A superpower mired in the mountains

[2RHPZ]

I am surprised that it was not (most probably) posted before ... I did search but find nothing ...

THE SOVIET-AFGHAN WAR: A SUPERPOWER MIRED IN THE MOUNTAINS

by Lester W. Grau, Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

This article was previously published in
The Journal of Slavic Military Studies March 2004
Volume 17, Number 1

Link (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/ISSUES/miredinmount.htm)

[sergey31]

Thanks for the link.

The Mujahideen did not defeat a superpower, but they fought it to a standstill, then stayed in the fight until the Soviets tired and went home.

Intersting, but well known.

[NicNZ]

The article provides ten lessons for guerilla and insurgent operations. These would make a great topic for healthy debate regarding other guerilla and insurgent conflicts around the world. Iraq, of course, springs to mind.

Mujahideen Lessons Learned
1. Guerrilla warfare is a long-term proposition. Persistence and patience are required for victory. The occupier must be worn-down and demoralized. The battle can be won politically in the homeland of the occupier. Survival is more important than tactical victory.

2. The impact of high-technology weapons, such as jet aircraft and helicopters, can be negated by camouflage, heat shields, decoys and dispersion. However, these systems can have a major impact on the local populace.

3. The support or neutrality of the local populace is essential for logistics support, intelligence and survival. Local guerrillas have a natural advantage. Non-local guerrillas gain or maintain support by frequently passing units through disputed areas, conducting shelling attacks and mining incidents to depict strength and activity.

4. Sanctuary is essential. Safe areas in Pakistan and Iran were vital to guerrilla bands for supply, medical treatment, resting, training and refitting. The Soviets carefully observed the international borders, although the locals and guerrillas did not.

5. Logistics support is essential, particularly as the insurgency grows and acquires heavy weapons. Logistics support may involve establishing depots and supply points inside the country and then defending them. Cash is often preferred to actual supplies. If aid is given in supplies, cash should also be provided for transport.

6. Close combat is the preferred option. It is best to get close to the enemy for the flat-trajectory fight where the enemy cannot use his artillery, mortars and aircraft.

7. When deploying heavy weapons, firing sites must be carefully prepared so that the weapons can be quickly moved out of the area or into a bunker or cave. Ambushes, raids and shelling attacks must be rapidly executed and the sites rapidly evacuated to avoid retaliation.

8. Communications are hard to maintain and readily intercepted. Messengers, visual signals and meetings are more secure than radio.

9. Publicity and media support is essential but tough to attain. Western journalists do not always want to travel to where the fighting is.

10. Adjustments in tactics are necessary only when enemy technology dictates that change. The anti-personnel land mine and the helicopter gunship were new technology that threatened traditional war-fighting and forced changes in guerrilla tactics.

[soma]

Thanks for the link.

The Mujahideen did not defeat a superpower, but they fought it to a standstill, then stayed in the fight until the Soviets tired and went home.

Intersting, but well known.

Can the same be said about Vietnam? Sure.

[sergey31]

Thanks for the link.

The Mujahideen did not defeat a superpower, but they fought it to a standstill, then stayed in the fight until the Soviets tired and went home.

Intersting, but well known.

Can the same be said about Vietnam? Sure.

Can it? No, not really...... No offence but you need to go learn history of Vietnam war in details. Battles won/lost, land gain/lost tactical retreats etc.
BTW... What does this artcle has to do about Vietnam war? Why go there?

[soma]

Because.... I'm Ron Burgundy. FLAMETEAM ASSEMBLE.

[NicNZ]

Ha, Ron Burgundy. He's kind of a big deal round here. Great movie that. Wha.. Wait a minute! What does that have to do with this topic?!

[sergey31]

Because.... I'm Ron Burgundy. FLAMETEAM ASSEMBLE.

Go ahead and ASSemble your flameteams flamer, I have all night and then the next day and so on... The best part is I actually get paid quite well while being here. :backhand:

[soma]

Good for you. I enjoy having a life outside of the office, flamming you from the comfort of home. Now how about these hot smoking guns I got. I just did 1000 50lb reps.

[Pandy]

Thanks for the link.

The Mujahideen did not defeat a superpower, but they fought it to a standstill, then stayed in the fight until the Soviets tired and went home.

Intersting, but well known.

Can the same be said about Vietnam? Sure.

It's somewhat what I saw, and throught about. But there are different things in it..

1. United States NEVER losts a major battle in Vietnam. Soviets did in A-Stan.
2. United States didn't have a very large ratio in combat deaths then in Vietnam.
3. United States Governmental Party or Multi-Party Elections will EFFECT what the government is gonna do, Soviet Union doesn't, Sovet Government can do whatever the hell it wents without being kicked out.
4. Soviet Union moreless controls the Press, as the United States doesn't, not allowed to.
5. Cold War going on, United States just got out of Vietnam and people were scared of another MAJOR war going on, where American boys would be killed on a Battlefield, far away from home. Soviets didn't have that war yet, till A-Stan.
6. Fighting a MAJOR war and keeping up with an arms race is not good when you don't have the money, unlike the United States.
7. Your arm forces began to show weakness in a field, combat operations in an area that you don't have in your country, so you can test out tactics and **** before entering the Operational Area. United States has lots of those, one we have trouble on is the desert one.
8. Soviet Union can't gear up for war like the United States can... In Operation Desert Storm, if we went to war right when the UN said "Oh No..." United States would have only two weeks of bullets, bombs, missiles, sabots (M1A1), and fuel... along with that, we throught the next MAJOR war was gonna be in Europe, so our uniforms were mainly green, if ya know what I mean, so we had to make lots of desert ones. We had to paint our tanks to tanish something, combat train our asses in the desert. Learn what the Iraqi Army might do when they fight to the DEATH, train resistance fighters to fight, along with Arab Nations.. In 3 months of Operation Desert Shield, we got ready FAST for Operation Desert Storm.... We GEARED up FAST!!!


..........


:hug:

[nahimov]

Didn't US conducted desert exersises in New Mexico before Iraq invaded Kuwait? I think US knew perfectly well what is going to happen and started gearing up for it early.

[usm2b]

Didn't US conducted desert exersises in New Mexico before Iraq invaded Kuwait? I think US knew perfectly well what is going to happen and started gearing up for it early.


hey sherlock....how did you ever find that out. Here's a news flash for you. The US military is constantly training for the next war. Yes im sure at some point the US military trained for war in the desert.

[M4ko]

Thanks for the link.

The Mujahideen did not defeat a superpower, but they fought it to a standstill, then stayed in the fight until the Soviets tired and went home.

Intersting, but well known.

Can the same be said about Vietnam? Sure.

It's somewhat what I saw, and throught about. But there are different things in it..

1. United States NEVER losts a major battle in Vietnam. Soviets did in A-Stan.
2. United States didn't have a very large ratio in combat deaths then in Vietnam.
3. United States Governmental Party or Multi-Party Elections will EFFECT what the government is gonna do, Soviet Union doesn't, Sovet Government can do whatever the hell it wents without being kicked out.
4. Soviet Union moreless controls the Press, as the United States doesn't, not allowed to.
5. Cold War going on, United States just got out of Vietnam and people were scared of another MAJOR war going on, where American boys would be killed on a Battlefield, far away from home. Soviets didn't have that war yet, till A-Stan.
6. Fighting a MAJOR war and keeping up with an arms race is not good when you don't have the money, unlike the United States.
7. Your arm forces began to show weakness in a field, combat operations in an area that you don't have in your country, so you can test out tactics and **** before entering the Operational Area. United States has lots of those, one we have trouble on is the desert one.
8. Soviet Union can't gear up for war like the United States can... In Operation Desert Storm, if we went to war right when the UN said "Oh No..." United States would have only two weeks of bullets, bombs, missiles, sabots (M1A1), and fuel... along with that, we throught the next MAJOR war was gonna be in Europe, so our uniforms were mainly green, if ya know what I mean, so we had to make lots of desert ones. We had to paint our tanks to tanish something, combat train our asses in the desert. Learn what the Iraqi Army might do when they fight to the DEATH, train resistance fighters to fight, along with Arab Nations.. In 3 months of Operation Desert Shield, we got ready FAST for Operation Desert Storm.... We GEARED up FAST!!!


..........


:hug:

which major battle did Soviets lose in Afghanistan?

[Lokos]

Pandy:

1) The Soviets didn't lose a major battle in Afghanistan.
2) The Soviets had an even lower manpower loss (in combat) ratio.
3) The Soviet government in 1989 bowed to public pressure.
4) You don't seem to understand the Soviet Union of Gorbachev, do you? Hint: Glasnost.
5) What the?
6) The war in Afghanistan occupied a very small portion of the Red Army's resources and manpower. And it lasted for nine years. The Soviet Union's economic decline was becoming obvious when the war STARTED - let alone when it finished.
7) What? I have no clue what you're trying to say here.
8) You're obviously not aware of the Soviet 'standing invasion' doctrine. They could also gear up FAST. In fact, gearing up FAST was a major cornerstone of their military art/science.

Get with the programme.

Lokos

[sergey31]

Thanks for the link.

[quote] The Mujahideen did not defeat a superpower, but they fought it to a standstill, then stayed in the fight until the Soviets tired and went home.

Intersting, but well known.

Can the same be said about Vietnam? Sure.

It's somewhat what I saw, and throught about. But there are different things in it..

1. United States NEVER losts a major battle in Vietnam. Soviets did in A-Stan.
Soviets did not lose any major battles in Afghanistan.
American, even though killed more enemy lost the war pretty much after Tet Offencive.
2. United States didn't have a very large ratio in combat deaths then in Vietnam.
Russians less then 15.000 in 10years
Americans. 58.000 in 6 years, and many more in MIA.
3. United States Governmental Party or Multi-Party Elections will EFFECT what the government is gonna do, Soviet Union doesn't, Sovet Government can do whatever the hell it wents without being kicked out.
:lol:
4. Soviet Union moreless controls the Press, as the United States doesn't, not allowed to.
One of demises of Vietnam war, was destruction of morale and influence from the press and liberals working in part with the enemy in helping defeating U.S forces...... Good for you and I'm glad it worked out so well for U.S military.
5. Cold War going on, United States just got out of Vietnam and people were scared of another MAJOR war going on, where American boys would be killed on a Battlefield, far away from home. Soviets didn't have that war yet, till A-Stan.
What is the point here ?
6. Fighting a MAJOR war and keeping up with an arms race is not good when you don't have the money, unlike the United States.
Afghanistan was NOT a Major war. Soviets deployed less then 5% of it's military machine there While U.S deployed 20% and lost 85% more equipment then Soviets. For Soviets, Afghanistan was more of testing ground for new and experimental weapons.
7. Your arm forces began to show weakness in a field, combat operations in an area that you don't have in your country, so you can test out tactics and **** before entering the Operational Area. United States has lots of those, one we have trouble on is the desert one.
:roll: You do realize that even without Soviet Union, Russian is still the largest country (four times of U.S) and they have climates from near North Pole to desert type environment.
8. Soviet Union can't gear up for war like the United States can... In Operation Desert Storm, if we went to war right when the UN said "Oh No..." United States would have only two weeks of bullets, bombs, missiles, sabots (M1A1), and fuel... along with that, we throught the next MAJOR war was gonna be in Europe, so our uniforms were mainly green, if ya know what I mean, so we had to make lots of desert ones. We had to paint our tanks to tanish something, combat train our asses in the desert. Learn what the Iraqi Army might do when they fight to the DEATH, train resistance fighters to fight, along with Arab Nations.. In 3 months of Operation Desert Shield, we got ready FAST for Operation Desert Storm.... We GEARED up FAST!!!

What does all this has to do with Afghanistan and Vietnam war? Did Soviets asked U.N permission to enter Afghanistan ? Oh, maybe Soviets could not gear up fast because they were all drunk and could not find their tanks. Then when tanks were found the ammo was in Siberia and it took 5 years for it to reach the war zone where tanks were without ammo nor fuel.

BTW, in operation Desert Storm most of U.N member nations were present and the war was actually approved.
Don't confuse Desert Storm with recent and still going "Operation Iraqi freedom"

..........


quote]