This is coolbert: Here are some amazing statistics about Soviet casualties incurred during the almost ten years of warfare in Afghanistan. [All these figures "about" figures]

Dead - - 15,000 [from all sources].

Wounded - - 50,000 [from all sources].

Disease - - 400,000 [from all sources].

Note: "From all sources" means combat and non-combat sources.

Now, it is that last figure that catches my attention. 400,000 casualties from disease. No breakdown is given for the types of diseases. Probably mostly water-borne intestinal afflictions. Cholera, hepatitis, diarrhea, parasites, etc. In a previous blog I had mentioned that traditionally, one of the two biggest killers in war was water. Either not having enough to drink, or drinking bad [diseased] water. Other diseases may have been a factor here too. Within the current Russian Federation, tuberculosis seems to be a big problem now. Could be that tuberculosis was brought home from infected Soviet troops who were exposed to the disease in Afghan? Not sure about hepatitis being spread by the use of dirty needles among users of drugs? Drug use was a problem for the Soviet troops in Afghan. But this would have been mostly hashish and opiates, not necessarily heroin or morphine injected by needle. I would suspect that most disease the Soviets had was from bad water, bad food, and just plain dirty living conditions.

Personal and group [unit] hygiene is very important on the battlefield. This is something that must be very strictly disciplined by leadership if a unit is not to fall victim to debilitating disease. The unit becomes ineffective. It appears that a break down of this discipline did occur within Soviet forces in Afghan, with very marked effect.

The Soviet military medical system was in all likelihood just not geared to combating disease that would be found in an army occupied by a many year war in a land of very primitive conditions [Afghan]. Soviet military medicine was geared more probably to dealing with casualties that would be incurred in a short, very intense war with the U.S., casualties that would be inflicted by modern weaponry, not disease. Not a protracted war under conditions that the Soviets faced in Afghan. Soviet military medicine was just overwhelmed.

And one additional very important factor probably was present. I would suspect that the Soviet top brass just had a very indifferent, don't care attitude toward the whole disease situation. Just did not care to take proper preventative measures that would have gone a long way. Life can be very cheap in some societies.

My own personal comment: That ratio of 50,000 wounded to 15,000 dead is a ratio of 3.33. Recall in a previous blog the U.S. Vietnam experience was 3.44 wounded for each dead. Pretty close, eh!?

coolbert.