It now seems clear that this South African military presence was significantly reinforced during the period September - December 1979, while the Lancaster House negotiations were in progress. At the end of November, in the first of a flurry of press reports, the London Guardian's correspondent in Rhodesia reported that there was strong circumstantial evidence of heavily increased South African military involvement in (Rhodesia). Unsubstantiated reports (which the Guardian was subsequently able to confirm) claim that South Africa has moved a number of 5.5 Howitzers with artillery crews from Pretoria to such sensitive border areas as the Chirundu Bridge crossing with Zambia. Pilots from the Republic also appear to be playing an increasingly important role in Salisbury's airforce, particularly in the helicopter squadrons.
On 30 November the Daily Telegraph reported that even while South Africa's "secret military involvement" in Rhodesia was being raised in discussions between London and Pretoria, "helicopter pilots, combat troops and other military personnel have been sent north to help the hard-pressed Rhodesian army". The report added that while precise numbers were not known the South African commitment was believed to be "quite large-scale".
On the same day, 30 November, formal confirmation of the presence of SA troop units in Rhodesia was provided by the SA Prime Minister himself, Mr. P.W. Botha. Addressing a farewell gathering for the retiring head of the SA Air Force, Mr. Botha admitted that South Africa, in consultation with the Mozorewa-Smith regime, had "for some time now been looking to the protection of our interests as well as our vital lines of communication such as the rail link to Beit Bridge and the railway links through it ... No right thinking person can expect Zimbabwe Rhodesia also to protect those interests". In justification of SA's action, he claimed that guerillas of the ANC of South Africa had been collaborating with those of the Patriotic Front to attack South African interests in Rhodesia. In reporting Mr. Botha's speech, the Cape Times added that South African troops had been known to have been guarding the Beit Bridge crossing for more than two years, and that the SA forces also undertook "limited patrolling" of the railway line north of the border crossing.
A number of correspondents subsequently pointed out that in addition to regular SA troops ostensibly guarding transport routes, significant numbers of SA military personnel were integrated into the strategically most crucial units of the Rhodesian security forces, notably the airforce, the artillery and armoured car units. It is known that various administrative arrangements have been worked out over the years between the authorities in Salisbury and Pretoria to enable South African regular soldiers to complete part of their training in Rhodesia or to spend periods on secondment there. SA infantrymen are encouraged to volunteer for terms of duty in Rhodesia and in turn are exempted from their SADF service commitments. Many South Africans in Rhodesia are in command of units; they are permitted to serve for long periods without loss of seniority, rank or salary increments in South Africa.
The Guardian, for example, reported that in addition to 400 regular troops guarding rail routes, South Africa had in early 1979 supplied a "large number" of "volunteer" pilots, gunners and technicians to Rhodesia, together with additional Alouette helicopters. South African pilots, mostly regular SAAF officers, "underpin the cutting edge of the counter-insurgency campaign - Fire Force Operations" (i.e. the combined use of helicopter and ground troops, on a "quick reaction" basis). "It is no secret that Pretoria has encouraged this recruitment just as the Republic has provided much of the money and material for the war effort. The new factor is the extent to which South Africa has moved to make up the shortage of skilled personnel such as pilots, helicopter technicians and gunners". It is estimated that South African pilots and technicians may fly and maintain as many as 70% of the helicopters used in fire force operations.
The Sunday Telegraph reported that SA "combat troops" had recently been sent into Rhodesia in addition to up to two battalions – about 1,600 men – of regulars deployed in the south of the country for the past 18 months. The South African Army Medical Corps had also been inside the country since January 1979.
On 14 December Major General Acland, Lord Soames' military adviser, confirmed the presence of South African troops in Rhodesia. He told a press conference that he understood there were "a certain number of individuals in the Rhodesian army from different countries. Beyond that there is a small South African presence of less than a thousand men".
The Observer and the Daily Telegraph subsequently gave the figure of 2,000 SA troops, "twice the number previously thought".
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that at least some of the journalists and editors responsible for the compilation of these reports had been aware of the extent of SA military support for the regime for some considerable time, but, for whatever reason, were unable or unwilling to publish details until the final stages of the Lancaster House negotiations. The Guardian, for example, pointed out that "in most cases the (SA) troops wear mottled Rhodesian Army camouflage uniforms but, with notable indiscretion, they have been seen in their own distinctive plain brown battledress. The distinctive South African accent and the use of the Afrikaans language makes Pretoria's regular troops very evident whatever the colour of their uniforms". The Daily Mail's correspondent also reported that many of the SA army and air-force personnel in Rhodesia wore their own uniforms, while SA armoured cars, Puma helicopters and transport aircraft were in "everyday evidence". The Guardian further noted that the SA troops guarding the Beit Bridge-Rutenga-Salisbury railway were commanded by SA military liaison officers based in Fort Victoria. The presence of this liaison unit at the Fort Victoria regional army headquarters had been reported by the same correspondent more than 18 months previously but it had not been mentioned again until now.
