About 1830 hours on 18 July, we were eating dinner and observation was lax. [Probably my lookouts had also decided to eat without my authorization]. During this time of relaxed vigilance, the enemy snuck onto our high terrace, climbed to within 10 meters of our defensive position and simultaneously opened fire with three DShK heavy machine guns from “Black hill” and “Fang mountain”. My men, with the exception of two look-outs, dove behind the walls and in the dugouts for shelter. The guerrillas had resolutely seized the initiative and pushed their attack forward, throwing grenades as they came. The mujahideen having climbed onto our high terrace, ran toward our defenses, but were caught in our tanglefoot. This broke their attack and we were able to destroy them with fire from our dugouts. The enemy left four corpses on the terrace. The rest withdrew under the cover of DShK fire. We had no casualties.
Editor’s Commentary: Even, and sometimes especially, in elite forces, the commander must stay on top of his personnel and ensure that they maintain vigilance and perform other routine soldiers’ duties. Soldiers’ carelessness almost led to the destruction of this OP.
This vignette indicates that an artillery battery may have been part of a SPETSNAZ detachment. In this particular vignette, the detachment was operating within MRLS range, since part of the artillery plan is for MRLS.
The Soviet tanglefoot obstacle appears to be a most effective obstacle. It has not been adopted by western armies. Perhaps these armies ought to consider doing so.
30. A mobile security patrol in combat near the village of Chandaran
by LTC F. V. Zhitoryuk12
In April 1985, the 1st Motorized Battalion, which I commanded, was detailed to perform guard and security duties within my regiment’s 65-kilometer stretch of the Termez-Kabul highway. I was reinforced with a tank company and an artillery battery. My mission was to secure the unimpeded movement of Soviet and Afghan convoys in my area of responsibility and to prevent the demolition of the pipeline, bridges and sections of highway.
My regimental commander13 constituted 14 mobile security patrols and 23 security posts for the mission. A reinforced motorized rifle platoon usually functions as a mobile security patrol. A motorized rifle company usually constitutes two or three mobile security patrols and five or six security posts. I designated my share of the patrols and posts and constituted a reserve in case I suddenly had to do battle with the mujahideen.
Mobile security patrol #31 was my largest mobile security patrol since I had integrated my CP/OP in that grouping. The patrol had 193 men including my battalion command group, a signal platoon, the 1st firing platoon of my mortar battery, a tank company (minus one platoon), the artillery battery (minus a firing platoon), and the battalion’s recon platoon.
A guerrilla force of about 500 men operated in my battalion’s area of responsibility. They were armed with 82mm mortars, recoilless rifles, heavy machine guns, launch bombs and many small arms.
From 16 to 21 April, our division participated in an operation to destroy guerrilla forces in this region. After the operation, the participating units and subunits returned to their base camps. Guerrilla activity quickly picked up. Agent reconnaissance reported that a wounded miner [i.e. one who emplaces land mines] was located in Chandaran village. This miner had been trained by foreign services. Two renegade Russian soldiers who had gone over to the mujahideen in 1981 and 1983 were guarding the miner.
I decided to seal off the village on the night of 22–23 April and destroy the enemy. I assembled my recon platoon, the 1st platoon of my 3rd MRC, and a force from a battalion of Afghan “Sarandoy” for the mission. The group consisted of 73 men, four tanks, eight BTRs, and two “Vasilek” automatic mortars. We were supported by the artillery battery.
Map 30: Blocking and sweeping Chandaran village.
At 0100 hours on 23 April, two groups of five men each set out along the pipeline. They were disguised to look like pipeline workers and carried pipeline equipment as they walked and checked the pipeline and worked their way into the target area. Under the cover of night, they crept into place and took up firing positions. At 0400 hours, mobile security patrol #31 quickly moved through the fog cover to Chandaran. They blocked the canyon mouth and entrance to the village, dismounted, formed a line and began to sweep the village.
Precise coordination between the Soviet subunits and the Afghan armed police allowed the battle to proceed with minimum casualties. We killed three mujahideen and captured 16. Among the prisoners were the bodyguards of Said Mansoor, an important guerrilla ringleader in the northern provinces, and the wounded miner. We found out later that the mujahideen were resting in the village and because of the sudden and unconventional nature of our subunits’ actions, they were unable to offer any resistance.
Editor’s Commentary: This was a heavy force to go after a minelayer and his renegade guards. Probably the main impetus for the mission was to capture or kill the renegades. It is interesting that their fate is not mentioned.
31. A mobile security patrol destroys a guerrilla force in Khinjan Canyon
by LTC F. V. Zhitoryuk14
One of the more characteristic actions of a mobile security patrol is illustrated by the destruction of the Naima guerrilla force. This force had 15 men armed with two RPG-2 anti-tank grenade launchers, a DShK heavy machine gun, a sniper rifle and several AKM assault rifles.
On 12 March 1986, my battalion was pulling security duty when I received a report that a BRDM belonging to the local “Sarandoy” battalion was firing in the Khinjan canyon. This was not far from where my mobile security patrol #32 was working. I ordered my 2nd MRC commander, Captain V. P. Yusov, to take the reserve (eight soldiers on two BTRs) and move on the enemy. Forty minutes later, Captain Yusov reported that the enemy was indeed doing battle in Khinjan canyon and was firing small arms and grenade launchers.
Map 31: Destruction of the Naima force.
My reconnaissance platoon was on alert and I had them road march on their vehicles to the combat site. My plan was to have Captain Yusov and the reserve block the mujahideen in the canyon, while my recon platoon would split into two groups and skirt the canyon on two sides to hit the enemy in the rear and destroy him when he tried to withdraw. This plan required a thorough knowledge of the local terrain, the availability of two Mi-8 helicopters (which were in the area) to fly over the battle and report on the composition and location of the enemy, and the availability of the necessary combat power to block and destroy the mujahideen.
Twenty to twenty-five minutes after the pursuit began, Major A. G. Kravets, my political deputy, reported that we had overtaken the enemy and joined battle. As a result we killed 13 men and captured two. Additionally, we captured two grenade launchers, one machine gun, eight assault rifles, and two rifles.
Frunze Commentary: This example shows that decisive, unconventional action, a good knowledge of the terrain, and the correct organization of reconnaissance will lead to success.
Editor’s Commentary: The last two vignettes show positive, aggressive action on the part of a battalion commander as he finds, fixes and finishes his enemy. These are classic examples of how to do it right. The Soviets seem to have enjoyed some success when cobbling together a mixed force at the spur of the moment and then making it work. This shows a great deal of tactical flexibility on the part of the Soviet battalion commanders to even attempt such solutions. The cynic might say that it shows what a Soviet commander can really accomplish when the generals are absent.