Boris,

That's because all their fighting in the past had been in Eastern Europe and all their tactics and equipment were designed to fight a war in Eastern Europe, they couldn't even use T-72's in the war because the suspension fell apart.

Sven,

I believe the Afghans were able to quite effectively limit the use of helicopters in Afghanistan by deploying Stingers supplied by the US VIA the SIS.

Originally Posted by Damien435

Boris,

That's because all their fighting in the past had been in Eastern Europe and all their tactics and equipment were designed to fight a war in Eastern Europe, they couldn't even use T-72's in the war because the suspension fell apart..

I believe, the Soviet tanks left by the Soviets in 1989, are still in use by the Afghans...(with some spare parts supplied by the Russians to the Northern Alliance)

Sven,

Originally Posted by Damien435

I believe the Afghans were able to quite effectively limit the use of helicopters in Afghanistan by deploying Stingers supplied by the US VIA the SIS.

The Stingers were a big threat for the transport planes and helicopters not for MI-24's

Originally Posted by Damien435

Boris,

That's because all their fighting in the past had been in Eastern Europe and all their tactics and equipment were designed to fight a war in Eastern Europe, they couldn't even use T-72's in the war because the suspension fell apart.

Sven,

I believe the Afghans were able to quite effectively limit the use of helicopters in Afghanistan by deploying Stingers supplied by the US VIA the SIS.

Your belief is wrong.
The majority of stingers were used on transport planes (often on troops returning home from a tour to cause unrest and lack of support for the war at home as well as affecting morale) and not on Hinds.
The Hind was the scourge of the Muhajadeen and very effectively deployed.
My point is to say that the Russians in Afghanistan not having effective air to ground attack is like saying Polish soldiers cant hold their booze.

The war was lost by politicians pulling the troops out(sound familiar?,Vietnam?) not by their lack of successes on the battle-field against insurgents on horseback even if a few did have 'toys' supplied to the soon-to-be-Taliban by the U.S. government.

Originally Posted by sven hassell

The war was lost by politicians pulling the troops out(sound familiar?,Vietnam?) not by their lack of successes on the battle-field against insurgents on horseback even if a few did have 'toys' supplied to the soon-to-be-Taliban by the U.S. government.

Sven,

I would like to refrase this point:
The Soviet politicians, I believe, didn't betray the military in this case. They just have realized that this war CAN'T BE WON!!!
That it has been unwinnable from the beginning and completely needless.

In the contrary, the Viet Nam war, theoretically, could be won, providing more political support for the US military

Actually I have herd a personal story on another forum about one person who told how they shot down a Mi-24 during the Iran- Iraq war. He (or one of his squad members) shot the Mi-24 with an RPG-7.

The Hind was the scourge of the Muhajadeen and very effectively deployed.

The fact about the Afghans being scared to death by Mi-24s, who wouldn't? The Mi-24 packs a powerful punch, but they make a large target.

which was usually followed by a mig carpet bombing session

In order to fight rebels that are hiding between mountains and caves, you need guided weapons and not free fall iron bombs.

anyone know of any good books on the sovet-afghan war?(in english)

The Soviets did lose the war. They were unable to take the initiative anywhere outside of their bases, and the mujahadeen were able to move anywhere at anytime. There were many places in Afghanistan that never fell to the Soviets in spite of repeated attacks (Panjashir Valley (sp?) and the Wakhan Corridor). When it became apparent that the Soviet Army could not do more than they had already accomplished, the Soviet leadership (quite rightly) pulled them out.
Unfortunately, the Soviet Army was doomed to failure due to the fact that it was an army that was designed from the individual private up to the General Staff to repel invaders along long fronts. As such they were heavily mechanized which made them very dependent on the roads, (which the rebels owned) and any movement into the mountains away from the roads was deadly. The Afghan conflict could not be fought or won by such an army, and I think that the Kremlin showed breathtaking stupidity in ordering their army in. From what I have heard, the only units that did well were special forces units, and that was because they were the only ones who were able ot fight in the mountains without mechanized support. At least the Americans in Vietnam were able to better adapt to the situation, and their effective use of helicopters gave them an advantage in mobility that the Red Army in Afghanistan could not even dream of. In fact, the Mujahedeen, most of whom were on foot, seemed to be far more mobile than the fully mechanized Soviet Army. Pretty sad, really.

Dean.

strategically speaking, the aim of the war in Afgan for Soviets was to open a route to India and thus open up Indian ocean for Soviets...

then you can see how badly Soviets lose here..they didn't even get to India

Actually the Soviets had relatively good mobility in Afganistan. However at times it was very slow, often taking 8 hours to land a couple hundred troops, and by this time the Afghans knew where they were so they set up ambushes.

Sometimes the Soviets were dumb enough to bombard LZ's with artillery and air strikes prior to landing, giving the Afghans ample time to mine the area with Anti-personell mines.

Without US support it could have never been done. Sven is right about targeting transport planes, they did this using stingers very effectively. (it would have been more effective if the Afghans werent so proud as to stand in lines of 3 or five and fire the missiles simultaeneusly, to show that they werent afraid.) But yeah Soviets lost big time in that war.

Without US support it could have never been done. Sven is right about targeting transport planes, they did this using stingers very effectively. (it would have been more effective if the Afghans werent so proud as to stand in lines of 3 or five and fire the missiles simultaeneusly, to show that they werent afraid.) But yeah Soviets lost big time in that war.

Transport planes usually fly higher than the Stinger's max altitude, so why did the Soviets fly their transports so low? or did they shoot them down while the planes were landing?