Excellent article on Afghanistan

[Marcello]

Russian commanders just did not have the training or resources to nation-build.

The Najibullah regime outlasted (if briefly) the USSR itself while the US & Co were pumping aid to the Mujahedin even after the soviet withdrawal years earlier. Which means that at a minimum that the Army that the soviets had trained was at least somewhat effective. I would not bet much on the current crop in Kabul faring better.

The extreme major of Red Army soldiers serving in Afghanistan volunteered.

I doubt it. Any source for that?

What about counter-revolution? What about Hungary in 1956? What about Nazi insurgency in 1944?

It should be note that Hungary did not put up an organized resistance and the local conditions were not favorable to an eventual insurgency.
Whatever "Nazi insurgency" may have been around in 1944 was a small scale thing, just like anti soviet leftovers in the Baltics and such which were not eliminated until years later. Such things barely registered on the radar, if they did register at all. Large scale COIN abroad was something new indeed.

In addition, the Soviet divisions did fight in Hungary, Vietnam, parts of Africa, etc.

Soviets did fight in Vietnam, Korea and others places, but not as divisions or in major force generally.

[Anthony_Scott]

Originally Posted by [QUOTE

The extreme major of Red Army soldiers serving in Afghanistan volunteered.

Unlikely, except perhaps for SPETZNAZ units. Recall the Soviet military was a conscript force in it's majority and it would be unthinkable for men to volunteer to return to the war zone.

What about counter-revolution? What about Hungary in 1956? What about Nazi insurgency in 1944?

Both invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia were considered "internal affairs" of the Warsaw Pact, and at any rate were "classic" operations, ie a permissive country with extant communist infrastructure and the local resistance was doomed from the start.
Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_...Czechoslovakia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungari...lution_of_1956

The abortive Nazi resistance of 1945-1946 were handled with great efficiency and ruthlessness by the occupation forces of the allies and also suffered from not having the support of the German people. One would suppose 12 years of Nazi brutality was enough.

In addition, the Soviet divisions did fight in Hungary, Vietnam, parts of Africa, etc.

Soviets did fight in Vietnam, Korea and others places, but not as divisions or in major force generally.[/quote]

Indeed, Soviet aviators did fly combat missions over Korea during the war in the 1950's, although they were forbidden to speak Russian and had orders not to be taken alive. During the stress of combat against USAF Sabres the pilots would quite naturally forget the former and use Russian freely.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG_Alley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15

In Vietnam Soviet troops numbered some 3,000 and the Soviets provided material, including the SA-2 that shot down USAF B-52 bombers. Their role in combat is unknown, although it is known that during the Son Tay raid that some Soviet advisers may have been killed but that has never been determined with any certainty.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivory_Coast

Soviet operations in Africa were the Ogaden War, involvement in Angola, and operations during the Congo Crisis of 1962, although personnel deployments were nowhere near those seen in the above mentioned Hungarian and Czech operations. Socialist interventions in Africa were largely proxy affairs, with Cuba providing the bulk of the land forces.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambican_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Border_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_(1985–1991)

During the Cold War, if you said you were socialist or communist and hated the USA then the Soviets would support you, which is why Afghanistan is such a one-off. The US pretty much dropped Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, with Pakistan being left
with the job of relocating the refugees.

[Snipey]

The volunteer quote comes from a Russian movie about the Afghanistan War. Also, I'd like to point out that even if said movie is incorrect, the Red Army never had more than 10 percent in Afghanistan. One out of ten volunteering for glory, for a better wage, for excitement, for heroics, it's not that far fetched.

In Hungary there was an actual anti-Soviet Revolution, bankrolled by the US. In Czechoslovakia it was more of a "we're defending out lands" kind of event. Don't mix the two.

Also, you may be forgetting this, but the Soviets only took 15,000 losses in Afghanistan. In the Battle of Berlin, the Red Army lost over 80,000. In other words, it wasn't the devastating losses that made the Red Army withdraw from Afghanistan, and the Red Army could have kept on going. The major problem, the reason why the Red Army lost in Afghanistan, was the Brezhnev-Gorbachev Government. But to Americans, who are crazy about "Gorby Mania" this is hard to understand. The main problem is that Gorbachev was a disaster for the USSR, but only Gorbachev's "sunny side" was shown in the American Press, his treatment of the Red Armed Forces, of the USSR's farmers, of factory workers, of, well pretty much the common man, was rather poor.

And while you do cite all of the data, the Red Army/Red Air Force bashing aside, "combat stress" - well that happens to everyone and the Red Air Force spoke Russian even when they weren't in combat and flying over Korea. Also, you are just proving my point, and disproving the article's initial point, which was that the Red Army didn't have combat experience going into Afghanistan.

Also, I agree with Marcello on Soviet Atrocities: "Legend is a apt term. As you will probably recall the US was engaged in a proxy war against the USSR which included, shocking suprise, heavy use of propaganda. And Afghanistan is not a great place for fact finding missions after the fact. No doubt there was an extremely indiscriminate usage of firepower by the soviets, at least by current standards, and lots of atrocities to boot. But contemporary tales were filtered throught the anti USSR propaganda and that cannot be overlooked in a critical analysis. Mining operations for example were extensively carried out by the mujahedeen too (mines were one of the most sought after weapons back in Pakistan)."

Also of note, the Russian Army has had three successful wars, Dagestan War, Second Chechen War, and the 2008 South Ossetia War.

In order to be great at understanding any military, one must separate politics from military, or one is doomed to failure, as your "hurrr durrr 'Semper Fi Georgia' thread" shows.

[Anthony_Scott]

I'll refrain from any personal response, but I will answer professionally:

1. Military history is not, nor will it ever be, seperated from the politics of the era. Politics have played a central part in the wars of the latter half of the past century.

2. I will never bash either purposely or inadvertantly the fighting prowess, ability or pride of such a vaunted army as the Russian one. It serves no use. And it is the height of disrespect to minimize the average Russian Army conscript. The Germans did that in 1942 to their undoing.

3. All data on the personnel losses were broken down in the wikipedia article and, to the best of my knowledge, takes into account battle fatigue as well. See the bottom part of the article.

4. I have not the foggiest idea as to pay, bonuses, hazard pay, or any of the ways the Russian military may or may not compensate their combat troops. Your assertion of troops volunteering may be correct but to assume that they have the same bonus pay as we do is not a correct course. I just don't know how their pay scales work.

And Lastly:

Please consider reading John Keegan's excellent work A History of Warfare and Suz Tzu The Art of War. Both these tomes and some truly excellent military history professors have made very sure that I have absorbed the lessons of history. John Keegan's work continues to occupy pride of place on my desk and every Marine that walks into my office sees it every day. My long association with Marines and soldiers has given me a rare insight into the way one fights and warfare.

I would agree with you that my Georgia thread was ill-considered largely the result of not thoroughly reading the subject or the article and for that I apologize.

[Snipey]

Originally Posted by Anthony_Scott

I'll refrain from any personal response, but I will answer professionally:

1. Military history is not, nor will it ever be, seperated from the politics of the era. Politics have played a central part in the wars of the latter half of the past century.

2. I will never bash either purposely or inadvertantly the fighting prowess, ability or pride of such a vaunted army as the Russian one. It serves no use. And it is the height of disrespect to minimize the average Russian Army conscript. The Germans did that in 1942 to their undoing.

3. All data on the personnel losses were broken down in the wikipedia article and, to the best of my knowledge, takes into account battle fatigue as well. See the bottom part of the article.

4. I have not the foggiest idea as to pay, bonuses, hazard pay, or any of the ways the Russian military may or may not compensate their combat troops. Your assertion of troops volunteering may be correct but to assume that they have the same bonus pay as we do is not a correct course. I just don't know how their pay scales work.

And Lastly:

Please consider reading John Keegan's excellent work A History of Warfare and Suz Tzu The Art of War. Both these tomes and some truly excellent military history professors have made very sure that I have absorbed the lessons of history. John Keegan's work continues to occupy pride of place on my desk and every Marine that walks into my office sees it every day. My long association with Marines and soldiers has given me a rare insight into the way one fights and warfare.

I would agree with you that my Georgia thread was ill-considered largely the result of not thoroughly reading the subject or the article and for that I apologize.

1. My point is this: you have to understand the difference between military historians writing articles and politicians writing articles, and treat them as such. You have to know the purpose behind the article. Something written about Russia's army by the Jamestown Foundation is a joke, but something written about Russia's army by the Moscow Defense Brief, or even found on the CIA World Factbook is to be taken seriously. You have to learn the difference between the two.

2. I consider some of your posts, particularly about Russian discipline and Russian drunkenness to be bashing, as they come form sources who focus on hype and sensation, rather than reality. I am not saying you do it intentionally.

3. Battle Fatigue is a factor in every war. It was certainly a factor in Afghanistan, but not the deciding factor.

4. I never said Russian troops had the same bonus pay as US troops. That would be a silly assumption. If one was to merely look at the average wages in the US vs. Russia or the USSR, one would see that US wages are generally higher, so the bonuses would be greater.

If you want to know more about the Red Army, read David Glantz and John Ericson. And Sun Tzu is a must read, no questions here. As for John Keegan, I would agree with the Christian Science Monitor that the comparison of the Iraq War to WWII are innapropriate.

The thing about your Georgia thread, it happened many times, and you weren't the only one, so apology accepted You just happened to mention it on what I would consider to be a military website, so I had to say something about it.

The part that annoys me the most, is that the bashing is still going on to this day, and not just in the case of Russia. Many Marines unjustly get called Baby Killers. Russians are now calling "butchers of civilians" - even though their acts saved civilians. The media, politics, will drive anything, "if it bleeds, it leads". Political articles must be ignored, they must be trashed, and until people realize that political articles are written for the sole purpose of someone's monetary gain, and not to inform the read, we will have misunderstandings. I mean people are thinking that Russia will be invading Ukraine soon, which is the biggest bull**** I've heard.

I try to stay out of political forms, which is why I like this forum, but my main point remains: you have to separate politically written articles from those written by military professionals. And sometimes, credentials are a tricky business, as credentials are not hard to get at all. One must look at the content of the article itself, and not the credentials of the writer. The articles that I've seen you put up for discussion here, albeit I've only seen two, have been primarily politically-driven articles, rather than complex military analysis. And to me, that is the most dangerous path of them all, articles with a political purposes, disguised as military analysis. It's like a guy selling you a lemon and telling you it's the greatest car in the World.

An easy way to tell the difference, is to read their previous articles. If a person was wrong 20 percent of the time or more, he is not a professional military analyst, and should be ignored. Focus on the article itself, rather than the writer. Look for content, more political crap, or more military analysis. That's just my two cents, because I see you, and not just you, making the same mistake, trusting that crooked car salesman, and buying their articles, hook, line and sinker. I want to assist you by giving you a guide, I don't want a flame war, and I thank you for avoiding the latter; it is my hope that you follow the former.

[redcoat2]

Without wishing to be drawn into the debate I would just like to post a couple of links to articles about the Soviet-Afghan War.

The Soviet-Afghan War: A Superpower Mired in the Mountains
by Lester W. Grau, Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/doc...redinmount.htm

Humping a Ruck Across Sunny Afghanistan, Summer of 1986.
A Snipers Paradise interview with a Soviet Spetsnaz vet of the Soviet-Afghan War.

http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/soviet.htm

[Snipey]

Originally Posted by redcoat2

Without wishing to be drawn into the debate I would just like to post a couple of links to articles about the Soviet-Afghan War.

The Soviet-Afghan War: A Superpower Mired in the Mountains
by Lester W. Grau, Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/doc...redinmount.htm

Humping a Ruck Across Sunny Afghanistan, Summer of 1986.
A Snipers Paradise interview with a Soviet Spetsnaz vet of the Soviet-Afghan War.

http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/soviet.htm

The last article is truly a must read. Thank you Also, I remember someone here talking about Soviets not having NCOs, or something like that: "Andrei: Typically 22 people or somewhere around there. There were five officers, 4 NCO's, and the rest sergeants and privates. "

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by Snipey

The volunteer quote comes from a Russian movie about the Afghanistan War. Also, I'd like to point out that even if said movie is incorrect, the Red Army never had more than 10 percent in Afghanistan. One out of ten volunteering for glory, for a better wage, for excitement, for heroics, it's not that far fetched.

Movies are entertainment and simply cannot be trusted as history sources. Else one could be led to assume that King Tigers look exactly like M47s...

Now I am certainly not an expert about the Soviet/Russian army (I am more interested in their clients) but every source I read
about them describe the 80's era Soviet Army as a conscript Army,
no Kontraktniki back them. You were called up and you showed up and were sent where the higher ups saw fit, which might be Afghanistan. You could volunteer for Spetnaz/VDV duty which might again land you in Afghanistan.
At no point I have ever found mention of ad hoc volunteer units raised for Afghan duty or any other mechanism that would ensure that the bulk (as opposed to some individuals) of the units posted there were manned with volunteers specifically wishing to be there.
I imagine that some officers and soldiers might have requested to go there and perhaps such requests might have been accepted but there is no mention of such a thing being widespread anywhere. Hence I would like to see something on it, if there is any.

Originally Posted by Snipey

In other words, it wasn't the devastating losses that made the Red Army withdraw from Afghanistan, and the Red Army could have kept on going. The major problem, the reason why the Red Army lost in Afghanistan, was the Brezhnev-Gorbachev Government. But to Americans, who are crazy about "Gorby Mania" this is hard to understand. The main problem is that Gorbachev was a disaster for the USSR, but only Gorbachev's "sunny side" was shown in the American Press, his treatment of the Red Armed Forces, of the USSR's farmers, of factory workers, of, well pretty much the common man, was rather poor.

The soviets got out because while they were not suffering devastating losses they were still suffering losses and using up resources while accomplishing nothing of substance.
As it turned out the DRA security forces were able to hold the line by themselves and the soviets could not do much more than that when they were around anyway.

In regards to Gorbachev, yes in hindsight it was a disaster.
But it was apparent by the early 80's that the system in its current form was going nowhere. Absent changes they would simply be overtaken by the West, with their economy, conventional forces etc. lagging further and further behind. Perhaps they might have managed to shield themselves indefinitively behind the nuclear arsenal and be content with running a stagnating and increasingly less relevant country. Not a pleasant thought unless you are of the Kim Jong-il ilk.
Do you think the rest of the soviet establishment would have let Gorbachev go as far as he did otherwise?

[Snipey]

The quote was from more of a documentary, than an actual movie type thing, I should have clarified that earlier. From what I gathered, the people were conscripted, and out of those conscripted some volunteered to go to Afghanistan. Also there were Spetznatz volunteers.

There are whole articles and multiple viewpoints as to what the Soviets accomplished/didn't accomplish in Afghanistan. I will say that under Soviet rule Afghan women's lives improved. However, this is bordering on politics, so I won't go any further in that direction.

I was talking about Gorbachev's mishandling the army, and the domestic front. I don't buy the argument that one has to sacrifice the army in order to achieve political goals. I do know that the army was going to coup Gorbachev eventually, because of the War in Afghanistan. Gorbachev either had to pull out the troops, or supply the troops. Instead he did nothing. The army isn't a pushover in Russia, they have power. The could've prevented Yeltsin from couping Gorbachev. But he lost their trust. If you choose to, pardon my French, **** your fellow countrymen for your political ambitions, then you aren't a great leader, and quite frankly, you are a poor exuse for a human being. Gorbachev truly screwed the Red Army, almost as bad as Stalin.

The USSR was already overtaken by the West. US had FDR, while USSR had Stalin. US had no war fought on its soil, except Pearl Harbor, Alaska and minor incidents. USSR took the brunt of the war. Being overtaken by the West was nothing new to the USSR. It wasn't like there was a point in time where the Soviets were winning the Cold War, with the exception of America's disastrous War in Vietnam, but that mistake was American, not Soviet.

However USSR could never have been isolated as North Korea is today? Having lived in Yeltsin's Russia, I can say that it wasn't worth it. Nothing was worth going through that. As for changes, I believe they would've happened, through this cool thing called a "series of tubes" aka The Internet. There was a war between the Russian Hackers and the Russian Government. The hackers won. With the exception of articles aiding Nazism, those aiding Al Qaeda, and those publishing explicit materials of child pornography, the Internet, in Russia, is uncensored. And quite frankly, I doubt that the Soviet Government could have defeated the Russian Hackers, because the Soviet Government failed to stop the importation of Rock and Roll, which I personally believe was a wonderful import. After the Internet was made available to the masses, the USSR Government would have to adopt, and free speech, would be allowed, except without the mass panic that was produced and that has killed, according to estimates, at least 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 Russians. To call it a disaster is a huge understatement.

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by Snipey

Gorbachev either had to pull out the troops, or supply the troops.

I don't understand what you mean by "supply" here. Trasportation was a bottleneck, with a poor road network used by harrassed convoys where one truck every 3-4 had to carry a Zu-23 instead of cargo for self defense. It is questionable they could have shipped there much more stuff than they actually did. I suppose they could have brought more high quality stuff, say more SU-25s instead of older planes, more PGMs etc but that was 1)expensive and they were already overspending in the military 2) the more modern stuff was badly needed by the GSFG in case the balloon went up, which around 1983 or so was not an extremely remote possibility.

Or do you have something else in mind?

Being overtaken by the West was nothing new to the USSR. It wasn't like there was a point in time where the Soviets were winning the Cold War, with the exception of America's disastrous War in Vietnam, but that mistake was American, not Soviet.

Perhaps being overtaken was the wrong choice of word. I will explain with an example: insofar such things can be gauged the soviet economy was still growing at competitive world rates in the 60's. It was believable back then that catching up with the developed world could have been possible at some point in the future.
By the 80's this was definitively not the case anymore.
Do you get what I am trying to say?