OT: Rhodesian War Resources

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Now that's just awesome. Please tell me you have a copy of that still and if you do, what's the odds of getting one myself?

Naw, one of those things that got lost over the years, like my D&D characters. Now that really hurt. I used to save them all, dead or alive.

[dragoon500ly]

The Oppos:

There were basically three African nationalist organizations involved in the Rhodesian Bush War, there are:

Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU). This was the original nationalist movement led by Joshua Nkomo. It's military wing is the Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army or ZPRU, led by "Nikita" Mangena until his death in 1978 and succeeded by "Lookout" Masuku. Basically, this is the Russian-backed faction. ZIPRA is the more "regular" of the two major organizations. It remained based in Zambia and Botswana. Enjoying lavish Soviet supportthan its ZANLA rivals. By 1977, ZIPRA had few guerrillas in Rhodesia (200 active vs 3,000 ZANLA). This was partially due to their hope for a negotiated settlement, but there was also a widely-held belief that they were waiting for ZANLA and the Rhodesian security forces would fight each other to a standstill. ZIPRA held its main forces in Zambia where they built-up a conventional mechanized brigade equipped with T-34 tanks and BTR-152 APCs. It was also confirmed that ZIPRA was planning a full scale assault into Rhodesia by 1979, supported by their own air force.

Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU). Formed in 1963 when a number of more radical nationalists left ZAPU to form their own movement. Led by Robert Mugabe after 1975. Its military army is the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA), intially led by a political committee until 1974, when Joseph Tongogara was appointed commander until his death in 1979 and replaced by Rex Nhongo. Basically, this is the Chinese-backed faction. Initially operated from bases in Zambia, but following the the collapse of Portuguese rule in Mozambique in 1974, they shifted the majority of their forces/support network there. ZANLA had more manpower and maintained more guerrillia groups in Rhodesia. Also noted as the more terrorist-like of the guerrillias.

Front For the Liberation of Zimbabwe (FROLIZI). Formed in 1970 by breakaway sections of both ZAPU and ZANU. It tried to operate its own guerrilla groups but could not compete with the larger organizations. Disappeared after 1974.

Having two different nationalist organizations is clearly counter-productive and in 1972, ZAPU and ZANU were persuaded to establish a Joint Military Command by the various African states that also supported the two organizations. The JMC failed to work. A more determined attempt was made in 1975, when the military wings were forced to unite as the Zimbabwe People's Army (ZIPA). It was commanded by a new Joint Military Command headed by ZANLA's Nhongo, with a ZIPRA deputy. There were several attempts to integrate the two forces, but there were difficulties from the start, by 1977, the ZIPA was effectively ZANLA-controlled.

Both groups operated in teams of about ten men, armed with a RPG-7 or light mortar, a light machine gun and half a dozen automatic rifles. Weapons included Russian grenades, Tokarov pistols, PPSh SMGs, SKS carbines and AK-47 assault rifles, Czech M52/65, French MAS and even old German Mauser rifles and MP-40 SMGs. Soviet pattern land lines and even 75mm recoilless rifles were also used, but the problems of transporting them limited their use.

Each team would have a commander and his deputy, a political commissar and his deputy, medical, supply and security specialists and about three ordinary guerillias. Reconnaissance was the responsibility of the "mujibas", boys of school age who hung around the army camps and passed on details of what they saw. Other services were provided by "chimbwidos", female helpers who cooked and carried supplies and messages for the guerillias.

[Matt W]

Important point to note for those who admire the fighting ability of Rhodesians or - for that matter - people like Confederates and Waffen SS.

THEY LOST

All of these example sindicate that "Good tactics are less important than good strategy"

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Matt W

Important point to note for those who admire the fighting ability of Rhodesians or - for that matter - people like Confederates and Waffen SS.

I think that a lot of people are attracted to these eras/groups/whatever because of the romantic appeal of the valiant fight to defend a lost cause. Oh, and maybe their racist ideologies have something to do with it too. It's kind of sad.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I think that a lot of people are attracted to these eras/groups/whatever because of the romantic appeal of the valiant fight to defend a lost cause. Oh, and maybe their racist ideologies have something to do with it too. It's kind of sad.

that said - if you consider who was the better force and start that argument, many a loosing side has had its share of legendary units and soldiers.

I would like to think we can discuss these matters without actually coming across as condoning any unacceptable views.

please correct me if I am wrong.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by headquarters

please correct me if I am wrong.

I agree with you. I was just pointing out why I think that these groups appeal to some folks. I think one can admire their weapons, tactics, fighting spirit, uniforms, etc. without glorifying their darker ideological/political sides. One can never truly separate the two, though.

[dragoon500ly]

The sad thing is that the true losers of any war is the civilians who tried to stay out of the fight; keep food on the table; see their kids get an education.

When you take the time to study both sides with an open, objective mind, it's kinda intresting how both sides had such high ideals....and how both sides sank to the bottom of the septic tank. By no means do I agree with Ian Smith's stand...and I do not agree with Joshua Nkomo's and Robert Mugabe's stands. There was more than enough racism and stupidity on both sides of the Rhodesia Bush War to fill several volumes. Of the three leader's I have more respect for Nkomo, at least he started out trying to peacefully bring about change. And as for Mugabe, the current President for Life of Zimbabwe can only be described as little better than a cheap thug.

That being said, my passion is military history (cause Lord knows, it sure ain't spelling!!!). I try to set down and research as many sides of the story as I can find and I do consider myself to be objective. Racist....

As the old saying goes..."I'm can't be a racist, I hate everybody!!!"

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Matt W

Important point to note for those who admire the fighting ability of Rhodesians or - for that matter - people like Confederates and Waffen SS.

THEY LOST

All of these example sindicate that "Good tactics are less important than good strategy"

Ah. None of the books I read covered that bit. Honestly, Matt, have you been hanging out at NPR, where people need to have these sorts of things explained to them?

The losers of a war can teach us a great deal, just as the winners are not necessarily worth uniformly emulating. The US, for instance, clung to the imperatives of mass producing the Sherman, despite the obvious need for a heavier tank in widespread use. The use of sheer weight of numbers masks other deficiencies which, had they been corrected, might have resulted in victory at a lower cost or an earlier date.

All that said, I couldn't agree more that good strategy outweighs good tactics. Hitler flushed a magnificent fighting machine down the toilet. The US accomplished more-or-less the same thing in Vietnam. The Rhodesians failed to enact political reforms largely because they appeared to be doing so well on the battlefield. The Japanese never developed a suitable strategy for bringing to successful conclusions the wars in China or the Pacific; thus the fighting skills and spirit of the Japanese soldiers, seamen, and aircrews were squandered. We could go on and on in this fashion, but I'm sure everyone knows what I'm saying.

Still, soldiers don't make national policy. They do they best they can with the resources at hand. Those who do well with the resources at hand are worth studying.


Webstral

[HorseSoldier]

It may be worth noting that among the people today nostalgic for Rhodesia are a lot of black Zimbabweans old enough to remember white rule. While it may not have been an ideal system by any stretch of the imagination, it was infinitely better than the manmade apocaypse there now under Mugabe.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Ah. None of the books I read covered that bit. Honestly, Matt, have you been hanging out at NPR, where people need to have these sorts of things explained to them?
Webstral

Web,

As a non-American (MattW too and others, I believe) having listened to NPR I get the impression that at least with them, if they don't understand something, you could at least explain it to them. Without speaking for other kinds of Americans, of course!

Tony

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Web,

As a non-American (MattW too and others, I believe) having listened to NPR I get the impression that at least with them, if they don't understand something, you could at least explain it to them. Without speaking for other kinds of Americans, of course!

Tony

Explaining something to a NPR talking head? Can't be done old boy with nothing less than a tac nuke. And I'm not too sure about that!

There was a debate the other night on those horrid, evil, things known as firearms and how much safer we all will be if we would just outlaw ownership of the devil devices....sigh

Of course being a gun owner, I'm one of these evil individuals just waiting to climb up into a clock tower and gun down innocent people going about their business. I really should be locked in a 6'x8' cell and have the key thrown away before I have a PTSD moment and open fire.

I often wonder if these people have ever sat down and taken the time to read the Constitution, not to mention the papers of the Founding Fathers and find out what they were thinking about when they wrote the 2nd Amendment...and if they could see what is going down nowdays, if they would have rewrote it to "And the ability of all men and women in the United States to own firearms shall not be infringed in anyway by Congress, nor by the Supreme Court, and especially not by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."

[pmulcahy11b]

Hey, I'm a card-carrying (well not literally, I don't carry a card) Democrat, but I do think that guns are not evil and the right for most people to have them should not be infringed. However, I do agree with background checks, use and ownership classes, waiting periods, and licensing, including tough licensing for fully-automatic weapons. I am not personally a danger with firearms just because I'm mentally ill, but I understand that you can't send each prospective firearms owner to a psychiatrist to determine whether he should be allowed to own a firearm -- and mental illness can get worse and people can decide not to take their medication.

California government and the Brady Gun Ban people are one end of the pole, the NRA and those who believe in personal ownership of AAA in their back yards are the other -- both are extremists with regard to gun rights.

BTW, I think the 2nd Amendment is obsolete -- it describes primarily a concept of a militia that has been obsolete since the National Guard was formed in the early 1900s. It needs to be either discarded or amended into something that more accurately describes personal firearms ownership as it exists today.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Explaining something to a NPR talking head? Can't be done old boy with nothing less than a tac nuke. And I'm not too sure about that!

Lee,

Hey, I never said they would agree.

Jeeze Louise, now we're going to get fifty bloody posts about guns in America, the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers, their original intent and how to correctly read the US Constitution.

Tony

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Matt W

Important point to note for those who admire the fighting ability of Rhodesians or - for that matter - people like Confederates and Waffen SS.

THEY LOST

All of these example sindicate that "Good tactics are less important than good strategy"

Matt,

As a friend of mine would say, "what's that got to do with the price of rice in China?"

While losers in a historical sense, the examples of the Waffen SS and the American Confederates are no doubt also chosen to draw a clearly negative moral comparison. (There are plenty of "good guys" out there who lost battles and wars, too.) There's a moral point being made here that doesn't apply because the Twilight War didn't have a clear moral dimension (at least beyond a certain point).

Further, Twilight 2000 is generally not played on a strategic level, although the game designers did "game out" the course of the war. I think we can agree these early players made many questionable strategic decisions. Still, for the most part the players can't influence the strategy of the war directly, so your assertion that "Good tactics are less important than good strategy", while certainly true, isn't relevant.

Tony