I like it, its so wrong on many levels its right...

Enfield Jungle Para Carbine

It's a bit of a story, but basically it's an Enfield in 7.62x39, modded to look a bit like an AK from a distance. The contract was to supply wildlife rangers during the bush war period.

I've got one of the original stock and grip sets, once I move I plan on converting a bubba'd Enfield into a clone. Then it's on to building the semi Rhuzi.

Original 'smith is still alive and kicking too, has had some other interesting projects.

Ok, I will take a break from posting pictures for now.  Rhodesia during the Bush War was always a fascinating topic to me.  But some may have read it but here is some interesting portions of a good paper written for the Marine Corps Staff and Command College by two USMC Majors in the early 80's:  Rhodesia: Tactical Victory, Strategic Defeat

Some information about some of the various units:

In the face of these realities, and provided with only a relatively small force and equipment, sometimes both obsolete and elderly, General Walls, first as Army Commander, and then as Commander Combined Operations, waged a campaign of extreme professional competence that will deserve a place in the world's military Staff Colleges for many years to come. Under Walls, the Rhodesian forces accepted their inability to control the terrain, and directed their operational planning toward limiting and reducing the growth of the insurgent forces within Rhodesia.
Something that has been a demonstrated priority with the Rhodesians, small forces, maximizing what they had and emphasizing competence and skill as a core requirement.

The Rhodesian Air Force:  The air service unit was composed of approximately 1300 personnel. Pilot training was unique by American standards, but it followed British traditions. The pilots and crew members were trained to become individually proficient in the maintenance of particular parts of the aircraft. If the aircraft
experienced a malfunction, the entire crew was able to perform fairly sophisticated levels of maintenance. This system included the incorporation of maintenance technicians as members of helicopter and transport carrier crews.

In 1978 the serviceability of the Rhodesian Air Force was 85%. This is exceptional when 60% is considered as "good" throughout the western world. This is a greater accomplishment considering the international sanctions levelled against Rhodesia in 1965 and 1970. The majority of its military resupply was built upon a system of improvisation and invention.
Interesting.  There is also reference to later in the war the Hunters left in the inventory were reserved to be used only under the most dire conditions as they had so few spare parts and ammo available.  But they were operational partly due to understanding their value and everyone helping saving them for when they were needed.

The Rhodesian Army:  The Army's lack of sophisticated weaponry and equipment was an important element in its success. It was a force which dealt with the terrorist on his own level. The Security Forces lacked extensive lines of logistic support, yet they were adept at small scale operations throughout a broken and ragged countryside. In order to compensate for their small numbers, the government forces had to rely upon the basic ingredients of victory - professionalism and an intimate knowledge of the terrain. The combat forces operated in small units, and depended upon mobility, surprise, flexibility and tactical dispersion for success. The army tended to meet the guerrilla on his own ground in a man-to-man fashion of combat. The Armed Forces reflected the spirit of the Rhodesian culture. It was a highly efficient organization. The tight bonds within the Rhodesian society reduced the elements of traditional friction between soldiers, civil servants and politicians. The combat and police forces were not plagued by a sense of social isolation. The majority of the white population was willing to endure the necessary taxation and the required conscription of its children in order to ensure the Prime Minister Ian Smith's final objective, which was a gradual and moderate transition of political power to the black majority. The Rhodesian armed forces were the instrument of these policies.

Sub/Specialized Units.

The Rhodesian Light Infantry:  The mission of the unit became purely counterinsurgency. The emphasis of organizational training was centred upon search and destroy operations. In addition, the Rhodesians spent a great deal of time developing their non-commissioned officer corps. As a result, their operational commitments were at the "stick", or squad, level.

The RLI was also unique because of the large number of foreign nationals who served in its ranks. It has been estimated that this participation went as high as 30%. They were primarily British, South African and American. The majority of these men acquitted themselves well. The tendency was for the foreigners to approach Rhodesia with mercenary mentality, but this was a misperception. All foreigners enlisting in the Rhodesian Armed Forces received some degree of basic training, with an emphasis on discipline. The Rhodesian Security Forces had a higher standard of military discipline than most western armies, and Americans were generally surprised by the intensity and severity of this system.

The basic training for RLI volunteers was provided within the regiment. This consisted of 16 weeks of recruit training. The instruction consisted of basic military skills: drill, weapons, leadership, small unit tactics, and an emphasis on focusing these skills toward the destruction of the insurgents. Upon assignment to a commando, the soldier could expect to spend 4-6 weeks in the bush, and 10 days to 3 weeks in the RLI Base Camp at Llewellyn Barracks, near Bulawayo. These periods were dedicated to retraining and refitting the commando prior to another assignment.

The Selous Scouts:  The purpose of the unit was the clandestine elimination of the Nationalists without regard to international borders. The foundation of the unit’s effectiveness was its members’ ability to live off the land, combined with the tracking skills of the individual soldier. All members were volunteers and combat veterans. They were initiated into the Scouts via a very severe indoctrination programme which eliminated approximately 85% of the respondents. The training course was six weeks in length and incorporated an excess of physical and psychological stress. The unit was entirely integrated and all soldiers had to pass the same course of instruction in order to win access to the unit. The final test included a 90 mile forced march with a 70 pound pack. This may not seem excessive to American Marines, but the hike was divided into four “courses”. At the completion of each course, the volunteer was given a difficult combat task to accomplish prior to continuing onto the next phase.

The emphasis throughout the entire training cycle was the development of “Bush and Tracking” techniques. The Scout had to become absolutely self-reliant. The unit incorporated the same tactics that the British had initiated in Malaya and Kenya. It was defined as a Pseudo-Gang concept. A team of 4-7 men was deployed into an operational area. All other friendly forces in that region were withdrawn. The team was dressed in insurgent uniforms, carried communist weapons, and gave the appearance of being a guerrilla force. The key was that they were better trained and more disciplined than the nationalists. Once they ascertained the presence of an insurgent force, they began to stalk them. They were proficient at remaining undetected throughout this phase. This gave them the advantage of initiating contact with the insurgents at their discretion. The Selous Scouts achieved remarkable results by carrying the war directly to the guerrillas. Their success carries the key to an effective counterinsurgency campaign. They were simply much better at guerrilla warfare than their opponents.

The paper also states this in regards to the Selous Scouts "During the war the Scouts were credited with the deaths of 68% of the insurgents killed within the borders of Rhodesia" and gives a little background on Mugabe's issues with them when he came to power.

It really is an interesting read with a lot of the historical information on the military/security forces and what led to the conflict and the forces on each side.

Rhodesia:  Tactical Victory, Strategic Defeat

The Rhodesian Government handed out full autos like candy to rural families. But they legally limited the private ownership of full autos. They set up a lot of their laws in much the same manner as Israel. The idea is to prevent terrorists from getting them.

Rhodesia wasn't to the same level of restrictions as Israel since they allowed private ownership of guns and it was a lot of guns by the way. But it is what it was.

In the end, Full Auto in the hands of folks not trained in them is a waste of ammo. I'm for MG ownershipand think they have a place for self defense. But a FAL in fu auto is a waste. Now a small PDW SMG.... useful.

They won the battle and lost the war. Gee.... where have I seen that? 

I hate to say it, the first and most important rule of war is that you gotta win politically. Winning battles is only important if they help you with that first goal.

Interesting. I've seen the various 7.62x39 conversions over the years. Any pics of it in actual rhodesia?

Ok, for the anglophiles out there, women, BHP's and Sterlings.
Attached File


Female with her FAL.
Attached File


Another BREN.
Attached File


Soldiers with US style helmets.  Soldier with holstered BHP, soldier with FAL and extended mag, what is the weapon with the stock cut down and taped up?
Attached File

I'd assume that was a rebels resupply denial issue and that landowners could obtain anything they desired with zero shits given by anyone.

Attached File

RPD

Thanks!

   Andrew Young was one of the worst people the US inflicted upon the world,paradoxically put in his position by gullible bible thumpers.

Another scoped FAL.
Attached File


Firearms training.
Attached File


More Sterling.
Attached File


Female Dog Handler.
Attached File

And be sure to take full advantage while you can!

Were there some issues?  Sure.  But that's also true of the U.S. at the time.  Some of this stuff started to go away later on.  The one thing that went in the wrong direction for a time was voting.  For several years, starting a few years after UDI, they separated voting into A and B rolls which affected what you could vote on, and most blacks only qualified for the B rolls.  Previously, there was only one voter roll and the qualifications were the same regardless of race.  Eventually, they returned to that and also relaxed the qualifications.  Rhodesia still had a qualified franchise at the time of UDI; you had to own fixed property, have a certain income, own a mining concession, or something like that on top of education requirements to vote.  There were quite a few whites that could not vote under the qualifications.  These qualifications did have a much greater impact on blacks, but there were many who were eligible to vote.  The problem was that most eligible blacks chose not to register to vote.  

To treat Rhodesia like it was massively different from other Western countries with major black populations at the time or like it had South Africa's petty apartheid is absurd.  Ultimately, Rhodesia was fighting for a cause that included far more freedom than ZANU or ZAPU ever intended to allow.  It was, as Ian Smith (a great man, IMO) put it, the striking of a "blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity."  Rhodesia was modern Western civilization transplanted, with some holdovers from the days of racism against blacks (although some laws of this type continued in part due to the civilizational gap between the blacks and others, which presented issues of some consequence).  Rhodesia's cause was just and should have been supported, not condemned.  Ultimately, the results speak for themselves.  Zimbabwe is racist, just in a different way and much more openly and oppressively so (and has also slaughtered blacks based on tribal affiliation), and is a grossly unjust, uncivilized, and unfree place.  Economically, it has sent itself into the shitter.  And the land and wildlife are on a sharp decline.  But apparently that's better than what Rhodesia had to offer if you ask some.

I recall reading years ago about a poll in a Salisbury newspaper (or Harare, I guess) from the late 1990s done by a firm for the paper that asked people in the city if they'd prefer to stay under Mugabe and his regime or return to having Ian Smith in charge, with his regime, and a large majority favoured Smith (who I don't believe had yet had to flee Rhodesia for South Africa for his safety).  It is also interesting to see interviews of black Rhodesian soldiers, who talk about how they volunteered to protect their families, to oppose communism, etc.

Rhodesia would not have become the breadbasket of Africa if they whites stayed in cities and left everything else to its own devices.  Ultimately, blacks did not have to deal with the oppression of South Africa's petty apartheid nor even Mugabe's regime.  Material conditions were the best they ever were for them.  There is a reason why the black population in less than three generations grew from a few hundred thousand (not much more than the white population at its peak) to several million, and it's not because of their great farming practices, advanced medicine, and land use practices.  It was Western civilization that brought that.  If you think that Rhodesia's laws were really that unique for its time and would have stood no chance of changing like they did almost everywhere else in the West that had such laws, you're fooling yourself.  And as I mentioned earlier, when blacks had the same qualifications to vote as whites, most who qualified chose not to even register, much less vote.  

And democracy and universal suffrage are generally bad things and any Western country that refrained from adopting either was choosing the right thing at the time.  Adopting Rhodesia's voting qualifications at the time of UDI here would be a step up.

Jim Callahan was the UK prime minister that fucked Rhodesia, Harold Wilson was his predecessor. actually callahan fucked over the UK as well, culminating in the "winter of discontent"

If not him, than his rival.  Majority rule once adopted always ended badly.  Universal franchise was not and remains not a good idea.  A qualified franchise that made no racial distinction would have been better, and this is what Rhodesia had at the start of UDI and had had for a long time before.  If somehow a communist/socialist government did not get into power, the terrorists would have continued until they got to where they wanted, and is at was, when the election of 1980 came about, the terrorists engaged in massive voter intimidation while Commonwealth forces chose not to intervene and deterred Rhodesian forces from intervening.  Democracy and the universal franchise don't make things better.  If you think things would have turned out majorly differently, you were not paying attention or are fooling yourself.

The black nationalist parties were outlawed because they had already begun resorting to terrorism.  Had Rhodesia been able to hold on a bit longer they would have been defeated.  

If you think that everything would have turned out great if only Rhodesia had complied with the British government's demands in the 1960s, you are completely and utterly fooling yourself.  You are simply not basing things on reality.  Rhodesia was part of a Federation.  The other members went the same path as every other African country granted independence and majority rule by the British, and this was before UDI or Smith's becoming PM.  People like Mugabe and Nkomo were already radicalized, BTW.  Again, you are looking at this with no respect to the reality of things.  It's like the people who claim that Ho Chi Minh would not have been a communist in the 1940s and 1950s had we turned against our ally and helped him out, when in reality he was a founding member of the French Communist Party in the early 1920s.  Same shit, different place.

The migration thing happened in South Africa, not Rhodesia.  When the whites first got there, the blacks were barely starting to find their way into the northernmost parts of the country.  The exception were some scattered bushmen and some other similar tribe.  It was largely unpopulated.  The white population grew and pushed north while the blacks started to more seriously push in from the north, heading south, which ultimately led to clashes.  Later on, Western modernity allowed for a population boom among the blacks and once decolonization began, you started to see massive immigration, legal and illegal (mostly the latter, IIRC) from other parts of Africa, mostly blacks.  In four centuries the black population in what is now South Africa went from negligible to tens of millions, with a ton of that growth in only a few decades (post-WWII).

Rhodesia went through the population boom but not so much the immigration, legal or illegal.  The Ndebele speaking people were new arrivals, albeit socially dominant despite being a minority, having invaded the land in the 1830s.  The Shona had been there for over a millennia, but had never experienced large population growth for various reasons (a lot having to do with their low level of civilization, which did not advance; when the whites first entered Rhodesia, the blacks there had neither invented nor encountered the wheel and were not far removed from the stone age).  Rhodesia in 1890 (Southern Rhodesia only) had a population of around 600,000 blacks.  By the time the Federation was faltering due to the British push for decolonization and "no independence before majority rule" policy, around 1962, the black population had grown to 3,860,000.  The white population had grown from 712 to 220,000 during the same period, and Asians from zero to 7,400.  Not sure what the coloured population was.

So, in 72 years, the black population grew by over 400% whereas before it had grown at far slower rates, when it grew.  This growth was largely fueled by reproduction and not immigration.  Advances in medicine and other sciences and technology brought by Europeans (infant deaths declined massively), more plentiful food supply due to better use of the land and more advanced agriculture, a higher standard of living overall, and the ending of tribal warfare were among the reasons for such a massive expansion in population growth.  

The white growth, naturally, owed a lot to immigration, although by UDI it had gotten hard to immigrate legally to Rhodesia, even as a white person, due to the high standards (high standards compared to most other Western countries at the time were also required for whites to vote, not-coincidentally.  During UDI the white population managed to surpass 400,000, IIRC, but declined due to the strain the sanctions and war were having on the white population (whites, as well as Asians and coloureds, were subject to the draft; blacks were not and were drawn from a larger population, anyways).  I think by the end of UDI it was not much higher than it was pre-UDI.  That was also due to immigration, albeit negative/outgoing immigration.

Yeah, the context has to do with massive differences in civilizational levels between most members of the two populations.  In South Africa, for example, American blacks were not treated as harshly and could acquire an "honorary white" status that removed a number of the barriers they would have otherwise faced (but not all, though).  This was because culturally, they were much closer to Europeans than to most black Africans, and this is true even if you only picked out blacks from the worst ghetto cultures of the U.S.   The civilizational/cultural issue is a big part of the reasoning for grand apartheid, which is not so readily condemnable as petty apartheid, which was for each civilization to have its own country, essentially.  Basically a removal of the problem from having to be dealt with, like before South Africa was unified.  Israel today faces a similar issue with the Palestinians, and while not politically correct, it requires similar approaches.

No Rhodie thread is complete without Clem Tholet.  He eventually married the daughter of PM Ian Smith.  Voetsek!

Zambia flirted with Socialism after Independence and then realized that was a mistake.

This cartoon says it best.

Again, half the labor force at UDI was non native blacks.  (link pages above) A lot of the Native Rhodesians lived on TTL, but immigrant labor was a significant part of the equation.

Eisenhower's anti-colonial foreign policy and his response to the Suez Crisis is what kicked decolonization into full gear.  The plan beforehand was to gradually decolonize some or most of the colonies, with independence not being achieved until the 1970s to sometime beyond 2000 depending on the colony in question.  Some countries, like Portugal, had no intent to grant independence to their colonies (although Portugal considered most of its colonies to be provinces like those in metropolitan Portugal and treated them accordingly).  Once Suez happened, that was scrapped and colonies started to get dumped rapidly, and Marxist involvement in all of this plus the more mainstream Western Left pushed against settler rule and against countries that chose to maintain their colonies, such as Portugal and Spain.

The SAS fought against the Rhodesians?

C Squadron Rhodesian SAS did. And they were the biggest bad asses of that war by a long mile, their operations are the stuff SF legends are made of.

ETA whoops... Reading is fundamental... That was not your question....

LOL, welcome to page whatever I posted this stuff on about halfway through the thread

I think the question is, did thatcher send British SAS to help Mugabe.  I would like to know the answer to that.

Thats a pretty optimistic statement...

Based on what I know, the answer is no, but anything is possible. You gotta remember a bunch of C sqdn. guys ended back up in the British SAS post Rhodesia, and had that happened I think it would have been found out.

One of the things I have noticed about people such as yourself that take your position is this belief in democracy and majority rule and the placement thereof upon a pedestal.  Government exists to serve a purpose.  It needs to be set up so as to achieve this.  If it requires minority rule, so be it.  Majority rule in Rhodesia, especially if you allowed the terrorists to do their thing freely, could not have resulted in a just, liberal, and civilized government.  That's the reality of the situation.  Heck, it often doesn't lead to very liberal outcomes even in advanced countries.  If one wanted more liberty than what people like Mugabe had to offer; if one wanted order, prosperity, and justice; if one wanted technology and a high state of civilization, it made no sense to support majority rule.  Africa post-colonization presents a very special case that isn't found in many places outside of the continent other than, perhaps, Israel.  It requires a different approach to achieve the positive ends of government.

The ultimate consequences of black majority rule where terrorists and Marxists have free play is tyranny.  One has the right to do what one must to prevent that, even if it means not having pure democratic government or a universal franchise, or majority rule.  One of my favourite political quotes from John Milton is relevant here:

"Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of government should enslave the less number that would be free? More just it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number compel a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their liberty, than that the greater number, for the pleasure of their baseness, compel a less most injuriously to be their fellow slaves. They who seek nothing but their own just liberty, have always the right to win it, whenever they have the power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it."


-John Milton, "The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth,” Areopagitica and Other Prose Works (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Everyman’s Edition, 1927), p. 181.

What the blacks ultimately supported was not liberty, and today under "majority rule" they do not possess it, and the situation is even worse for whites and Asians.  The whites had the right to win or retain their liberty, even if most voices opposed that.  There was plenty of precedent by that point to show what was going to happen to them and the country as a whole if they surrendered to British demands.

i GUESS NEITHER IS okay  BUT BOTH ARE DAMN GOOD REASONS  TO START SHOOTING

Yup, they went Marxist right after independence.  It would have been no better had Rhodesia gone the same route back then as a condition of independence.  They didn't go quite as far as Mugabe, but it was bad and still took decades (late-90s/early-2000s) before they started to change their tune.  Over the last few years they started calling whites from Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa to come there and settle and I think they even offered confiscated white lands back to the families that had owned them previously.  The white population there no is substantially larger than it was at its peak pre-independence, and it is already improving their situation.  They also liberalized the economy in general somewhat.  Decades of anti-white policies and Marxism were not working.  They still have a long ways to go before one can say they have a reasonably decent government, though.

Thatcher deployed UK Forces and possibly elements of the SAS when the UK took over Rhodesia-Zimbabwe in 1980. The Commonwealth deployed troops. New Zealand especially. 

I want nothing more than a productive African nation that doesn't rely on the failures of racism and socialism. If Zambia can take a step back and say "we fucked up, yeah we need whites because they have the skill and experience to make us productive" and actually become successful then I'd be happy. I have no connection to Africa what so ever. 

But I hate Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Maoism, etc.... with a passion. The fuck destroyed my Cuba. If anyone in Africa can get past the bullshit and just start being productive and stable I'd be happy. 

Yeah, but the UK forces didn't "Fight" against the Rhodesians or for Mugabe. Ironically enough the UK forces were generally very impressed with the Rhodesian forces, from a training and equipment standpoint (Rhodesians had better and more modern radio systems compared to the UK as one example)

No, they just stood by and politically supported Mugabe and didn't lift a finger during the terror campaign to twist the elections. 

Yup there was that... Gotta love "peace-keepers"...

I would imagine that stuff could still be relevant for people living on the border with Mexico today.

South Africa made a version of the Bren in 7.62mm that used metric FAL mags and made the straight 30-rounders for them.  These were supplied to Rhodesia for a time.  Rhodesia also used the FALO in this role.  They also sometimes made 40-rounders out of two 20-round magazines.

Female carrying Uzi
Attached File


Army Reservists undergoing weapons training.  More Uzis
Attached File


Rhodesian gun store salesman showing off an FN with scope ("telescopic sight").  Wondering if more of these scopes seen on soldiers rifles weren't private purchase?
Attached File

Yep. My mom said they came close to a cue but in the end everybody said what are we doing and went back home. Need to ask her more about that.

Nice try though.  

If an indigenous people are undeveloped it takes time to bring them up to speed.

So I have a story for you.  My mom will never tell the long version but. Her family friends owned a amethyst mine near the Zambezi.  Her friend was white and part Jewish and was married to a colored woman. 

They were warned all the time don't go down there you will run into Terrs.  Well one day sadly the people that warned them were right and they were killed.

As far as Zambia goes she echoes exactly what you guys said . She left in 79 and yes it did get worse for a time. She did say when she was there black white relations never had much strain.

A lot of Rhodesians I've spoken too think while it would not have been perfect if nkomo had won not Mugabe it wouldn't have been as bloody . Nkomo was still Commie but he was educated. Mugabe was a thug and I hate to say it but him and Jacob Zuma are very similar.

The US didn't give Indians Citizenship until 1924. 

Puerto Ricans were partially granted citizenship in 1917 simply so they can be drafted for WWI. The rest of the island didn't get citizenship until 1952.

Those born in Guam weren't granted citizenship until 1952.

Hell, right now anyone born in American Samoa is still not a US Citizen. They're just US Nationals. They have the right abode in the US but must apply for citizenship just like an immigrant. Oh, American Samoa has more enlistees into the US Armed Forces per capita than any other place in the country.

Don't give me this bullshit about exclusion. 

So were Nkomo and his outfit better trained and less barbaric than Mugabe and company?  I'm kinda getting that impression from reading all this.