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.

The road security elements seemed to do a lot of moving and were a lot more aggressive than their counterparts in the stationary outposts. Apparently, the commander should rotate his mobile and stationary elements frequently in order to maintain an aggressive attitude.

32. Repelling a mujahideen attack on a security detachment in the Panjsher Valley

by LTC V. G. Serebryakov¹⁵

In August 1986, my battalion was assigned road security duty in the Panjsher Valley. To accomplish this mission, I broke my battalion down into mobile security patrols and security posts and distributed them along the route. One of the mobile security patrols was commanded by Lieutenant Yu. B. Tyubekin. He put his force in a perimeter defense, dug it in and fortified it to the extent that his resources allowed, laid in an interlocking and coordinated fire plan, and laid mines on the near and far approaches to Post #13. In all, he had 13 men in the mobile security patrol.

Map 32: Lieutenant Tyubekin’s last battle.

The mujahideen knew that the mobile security patrol consisted only of a small group of draftees and attempted to overrun the position. At 1715 hours on 4 August, they began shelling the detachment. The mujahideen fire knocked out an 82mm mortar, a 12.7mm “Cliff” heavy machine gun, and an AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher. Sniper fire from the surrounding heights pinned down the force and made it difficult to move personnel from one sector to another. Capitalizing on the reduced fire from our patrol, the mujahideen were able to move a recoilless rifle up to a position to blow a path through the minefield. [Minefield not shown on map.]

The enemy moved within hand grenade range. A howitzer battery commanded by Captain S. A. Ivanov, plus a platoon of self-propelled howitzers, had been firing in support of the detachment. Now, however, the fog and twilight restricted observation and their supporting fire became much less effective. One of my company commanders, Captain Lavrent’ev, was bringing up the reserve of four BMP-2s, when Lieutenant Tyubekin called in fire on his own position. We fired air bursts on the post killing 23 mujahideen and wounded approximately 30 others. They withdrew. The security detachment lost its leader and six soldiers were wounded.

Frunze Commentary: Only the act of calling artillery fire on his own position, permitted the lieutenant to save the mobile security patrol.

Editor’s Commentary: Apparently, the mobile security patrol lost its BMPs (and mobility) to a bronegruppa when they occupied the defensive position for a night laager. There were no armored vehicles incorporated in the defense. The force became a stationary security post. The soldiers had to shelter in open-topped foxholes when the artillery hit their position.

33. Securing a base camp

by LTC A. Yunakov¹⁶

My battalion was part of a separate brigade based in Kandahar and Helmand provinces.¹⁷ The brigade had three motorized rifle battalions, an air assault battalion, a signal company, a radio-electronic warfare company, an artillery battalion, a helicopter squadron and a brigade headquarters. The battalion’s mission was three-fold: first, to provide security to a base camp near Lashkargah in Helmand Province, second, to escort convoys two or three times a week along an 80-kilometer stretch of road, and finally to fight guerrilla forces in the immediate vicinity. My battalion was reinforced with a battery of D-30 122mm howitzers and two tank platoons. A 12-kilometer perimeter encompassed our base camp. I had seven fighting positions spaced around the perimeter. Each position was occupied by one or two motorized rifle platoons. When providing convoy security, I usually dispatched one or two motorized rifle platoons with one or two 82mm mortars. When fighting guerrillas, I usually dispatched a motorized rifle company, with the artillery battery, reconnaissance platoon, and two mortar platoons.