Talk:Operation Savannah (Angola)

Biased Propaganda

This "article" is completely biased in its writing and sources. There are no Cuban sources. It is simply a propaganda piece by supporters of Apartheid using "sources" put out by the former-apartheid military, the CIA and their friends. No surprise since that is the MO of all of Wikipedia. Fact is the Cubans kicked the crap out of the South Africans (with all the support the U.S. could muster), over and over, and over again until Cuito Cuanavale where the Cubans definitively crushed the racists. Then the apartheid regime had to withdraw from Angola, Namibia, and ultimately was crushed in South Africa. Thank you Cuba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.228.146 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? you so sure this article is biased in the direction you say? You are correct though about its inaccuracy, the place was crawling with Russians and Cubans, who "officially" were not there, along with weaponry that was officially not there. We were at Luanda's door waiting for the GO to finally finish the war and take Luanda, I was there, my brother was there, all my school friends were there as CF looking down on the lights of Luanda. 2 hours before zero hour we were suddenly told to withdraw as the USA had run rabbit at Russia's threats and suddenly washed its hands of the fact we were there at their bidding . On our retreat the Cuban and Russian reinforcements had us on the back foot, as we were not allowed to attack in any form but had to withdraw with only defensive fire. All these wikipedia articles are written by opinionated biased wanna be's on hearsay with no research into facts or any insight other than their own opinions and a few rumours and newspaper clippings.

PS: What a great government SA has now, right! The current situation makes the apartheid days look like a Christmas party

We the drafted CF, 18 year old with 12 weeks training, of no political leaning were dropped into that mess to keep the "Rooi Gevaar" at bay at the request of Kissinger. We had not even finished second phase training when led by Capt Rindel we had to face Luso. Nobody mentions the Katanga Mercenaries we faced! 72263502BA Cpl 1SSB "Een Drag Maak Mag" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.148.254 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone who was with capt Rindel at Luso sees this - please contact me at adtumbler at gmail dot com - For the record I was there, and the suggestion that the Cubans won, or that the South African's won is really quite foolish. What is the definition of win? Operation Savannah has now been historically proven as initiated at the request of the CIA - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0331-02.htm - and ended when the US senate approved the Tunney amendment. "January 27, 1976. Despite last minute appeals from President Ford and Secretary Kissinger, the House of Representatives, voted 323 to 99 to adopt the Tunney amendment. The President said that the vote would result in "serious harm to the interests of the United States." On February 9, he signed into law the FY 1976 Defense Department appropriations bill containing the Tunney amendment. The repercussions are complicated indeed, and finally ended in 1989 at the end of communism - 1991 with the ending of apartheid - 2002 on the death of Jonas Savimbi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.17.233 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Invasion

Was it not a case of the South African forces having made such good progress that the Americans, faced with the prospect of the exercise getting too big and ambitious, pulled out and left the South Africans feeling a little less brave? The South Africans stuck to their guns, until the Cubans were sent home, before they agreed to budge on South West Africa.. Gregorydavid 14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Operation Savannah (Angola)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Operation Savannah (Angola)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "a":

• From Angolan Civil War: Nzongola-Ntalaja, Georges (1986). The Crisis in Zaire. pp. 193–194. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• From Battle of Quifangondo: "Monument to the Battle of Kifangondo". Republic of Angola Embassy in the UK. 2004. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
• From Luanda: Njoku, Onwuka N. (1997). Mbundu. pp. 38–39.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Covert nature

If I remember my sources correctly, the following measures were taken during Savannah to keep it "covert". Keep in mind that there were Saffies serving as privateers independent of the SADF (including one or two who initially served with Colonel Callan!); at least three of them destroyed a T-54 with an FNLA vehicle during the early months of the war. So it's possible that the SADF could have passed off their personnel for "mercenaries". Additionally, both the FNLA and UNITA had at least one Panhard AML-90 apiece, which was quite similar to the Eland. These were either donated by Zaire or left behind by the Portuguese when they pulled out in '75. It would have been possible to disguise Eland-90s as Angolan vehicles.

• 1. The Elands involved in Op Savannah were supposed to be painted in a nonstandard "lizard" green, some of them with yellowish tigerstripes to imitate the old Portuguese vehicle camo pattern. A few were, a few weren't. But those were the orders from Pretoria regardless. At least two Eland-90s were photographed at Luso with the Pork stripes.

• 2. Troopies involved wore nondescript uniforms impossible to trace. Not SADF browns but rather the same olive fatigues that the FNLA mercs were wearing.

• 3. All the rat packs for Op Savannah were repackaged in plain, multicoloured, biscuit tins without wrappers or any markings whatever.

• 4. A lot of the Eland crews wore the Bata Pro Stars or some similar civilian takkies. They were prohibited from wearing standard SADF combat boots, which had a distinctive tread.

• 5. SADF personnel were forbidden to wear their dog tags.

• 7. All of the FN/R1 ammunition distributed to the units involved in Savannah was unmarked - no head stamps.

• 8. Servicemen recall that they were stripped completely naked and all their basic kit taken by the army. Everything was reissued without exception.

• 9. Technically, Saffie cigarettes were banned. I have no idea if these instructions - like the Eland paint - were followed to the letter.

There can be no denying that the covert nature of this expedition was absurd when you consider that even the artillerymen with their 25-pounders were subject to these restrictions. Nevertheless, they seem to have worked to a degree: I have read several Yank news sources from the time which claimed that there was no evidence that "any" SA troops were inside Angola. Even after Vorster admitted that they were there to guard the hydroelectric dam, in late '76 the international media still failed to pick up on the fact that the SADF had engaged in offensive operations.

Thanks! --Katangais (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

An obvious contradiction

In the introduction you find the following text:

"With a decisive victory by the MPLA, supported mainly by Cuba and the Soviet Union, over the combined forces of UNITA, FNLA, Zaire and South Africa, with the support of the United States, the operation was vital for the proclamation of independence and consequent liberation of Angola."

Then, you read the rest only to find that South Africa overwhelmingly thrashed the opposition except for a few minor skirmishes. From talking to people who have been there I find this accurate.

The first statement doesn't make sense. It is either plain incorrect or written in the wrong context.

Thanks Alwyns42 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Alwyns. When you read the article, you have to look at it in the context of article being about a South African operation which was just a small part of the Angolan War of Independence as a whole. After the South African forces backing the FNLA were unable to take Luanda, and the lack of political commitment to take Angola with just South African soldiers and not with proxy forces like the FNLA and UNITA, and finally the end of American support for the anti-MPLA forces and the South African effort, there was not going to be a good outcome. The are countless examples during the border war of the South African politics letting down or muzzling the SADF. As they say, you can win the battles and still loose the war. In the end, the MPLA took Luanda and eventually most of the provincial capital's and assumed control of Angola. The South Africans then set creating a buffer in the south by backing UNITA and creating 32 Battalion out of remnants of the FNLA. Regards Paul Conlinp (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Duration 1 January 1976 is incorrect. We left 31 March 1976 197.185.101.24 (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)