Were the Soviets defeated in Afghanistan?

Has the Soviet Military been defeated in Afghanistan

  • Yes, they have been defeated militarily

    Votes: 16 66.7%

  • No, they have done their jobs and have been pulled out by the Soviet political leadership

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Total voters
    24
boris116

boris116

Active member
I have been very impressed by all the opinions in the thread about the Viet Nam War!
However, I have an impression that the Soviet Veterans of the Afghan War 1979-89 can claim that they never lost the war either - they have been pulled out!

They have recently celebrated the 15th anniversary of that pull-out...
And the puppet Afghan regime has not fail for another 3 years after that.

What would be your take on that war?
The American media has been very clear on that account - it has considered as the DEFEAT of the Soviets in there.
The same as Viet Nam.. So, I could see some analogy between these tragic events and would like to know your opinions.
Please, do not dwell on the political differences between the "democracy" and "communism", bad guys vs. good guys etc. Let's talk about military aspects only!
 
Last edited:
I voted yes, with American support the Afghanis were able to paralyze the Soviet military, making them prisoners of the Afghan cities, the Fedayeen fighters, with the aid of American weapons and supplies VIA the SIS, were able to launch ambush after ambush, not just on Soviet troops, but their armor too. Unlike Viet Nam, where the American forces were able to force their way through pretty much whenever they decided to go somewhere (the problem was they were not ordered to go to the right places early enough in the war to make a difference, and yes, I mean North Vietnam.) the Soviets were repeatedly stopped and forced to turn back, I can't remember the name but one Fedayeen commander in I think in the same mountains Osama is now rumored to hide in, repelled three Soviet attacks, all with armor and air support, and the largest of which consisted of 10,000 troops. He did this with only 1,500 men. Plus, the Soviet military was much more brutal towards the Afghan citizens than the American soldiers in Vietnam, or so I am told. The Soviet military failed because their goal was to bring the revolution to Afghanistan, they could not do this while they were in country and their certainly was no lingering effect afterwords. The government that the Soviets left in power, in a final twist of irony, was expected to only hold Kabul for six weeks against the Taliban, yet they managed to hold out for three years, outliving the Soviet Union.
 
The red soldiers did there job, and whooped the afghans up and down the country. They lost the same way we did in vietnam.
 
Not really......they managed to hold their own but like Vietnam, the politicians at home pulled them out to save face.
 
I voted yes.
A large reason to the faliure of the Soviets in Afghanistan, In my opinion, is their tactics. This was the first time the USSR fought a war against rebels, and their tactics of fighting mass battles agains NATO proved to be obsolete.
Some other reasons for their faliure mite be the weapons that they used.
In order to fight rebels/terrorists effectivly you need a large variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons- somethng the USSR had only a limited amount and variaty of.

The US and Israel, for example, proved to be very effective against rebels/terrorists because they devloped new tactics and use a wide variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons.
 
Last edited:
shocktroop said:
I voted yes.
A large reason to the faliure of the Soviets in Afghanistan, In my opinion, is their tactics. This was the first time the USSR fought a war against rebels, and their tactics of fighting mass battles agains NATO proved to be obsolete.
Some other reasons for their faliure mite be the weapons that they used.
In order to fight rebels/terrorists effectivly you need a large variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons- somethng the USSR had only a limited amount and variaty of.

The US and Israel, for example, proved to be very effective against rebels/terrorists because they devloped new tactics and use a wide variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't agree with your statement that the Soviets didn't have the experience fighting the rebels. The had a very succesful campains against the rebels in Central Asia in the 30-s, Chechnya - in 1942, Western Ukraine and the Baltic states in the 40-s and the 50-s.
However, they were not succesful in Afghanistan...
 
shocktroop said:
I voted yes.
A large reason to the faliure of the Soviets in Afghanistan, In my opinion, is their tactics. This was the first time the USSR fought a war against rebels, and their tactics of fighting mass battles agains NATO proved to be obsolete.
Some other reasons for their faliure mite be the weapons that they used.
In order to fight rebels/terrorists effectivly you need a large variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons- somethng the USSR had only a limited amount and variaty of.

The US and Israel, for example, proved to be very effective against rebels/terrorists because they devloped new tactics and use a wide variaty of guided air-to-ground and ground-to-ground weapons.
Click to expand...

What the f**k is this then?

Ask any Afghani fighter what his worst nightmare was during the war and he will say the Hind.(which was usually followed by a mig carpet bombing session).
Yes technically they lost as they never held their objective,but as I was enlightened in the vietnam thread I now have to agree with the previous member who said the Soviets kicked ass but were let down by the politicians.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Damien435 said:
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..
Click to expand...

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,

Damien435 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Stingers were a big threat for the transport planes and helicopters not for MI-24's
 
Damien435 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sven hassell said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top