PDA

View Full Version : Operation Magistral-The last Soviet Offensive of the War



hist2004
03-01-2005, 04:41 PM
Operation Magistral-The last Soviet Offensive of the War

By 1987, the mujahideen felt little need to accept conditions that constrained their operations, and were enjoying renewed success in the eastern border areas. In May, the mujahideen defeated a combined Soviet and DRA effort aimed at interdicting supplies entering Afghanistan through the border province of Paktia. During a 24-day joint Soviet and DRA campaign, the mujahideen used SAMs and land mines to negate Soviet advantages in airpower and tactical mobility. The Soviet and DRA forces withdrew in mid-June having failed to stop the flow of supplies, and leaving the area once again in the hands of the mujahideen. Soviet and DRA forces would, however, return to Paktia in late 1987 in an attempt to break the siege of Khost.

The major Afghan garrison in the city of Khost was under an increasingly debilitating siege by mujahideen forces in October 1987. The city is approximately 80 miles southeast of Kabul and within 10 miles of the Pakistani border, and dominates a major supply route between Afghanistan and Pakistan. By November, between 9,000 and 20,000 mujahideen surrounded the city with its 40,000 civilian inhabitants, 8,000 man DRA garrison, and several hundred Soviet advisers. The insurgents had essentially severed the city’s supply by road, and it appeared that the garrison would soon fall to the mujahideen. One report indicated that the Soviets were airlifting up to 50 tons of supplies per day into the city by the end of November. However, mujahideen rocket attacks on the airfield at Khost threatened to cut the garrison’s one remaining lifeline.

Both the Soviets and the DRA government recognized the importance of maintaining the garrison at Khost. Its primary purpose and its military significance lay in its ability to threaten the insurgent supply lines into Paktia province. In addition, the loss of the garrison would constitute a disastrous blow to the prestige of the Afghan army already demoralized by the impending Soviet withdrawal. The selection of General Boris V. Gromov, the head of the 40th Army, as the commander for a planned Soviet-DRA effort to break the siege demonstrated the importance attached to “Operation Magistral.”

In preparation for the operation, the DRA assembled parts of five divisions and auxiliary forces for a total of at least 8,000 men. This was in fact a relatively large DRA force. Despite the use of press gangs and extended enlistments, DRA regular forces never exceeded 40,000 during the entire period of the occupation. Soviet forces for the operation included approximately 10,000 paratroops from the elite 103d Guards Air Assault and the 56th Air Assault Brigade as well as an estimated 6,000 men from the 108th Motor Rifle Division. The force was further reinforced by mechanized and armored vehicles as well as 70 jet fighters. Sarin and Dvoretsky state that Gromov and his planners carefully studied the surrounding terrain and known defensive positions of the mujahideen. In addition, they assert that the planners “compared this operation to similar campaigns in the Caucasus and the Carpathians against the Germans during World War II.” The stage for the last large-scale Soviet ground offensive of the war was set.

The offensive began on November 18, 1987, with Afghan ground forces pushing down the 122 kilometer-long highway from Gardez towards Khost. DRA ground forces spearheaded the offensive with Soviet forces occupying the flanks in overwatch positions. These forces immediately ran into stiff resistance, and required Soviet airpower support in order to continue forward. In fact, Soviet aircraft operating out of Bagram airfield expended an average of 400 tons of ordnance per day during the offensive. In addition, Soviet artillery fired new “beehive” antipersonnel rounds containing thousands of dart-like flechettes in support of the advance. DRA forces once again demonstrated their continuing dependence on Soviet aerial and artillery support.

Soviet airpower proved to be the key element in supporting the slow but steady advance of Afghan forces into the Shamal valley, 20 miles to the west of Khost. The DRA assault on the village of Kot included an airborne drop of 900 Afghan paratroopers in support of an armored thrust on 30 November. The total DRA losses in the assault included 80 KIA, 260 captured paratroopers, and the loss of five tanks. By December 4, DRA forces pushed into the Zadran valley, losing another 37 KIA and seven tanks.

The mujahideen counterattacked on December 9, and by December 12, they had destroyed another 13 tanks. Strikes by Soviet jets proved key in blunting the insurgents’ counter-offensive. Additionally, Soviet airborne troops entered the fray on December 19, during the last major push towards Khost. Soviet airborne troops and aviation operated as a combined arms team, in the by now familiar air assault attack. The
final push included the use of the classic air assault formula with troops occupying the heights by leapfrogging forward, and Mi-24 Hinds providing fire support for the advancing columns. The Soviets supplemented the standard air assault formula with at least one example of tactical innovation and deception at the Satekundav Pass. As the advance neared Khost, the combined Soviet-DRA forces faced a difficult tactical situation in moving through the Satekundav Pass. The mujahideen, recognizing the value of the position, had constructed a strong defensive network of obstacles and camouflaged firing positions throughout the pass. The Satekundav Pass had constituted a major concern for Gromov during the operational planning stage for the offensive. Gromov’s plan for the capture of the pass included an airborne drop followed by a massive artillery and air bombardment of the insurgents once they identified their positions by opening fire. In a postwar interview, Gromov described the operation:


The paratroopers were carried to the drop zone in the vicinity of the Satekundav Pass by aircraft of the military transport aviation. A gust of fire fell on them. Anti-aircraft machine guns and cannons fired on them. And at that moment the firing positions of the mutineers were revealed for the blows of Soviet and Afghan attack aviation. Then this was followed by an artillery attack. In the course of an hour the entire system of fire of the mutineers was destroyed.

Gromov’s willingness to accept the sacrifice of airborne troops in an exposed operation in order to fix the mujahideen firing positions appears at first reckless, if not irresponsible. However, in a classic example of maskirova the airborne drop involved “dummy” paratroopers, and not their human counterparts.


By December 30, Soviet and DRA forces pushed into Khost with 4,500 tons of supplies, effectively breaking the siege. In an effort to capitalize on their success, the VTA dropped 7,000 Soviet airborne troops 60 kilometers to the north of Khost in an attempt to encircle the retreating mujahideen. Another 1,500 airborne troops deployed in the hills surrounding the city. Despite the audacity of the airborne plan, the mujahideen avoided the trap and the Soviet net remained empty.

Operation Magistral had succeeded, but the cost was high. The DRA forces lost an estimated 1,000 killed, 2,000 wounded, and 346 captured. DRA equipment losses included 110 mechanized vehicles, of which 47 were tanks. Soviet forces lost 320 killed and 600 wounded. In contrast, the mujahideen lost between 150 and 300 killed. In addition, seven Soviet aircraft were lost, including three helicopters. The victory at Khost did not come cheaply for a force that was already committed to withdrawal. In fact, Soviet casualties in Magistral constituted 32 percent of the entire combat losses for Russian forces in 1987. Soviet and DRA forces had earned a hard-fought victory, but it was at a cost that neither was willing or able to afford over the long run.

Magistral proved to be the last major Soviet offensive undertaken before the Russian withdrawal. The operation again demonstrated the important role of the VVS in not only providing fire support, but in its ability to move troops rapidly with both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. The expenditure of 400 tons of ordnance per day also highlighted the key role of the VVS in supporting its own and DRA forces in the field. In the future, without Soviet ground forces in the field, the DRA would come to rely even more heavily on Soviet air support during the last full year of Russian involvement in the war.The emphasis on airpower complemented a Soviet move to “Afghanize” the war, by shifting ground operations to DRA forces.

The emphasis on airpower complemented a Soviet move to “Afghanize” the war, by shifting ground operations to DRA forces. On December 19, 1987, Soviet television showed its first-ever coverage of current fighting in Afghanistan by highlighting the DRA’s role in the offensive on Khost. Prior to 1984, the Soviet press avoided any discussion of combat operations in Afghanistan. British historian Mark Galeotti noted that Soviet actions in Afghanistan “could not be discussed freely in the press” even in the early glasnost period between 1985 and 1987. During this period, reports focused on the heroic efforts of specific individuals, and not the strategic situation within the country. In contrast, the report concerning the Khost operation emphasized the DRA’s combat capabilities in the ongoing operation, and signified the Soviet shift towards a policy of DRA self-sufficiency in ground operations. This television report clearly constituted a Russian attempt at the “Vietnamization” of the war against the mujahideen. After Magistral, the burden of ground combat operations rested squarely on the shoulders of the DRA.

Regards,
Hist2004

Lokos
03-02-2005, 12:05 AM
150-300 Mujahideen killed? A 4:1 kill/loss ratio? You have got to be kidding me. Where did you get this from?

Lokos

Sayeret
03-02-2005, 12:39 AM
150-300 Mujahideen killed? A 4:1 kill/loss ratio? You have got to be kidding me. Where did you get this from?

Lokos

Russia is capable of losing battles and making mistakes just like every other country, you seem to think that Russia's military and military history is flawless:


6191 Russian tanks?!

Oh, come on.

The way he came to that conclusion is by adding together all the *paper* strengths of units involved. However, we are not talking about the ACTUAL subordinate elements involved, but the adding together of the strengths of the formations the elements were part of or attached to. So, if a recon detachment from the 12th Tank Corps was involved, he would conclude that the entire 12th Tank Corps participated.

Big no-no.

Barbarossa, 20,000 Russian tanks? What a wonderfully rounded, inaccurate figure, that manages to insinuate that the Germans were actually facing 20,000 tanks during the offensive...

This list, Sayeret, has an INCREDIBLE number of inaccuracies when it comes to the Eastern Front.

Do not use it as an authorative source.

Lokos


LOL, Johan.

And what about the trade agreement that had the SU shipping over the very raw resources that would be used to create the German war machine because of Stalin's fear of an early war with Germany? The last shipment of these resources was hours before Barbarossa began. I'd call that appeasement.

Stalin did EVERYTHING in his power to prevent a war with Germany in 1941.

'Icebreaker' is a crock of ****.

Lokos


No, but the West betrayed it - thereby giving it up in order to appease Hitler.

Lokos


Drako:

I've said about three times so far that on September 17 the number of Soviet troops able to cross the border due to a logistical and mobilization nightmare was tiny. You speak of one million troops, when what you are talking about is the total paper strength of not only the elements involved, but the parent units of the elements involved, which never actually entered Poland. I'd just like that distinction to be clear.

1939 would have been a VERY bad time for the Soviet Union to begin a war with Germany. They could have won in 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937 - but when the Purges started in '38 and continued into '39, accompanied by a general decline in the quality of the Soviet military, it became very doubtful that the Soviet Union could triumph in an offensive war against Germany.

Consider that the supply situation in Poland was so bad that a certain Soviet General leading an armored detachment had to call for an *resupply by air* because there was no logistical support network in place designed to accomodate offensive action.

However, you may be right in that they could have done an okay job defensively in 1939.

Regards,
Lokos


Oh my f*** Christ.

You people just refuse to see a plain and obvious truism.

Screw it.

I can't be bothered. Not again.

Lokos


Sure, Jani.

And those Finnish tales of the 500 Soviet soldier killer What's-his-name aren't? Oh, yeah, I forgot, it's because he was Finnish and they weren't. Right?

Unfortunately for you, there were numerous Soviet snipers with 300+ kills and several with 400+. Documented fact.

Lokos


km5, what's your interpretation of the word 'superpower' based on, exactly?

chauncy republicans:

You're just a troll. Not worthy of commentary.

Lokos


LOL!

Quantitively less than 250 German officers were trained in the Soviet Union as part of the expertise exchange programme (see Glantz/House 1997).

Yeah. Real significant. Considering the size of the German officer corps.

Walford:

What professors? What sources of information? If any of you actually, you know, *cited* either professors or other 'sources of information', this would be a lot easier for me. But no, the name of your game is 'Assert and Run'. Or, to put it tersely 'Bull****'.

Lokos

Brozozo
03-02-2005, 12:52 AM
Good work Sayaret, must of taken you a long time but you get a gold star for effort!

Mailman
03-02-2005, 05:54 AM
150 to 300 does sound awefully low though for an operation of this size. I would have thought something in the line of ten times that would be closer to the losses suffered by the Taliban terrorists.

Mailman

Lokos
03-02-2005, 08:29 AM
Sayeret,

So, if the Viet Cong claimed 150-300 dead in exchange for 300 American dead and over 2,000 ARVN dead in a single operation, your eyebrows wouldn't end up raised?

Am I saying it's impossible? No. What I'm saying is that this offensive would have been seen as a total disaster if the kill/loss ratio was anything approaching parity considering the number and proficiency of Soviet troops involved.

Now, for such a high-intensity operation, a 150-300 man drop in strength from a force strength of 20,000 is LAUGHABLE.

It implies that the Mujahideen simply withdrew after a number of skirmishes. Which they did not.

The actual number of dead in Magistral on the Mujahideen side has been estimated by William Maley and by David Isby to be well over six thousand (Isby claims seven thousand or more), with a slightly lower number of wounded.

Of course I am defending the Soviets here. While the Soviet Army was not invincible at any stage of its development, in Afghanistan it was a VERY efficient guerrila killing force. Exchange ratios of 25:1 in favor of the Soviets were the norm, rather than the exception.

But, of course, while I strive to maintain a semblance of objectivity when it comes to the Soviets, you seem to wish to portray them in a bad light whenever possible.

Lokos

Pandy
03-02-2005, 07:00 PM
Sayeret,

So, if the Viet Cong claimed 150-300 dead in exchange for 300 American dead and over 2,000 ARVN dead in a single operation, your eyebrows wouldn't end up raised?

Am I saying it's impossible? No. What I'm saying is that this offensive would have been seen as a total disaster if the kill/loss ratio was anything approaching parity considering the number and proficiency of Soviet troops involved.

Now, for such a high-intensity operation, a 150-300 man drop in strength from a force strength of 20,000 is LAUGHABLE.

It implies that the Mujahideen simply withdrew after a number of skirmishes. Which they did not.

The actual number of dead in Magistral on the Mujahideen side has been estimated by William Maley and by David Isby to be well over six thousand (Isby claims seven thousand or more), with a slightly lower number of wounded.

Of course I am defending the Soviets here. While the Soviet Army was not invincible at any stage of its development, in Afghanistan it was a VERY efficient guerrila killing force. Exchange ratios of 25:1 in favor of the Soviets were the norm, rather than the exception.

But, of course, while I strive to maintain a semblance of objectivity when it comes to the Soviets, you seem to wish to portray them in a bad light whenever possible.

Lokos

Well Loka, Soviets say they only killed 150-300 of them because that's how many bodies they found, if they said anymore, then it would be false information, and no one likes false information. I don't think Mujahideen kept a record of how many deaths they had, so we'll never know.

Lokos
03-02-2005, 09:24 PM
Pandy,

So how many bodies do you think they found? 150? 155? 210? 300? What is given is a range - an estimate - rather than a verified body count. And highly unlikely one made by the Soviets themselves.

Like I said, if the information given is true (and according to several aforementioned historians of the Afghanistan War it is not) then Magistral was the single greatest disaster suffered by the Soviets during the war. Which, considering the operation's success, is also unlikely.

Lokos

hist2004
03-02-2005, 09:45 PM
150-300 Mujahideen killed? A 4:1 kill/loss ratio? You have got to be kidding me. Where did you get this from?

Lokos

http://research.airuniv.edu/papers/ay1997/saas/westermann_eb.pdf

Source for casualties is David Isby: War in A Distant Country

Regards,
Hist2004

Pandy
03-02-2005, 10:20 PM
150-300 Mujahideen killed? A 4:1 kill/loss ratio? You have got to be kidding me. Where did you get this from?

Lokos

http://research.airuniv.edu/papers/ay1997/saas/westermann_eb.pdf

Source for casualties is David Isby: War in A Distant Country

Regards,
Hist2004

Good read, thank you Hist

Son_Of_Suvorov
03-02-2005, 10:32 PM
150-300 Mujahideen killed? A 4:1 kill/loss ratio? You have got to be kidding me. Where did you get this from?

Lokos

Russia is capable of losing battles and making mistakes just like every other country, you seem to think that Russia's military and military history is flawless:

[A bunch of WWII stuff]


You seem to be forgetting that this is Afghanistan, 40 years after WWII, where the Soviets have the overwhelming air, ground, communications and training advantage, and the mujahid are wiping their asses with dirt. You'll have to forgive me for being a little skeptical as well.

Sayeret
03-03-2005, 12:38 AM
150-300 Mujahideen killed? A 4:1 kill/loss ratio? You have got to be kidding me. Where did you get this from?

Lokos

Russia is capable of losing battles and making mistakes just like every other country, you seem to think that Russia's military and military history is flawless:

[A bunch of WWII stuff]


You seem to be forgetting that this is Afghanistan, 40 years after WWII, where the Soviets have the overwhelming air, ground, communications and training advantage, and the mujahid are wiping their asses with dirt. You'll have to forgive me for being a little skeptical as well.

Although the Soviets had many advantages I would say so did the Mujahadeen. They knew the terrain, they could hide among the civilian population, they used guerilla tactics which make it much more difficult for the Soviets to kill them then when they used conventional tactics, and the Soviet troops had low morale.

Lokos
03-03-2005, 08:29 PM
Hist2004,

David Isby's contribution to the Journal of Slavic Military Studies in one of the 2003-2004 volumes (cannot remember the exact volume) later corrected his assertion of 150-300 Mujahideen dead and vastly upped the estimate. This was partially based on greater access to Russian Soviet archives, and partially on William Maley's more extensive work on Magistral.

His source in the book itself was a first hand account from a Mujahideen. Refer to the notes on page 47 of said book.

Lokos

Lokos
03-03-2005, 08:31 PM
... and the Soviet troops had low morale.

Generalization. Big-time.

Lokos

hist2004
03-03-2005, 09:38 PM
Hist2004,

David Isby's contribution to the Journal of Slavic Military Studies in one of the 2003-2004 volumes (cannot remember the exact volume) later corrected his assertion of 150-300 Mujahideen dead and vastly upped the estimate. This was partially based on greater access to Russian Soviet archives, and partially on William Maley's more extensive work on Magistral.

His source in the book itself was a first hand account from a Mujahideen. Refer to the notes on page 47 of said book.

Lokos

Lokos,

Thanks for the updated information...the book-War in a Distant Country
was published in 1989.

Regards,
Hist2004

Mailman
03-04-2005, 06:05 AM
Lokos,

With every post I read from you my estimation of you goes up :)

I thought you were originally nothing more than a serb lacky dawg but you have proved me wrong.

Regards

Mailman

Lokos
03-04-2005, 09:38 AM
Well, you could say that I'm a nationalist.

But, when the matter is not concerning Serbia (or Australia, which I'll defend to my dying breath from the ****ing Poms (uhh, kidding, sort of :lol: )) I tend to be reasonably objective.

It must be said, though, the one matter I cannot in any way be objective about is my land of birth. I can *see* the issues objectively, but I cannot act objectively. It would go against my nature.

Lokos

Sayeret
03-04-2005, 01:50 PM
... and the Soviet troops had low morale.

Generalization. Big-time.

Lokos


The side with the greater moral commitment, be it patriotic, religious, or ideological, eventually won because of higher morale, greater obstinacy, stronger national will, and the determination to survive.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Soviet-Afghan+war+%2Bmorale

Lokos
03-04-2005, 10:17 PM
Moral commitment isn't quite the same thing as morale, Sayeret.

The same thing can once again be said of Vietnam, yet I would not say that every US Marine and infantryman in Vietnam was demoralized. Would you?

The morale of the individual Russian soldier in Afghanistan was not terribly low - considering that casualties were not huge in the least and that the biggest problem was waterborne disease rather than enemy action.

But, yes, the Afghanis triumphed due to their commitment to victory. I think the Russians gave them a fair run for their money, but unless it's a fight for the Motherland/Fatherland (the Russians use both words, I think) no soldier on this planet will be THAT determined to own a piece of land he does not think of as his own.

You see what I'm saying?

Lokos