During the Soviet Afghan War did the USSR use ATGMs to attack "soft" targets?

[madman]

Since I had such good replies here when I asked about RCW armoured trains lets go with my other era of newfound (since getting back into gaming) interest. So as the title suggests, did the Soviets employ ATGMs during the war? My thinking is against emplaced weapons sites, cave entrances or buildings. There is the story of US troops in Desert Storm using Hellfires on lmg teams so to me this would be the Soviet equivalent. I am not very knowledgeable on the efficacy of HEAT warheads on rock formations so those with more knowledge or experience please pipe up.

If you do have evidence then supporting documentation, sites, etc. would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Stephen

[Jemima Fawr]

I've definitely seen film of a Sagger engagement from a BMP in Afghanistan, though I can't give any references, sorry.  There are also photos of BMPs with ATGMs fitted, so they must have been using them (equally there are plenty of photos of BMPs without ATGMs, so it wasn't universal).

ATGMs, while of limited use against troops in the open, are certainly useful against emplaced heavy weapons.  2 Para's use of MILAN against Argentine sangers at Goose Green is one example that springs immediately to mind and there are other examples from the Falklands of MILAN and SS-11 engagements against dug-in positions.  A Commando friend tells me that they ditched their Carl Gustavs for the march to Stanley, so that they could carry more MILAN firing-posts and ammunition.

[carlos marighela]

Most photos of BMP-1s in-country show them absent their Saggers although photos of BMPs on large scale pre-deployment exercises across the border in the Soviet Union show them mounted.

The same is true of BMP-2s photographed on operations, no ATGW.

It makes sense, the Mujahideen possessed no armour threat and ATGWs are only of marginal utility against structures like adobe buildings or sangars, certainly no more effective than the 73mm low pressure gun on the BMP-1 or the 30mm on its younger sibling. 

When it comes to splintering rocks and causing secondary fragmentation an RCL type round (which is essentially what the pointy end of the BMP-1’s main gun ammunition is) or a high velocity cannon are going to as if not more effective than the average ATGW and generally far more accurate at least in the case of the Sagger.

One of the reasons for the introduction of the BMP-2 on a large scale to the Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces was that the main armament of the BMP-1 had very limited elevation. This is true of the Sagger as well as it was mounted above the gun. I have seen photos of AGLs and the 12.7mm NSV machine gun field mounted on the decks and turret tops of BMPs and BTRs. The Soviets used both frequently, especially for planned ambushes, convoy protection and in their fixed defences.

I understand that heliborne ATGM were employed for point targets and in combatting Afghan supply caravans.

If you are interested in the Soviet Afghan War I would urge you to obtain a copy of the eponymous book edited by Lester Grau. It’s a translated and annotated study by the Soviet General Staff and contiains chapters on all types of combat operations, illustrated with examples of actions and a commentary on them. Probably the best single investment you can make on the topic and the action vignette’s are a warganer’s wet dream.

The Zaloga authored, Concord Press title Armour of the Afghanistan War is also worth a mention for the variety of photos of Soviet armour.

[carlos marighela]

Oh I forgot, there is an on-line version of the Grau book. It used to be on the US Army’s TRADOc site, although I don’t have any of my old bookmarks.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

Interesting replies.

Jemima, am I right in thinking the preference for Milan rounds was bigger warhead and better chance of hitting?

[Jemima Fawr]

In my defence m'lud, I should have added the phrase "It definitely wasn't common."

Re Carlos' excellent point re weapon elevation: There was a report in one of the defence journals during the late 80s about the priority for BMP-2 and BTR-70 to be deployed to Afghanistan due to their utility in mountain warfare, thanks to high-angle guns.  It also mentioned AGS-17s being carried piggy-back on BMPs and ZU-23-2 being carried on BTR-Ds for the same reason.

Re MILAN in the Falklands - the primary reasons were vastly better range and accuracy compared to Carl Gustav.  At Goose Green the MILANs were used very much as standoff fire support.

[carlos marighela]

Indeed. Milan had a theoretical range of what? 2,000 metres? Even  the first gen had optics to support that. Good luck putting a Charlie Guts-ache on target at more than 500 and for God’s sake remember your hearing protection, especially if you are the No.2 

IIRC the Paras had a few problems utilising Milan effectively at Goose Green. Ammo limitations, target spotting and the fact that some of the more promising firing angles involved long over-water trajectories. The fact that they were used says more about the limited fire support available. Probably the most decisive factor wasn’t the unconventional and costly use of ATGWs but the old fashioned grouping of the masses of extra GPMG 2 Para had on strength in the final phases. Old school winning the firefight.

[Jemima Fawr]

Indeed. Milan had a theoretical range of what? 2,000 metres? Even  the first gen had optics to support that. Good luck putting a Charlie Guts-ache on target at more than 500 and for God’s sake remember your hearing protection, especially if you are the No.2 

IIRC the Paras had a few problems utilising Milan effectively at Goose Green. Ammo limitations, target spotting and the fact that some of the more promising firing angles involved long over-water trajectories. The fact that they were used says more about the limited fire support available. Probably the most decisive factor wasn’t the unconventional and costly use of ATGWs but the old fashioned grouping of the masses of extra GPMG 2 Para had on strength in the final phases. Old school winning the firefight.

Yes, IIRC the naval gunfire support withdrew before dawn, their 81mm mortar platoon was down to only two tubes due to the difficulty of moving them from San Carlos and only part of a 105mm battery had been airlifted within range.

[von der Tann]

Indeed. Milan had a theoretical range of what? 2,000 metres?

1975 meters maximum range. It takes the missle itself 13 seconds to cover that distance. Then the guidance cable runs out and the missle drops on the ground.

[tom_aargau]

Here a link to the APAN website with an article by Grau on Soviet convoys in Afghanistan. You can find more by typing his name in the search box.

https://community.apan.org/wg/tradoc-g2/fmso/m/fmso-monographs/241341

[grant]

Canada used Carl Gustav to destroy enemy compounds and cave structures in Afghanistan if that helps at all.

[sandsmodels]

the russians developed thermo baric heads for their rpg's in a/stan as well as other types as the hiding enemy in caves ect were hard to get out or kill.

[italwars]

Very interesting topic ...I m sure I ve read on Lester Grau above mentioned book or / even the other one ..I m referring to “Soviet military Doctrine” and “the other side of the mountain” that Soviet’s used the guided missikes and rockets against mujahideen positions ...and also if with some few minor differences , in any case, you could use , as I do in 20mm plastic, my same Soviet’s vs Chechens ..your ATGM will be surely used ..
As mentioned by Jemina in modern doctrine or at least in actual battles (1980’s) soldiers , if convenably trained  like the British during the Falklands, used freely rockets vs infantry and not only vs fortified positions/sangars like in Sector Plata/Stanley mountain defenses or as mentioned by Jemina at Goose Green..but also on the open..with great psychological effect and even casualties ...in a very interesting Argentinian source that I m reading this very night (Commandos en Accion) the author tells that during the famous skirmish at Top Malo House , Bowden ‘s A&MW Marines Quadre raiders discharged LAWs vs both the house in which a single Argentine Commando stayed and against the other ones already in the open ..probably the use of rockets carried the day ..furthermore  in the only small range  reconnaissance mission outside their trenches carried by Argentinian conscripts before Two Sister s mountain range they were attacked by a para or special force British manned LAW wich ended with the horrific site of an Argentinian soldier cutted in two halves by a LAW rocket. I even find, in the same source, an almost unknown and interesting episode during the battle of Goose Green in which the only good and well equipped Argentinian unit present in the battle, a small section of the partially commando trained “Special infantry Reg 25”counterattacks the advancing 2 nd Paras on Darwin Hill discharging over them the very British LAWs or Carl Gustav that they had previously captured in Port. Stanley Mooby Brook Barracks from the Marines during the recuperation of the Islands.. (the 25 R.I was probably the only unit that participated in both recuperation and defence of Malvinas)..the author tells that those few men caught the paras advancing in extended line in the open at 150 meters firing at then even white phosphorous rockets with an Instalaza Lanzador (I suppose is a modern bazooka)...
So In conclusion I think that modern soldiers fire everything at hand at every target and are equipped with a good percentageof those weapons with the goal of creating a hell of Fire ...almost sure that the Russians in an assymetrical war were no exception!