The Military History Thread

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Norbert84

...The notion of Soviets being uncapable of beating the US-backed Mujahedeen (predecessors of the present-day Taliban) is absurd. I think the Soviets realized at a point that this war wasn't worth wasting any more resources...

They knew that even before they went there, Norbert. One year earlier, they asked for Soviet assistance, and were told "No, because it will become worse than it is now"

That was sensible analysis

But one year later they did it anyway, thanks to senile leadership and other people

Withdrawal was the only right decision. I don't like Gorbachev, but he was right here. He made the decision in 85/86, before the US supplied interesting hardware

[Brecht]

Thanks for your insightful analysis, Comrade, because I don't think that Rambo III can serve as a reliable source.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by Lemo

[....]

I'm not a pro in this field, but aren't they were bombing Lybia and so on? I mean other such countrys in the region. Also they where taking part in Afghanistan war. I think that sending army to foreign country, that wasn't attacking you and wasn't planning to do so, and killing peoples here counts as attacking.
[....]

.

He's not good in recent history !

No, Germany did not be a part in Libya.(if you didn't mention 1940).

But Germany took part in Bosnia (still be there) and in Serbia (Kovacs) (also still being there).
And in the Afghanistan war too, correct.

And Germany has spread his weapons all over the world (among others) too, what leads me to the to the saying: "Never again a war must be started without Germany" (pun making of a pacifist slogan) .

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

...(pun making of a pacifist slogan)

I know you don't believe that, Puhbear

[uli12345]

Originally Posted by palo5

That's because it hasn't fought a war since 1945. You're probably thinking of Afghanistan, but that was a relatively small engagement and only took about 3% of available manpower

I don't count Georgia, Chechnya, Czechoslovakia or Hungary either, because they were even smaller

That is not the truth! This war was the beginning of the end for the former U.S.S.R. The Russian Red Army was not able to win against people who fight for their right! This war, had changed the russian society!
After the end of this war the russian army was very weakened!

Best regards

Uli

Georgia, Czechoslovakia and Hungary are not wars! This was occupation!

[Lemo]

Originally Posted by Norbert84

The Afghanistan War of the 80ies is a pretty interesting case. Your knowledge and wisdom are required, Comrade. The notion of Soviets being uncapable of beating the US-backed Mujahedeen (predecessors of the present-day Taliban) is absurd. I think the Soviets realized at a point that this war wasn't worth wasting any more resources. No matter how powerful your army is, fighting a guerilla war is too exhaustive. My question is if you might share any thoughts on official and unofficial reasons why the Soviets just packed their bags and left?

AFAIK this war wasn't what American propaganda shows it - good Afghanistan peoples fighting against the evil Soviet. In Afghanistan there where big pro Soviet support too. As there where two popular political parties. One pro Soviet, another pro USA/Western. Each has it voters. So it is rather Soviet+Afghanistan peoples fighting against other Afghanistan peoples. And, if it is not Russian proprganda, many in Afghanistan where wellcoming Soviets at the begining.

But as the war goes and civilian casualtes grows Afghanistan peoples where changing their opinion about Soviets. And so this situation with "public opinion" came to the dead end.

If to talk about technical aspect of the situation - armed insurgents where at home. Even those afghanistans, who where opposing them, where living in the same towns and villages. Not many would oppose insurgents openly when they know, that next night mujahedeen can come to their home and kill their family. So afghanistan society was more and more supportive to mujahedeen by free will or against it. So to fight mujahedeen you just need to kill most of Afghanis, which is not an option.

And view on losses is also an important thing. Insurgents usualy can "afford" much higher losses, than big "civilized" state, that is fighting them. Insurgents often see it as fight for their country, religion and so on. And their enemy don't have that much will to fight, their homes are far away, thay are not earning their place in paradise and so on. And leaders of "big states" have much more earthly things in mind at all. Profit, power, population unhappy with war, oncoming elections, their political ratings and their public image and so on, which war, which lasts longer and not so well then expected, is very bad to. This difference in views and values are important to, IMHO.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by uli12345

That is not the truth! This war was the beginning of the end for the former U.S.S.R. The Russian Red Army was not able to win against people who fight for their right! This war, had changed the russian society!
After the end of this war the russian army was very weakened!

Best regards

Uli

I will later answer to this point more detailed.

Before there has been in (Kingdom) Afghanistan a putsch under Hafizullah Amin. Then the Russian army helped the putschists. That happened 1979.
The country was before peacefully, and the woman also wasn't running around like tents. It had been at the step to become an industrial nation.

But more of this mater later in: " Why do they hate us ?" . Just need a bit time of prepration (Look at post #20 & #22).

[tygrkhat40]

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

Most people don't know this but there were officers that served in the Spanish American war that saw service in the American Civil War! We are talking Generals down to Captains and some Lieutenants.

And not all of the Civil War vets were veterans of the Union Army.

General Joseph Wheeler, who had been a Confederate cavalry officer in the Civil War, served admirably in the Spanish-American War, but he had a hard time remembering who the enemy was at the Battle of Santiago. He went into the battle though he was very sick and had to be carried in an ambulance. When the battle seemed to be going badly, he bravely left the ambulance, dramatically leaped on a horse, and led a charge. The charge was succeeding when Wheeler, slipping back into his youth, shouted exultantly to his men, "The Yankees are running; they are leaving their guns!" "Oh, damn it," he corrected himself when he remembered where
he was and what uniform he was wearing, "I didn't mean the Yankees, I meant the Spaniards."

SOURCE: Champ Clark, My Quarter Century of American Politics (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1920), II, 45. Reprinted in One-Night Stands with American History by Richard Shenkman & Kurt Reiger

[Lemo]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

He's not good in recent history !

Well, I'm realy not that bad in recent recent history - I can tell you what I was eating today in the morning ;-).

No, Germany did not be a part in Libya.(if you didn't mention 1940).

Sure not, as we are talking about 1945+. So, OK it wasn't Libya. May be Syria? Because not so long time ago France offered to bomb somebody in that region and if France did it, then why Germany wouldn't join? This is partialy joke, but, seriously, I just lost track of countrys, that West bombs or want to bomb for them to be undemocratic. And acctualy I, personaly, don't believe it is about democracy and fighting for the human rights. IMO it is about fight for influence, money and oil.

But Germany took part in Bosnia (still be there) and in Serbia (Kovacs) (also still being there).

I see it more like peacemaking activity, rather then attacking counrty. Same as I think, that Czechoslovakia and Hungary are rather military operations and not whole wars.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Lemo

If to talk about technical aspect of the situation - armed insurgents where at home. Even those afghanistans, who where opposing them, where living in the same towns and villages. Not many would oppose insurgents openly when they know, that next night mujahedeen can come to their home and kill their family. So afghanistan society was more and more supportive to mujahedeen by free will or against it. So to fight mujahedeen you just need to kill most of Afghanis, which is not an option.

And view on losses is also an important thing. Insurgents usualy can "afford" much higher losses, than big "civilized" state, that is fighting them. Insurgents often see it as fight for their country, religion and so on. And their enemy don't have that much will to fight, their homes are far away, thay are not earning their place in paradise and so on. And leaders of "big states" have much more earthly things in mind at all. Profit, power, population unhappy with war, oncoming elections, their political ratings and their public image and so on, which war, which lasts longer and not so well then expected, is very bad to. This difference in views and values are important to, IMHO.

The measures necessary to defeat an insurgency which enjoys widespread popular support are not usually acceptable to a "civilised" occupying nation. You can't win by being nicer than the enemy; that doesn't work. In Malaya, the British won by fostering racist intercommunal animosity. It helped that we British wanted to leave and the victorious Malay faction knew it could cut an acceptable deal; this was instrumental in starving the mostly Chinese led Communist insurgents of local support.

The other way to deprive insurgents of their grassroots support is to de-populate the battlefield so that the only people left are them and you. If the villages are empty, insurgents have nowhere to hide. This was how the British suppressed the Boer insurgency after the formal defeat of Orange Free State and Transvaal in 1900. First we rounded up all the people and herded them into "concentration camps" (oh happy day, when the British invented this phrase); then we built blockhouses and railway tracks with armoured troop-trains to divide the velt into controllable sections and gradually corner the bittereinders until attrition and the exhaustion of their resources forced them to quit.

Passive defensive measures, while necessary, don't defeat an insurgency. You need a strategy to get the enemy where they live and to take the initiative instead of letting them set the terms of the conflict. But if you won't fight dirty and flout the rules of international law, you will not win, and if that's a problem, you need to plan in terms of a face saving cut-and-run strategy, to get out as cheaply and quickly as you can, because you have just admitted that you lack the will to win.

The only other thing that works is to outlast the enemy, to play by the rules of international law, accept your casualties, by all means minimising them any way you can, but simply stay in theatre until the enemy accepts that you are going nowhere and that they themselves need to negotiate. This will not mean victory, but stalemate, and in the end a sensible compromise in which both sides give something up to get a rational solution. This was how things ended up in Northern Ireland; it took thirty years and the conflict there is still not absolutely over, merely mostly over. The only reason the British government had the sheer stamina to wait out the Provisional IRA until they were willing to negotiate was because it perceives Northern Ireland as part of the UK and that a central issue was at stake. Others will see Northern Ireland as not part of the UK, but it was the perception of the UK government which decided the issue of whether to carry on deploying troops when they were being killed at an alarming rate. That decision to stay in theatre frustrated the Provisional IRA insurgency; but their decision to carry on accepting losses and carry on their campaign likewise forced the British and Unionist side to negotiate as well. Thirty years; dripping water wears away stone, but not very quickly.