Rhodesian COIN (consolidated thread, inc original RLI)

[davidbfpo]

Fuchs,

This is a long running thread and IIRC the political aspects have appeared before. I have not gone back to see what posts said though.

Yes Rhodesia was a white minority regime for nearly all it's history, first as a self-governing colony, in 1965 it declared itself independent (UDI), then declaring itself a republic, agreed to an 'Internal Settlement' with power-sharing, before The Lancaster House Agreement - from which Zimbabwe emerged.

Rhodesia's mistake was to refuse to consider any realistic settlement before the 'men of violence', the external nationalists, started their war. Ian Smith argued with some of his advisers "Why talk, when we are so strong?"; an approach that was to be seen in South Africa, before political change.

I am not sure if an internal, realistic settlement was possible.

By time the 'Internal Settlement' was agreed the war - fought overwhelmingly in the rural areas, with a huge African population and very few whites - had entrenched both sides. Between both sides were the rural Africans terrorised by the 'men of violence'. I recall vividly white Rhodesians who I meet in 1985 saying any African loyalty depended on a rural African calculus over who had the power over their future, it was that calculus that changed.

Nor should the steady increase in emigration of the Rhodesian white population be overlooked as the war intensified.

The cross-border operations some contend failed to address the internal political situation and the 'Fire Force' approach gained time by killing some of the incoming flood of guerillas. Plus unlucky civilians.

Finally after 1980 two academics wrote on the failure of the Rhodesia's war-fighting strategy, Jackie Cilliers and Michael Evans - they are both worth reading. I am not aware of any updates in the last thirty years, as Fuchs has noted much of the commentary on SWC reviews the military tactics used.

[Fuchs]

David, Rhodesia doesn't really bother me.
You probably noticed already that I step in from time to time when things here get too politically uncritical, too tolerant of what should not be tolerated in civilised countries.

The conversion of a thread into a RLI appreciation thread with photos of badges, lots of sentimentality about good old times etc was as bothering to me as would have been a SS fanboi theme or a scalp-hunting theme in a SWC thread.

Accordingly, I'm not too happy about seeing my reply moved from the intended location. It could just as well be deleted in this one.

[JMA]

No hard sources on this one.

Yet you state it as if it was a major oversight that the Rhodesians would prefer remains untold? That does not reflect well upon you.

The nature of warfare of WW2 was mostly of inter-state nature, encompassed almost all forms of warfare and all great powers of the period were far from having a white vest.

Not quite. (I am wondering whether is a deliberate attempt to hide the horrible truth) The record shows that the Nazis deliberately targeted religions (Jews) and ethnicities (Slavs).

I don't think that German or generally WW2 experiences in terror bombing or in occupation warfare are of real value to us today. The only theoretical interest that I have in German WW2 occupation warfare or generally German warfare against opposition of clearly inferior nature co0ncerns the origin of Jagdkampf, which lays at least concerning the word itself in anti-guerilla patrols.

Ok, what you believe is of historical value or not is certainly not the definitive opinion but merely your personal opinion. There are lessons to be learned - both positive and negative - from just about all wars and all armies/forces which would have some value today.

Because this is practically a South Africa and Rhodesia bush war appreciation and idol thread by now.

Not sure why that would worry or concern you if it were true. As with other wars/insurgencies there are both positives and negatives that come out of the Rhodesian bush war.

Who is forcing you to read that thread? Or are you deciding what people should be allowed to read or not?

(There is nothing in this thread about the South African border war or Angola other than a photo of a American who served in both Rhodesia and SWA/Angola... so do try to be more accurate.)

We could discuss North Korea in a North Korea thread.

There is a thread on North Korea... nothing stopping you from posting there.

Save for North Korea and some poorly definable issues at the Sahel zone there's no oppression that comes close to the one of a Spartan model with a tiny caste of oppressors, a class of semi-free and a vast majority caste of unfree labourers anywhere in the world.

Nonsense. Go do your research. You are viewing the world with one eye closed.

Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia did fit such a description, though. They were practically what the Nazis wanted East Europe to turn into: Nazi states that persisted until long after WW2.

That is merely a statement without substantiation. An intelligent commentator would never group Rhodesia together with South Africa on that basis.

Go on try to exercise your intellect a little... try to draft a list of countries where a minority exercised hegemony over a subjugated majority (say since WW2). When you get to five you can stop... and I don't expect you to be man enough to print an apology in the public domain.

There are thousands of definitions of terrorism, it is one of the most ill-defined words in the world and commonly mis-used to portray armed opposition other than on the battlefield as despicable.

Caught out again so you duck and dive about definitions.

Keep it simple... use this one: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons"

Whatever the cause may be - noble or otherwise - if such methods are used then it is terrorism... simple as that.

Now here's a thing... I didn't meet one democrat or human rights activist among the ZANU/ZAPU military or political wings during the war... nor have any been evident in the post 1980 Zimbabwe. Now how come you supposed smart guys missed that?

It's pointless to point fingers at terrorist tactics after leaving little else to the enemy as practically available repertoire and then label the entire violent opposition as terrorists.

Terrorism is terrorism... and your political or ideological support of those using terrorism changes nothing. As I said... show me the democrats and human rights activists who were fighting to liberate the subjugated masses... surely after 30 years of liberation you would be able to identify at least one Zimbabwean? The leftists in Europe and North America were little more than useful idiots to be exploited at the time. That - 30 years on - there are still people who believe that Rhodesia fought a war of liberation defies belief.

The South Africans and Rhodesians regularly designated their opponents as terrorists and communists in an attempt to mobilize domestic and foreign support, but the most telling nature of those enemies was that they were fighting against most of the people being enslaved by their own government.

Again it is not intelligent to group South Africa with Rhodesia together nor to believe that the struggles in those countries were to liberate the masses. Events in post 1980 Zimbabwe prove that it was merely a transfer of power to another minority... and as you will have noticed in South Africa it is much the same (time will no doubt prove it true as well). So you and the liberals in the West don't come out of this very well intellectually do you?

One side's freedom fighters are the other side's terrorists, and in my opinion the side that has the moral high ground deserves to win the narrative. Those who fought against de facto slavery had overall the moral high ground, while the government forces of Rhodesia and South Africa ranged morally on Waffen-SS level, driven by an ideology and racism that was a perfect equal.

Use of the word slavery is a lunatic assertion and brings your grasp of the circumstances (and your intelligence it must be said) into question.

Your recall of history is selective.

Your Waffen-SS analogy is childishly provocative. The vast majority of Rhodesians and subsequent post war immigrants fought against Nazi Germany in WW2. Nothing you say will change that nor redefine the reality of the Rhodesian history.

By all means start your own thread to discuss South Africa... this thread is about Rhodesia.

Your reply exposes that you're under the wrong impression that I would somehow associate specially with WW2-era Germany or have somehow a psychological problem with German history.
I suppose that's not the case. Whatever focus on German military history I have is a result of my easy access to German language sources and the major German involvement in both World Wars. Indeed, I don't think there's any good reason for a special attachment to one's own country's military history. My studies include hundreds to thousands of years of warfare from five continents. There are lessons to be drawn from everywhere and all time periods.
The lessons from Rhodesia on the other hand appear to be supremely useless for any reasonable military endeavour.

It is standard among Germans that there remains a raw nerve about their past politically, racially and militarily. Hence the almost guaranteed response - such as yours - where it is felt a politically correct - bending over backwards response is needed on any or all of these three factors.

This raw emotion is evident in your response... and for that I pity you.

[JMA]

No matter what RLI or other units did militarily; for today it's entirely useless because

(1) they fought against marginal quality opposition.
It's like Italians mopping up Abbessinians, then getting bagged by numerically inferior Commonwealth forces on first contact who then in turn got torn a new one once a few Germans had arrived on the scene. Who thinks we should learn from the Italians '37???
Seriously, who thinks the RLI/fire force would have been of ANY use in face of a motorised East German rifle battalion guarded by two Shilkas??

The old style German arrogance is coming out again.

In war first you need to know your enemy. Not sure that after 70 years you can still lay claim with any certainty of how the German military of today would perform. But by all means dream on.

Whether you like it or not the Rhodesians knew their enemy and demonstrated it through a number of audacious surprise attacks against targets which resulted in almost unbelievable results at very low KIA/WIA cost.

Yes the enemy was low quality but the Rhodesians knew how and with what force levels to take the war to the enemy.

As to the Fire Force it remains a classic example of find, fix and finish.

Doing this with the basic building block of 4-man sticks placed interesting demands on command, leadership and structural issues not faced by most other militaries.

And to your ridiculous comment about the much vaunted but untested East Germans with Shilkas. If they had been the enemy a different method and means would have had to be developed. Simple.

However, I do understand your confusion with war in general and minor tactics specifically and that rises from your lack of combat experience. If you had such experience you would understand that the spiritual and mental attributes such as tenacity, morale, team work, dedication and the will to fight and training standard are far more important than numbers or equipment.

As Napoleon said: "Morale makes up three-quarters of the game; the relative balance of manpower accounts for only the remaining quarter."

How would you understand this if you have not been there? This is why I suggest that you need to be careful of making uneducated comments about circumstances you have no basis for understanding.

[Fuchs]

Come on, your view on Rhodesia is excessively uncritical. I did not expect any other view and that's why I jumped in in the first place.

My remarks about the analogies stand and I do not feel that your attempts at refuting them have any weight. Rhodesia fought against Nazis? So what? So did the Stalin. This doesn't exclude the possibility of having a horrible regime.

Hitler's plan for East Europe was one with Germans settling there as the exploiting, warlike masters with the exploited Slavs working in the agricultural sector and mines.
The Spartan model was similar, with an intermediate caste.

Rhodesia may not have had such a strong intermediate caste ("coloured people", Asians) as did South Africa, but the Blacks could easily be understood as Slaves to the state, to be employed at far below fair wage by the Whites and they clearly didn't get the same quality or quantity of services from the state.



Maybe you should do some research yourself, since your idea of what Rhodesia was like is obviously tainted by being a White and by having developed a lot of sentimentality.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/000...1/016163eo.pdf

Now guess what level of discrimination was Hitler planning for the separation of Slavs and Germans.

He would basically have copied this link.
Well, maybe he would have preferred less involvement of Germans in agriculture, for he really, really disliked rural environments and agriculture personally.

So yes, since "Nazis" is nowadays a rather wide description that does not necessitate them being Germans, I can easily and correctly describe the Rhodesia as a historical Nazi state. You were effectively fighting for a Nazi regime.
The excuse that said regime did fight against original Nazis a generation earlier does help ####, for the same did not keep Stalin from being among mankind's top three mass murderers and leading one of mankind's worst-ever regimes either.



Last but not least; the idea that Rhodesians could have coped well with quality opposition is almost entirely without base. They sucked in WW2.
The ability to mop up marginal quality opposition does not mean anything about one's ability to cope with quality opposition, and little to nothing is to be learned from the former for the latter. That's what my Abbessinians-Italians-British-Germans story was meant to show.

P.S.: The East German military was in many regards better (more serious and disciplined) than the West German one.

[JMA]

Come on, your view on Rhodesia is excessively uncritical. I did not expect any other view and that's why I jumped in in the first place.

My remarks about the analogies stand and I do not feel that your attempts at refuting them have any weight. Rhodesia fought against Nazis? So what? So did the Stalin. This doesn't exclude the possibility of having a horrible regime.

Hitler's plan for East Europe was one with Germans settling there as the exploiting, warlike masters with the exploited Slavs working in the agricultural sector and mines.
The Spartan model was similar, with an intermediate caste.

Rhodesia may not have had such a strong intermediate caste ("coloured people", Asians) as did South Africa, but the Blacks could easily be understood as Slaves to the state, to be employed at far below fair wage by the Whites and they clearly didn't get the same quality or quantity of services from the state.

Maybe you should do some research yourself, since your idea of what Rhodesia was like is obviously tainted by being a White and by having developed a lot of sentimentality.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/000...1/016163eo.pdf

Now guess what level of discrimination was Hitler planning for the separation of Slavs and Germans.

He would basically have copied this link.
Well, maybe he would have preferred less involvement of Germans in agriculture, for he really, really disliked rural environments and agriculture personally.

So yes, since "Nazis" is nowadays a rather wide description that does not necessitate them being Germans, I can easily and correctly describe the Rhodesia as a historical Nazi state. You were effectively fighting for a Nazi regime.
The excuse that said regime did fight against original Nazis a generation earlier does help ####, for the same did not keep Stalin from being among mankind's top three mass murderers and leading one of mankind's worst-ever regimes either.

Last but not least; the idea that Rhodesians could have coped well with quality opposition is almost entirely without base. They sucked in WW2.
The ability to mop up marginal quality opposition does not mean anything about one's ability to cope with quality opposition, and little to nothing is to be learned from the former for the latter. That's what my Abbessinians-Italians-British-Germans story was meant to show.

P.S.: The East German military was in many regards better (more serious and disciplined) than the West German one.

I understand your German preoccupation with race... there seems to be little Germans can do about it.

None better evidenced than the continued innuendo of superior qualities of German soldiers. This is clearly not supported by the facts of history. What is supported by history is that the German military has been better organised and structured and in many cases better led than most other nations but the man for man comparison of the fighting men with the racially superior outcome for Germans is not only nonsense but the dangerous perpetuation of the myth of German racial superiority.

There is no shortcoming in the individual fighting ability or the levels of courage and bravery of the British or American soldiers just (as at last count 70 years ago) the individual German soldier acquitted himself well. You cling to some fantasy of the East German military as you know that both the Brits and Americans know from the Cold War experience that the (West) German army was a pathetic shadow of its former stature. Hence the need to place the East Germans on a pedestal. Doesn't work.

I would offer another more balanced source for a history of the Rhodesian war from the following book:

Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare - Daniel Marston & Carter Malkasian

... with the applicable chapter being:

COUNTERING THE CHIMURENGA: The Rhodesian Counterinsurgency Campaign 1962–80

It remains laughable that where the settlers and colonizers were of European origin their conquer and domination is somehow worse than the inter tribal wars/massacres/genocides that preceded the arrival of settlers in any given country.

In the case of the area called Rhodesia the Matebele (Ndebele) arrived a mere 60years before the Europeans and were in the process dealing with the Shona people through a continuing series of raids against them. European and North-American - so-called human rights activists, academics and assorted other useful idiots - completely ignore the obvious hypocrisy of their racially biased position.

Such politics are complicated and one appreciates that some will seek a simple explanation to a complex situation - like Rhodesians Bad, 'Nationalists' Good.

Simple people seek simple answers.

I still wait for someone to draw a comparison between the fate of the Africans (blacks) under European domination in Rhodesia and the fate of Tibetans under Chinese domination in Tibet.

Then the question you will not and can not answer... which is to provide proof that the people you placed on a pedestal - on the supposed moral high ground - the so-called 'Nationalists' were indeed the human rights activists and democrats they presented themselves as and not the thugs/mass murderers/thieves they to a man turned out to be once they were given the country.

Yes I know the admission of having been used as a 'useful idiot' by thugs and killers masquerading as human rights activists and democrats would be too painful. More black Zimbabweans have been killed after the bush war by the regime than were killed during the war. To Rhodesians this outcome was obvious... to the useful idiots this was met with (embarrassed) silence (and lamely blamed on the legacy of colonialism).

I am amazed that 32 years after the current regime was handed the country on a plate there are still those - you included - that believe the bush war was fought to suppress African people as opposed to an attempt to secure an orderly and controlled transition to majority rule.

[Fuchs]

I understand your German preoccupation with race... there seems to be little Germans can do about it.

None better evidenced than the continued innuendo of superior qualities of German soldiers.

Serious question: What do you smoke?
(Yes moderator, I am honestly interested in what he smokes. Gotta be something exotic.)

I am amazed that 32 years after the current regime was handed the country on a plate there are still those - you included - that believe the bush war was fought to suppress African people as opposed to an attempt to secure an orderly and controlled transition to majority rule.

I am always amazed anew at the naivet and gullibility of people in face of blatant propaganda.

[davidbfpo]

A newly discovered CSI article: 'The Rhodesian African Rifles: The Growth and Adaptation of a Multicultural Regiment through the Rhodesian Bush War, 1965-1980', which now joins my reading pile:http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/car...icanRifles.pdf

Added: JMA added a post below that the paper was already in this thread. Sigh, memory loss.

The Amazon precis:

The Rhodesian African Rifles overcame profoundly divisive racist and tribal differences among its members because a transcendent "regimental culture" superseded the disparate cultures of its individual soldiers and officers. The RAR's culture grew around the traditions of the British regimental system, after which the RAR was patterned. The soldiers of the RAR, regardless of racial or tribal background, identified themselves first as soldiers and members of the regiment, before their individual race and tribe. Regimental history and traditions, as well as shared hardships on deployments and training were mechanisms that forced officers and soldiers to see past differences. The RAR is remarkable because these bonds stayed true through to the end of the war, through incredible pressure on black Rhodesians to succumb to the black nationalist groups and cast off a government that was portrayed to them as oppressive, racist and hateful. Through the end of the Bush War, 1965-1980, RAR soldiers remained loyal and steadfast to their regiment, and that must be their legacy. In the end, the values of the government were irrelevant. It was the regiment that drew these men in, and their loyalty was more to their comrades and their heritage than to any particular government or cause.

A marked contrast - to date - with more contemporary conflicts, such as Afghanistan. Yes, there is a long running, large thread on Rhodesian COIN to which this will join one day:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2090

[Morgan]

David,

I've done a quick read-through and it looks quite interesting. In posting this, are you suggesting that we (US/ coalition/ etc...) attempt something similar in Afghanistan....local troops led by "western officers" or perhaps encourage/ promote a regimental system within the ANA?

[davidbfpo]

David,

I've done a quick read-through and it looks quite interesting. In posting this, are you suggesting that we (US/ coalition/ etc...) attempt something similar in Afghanistan....local troops led by "western officers" or perhaps encourage/ promote a regimental system within the ANA?

Morgan,

I would not go that far in Afghanistan, rather if similar interventions are considered which require a rebuilding of security forces consideration should be given to using features of such a unit as the RAR.

My recollection is that at least one attempt was made in Helmand to form a locally recruited or hired unit with a strong ISAF component, akin to the practices of the Imperial Indian Army on the North-West Frontier (which has appeared on an earlier thread).

Back to Rhodesia now. From reading long ago the RAR recruited mainly from one small tribe, who had a long tradition of service.

More when I have read the CSI paper.

[Morgan]

Morgan,


My recollection is that at least one attempt was made in Helmand to form a locally recruited or hired unit with a strong ISAF component, akin to the practices of the Imperial Indian Army on the North-West Frontier (which has appeared on an earlier thread).

David, Can you direct me to that thread? I was not aware of any such effort and am curious as to the results.

[davidbfpo]

Morgan,

The first thread is historical 'The Role of the British Political Officer on the North West Frontier':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ghlight=scouts

It took some searching, but in 2010 'Red Rat' referred, very briefly to a British unit in Helmand Province:

The 'Helmandi Scouts' which has been in the field for at least 2 years.

See Post 67 on the thread 'Counterinsurgency and Its Discontents'.

It is not clear IMHO whether this is a UK unit or a locally recruited unit. It does look suspiciously like the former.

A Google search found two other references, from a CSIS book / PDF that it was an Afghan unit, without a page reference alas:http://csis.org/files/publication/090727_ansf_draft.pdf

[JMA]

David, this thesis was covered in the Rhodesia thread from this point onwards:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&postcount=340

A newly discovered CSI article: 'The Rhodesian African Rifles: The Growth and Adaptation of a Multicultural Regiment through the Rhodesian Bush War, 1965-1980', which now joins my reading pile:http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/car...icanRifles.pdf

The Amazon precis:

A marked contrast - to date - with more contemporary conflicts, such as Afghanistan. Yes, there is a long running, large thread on Rhodesian COIN to which this will join one day:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2090

[davidbfpo]

Thanks to a BSAP History email alert, a partial quote:

Bird manages to describe life on an SB station in an operational area very well. He tells of the, hereto generally unknown and unsung, commitment, huge risks and sacrifices made during the ‘hondo’ by many dedicated members of SB. Exposed are the frustrations of intelligence gathering with counter-insurgency work, where useful information often fell on deaf ears, or where the clue-less, who should have known better, could never use the ‘int’ efficaciously. But there were exceptions, brave men who took to unconventional, if not dirty, tactics and with whom lifelong friendships endured.

Link:http://justandrewbooks.wordpress.com...ar-by-ed-bird/

Link to South African publisher:http://www.30degreessouth.co.za/ and the UK option:http://www.30degreessouth.co.uk/

Amazon UK shows the book will be published in January 2014:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Special-Bran...ial+Branch+War

[JMA]

It is noted with sadness the the Journal has deemed it fit to publish the following piece of garbage:

Drawing Lessons from Zimbabwe's War of Liberation: Efficacious Use of Propaganda and Violence

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...-of-liberation

It is a well known component of insurgencies that at a point the insurgents take control of the population and exert 'discipline' as a means of "defending the revolution". In many counter insurgencies more civilians are killed by the insurgents.

In Rhodesia we (the military) were both unwilling and unable to cross the line that the insurgents did as a matter of course.

As the publication of this garbage follows on from the publication of that scandalous piece by the Dutch boy in the MR a year (or so ago) it may indicate that US editors are less fastidious than they should be?

[JMA]

There has been some discussion on this (excuse for a) paper on the Journal. I have responded there. Mike also responded on the Rhodesian thread to which I will respond.

[davidbfpo]

I have consolidated four RFI threads into this:All matters Rhodesian / Rhodesia (merged thread)

A lot of information sits in the main thread: Rhodesian COIN (consolidated thread, inc original RLI) and the recently published book: Africa's Commandos - new book on the RLI (Now in Historians arena).

As the war in Rhodesia was within a region wracked by conflict it is worth checking another thread: South Africa's COIN war in SWA/Namibia/Angola and COIN in Africa: The Portuguese Way of War, 1961–1974 (Now in Historians arena).

A debate over the Rhodesian tactic 'Fireforce' is found in the Afghan context: Moving the Rhod. Fire Force concept to Afghanistan?

A general search finds Rhodesia / Rhodesian appears in over a hundred threads, often in book lists for example.

I have copied this to the main thread.

[davidbfpo]

History Today is a popular UK magazine and I caught this article today via Twitter. The title 'A Secret History of African Decolonisation' is misleading, the article is just about the French role in Rhodesia and is minus any footnotes:http://www.historytoday.com/joanna-w...decolonisation

The author is at Portsmouth University, her bio:http://www.port.ac.uk/centre-for-eur...na-warson.html

From the outset, French arms were vital to counterinsurgency efforts led by the Rhodesian Security Forces, with at least 50 French-manufactured Alouettes in the service of the Rhodesian Air Force (RhAF) between 1965 and 1980. The Rhodesians also had access to Mirage FI planes and Maxtra rocket launchers, leading one Zambian press report from 1977 to conclude that 22 per cent of all military material used by the RhAF was of French origin.

I found this odd. The Mirages were South African planes, I'd expect the Maxtra rocket launchers were too. IIRC the Alouettes came via commercial contacts, although Rhodesia did have some in 1965; I don't recall them being South African owned. In all my contacts with ex-Rhodesian military officers not one has mentioned the French.

[davidbfpo]

Bloggers use each other's material, so hat tip to this other site for assembling a set of video links to Rhodesian footage, in particular an American who served as an officer with the RAR (3yrs 1976-1979):http://www.smallwars.com/forum/analy...esian-bush-war

There's also, a so far unread MA dissertation by a Kings War Studies student, 'An Embarrassment of Riches? - Britain's Lost Lessons from the Thodesian Counterinsurgency War', 71 pgs:http://www.smallwars.com/articles/91...-adam-robinson


The Abstract:

The counterinsurgency war fought in Rhodesia has a particular resonance for Britain. The Rhodesian Forces fought a protracted war using largely British equipment and British tactics, learnt from a shared experience of counterinsurgency campaigns in Malaya, Kenya and Aden. When Rhodesia declared independence in 1965, the two countries went their separate ways and subsequent lessons from Rhodesia have generally gone unheeded by Britain. This paper will address the lessons that were presented by this war that could have been learnt and adopted by Britain during its subsequent counterinsurgencies of Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. The paper will go on to analyse why some of those lessons were not addressed or, if they were, whether it was from the experiences in Rhodesia or from the UK’s own experiences. The fundamental questions of how Britain learns its counterinsurgency lessons and whether there was a conscious decision, because of Rhodesian secession, to ignore any experiences from Rhodesia will be answered. By using academic sources, direct contact with those involved in the Rhodesian counterinsurgency and by reference to contemporary and current doctrine, this paper will conclude that there are several lessons from Rhodesia that the UK could have learnt, and even some that are still to be heeded. It will conclude that the UK has had, until recently, a poor history of studying and codifying counterinsurgencies, that it has always been introspective when examining counterinsurgency lessons, and that it was because of this, and no other reason, that Rhodesia is not taught as a counterinsurgency case-study.

[rhodtpr]

History Today is a popular UK magazine and I caught this article today via Twitter. The title 'A Secret History of African Decolonisation' is misleading, the article is just about the French role in Rhodesia and is minus any footnotes:http://www.historytoday.com/joanna-w...decolonisation

The author is at Portsmouth University, her bio:http://www.port.ac.uk/centre-for-eur...na-warson.html



I found this odd. The Mirages were South African planes, I'd expect the Maxtra rocket launchers were too. IIRC the Alouettes came via commercial contacts, although Rhodesia did have some in 1965; I don't recall them being South African owned. In all my contacts with ex-Rhodesian military officers not one has mentioned the French.

According to Petter-Bowyers "Winds of Destruction" (30 degrees South - 2005) the Rhodesian AF owned 8 Alouette III helicopters by late 1960-early 1970;

"We had only eight helicopters and could ill afford a slow turn around and the physical stresses that repeated refueling induced during intense operations." (P.102).

On page 107 of the same book Petter-Bower states that the Sud Aviation of France provided 3 more Alouette hellicopters after UDI in 1965 (to compliment the 5 in service at the time of UDI) in exchange for the RhAF newly designed and developed "pressure-refueling pump".

The SAAF provided men and equipment (Op Polo) from the mid-1970's in order to provide their aircrews with operational experience. A SAAF liason officer posting was permanently attached to RhAF HQ (P.239).

Through this relationship Rhodesia was able to employ South African aircrew and aircraft in the Bush War effectively sidestepping international sanctions that were in place against the country since UDI in 1965.

In 1976 a shipment of 18 Cessna 337's were flown directly from Reims in France to Rhodesia in two ferry moves...the planes were disguised as Malagasy fisheries aircraft and registered to a false company in Spain. The Rhodesian pilots were accompanied by a French pilot who handled all the communications and logistics involved in the move. (P.253-259)

Operation Sand involved the training of RhAF pilots and aircrew via attachment to the SAAF on all SAAF aircraft which included RhAF pilots manning a squadron of Mirage III aircraft (p.266).