They call us SPETSNAZ!

[Oldman1]

Contrary to what some may say, the Chechens, just like the Taliban, give it as good as they get it. I say this knowing about the Taliban operations against our own troops in Pakistan (and the involvement of Chechens in some of these) and elsewhere. The Chechens are no pushovers. This has been proven in both of the Russian wars in Chechnya. In built up combat, the Chechens held out agains the best the Russians could throw at them in both wars. They conducted tactical withdrawals against superior firepower from air and armour but still remain a force to reckon with in Chechnya.



I am sure they are just as good to the man as the SEALs. Marines are nothing but naval infantry.

Believe hes referring to Force Recon.

 

[turbo charged]

The spetsnaz as well as paratroopers VDV have been documented in many of their battles/operations. In one famous missions some 600 (mostly paratroopers) engaged 2,500 Afghan government presidential bodyguards as well as soldiers. It was a once sided battle. In another case 90 paratroopers engaged about 2,500-3000 enemy soldiers, most of the paratroopers were killed; however, they killed hundreds of enemy forces and caused the survivors to retreat. Interestingly enough many of the paratroopers killed were killed because they ran out of ammunition and not because they were outmatched in skill although they were outmatched in numbers.


So in well documented cases the Spetsnaz have a proven record, yet every time they face Pakistani troops the Pakistanis seem to have divine powers. Forget about a mere 600 paratroopers taking out 2,500 well trained presidential bodyguards as well as soldiers. The Pakistani ‘special forces’ supported by a bunch ill trained and ill equipped rag tag fighters managed to kill thousand of Russian special forces. Seems like a Rambo script.


I have someone in my family that was in the Spetsnaz, he even served in Afghanistan, I also have someone in the family that was KGB intelligence. Both individuals have information that the general public does not have, and it’s a little bit funny how a lot of this feel good Rambo propoganda floating around about the spetsnaz in Afghanistan can not be confirmed or is flat out not true according to credible people that were their.

then why did u left Afghanistan and Soviet Union dis-integrated.............they were rat-tag and you with all the modern technology failed to maintain an occupation...........

why did u invaded afghanistan by the way?....did the afghans invaded your siberia or some land?.....what was your business in afghanistan?....you tried to occupy it...and they throwed you out of it......its their history......first they throwed out british,,,then russians and now its americans....all so called worldy super powers.........now u will even deny those soviet planes that PAF shot down......

 

[Icarus]

then why did u left Afghanistan and Soviet Union dis-integrated.............they were rat-tag and you with all the modern technology failed to maintain an occupation...........

why did u invaded afghanistan by the way?....did the afghans invaded your siberia or some land?.....what was your business in afghanistan?....you tried to occupy it...and they throwed you out of it......its their history......first they throwed out british,,,then russians and now its americans....all so called worldy super powers.........now u will even deny those soviet planes that PAF shot down......

The reason Soviet Union ENTERED (not Invaded) Afghanistan was because of a treaty of friendship and co-operation signed between the Afghan Govt and The Soviet Union for strengthening the Centre in an otherwise scattered Afghanistan. The treaty was hailed as a great achievement of Afghan Diplomacy and the Soviets were formally invited to send troops into Afghanistan to quell the fighting that had resulted in civil unrest. So it wasn't an invasion, it was made to look like it by a coordinated subversion effort.

 

[Hyperion]

sir would you pleas give me the link ??? i would be thankful

LOL... there are no links. You're either one of them or you're not.

 

[Icarus]

sir the treaty of friendship resulted in soviet union becoming history.......i hope india also signs a treaty of friendship with aghanistan and send its troops there....
one shouldent try to change the culture of a foreign land by force or by show of guns and force.......there was no afghan army in russia.....there should have been no russian army in afghanistan....pretty fair

I just mentioned that the Afghan Government formally invited the Soviet Union to send their troops to Afghanistan.

 

[turbo charged]

I just mentioned that the Afghan Government formally invited the Soviet Union to send their troops to Afghanistan.

yes sir i agree with you ...afghan govt invited soviets without taking the general public in confidence.....chances are it was the afghan king who hardly represented the will of the people

the moral of story is when afghan govt invites you for friendship and then invites your military to their land...then dont go..........

afghans invited soviets....

now in 2012 there is no soviet union but afghanistan is still there.

 

[Icarus]

yes sir i agree with you ...afghan govt invited soviets without taking the general public in confidence.....chances are it was the afghan king who hardly represented the will of the people

We are talking about a democratically elected parliament, the King had been overthrown years ago.

 

[Foo_Fighter]

Icarus, that's a great post by you mentioning the real reason for Soviet involvement in Afganistan. However, 1 thing surprised me that why did Soviet sent land forces instead of US way of hard bombing and softening and then entering? Can you please provide me what was the reason for that maneuver?

 

[JonAsad]

Icarus, that's a great post by you mentioning the real reason for Soviet involvement in Afganistan. However, 1 thing surprised me that why did Soviet sent land forces instead of US way of hard bombing and softening and then entering? Can you please provide me what was the reason for that maneuver?

it should be simple-
One man's misery is other man's gain-
Amrika learned from soviet mistakes and more so what they went through in vietnam- and changed/ refined its strategy-

 

[Icarus]

Icarus, that's a great post by you mentioning the real reason for Soviet involvement in Afganistan. However, 1 thing surprised me that why did Soviet sent land forces instead of US way of hard bombing and softening and then entering? Can you please provide me what was the reason for that maneuver?

It wasn't an invasion force, it was meant to help the Afghan forces in maintaining security.

 

[Foo_Fighter]

it should be simple-
One man's misery is other man's gain-
Amrika learned from soviet mistakes and more so what they went through in vietnam- and changed/ refined its strategy-

Thanks Jon, however I would still be surprised that Soviet's did not take that factor into consideration before entering Afganistan. What was the reason, diplomatic reason? underestimation of resistance (what was the reason for underestimation?)? Intel failure? etc etc.

Sorry about my over usage of question marks.

It wasn't an invasion force, it was meant to help the Afghan forces in maintaining security.

Ok sir, then comparing American operation & Soviet operations would not be fair in contrary to many respectful members who believe the same. Was the reason for extraction due to overburden in Soviets resources or request from GoA?

 

[turbo charged]

We are talking about a democratically elected parliament, the King had been overthrown years ago.

just like Q-league government....they were also democratically elected...................sir fake votes and so called awami leaders are all after earning money....they dont represent the will of common man........will if the common man surfaced when russians started facing resistance.............suppose afghan govt invited russians.....then when the russians found out that afghans werent interested in their presence....they should have just left......after all it was treaty of friendship......aghanistan was not leased to russia........they dident left but invited more forces from russia....then in the end ...they lost soldiers too..money too.and land too...soviet union disintegrated...................

afterall how the soviets had worked with india to create insurgency in bengal.....one will only be naive to think that they dident had any evil or imperialistic designs.......considering russia is landlocked in winters all the times...it wanted access to warm waters.......just like in crimean wars they wanted black sea....
and the bosphorus passage in turkey to mediteranean.....

 

[Foo_Fighter]

just like Q-league government....they were also democratically elected...................sir fake votes and so called awami leaders are all after earning money....they dont represent the will of common man........will if the common man surfaced when russians started facing resistance.............suppose afghan govt invited russians.....then when the russians found out that afghans werent interested in their presence....they should have just left......after all it was treaty of friendship......aghanistan was not leased to russia........they dident left but invited more forces from russia....then in the end ...they lost soldiers too..money too.and land too...soviet union disintegrated...................

afterall how the soviets had worked with india to create insurgency in bengal.....one will only be naive to think that they dident had any evil or imperialistic designs.......

Sir, I would like to point that by calling fake votes and etc etc you are not only questioning the democratic constitution of Afganistan, but of India and Pakistan alike and many more countries. Once a country forms a democracy, even though there will be ills and forms (macroeconomics chapter 1), the elected power is to be assumed as voice of it's people for it to be successful in the long run. I highly doubt if entering into afganistan was the reason why USSR disintegrated as mentioned by you, however pulling out of Afganistan could be a reason due to it's disintegration (however I would like some senior members to throw light on this).

Also sir, how is Bengal relevant to this? Isn't it like Pakistan (please no offense, it's just an example) supported insurgency in IoK would suggest that Pakistan has been involved in other insurgencies too? Sir, final one, who are you to conclude someones plan which requires life, resources and international diplomacy at stake as evil? What's evil for you? Ain't that too subjective and perception based?

 

[Ahmad]

I think the dis integration of the USSR was mainly due to internal factors. Power struggle within the communist party and the public was hungry for a change as well, since they were ruled for so long by the same party, they simply wanted to try something else, and you know what, they ended up with a corrupt gov and losing their supoerpower statues.

 

[Icarus]

just like Q-league government....they were also democratically elected...................sir fake votes and so called awami leaders are all after earning money....they dont represent the will of common man........will if the common man surfaced when russians started facing resistance.............suppose afghan govt invited russians.....then when the russians found out that afghans werent interested in their presence....they should have just left......after all it was treaty of friendship......aghanistan was not leased to russia........they dident left but invited more forces from russia....then in the end ...they lost soldiers too..money too.and land too...soviet union disintegrated...................

afterall how the soviets had worked with india to create insurgency in bengal.....one will only be naive to think that they dident had any evil or imperialistic designs.......considering russia is landlocked in winters all the times...it wanted access to warm waters.......just like in crimean wars they wanted black sea....
and the bosphorus passage in turkey to mediteranean.....

You have no idea what you are talking about have you? A moment ago, you thought it was the king who signed the treaty and now all of a sudden you know the Afghan parliament of before you were even born! Please quote a link stating that the Afghan Parliament of 1978 was brought in with chances of corruption?

Ok sir, then comparing American operation & Soviet operations would not be fair in contrary to many respectful members who believe the same. Was the reason for extraction due to overburden in Soviets resources or request from GoA?

The reason was the public pressure back home and a stark realization that the Soviet Industrial Enterprise, which had been thought to be recession proof, was unable to sustain the war in Afghanistan.