After the cotton was loaded, the convoy left Shekravan at 1200 hours on 27 October. I augmented my Soviet security force by putting three or four Afghan armed police from the “Sarandoy” company on each cotton truck. In the event of an attack on the convoy, the Afghan armed police would act under my command.
Map 36: The 7th Air Assault Company destroys the enemy.
When our column approached Basiz village, the enemy fired on the forward security patrol with grenade launchers and blew up a command-detonated mine.7 The enemy was trying to destroy the bridge across the canal and the BTR-D that was on it. Thus, they hoped to stop the convoy. Thanks to the skilled handling by the driver of the BTR-D, it was not damaged. However, at the same time, the enemy was firing rifles and grenade launchers at the column from 70–100 meters away and knocked out four cotton trucks.
I ordered my forward security patrol (the 2nd Air Assault Platoon) and the 3rd Air Assault Platoon to maneuver behind the enemy and take him from the rear. The fires from one BMD, the AGS-17 crew and the mortar platoon were sufficient to pin down the enemy and allow the Afghan police company to deploy.
Having failed their mission, the enemy began to withdraw from prepared positions and came under fire from my platoons which had encircled them from the rear. The trapped guerrilla force continued to resist and we destroyed them. I had one air assault trooper wounded in my company.
Frunze Commentary: Combat experience shows that when preparing for a march, it is necessary to conduct coordination not only with your officers and sergeants, but with your armored-vehicle drivers as well. Your forward security patrol must not only have a route reconnaissance mission, but must also be instructed as to what actions to take when necessary in order to fight in coordination with the rest of the subunits. When combat is joined, it is necessary to maneuver subunits boldly to take the enemy on the flank and in the rear.
Editor’s Commentary: The column deployed a forward security patrol, but their reconnaissance effort seems lacking. Although they went over the route on a terrain model, it appears that simple map reconnaissance was neglected and choke points and potential kill zones were not identified and planned for. The bridge is an obvious choke point and a place for reconnaissance elements to dismount and check for mines. Flank security is never discussed and evidently seldom deployed.
37. Convoy escort and combat in the village of Daulatabad
by LTC A. A. Agzamov85
At the end of 1981, enemy attacks against convoys mounted along the Termez, Shebegan, Andkhoy, Maimana route. It was particularly difficult in the region of Daulatabad. Intelligence reports indicated that a guerrilla force of 25 to 30 men armed with rifles operated in this area. Acting secretly, the enemy would attack a single vehicle or column. Their goal was to paralyze resupply into the area.
On 2 December 1981, the 2nd Reconnaissance Company, which was garrisoned in Maimana, was ordered to escort a 120-vehicle convoy loaded with supplies from Andkhoy to Maimana. The distance was 110 kilometers. The company reinforcements included a sapper squad, a flamethrower squad armed with the RPO flamethrowers, a ZSU-23-4 self-propelled air defense gun, and a BTS-4 towing vehicle.9
We had two days to prepare for the mission. During this time we studied data which we received from the high command and resolved issues of rear support and maintenance support. We paid particular attention to readying the vehicles for the march and to preparing our weapons for combat. The troops drew rations and ammunition.
The convoy commander was the deputy commander of a SPETSNAZ detachment, N. Beksultanov. He decided to conduct the march from Maimana to Andkhoy on a single route and precede this with a forward security patrol. At 0500 hours on 4 December, the column moved out and 11 hours later closed into the assembly area some three kilometers northeast of Andkhoy. The truck convoy, already loaded with supplies, joined us. We then had to arrange the march column, distribute our combat power throughout the convoy, agree on coordination measures, and arrange for our night rest stop. We planned to leave on the morning of 5 December, move for five or six hours covering 80 kilometers with one rest stop. Following an overnight rest, we would close into Maimana the following day. The company had a platoon serve as the forward patrol.
Map 37: Defeating an enemy attack in a village.
The column moved out at 0500 on the morning of 5 December. By 0900, the forward patrol reached the village of Daulatabad. They reported back that the village was deserted. This report put us on our guard, and the convoy commander ordered us to increase our observation. When the lead vehicles of the convoy began to exit Daulatabad village, the enemy opened fire with a grenade launcher and destroyed a BMP-2KSH10 and a fuel tanker. A fire broke out and the vehicles immediately behind the conflagration were stuck in narrow streets.
The enemy opened up with small arms fire. Two more BMPs were knocked out and, as a result, the convoy was split into three sections. We returned fire, but it was not controlled or directed. The convoy commander lost control over his subunits since his communications were gone. Individual vehicles independently tried to break out of the kill zones. The FAC called in helicopter gunships and directed their fires. The helicopters began gun runs on the enemy in the village. In the meantime, the trail platoon received the mission to sweep the western part of the village. The dismounted troopers moved under the cover of BMP and helicopter fire to carry out their mission. The enemy withdrew when faced with this decisive action.
In the course of this three-hour battle, four of our soldiers were killed (all drivers), six were wounded, three BMPs were destroyed and five trucks were burned up.
Frunze Commentary: This example shows poor decision-making, inadequate preparation for battle and inadequate troop control during the course of the battle. None of the commanders involved had been briefed on the probable sites of enemy contact and the likely enemy courses of action.
Editor’s Commentary: In this vignette, the recon element reports that all the people in a village, which is a traditional trouble spot, have left. This leads to increased observation, but the commander does not dismount a force and have them probe the village for ambushes. This appears to demonstrate a basic lack of field craft on the part of the commander.
Again, the company commander muddles through a three-hour battle with a lightly-armed platoon and only manages to extricate himself when airpower is brought to bear. There seems to be a strong reluctance to dismount and close with the enemy. There is an over-reliance on firepower.
Finally, Afghan government forces and Afghan civilian drivers are never part of the equation. Losses are strictly in terms of Soviet men and material and trucks from the convoy. Either the Afghans never suffered casualties, or they were considered of no account. If it is the latter, it demonstrates a mindset that is counter-productive when trying to assist another government in winning a guerrilla war.
38. Convoy escort and battle near Maliykhel’
by Major A. I. Guboglo11
During the winter of 1982, several guerrilla detachments worked near the village of Maliykhel’ on the Kabul-Ghazni highway. The guerrillas would launch attacks on Soviet military convoys.
On the 11th of December 1982, the commander of the 7th Motorized Rifle Company received orders to escort a truck convoy from Ghazni to Kabul and return.12 They were to ensure the unimpeded movement of the convoy in both directions on the 170-kilometer stretch.