Angolan War - Cuito Cuanavale Battle
Hi,
As you know soon will be the 20th anniversaire of the start of the Cuito Cuanavale Battle. First of all I would like to send my regards and respects to all the veterans of that battle independently of their side.
On the other hand I want to ask to the experts some questions:
1) Who actually won the battle??
2) What has the battle suposed to SA, Cuba and Angola??
3) The Main events of that Battle
4) What was the order of battle of both sides??
5) Pictures of that Battle
etc.....
Hope to receive help from you.
Best regards
Mirlo
I think Vorster may have posted a pretty good account of this in another thread. I'll see if I can find it.Originally Posted by Mirlo
The easy answer to question one is; "That depends on who you ask." I say the SADF won, a Cuban will say the SADF lost.
Try and get hold of Helmoed-Roemer Heitman's book War In Angola:The Final South African Phase, it will answer most of your questions, though it is very dry reading. Fred Bridgland's The War for Africa is also useful. Neither side achieved a decisive victory (though tactically the South Africans were in a better position, having inflicted major losses on the Cuban/FAPLA forces), both decided afterwards that it was time to negotiate. A seriously comprehensive history of the Angolan war has to my knowledge yet to be written.
Id like to know how the Cubans think they won ,hahaha?
They held onto the city. IIRC, the Saffies made it sound like they weren't trying to capture it, though I bet they were kind of hoping to anyways, but the mines were taking a heavy toll on personnel and equipment. The battle did knock the shit out of the Cubans and FAPLA guys, and more or less forced them into a political resolution.
Check the casualty differences, as well as the stated objectives BEFORE the battle. Also the fact of WHERE and WHY they were fighting. Pretty obvious once you look at it. I would say Cuba/FAPLA got a spanking.
The whole bush war had lopsided casualties. Hell, any battle Rhodesia or South Africa fought had lopsided casualties. It proved beyond a doubt the difference in capabilities of a professional army and a political army.
"The defeat of the apartheid army was an inspiration to the struggling people in South Africa! Without the defeat of Cuito Cuanavale our organizations would not have been unbanned! The defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale has made it possible for me to be here today! Cuito Cuanavale was a milestone in the history of the struggle for southern African liberation!"; Nelson Mandela, July 1991"
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx..._and_analysis/
It shows the difference in capabilities of RICH armies vs. POOR armies. South Africa is the largest economy in Africa. They and their proxies had help from the United States and Israel. Angola was just coming out of war with Portugal, and they and their proxies were backed by the Soviets and the Cubans.
So:
SA richer than Angola
US richer than USSR
Israel richer than Cuba
I say body counts don't help here because I'm sure MPLA viewed frustrating SA aims as a kind of victory. Thoughts?
The SADF had to design and produce all their own weapons. They couldn't afford to lost a lot of things - personnel or equipment. The Angolans got nearly all their weapons and equipment given to them, sometimes free, and also had Cubans fighting for them with Soviet and Pact advisors.
I'd argue that for net value, the SADF was the poorer of the two sides in the fight. The Eland-90 and Olifant weren't great first-world fighting vehicles even back then, whereas you could argue that the T-55 and T-62s and BMP-1s were.
Let's not forget that FAPLA had total air-superiority over Angola, a steady inflow of equipment from Warshaw-pact and that FAPLA outnumbered the SADF and UNITA.
The Centurion/Olifant, with 105mm gun and diesel engine was a fine tank as the Israelis proved many times. Better than the T-55 and on a par or better than the T-62. I would also argue that the Ratel was better suited to conditions in Angola than any of the East Bloc APCs and IFVs. Elands were not being used in Angola by the time in question, Ratel-90s had taken their place.
Rattels were knocking out T-55 more then T-55 were knocking out Ratels.
Yeah but that didn't had much to do with SA's wealth. Ratels weren't really designed for taking on tanks. Just a matter of better training and ingenuity.
Same ball rolls for Ystervarks downing MiG's around Cuito.
Pretty good read:South African armour and infantry would appear to have fought with their usual verve - moving faster than the terrain would seem to allow, and delivering massive violence suddenly once in contact. Their ability to move rapidly, manoeuvre to gain the best relative position, and then to engage and destroy an enemy force in the extremely dense bush and, often, soft sand of south-eastern Angola is testimony to an exacting traininq system. Visibility in some parts of the battle area is below 100 m, even less in places; the sand too soft to walk in with comfort. The toughness and reliability of the Ratel ICVs and of the Samil-series logistic vehicles is also a major factor. The Ratel-90 also appears to have again proven itself in the anti-tank role, although it was developed as a fire support vehicle and not as a tank destroyer. The Ratel-81 saw action for the first time, giving the mechanized infantry a highly mobile source of "in house" fire support. The equally new SP 20 mm AAA Ystervark celebrated its entry into service by bringing down at least one MiG-23.
http://www.rhodesia.nl/modhoop.htm
Has anybody pictures about this battle??
Best regards
Mirlo
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote