Air University Review, January-February 1985

Soviet Air Power:
Tactics and Weapons
Used in Afghanistan

Lieutenant Colonel Denny R. Nelson

THE Soviet war in Afghanistan has provided a plethora of information about the Soviets and their use of military power. Additionally, the war has allowed the Soviets to learn many lessons and has offered them the opportunity to train, apply various tactics, and experiment with different weapons. Curiously, however, although the Soviets paralyzed the Afghan government initially with troops airlifted into the capital city of Kabul and since then have used helicopter, fighter-bomber, and bomber operations in the war, very little has been compiled heretofore in open U.S. sources regarding Soviet air power experiences and tactics. By studying Soviet use of air power in Afghanistan, we might gain a better understanding of Soviet air power doctrine and how the Soviets may employ air power in future conflicts.

Airlift

Soviet military doctrine stresses the primacy of offensive operations aimed at stunning and preventing organized resistance by opponents. In Afghanistan, as in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Soviets used the surprise landing of airborne units at strategic centers, particularly around the capital, in conjunction with the speedy movement of ground units along strategic routes toward vital centers to gain the initiative.1 The military invasion began on Christmas night, 1979, when the Soviets staged a massive, single-lift operation involving an estimated 280 transport aircraft packed with troops, munitions, and equipment. The aircraft were reported to be I1-76s (closely resembling the U.S. C-141), An-22s (a Soviet turboprop strategic transport), and An-12s (a C-130 equivalent). Subsequent airlifts completed the placement of three airborne divisions in Afghanistan.2

The size and swiftness of the airlift operation are significant. Each Soviet airborne division normally comprises nearly 8500 men, including artillery and combat support elements.3 The 280 transport aircraft represented approximately 38 percent of the total Soviet military transport air force (Voyenno-Tranportnaya Aviatsiya or VTA). If Aeroflot, the Soviet civilian airline, is included in the total transport capability figures, the 280 transport aircraft represented approximately 29 percent of the total Soviet transport fleet. This sizable transport fleet is a significant Soviet asset, contributing to the capability of the Soviets to mobilize and deploy quickly large numbers of troops. The Christmas night airlift was, of course, only the initial stage of the invasion; massive airlift of troops, equipment, and supplies has continued to flow into Afghanistan. To date, no Soviet transport aircraft appear to be permanently based in Afghanistan; transports are rotated in and out from air bases in the Soviet Union.4

Ironically, the Soviets may be copying U.S. transport tactics used in Vietnam. Soviet sources have suggested that An-12 Cub transports have been used as bombers by rolling bombs down and off the tail ramp while in flight.5 In Vietnam, the United States used 15,000-pound bombs dropped from C-130 transports to clear helicopter assault zones in the jungle.

Tactical airlift aircraft are used primarily, however, in their traditional role of supply. The Soviets have found that they often cannot use ground convoys to supply many outposts in the sparsely settled provinces along Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan. Even such significant bases as Khost and Gardez––each held by a battalion or regiment of the Kabul regime––normally must be supplied by air, while smaller outposts in these provinces require parachute drops for resupply.6

Helicopters

Perhaps the most widely used element of Soviet air power in the Afghan war is the helicopter. Helicopters have been used extensively in varied types of military missions. Estimates of helicopter strength range from 500 to 650 machines, of which up to 250 may be the Mi-24 Hind gunships.7

The Hind is an extremely lethal weapon, with machine guns or cannon in the nose turret and up to 192 unguided missiles under its stub wings. It has room for eight to twelve ground troops and their equipment in the fuselage, and it is widely used by the Soviets for punitive and search-and-destroy missions.8 The Hind has also been used to provide close air support for ground troops, to strike Afghan villages (sometimes in conjunction with fixed-wing aircraft), and to conduct armed-reconnaissance missions to detect and attack guerrilla groups.9

Due to its heavy armor, the Hind is nearly impervious to guerrilla small arms unless the guerrillas can fire down at the helicopters using weapons positioned high on the sides of mountains.10 The Hind has only three known vulnerable points: the turbine intakes, the tail rotor assembly, and an oil tank inexplicably but conveniently located beneath the red star on the fuselage.11

The terrain in Afghanistan has had considerable influence on the use of the Hind. Many of the narrow roads in Afghanistan snake through valleys overlooked by steep, tall mountains. Such terrain provides perfect ambush situations. As a result, whenever a Soviet troop column or supply convoy moves into guerrilla territory, it is accompanied by Hinds whose pilots have developed a standard escort tactic. Some Hinds hover over the ground convoy, watching for guerrilla activity, while others land troops on high ground ahead of the advancing column. These troops secure any potential ambush positions and provide flank security until the column has passed; they are themselves protected against guerrilla attack by the Hinds that inserted them and subsequently hover overhead. Once the convoy passes their position, the troops are picked up and reinserted farther along the route. Convoy protection is also provided by other Hinds that range ahead of the column to detect and strike guerrillas that may have concentrated along the route.12

Other information on Hind tactics indicate that a closer relationship between air and ground arms has been a major aim of the Soviet force development (the helicopter is a part of the Soviet Air Force). Hinds are the primary Soviet close air support weapon in Afghanistan. They not only strike enemy forces in contact with Soviet troops but sometimes carry out attacks as much as twenty to thirty kilometers forward of the forward edge of battle area. This tactic is apparently an attempt to increase responsiveness, tactical flexibility, and integration with ground forces.13

The Soviets have had some problems with their helicopters. In 1980, losses to SA-7 surface-to-air missiles (a hand-held, heat-seeking missile) led to a change in tactics at the end of 1980 or early 1981. Since then, the Hinds have used nap-of-the-earth flight patterns, for which the machines were not designed nor their crews properly trained. There have been reports of Hind rotors striking the rear of their own helicopters during some of these nap-of-the-earth flights. The wear on airframes and systems caused by these lower-altitude flights has also greatly increased rates of operational attrition.14

These nap-of-the-earth tactics are a significant change from those employed in 1979-80. Hind crews then showed little fear of the opposition, attacking with machine guns, 57-mm rockets, or cluster and high-explosive 250-kg bombs normally during diving attacks from a 1000-meter altitude. After the firing pass, they would break away in a sharp evasive turn or terrain-hugging flight before repositioning for another firing pass. The Soviets used these tactics with several Hinds in a circular pattern, similar to the American "wagon wheel" used in Vietnam. Such tactics may still be used in some parts of Afghanistan, but by and large they have been changed.

Reportedly, new tactics that use scout helicopters for target acquisition have been adopted for both attack helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. These scouts are usually Hinds (or, in some cases, Mi-8 Hips) rather than smaller, lighter helicopters. Normally, they stay high, out of range of the target, giving crews a better field of view while directing attacks. This tactic may become standard in future Soviet conflicts.15

Current reports say the Hind now begins an attack run 7000 to 8000 meters from the target, running in at low altitude and then rising 20 to 100 meters in altitude to fire. Firing usually commences at maximum range, and mutual support is emphasized. One tactic that has endured the war has been to send one helicopter in at high altitude to draw enemy fire, while wingmen remain low, behind a ridge, ready to attack anyone who opens fire.16

The Soviets are also using helicopters in mass formations (a standard Soviet tactic). Reports have helicopters in packs of four and six, hovering, firing their rockets and machine guns, circling, hunting, and then swooping down and firing again.17

While the Hind is the primary attack helicopter being used in Afghanistan, the Soviets have also made extensive use of the big multi-purpose Mi-8 Hip in several different capacities. One of the major missions of the Hip is to serve as the main troop carriers.18 In this role, the Hip is enhanced by its ability to provide its own fire support/suppression with 57-mm rocket pods.19 The Hip has also been used for aerial minelaying, which the Soviets have found is a good way to reinforce a defensive perimeter quickly. Furthermore, the Hip has been used as a heavily armed attack helicopter to complement the Hind.20 As with the Hind, the Soviets have found problems with the Hip. These have come primarily in the areas of its exposed fuel system (a major hazard to crews in case of a crash), short rotor life, lack of engine quick-change capability, poor engine performance, and inadequate trim control. The engine and trim problems result from the low-density air conditions found in the high, mountainous terrain of Afghanistan, which force the engine to work harder and make hovering difficult.21

The Mi-4 Hound has also been employed in the war, often in concert with the Hind. Many helicopter airstrikes start with two Mi-4 Hounds, which attack with unguided rockets and machine gun fire, followed by four Hinds, which continue the strike with rockets and cannon. While the Hinds attack, the Hounds circle, ejecting heat decoy flares at regular intervals, apparently in an effort to protect the helicopters from hand-held SA-7s. The Hounds also have been reported to hover near villages being shelled, perhaps acting as air controllers for ground-based artillery.22

One other type of helicopter that the Soviets are using in Afghanistan is the big Mi-6 Hook. It has been used extensively to provide heavy lift support for Soviet forces.23

Observers report that Soviet helicopter roles in the war have varied from dropping Soviet parachutists, antipersonnel mines, bombs, and leaflets to providing close air support for Soviet armor. Yet, while significant tactical changes have occurred, the broad picture of Soviet Frontal Aviation tactics in Afghanistan has remained largely unchanged. Trends and concepts observed prior to the war have been reinforced. The Hips still carry troops for airmobile assaults and provide suppression; the Hind remains the Soviets' primary source of airborne firepower.24

Fighter-Bombers

Helicopters may be the main element of Soviet air power in Afghanistan, but evidence indicates that the Soviets are testing their fighter-bombers and associated weapons and tactics in the Afghan war as well. Compared to reports on their helicopter use, very little on the type of fighter-bomber tactics that the Soviets are using has appeared in the open press. However, enough has been published to provide a glimpse of Soviet fighter-bomber philosophy.

Soviet fighter-bombers have been employed exclusively in the air-to-ground role, since the Afghan guerrillas offer no air-to-air threat. They have been used for carpet bombing, terror bombing, and scorched-earth bombing in efforts to destroy the guerrillas or drive them from the country. Combined with helicopter attacks, Soviet fighter-bombers have pounded settlements throughout the country. Half of the city of Herat (Afghanistan's third largest city, with a population of 150,000) was leveled in an extremely heavy, brutal, and prolonged attack.25

Most Soviet fighter-bomber crews are trained for close air support roles with ground troops in the European theater. In Afghanistan, they have also proved their value on sorties against targets deep inside guerrilla territory. Houses, crops, livestock, vineyards, and orchards in some areas have been systematically bombed and rocketed in what appears to be a scorched-earth campaign aimed at denying the guerrillas food and shelter. Terror bombings of villages, by both MiG aircraft and helicopters, have reportedly become commonplace in areas that are sympathetic to the guerrilla movement. To complete the destruction, ground troops often enter these areas after an air assault and shoot at anything alive, eventually turning everything of value into rubble.26

Early in the war, the primary fighter-bomber used by Soviet forces was the MiG-21 Fishbed. The Fishbed has one twin-barrel 23-mm gun with 200 rounds of ammunition in a belly pack, and it can carry four 57-mm rocket packs, two 500-kg bombs, and two 250-kg bombs, or four 240-mm air-to-surface rockets in a typical ground attack configuration.27 Tactically, the MiG-2s have generally operated in pairs, 28 but they attack individually, taking turns firing rockets at or bombing guerrilla positions. After releasing their ordnance, they each eject three sets of four heat decoy flares as they climb away. Again, the flares are an apparent attempt to negate any SA-7 threat. Reports also indicate that the MiG-21s often fire from a range of about 2000 meters, which makes their strikes somewhat inaccurate and ineffective. This tactic, combined with the failure of many bombs to explode on impact and the failure of some cluster bombs to deploy and scatter, has at times rendered the Soviet fighter-bombers ineffective.29

Still other reasons have been cited for the ineffectiveness of the MiG-21. All seem valid. First, the MiG-21 is best suited as an air-to-air platform. Second, the guerrillas are an elusive enemy, and any kind of early warning of an impending airstrike helps negate the effects of that strike. Third, the mountainous terrain, where most of the guerrilla resistance is located, tends to restrict the effectiveness of air-to-ground fire.30 The steep, deep, winding ravines and valleys make the use of high-speed aircraft somewhat sporty, and Soviet pilots have often pushed the Fishbeds to their flight limitations. Like the helicopters, the fighter-bombers in Afghanistan are affected adversely by the high altitudes associated with terrain that includes 10,000-20,000-foot mountain peaks. The fourth major difficulty experienced by the Soviet air forces seems to be a lack of an adequate quick-reaction tactical fighter-bomber strike capability. The use of forward air controllers (FACs), especially in the mode in which the United States used them in Vietnam, has been conspicuously absent (although, as noted previously, some helicopter FACs apparently have been used). The fifth drawback appears to be the lack of any significant night or all-weather fighter-bomber capability.31

To counter some of these drawbacks, the Soviets have introduced their new Su-25 Frogfoot fighter-bomber into the war. The Frogfoot, designed as a close-support aircraft, is similar in performance to the USAF A-10. At least one squadron operates from Bagram airfield in Afghanistan. The Frogfoot can carry up to 10,000 pounds of ordnance on ten stations, making it a formidable weapon.32 Tactically, the Frogfoot operates in loose pairs, going in separately and very low. Weapons accuracy has improved considerably, and the Frogfoot is used primarily to hit point targets in rough terrain. Delivery distances, from the weapons release point to the target impact point, have increased steadily, making the Frogfoot a much-feared weapon system.

The Soviets have also employed the Su-17 Fitter, the Su-24 Fencer, and MiG-23 Flogger in the war. These aircraft engage in intensive bombings of known guerrilla concentrations and installations. In the April-May 1984 timeframe, their combined sortie generation was estimated to be more than 100 per day. During this period, the Fitters and Fishbeds were relegated primarily to missions requiring general accuracy, while the Fencer, the Flogger, and especially the Frogfoot were used more for direct air support against point targets.33 Very little has been published about the tactics used or limitations incurred by these aircraft.

Bombers

Recently, the Soviet Union introduced the Tu-16 Badger into the aerial bombing campaign in Afghanistan. The Badger is a medium-range bomber that can carry bomb loads up to 19,800 pounds. Its service ceiling is listed as 40,350 feet above sea level.34

The Badgers, stationed inside the Soviet Union, were apparently first used in the bombing campaign directed against the city of Herat.35 Prior to 21 April 1984, the Soviets deployed numerous Badger bombers on their common border with Afghanistan. On 21 April, they began high-altitude carpet bombing against guerrilla villages and strongholds in the Panjshir Valley, which is located approximately seventy miles north of the capital city of Kabul. Reports indicate that thirty-six Badger36 bombers were being used, and that thirty to forty airstrikes a day were being flown.37

With the service ceiling listed for the Badgers, they probably can bomb at a maximum of only 20,000 feet above the highest peaks in the mountain ranges. But since most of the targets are in the valley floor, bomb releases can still remain high above the target impact points. The bombers are relatively safe because the guerrillas apparently have no weaponry that can accurately reach the bombers' altitude. The Badger attacks are followed by close-in attacks from fighter-bombers, helicopters, and artillery shelling. 38 The bombing raids, flown in support of Soviet ground forces advancing into the valley, signal an apparent willingness on the part of the Soviets to use any conventional air power available to support their ground operations.

Weapons

Many other types of air-delivered weapons beyond those already mentioned have allegedly been employed by the Soviets in Afghanistan. The major headline grabber has been the alleged Soviet use of chemical warfare (CW). However, numerous conflicting reports surround this matter, with hearsay rather than hard evidence forming the basis for most conclusions.

A somewhat unique use of Soviet aircraft has been to lay down smoke screens. Smoke plays an important role in Soviet mountain fighting doctrine. By masking ground troop movements, it helps the Soviets achieve surprise. The Soviets also use air-delivered smoke to mark and direct artillery fire for their land forces.39

Other weapons employed by Soviet air forces include napalm40 and various types of antipersonnel mines. The standard small antipersonnel mine explodes when stepped on. This weapon does not seem to be designed to kill, but rather to injure. The injured person helps demobilize the guerrillas because they have to transport casualties. Thus slowed, the guerrillas become more vulnerable to helicopter attacks. Reportedly, many Soviet antipersonnel mines are camouflaged as toys, watches, ballpoint pens, or even books, which explode when picked up, blowing off fingers, hands, arms, etc. According to some accounts, these weapons have been aimed also at some of the civilian population in an effort to demoralize those who are pro-guerrilla.41 In an apparent effort to eliminate as many guerrillas as possible, the Soviets also have dropped enhanced-blast bombs and large blockbuster bombs. These weapons explode in midair, sending out lethal shock waves in a large-radius kill zone.42

Command, Control, and Communications

To complement the Soviet war effort, both in the air and on the ground, the Soviets have used a wide variety of command, control, and communications (C3) equipment and procedures. A look at the Soviet C3 system gives an insight into the complexities involved in the war and the Soviet ability to conduct such an undertaking.

The first two weeks of the invasion were an enviable demonstration of top level C3 and coordination. The C3 link went via satellite communications (Satcom) from the Army headquarters in Moscow to Termez, located in Soviet territory on the northern border of Afghanistan. Control of the complex and tightly scheduled initial airlift assault was impressive, with different aircraft types arriving from various routes. Radio command posts controlled the two motorized rifle divisions (MRDs) in their land invasion two days later, as well as the four MRDs that arrived within the next two weeks.

In mid-January 1980, the command post was relocated from Termez to Kabul, which has become the communications hub for the Soviet occupation force. Apparently, the antiaircraft, antitank, electronic countermeasures (ECM), and Frog missiles (a surface-to-surface missile) that normally accompany and comprise a Soviet C3 network of this type have since been removed, leaving the Soviet Signal Troop section as the major electronic element in the war effort. Within the Signal Troop is a wire company, which has three platoons: one for line construction and two for radio relay. In addition to the Signal Troop, each Soviet airborne division has one signal company of 22 officers and 221 enlisted men, 30 jeep-type vehicles, 23 GAZ-66 trucks, 11 motorcycles, and 9 SA-7 portable SAMs. Communications between the headquarters and MRDs are usually via UHF or VHF radios and/or land lines.43

According to Soviet literature, the signal companies have C3 survivability through concealment, dispersal, hardness, mobility, and redundancy. In addition to establishing various radio nets, the signal troops lay telephone and telegraph wire that provides communications via land lines. Thus, the Soviets use four systems to communicate:

Since the invasion, the Soviets have divided Afghanistan into seven military districts. The main army headquarters near Kabul may have Satcom and troposcatter links to some military districts or bases but not to all. Therefore, because of field command delays and the rigidity of the Soviet communications channels, it appears that each district commander has been given more than usual latitude to meet the combat needs of his area.45

Preplanned air support seems adequate in Afghanistan, but the Soviets seem to lack an adequate quick-reaction airstrike capability in support of field troops. To receive an airstrike, a junior-grade infantry officer must send a request, which is forwarded up to the division level in the Army and then over to the Air Force; there are delays at each command level and communications point. Associated with these delays is the fact that the Soviet army has neither aviation helicopters nor forward air controllers (although recently helicopter scouts have been used to some degree). Soviet air force helicopters and support aircraft are at the division level for Army interface. The compound communications structure tends to hamper support for truck convoys or airborne operations unless events proceed strictly in accordance with the advanced plan. An example of the communications problems that stem from this system can be seen in a July 1981 battle with guerrilla forces that occurred twelve miles from Kabul; here Soviet close-air-support jets mistakenly strafed Soviet and Afghan army troops.46

All in all, Afghanistan presents a benign electronic environment to the Soviets, with minimal need for electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM), jamming, or smart weapons to home on emissions. The guerrilla forces rely primarily on runners or civilian walkie-talkies for communications.47

Meanwhile, the Soviets are using long-range surveillance-type radars, which they have installed in Afghanistan, to observe air activities in the neighboring countries of the People's Republic of China, Pakistan, Iran, and other Persian Gulf states. It is highly probable that Soviet electronic intelligence and ECM troops are collocated with these surveillance radars to monitor electronic emissions in Iran, the People's Republic of China, Pakistan, etc., since that is a somewhat standard Soviet tactic.48

The Soviet army communications environment in Afghanistan has changed from mobile and temporary tent-city layouts to sites with permanent buildings, fixed communications sites, and fixed antenna arrays. According to reports, Soviet engineers have established elaborate communications centers at a headquarters north of Kabul (at Bagram), as well as elsewhere in the country. Yet, while probably enhancing Soviet communications, these sites also provide lucrative targets for the guerrillas; and attacks on various communications sites have been reported.49

A variety of other electronic equipment also is being used. These systems include ground control approach, surveillance radar, and precision approach radar to control aircraft into and out of air bases, plus various radars that control the different types of Soviet SAMs positioned in Afghanistan. The avionics in Soviet fighters, helicopters, and reconnaissance aircraft are probably being tested in a combat environment. Laser ranges, low-light TV and infrared sensors, radars, computers, and communications are installed in both the MiG-23 Flogger and the Su-25 Frogfoot. Earlier-model Su-17 Fitter and MiG-21 Fishbed fighters have moderate electronics on board. Due to limited forward maintenance support, Soviet aircraft are ferried to depots inside the Soviet Union for overhaul or repairs. It is probable that communications equipment is not adequately supported in the field except for simple module swapping.50

Lessons have been expensive but valuable for the Soviets in the electronic and communications arenas. Two examples stand out. The Soviet army is now replacing 1950s-vintage tactical field transceivers with newer, standard backpack and vehicle models. In addition, redundancy in Soviet command posts and the effectiveness of specific communication methods are being tested by guerrilla raids on garrisons and cities throughout the country. Overall, the Soviet communications personnel appear to be fulfilling their tasks even under adverse and primitive conditions, primarily because the new-technology troposcatters and Satcoms have reached the field level and are augmenting the simplistic land lines historically preferred by Soviet army communicators.51

Air Base Gains

The Soviets have gained much more than valuable experience in the Afghan war. They have gained many strategically important and possibly permanent air bases. Seven air bases have been built or improved by the Soviets in Afghanistan: Herat, Shindand, Farah, Kandahar, Kabul International Airport, Bagram, and Jalalabad. All of these airfields are now all-weather, jet-capable bases that are operable 365 days a year. At last report, Jalalabad air base has been used exclusively for helicopter operations but has jet capacity. Since each base is capable of handling large numbers of tactical aircraft, a huge fleet could be operated in Afghanistan or against other Southwest Asian countries from these bases.52

In the Afghan panhandle that stretches northeast to the People's Republic of China, the Soviets have cleared out the sparse population and are building highways, air bases, and an air defense and early warning network. The airfields may be nothing more than sod strips for resupply of the electronic intelligence sites located there, or they may become jet-capable. This area provides better terrain than the Soviets had in this central Asian military district previously, thereby improving their forward geographic position.53

The two most important Soviet installations in Afghanistan are at Bagram and Shindand. Bagram is the local supreme headquarters of the entire Soviet army in Afghanistan, where most of the senior Soviet officers in Afghanistan, as well as their Satcom system and other major facilities, are located. At Shindand, no Afghans are permitted on the air base because the Soviets have installed support and maintenance equipment for their naval aviation reconnaissance bombers. Soviet electronic warfare aircraft (converted bombers and converted transports) are operated from this installation by the air command of the Soviet navy. Most of these aircraft are not permanently based in any one location, so having the very sensitive technical support and maintenance capabilities needed for them available at various forward bases offers vital support for their missions.54

Having jet bases in the western/southwestern section of Afghanistan also places longer-range MiG-27 Flogger fighter-bombers and MiG-25 Foxbat reconnaissance aircraft 200 miles closer to, and within range of, the Strait of Hormuz––the strategic chokepoint at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. SAM-8 antiaircraft missiles have been installed to defend most of these bases, although currently there is no apparent air threat.55 Having these bases eliminates any overflight problems that the Soviets might have incurred from an independent Afghanistan and allows Soviet electronic warfare aircraft more time to trail and monitor U.S. naval activities in the Indian Ocean.56

Combat Experience and Lessons Learned

The Soviets have learned and continue to learn many valuable lessons in their war in Afghanistan. Whether they win or lose their battle with the guerrillas is perhaps not as significant militarily as the lessons they learn, the experience they gain in warfighting, and the knowledge they obtain about the effectiveness of their weapons. Afghanistan, which is about the size of Texas and has terrain that varies from deserts to rugged mountains, affords the Soviets ample opportunities (and time) to experiment with their aircraft, tactics, weapons, and command and control equipment and procedures.

From the standpoint of world power politics, the Kremlin has demonstrated in Afghanistan its ability to project power outside the boundaries of the Soviet Union through a massive airlift operation. This demonstrated ability creates a worrisome problem for other nations, especially those bordering on or near Soviet territory.

Evidence from Afghanistan indicates that the Soviet military has become increasingly reliant on its helicopter force. Most likely, this dependency will remain a part of the Soviet military system after the Afghan issue is resolved. Current helicopter roles that could easily transfer to other theaters, depending on the terrain and capabilities of the enemy, are: (1) landing forces on peaks to envelop an enemy in support of ground advances, (2) providing aerial attacks to channel the enemy into killing zones where ground forces can inflict maximum casualties, (3) providing close air support for advancing ground forces, (4) moving troops and supplies, and (5) acting as scouts or forward air controllers.57

Fixed-wing fighter-bombers, at least the older models, have proved somewhat ineffective in the air-to-ground role in which they have been used. As time elapses, more information on the successes and failures of later models should become available for analysis. The same can be said concerning the high-altitude saturation bombings being conducted by the Tu-16 bombers.

Some significant changes already appear to be occurring within the Soviets' command, control, and communications system. Some latitude in decision making is apparently now given to lower levels of command, and communications equipment is being improved. These changes should improve the Soviets' worldwide fighting ability. However, surface evidence indicates that the Soviet decision-making process is still controlled at fairly high levels, is still heavily layered, and continues to lack responsiveness.

A major advantage that the Soviets are gaining is combat experience. Exercises are good training, but real combat is the only true test of commanders, unit personnel, and equipment. Soviet Signal Troops in Afghanistan have a 25-percent turnover every six months.58 It seems logical to assume that crewmembers in helicopters, fighter-bombers, bombers, etc., would also be rotated frequently to ensure that a large segment of the Soviet manpower force gains combat experience and a chance to hone individual combat skills. It follows that reports of various tactics and the effectiveness of different weapons would receive high-level scrutiny from Kremlin officials and that refinements would be made to enhance the effectiveness of Soviet air power. Gradually, the Soviets are learning the same hard lessons we learned in Vietnam. Fighting guerrilla forces with conventional forces is a long, arduous affair.

In concert with all the lessons learned and skills gained through combat in Afghanistan, it is evident that the Soviets have accomplished one thing––they have gained strategically important new airfields from which they can operate. Whether the Soviets transplant any of their specific tactics to future theaters of operations is still a matter of conjecture, but the basic warfighting principles that guide the Soviets remain intact––mass, shock, surprise, and willingness to apply any of the conventional weapons in their military arsenal.

Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education
Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Notes

1. Jiri Valenta, "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan," Crossroads, Spring 1980, p. 67.

2. Lawrence E. Grinter, "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: Its Inevitability and Its Consequences," Parameters, December 1982, p. 58.

3. Kenneth Allard, "Soviet Airborne Forces and Preemptive Power Projection," Parameters, December 1980, p. 46.

4. Yossef Bodansky, "The Bear on the Chessboard: Soviet Military Gains in Afghanistan," World Affairs, Winter 1982/83, p. 291.

5. David Isby, "Soviets in Afghanistan, Prepared for the Long Haul," Defense Week, 21 February 1984, p. 14.

6. Ibid.

7. Denis Warner, "The Soviet Union's 'International Duty' in Afghanistan," Pacific Defence Reporter, March 1983, p. 47.

8. Ibid.

9. David C. Isby, "Afghanistan's Winter War," Soldier of Fortune, April 1981, pp. 44-45.

10. Ibid., p. 44.

11. Jim Coyne, "Afghanistan Update, Russians Lose Battles But May Win War," Soldier of Fortune, December 1982, p. 72.

12. Isby, "Afghanistan's Winter War," p. 44.

13. David C. Isby, "Soviet Tactics in the War in Afghanistan," Jane's Defence Weekly, vol. 4, no. 7, 1983, p. 683.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Jere Van Dyk, "Journey through Afghanistan," New York Times Magazine, 17 October 1982, p. 47.

18. Isby, "Afghanistan's Winter War," p. 4.

19. Isby, "Soviet Tactics in the War in Afghanistan," p. 683.

20. Isby, "Afghanistan's Winter War," pp. 44-45.

21. Isby, "Soviet Tactics in the War in Afghanistan," p. 683.

22. John Gunston, "Afghans Plan USSR Terror Attacks," Jane's Defence Weekly, 31 March 1984, p. 481.

23. Isby, "Afghanistan's Winter War," p. 44.

24. Isby, "Soviet Tactics in the War in Afghanistan," p. 683.

25. "Update: Russia's 'Hidden' War in Afghanistan," U.S. News and World Report, 1 August 1983, p. 22.

26. Philip Jacobson, "The Red Army Learns from a Real War," Washington Post, 13 February 1983, p. 1; Borje Almquist, "Eyewitness to Afghanistan at War," World Affairs, Winter 1982-83, p. 312; Harold Johnson, "Soviets Cultivate Scorched Afghan Earth," Washington Times, 12 January 1984, p. 1C.

27. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1983-84 (New York: Jane's), p. 216.

28. Charles Dunbar, "Inside Wartime Kabul," Asia, November/ December 1983, p. 27.

29. James H. Hansen, "Afghanistan: The Soviet Experience," National Defence, January 1982, pp. 23-24.

30. Ibid.

31. Coyne, p. 72.

32. "Su-25 Operating in Afghanistan," Aviation Week and Space Technology, 3 January 1983, pp. 12-13.

33. Yossef Bodansky, "Most Feared Aircraft in Afghanistan is Frogfoot," Jane's Defence Weekly, 19 May 1984. p. 768.

34. Jane's All the World's Aircraft, pp. 235-36.

35. Isby, "Soviets in Afghanistan, Prepared for the Long Haul," p. 14.

36. Fred Hiatt, "Soviets Use Bombers in Afghanistan," Washington Post, 24 April 1984, p. Al.

37. Fred Hiatt, "Soviet Troops Advance into Key Afghan Valley," Washington Post, 27 April 1984, p. A19.

38. Hiatt, "Soviets Use Bombers in Afghanistan," p. Al.

39. Bodansky, "The Bear on the Chessboard: Soviet Military Gains in Afghanistan," p. 286.

40. The Review of the NEWS, 24 November 1982, p. 64.

41. Joseph J. Collins, "The Soviet-Afghan War: The First Four Years," Parameters, Summer 1984, p. 52.

42. Associated Press, "Use of Deadly Air Bombs Reported in Afghanistan," New York Times, 24 May 1984, p. A5.

43. James C. Bussert, "Signal Troops Central to Soviet Afghanistan Invasion," Defense Electronics, June 1983, p. 104.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid., p. 107.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid., pp. 107-08.

50. Ibid.. p. 108.

51. Ibid.

52. Bodansky, "The Bear on the Chessboard: Soviet Military Gains in Afghanistan," p. 279.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid., p. 280.

55. "Afghanistan Three Years Later: More U.S. Help Needed," The Backgrounder, 27 December 1982, p. 11.

56. Bodansky, "The Bear on the Chessboard: Soviet Military Gains in Afghanistan." p. 280.

57. Ibid., p. 287.

58. Bussert, p. 108.


Contributor

Lieutenant Colonel Denny R. Nelson (B.S., Oklahoma State University; M.A., Webster University) is a Research Fellow at the Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education, Hq Air University. He has had worldwide F-4 assignments and a staff assignment in DCS/Personnel at Tactical Air Command. Colonel Nelson, a graduate of Squadron Officer School and Air Command and Staff College, is a previous contributor to the Review.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.


Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor