Artillery and Counterinsurgency: The Soviet Experience in Afghanistan

摘要

The leverage that technology offers depends on the circumstances which shape combat such as the theater, the opponent, and the objective. Guerrilla war, a test of national will, and the ability to endure negates many of the advantages of technology. The Russian Army, and its predecessor--the Soviet Army--fought the most recent, large-scale counterinsurgencies pitting technologically advanced mechanized forces against dedicated guerrillas. The Russians are publishing many of their lessons learned now. Although some of these have no direct application to the United States Army, others do, and military professionals need to be aware of how other militaries attempt to solve contemporary problems. The Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 with TO AND E divisions equipped and trained to fight conventional, maneuver warfare on rolling plains. They came to replace an ineffective communist leader, not to fight an insurgency. They planned to stabilize the situation, occupy garrisons, and assist the Afghanistan government while the Afghan government forces fought the guerrilla resistance. Soon, however, mission creep set in, and Soviet forces were locked in a counterinsurgency fight in rugged mountains and desert--a fight for which they were neither equipped nor trained. The technologically superior Soviet Ground Forces were trained to rely heavily on massed artillery, firing normative fires to shatter the defenses of a stationary enemy prior to the attack. The mujahideen guerrilla did not accommodate the Soviet gunners by occupying linear defenses or staying in place. Throughout the war, the Soviet Army continued to rely on artillery and close air support as a substitute for ground maneuver and close combat. The Soviet 40th Army needed lots of light infantry, but chose instead to expend massive firepower to save soldiers' lives and to compensate for their lack of infantry. It was an expensive, indiscriminate, and ineffective policy.