Nuclear war in Southern Africa, SA fights the russians

Numbers aren't the answer to everything. Look at how vastly outnumbered Israel was in all of its wars, facing Arab opponents with mostly modern Soviet equipment. Look at how outnumbered Hezbollah was in 2006, without any armor to speak of or any air force at all.

Training, familiarity with terrain, preparation, and real combat experience generally trump numbers unless there is totally overwhelming air superiority, and even then not always (i.e. Hez in 2006).

The "75 divisions" was an exaggeration, but I think a seriously massive invasion force would be needed for a guaranteed defeat of SA and crushing of the apartheid state. Two or three divisions, as many men as that is, would likely result in a draw at very best, total defeat at worst.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
the numbes alone aer aganist SADF.

The entire SADF was some 40,000 people (soldiers, sailors, cooks, clerks, payroll, etc).

SADF had a maximum of 250 Olifant's
SADF had a maximum of +/-150 figther a/c

Good enough for the bush war, but against a well equipped VDV division or 2?

Personally, I think the South Africans would know of any build up and be able to figure something out. It's very unlikely that they'd just let a Warsaw Pact buildup happen without harrassing it.

That was a good thing about the South African artillery: they didn't even have to be near the target to be able to hit it. The G-5 and G-6 had 30-40 kilometer ranges.

And if 32 Battalion or the Recces don't end up raiding the areas to forestall the buildup, I'd be surprised. They did it against the Cubans and FAPLA, there's no reason to think they wouldn't do it against Warsaw Pact forces.


Remember, that it was a very small war. Engagements were between hardly more than forces counted in hundreds at the most.

If SADF were operating north of the railway line AND the russians got a VDV division in at Lobito, would SADF be trapped with no way out?

I think the talk of divisions is a bit forward. No one in that war fielded any field formation above brigade size. The largest combat group the South Africans fielded for any extended period was 61 Mechanized Battalion Group, or 61 Mech for short.
 
One told me that the max range of G-5 was 65 km, with an accuracy of some 50 m. I don't think he was boasting, but it could be semi-clasified at that time at least.

Let's try to accept that there is a good chance that SADF could be trapped North of the railway.

Then what?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
One told me that the max range of G-5 was 65 km, with an accuracy of some 50 m. I don't think he was boasting, but it could be semi-clasified at that time at least.

Let's try to accept that there is a good chance that SADF could be trapped North of the railway.

Then what?

Then they withdraw while 81 Mechanized Brigade is called up, and prepare for a stand at the mountains near Windhoek. Probably they'll have to accept the loss of Grootfontein unless they move fast.

One thing about South African armoured units is that when they say "armoured," it's really "mechanized" in the Western sense of the term. They're heavy on armoured cars and light on tanks, generally only having 1 squadron of them. (61 Mech had 3x3 tanks in it's organic set up, but sometimes used more)
They trusted the Elands to do antitank work, and they did a very good job of it. In the hands of the Rhodesians, Elands engaged T-55s and T-34/85s and defeated both decisively, and South African Elands did the same.
 
In the soviet's invasion task force's scenario, on a first hand, would 1987 USSR, with a crumbling economy and yet having to fight in Afghanistan, could afford a very highly costy journey through Indian's or Atlantic Ocean ?

Then, on a second hand, in the case the soviet task force land in Africa, would they certainly easily win against SADF wich had the reputation of being one of the best ground forces, especially in a bush's landscape, of the 70s and 80s ?
 
Ian:

Good comment; hence I am letting Russia get a bit desperate, taking the bigger gamble of doing it.

In ver. 1.2 of the essay, I have let the russians make the concession of pulling out of Afghanistan, reducing the presence in Eastern Europe with 1-2 divisions. This should "pacify" Reagan enough to let russia substitute 10,000 Cubans in Angola with 2 VDV divisions.

A bit complex, but that could swing it in Russia'a favour.

Also rememer, the total number of SADF at Cuito ws 3-4,000. That was nearly the entire SADF force in Angola.

The outcome of Cuito was a stalemate after all, so......
 
When I was in Afghanistan, I met a Polish helicopter pilot who's dad was missing part of his hand due to an autoloader accident. Obviously it happens.
[/qute]

Catching a hand I can imagine. "Loading an arm" I can't.

The British Army has had quite a few soldiers with a condition called "RARDEN thumb" where the thumb is missing from the left hand - caused by the left thumb being caught and crushed in the ejection port of the 30mm RARDEN cannon. That doesn't have an autoloader and those soldiers were merely careless in trying to clear a stoppage without safeing the weapon correctly.


If you want to say the American Shillelagh was better than the Soviet Sniper, then that's your opinion. We all know which one's still in service, and which one was put into other weapons systems.

No, that is not what I said and I am unsure why you are assuming that was what I said.

If the Shillelagh was so amazing, it would've been used more like the Sniper.

The Shillelagh was the most advanced missile of its day. However, it was too advanced for the available technology and it showed with reliability problems. When the Shillelagh system was working well, it was very accurate and able to engage targets at exceptionally long ranges compared to the other weapons of the period. The Sniper is/was not the most advanced missile of its day. It is reliable by all accounts and is able to engage targets at the typical ranges of missiles available today. Detect the difference?
 
Any comments on the general setting and the start of the essay in 1976?

Would Botha do it?
What would happen?

We only have 2 comments on the consequences so far
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Ian:

Good comment; hence I am letting Russia get a bit desperate, taking the bigger gamble of doing it.

In ver. 1.2 of the essay, I have let the russians make the concession of pulling out of Afghanistan, reducing the presence in Eastern Europe with 1-2 divisions. This should "pacify" Reagan enough to let russia substitute 10,000 Cubans in Angola with 2 VDV divisions.

The Cubans wouldn't leave just because the Soviets are coming in, I don't think. In OTL, they had completely separate command structures and by the 1980s the only thing that connected the Cuban mission in Africa with the Soviet and East German ones was the semi-frequent use of Soviet air transport, which they normally didn't use that much since they had so much sealift.
 
Top