There are some people who think that USSR "lost" the war, or that they pulled out because they were losing. Soviet forces occupied the country in less than 2 days, destroying 95% of Afghans military and communication installations, and sending in over 80,000 troops in the first day of the war to take up base positions around the country. Couple that with 2000 tanks, another 2000 BMPs and with over 5000 sorties the Soviets had superiority in every area. 5 divisions accomplished the job of what most stated should have been 35.
While close to 650,000 troops served in Afghanistan, 10000 died in combat with another 3000+ dieing from wounds or infections. For every Soviet soldier in Afghanistan 2 Afghanis were killed.
During the time the Soviets pioneered the 300 meter rule making most insurgence attempts useless,
Quote:The Soviets soon learned that they did not want to be within 300 meters of the Mujahideen. The 300-meter mark represents the maximum effective range of the Kalashnikov assault rifle, the RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launcher against a moving target and is well within the danger close area of supporting artillery and air power. The Mujahideen preferred the flat trajectory fight where the bulk of Soviet combat power was negated. Where possible, the Soviets bulldozed orchards, villages and other cover and concealment some 300 meters back from both sides of the road to create stand-off and aid in counter-ambush.
At the same time they had to cope with,
Quote:The United States, Peoples Republic of China, Britain, France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates began funneling military and humanitarian aid to the Mujahideen through Pakistan.
Biggest problem wasnt the fighting rather,
Quote:Over 60% of the Soviet service personnel were hospitalized for disease during their normal two-year tour of duty. Shigellosis, amoebeosis, typhus, cholera, hepatitis, and other water-born diseases plagued the force. Malaria was also a problem.
Another problem was not being able to comprehend the situation at hand, something US forces in Iraq experience in '03 and '04
Quote:The Mujahideen were badly battered and close to breaking, but the Soviets did not realize it.
The point I want to make is,
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.
Quote:Soviet Lessons Learned from the War
1. Guerrilla war is a contest of endurance and national will. The side with the highest moral commitment will hold the ground at the end of the conflict. Battlefield victory is almost irrelevant.
2. Air domination is irrelevant unless precisely targeted.
3. Secure logistics and lines of communication are essential.
4. Conventional tactics, equipment and weapons require major adjustment or replacement.
5. Conventional war force structure is inappropriate.
6. Tanks are of limited value except as mobile reserves and a security element in cities. Light infantry and engineers are at a premium.
7. Medical support is paramount.
8. Logistics determines the scope of activity and force size either side can field.
9. The information battle is essential to maintaining external and internal support.
sowed the seeds of militant activities around the world.... yes thanks to our ever help USSR...
the world was better off with out u animals... what forgot what u did in ukraine?? under stalin starved to death thousands of people...shall I start?
pathetic ......
Pakistan Airforce: The largest distributor of Indian airforce parts in Asia
Pathankot Strike
8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, none of which were seen again during the War.
if that's your definition of "won", then you agree that the US "won" the war in Vietnam?
Since they did occupy the whole of South Vietnam, achieved a superior kill-ratio and only left due to voluntary pull-out? Similar to the USSR in Afghanistan?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I dont think people understand how successful the Soviet invasion really was,
"It was a brilliant operation. At the cost of 66 Soviet dead (44 due to accidents), the Soviets controlled the cities and government of Afghanistan."
Yes, we lost 10000 troops in combat, in a WAR there was just a 1.5% mortality rate, numbers like these were UNHEARD off before this. Soviets perfected this warfare, the only loss was in the Western media.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I always love it when people come up with all these excuses, and twist the meaning of victory. It is just as bad with Americans who say that they won Vietnam. I'm sorry, but if you retreat, and leave the enemy in command of the field, you have LOST.
.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Soviets won the war in Afghanistan..????? You should reduce your Vodka consume pal...
Hey Ruski..Take a good look at this tiny little pipe that kicked your red a@@es so badly
that it became a nightmare..You have been humiliated in Afghanistan.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Quote:There are some people who think that USSR "lost" the war, or that they pulled out because they were losing. Soviet forces occupied the country in less than 2 days, destroying 95% of Afghans military and communication installations, and sending in over 80,000 troops in the first day of the war to take up base positions around the country.
A small victory by gloating that your Red Army could occupied Afghanistan in two days, but you spent ten years to bail out despite you managed to kill 1 million innocent people not to mention orphans - the origin of Taliban - who then haunted you.
You were nothing but a vodka-consuming broken fabric...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
yeah ,well its still USD $199 more that what you'd pay for a paki! *************
RE: dude see probably was an indian...
u see indian girls are butt ugly so in the hope of getting better customers they tell they r from pakistan'
but u should know that as u r from mother india....
Pakistan Airforce: The largest distributor of Indian airforce parts in Asia
Pathankot Strike
8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, none of which were seen again during the War.
Quote:While close to 650,000 troops served in Afghanistan, 10000 died in combat with another 3000+ dieing from wounds or infections. For every Soviet soldier in Afghanistan 2 Afghanis were killed.
During the time the Soviets pioneered the 300 meter rule making most insurgence attempts useless
Multiply your 13,000 by 20 will give you the number of casualties (dead, wounded, sick, missing etc). This is far more important than death rate because a sick or wounded soldier is usually considered militarily dead in many cases. In other word in two years this level of casualty was a disaster for the a soviet army of 650,000. And for people like the Afghan, losing a million is peanut because they breed like rats. Just take the vietamese as an example, their population is now 86 million and increasing at 1% a year (860,000). Their 1 million casualty was in a sense insignificant. For casualty to have a major impact on the enemy you must make sure you kill enough so as to cripple their reproduction rate. 20 million would have done that for population of 30-40 million but not 90 million (NAZI killed that much Soviet but still their population bounced back with a vengeance). THe soviet afghan war was disaster for the Soviet though I'll agree not worse than the defeat the American suffered in Vietnam. They hardly scratched the Vietnamese on a long run basis. This is why the muslim is more formidable foe than you think. On a short they seem weak but unless we cripple them they'll inevitably win!
---------------------------
De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Jul 18, 2008 8:20 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It's actually very easy to tell if the Soviets won in Afghanistan. I don't understand what all the bickering is about.
1) The Soviets wanted to expand their influence in Asia
2) The Soviets wanted to protect their installed communist government.
3) The Soviets wanted to protect their Afghan interests from the West.
Now one has to simply go over their history books. After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, were any of these 3 major points accomplished? The answer, in short, no.
Now some food for thought. Had the Soviet ambitions in Afghanistan been to utterly devastate the country and it's population, then it would have been a clear and decisive victory, since they are still reeling from the destruction the Soviet army caused.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Regardless. That intention was never made public, so that's just speculation. The fact of the matter is, the Soviets left the country without accomplishing any of their predetermined goals.
It's very easy to invade a country, and when your reason for invasion is failing, change your tactics to all out destruction and claim victory. But the fact will still remain, the initial reason for invasion was a failure.
The same can be said about Vietnam. The US invaded to prevent the Communists from expanding their influence into the South.
This was ultimately a failure. Had the US invaded with the clear intent on killing as many of the NVA as possible, then it would have obviously been a victory, but kill counts don't really mean a thing when the initial reasons for the invasion are not accomplished.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
if the only definition of victory is achieving you initial aims and nothing else than the US has lost every war its fought since WW2. Initial aims are rarely ever achieved.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
filin yet again prooved what a moron he really is..
The soviets LOST war in afganistan the same way the US LOST war in vietnam , and it doesn't matter if they went in occupyed them in days , if their enginers built roads , if they won every battle from a batalion level and up , if they won almost every other battle they fought , doesn't matter if they lost 300 helo's and alot of armored vehicles , doesn't matter how much they killed or lost , these things all prooved what a superpower USSR was , they did a incredible invasion one only US could have done at that time no other country could have did it as good as they did in the same circumstances only the US could , but they went in afganistan with a purpose and a goal , and when they left it the purpose and the goal was not acomplished , they LOST , if you think winning a war means killing more than you lose you must be a IDIOT , if that would be so then the US would won every war they fought since WW2 , please stop drinking so much vodka filin.
This message has been edited by 5thGuards on Jul 18, 2008 1:33 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I like Fillin's analysis. Based upon that analysis, clearly the Japanese won the war in the Pacific during World War II. They swept all of the western Pacific and much of the Asian mainland with comparatively few casualties. A remarkable victory.
Heck, thinking about it, the Russians obviously won the First World War in the East, as well. They sure showed those pesky Germans and Austro-Hungarians a thing or two. We can go back though history and look for other previously unheralded victories. Napoleon's victory at Waterloo perhaps? The possibilities are literally endless.
Provost
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Quote:if the only definition of victory is achieving you initial aims and nothing else than the US has lost every war its fought since WW2. Initial aims are rarely ever achieved.
Please elaborate. The only war's I can think of that have been failures were Vietnam and the current war in Iraq (to an extent)
Vietnam was to prevent the spread of communism to the south. Iraq was to remove Saddam and eliminate his WMD. Saddam has obviously been removed, but no WMD has been found.
Korea was to halt the spread of Communism to the South. This was accomplished.
Gulf War 1 was to push Saddam's forces out. Mission accomplished.
Kosovo was to bomb the Serbs into submission. Mission accomplished.
Afghanistan was to over throw the Taliban, and prevent terrorist training camps from popping up again. So far so good.
Could you please give some examples of how all the above conflicts have been failures?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Quote:I like Fillin's analysis. Based upon that analysis, clearly the Japanese won the war in the Pacific during World War II. They swept all of the western Pacific and much of the Asian mainland with comparatively few casualties. A remarkable victory.
Heck, thinking about it, the Russians obviously won the First World War in the East, as well. They sure showed those pesky Germans and Austro-Hungarians a thing or two. We can go back though history and look for other previously unheralded victories. Napoleon's victory at Waterloo perhaps? The possibilities are literally endless.
And to be consistent with that train of thought, the Germans clearly won World War 2 as well. They inflicted more casualties on all the allies combined, than the allies inflicted on them. It was clearly a spectacular victory.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Pakistan Airforce: The largest distributor of Indian airforce parts in Asia
Pathankot Strike
8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, none of which were seen again during the War.
Please elaborate. The only war's I can think of that have been failures were Vietnam and the current war in Iraq (to an extent)
You are wrong.
The US has already won in Iraq. Its just that they, remembering the foolishness in prematurely crying victory the last time, are content to stay the announcement.
The Iraq war has been considered to be won (or practically won) by almost any qualified observer, including the most knowledgeable, those embedded with the troops (ie, Michael Yon) and non-partisan observers. The Iraqi government has formally taken over the responsibility of the security of at least 10 Iraqi provinces (a very large number considering there are only 18 provinces, and of the 8, 1 is Baghdad, obviously the last to be handed over for ceremonial reasons, as well as a number of Northern provinces, which are as peaceful as a cemetery but under control of the Kurds, like Kirkuk).
Basically, the "insurgents" have only several provinces left to hide (if even that) and since US troops has handed over majority of the nation to the Iraqis, this frees up even more troops to send jihadis to their 72 virgins.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
lol, guards retard, learn to use a period, and why dont you enlighten everyone where you served 25 years.
This has nothing to do with WW2 and if it did than the Soviet invasion was a swift take over of all the Afhani assets in less than 2 days and the occupation of the entire country just hours later.
Population wise the Soviets destroyed the Afghanis, whos population at the time of the invasion was 15.5 million taking 1.3 million of them. The only reason their population increased was the flood of refugees back in.
" However, with the spring thaw, resistance began to mount. Initially, tribal leaders assembled large armies (lashkars) that marched on the Soviet garrisons. They were easy targets for Soviet artillery and air power."
Soviet power was unquestionable, by many estimates the initial rebel force was cut down to less than 1% of their original size. One of the goals the Soviets hoped to achieve. They also wanted to sieze the control of important military installations and hand them over to the DRA, which they also suceeded.
When the insurgency gained hold the sofiets planned for an offensive, this is where most of the fighting took place. They hoped to reduce the abilties of the local rebel groups, whom by 1985 lacked experienced fighters and weapons since trade routes were getting bombed. After they accomplished that they planed to leave handing over the control to the DRA.
There is somehow an expectation that they needed to kill every last one of the rebels to win the war, but did the Soviets kill every one of the Nazis? Did the Americans kill every foreign soldier on their soil?
Unlike Napoleon who failed to adapt to the Russian winter the Soviet troops adaapted to everything the Afghanis threw at them. Stingers? The Soviet pilots started flying aboe 15000ft well out of the Stinger range. RPGs? They dug trenches and constructed baricades in front of their outposts at 300m range making swift attacks impossible for the rebels. Paki pilots? Tupolevs would fly in to jam ground radars and Tu-122s and Tu-95s conducted raids unharmed.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Paki pilots? Tupolevs would fly in to jam ground radars and Tu-122s and Tu-95s conducted raids unharmed.************
RE: what a doofy dooo.... PAF relies on also local ground observers to spot incoming air attacks a tactic that PAF used as far as 1965 againt low flying IAF (idiots airforce trained by russians)
so u probably didnt penetrate any Pak terrorities.... lool
so how does it explain Mig-23 shot down??.. retard
dont know anything
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Shoot, I was just thinking, based on Fillin's analysis, the Great Carthaginian Empire controlled the Mediterranean and defeated Rome. This type of analysis opens all new horizons for the revision of history.
Provost
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
^^ Wit all due respect to ur sarcasm. Vietnam is still alive whereas Afghanistan is nothin more thn a corpse. The Soviets literally massacred every standin infrastructure in the country.
colours of Kaziranga
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Me thinks provost can only mock and has nothing to back up his bs.
Paki retard, its easier to penetrate Paki air defense than it is to get into the pants of a $5 Vietnamese whore. We might have to wait a decade or two before those sories get declassified but Im sure its not hard to find craters around the sh1thole you call Pakistan.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Based upon your analysis, Fillin, I doubt that you think, at all.
Provost
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
France has won in Algeria too if we go this way.
25000 deads our side, 350.000 in the dust the other side (some muslim retard say one million - those clowns always exaggerate)
The only difference is that in this case it is true. The war was won and really won with the control of the country and everything.
But it was lost politically
The same thing is going to happen to the US army. The politician are going to betray the army a way they have no idea. They can already buy trucks of Vaseline.
(The sadest in this story is that the betrayal is probably relevant)
This message has been edited by c-seven on Jul 18, 2008 7:21 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Our Russian forumers are either not fluent in English or are acting stupid because there is a big difference between winning the invasion or the battle but they certainly lost the WAR.
I suggest you Ruskies look up the meaning of the words, "battle", "invasion" and "War".
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The Soviets had tooken Afghanistan. Within hours of the invasion, troops called in from Kabul and said they had tooken the capital. Afghanistan was conquered. The only thing to prevent the Soviets from completely controlling the country was the Mujahadeen insurgency, which was NOT Afghan but Paki, US, Saudi, and Chinese supported.
We all can agree that France and Poland were conquered and occupied by the Germans in WW2, even though there were insurgencies present in both nations. Same for the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
The US war in Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan are two totally different conflicts with two different doctrines. The United States was in a defensive position that usually was not allowed to enter North Vietnamese territory. The Soviets were on the offensive and had to occupy the nation.
THe Soviet invasion of AFghanistan is more comparable to the US invasion of Iraq (Gulf War 2) than it is to Vietnam. As we can see, the United States is clearly the victor against Iraq (the government no longer exists, and their leader Sadam has been executed). THe war has been won, however we are still fighting the peace. Hopefully our war won't end the same as the Soviet war, for the sake of order in the world.
BTW. Paki, your irrelevant posts show how little you know on the subject matter. Your falsely placed national pride overlaps your lack of knowledge on this subject, and for that matter, you seem to lack knowledge in all matters except for which country has the cheapest prostitutes. Good job. Do us all a favor and refrain from posting.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
the key is given by the assassination of the north forces leader 2 days before 9/11. He was a laic & non religious leader and opposed talibans.
The russians, given the fact that the us-uk was funding and organizing the talibans and anti-russian/anti-socialist moods, should have propped nationalist and non-religious forces and apply "permanent revolution" principles : give power to people & dont oppose pure nationalist moods.
they didnot do it by fear that soviet republics will become more independant from moscow.
The present turn of influence competition around russia and the focus of poutine on "internal" matters may mean that the afgan lesson has been learnt. us influence seems to be opposed by soft-power and mass politics
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
the russian "invasion" ( in fact a military raid) was not successfull because they have to retreat and let the mess to taliban + us.
afganistan is only one cause of the collapse of ussr. the main cause being for me various people revolutions & demonstrations from hungarn, poland, tchekoslovakei, etc, the unbearable weight of the bureaucracy, inability to mass produce goods and services...and at the end the corruption and luxus of the ruling elite of elstsine, etc. and its policy of privatization of public services.
This produced a "cold" normalization "coup" from leningrad, military, KGB hierarchs ala Poutine.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The main Reason for Soviet colapse is Economy.It simply could not ceap up with USA.Fact!
========================================================================
Then the GorbaTchev,s Glasnost and Perstroika,wich made Soviet peapol aware how bad there livingstandard is in comparison to the Europe and Usa.
========================================================================
Wich was what Nato wanted!To weeken Soviet economy by utilising such tactics as Armsrace.
Under Breznev Soviet block spend massive amount on armaments but found out that they still
laged behind,especialy since the Computer age Kicked in.Remebr the US Star Wars programe.
I can go on and on .....but i,m to lazy to type anymore for now.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It wasnt a retreat, Soviets didnt suffer horrendous casualties that hindered their ability to wage war, it was a withdraw with the power transferred to the DRA. What the DRA did after that is not up to the Soviet forces.
Armenian brings up a good point, in WW2 French resistance groups never ceased to exist, they conducted raids on the Nazis every so often. Does that mean the Nazis failed with their goal of occupying France?
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The same thing goes for France. France was 'invaded' and 'occupied' but Nazi Germany eventually lost the "WAR". So, did Russians and So will Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan if Iran doesn't want them to win.
A regular army simply cannot win a war againt a guerilla militia as long as that militia can sustain itself. This is a rule of thumb in military terms.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Paki, your irrelevant posts show how little you know on the subject matter*******
RE: coming from u hahhaha hha ahh thats rich...your knowledge and anaylsis is as good as russian idiot who decided go into afganistan...and the clown who thinks they won......
for record what i know, i simplify it for retards on this forum...as i do realised most people here on WAFF are brain damaged ..... u being one of them as simply u cannot get big picture
This message has been edited by PradoTLC on Jul 19, 2008 5:52 AM
