difference.

[Sayeret]

Just because they lost some hardware DOES NOT MEAN they lost the war, loosing some equipment means nothing BUT style of fighting shows the real advantage or disadvantage who had.
I can't imagine or ever seeing hundreds of Soviets running away because Mujahadeens were coming and that does tells me something......

BTW, Mi 8 helicopter you have there is not even Soviet but Afghani- government. Soviets did give them quite a few of them... 3 Billion in military hardware.

Losing over a million people doesn't mean you lost the war either. Wars aren't fought over who kill the most people. If that were true Russia would have been defeated by the Germans in World War II. It's more important to hold strategic positions. Even if that helicopter wasn't a Soviet helicopter there were hundreds of helicopters shot down by the Mujahadeen.

If you can't fight on the fields and face your enemy then you pretty much lost the war. Like I mention earlier loosing military hardware was not that big of deal to the Soviets, they had thousands more that they could easily afford to loose.
In my book, you loose the war when you hide from the enemy, conduct secret transports at night and simply outnumbered and outmatched by the enemy.
Russians did loose many millions in WW2 but they actually drove the Germans out, which Mujahadeens could never do and that is a BIG difference.

Maybe the Soviets could afford to lose thousands of weapon systems but the Soviet government wasn't willing to lose millions of people fighting for a country like Afghanistan. Most modern countries aren’t willing to lose as many people as third world countries are.
It doesn't matter that in "your book" you can’t lose a war if your opponent is using guerilla tactics or terrorism since no once else goes by that standard. You consider Vietnam a defeat of the US even though the Vietcong used guerilla tactics against the US but you don't consider Afghanistan a defeat for the Soviets. The US left Vietnam like, the Soviets left Afghanistan and I could say that the Germans left the Soviet Union, too. If they really wanted to they could've sent their troops on the Western front to battle the Soviets and they could also use their chemical weapons but they didn't but it doesn’t mean the Germans didn’t lose because they did.

[Sayeret]

No one ever said the Afghans were invincible and even if someone did I don't see how the Soviet-Afghan war would've proved that if the Anglo-Afghan war hadn't.


Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great to those of you who get their history from movies) said it first, actually. "Afghanistan can be invaded. But it can never be conquered."

I bet if Alexander had some helicopters, thermal img devices and some satellites he would not have made that statement.
Any country can be conquered if the other country has overwhelming force and would rely on non stop brute force until all people are submitted or majority are exterminated. If Soviet Union wanted really bad they could have sent additional armies and simply over-run the country, but it was not that important as it was not their long term goal (conquering Afghanistan).

Alexander the Great didn't need any fancy technology, he took over Afghanistan.

http://www.afghanland.com/history/alexander.html

[sergey31]

The Soviet Union did their job and actually occupied and held Afghanistan for many years. They did not loose more than 15,000 soldiers in 10 years but U.S lost 58,000 in just 6 and that is a big difference. Another thing is, U.S forces were actually fighting a government (North Vietnam) combined with guerilla forces. U.S withdrew from Vietnam in a hurry and could not hold their positions any longer because North Vietnam forces with Armour were advancing. Soviets did not leave in a hurry and no one was advancing and they they were not RETREATING.
No, Germany could not send anymore troops to the Eastern front because it had none to send and thus they were literally kicked out, ONCE again that is a big difference.
The bottom line Soviets WERE NOT defeated, BUT THEY LEFT ON THEIR OWN will. NOT DRIVEN OUT BUT JUST SIMPLY LEFT..... How difficult is to understand that? Do you know the word LOOSING?
LOOSING IS when you can't fight someone because someone is superior to you, Soviet's could and did fight and it was an EXCELLENT training ground for them.

[Sayeret]

The Soviet Union did their job and actually occupied and held Afghanistan for many years. They did not loose more than 15,000 soldiers in 10 years but U.S lost 58,000 in just 6 and that is a big difference.

That is not correct though because the Soviets lost 45,000 all together including non combat deaths. There were probably even more deaths because the Soviet government tried to keep the amount of deaths secret. I'm not going to argue with you of who did better since it doesn't really matter since both the US and the USSR lost.

It was also a secret war. During the first two years of the conflict, the Soviet press covered the death of some two dozen servicemen—though thousands had already died. Whenever Afghanistan was mentioned in the Soviet press, it showed happy Soviet servicemen building orphanages—while neglecting to mention their role in filling them. The Soviet public was kept in the dark. When a dead Soviet soldier was returned to his family, the family was sworn to secrecy in order to get the body back for burial. Even the earlier tombstones did not list where the serviceman had died, only that he had died “fulfilling his internationalist duty.”

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/FMSOPUBS/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm


Another thing is, U.S forces were actually fighting a government (North Vietnam) combined with guerilla forces. U.S withdrew from Vietnam in a hurry and could not hold their positions any longer because North Vietnam forces with Armour were advancing. Soviets did not leave in a hurry and no one was advancing and they they were not RETREATING.

The US left because they wanted to. They could have sent more troops over if they really wanted to just like the Soviets could of but didn't.

No, Germany could not send anymore troops to the Eastern front because it had none to send and thus they were literally kicked out, ONCE again that is a big difference.

What stopped the Germans from moving their soldiers fighting the Brits and Americans to the Eastern front? What stopped the Germans from launching V2 missiles at the Soviet Union filled with Tabun nerve gas?

The bottom line Soviets WERE NOT defeated, BUT THEY LEFT ON THEIR OWN will. NOT DRIVEN OUT BUT JUST SIMPLY LEFT..... How difficult is to understand that? Do you know the word LOOSING?
LOOSING IS when you can't fight someone because someone is superior to you, Soviet's could and did fight and it was an EXCELLENT training ground for them.

The Soviets left because they couldn't defeat the Mujahadeen with the tactics or weapons they were using and didn't want to lose anymore people. The Mujahadeen were superior in many ways because they knew the terrain and used better tactics than the Soviets. The Soviets lost and there's no point in me repeating it. It seems like just can't accept that the Soviets lost a war against a third world nation.

[sergey31]

That is not correct though because the Soviets lost 45,000 all together including non combat deaths. There were probably even more deaths because the Soviet government tried to keep the amount of deaths secret. I'm not going to argue with you of who did better since it doesn't really matter since both the US and the USSR lost.

USSR stated 14,750 were lost and U.S stated around 18,000 and lets please not magnify the number in your favor shall we.
The US left because they wanted to. They could have sent more troops over if they really wanted to just like the Soviets could of but didn't
The U.S were fighting actual army (North Vietnam) and that army had air force and tanks etc, you can actually see the video how marines were retreating and evacuating because North Vietnamese were advancing. I have never seen Soviets leaving in such a hurry because Mujahadeens were advancing ONCE AGAIN.

What stopped the Germans from moving their soldiers fighting the Brits and Americans to the Eastern front? What stopped the Germans from launching V2 missiles at the Soviet Union filled with Tabun nerve gas?
What stopped Germans? This is what stopped....LOOSING the war stopped them, that is what stopped them. Stop giving me stupid and idiotic examples.

The Soviets left because they couldn't defeat the Mujahadeen with the tactics or weapons they were using and didn't want to lose anymore people. The Mujahadeen were superior in many ways because they knew the terrain and used better tactics than the Soviets. The Soviets lost and there's no point in me repeating it. It seems like just can't accept that the Soviets lost a war against a third world nation.

Yes, they could and they did defeat them. Mujahadeens could not fight them on the battlefields period. Hit and run and ambushes that is the best the could do, especially and the last years of the war. Terrain aint S*#T if you have 500lb Fuel-Air bomb falling on top that terrain and evaporating several miles of every living thing within. Terrain would not save you if you have thermal warhead 230mm rocket flying into a cave and B-B-Q everything and everyone inside. Soviets did not loose and some people have tunnel vision and can't see the whole picture.

And please stop copying and paste other web sites, it just shows you knowledge and intelligence.

[Sayeret]

That is not correct though because the Soviets lost 45,000 all together including non combat deaths. There were probably even more deaths because the Soviet government tried to keep the amount of deaths secret. I'm not going to argue with you of who did better since it doesn't really matter since both the US and the USSR lost.

USSR stated 14,750 were lost and U.S stated around 18,000 and lets please not magnify the number in your favor shall we.
The US left because they wanted to. They could have sent more troops over if they really wanted to just like the Soviets could of but didn't
The U.S were fighting actual army (North Vietnam) and that army had air force and tanks etc, you can actually see the video how marines were retreating and evacuating because North Vietnamese were advancing. I have never seen Soviets leaving in such a hurry because Mujahadeens were advancing ONCE AGAIN.

What stopped the Germans from moving their soldiers fighting the Brits and Americans to the Eastern front? What stopped the Germans from launching V2 missiles at the Soviet Union filled with Tabun nerve gas?
What stopped Germans? This is what stopped....LOOSING the war stopped them, that is what stopped them. Stop giving me stupid and idiotic examples.

The Soviets left because they couldn't defeat the Mujahadeen with the tactics or weapons they were using and didn't want to lose anymore people. The Mujahadeen were superior in many ways because they knew the terrain and used better tactics than the Soviets. The Soviets lost and there's no point in me repeating it. It seems like just can't accept that the Soviets lost a war against a third world nation.

Yes, they could and they did defeat them. Mujahadeens could not fight them on the battlefields period. Hit and run and ambushes that is the best the could do, especially and the last years of the war. Terrain aint S*#T if you have 500lb Fuel-Air bomb falling on top that terrain and evaporating several miles of every living thing within. Terrain would not save you if you have thermal warhead 230mm rocket flying into a cave and B-B-Q everything and everyone inside. Soviets did not loose and some people have tunnel vision and can't see the whole picture.

And please stop copying and paste other web sites, it just shows you knowledge and intelligence.

Why don't you post a few links because right now I have no reason to believe anything you've said.

Terrain would not save you if you have thermal warhead 230mm rocket flying into a cave and B-B-Q everything and everyone inside.

I can tell that I'm dealing with an intelligent person when he compares killing people to a BBQ. :cantbeli:

[sergey31]

Why don't you post a few links because right now I have no reason to believe anything you've said.

Don't..... I've said what I had to I have no reason to look up any links that supports me and you should read the origin of this post.

I can tell that I'm dealing with an intelligent person when he compares killing people to a BBQ

Well that is the reality of WAR and you should know that by now like it or not. And I do get straight to the point.[/quote]

[callous]

The US pulled out of Vietnam in 1973. South Vietnam didn't fall till 1975. The only Marines left in Vietnam were guarding the US embassy. They stayed to make sure all US citizens got out of the country.

Did the Soviets leave an Embassy staff when they pulled out of Afghanistan? If so did they have to leave in a hurry when the Taliban rolled into Kabul?

Oh and by the way the Vietnam is considered a loss for the US and so is Afghanistan for the Russians.

[Sayeret]

Don't..... I've said what I had to I have no reason to look up any links that supports me and you should read the origin of this post.

Don't post any links then, but don't expect anyone to believe you.

Well that is the reality of WAR and you should know that by now like it or not. And I do get straight to the point.

Yeah, that's how mature people talk about war. Why don't you have a little respect for people and refer to people being killed as it is rather than some kind of joke. Now, why don't you go to arguing with AFACadet about how TU-160s can shoot air-to-air missiles out backwards.

btw instead of trying to act all tough typing in caps and bold, give it a break.

[sergey31]

Don't..... I've said what I had to I have no reason to look up any links that supports me and you should read the origin of this post.

Don't post any links then, but don't expect anyone to believe you.

Well that is the reality of WAR and you should know that by now like it or not. And I do get straight to the point.

Yeah, that's how mature people talk about war. Why don't you have a little respect for people and refer to people being killed as it is rather than some kind of joke. Now, why don't you go to arguing with AFACadet about how TU-160s can shoot air-to-air missiles out backwards.

btw instead of trying to act all tough typing in caps and bold, give it a break.

It's pointless, it's like talking to a 12 year old. AFACadet made an ass of himself way before Tu160 discussion so I won't bother but Please do read the introduction of this post as most of your links came from no better source and it shows that you have no mind of your own.
And the reality of war, well just look at my painting and when I'm finish with it it's going be much worse.
Like I mention before, I tell how it is and it's a cruel world and as an artist I like to show how it is.
Trust me I do my homework and research on the subject and looks like you have no idea about anything you talk about since all you do is copy and paste other people's opinions and views.

[Dima-RussianArms]

Soviet commando battalion of 400 men was wiped out in one day in April 1986 after making a similar assault below fortified ridgelines.
In one day, 400 spetsnaz troops....Too bad soviets did know about that....

Sayaeret, the rest of your posts have as much credibility as your statement above. For some reason you choose to turn the blind eye to the common sense and historical facts for the sake of your wishful thinking, as my sister says: fine, be that way....

You are playing around with definitions and twisting numbers, why?

Soviets had to quit Afghanistan because their 4 million military couldn't take loosing 13.800 men over 10 years - sure, whatever :roll:

Interesting definition of control you have there, so according to your own logic Israel does not have control of its own country ;)

Sergey31, stop arguing with him, I am sure you have much better things to do than wall.

The rest who want to know more about that conflict can read an excellent thread by hist2004 and 16OBrSpN
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7201&highlight=spetsnaz

[Sayeret]

Don't..... I've said what I had to I have no reason to look up any links that supports me and you should read the origin of this post.

Don't post any links then, but don't expect anyone to believe you.

Well that is the reality of WAR and you should know that by now like it or not. And I do get straight to the point.

Yeah, that's how mature people talk about war. Why don't you have a little respect for people and refer to people being killed as it is rather than some kind of joke. Now, why don't you go to arguing with AFACadet about how TU-160s can shoot air-to-air missiles out backwards.

btw instead of trying to act all tough typing in caps and bold, give it a break.

It's pointless, it's like talking to a 12 year old. AFACadet made an ass of himself way before Tu160 discussion so I won't bother but Please do read the introduction of this post as most of your links came from no better source and it shows that you have no mind of your own.
And the reality of war, well just look at my painting and when I'm finish with it it's going be much worse.
Like I mention before, I tell how it is and it's a cruel world and as an artist I like to show how it is.
Trust me I do my homework and research on the subject and looks like you have no idea about anything you talk about since all you do is copy and paste other people's opinions and views.

I'm going to assume you’re a 13 year old because you can't seem to admit that anyone knows anything more than you about any subject and have to keep writing in caps and bold. AFACadet knows a lot more about the US Air Force than either I or you do, like it or not. The fact you can't accept that the Soviets lost the war shows how narrow minded, you really are and no one else is. It doesn't matter that you and a few other people can't accept defeat since the rest of the world considered the Soviet-Afghan a defeat for the Soviets. Maybe you would like it if the Soviets had won but they didn’t so stop acting like they did.

Your realiy of war is screwed up because you seem to get pleasure drawing people being shot or killed and talking about war like a 13 year old would.

[Sayeret]

In one day, 400 spetsnaz troops....Too bad soviets did know about that....

Check the article and read the whole article because I didn't write it.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15883&highlight=afghanistan

Sayaeret, the rest of your posts have as much credibility as your statement above. For some reason you choose to turn the blind eye to the common sense and historical facts for the sake of your wishful thinking, as my sister says: fine, be that way....

How are my posts not credible? When I didn't provide any sources you said you had no reason to believe me but now when I post sources you don't want to believe them.

Sayeret, you are simply recycling/repeating your previous statements.
What about some proof for your statements: answering my questions with facts, maps, numbers, etc...?

If you don't like my sources at least give your own or state how they are untrue.

You are playing around with definitions and twisting numbers, why?

How so? Post where I did.

Soviets had to quit Afghanistan because their 4 million military couldn't take loosing 13.800 men over 10 years - sure, whatever

You didn’t add how many people the Soviets lost to non combat deaths. The Soviets thought the war would only take a few years and not as many casualties. Once they had fought for many years they realized that the country wasn't worth what it would require to take it over.

Interesting definition of control you have there, so according to your own logic Israel does not have control of its own country

The best person to answer this question is someone you had agreed with previously and addressing GazB, he wrote:

Cmon Gaz, you should know better than that. You cant really succeed in holding a country -- particularly Afghanistan -- just by controlling the handful of major cities while leaving the vast bulk of the country unoccupied.

[hist2004]

In a nearby valley, a Soviet commando battalion of 400 men was wiped out in one day in April 1986 after making a similar assault below fortified ridgelines.

I have read pretty extensively about the Soviet-Afghan War including first-
hand accounts of the major engagements. I have never heard of a “Soviet
Commando battalion” being wiped out on a single day. To begin with, who
are they referring too? (VDV, DShB, SpN). There was a battle in April of
1986 (the battle of Zhawar) involving a battalion from 37 Commando Brigade
(Afghan Government Army-DRA). During the battle this Battalion from the
37th mistakenly chose a flat open plateau (LZ) that was dominated by higher
ground occupied by mujahideen. The battalion contained 400 commandos
who were devastated in the ensuing fight.

Regards,
Hist2004

[sergey31]

I'm going to assume you’re a 13 year old because you can't seem to admit that anyone knows anything more than you about any subject and have to keep writing in caps and bold

You go ahead and ASSuME as much as you want, you still sound like a teenager who who knows S*^T about the subject, and it shows.
The fact you can't accept that the Soviets lost the war shows how narrow minded, you really are and no one else is. It doesn't matter that you and a few other people can't accept defeat since the rest of the world considered the Soviet-Afghan a defeat for the Soviets.

It has nothing to do with me accepting anything but knowing YES, I know what happened and I don't need an enlightened vision of some teenager tell me western propaganda by his miscued view.

Maybe you would like it if the Soviets had won but they didn’t so stop acting like they did.
Once again as far as I'm concern it does not affect me one way or another if they won or lost. But unlike someone here I don't need to read western propoganda to know what had happen.

Your realiy of war is screwed up because you seem to get pleasure drawing people being shot or killed and talking about war like a 13 year old would.
My reality? You do mean reality?
How is it my reality? Did I create war? But I do like to show the REALITY which is present in the war you like it or not. And if you don't like talking about it (the War) you should not even be in this tread.

[Sayeret]

Here are some things I found out about the ambush.

The Shahi-Kot Valley (also Shah-i-Kot, Shah-e-Kot and other variant spellings) is a valley located in Afghanistan's Paktia province, southeast of the town of Zormat. The terrain in and around the valley is notoriously rugged, located at a mean altitude of 9,000 feet. Shahi-Kot means "Place of the King" and it has historically been a redoubt for Afghan guerillas hiding from foreign invaders. The area was the scene of fierce fighting between the Afghan mujahideen rebels and Soviet forces during the Afghan-Soviet War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahi_Kot_Valley

Here is where the original article comes from:

http://www.s-t.com/daily/08-02/08-11-02/b01lo145.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0801/p01s03-wosc.html

[hist2004]

Sayeret-

I had read those sources concerning this action; I was wondering if anyone
had other information on this battalion's loss. I could only find the info I
mention in my previous post. I'm hardly the last word on the subject, so if
someone has another source, please post it.

Regards & Thanks,
Hist2004

[Sayeret]

Sayeret-

I had read those sources concerning this action; I was wondering if anyone
had other information on this battalion's loss. I could only find the info I
mention in my previous post. I'm hardly the last word on the subject, so if
someone has another source, please post it.

Regards & Thanks,
Hist2004

I'm going to keep looking for it also. Thanks for looking into it. I haven't found anything besides those two sources which appear to be the same thing that CAG 147 posted.

[Coop]

Here some excerpts from the book "Afghanistan: The Bear Trap, The Defeat of a Superpower", by Brig. (ret.) Mohammad Yousaf, who - as a chief of the ISI's Afghan Bureau - effectivelly organized, supplied, and led the Mujaheddin in the war against the Soviets, between 1983 and 1988.

Note: the following offensive was led by Brig. Abdol Gafur, commander fo the Afghan Army and the deputy of the Afghan Defence Minister, Maj.Gen. Tani.

The participating units - according to Yousaf - were:

- 7th and 8th Afghan Divisions (from Kabul)
- 12th and 14th Afghan Divisions (from Gardez and Khost, respectivelly)
- 37th Commando Brigade (total of 1.500 Afghan troops)
- Soviet AAR (2.200 Soviet troops)

The 25th Afghan division and 2nd Border Brigade were holding Khost, but could not participate in the offensive.

p.169:
For ten days Gafur struggled to get from Tani to Zhawar, ten days of heavy fighting in which the Mujaheddin resistance took a severe pounding, but during which they proved they could hold their ground even in adverse circumstances. Their outstanding triumph of this battle was the complete destruction of a battalion from 37 Commando Brigade, which was a part of Gafur's plan to land troops behind the Mujaheddin positions. In this instance they miscalculated badly in selecting as a landing zone (LZ) a flat, open plateau close to the base, but within range of higher ground held by some of Haqqani's and Hekmatyar's men. In broad daylight ten or more helicopters came in in waves to set down the 400 commandos. As they flew overhead they were met by a barrage of fire from SA-7s and heavy machine guns. Three helicopters crashed, while the others disgorged their troops under intense cross-fire from both Mujaheddin positions. In the open ground the commandos were badly cut up and demoralized. By nightfall there was nothing left of this battalion: all were either killed or captured. Had we had the Stinger missile I doubt if any helicopter could have escaped.

According to Youssaf, this battle occurred on 11 April 1986.

Now, somebody above mentioned that the Soviets killed something like "2.000.000 Mujaheddin" in that war. Well, this is how Yousaf describes a standard Soviet operation against the Mujaheddin - in turn explaining also who were most of these "2.000.000 Mujaheddin" killed by the Soviets (p.179):
The attack on the village of Rugyan in 1982 was typical of Soviet methods. Rugyan had a population of about 800 people and lay 8 kilometres NW of Ali Khel. It was an agricultural village set in the narrow valley of the Rugyan River and was, at that time, a thriving community which supported the Mujaheddin. The mud-brick houses were clustered together on the lower slopes of the mountains on both sides of the valley, and up a smaller side valley, whose stream joined the Rugyan from the east. In the centere of the village were numerous wells and more houses. Every possible use had been made of terraces to give maximum soil and space for crops of wheat or maize.

On the day in question the villagers were going about their normal chores when at around 9.00 am six helicopters were spotted high above the valley. The leading pair came lower, straight at the village. At about 2.000 feet the first rockets were fired, then another salvo, then another, the high explosive ripping apart the filmsy dwellings and killing or maiming the occupants. For at least two hours the endless bombardment continued with short intervals as one pair flew off to make way for the next. As a gunship ran out of rockets it circles around hosing the houses and fields with machine-gun fire. On the ground a few young men fled up into the hills, while the remainder, the elderly and the women and children cowered in the rubble or behind boulders. Many died outright, many more were to die later from shock and loss of blood. If there seemed to be a lull in the firing uninjured people would come out to attend the wounded. It was futile; any movement below was signal for the next pair of gunships to attack. There was no defence. The number of Mujaheddin in the village at the time was negligible. There were no anti-aircraft weapons and no caves in which to shelter.

The next phase was heralded by the approach of ground troops from the direction of Ali Khel. Two hundred infantrymen, with several tanks, APCs and mortars, halted a few hundred meters from the village. They spread out before opening fire. For another half an hour gunfire, mortar bombs and heavy machine-gun bullets pummelled the rubble and every possible place of concealment. At last, by about midday, the Soviet commander stopped the firing. None of this men had been scratched. It was a search and destroy operation in which the destruction preceded the searching. An AFghan officer yelled through a bullhorn for anybody still living to come out. The shocked, petrified, wailing women and children were segregated from the handful of men still able to walk. The searching of the ruins began, with the soldiers setting fire to any building left intact. No attention was given to the wounded, they were ignored until the troops finally departed, taking a few men for interrogation.

It was the end of Rugyan village. All 200 or so survivors trekked to Pakistan, carrying their injured strapped to horses and mules, or carried on beds. It took them ten hours to reach Parachinar hospital. On that occassion the surviving women had been fortunate to escape with few blows and curses. There was no rape or cold-bloodied butchery as it was not just a Soviet operation. When Afghan troops were present the Soviets usually refrained from their more gruesome atrocities. After a similar mission elsewhere three young girls had been taken up by the Soviets in a gunship, raped, then thrown out while stil alive. Multiply Rugyan by hundreds and you get some idea of what the Soviet's scorched earth strategy meant.

Finally, Yousaf's conclusion about the typical Soviet tactics (p.53):
There was nothing out of ordinary...Road-bound units, bristling with guns, moved tortuously along the roads and tracks in broad daylight. There was no discrenible attempt at surprise; the entire effort was slow-moving and ponderous, enabling the Mujaheddin either to fight or disappear at their will. No serious attempt had been made to block the heads of the valley, other than by bombs, and there was not much evidence of coordinating the air strikes with a swift approach by the ground forces. There was bombing, there was shelling, then there was a ground advance to find out what was left, a search and destroy mission with not much searching but a lot of destruction of buildings. No effort was made to position a proper cordon using helicopters. The Soviets seemed content to stay in their vehicles for the most part, and when they did dismount it was usually only to sift through the debris wrought by high explosive on mud and brick. After a few days of this everybody had gone back, chalking up another victory for official reports....

[Lokos]

And let's read 'Mein Kampf' to get a real truthful account of what the Jews are really like, right?

*shakes head*

Regards,
Lokos

[sergey31]

"Afghanistan: The Bear Trap, The Defeat of a Superpower", by Brig. (ret.) Mohammad Yousaf

Read the book, 75% of it is fiction..... Never seen so much BS piled up in one book.

[Coop]

Let's see...

Who is Brig. Mohammad Yousaf is clear.

But, who are you two to say that his book is "BS" or science fiction?

[Sayeret]

"Afghanistan: The Bear Trap, The Defeat of a Superpower", by Brig. (ret.) Mohammad Yousaf

Read the book, 75% of it is fiction..... Never seen so much BS piled up in one book.

How so?

[sergey31]

Let's see