Page 3 of 29
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:43 pm
by Pat Holscher
Thanks go out to Roy for allowing me to post these interesting items. It's very rare indeed that we have first hand information, and I appreciate the chance to post it here.
Pat
On the Regiment's Name
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:20 pm
by roy elderkin
On the Regiment's name:
1976 was a landmark as far as the Unit was concerned; we had achieved recognition,
On the battlefield, even our opponents acknowledged this. In two contacts we achieved
The highest kill rate, of any other regiment in the Rhodesian Army. This was later passed by other Units simply because when we moved into an area the Terrorists moved out. Their intelligence was better than ours, they gave our operational areas a wide berth, their own commanders instructing them not to get involved with us or any of the other specialised Units such as the SAS, RLl and RAR, but to chose softer targets. Such as farmers and their own people, these and other factors,
It had been in the mind of the OC Tony Stephens that we needed something better than the name MIU It was proposed to the Army that the Unit would like to be named the Grey's Scouts, after a certain Captain Grey who raised a similar unit from nothing during the Matabele War of 1896, it seemed to us to be appropriate
The Army accepted the idea, and we became officially the Grey’s Scouts Regiment.
This designation of a Regiment meant a great deal to us, this was recognition indeed, and was to mean that we were no longer the Cinderella of the Rhodesian Army, as the following year was to indicate. The Army now suggested that the Regiment put forward its colours and embellishments. Tony Stephens proposed that the badge should have a horse’s head over an infantry horn, with the words Grey’s Scouts on a scroll. The colours maroon and gray, maroon or plumbago was Rhodes favourite colour, and gray for the Regiment. Head dress would be a gray beret with a maroon flash behind the badge, and for Parades a gray felt bush hat, maroon puggery with flash, brim turned up at the left side, and pinned with black cockerel feathers (Heckles). This was accepted and Grey's came of age.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:18 am
by Pat Holscher
Originally posted by roy elderkin
On the question of weapons we were encumbered by the FN Rifle, a good weapon but heavy for mounted soldiers, as well as unwieldy especially when working in heavy bush. The only respite we were to get was the introduction of the Israeli Uzi sub machine gun, and the G3 a shorter lighter weapon, though easily damaged if dropped form a horse in contact. Most soldiers would have preferred to use the RPD or the AK47 if it had been allowed these would have been ideal for us. It is hard enough to carry a FN with two hands, but when one has to carry it for days with one hand, whilst guiding a horse with the other, it gets very heavy.
Towards the end of the war, the Regiment was equipped with the RPD, AK47, SKS, as well as the G3. Every soldier carried a hand gun, either the browning 9mm or star, although if one was lucky enough, the Togorof was much prized, after a contact there was a general free for all looking for these pistols, before the Police SB came to claim the bodies.
On the carrying of the rifles, was this done without a bucket in order that the rifles always be at the ready?
Way back in osme earlier discussion there's information on how 19th Century U.S. Cavalrymen and North West Mounted Police frequently simply carried the rifle across the pommel of the saddle. This was particularly done in areas where it could be expected that action could occur at any time. Indeed, the very knowledgable poster indicatd that the carbines sometimes exhibit damage as a result of being carried that way, or have their rear sights somewhat off from having moved slightly due to long periods of contact with the pommel.
Anyhow, I'd think that it must have been very uncomfortable to carry the FAL that way, as it is a sizable rifle.
Text by Roy Elderkin
Gordon Johnson a local saddler had an American Army saddle the McLelland that he lent to us for user trials. The tree was made from glass fibre (The original had a wooden frame) the girth rings and stirrup bars were attached to metal straps which were moulded into the fibreglass. This made an extremely light and flexible saddle, weighing just under five pounds The saddle at first extremely uncomfortable, as it consisted of only a front a rear arch with two boat shaped strips joining them, but once used everything else felt uncomfortable.
This is a very interesting observation. Indeed, you can find comments on the McClellan in the US stating that either the saddle was very uncomfortable, or that it is very comfortable. I wonder if the comments both ways are due to the saddles with which a person is otherwise familiar with not being condusive to the military seat, or having some other feature requiring some seat adjustment?
Pat
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:26 am
by Pat Holscher
Here's a photo on the net of a Grey's Scout aiming a FAL over the neck of his mount.
http://www.geocities.com/rhodesiansatwa ... cout1.jpeg
This photo must be a fairly early one, perhaps before they received the Grey's Scouts designation, given that this saddle is a UP, and blankets are being used under the saddle. As Roy has described above, the unit went to a McClellan saddle with a different type of pad.
Dramatic photo, Roy may perhaps recognize the rider.
Pat
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:49 am
by roy elderkin
Pat
I am glad that you have received the papers I sent I hope that it will be of interest to the forum. In answer to your questions yes the FN was a heavy weapon, and could be combersom in heavy bush , but that was what we had to use and get used to, until the introduction of the G3 although it was heavy many soldiers prefered this weapon than the G3 as far as they were concered the G3 was to flimsy, the FN on the other hand did not fall to peices when dropped. You are correct regarding how the rifle was carried, our designated areas were hot spots and ambushes were the norm, so rifles were carried this way for instant use.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:11 pm
by Pat Holscher
This item on tent pegging is a classic!
Text by Roy Elderkin
In 1976 I was invited by the British South Africa Police to a skill at arms competition, which was to be held at the Salisbury Show Grounds. We were able to obtain a Lance from the Police, but not a sword. We overcame this, as Bill Lewis, our Farrier resolved this problem by making a sword. He obtained a torsion spring bar from a VW and shaped it to requirements. The saddler made the grip by punching out oval pieces of leather that was then shaped to fit the hand. The basket was made from aluminium, polished, and thin felt placed inside to give the knuckles protection The moment of truth was the testing, as we did not want to hurt the Animals if things went wrong we tried out the sword in the following way. Rob Early who was to make fame later with his book "A time of madness", said that he would drive the SAS long wheel base Land Rover whilst I hung on the back and attempted to pick up the peg with the sword. We managed to pick up the peg travelling at forty miles and hour, and so it was concluded that if nothing happened at that speed it would be fairly safe, it says a lot about a VW torsion bar spring and what can be achieved with limited resources.
Pat
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:01 am
by george seal
Originally posted by Pat Holscher
This item on tent pegging is a classic!
Text by Roy Elderkin
In 1976 I was invited by the British South Africa Police to a skill at arms competition, which was to be held at the Salisbury Show Grounds. We were able to obtain a Lance from the Police, but not a sword. We overcame this, as Bill Lewis, our Farrier resolved this problem by making a sword. He obtained a torsion spring bar from a VW and shaped it to requirements. The saddler made the grip by punching out oval pieces of leather that was then shaped to fit the hand. The basket was made from aluminium, polished, and thin felt placed inside to give the knuckles protection The moment of truth was the testing, as we did not want to hurt the Animals if things went wrong we tried out the sword in the following way. Rob Early who was to make fame later with his book "A time of madness", said that he would drive the SAS long wheel base Land Rover whilst I hung on the back and attempted to pick up the peg with the sword. We managed to pick up the peg travelling at forty miles and hour, and so it was concluded that if nothing happened at that speed it would be fairly safe, it says a lot about a VW torsion bar spring and what can be achieved with limited resources.
Pat
Today this is not that unusual. Sword making effectively depends a lot more on knowledge of metallurgy than on the quality of the raw matter itself. I've met a few amateur swordsmiths in Chile and they usually make their swords this way. Lots of people in the US employ pieces of old cars to make swords. Currently there are manuals that tell you how to obtain the exact raw matter from junkyards, it all depends on a strict control of temperature and timing. The interesting thing is to have made this sword (I imagine a saber) with no manuals.
Rhodesians were famous for their inventness and do it yourself philosophy. They were known for making a variety of military gear out of fiberglass. We have discussed saddle trees and portee vehicles. They also made the "Vaporizer" a jeep or buggy out of fiberglass. The Chilean army is making a very similar light vehicle, but out of steel plates.
In this Forum, we always hear how mounted units are expensive because of their unique logistical needs. The Grey Scouts proved that prejudice wrong.
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:58 am
by roy elderkin
Hi George
Thanks for your interest, the incident regarding the sword was but a few of the things we had to do. Bill Lewis our master farrier was having trouble getting his forge up to a good heat, the hand crank blower was not strong enough, this we resolved I borrowed the motor from my wife's washing machine when she was not looking, it took along time for her to forgive me. Did the end justify the means,oh yes, the attitude of all was faith, hard work and sheer bloody-mindness to get the unit up and running and no regrets. If it is of interest we beat the pants off the police in the skill at arms, something they did not forgive us for. To be fair to them whilst I was in RHA I did alot of skill at arms competition's in all of the Royal Tournament's and other competition's so I had plenty of practice.
roy
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:32 pm
by Pat Holscher
I'd be curious what the training program for this unit was. Did a person have to ride to join it? How long was the training? What was emphasized in the training?
Pat
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:48 am
by roy elderkin
Pat
When the unit was first set up all volunteer's were firstly able to ride and secondly that they either had basic infantry training or had been fully trained. To marry the eqitation side to the infantry aspect, the unit was devided into two parts, military horsemanship and then infantry tactics. For the infantry tactics this work was undertaken by skilled NCO's mostly either SAS or RLI [Rhodesian Light Infantry] and RAR [Rhodesian African Rifles] all were regulars. These men taught firstly, basing up procedures ie dont eat where you slept, and dont eat where you sleep. This procedure when broken down works in the following to base up at night, ride one to two ks beyond your night stop carry out a three sixty, eat feed and water horses we always worked in pairs the buddy buddy system.Horses being tethered not picketed,whilst one man stood guard the other attended to the horses, he then stood guard and the other made their food. Then and only then did the patrol move back to the night stop and bed down still carry out the buddy buddy system. All in a three sixty position. In the morning mount move out of night posy, a further three or four ks and breakfast this procedure was nevery changed, and we never had ambushes when we followed this procedure.Next was taught map time appreciation I do not know whether the readers of the forum are familiar with this, it would require a full text to understand so I will give a basic understang of it, in basic terms it is part of field craft ie time distance tables watering points, ambush areas bridge and river crossing and more importantly how to read a map. Next they were taught immediate ambush drills, advance to contact and skirmishing, formations arrow head extended line and tracking techniques silent signals all the things that a trained infantry soldier should know, these skills were then applied to riding skills that he would require. On the equitation side they were taught the military way of horsemanship picketing, animal management rifle drills, care of equipment in the field , minor horse problems ie girth galls sore backs,their causes and how to treat them foot and leg problems shoeing, ie what happens when a horse casts a shoe you could be miles away from a farrier, the answer take off the opposite shoe at least one in the patrol will have a basic kit to remove a shoe remove the nails and round off the toe to stop spliting. These were all fundermental, to healthy horses good riding and good infantry skills. As I outlined earlier the first men to join the unit had most of these skills and made life easier for us.
But then came the time when we had to go into a complete training program, with troop becoming bigger and eventualy into Squadron size as more and more people joined the unit. The formation of two regular squadrons and one TA ,designated A and C squadrons regular, B TA. A training program was introduced irrespective of whether the soldier could ride or not trained or untrained TA or regular. Previously the normal 28 day call up for TA was normal, done on a rotating basis regulars carried out standard opperational tours. The first training program was for six weeks ,the first two being evaluation, matching men to horses, then assesment as to their sutability of being a mounted soldier. Once this was carried out they spent the rest of these two weeks on the end of a longe line, to perfect the seat of those who could ride and get used to the type of saddle that they would be using. For those who could not, then this was the introduction to the riding experience, on completion they were assesed and dependant on this were put into groups with an instructor for that level, and sent to the riding schools for continuation training.The object of this was to bring the non riders up to a level or as close to the those who could ride, the more advanced riders I trained in the art of military horsemanship as apposed to civilian type riding. During the riding aspect which was two hours a day they were then handed over to the infantry instructors, who at first taught infantry tactics dismounted, and as they progressed in their riding skills this was done mounted.
In the last weeks of training they were taken out at night to teach baseing up procedures, and field craft. Mounted rifle drills which I taught culminating in a passing out parade ,for those who passed the course as a Grey Scout were awarded their beret's. They were assesed throughout the the course and if they did not meet the standards laid down were RTUd or left the course under their own volition. We had laid down the standards we required ,which were strict and this was the corner stone of the Regt . At the end of the course TAs went into B SQN Regulars into A or C depending on their requirments.
Roy
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:27 am
by Joseph Sullivan
Roy:
We ave had long discussions about the use of horses under today's circumstances of high-quality night vision, and also infrared scopes and IR guided weapons. Some among us say that the horses size and heat signature is a liability under these conditions, others disagree, saying that the heat of bodies of men will always be picked up anyway, and that machines can readily be heard or spotted and targeted.
As one who has fought mounted in a modern war, do you have any thoughts on this?
Joe
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:47 am
by Pat Holscher
Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan
Roy:
We ave had long discussions about the use of horses under today's circumstances of high-quality night vision, and also infrared scopes and IR guided weapons. Some among us say that the horses size and heat signature is a liability under these conditions, others disagree, saying that the heat of bodies of men will always be picked up anyway, and that machines can readily be heard or spotted and targeted.
As one who has fought mounted in a modern war, do you have any thoughts on this?
Joe
Very interesting question, particularly in light of the ongoing horse use in some regions of the world.
Pat
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:49 am
by Pat Holscher
Roy sent this photo:
The photo depicts General Hickman and Capt. Roy Elderkin. As he notes, there's no doubt about it. That is definately a McClellan saddle. Indeed, it looks to be of the M1904 pattern. Did the Rhodesian McClellans have quarterstraps? I'd have guessed they were of the M1928 pattern, but it looks like they are the M1904 pattern, which of course was more common.
Pat
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:02 am
by roy elderkin
Joe
Great question, whilst one could except the fact that horses are far quieter than machines, on a number of actions we were able to get very close to targets without them being aware of us. But as to a more modern warfare with the items mentioned above, it was found that the heat sig of man and animals merged into one and was regarded as part of a heard when working amongst game animals.This would be more difficult when opperating in areas were large heards are not supposed to be because the heat sig would be to big. The only way that we could not be detected day or night was the way you positioned the animal in a stationary position that is by placing the horse in line with trees ie not diagonaly across. I think that in a more modern concept night vision aids infrared and so on would have laid us wide open,it is just has hard for soldiers to hide. On the flip side it could be mistaken for a large animal and ignored good luck.
Roy
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:32 am
by Pat Holscher
Originally posted by roy elderkin
Pat
When the unit was first set up all volunteer's were firstly able to ride and secondly that they either had basic infantry training or had been fully trained. To marry the equitation side to the infantry aspect, the unit was divided into two parts, military horsemanship and then infantry tactics. For the infantry tactics this work was undertaken by skilled NCO's mostly either SAS or RLI [Rhodesian Light Infantry] and RAR [Rhodesian African Rifles] all were regulars. These men taught firstly, basing up procedures ie don't eat where you slept, and don't eat where you sleep. This procedure when broken down works in the following to base up at night, ride one to two ks beyond your night stop carry out a three sixty, eat feed and water horses we always worked in pairs the buddy buddy system.Horses being tethered not picketed,whilst one man stood guard the other attended to the horses, he then stood guard and the other made their food. Then and only then did the patrol move back to the night stop and bed down still carry out the buddy buddy system. All in a three sixty position. In the morning mount move out of night posy, a further three or four ks and breakfast this procedure was never changed, and we never had ambushes when we followed this procedure.Next was taught map time appreciation I do not know whether the readers of the forum are familiar with this, it would require a full text to understand so I will give a basic understang of it, in basic terms it is part of field craft ie time distance tables watering points, ambush areas bridge and river crossing and more importantly how to read a map. Next they were taught immediate ambush drills, advance to contact and skirmishing, formations arrow head extended line and tracking techniques silent signals all the things that a trained infantry soldier should know, these skills were then applied to riding skills that he would require. On the equitation side they were taught the military way of horsemanship picketing, animal management rifle drills, care of equipment in the field , minor horse problems ie girth galls sore backs,their causes and how to treat them foot and leg problems shoeing, ie what happens when a horse casts a shoe you could be miles away from a farrier, the answer take off the opposite shoe at least one in the patrol will have a basic kit to remove a shoe remove the nails and round off the toe to stop splitting. These were all fundermental, to healthy horses good riding and good infantry skills. As I outlined earlier the first men to join the unit had most of these skills and made life easier for us.
But then came the time when we had to go into a complete training program, with troop becoming bigger and eventually into Squadron size as more and more people joined the unit. The formation of two regular squadrons and one TA ,designated A and C squadrons regular, B TA. A training program was introduced irrespective of whether the soldier could ride or not trained or untrained TA or regular. Previously the normal 28 day call up for TA was normal, done on a rotating basis regulars carried out standard operational tours. The first training program was for six weeks ,the first two being evaluation, matching men to horses, then assessment as to their suitability of being a mounted soldier. Once this was carried out they spent the rest of these two weeks on the end of a longe line, to perfect the seat of those who could ride and get used to the type of saddle that they would be using. For those who could not, then this was the introduction to the riding experience, on completion they were assessed and dependent on this were put into groups with an instructor for that level, and sent to the riding schools for continuation training.The object of this was to bring the non riders up to a level or as close to the those who could ride, the more advanced riders I trained in the art of military horsemanship as apposed to civilian type riding. During the riding aspect which was two hours a day they were then handed over to the infantry instructors, who at first taught infantry tactics dismounted, and as they progressed in their riding skills this was done mounted.
In the last weeks of training they were taken out at night to teach baseing up procedures, and field craft. Mounted rifle drills which I taught culminating in a passing out parade ,for those who passed the course as a Grey Scout were awarded their beret's. They were assesed throughout the the course and if they did not meet the standards laid down were RTUd or left the course under their own volition. We had laid down the standards we required ,which were strict and this was the corner stone of the Regt . At the end of the course TAs went into B SQN Regulars into A or C depending on their requirements.
Roy
Thanks for this detailed information, very interesting.
Pat
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:33 am
by Pat Holscher
Originally posted by roy elderkin
Joe
Great question, whilst one could except the fact that horses are far quieter than machines, on a number of actions we were able to get very close to targets without them being aware of us. But as to a more modern warfare with the items mentioned above, it was found that the heat sig of man and animals merged into one and was regarded as part of a heard when working amongst game animals.This would be more difficult when operating in areas were large herds are not supposed to be because the heat sig would be to big. The only way that we could not be detected day or night was the way you positioned the animal in a stationary position that is by placing the horse in line with trees ie not diagonally across. I think that in a more modern concept night vision aids infrared and so on would have laid us wide open,it is just has hard for soldiers to hide. On the flip side it could be mistaken for a large animal and ignored good luck.
Roy
Also very interesting information. Indeed, with the new night gear, it's a whole new battlefield in many ways.
Pat
On initial operations in 1975
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:38 am
by Pat Holscher
On initial operations in 1975:
Text by Roy Elderkin
Our task was to move from Inkomo to Umtali, which is situated in the eastern districts of Rhodesia, approximately one hundred and fifty kilometers from Salisbury, this area borders Mozambique (formally Portuguese East Africa)
Vehicles would go by road, carrying the Units paraphernalia, plus horse rations and hay The horses were entrained at Inkomo into cattle trucks, ten animals per truck with two men to a truck. Every man was issued with two days rations, as there was no likelihood of receiving any other eating arrangements. The remainder of the men went into Salisbury where they met up with the horses, we then proceeded to Umtali and camped at the Show Grounds, a journey that took nine hours by train, and two and a half by road (not exactly the intercity 125)
Did use of vehicles in this fashion continue? Ie., where they limited to transportation from one area of operations to another, but did not see operational use in the missions?
Pat
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:26 pm
by roy elderkin
Pat
In answer to the first question horses were moved by rail or horse transport. Transport was generaly used for advanced partys when setting up base camps and to bring in hay and feed. On patrols, vehicles resuplied troops and horses in field so that patrols could be extended. On other occasions troops and horses were deployed by vehicle into operational areas, if there was a major contact then the reserve troop would be deployed in this manner to support the contact. All vehiclesO were mine protected with the introduction sloping armour, mine conveyer belting was first laid on the floor and sand bags placed over top it gave horses firm footing and protection. Horses were taught to jump of the back of vehicles in the absence of sutable places to drop the tail gate. To load ,termite, or other mounds were utalised, animals were loaded knose to tail to balance the vehicle. On the photo I sent with pack saddle you can see in the background a horse transporter, this was taken before the introduction of armour, it is a merc 45.
Roy
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:45 am
by Pat Holscher
Roy, in the Rhodesian context, what was the difference between the Territorial Army and the Regular Army? I always think of the Territorial Army in the British context. I'm not sure if I understand that correctly, but I've always understood that to refer to a reserve forced based primarily in the UK.
Pat
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:32 am
by roy elderkin
Pat
A territorial soldier in the Rhodesian army, was one had completed his national service, and was liable for call up, or draft as you would know it. Every male between the age of 16 and 50 was liable to be called up, on leaving school all males had complete and report for national service training . In British context an TA soldier is voluntary, or is transfered to the reserve after being a regular soldier.