Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
The different terrain of Afghanistan makes your analogy a poor one. The Soviets lost in Afghanistan because of the terrain more than anything else. They weren't equipped to fight on that terrain.
|
Dissent partially. The Soviets lost for many reasons:
1.) vast and widespread hostility of the population;
2.) popularization of the anti-Soviet cause across the *muslim world, so plenty of willing volunteers showed up for confrontation;
3.) heavy, heavy, heavy U.S. funding (with Saudi/Pakistani support) for weapons and training.
As with almost all other occupations, the Soviets ended up being confined mostly to bases such that they would only go out into the field in force. The greatly advanced mobility provided by armored helicopters reduced the detrimental effect, as they could still send reaction/deployment forced into the field pretty quickly...
and ultimately, the whole house of cards came tumbling down when we supplied the Muj with stingers. When the Soviets started losing helicopters all over the place, they realized the jig was up.
The terrain plays into the ability to trap the Soviets into bases, but there were many other factors at play there too.
Hello
* eta muslim instead of Soviet
Threaded Mode