Invade Zimbabwe call

[black shark]

The current Afghan experience indicates that it may indeed be possible to "occupy" Zimbabwe and, at the same time, allow for the orderly re-development of the country's systems. However, in my ignorance, I would have serious concerns about regional or even tribal rivalries which may become reborn, antagonisms which the West and others may not currently be able to recognize.

Given that posssibility--however remote--the UN must not be permitted to re-commit the mistakes made in its handling of peacekeeping in Rwanda.

Can this be guaraanteed? And by whom?

The answer has to be, no it cannot be guaranteed. As stated many times in this thread, SA would be the best choice. Militarily SA has the capabilities to act but there are limits. I feel one of the keys to success is to agree realistic rules of engagement before any forces enter the theatre.

I believe from various articles I have read about SA's intervention into Lesotho (Operation Boleas) that lessons learned can be applied to possible operations in Zimbabwe. The main reason for the errors on Operation Boleas was lack of intelligence.

SA should be gathering all the intelligence as we speak if it hasn't been done already in preparation for at least the possibilty of an intervention.

I mentioned above that there are limits to the capabilities. My view (with my limited knowledge of SANDF capabilities) is that SA would only be able to support a maximum of 5,000 troops for a sustained period. How many troops would be needed for a Zimbabwe intervention? Perhaps a question for one of our Professional/Analyst members.

 

[Tempest]

The answer has to be, no it cannot be guaranteed. As stated many times in this thread, SA would be the best choice. Militarily SA has the capabilities to act but there are limits. I feel one of the keys to success is to agree realistic rules of engagement before any forces enter the theatre.

I believe from various articles I have read about SA's intervention into Lesotho (Operation Boleas) that lessons learned can be applied to possible operations in Zimbabwe. The main reason for the errors on Operation Boleas was lack of intelligence.

SA should be gathering all the intelligence as we speak if it hasn't been done already in preparation for at least the possibilty of an intervention.

I mentioned above that there are limits to the capabilities. My view (with my limited knowledge of SANDF capabilities) is that SA would only be able to support a maximum of 5,000 troops for a sustained period. How many troops would be needed for a Zimbabwe intervention? Perhaps a question for one of our Professional/Analyst members.

If Zimbabwe could send 12,000 troops with air support, armour and artillery to a country 6 times its size and 2,000 km and fight for 4 years, why would you think 5,000 South Africans can easily take on the ZDF on home turf? Consider that most South African commanders with real experience have left the armed forces. Zimbabwe has commanders who fought the civil war, Mozabique, Angola and DRC.

While something definately has to be done about Zimbabwe, I believe the problem is too big for South Africa. Maybe you are right, SANDF left in Lesotho = that is why the are keeping out of Zimbabwe.

 

[black shark]

If Zimbabwe could send 12,000 troops with air support, armour and artillery to a country 6 times its size and 2,000 km and fight for 4 years, why would you think 5,000 South Africans can easily take on the ZDF on home turf? Consider that most South African commanders with real experience have left the armed forces. Zimbabwe has commanders who fought the civil war, Mozabique, Angola and DRC.

While something definately has to be done about Zimbabwe, I believe the problem is too big for South Africa. Maybe you are right, SANDF left in Lesotho = that is why the are keeping out of Zimbabwe.

I don't think 5,000 troops would be enough, that's why I asked the question.
Those numbers you mention look impressive I must say (regarding the ZDF operations).
And yes, I agree, this probably is too big for SA even though it shouldn't be given the SANDF resources.
My hunch on why SA has failed to be more outspoken on this issue is because SA military advisors have told the politicians that the SA Air Force wouldn't be able to gain air superiority over Zim. This is just my opinion.

I heard a few years back that at one stage, the SA Air Force only had 6 combat ready fighter pilots. If true, that is a sad situation. This can be overcome by deploying SOF and destroying the Zim AF on the ground.

 

[Tempest]

South African military continued to decline after 1994. They are investing in impressive equipment now, but the is not yet fully operational. Zimbabwean military thinking had been for the most part, with fighting South Africa in mind. They have not had money to buy a lot lately, but I still believe they have more equipment than the world know because they have had to bust sanctions and do it secretly and China is good at selling quietly too.

Without an agreement from the rest of SADC, invading Zimbabwe will mean countries like Namibia and Angola joining on Zimbabwe’s side. DRC would too, but for now I believe they have their hands full. They might help with equipment only.

The way I see to tackle Mugabe would be to use SOFs but instead, go directly for Mugabe and his senior officials. Hopefully with some secret ground work in advance, the juniors officers could switch sides, and takeover the government. Now, thinking of the South African government’s closeness to Zimbabwe, I can assure you they are far from that. Forumites here are stuck with the old South Africa in mind. British or American SOFs will have to come and do the dirty job here! That maybe a way too of keeping Angola and Namibia from getting involved.

 

[John Sansom]

I recall that when S. Africa was under the international anti-apartheid embargo, she was having some serious problems with Angola--whose forces significantly out-gunned the SA artillery. The CIA then slipped in the controversial Gerald Bull. Through his ballistics genius, the existing SA artillery was modified and the tables turned.

If, as Tempest implies, the SA forces may be in a sadder state than in pre-Bull days, that's bad news indeed.

 

[Tempest]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2129563.stm

Only four out of 168 Olifant tanks and eight of 242 Rooikat armoured cars were operational.

People I have spoken to in the ZDF respected the South African artillery. When I have looked into it, I have noticed that MRL-70 systems far out number any other piece of artillery Zimbabwe has - they have at least 70 systems. I don't believe Zimbabwe got these because they were cheap compared to howitzers, but because with extended ranges of 30-35km, it was an answer to SADF's G-5/G-6 systems.

 

[black shark]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2129563.stm


People I have spoken to in the ZDF respected the South African artillery. When I have looked into it, I have noticed that MRL-70 systems far out number any other piece of artillery Zimbabwe has - they have at least 70 systems. I don't believe Zimbabwe got these because they were cheap compared to howitzers, but because with extended ranges of 30-35km, it was an answer to SADF's G-5/G-6 systems.

Tempest, that quote is quite old. I think the SA Army is in better shape than that article suggests. Exercises involving 5,000 personnel from multiple services are still being held. have a look at the link below:

http://www.army.mil.za/exercises/young_eagle_07.htm

They look like an organised force.
You seem to know a bit about the ZDF. Do you know the status of the Zim Air Force?

 

[Tempest]

I am sure SANDF is improving. They have invested a lot $$$ and I am sure there will be positive results. Zimbabwe has loaned South Africa instructors for their flying school. Zimbabwe does exercise of the same scale every year, a brigade at a time, the latest was in April 2008: http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/apr15_2008.html#Z6

Concerning the airforce, the little I know is the F-7s were modernized around 2005. There was a newspaper in Zimbabwe criticizing defense expenses and claiming there were upgrades of radars, both ground and airborne. The only evidence I have seen is the new paint scheme on the F-7s that appeared at an airshow in August 2005. The ACIG website support those claims too,

There are also several sites claiming Zimbabwe received at least a 2nd and probably a 3rd batch of F-7s around 2000 or later. Follow the links on this page: http://www.zimbabwedefence.com/F-70.html , one claiming F-7MGs. There is also a newspaper article out of Johannesburg supporting this. I have it saved somewhere. Will look for it and add the link.

I cannot say for certain of it is an illusion from the light, but if you look on GE, here -19.442253°, 29.853804° the F-7s at Thornhill do not have the same profile. If so, then the slender type would be the F-7IINs and the fatter ones could be the F-7MGs.

From here: http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/mea/0288.htm . They mention the possibility of PL-9s. An ex-AFZ guy I exchanged emails with said they do have PL-9s. This again points to upgraded F-7IINs or presence of F-7MGs.