Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
CSM said:Not a problem. Just wanted to get it straight, if ya know what I mean.
CSM said:Horsepucky!
What we need is a historical topic thread so I can larn you pups a few things!
The arrival of antiaircraft systems is a significant case in point. At the start of the war, the Mujahideen possessed virtually nothing but small arms with which to combat Soviet aircraft. This weakness proved acute, as the Soviets began to exploit their air capabilities fully. Bombing assumed huge proportions and helicopters facilitated the rapid movement of troops and equipment, thereby compensating for the limited mobility of ground columns in mountainous defiles and valleys. Meanwhile, to prevent ambushes and to gain the initiative in combat, the Soviets learned to land troops along the commanding heights overlooking routes of movement. But by the midpoint of the war, if not sooner, reports from Afghanistan noted the employment not only of Swiss-made Oerlikon antiaircraft guns but British blowpipe and American Stinger antiaircraft missiles. The latter, especially, proved to be extremely lethal and forced the Soviets to operate with far more caution. Subsequently, Soviet Tu-16 intermediate-range bombers, as well as Su-24 and Su-25 attack aircraft, largely abandoned low-altitude bombing and had to release their ordnance from above 10,000 feet, with a significant corresponding loss of accuracy. In turn, Mi-24 and Mi-25 helicopter pilots could no longer linger over target areas but had to engage in quick runs and rely on nap-of-the-earth flying to avoid premature detection and destruction.22 The tactical consequences were no less dramatic for ground columns, which forfeited much of their air support and once again became more vulnerable to ambushes from the heights and ridges along the roads.
-=d=- said:This makes a pretty good case for "The Stinger Changing the Tide of the War"
My emphasis added...
CSM said:All true, however, the Stingers alone were not the sole reason for the Soviet failure.
In the end, the Soviets failed to accomplish all five of their principal objectives for defeating the irregular enemy in Afghanistan. This was due to the strength, motivation, and resilience of the resistance, as well as to the fact that the Soviets began the war without a coherent strategy and, even later, failed to link their assorted efforts in such a way as to establish a basic unity of effort. An example is the way in which highly destructive, firepower-intensive military operations undermined political campaigns aimed at winning the active support (or at least neutrality) of the population.
Had Soviet strategy been better conceived, there might have been at least some prospect for success. As Gareev wrote after the war, the Soviet General Staff had informed the Ministry of Defense in December 1979 that it would take from thirty to thirty-five divisions to stabilize Afghanistan.32 Given the actual course of events there, this estimate is reasonable.
Poor strategy and planning on the Soviets part had a lot more to do with it. That plus their not be willing to pay the price for success had more effect than the Stinger.
The Stingers helped and so did the influx of other weapons from outside agencies as well as political and moral support from those same countries.
-=d=- said:I never claimed Stingers caused the Soviets to 'fail' in their goals for Afghanistan...I said "Stinger turned the tide of the war - one side was losing, after the introduction of the Stinger, they started 'winning'.."
CSM said:And I keep telling you that it wasn't ONLY the Stingers. The RPG-7s, the other weapon systems, the financial and moral support also had a great impact on the tide of war. BUt hey that's ok; if you really believe a single weapon can determine the outcome of a war then so be it. I sincerely hope that that will never be true.
-=d=- said:I don't agree. There is EVIDENCE, as I quoted above, which suggests the STINGER was the PRIMARY CAUSE for the Losing "rebels" to become "Victors". Without the Addition of the missile, there's a great chance the Rebels would never have gained the upper hand.
Losing the battle....Add some Stingers....Now they are winning. That's what happened. Sure, they were given "other" resources, but none were effective enough to cause the major shift in Soviet Tactics, enabling the Rebels to gain and hold land previously unavailable.
