May I note, he flew a soviet designed attack helicopter too.

I'm just stating that you don't need highly advanced equipment to take down a helicopter

"soviet trannie guerillas"
best typo I've seen in a while

Heh.

But what I am stating is that there has to be some major fuck ups if their helicopters were managed to be shotdown by a bunch of jihadists in afghanistan in the desert armed with not much more than WW2 equipment and CIA training.

>ww2 era

AK*47*

How does socialism make sure everyone benefits tho, I heard that socialism achieves full employment by cutting hours and keeping pay, how would that work? I mean wouldn't the company loose money?
Or the government would be paying the extra wages?

the AK47 went into production in 1949
that's 4 years after WW2 ended

But the real massacre of the soviet airforce started when the US gave the afghans stingers, and then the soviet airforce became completely fucking useless against the afghans.

Gopniks

yeah the stingers are pretty powerful
the kurds still use them to shoot down helicopters today

Hey, don't blame them, they were listening to hardbass and their addidas parachutes didn't work

@DA GOMMIE JOO#7269 When the only advantage the soviets had against the afghans blew up spectacularly and gave the soviet gov a huge pain in the ass with lost money and people, it meant that the afghans had now gained the upper hand and as a result, beat the soviets hard.

it's very hard to fight against guerillas tbf

It's the killer of conventional warfare.

The US actually used it to win the revolutionary war.

so you're arguing that the soviets who were fighting
-in unfamiliar terrain
-against people who were trained and armed by the CIA
-in a guerilla war
were at fault for losing
now I don't support the invasion of afghanistan but that's some bullshit right there

The soviets actually were familiar with fighting in the steppe, at least those who were from that region were.

But the soviets really could have won if they put enough into it, but the thing is that they coulden't, and the afghans totally crippling their air force in the region, making it completely useless while the equivalent of billions of dollars goes down the drain in a few months, that dosen't help with the occupation at all.

yeah the USA could barely pull something similar off

so the soviets were bound to lose

They were, but in reality they had no idea that they would lose that hard to the afghans, they just predicted that they would be a few tribals that they could sweep away easily like they had in africa.

I am a gay straight man.

They never predicted the islamists in the area to fight so viciously and use guriella tactics, nor did they expect the US to provide support to them.

I believe it is a fact of life now, that you will never be able to separate the middle east from islam.

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***☭ ComradeWeeb☭#2045 has been warned***

Warned ?

You dare warn me?

@Deleted User gay straight man hmm sounds like a moral politician

@DA GOMMIE JOO#7269 Actually the Soviets lost for absolutely none of those reason.

It's because it's Afghanistan.

Nobody invades Afghanistan.

A little nugget of terd (sometimes known as a poo-chunk) that gets stuck to a mans arse hair.

>And when Mr. Khrushchev brandishes his shoe at the United Nations and hammers the table with it, no colonized individual, no representative of the underdeveloped countries laughs. For what Mr. Khrushchev is showing the colonized countries who are watching, is that he, the missile-wielding muzhik is treating these wretched capitalists the way they deserve.

-Frantz Fanon

@Mosin Nagant (((Anime)))

@Mosin Nagant

@When Things Aren't Right Go Left (((Trotsky)))