Originally Posted by el_guapo

Well they didn't have the political will, and motivation in Afghanistan did they? Infact Soviets were in a stalemate with the rag tag Mujahadeen in 5 years in the war. Soviets were no match for the Mujahadeen man to man. It was a stalement, because the Soviets had one thing the Mujahadeen didn't have, which was airpower, and the HIND gunship was invincible until the CIA introduced a little weapon known as the Stinger AAA missle launcher. Soviet capabilities are greatly exaggerated. True they had numbers in tanks, artillery, etc, but I wouldn't say the Soviets were competent.

US had very lethal anti-tank platforms such as the A-10 Warthog, now named the Thunderbolt, and the Apache. These two can wreck havoc on armored forces. If I remember correctly A-10 accounted for 80 percent depletion of Iraq armor during the Gulf War. In Afghanistan today, the A-10 can go to places that jet aircraft, and helicopters can't, because of ceiling, and mountainous terrain.

The problem with Soviet military was the fact they relied heavily on mechanized armor. Where the US would rather save their tanks if the opportunity presents itself deploying aircraft to destroy tanks, instead of head to head tank battles. Rock/scissor/paper concept. Soviet mechanized forces were easy prey for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. In a war of attrition US would win easily with it's industrial capacity, and logistically the US was, and still the best at keeping the supply lines running.