Post Bush Wars aesthetics

Probably descended from the British tradition of implementing shorts in tropical uniforms. Why the British did that instead of making pants out of light fabric, I have no idea.

Attached: 1531316528821.jpg (536x355, 46K)

Attached: 1528088474452.jpg (800x691, 210K)

were Rhodesian soldiers not issued helmets?

Attached: 1528061829146.png (903x701, 1.34M)

Damn I want one of those uniforms.

Steel helmets serve little function when your enemy lacks artillery as they really only help protect you from shrapnel. Im sure the extreme heat there made what little protection it served not worth wearing

About the only thing that was made in rhodesia

paratroopers had steel helmets

Attached: 4d37c18.jpg (1570x1024, 350K)

man, bushstroke is a really ugly camo. the fucking definition of overrated

Attached: 20190423_090857.jpg (890x5986, 1.65M)

youtube.com/watch?v=41-dLH5YqeU

Attached: born to feel.jpg (500x332, 43K)

I have about a thousand original content photos from my brother's time as a conscript with the SADF in Angola.

post the best ones user. or at least some of them

They're not scanned in. And I don't have a scanner.

>seriously, why?
It's hotter than satan's taint during the dry season, and many of these guys were used to wearing shorts in the bush. I've talked to a couple veterans of the RLI and RAR veterans who said that later in the war more guys switched to pants or the coveralls because SOP required them to grease paint their legs if they wore shorts and that stuff was a pain in the ass to get off.

>is it really worth exposing your white legs and not having the extra pockets?
Depended on the mission. I know that the RLI and RAR were rotated between patrols and fireforce operations with breaks from combat in between. Patrol is exactly what you'd imagine it to be, and many wore pants during patrol because they'd be in the bush for an extended period of time. Fireforce was a much different animal and did not require as much time in the bush. A fireforce striked was called by whatever unit tracked down terrs (Selous Scouts, RLI on patrol, CTUs, take your pick), and were generally short and high tempo operations. Since they weren't going to be in the bush as long and the camo shorts also had pockets. Why not wear shorts if you're going to be out for a few hours and expecting to run into combat. If they needed any extra equipment or ammo it'd be stored in a pack.

CTU (combat tracker units) also wore shorts because they didn't want to get snagged in the brush and would be pursuing terrs for days in the bush. They treated it more like big game hunting then combat. Warfare in Africa is a fascinating thing. Keep in mind much of this was AO dependent.

Attached: 1518996877601.jpg (660x320, 54K)

>AO
what does that mean? also, you sound like you've actually read up on this this whole thing. what book would you recommend the most? i don't want to read several, just one.

AO = Area of Operation

only thing that would make them more Aesthetic would be mg42's

>what does that mean?
Area of Operation. Rhodesia was divided into several.

>you sound like you've actually read up on this this whole thing
Capstone paper was on COIN in Southern Africa and military history has always been an interest of mine.

>what book would you recommend the most?
If I had to just say one, Three Sips of Gin. It is written by a man named Tim Bax, he was an RLI troopie then a Selous Scout operator. He gives a good overview of what both units were like and how missions were approached.

>i don't want to read several, just one.
I cannot stress enough how important it is to read multiple books and articles on these kinds of conflicts. One book will only give you a glimpse of the whole picture. Timothy Stapleton is one of the best historians you'll find on warfare in Africa and I can't recommend him more. Bruce Vandervort is another good one.

>inb4 reading is hard
Reading one book then considering yourself well read on a subject is what low IQ communists and faggots do.

Attached: 1523450574463.jpg (640x436, 198K)