>>96358751
>Aren't these wars lost not on tactical side but mainly on political side?
I don't think so, no.
It was just constant wearing down in small tactical victories. Ambush a few vehicles, ambush a few squads, booby trap this, RPG that, shoot down a helicopter.
Maintain casualties on the enemy, while minimizing your own, and eventually the enemy will get tired and go home. The Afghans and Vietnamese became the landscape - they knew where and when to expect the intruders, they applied force in the right places, and withdrew to safety. It didn't always work, but they eventually mastered it. The US and Soviets respectively took enough casualties and the wars dragged on long enough that popular support for the wars eroded.
4chan Search
2 results for "2f22e6ecb6f383d0238fc0dd0f87e126"
>>96159968
Might want to google the Soviet Afghan War. Shitload of interesting tactics and evolution over the 10 year war.
Check out "The Bear Went Over the Mountain" and 'The Other Side of the Mountain". very interesting shit and there are a few damn good games based on it.
Even US-Afghanistan can be interesting if you read some first hand accounts and play games that take into account the true asymmetry of these kinds of conflicts.
Might want to google the Soviet Afghan War. Shitload of interesting tactics and evolution over the 10 year war.
Check out "The Bear Went Over the Mountain" and 'The Other Side of the Mountain". very interesting shit and there are a few damn good games based on it.
Even US-Afghanistan can be interesting if you read some first hand accounts and play games that take into account the true asymmetry of these kinds of conflicts.