All matters Rhodesian / Rhodesia (merged thread)

[Ken White]

Studied by whom?

Many in the US. Not least the Infantry School and RAND (as Jslade0 mentioned).You miss that?

Carries his weapon? Hanging a weapon on a sling around your neck (hands free) is called carrying a weapon?

No. That's called hanging your weapon around your neck (hands free). The pictures below shows the new and the old carry. The Recruiting Poster is from whence we learned it. You miss that, too?

"Tactically" means what happens at tactical level. Success there like "they never lost a battle" is meaningful (even if not fully true) regardless of what the politicians foulded up or they could not withstand in terms of international pressure.

It's meaningful to those who fought those battles -- to others, not so much. And as you say, even if not fully true. Add that if, in the end, for whatever reason if the tactics were great and Rhodesia is no more, then the strategy was flawed. Rightly or wrongly, the actions of the US , UK and moist of the Europeans were fairly predictable -- as were those of Russia and China.

You guys did good because you had to, that lends an impetus missing today. That simple.

[JMA]

Many in the US. Not least the Infantry School and RAND (as Jslade0 mentioned).You miss that?

Must have.

You see I am researching for a book on the RLI right now and have found there are very few published sources on this topic. I should be forgiven for asking what source documents they are using for this study?

No. That's called hanging your weapon around your neck (hands free). The pictures below shows the new and the old carry. The Recruiting Poster is from whence we learned it. You miss that, too?

Well what you may have missed was that when I arrived in Rhodesia in 1973 most weapons were carried on the shoulder (hunting style) and the RLI operated in shorts and t-shirts with no camo cream. Once the war got hotter and the casualty rate increased and the dots were connected we moved into full camo with all exposed skin camo'd. There were some hold outs who insisted on wearing shorts and Tshirts and camo'd their legs and arms.

And of course the weapons moved to the ready at all times. (Daily "pokey drill" was done when in camp to strengthen the required muscles in this regard.)

It's meaningful to those who fought those battles -- to others, not so much. And as you say, even if not fully true. Add that if, in the end, for whatever reason if the tactics were great and Rhodesia is no more, then the strategy was flawed. Rightly or wrongly, the actions of the US , UK and moist of the Europeans were fairly predictable -- as were those of Russia and China.

Competence at every level is meaningful. For the private soldier skill at arms and combat competence are the most important thing for him and his mates. All armies should provide the training at that (and all levels) which will allow their soldiers to have the skill at arms edge over the enemy of the day.

That said the political issues may be a whole lot more complicated and problematic but that does not diminish the personal skill of the soldiers nor the combat effectiveness of fire teams/sections/platoons.companies/battalions when viewed separately and specifically.

I will leave the comment on the geopolitics as the Rhodesian military can be studied with only limited reference to the political mistakes and who screwed who...

You guys did good because you had to, that lends an impetus missing today. That simple.

There was a wide variation in quality between the regular units, the national service (conscripts), the Territorial units (reserves), the police and the various militias. Everyone can carry a weapon but not everyone makes a good fighting soldier. Yes, when going the extra mile is directly motivated by keeping families, wives, children and the lot safe (when they live an hour or twos drive from the "operational area") it is not too difficult to get the troops up for that.

Having a low grade enemy also helped.

[Ken White]

Competence at every level is meaningful. For the private soldier skill at arms and combat competence are the most important thing for him and his mates. All armies should provide the training at that (and all levels) which will allow their soldiers to have the skill at arms edge over the enemy of the day.

That said the political issues may be a whole lot more complicated and problematic but that does not diminish the personal skill of the soldiers nor the combat effectiveness of fire teams/sections/platoons.companies/battalions when viewed separately and specifically.

Totally agree on both counts. That we -- the US -- do not really provide such competence in peacetime is to an extent an indictment of the politicians and senior military leadership who preclude better training. In their defense, the anti-military tradition in the anglosphere generally is huge part of that problem. That is likely not going away.

Your comment on the political issues not taking away from the performance of the troops is spot on.

On the topic of what sources were used in the study of Rhodesion tactics and methods, the RAND study (LINK / .pdf) has a bibliography. You may have already seen the report or parts of it. The bibliography cites Cilliers, Cocks, Moorcraft, Venter, Reid-Daly and Stiff. As for the US Army and the Infantry school, a combination of FAOs, Defense Attaches from RSA and other neighboring nations and probably dispatched observers at the time. While paying attention to events there was not politically correct at the time, the Army's been known to cheat on policies emanating from D.C. Serving in the US Army at the time, I can recall great interest in what was being done and how you were operating at all levels. Mostly, reliance at the time was on media reports, though I can recall seeing a Benning printed copy of a manual purporting to be, IIRC, the Rhodesian Forces Counterinsurgency and Anti-Terrorist Operations (or something like that) shortly before I retired in '77. You've probably seen and may recall these LINK, LINK / .pdf. They came later but the interest at the time was significant. Still is...

[JMA]

Totally agree on both counts. That we -- the US -- do not really provide such competence in peacetime is to an extent an indictment of the politicians and senior military leadership who preclude better training. In their defense, the anti-military tradition in the anglosphere generally is huge part of that problem. That is likely not going away.

Glad we agree on this.

I can only hope that the US can somehow maintain a core cadre of competent NCOs to pass on the skill at arms until this is once again needed on a grand scale.

Your comment on the political issues not taking away from the performance of the troops is spot on.

I got bitten twice (Rhodesia and South Africa) and promised myself I would never trust a politician - any politician - again. How many times in the average military career do US servicemen get bitten by the politicians? Must be damn infuriating.

On the topic of what sources were used in the study of Rhodesion tactics and methods, the RAND study (LINK / .pdf) has a bibliography. You may have already seen the report or parts of it. The bibliography cites Cilliers, Cocks, Moorcraft, Venter, Reid-Daly and Stiff. As for the US Army and the Infantry school, a combination of FAOs, Defense Attaches from RSA and other neighboring nations and probably dispatched observers at the time. While paying attention to events there was not politically correct at the time, the Army's been known to cheat on policies emanating from D.C. Serving in the US Army at the time, I can recall great interest in what was being done and how you were operating at all levels. Mostly, reliance at the time was on media reports, though I can recall seeing a Benning printed copy of a manual purporting to be, IIRC, the Rhodesian Forces Counterinsurgency and Anti-Terrorist Operations (or something like that) shortly before I retired in '77. You've probably seen and may recall these LINK, LINK / .pdf. They came later but the interest at the time was significant. Still is...

Thank you. The first pdf I had not yet seen. Am reading at this moment. The other two I have seen and also the references you mention.

Likewise I tried to read as much stuff out of Vietnam as I could. Too much happened there for a soundbite comment.

Good heavens... been retired for 32 years! What did you do with all that time?

[Ken White]

Glad we agree on this...I can only hope that the US can somehow maintain a core cadre of competent NCOs to pass on the skill at arms until this is once again needed on a grand scale...How many times in the average military career do US servicemen get bitten by the politicians? Must be damn infuriating.

Yes, yes and YEEeessss!

If I run across any other Rhodesian related tomes or papers I'll send you a link.

Good heavens... been retired for 32 years! What did you do with all that time?

Spent the first 18 working as a civilian for the Army in intel, ops and training -- I think that's called masochism...

As a result of being overpaid at that, have been able to spend the last 15 or so doing as little as possible and looking for good Bourbon -- with some success in both areas.