Talk:Battle of Cuito Cuanavale

It´s sad to see people that are still wrapped up by the propaganda, and not the real information, and also I want to say that I am not agree with the information displayed on the page, it´s all wrong. Some things people are well proved allready, and do not need more talking, and one of them is that, The Cuito Cuanavale Battle. I´m sorry if you feel bad about the case that your part of the conflict loss, or maybe your own country. People the truth is one, there´s no more, I only tell you that you were not able to find it by yourself, maybe because you don´t want to accept the true, or maybe because you were no able to search correctly.

The Cuban troops take the victory totally, sorry there´s no more true than that.

I hope you get one day the eyes that allow the light to pass freely.

The existence that gazes upon man

You offer nothing but some bland comments without evidence or even sourcing. Even E. German and Russian advisors have commented on the Cuban difficulties during the battle and the SADF's control of their area of operations. The MPLA, Namibia and even South Africa were 'liberated', but don't be ignorant to the losses either or to the simple effectiveness of the 5,000 SADF force in the battle, even the Germany's NAZIs fielded a good army. I believe it's difficult for many to accept much of the truth here because of their own psychological wounds with the racism of the era; ie if the SADF won the tactical conflict (or was at least not defeated) as much of the evidence shows, then there's the suggestion it was because it was a 'white man's' army indicating some sort of superiority. "The first casualty of war is truth", take it to heart.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Virgil61 (talk • contribs).

Unfortunately, the battle of Cuito Cuanavale is one that has taken on the essence of myth in many parts of the world. Years of Cuban propaganda, presenting Cuito as a humiliating defeat for the SADF and the direct cause of Apartheid's end, have placed this version of the battle on a pedestal which cannot be challenged. For challenging the outcome, and suggesting that the SADF did not actually lose but might have come out better, both diminishes Cuba's claimed role in ending Apartheid and destroys the idea that the liberation armies brought an end to that awful system. Many, many people just can't accept this, as they have woven the mythical story so far into their understanding of the history that any change threatens to destabilise their entire worldview. And so it must be denied, regardless of the facts, because the Cuban version must be kept sacrosanct. A pity, really. — Imp i 09:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness for military historians who can analyze without emotional baggage on their shoulders. It's time that the world accepts what really happened and look past the propaganda. Communism was on the verge of collapse when this battle happened. There was simply no more need for Pretoria to spend money and lives on a war 3000km away. Also, the collapse of Communism meant that apartheid SA could for the first time conceive of giving up power to a black replacement government.

XWing OK. if you want evidence and that´s what Iam going to give you. Tell me please:

Why the southafricans signed the treatment for the liberation of Angola and Namibia? if they were wining I don´t see any reason to do that. You want to say that they want to sign it, no mister! they were forced to did it, with no conditions, and even so they signed it, because otherwise cubans go all the way to Southafrica.

What do you know exactly about Cuito Cuanavale? How the conflict began? Let me tell you that the battle began when FAPLA Russian directed operations go into a regular ofensive against UNITA and southafrican troops and were almost totally rejected and had a lot of casualties, then cuban troops decided to intervene, stoping Southafrican and UNITA troops and wining the battle.

You say that cubans used the propaganda? Wow! maybe if cubans have the control of the media in the world or something you can say that, but when is the other side the one who´s control it(Unite States were in favor of Southafrica) I guess your afirmations are also invalids as mines. You still think that kill ratio in Corea´s war Sabres against Migs were about 10-1? Or that in Vietnam Phantoms surpassed migs? Or what about the Weapons of mass extermination in Iraq? Whos propaganda says that, the cubans propaganda? no, is the same that says that cubans lost in Cuito.

It´s a lie that Southafricans soldiers in the Cuban attack to Calueque wrote with blood in a wall "The Mig-23s broke up our hearts"? It´s a lie that no Southafrican plane dared to fly during the conflict near the cubans fearful of being intercepted by Mig-23MLs or the powerfull cuban air defense? It´s a lie that they were forced to sign the treatment? It´s a lie that UNITA was unable to kill a cuban small presence in Cangamba that were even fenced by them? It´s a lie that cuban special forces broke the fence totally? It´s a lie that cubans found no resistence all the way to Namibia strong enough to stop them? Why then it should be in a different way in Cuito?

Study by yourself, not by the others, and maybe you´ll get the true

No man, I guess that the propaganda found a victim not in anybody but you. I have the evidence of the ones who came back. I have the evidence of the same people that rejected a total invasion in only 3 days in Bay of Pigs(1961, Girón), Something that you should know your country won't never make, unless they get on something. I have the evidence of the people that forced a nuclear armed Southafrica to retreat. I have what you don´t have, the true.

If you want more evidence please, let me know. I´ll be pleased. --unsigned comments added by User:201.220.222.140

Please don't start comments lines with a space character. As for your comments, they are not easy to follow and they don't seem to be very neutral. It is clear that the South African involvement in Angola was to check Soviet/Cuban expansion in the region, specifically towards Namibia and then potentially South Africa. South Africa withdrew ALONG WITH Cuba in a mutual peace treaty in preparation of Namibian elections and independence. South Africa did not have a reason to govern Angola and as such no motivation to invade or control the country and in this "battle" they merely halted and pushed back a Cuban/Soviet advance (against UNITA strongholds). Cuba finally agreed to their withdrawal when the cost (monetary and human) became too great and it became clear that Soviet support for the campaign would not continue indefinitely (fall of the Soviet Union around this time in late 80's). --Deon Steyn 08:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to answer some of the charges contained herein.

Why the southafricans signed the treatment for the liberation of Angola and Namibia? if they were wining I don´t see any reason to do that. You want to say that they want to sign it, no mister! they were forced to did it, with no conditions, and even so they signed it, because otherwise cubans go all the way to Southafrica.

Actually, South Africa stated its intention to withdraw from Namibia in the early 1980s, under pressure from the United States. Not only did SA realise that it didn't have a tight legal case in favour of keeping Namibia, but the territory was costing more than it was worth. However, South Africa set the condition that it would only withdraw if Cuba and the USSR agreed to remove all Cuban troops and Soviet advisors from Angola at the same time. This was rejected by the USSR and Cuba, who believed they could defeat the SADF without the need for such an agreement. But after Cuito Cuanavale, and the drubbing that the Angolan and Cuban units got, both the USSR and Cuba agreed to the original South African condition and agreed to remove Cuban troops and Soviet advisors from Angola. So who got their way, eh?

What do you know exactly about Cuito Cuanavale? How the conflict began? Let me tell you that the battle began when FAPLA Russian directed operations go into a regular ofensive against UNITA and southafrican troops and were almost totally rejected and had a lot of casualties, then cuban troops decided to intervene, stoping Southafrican and UNITA troops and wining the battle.

You're half right. FAPLA, under Soviet command, commenced a massive offensive towards Mavinga and Jamba, hoping to take the two UNITA strongholds. Despite being heavily outnumbered and outgunned, a vastly smaller combined SADF and Unita force utterly destroyed 47 Brigade and mauled the others so badly that they were forced to retreat to Cuito Cuanavale. The SADF sent Col. Deon Ferreira, the operation's ground commander, orders to advance on Cuito and to assume positions on the eastern side of the Cuito river (but not to take the town!). The SADF's objective was never to defeat the combined Angolan/Cuban armies, it was just to prevent them from moving south and destroying Unita. Since that objective had been accomplished brilliantly, there was no need to advance any further than Cuito, since the town itself held little strategic value for the SADF.

It´s a lie that Southafricans soldiers in the Cuban attack to Calueque wrote with blood in a wall "The Mig-23s broke up our hearts"? It´s a lie that no Southafrican plane dared to fly during the conflict near the cubans fearful of being intercepted by Mig-23MLs or the powerfull cuban air defense? It´s a lie that they were forced to sign the treatment? It´s a lie that UNITA was unable to kill a cuban small presence in Cangamba that were even fenced by them? It´s a lie that cuban special forces broke the fence totally? It´s a lie that cubans found no resistence all the way to Namibia strong enough to stop them? Why then it should be in a different way in Cuito?

Yes, those are lies. The writing on the wall at Calueque was actually: "MiG-23, sak van die kart", which means "MiG-23, bag from the cart (or wagon)". You can show the picture to any Afrikaans speaker and they'll tell you the exact same thing. Not quite the same meaning, is it?

Plus, the South African Air Force flew numerous sorties throughout the military operations of 1987-1988. The SAAF's 7 C-130s alone flew over 412 sorties, while SAAF Mirage F1s were engaged virtually every day in ground attack missions during the fighting. In general, neither side engaged in much air-to-air activity, because the SAAF fighters would come in too fast and low for the high-flying MiG-23s to intercept, whilst the SAAF's missiles were outdated R.550-based weapons which were no match for the more modern and effective R-24 missiles carried by the MiGs.

I won't talk about the Unita claims (not my area of expertise), but the only reason the Cubans found no resistance going towards Tchipa is that there was no resistance for them to meet. Most of the SADF's forces had already been withdrawn to Namibia, and in any case it didn't have nearly enough soldiers in theatre at any one moment to defend all of southern Angola. The strategy instead was to hit them with mobile forces once it became clear where they were going and where they'd be. This was no different for the Cuban forces near Calueque, whose advance was stopped by a vastly smaller South African force under Major Mike Muller. With their ground attack decisively halted, the Cubans were forced to try save face by launching a largely-ineffectual bombing mission on Calueque, which killed 12 SADF soldiers but did very little damage to the dam's infrastructure. That, essentially, was the end of the war, with the Cubans agreeing to all of the conditions of the peace agreement without attempting another offensive.

In retrospect, the only conclusion an objective historian can come to is that the SADF's strategic goals were met. The Angolan offensive was stopped, Unita was saved and the Cubans agreed to withdraw entirely from Angola as a prerequisite for the SADF's withdrawal from Namibia. So even if we accept that the SADF tried to take the town of Cuito Cuanavale and was stopped, we are still forced to conclude that the SADF achieved victory, even if it wasn't as comprehensive as it could have been. Not a single one of the Angolan and Cuban strategic goals were met, yet you're telling us they won? It's just not possible. — Imp i 12:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don´t get it. The SADF fought a 20 years war and in the end gave all away (Namibia and Angola) just because the wanted peace? So many deads and so many money for a war that they didn´t wanted. Or did the Cuban help them to change their minds? :-)

Please do not expunge external links relevant to the article when adding your own and please try signing your comments.

I'm sorry you are having difficulty and 'don't get it'. The article isn't about the overall conflict in SW Africa, it is about the battle of Cuito Cuanavale. It's doubtful the Cubans helped change their minds as a result of this action since they were effectively beaten by the vastly outnumbered SADF in this battle. Virgil61 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

After examining the evidence I'd say that the South Africans probably won the battle, although they didn't win the war. (if winning the war meant keeping namibia). Still, keep the disputed result - it IS disputed, and a case can be made for a cuban victory. ManicParroT 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Book link dont bring any information

"if winning the war meant keeping namibia"... As you point out, ManicParroT, this is exactly where the confusion lies. The South African government of the time's only goal was to stop Soviet (and it's proxies) expansion and influence in the region which would eventually pose a threat to South Africa. In their minds this was a strategic threat worth fighting even at high cost. The same question also causes confusion with regard to this battle's outcome; the South African's goal was to stop an advance against a UNITA (South African friendly) controlled region and measured against this it was a success for South Africa and a dismal failure for Cuban/MPLA forces. Deon Steyn 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

81.208.36.84 seems to be engaging in what looks like vandalism on the article. Virgil61 05:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] other article

whats the diffrence between this page and Battle of Cuito Carnevale ??? 81.79.216.27 14:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This other article is just a stub the name is incorrect. I will put it up for deletion. Deon Steyn 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Angolan Army FAPLA begins in July of 1987 a great offensive against the UNITA, called "Greeting to October" in direction to Mavinga, and without the Cuban participation that were not agree with these plans. As well as it had foreseen by the Cuban Command, the FAPLA moved dangerously away from its lines, it wore away, and in September the UNITA with the SADF counterattack near the river Lomba. The FAPLA in October retires defeated toward Cuito Cuanavale, and the government of Angola requests again the help from Cuba. In November 15, 1987, the Cuban Army decides to intervene in the battle, and they sent to Cuito armored troops, to avoid that the city falls, these troops advance under the covering of MiG-21 and MiG-23. The troops of the UNITA and the SADF during their "Operación Hooper" carry out strong attacks to Cuito Cuanavale in January 12 and February of 1988, 14 intents to penetrate in Cuito Cuanavale without success.

The whole time, a squadron of MiG-21BIS acts intensely from Menongue AFB, at 200km of Cuito, destroying armored, artillery and enemy troops. Other MiG-21BIS arrive of reinforcement, and they made more than 1,000 combat flights during the battle. The SADF were forced by the MiGs to only move at night, and to disguise very well by day. Their howitzers G5 and G6 retire to areas at 35km of Cuito, near to the maximum of their reach. Only of January to March of 1988 the MiG-21s and MiG-23s complete 1,283 flight missions in Cuito Cuanavale, carrying out 722 bombing missions and 561 missions of air covering, they throw 358 ton of bombs and 4,000 rockets C-5 and other ammunition, causing immense losses in men and teams. Although officially the SADF only recognized 31 losses during Cuito Cuanavale, unofficial Southafricans sources calculate them in 715 . The last attack to Cuito the SADF made it in March 23, it fails, and the Cuban Command estimates that the battle was already won. Then, began the Cuban offensive toward the south, until the frontier. The Cuban advance was covered by 80 MiG-21s and MiG-23s of the FAR, and the Mirages F1 of the SAAF prefer not to appear more in the front. When the Cuban army was arriving to the frontier with Namibia and hit with MiG-23s the Calueque dam in June 27 of 1988, Southafrica requests the peace ( Is important to say that the reasons besides the attack of the dam with MIG-23MLs is that the MIG-23BNs that were actually the ones to take the mission were to the drift when the ship where they traveled to Angola was damaged) , and after negotiations, it is signed in December of 1988 the agreement that brings the independence to Namibia and the democratization of Southafrica. Does this says anything to anybody, “Democratization”, look what they were forced to do. Even the fall of the Apartheid is Cubans work. On the other hand, the ambassador of Southafrica Mrs. Thenjiwe Mtintso, recognized the paper of Cuba in the definitive liberation of Africa and she surrendered tribute to those more than two thousand combatants of Cuban internationalists killed in combat “during the 15 year war”. Please search what the 435/78 resolution is. It will tell a lot. And about the inscription of the MIG-23 in Calueque, you could be sure I won´t believe it whatever you say, the language is complicated, don´t say you know. There something more I want to say, and is about the Soviet presence. The Soviets only help in logistics, not in man power, maybe some Russian general could be seen in operations, but no a single soviet soldier get in combats. And something more please: already today the diplomats that were active in Southafrica by then recognized the Cuban victory and even some military. What your are trying to probe, nothing but emptiness. The historians that don't look that way , or that deny it, we can consider them as reviewers of little credibility. Please if it is not a nuisance for you, go to the Granma newspaper official website and look for it, please, not to read, because I know that you don´t believe in them, but to see the pictures taked during the battle, to get that unequivocal expression of victory.OverG 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)OverG

Granma is a Cuban State newspaper. It doesn't take a stretch of imagination to realize it's part of the Cuban propaganda on the issue of Cuito. What's next, will you quote old Pravda articles to put forth old Soviet propaganda? Unfortunately the influx of Cuban refugees to the US also brought in veterans of the conflict who have confirmed much of what the article states about high Cuban casualties and equipment losses. As long as you're putting up here in the Talk section no harm, no foul.Virgil61 00:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How many times to we have to repeat the point. Angolan/Cuban forces failed in their advance on the UNITA stronghold and were driven back to Cuito. The South Africans never tried to capture Cuito. There was no advantage to them, they had achieved the original goal of protecting UNITA at Mavinga and weakening the Angolan/Cuban forces.

This was a massive Angolan/Cuban failure/loss and they realised they could not gain and keep control over Southern Angola. South African never wanted to occupy Angola, it only wanted to stop a strong Communist threat on it's border and it succeeded in this goal. Two major factors led to a mutual peace treaty and withdrawal by both sides:

1. Angolan/Cuban forces failed in operation against Mavinga
2. Soviet support (billions of dollars in equipment) in '88 and '89 started to dry up with the fall of communism.

How can you consider 4 brigades being driven back from their objectives (against UNITA) as a victory??? This is a total and most embarrassing failure. If this was such a wonderful victory why didn't the Angolan/Cuban forces continue and remove UNITA and control the entire Angola???

Deon Steyn 06:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you still are discussing about who won?? man... The failure was only to FAPLA, don´t mess FAPLA with Cuban FAR. I gess you already know the true, but I don´t know why trying to defend the indefensible. Cubans won, sorry... The history cannot be changed already, no matter what you say. OverG 03:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)OverG

[edit] Improve

I find it dificult to believe that 5000 south africans could defeat 40000 cubans and allies,could you explain better in the article how could they do it,if they had air seperiority or a better position,or they were figthing on the defensive or if the cubans lack armour,explain better the battle,also it needs more references--Andres rojas22 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that the 40 000 Cubans and 3 000 - 5 000 South Africans didn't come into direct contact with each other, since the S.African forces did not attempt to take Cuito Cuanavale. — Impi 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Then that probably means that the SADF faught less than 40000 cubans.i mean that thing u said should be explained in the article,cause if not it sounds like a fantasy--Andres rojas22 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is explained in the article, which chronicles the events sufficiently. The reason the number of 40 000 Cubans is given in that in articles about historical battles the convention is to list the total number of forces committed to a battle, not necessarily the total number of forces who came into contact with each other (since this is often difficult to establish). Similarly, at most stages of the battle there were quite a bit less than 3000 South Africans involved in any fighting, never mind the given figure of 5000 which was the absolute maximum. — Impi 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I should probably also point out that the article says 40 000 combined, not 40 000 Cubans. In the fighting, the SADF did indeed come into contact with a fair portion of the Angolan Army's forces, which made up a large part of that total. — Impi 21:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Impi, the article lists four FAPLA brigades and the battle was spread out over a large distance and consisted of several phases where smaller groups would engage each other. Also remember that in many cases the FAPLA forces were not well trained. --Deon Steyn 07:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories: B-Class military history articles needing review | B-Class African military history articles | African military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles | B-Class Africa articles | B-Class Cuba articles | Mid-importance Cuba articles | WikiProject Cuba articles | WikiProject South Africa articles