AH Challenge: Soviet Victory in Afghanistan

You paint a very rosy picture. But how many rosy pre-war pictures ever turn out that way? Lets give some thought to the costs and possible responses.




Yes, I am aware of that. However, there are several factors we did not consider yet:

1. Distances. Most mujahedeen power-base regions in Afghanistan are within 150 km from Durand Line as crow flies. Peshawar to Karachi is 1100 km as crow flies. Distance increases eightfold, losses increase eightfold, at first glance.

That is a lot of ground to cover with air power, especially with hostile forces underneath. I don't know what the Pakistani anit-air ablities were then, but I do know they would increase rapidly, with corresponding increases in losses for the Soviets.


2. Terrain. Mujahedeen power-base regions are mountains. Afghan flatlands (generally Northern part of the country) was not all chummy with Soviets, but were infinitely less infested by guerillas (probably owing to logistical difficulties as much as to differences in tribal composition, valley folks not being Pushtun). And guess what? Pakistan turns into flatlands pretty fast as you go South from Peshawar. Try to hide caravans on flatlands once every rivercraft and every group of trucks becomes fair game for Tac Air (as it was in Laos).

How much normal traffic is there to hide among?



3. Politics (briefly mentioned before). Afghan society could allow itself to disintegrate and devote all it's resources to battle Soviet invasion. Pakistan is next door to India, which still considers the very existence of "The land of pure" the greatest insult and injustice inflicted on the Subcontinent by colonizers. Can it wage the war with world and regional superpowers at the same time?

Air power is not going to disintegrate Pakistani society. And with this escalation would come counter-escalations in support from the US. I suspect their would be a lot a US naval activity in the India Ocean.


And what is Pakistan going to do about this? Most, obvious response to me, is to imitate the North Vietnamese. Train Pakistani regulars as guerillas and send then accross the border, with Afgani guides.

The scale of the problem for the Soviet Union just increased by hundreds of percents.
 
Pakistan's army outnumbers the Soviet presence in Afghanistan by an order of magnitude. If they send a mere 100,000 troops in then Afghanistan just became a shattering drain on Soviet resources and credibility.

It already was consuming between 5% of the regular army and 15% of Soviet air power, now what is it up to, what effect does this have on the Soviet economy and how credible is Soviet force projection anywhere else?
 
Isn't it impossible to completely defeat a guerrilla force in total war? Take Vietnam for example: the Americans could win every battle but still lose the war. As the guerrilla force can fight organised and efficiently without red tape and in poor conditions the dominant empire or force always loses more than the much-weaker guerrilla force after battle even if the empire won. In history, didn't forces which lived on the outskirts of an Empire take it on and severely damage it despite being far inferior (The Goths/Vandals/Huns, the Mongols, the Vietnamese?) It's the same thing. Can't totally beat a guerrilla force using conventional battle tactics; they are born from poverty.

I think the Goths, Vandals, and Huns are a poor example to use as guerrillas--for starters, they weren't guerrillas, but cavalry-centric forces.

The Germans at Teutoberger Wald might count as guerrillas, although it was more a matter of spreading the Romans out and destroying them in detail, not hit-and-run.

Furthermore, if you want total war, you can simply engage in population relocation/internment, free-fire zones, and other mayhem.
 
You paint a very rosy picture. But how many rosy pre-war pictures ever turn out that way?
Yep, I painted (intentionally) pretty wankish scenario. But not impossible. Basically tried to project OTL American strategy in Vietnam (which largely failed not due to flaws in execution but due to extremely unfavorable regional conditions, bith political and natural) to Afghanistan. And, frankly speaking, I was a little amuzed myself how miserable Pakistani situation would be, nce you applied American tactic.

That is a lot of ground to cover with air power, especially with hostile forces underneath. I don't know what the Pakistani anit-air ablities were then, but I do know they would increase rapidly, with corresponding increases in losses for the Soviets.
I don't think anybody doubts that Pakistani Air Force would be reduced to non-existence within hours of Soviet air invasion. That leaves them with SAMs (long learning curve, as opposed to "shoot and forget" Stingers) and largely ineffective AA guns. What make you believe that Soviet Air Force will have more problems flying over Pakistan than NATO's forces in 1999 in Yugoslavia (Serbs being pretty tough cookies)?

How much normal traffic is there to hide among?
A lot. Flatland Pakistan is very densely populated. Problem is, I'm not sure it's going to stop Soviet commanders. Again, it didn't affect Americans, much.

Air power is not going to disintegrate Pakistani society.
Are you sure? Remember, we're talking about country which was engulfed by civil war less than decade before events we discuss and which have several self-declared independent emirates on it's territory as we discuss. And I did not say that complete disintegration is necessary. Partial troubles are enough.

And with this escalation would come counter-escalations in support from the US. I suspect their would be a lot a US naval activity in the India Ocean.
Yep, that was my original statement. Soviets were scared that USA will start nuclear war over Pakistan. Glad we share at least some ideas.

And what is Pakistan going to do about this? Most, obvious response to me, is to imitate the North Vietnamese. Train Pakistani regulars as guerillas and send then accross the border, with Afgani guides.
Pakistan is not Vietnam. When foreign powers invaded Vietnam, they (Vietnamese) fought tooth and nails for 40 years to be independent again. When foreign power invaded Pakistan, it broke into two countries. That's why I would not put much hope on Pakistani successfully imitating Vietnamese.
 
In response...

1) Pakistan's air force is far superior in the 1980s to what Yugoslavia had in the 1990s while the USSR's air force is inferior to NATO's. It's also a much larger area to cover and far from what the Soviets saw as their areas of primary concern. Since Afghanistan occupied 15% of the Soviet Air Force in OTL what percentage will this entail?

2) Actually the Soviet Air Force isn't going to be able to stop the traffic in Pakistan unless the Soviets send in the army as well, destroying relations with the Muslim world and China while bogging down...well, if we assume the more advanced and far better armed Pakistanis require an occupation per population half that the Afghanis required then you've tied down a majority of Russia's regular army. Expensive and not good in so many ways for Moscow.

3) The so-called civil war consisted of an geographically separate territory only added on to Pakistan in 1947. Try a war of independence against a purely imperialist invented boundary.

4) So the Soviets were deranged? They thought it would be acceptable to invade a well-armed ally of the US and China, a nation developing the first atomic weapons, and the problem was that the intended victim or allies of said victim might overreact?

5) The only foreign intervention in Pakistan was when India, recognizing that Pakistan couldn't win and somewhat irate over ten million plus unexpected guests, intervened. You clearly don't have the slightest knowledge of Pakistan to state that they would respond less fiercely than the Afghanis did to foreign invasion.

And on a minor diversion if the US had not cut off South Vietnam under Nixon the break between China and the USSR in the late 1970s would have ended Hanoi's dreams of conquest.
 
...

I don't think anybody doubts that Pakistani Air Force would be reduced to non-existence within hours of Soviet air invasion. That leaves them with SAMs (long learning curve, as opposed to "shoot and forget" Stingers) and largely ineffective AA guns. What make you believe that Soviet Air Force will have more problems flying over Pakistan than NATO's forces in 1999 in Yugoslavia (Serbs being pretty tough cookies)?


Keep in mind the primary reason to do this is to reduce losses to the airpower in Afganistan due to stingers, SA-7 and heavy machine guns coming into Afganistan through Pakistan. It would take seconds for someone to consider unpacking the weapons and using them early.

Later the US would up the flow, possibly with trainer and advisors.


A lot. Flatland Pakistan is very densely populated. Problem is, I'm not sure it's going to stop Soviet commanders. Again, it didn't affect Americans, much.

Thus solidifing political support for the goverment and involvement in the war.

Are you sure? Remember, we're talking about country which was engulfed by civil war less than decade before events we discuss and which have several self-declared independent emirates on it's territory as we discuss. And I did not say that complete disintegration is necessary. Partial troubles are enough.

In a muslim country in a war against an European athiest agressor? Third world dictators invent senerios like these to whip up public support, here it would actually be true.
Yep, that was my original statement. Soviets were scared that USA will start nuclear war over Pakistan. Glad we share at least some ideas.

I was thinking more along the ideas of naval action, air strikes against any troops that move into Pakistan, and at most, blockade if things get really out of hand.


Pakistan is not Vietnam. When foreign powers invaded Vietnam, they (Vietnamese) fought tooth and nails for 40 years to be independent again. When foreign power invaded Pakistan, it broke into two countries. That's why I would not put much hope on Pakistani successfully imitating Vietnamese.


It might take a couple of months to retrain, but I don't see any reason they couldn't do it. The idea would have to occurr to someone. Everyone in America was thinking of this as the Soviet's Vietnam.
 
Pakistan's air force is far superior in the 1980s to what Yugoslavia had in the 1990s while the USSR's air force is inferior to NATO's.
Having some personal observations of the level of Syrian Air Force in late 1980's (widely considered one of the best Air Forces of Muslim world at this time, Pakistanis sent to Syria in mid-1970 to assist against "Zionist agressors" did pretty miserably in comparison), I do not share your fascination with Pakistanis at all. Would I have been Soviet pilot, I would trade 3 sorties over Pakistan to one flight over Yugoslavia and I would believe I got myself an incredible deal. I would say that superiority of NATO's 1999 Yugo force over what Soviets could dispatch to punish Pakistan in 1980 is at least debatable too.

Actually the Soviet Air Force isn't going to be able to stop the traffic in Pakistan unless the Soviets send in the army as well, destroying relations with the Muslim world and China while bogging down...
Soviet-Chinese relationships in 1980 were more or less mutual preparation for big war, with occasional firefights over the border. And Soviets just humiliated Chinese over their botched Vietnam affair (mere threat of Soviet troop movement on the Sino-Soviet border forced Chinese hastily withdraw from Vietnam). I would say that Soviets will be only too happy to step on Chinese toes once more, just to drive the lesson further into Chinese heads. Then again, who told you that China and Pakistan were all that chummy around 1980? And relationships with fundamentalist Muslim world went down the drain over Afghanistan anyway. Besides, fundamentalist regimes were always American puppets, so why should USSR care about relationships with regimes who did not lift a finger without direct orders from Washington anyway?

Befor discussing Soviet ability to stop the traffic whe should define meaning of "stop". On the one side of the ruler is OTL situation, with weapons flowing smoothly through Pakistan. Another extremity is OTL situation in Gaza, where Israeli know pedigree of every unit of "heavy" weapon in Palestinian hands (and by "heavy" I mean anything but handguns and AK-47s). I don't believe that Soviet Army would be able to seal Afghan-Pakistani border as tightly as Israeli sealed West Bank IOTL. But reducing weapon flow to 10-20% of OTL amount does not seem impossible.

The so-called civil war consisted of an geographically separate territory only added on to Pakistan in 1947.
Pakistan was only created in 1947, so this "added" statement is not entirely correct. Yes, Eastern Pakistan was an exclave, but still...

So the Soviets were deranged? They thought it would be acceptable to invade a well-armed ally of the US and China, a nation developing the first atomic weapons
I am going to disappoint you. Being major providers of weapons and military training to the Islamic world for 30 years, Soviets were of very (OK, make it extremely) low opinion of fighting abilities of any army of Islamic world. They were concerned with American reaction, not Pakistani resistance.

The only foreign intervention in Pakistan was when India, recognizing that Pakistan couldn't win
Isn't it just alternate wording for what I said? Pakistan is internally unstable and central government can't control country in the presence of moderate external pressure?

You clearly don't have the slightest knowledge of Pakistan to state that they would respond less fiercely than the Afghanis did to foreign invasion.
Pakistani would fight, no question about it. Question is, would they fight invaders (especially if Pakistani are on the surface and invaders are flying 10,000 feet over their heads) or each other?

if the US had not cut off South Vietnam under Nixon the break between China and the USSR in the late 1970s would have ended Hanoi's dreams of conquest.
Sino-Soviet split began in the late 1950s and reached a peak in 1969 IOTL. Your statement obviously describes some alternative world.

Keep in mind the primary reason to do this is to reduce losses to the airpower in Afganistan due to stingers, SA-7 and heavy machine guns coming into Afganistan through Pakistan.
Yes and no. OP requirement was to create something which could be described as Sovietwank. Intervention in Pakistan will obviously increase Soviet losses, but will gave them chance of pacifying Afghanistan and giving major bloody nose to the image of USA as capable of protecting its minions, so increased losses may be acceptable.

it would take seconds for someone to consider unpacking the weapons and using them early.
It is one thing to fly low in order to take out every gang threatening your weak marionette and quite another to fly figh and shoot at every moving truck and rivercraft, NATO-style. Stingers become as useful to Pakistanis as handgun is useful against an enemy 3000 ft removed.

What if the Americans realize early the stupidity of arming people that hate their guts?
This is the AH board, not a LOTR-related one. We don't discuss magic here :)
 
CanadianGoose, I'm not sure I have time to correct all of your errors but...

1) Given the miserable performence of Syria's Air Force in 1973 and 1982 I'm not sure if you are unaware of that or condemning all Muslim pilots of the time. Also no one can credibly claim the Soviet Air Force in the 1980s was more effective than the NATO air forces in the late 1990s. We all saw how well Syria's Soviet trained/equipped Air Force did in 1982.

2) You display a remarkable ignorance of Soviet-Chinese history. Do you believe the actual death toll, including more Soviets KIA than the US lost in the entire Korean War constituted a mere threat on anyone's part? You also calmly pass over the number of Soviet divisions which would have to be deployed on the border and the number to hold portions of Pakistan for an extended period, something I doubt Moscow would have done. And it would be far easier for the US to get weapons to Pakistan than to Afghanistan, just set up a naval base in Pakistan, defend it with US air power, then have the ships arrive with the armaments. I won't even go on about your idea that the only problem with Soviet aggression against multiple nations would be that the US might respond in a way Moscow didn't like.

As for this this idea that Moscow would have responded with anything other than horror to the idea of China and the US joining forces and China getting any access to Western armaments...:confused:

3) No, it was fairly well recognized that India wouldn't hold together once the British left but it was the British blunder to conclude that all Muslim areas must be amalgamated.

4) And we all know just how accurate many Soviet estimates of the time were, while I'm not even raising what happens when Pakistan obtains the first atomic weapons during this war.

5) No, it isn't remotely what you said. Pakistan had already lost, which was why India felt it was safe to intervene and that such intervention even would help Pakistan save face(powerful neighbor victorious versus local separatists victorious).

6) They would certainly fight the Soviet invaders, just as the allegedly divided and fractious Afghanis did.

7) Right...Russo-Chinese relations were much worse when they were coordinating aid to North Vietnam in 1969 than when they had the world on the brink of WWIII in the 1978.:rolleyes:
 
CanadianGoose, I'm not sure I have time to correct all of your errors
I am not sure that I should not read that as "I can't do anything about some of your arguments..." ;)

Given the miserable performence of Syria's Air Force in 1973 and 1982 I'm not sure if you are unaware of that or condemning all Muslim pilots of the time... We all saw how well Syria's Soviet trained/equipped Air Force did in 1982.
Comparisons are very dangerous. As old saying goes "main seal in a vehicle is one between steering wheel and pilot's backrest" (meaning operator himself). And Syrians were at serious disadvantage in this department. It is discussion fodder is IAF the best Air Force on Earth (they dealt extremely harsh blows to USMC Aviation Combat Element during numerous exercies), but they are obviously in the top 5. So your comparison is not entirely correct. But numerous analysts are of opinion that Syrians and Iraqis were best Muslim air forces of the time. And Syrians were not particularly impressed by Pakistani air forces themselves.

no one can credibly claim the Soviet Air Force in the 1980s was more effective than the NATO air forces in the late 1990s.
I would say nobody would seriously deny they could play in the same league. And this is not the league Pakistani AF were capable of playing in. That was the cornerstone of my argument.

2) You display a remarkable ignorance of Soviet-Chinese history. Do you believe the actual death toll, including more Soviets KIA than the US lost in the entire Korean War constituted a mere threat on anyone's part?
I'm not sure what are you talking about.

number of Soviet divisions which would have to be deployed on the border and the number to hold portions of Pakistan for an extended period, something I doubt Moscow would have done.
For Soviets ground invasion would be (1) suicidal and (2) unnecessary.

I won't even go on about your idea that the only problem with Soviet aggression against multiple nations would be that the US might respond in a way Moscow didn't like.
Well, those were rules of the game at the time. World (if you can call US-controlled 3/4 of it that way) was wallowing in the righteous anger over Afghanistan and Soviets didn't give a rat's behind over it.

As for this this idea that Moscow would have responded with anything other than horror to the idea of China and the US joining forces and China getting any access to Western armaments...:confused:
It would be an extremely wise idea for West to arm Chinese with modern weapons at this point. Truly worthy of great thinkers of Cold War. And you know what? I believe they could do just that. But that's another scenario.

I'm not even raising what happens when Pakistan obtains the first atomic weapons during this war.
ITTL Pakistani nuclear facilities will be reduced to that much rubble within 24 hours from the start of attack. So, unless Pakistan have Stargate to move it's project to another universe...

They would certainly fight the Soviet invaders, just as the allegedly divided and fractious Afghanis did.
Nobody was counting on fraction division in Aghanistan with it's massive Pashto majority (although Soviets could exploit it relatively well later on), but Pakistan does NOT have a majority. PML and PPP are still pretty much tribal unions, and Pashtun fraction is unabashedly so.

Right...Russo-Chinese relations were much worse when they were coordinating aid to North Vietnam in 1969 than when they had the world on the brink of WWIII in the 1978.:rolleyes:
Educate yourself. Soviets and Chinese actually battled each over in 1969 IOTL.
 
Last edited:
All I can say is that we've got a fun situation for the Soviets.

Soviet credibility is crippled in the world as Soviet military power is severely hamstrung. In OTL Afghanistan involved @7% of the Soviet regular army and 15% of air power so now we're up to...what? 10-15% of the regular army and 30-35% of the air force?

I wonder what happens if the reactor strike spews radioactive material over millions of Pakistanis(and perhaps Indians:eek:)? Will the Soviets be willing to pay the massive reparations involved or shall the US/Canada/Australia simply add a 'nuclear decontamination' fee to all grain the Soviets purchase?
 
Soviet credibility is crippled in the world as Soviet military power is severely hamstrung. In OTL Afghanistan involved @7% of the Soviet regular army and 15% of air power so now we're up to...what? 10-15% of the regular army and 30-35% of the air force?
Possibly. On the flip side, every bigman around the world, thinking of selling his chiefdom to Americans, would be considering probability of Soviet spetznaz coming after his fat hams fearing that Americans will be unable to protect him. Risk worth taking?

I wonder what happens if the reactor strike spews radioactive material over millions of Pakistanis(and perhaps Indians:eek:)? Will the Soviets be willing to pay the massive reparations involved or shall the US/Canada/Australia simply add a 'nuclear decontamination' fee to all grain the Soviets purchase?
Israeli bombing of Ozirak. A lot of hot air and righteous babbling followed on Soviet/Muslim side, no consequences for tiny Israel. Is it a-given? Nope. Probability for USSR? Yep.
 
CanadianGoose, your last post makes no sense whatsoever. Soviet prestige in the world is not going to be boosted by being militarily bogged down in Afghanistan and Pakistan to a much more substantial degree than the US was in Vietnam, especially when the Soviets are forced to withdraw in the late 1980s. Risk worth taking of the USSR being seen as a paper tiger around the world? I doubt Moscow would agree.

Probability is a massive nope as the two events do not remotely compare. Israel struck when it did to avoid striking an active reactor, the Soviets have already forfeited that option.
 
CanadianGoose, your last post makes no sense whatsoever.
It can be either because of weakness of my arguments or because of your inability to understand them.

Israel struck when it did to avoid striking an active reactor, the Soviets have already forfeited that option.
Kahuta is still in the early stages of construction at this point and Pakistan was pretty well infested with Soviet agents. Wouldn't it open a window of opportunity?
 
CanadianGoose, how can the Soviets expect more respect in the world when the Soviet military is more distraced and tied down? With Soviet air power dramatically reduced Moscow's ability to play any significant role outside her own borders is seriously weakened.

It all depends but if the reactor is up and running then the Soviets are making a pretty serious mistake and it doesn't seem like the Soviets are going to rapidly conclude that the war in Afghanistan isn't working so let's play double or nothing. Although in terms of population and military capacity Pakistan is a lot more dangerous than Afghanistan is.
 
...OP requirement was to create something which could be described as Sovietwank. Intervention in Pakistan will obviously increase Soviet losses, but will gave them chance of pacifying Afghanistan and giving major bloody nose to the image of USA as capable of protecting its minions, so increased losses may be acceptable.


Well you certainly have given a sprited defense of your idea.

I can easily imagine a Soviet officer making your arguements in the Kremlin, demanding the chance to win, if they would just let loose the leash.

I, not surprising think mine is better. Even if you are predisposed to having the POD result from Soviet actions, which you seem to be, I think my suggestion of a KGB plot to discredit the idea of suppling stingers/SA-7s to the rebels would be less costly and more likely to succeed.
 
Very interesting discussion. I just hope Grimm and CanadianGoose don't go overboard.

By the way, Grimm while your arguments about the strain on Soviet air and army resources is intriguing I have to disagree here:

Grimm Reaper said:
Pakistan's air force is far superior in the 1980s to what Yugoslavia had in the 1990s while the USSR's air force is inferior to NATO's. It's also a much larger area to cover and far from what the Soviets saw as their areas of primary concern. Since Afghanistan occupied 15% of the Soviet Air Force in OTL what percentage will this entail?

and

Grimm Reaper said:
no one can credibly claim the Soviet Air Force in the 1980s was more effective than the NATO air forces in the late 1990s.

and

Grimm Reaper said:
Given the miserable performence of Syria's Air Force in 1973 and 1982 I'm not sure if you are unaware of that or condemning all Muslim pilots of the time. Also no one can credibly claim the Soviet Air Force in the 1980s was more effective than the NATO air forces in the late 1990s. We all saw how well Syria's Soviet trained/equipped Air Force did in 1982.

Firstly, comparing the Soviet airforce of the 1980s to the NATO airforces (note the plural) in the late 1990s is pointless since you are talking about at least a decade worth of difference in military advances so of course the Soviet airforce of the 1980s is going to be inferior to the NATO airforces of the 1990s. Just as how the Soviet airforce of the 1980s would be superior to the US airforce of the 1940s and 1950s or how the US airforce of the 1950s would be superior to the German airforce of World War I. Your argument would hold more water if you compared the Soviet and NATO airforces of the 1980s. And as we all know the NATO airforces in the 1980s didn't take the Soviet airforce of the 1980s as a joke (otherwise what was the point of training and preparing for a possible Soviet invasion if the Soviet airforce was supposedly inferior flying scrap-metal?). Even that would prove nothing though, since the Pakistan airforce was not remotely comparable to the major NATO airforces of the 1980s anyway and it would be the Pakistani airforce that the Soviets would engage over Pakistan, not NATO.

Likewise comparing the Pakistani airforce of the 1980s to the Yugoslav airforce of the 1990s is also an apples and oranges comparison. It almost seems as though you were trying to argue that the Pakistani airforce of the 1980s was superior to the Soviet airforce of the 1980s (which would be completely farcical).

The Soviet airforce of the 1980s doesn't need to be superior to the NATO airforces of the 1990s, nor does it need the Pakistani airforce of the 1980s to be inferior to the Yugoslav airforce of the 1990s. All the Soviet airforce needs is to have the Pakistani airforce to be inferior to itself.

And with regards to the Syrian airforce, perhaps its best to remember that the Soviets intentionally made lower quality weapons for export than for their own armed forces. So looking at the performance of the Syrian airforces aircraft tells you very little about the aircraft operated by the Soviet airforce itself. Also, who's to say the Soviets gave the Syrians the same kind of training they would give their own pilots? If they gave them lower standard equipment, who's to say they didn't give them lower standards of training? What would really clinch the argument about the Syrian and Pakistani airforces would be for both you and CanadianGoose to provide even rough sources. If CanadianGoose can provide some source for analysts judging the Syrian and Iraqi airforces to be among the two best in the Muslim world (and not just the Arab world), then it would up to you to provide sources claiming Pakistan's airforce was any better. And if the Syrians were supposedly not impressed with Pakistan's airforce in the 1980s (which it seems CanadianGoose has a personal observation of if I remember the discussion thus far) that doesn't speak very well for Pakistan's airforce (especially considering that you derided the Syrian airforce's performance in the 1980s).

Grimm Reaper said:
You also calmly pass over the number of Soviet divisions which would have to be deployed on the border and the number to hold portions of Pakistan for an extended period, something I doubt Moscow would have done. And it would be far easier for the US to get weapons to Pakistan than to Afghanistan, just set up a naval base in Pakistan, defend it with US air power, then have the ships arrive with the armaments.

Actually nobody said anything about a Soviet occupation of Pakistan. The scenario posited that the Soviets act in the same way as the Americans did with regards to Laos and Cambodia. Did the Americans need to hold portions of Laos and Cambodia for extended periods of time? (and the term "extended" would have to be defined here).

The US supplying weapons and setting up a naval base is dependent on a number of factors. The first being Pakistan willing to continue. Once the Soviets establish air superiority in Pakistan (which they would do eventually even if it was a bit expensive in terms of losses), then Pakistan is put at an incredible disadvantage regionally since after the war with the Soviets (which would end sooner or later) it would be stuck without an airforce (or at least with only a small number of aircraft) while the possibility of war with India remained (and even Pakistan knows that the US isn't going to send in the USAF to act as Pakistan's airforce in another Indo-Pakistani War). Also it would depend on the US being willing to get into an open war with the Soviets....over Pakistan. In trying to meet the parameters of the OP some posters have speculated that Carter would still have to be President in order for the US to not want to get very involved and to be unwilling to escalate.

Grimm Reaper said:
5) No, it isn't remotely what you said. Pakistan had already lost, which was why India felt it was safe to intervene and that such intervention even would help Pakistan save face(powerful neighbor victorious versus local separatists victorious).

This isn't what happened. Pakistan's actions at the time are at odds with the idea that it had already lost (or at least at odds with the idea that Pakistan knew it had lost). Pakistan flew in 5 battalions as reinforcements in the later stages of the civil war before the Indian intervention and Pakistan also carried out a pre-emptive air attack on India (which provided India with the official reason for war). If Pakistan knew it had lost, why fly in reinforcements and get India involved? If Pakistan had lost and was willing to leave East Pakistan/Bangladesh then India wouldn't have gone to war since it wouldn't need to intervene against Pakistan to stem the flow of refugees nor would Pakistan have struck first.

Grimm Reaper said:
....that such intervention even would help Pakistan save face(powerful neighbor victorious versus local separatists victorious).

India intervened to help Pakistan save face? That sounds more like a conspiracy theory. Any proof there? India was supportive of the Bangladeshi rebels (Indira Gandhi expressed her support for the rebels and India eventually began supplying weapons and training to the Mukti Bahini rebels). Anyway, even if India did intervene to help the Pakistan military ruler (Khan) save face it didn't work since he resigned in disgrace (and with protests in the streets and rumours of a coup) and handed power to the civilian Bhutto.
 
Can we have an ATL were the Soviet Union agrees with India to attack Pakistan?
By splitting Pakistan with India, the Soviet Union gains access to the Indian Ocean and can control the Persian Gulf with ease.
 
Can we have an ATL were the Soviet Union agrees with India to attack Pakistan?
By splitting Pakistan with India, the Soviet Union gains access to the Indian Ocean and can control the Persian Gulf with ease.

I think the United States would blow a basket if the Soviets got a warm-water port, particularly one so close to the Persian Gulf. WWIII commences soon afterwards.

Of course, if the Soviets only got the tribal areas and India got the south, that keeps Soviet power contained and MIGHT be acceptable.
 
And with regards to the Syrian airforce, perhaps its best to remember that the Soviets intentionally made lower quality weapons for export than for their own armed forces. So looking at the performance of the Syrian airforces aircraft tells you very little about the aircraft operated by the Soviet airforce itself. Also, who's to say the Soviets gave the Syrians the same kind of training they would give their own pilots? If they gave them lower standard equipment, who's to say they didn't give them lower standards of training?
Soviet planes supplied to Syria were lower-grade weapons (I would-not say low-quality, just low-range models without the latest bells and whistles in avionics and sometimes equipped with lower performance engines, but decent machines anyway). Training... It's hard to tell. My personal observation is that Syrians were advanced-trained in the same flying schools as Soviet pilots, but did they receive the same training, I dunno. What I do know is that airborn Syrians were treated as absolute disaster by fellow pilots. Days when Syrians flew were informally known as "Syrian Alarm" and Soviet Air Force units who shared airfield with training school tried to minimize their activities that day.

What would really clinch the argument about the Syrian and Pakistani airforces would be for both you and CanadianGoose to provide even rough sources. If CanadianGoose can provide some source for analysts judging the Syrian and Iraqi airforces to be among the two best in the Muslim world (and not just the Arab world), then it would up to you to provide sources claiming Pakistan's airforce was any better.
Most sources, while noting abysmal Syrian performance against Israel, still consider Syrians to be one of the best among Muslim/Arab nations: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/MML.htm
http://www.meib.org/articles/0108_s1.htm
http://books.google.ca/books?id=tFR...i5W3BLn&sig=jEJ3NhcE0xkRrbr56OxLG6Ufkc8&hl=en

And if the Syrians were supposedly not impressed with Pakistan's airforce in the 1980s (which it seems CanadianGoose has a personal observation of if I remember the discussion thus far) that doesn't speak very well for Pakistan's airforce (especially considering that you derided the Syrian airforce's performance in the 1980s)
Sorry for making myself clear. My personal observations are about comparison between Soviet and Syrian air forces. Speaking of comparison between Pakistani and Syrians, my sources are mostly in Russian. However, even Wikipedia article is telling that Syrians, decimated in 1973, grudgingly accepted just 8 Pakistani pilots and never made any requests to enforce the group. Apparently they considered gains of having Pakistanis not worth the trouble.

Actually nobody said anything about a Soviet occupation of Pakistan. The scenario posited that the Soviets act in the same way as the Americans did with regards to Laos and Cambodia. Did the Americans need to hold portions of Laos and Cambodia for extended periods of time?
I tried to ram this idea through his head number of times. It did not work. Hope you will have more success.

The US supplying weapons and setting up a naval base is dependent on a number of factors. The first being Pakistan willing to continue. Once the Soviets establish air superiority in Pakistan (which they would do eventually even if it was a bit expensive in terms of losses), then Pakistan is put at an incredible disadvantage regionally since after the war with the Soviets (which would end sooner or later) it would be stuck without an airforce (or at least with only a small number of aircraft) while the possibility of war with India remained (and even Pakistan knows that the US isn't going to send in the USAF to act as Pakistan's airforce in another Indo-Pakistani War). Also it would depend on the US being willing to get into an open war with the Soviets....over Pakistan.
Exactly my idea.

India intervened to help Pakistan save face? That sounds more like a conspiracy theory. Any proof there? India was supportive of the Bangladeshi rebels (Indira Gandhi expressed her support for the rebels and India eventually began supplying weapons and training to the Mukti Bahini rebels). Anyway, even if India did intervene to help the Pakistan military ruler (Khan) save face it didn't work since he resigned in disgrace (and with protests in the streets and rumours of a coup) and handed power to the civilian Bhutto.
Isn't it topic for another discussion?

I think the United States would blow a basket if the Soviets got a warm-water port, particularly one so close to the Persian Gulf. WWIII commences soon afterwards.
Soviets had small naval base at Socotra and big one in Cam Ranh Bay, so it is not as clear-cut...
 
Top