>Pound for pound Rhodesian light infantry was regarded as

It is a pretty accurate claim. The RLI were damn good fighters, however a pound for pound statement means very little considering the entirety of the Rhodesian military in 1979, was only about a third the size of the US Marines.

They did have some excellent elite infantry units, but remember that most of their forces were reservists. They are similar to the Israeli Army in that the poor quality of their opponents made them look better than they were.

>>34776102
>Rhodesian light infantry was regarded as some of the best in the world
is that why they lost?

>>34776102
they fought against literal drug zombies

>>34776613
they lost because they are a landlocked country and were surrounded by enemy nations. they couldn't sustain materials needed to continue the war.

>>34776102
>How accurate would you say this description is?
It's accurate, but you have to keep it in it's frame of context for it to make sense. The RLI were developed as a fast reaction force that utilized fireforce tactics to envolpe the enemy from the air. Their enemy primarily being insurgents that would melt away into the bush faster than you could blink. The RLI were running missions with a high turnover rate and were gaining experience at a lightning fast pace. It was a unit that you joined to guarantee you saw combat, which is why it attracted many foreigners. With all that being said, the opponents they faced were for the most part absolute dogshit. That definitely helps bolster their reputation. Regardless, the RLI was an innovative use of force that sprang from the shoestring budget of the Rhodesian government. Both them and the RAR are good examples of utilizing a semblance of maneuver warfare to COIN, which most people thought was impossible at the time.

>>34776102
Did they win.

>>34776965
>making excuses for losers

pathetic /k/ucks

what is it with you kucks and worshipping losers, like the Zimbabwes, the Germans, the Dixies?

>>34778726
DELETE THIS

>>34779016
>Zimbabwes
You tried.

>>34779016
>*rhodesians
But yeah why the fuck worship losers?

They compensated for lacking equipment with exceptional mastery of infantry skills. That being said they fought literal retards.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPLFp9-zupc
Interesting video on it.

>>34781334
>fought literal retards.
fought literal retards and still lost

Being all alone with a continent full of angry monkeys is a scary thing.

>>34779016
>>34781308

It started out as contrarianism, then it was aesthetics, then because of martial prowess, now it's a mixture of the above.

>>34778726
>tripfag
Opinion discarded
Also
>Pound for Pound

File: Untitled.png (151KB, 317x936px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 317x936px

>>34778726
Did you?

>>34776965
They lost because of the migration of their native skilled personnel to safer countries

N E V E R D I E
E
V
E
R
D
I
E