Soviet army in Afganistan

[Kingpin]

We


http://afgan.ru:8101/40/40mi29.jpg


http://afgan.ru:8101/40/40mi8.jpg


http://afgan.ru:8101/40/40mi12.jpg


http://afgan.ru:8101/40/40mi21.jpg


http://afgan.ru:8101/40/40mi22.jpg


http://afgan.ru:8101/40/40mi23.jpg


http://afgan.ru:8101/40/40mi27.jpg

[hood]

Why is it that seemingly all or most photos of the Soviets in Afghanistan are black and white? I just saw a documentary on the national geographic channel last night about 3 photographers who photographed and took video of the Afghan resistance fighting against the Soviets and it was all in color.. this was the 1980's.. not civil war era..

[Kingpin]

1. Many professional photographers prefered B&W because it is suitable for they purposes (newspaper photo) and it is better to emphasise interesting details. Soviet made color films had bad quality also.

2. As for this photoset - it is from private archive. Amateur photographers preferred B&W because it was easier to make photos and to buy B&W films in USSR (Soviet made color films was bad quality and was in deficite, foreign films didn't imported).

[Russian Texan]

May be Wal-Marts don't carry color film in Afganistan :)
Here is site that has lots of pics about Afgan war and they all B/W too
http://afgan.ru:8101/index_e.html

[Kingpin]

Also from private archives:

http://www.afgan.ru:8101/37/37mi18.jpg


http://www.afgan.ru:8101/37/37mi27.jpg


Lucky day for you - color photos :)

http://www.afgan.ru:8101/37/37mi28.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/36/36mi12.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/36/36mi15.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/36/36mi20.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/35/35mi1.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/35/35mi7.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/34/34mi3.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/34/34mi10.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/20/mi2.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/20/mi6.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/20/mi7.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/19/19mi-8.jpg

http://afgan.ru:8101/19/19mi-9.jpg

http://www.afgan.ru:8101/18/18mi-2.jpg

http://www.afgan.ru:8101/16/6-16.jpg


1985. Logar. The agitation group of the 108 motorized rifled division left without loud speaker equipment.

http://afgan.ru:8101/1/afg12.gif


The turn to Bagram on the Kabul road. February 1987. Columns of gas trucks ran into an ambush.

http://afgan.ru:8101/2/foto10.gif


Siyoh-Koh. Spring 1988. Armored cavalry company of the 180th inf.regiment

http://afgan.ru:8101/3/foto8.gif

http://afgan.ru:8101/4/we44.gif

Uffff.... I'm tired. If anyone interested in more go to
http://afgan.ru:8101/arch_e.htm

[GI_Rutger]

http://afgan.ru:8101/19/19mi-9.jpg

Did/does the russians still use the Katusha?

[MolliG]

http://afgan.ru:8101/19/19mi-9.jpg

Did/does the russians still use the Katusha?

Thats a BM-24, not a Katyusha. :) And, I think, they are still in use.

[Kingpin]

http://afgan.ru:8101/19/19mi-9.jpg

Did/does the russians still use the Katusha?

Thats a BM-24, not a Katyusha. :) And, I think, they are still in use.

Man! You dissapointed me. Please don't call every Soviet MRLS - Katyusha. Or you'll call Katyusha 300mm Smerch MRLS? :)

[GazB]

The vehicle depicted is the mountain version of the Grad... a 122mm rocket that during the 80s had a range of about 20km. Current models with new propellent have ranges from 36-40km. Warhead weight is about 20kg. This model differs from the standard model called BM-21 in that the middle lower tubes are missing and it only has 36 tubes... the standard BM-21 has 40 tubes.

Katusha is the name of obsolete WWII rockets that were launched from rails rather than tubes and were much less capable.

Nice pics by the way.

[REMOV]

Why is it that seemingly all or most photos of the Soviets in Afghanistan are black and white? I just saw a documentary on the national geographic channel last night about 3 photographers who photographed and took video of the Afghan resistance fighting against the Soviets and it was all in color.. this was the 1980's.. not civil war era..Hahahhaha... Hood you was born in a different planet and completly don't understand reality of Eastern Bloc, especially Soviet Union. You know, I used to live in socialist country, so your question very amused me ;)

The answer is simple - because of money. The people from socialist countries were not poor in common sense (lack of money) it means the state guarantees some kind of work, some kind of food (only basic products) and some kind of apartment (poor quality and very small but accesible) but thats all. Typical consumer good were nearly not accesible - TV sets, furniture, clothing and also cameras and films. And if by a lucky chance someone gained a goods, it was poor quality and performance and only-one-model-for-everyone.

Boy, the people in my country usually had a chance to buy a 2-3 bananas and 2-4 oranges, 1kg of high quality ham tree, four times a year. I had to stay in the line three to five hours (usually from 06.00 to 10.00) to buy one pack (200 grams) of coffee (it was a luxury goods as ham or citruses). Hard to imagine I know. The world has changed very fast.

So in late 70s and 80s the commonly uses was b/w film and simple cameras (i.e. usually Russian Smiena's (ex-Leica, the factories seized after WWII), FED, Zorkeey). The majority of those photos were taken by normal soldiers from Soviet Union, using the typical equipment - a black and white film and very simple, popular photo camera. That's why they are poor quality, and only color films (poor quality also) comes from ORWO, Eastern Germany. Well, sometimes you can buy AGFA films but they were very expensive.

Eh, Americans and their visions of the world... ;)

[tony6]

Yeah, but some people have a strange sentiment for these times:)
I wonder why:)

[Kingpin]

Yeah, but some people have a strange sentiment for these times:)
I wonder why:)

I'm not wondering why. It was my childhood time. And i can't say that it was bad time. Actually it was the best part of my life :)

USSR rocks! woot woot woot