ARCHIVES:  July 2015

1 July 2015

The Defence White Paper (Info from the ASPI Conference and Recent Intereview with Secretary, DOD)

Comments from the PM at the ASPI Conference: 

“A future force structure is at the heart of the coming White Paper. The Government has reassessed what our armed forces should be able to do. So, the White Paper will specify a force structure that enables our military to be even more effective in securing our nation and to make an even more active contribution to regional and global security. 

As history has repeatedly shown, the defence of Australia begins far from our shores, sometimes on the other side of the world, so our armed forces must be capable of conducting independent operations in our region and contributing meaningfully to military operations around the globe.

Obviously such a potent, balanced, versatile and sustainable future force does need a range of capabilities – but rather than just list them on a service-by-service basis, there is a joint plan that aligns capabilities with Australia’s Strategic needs.” 

Comments by the Secretary DOD During Recorded Interview: 

“All advice to Government must be contestable.

The White paper will be completed by the end of August.

While looking ahead 20 years, it will provide the framework for a 10 year capability plan to counter a range of conflicts which could arise quickly.

Together with the recent force structure review (last done in 2008), it will provide the basis for decisions about ADF force structure."

Opinion

The force structure needed to enable the ADF to respond to conflicts which could arise quickly, both in our region (primary responsibility) and further away (in support of allies) … what is it to be and how will this decision affect the RAAC?It’s clear that the structure will place much greater emphasis on integration between services than previously, but what are the other elements which will determine Army’s core components? 

The need to replace the ASLAV has been agreed, what about the replacement of the M113A1 and M113AS4?  How will the DWP affect future phases of LAND 400? 

The fact that the M113 family of vehicles is obsolete in terms of today’s battlefield is well accepted.  Will the new force structure reflect a view that future operations will no longer need infantry to be provided with armoured mobility?  Surely not.Armouredadvocates is concerned that decisions might be made because of funding outlays which create a capability gap in terms of land forces.  Hopefully it won’t be necessary to make representations in terms of what such a capability gap would mean on the battlefield.——————————————————————————————————2

July 2015

A Submission to Have Eligibility for the CGWP Unit Citation Awarded to 8RARExtended to Supporting Arms involved in Operation Hammersley 

The 8RAR Association was sent a copy of the submission, in the hope that they would support it.

Their response: “Unfortunately, 8 RAR Association is not in a position to support your draft submission.  It is a strongly held belief in the Association, both from Senior Officers present at the time and from Association Research Officers, that the CGWP Unit Citation was awarded to 8 RAR as a standalone Meritorious Award for its service in Vietnam from 28 November 1969 to 24 October 1970 – not just for Operation Hammersley that occurred during the period 10 February 1970 to 9 March 1970.”

The submission has been revised according.  A copy of the new section and slightly adjusted Conclusion is copied below.  The full Submission can be accessed under ‘Articles’. 

The Argument Against Extending Eligibility 

The 8RAR Association do not support the extension of eligibility on the basis that “Senior Officers present at the time and Association Research Officers [believe] that the CGWP Unit Citation was awarded to 8 RAR as a standalone award for its service in Vietnam from 28 November 1969 to 24 October 1970 – not just for Operation Hammersley”.  However, the only ‘deeds of valor or heroic conduct while in combat with the enemy‘ (the criteria for award of the CGWP) mentioned in the Citation (copied in full below) relate to “most remarkable military operations [which] took place in the area of the Long Hai hills“, i.e. Operation Hammersley.

Contrary to the assertion above, the fact that the CGWP was awarded to 8RAR for these particular actions was made clear by ‘one of 8RAR’s senior officers at the time’, in a speech at the 2008 Annual Dinner of the Royal Australian Regiment Association (QLD Divison).  His Excellency, Major General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC, Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Forces, stated that “3 RAR and D Company, 6 RAR proudly wear the United States Presidential Unit Citation, 1 RAR the United States Meritorious Unit Citation: and in the near future members of the re-raised 8th/9th Battalion will wear the South Vietnamese Unit Citation, Cross of Gallantry with Palm earned by 8 RAR in the Long Hais”.

Also contrary to the assertion above, the 8RAR’s principle research officer stated in his history of the Battalion in Vietnam that “Lieutenant-General Do Cao Tri, Commander of III Corps and Military Region III (of which Phuoc Tuy Province was part) presented 8RAR with the Meritorious Unit Commendation of the Vietnamese Armed Forces [i.e. the CGWP] for its actions in the Long Hai Hills.”  Dr Bob Hall (a platoon commander during Operation Hammersley) recently added to his reference above: “it seems to me only logical that the other units that were involved should also be recognised including the Armoured Regiment and the Cav Regiment people, and the field engineers who also did a stirling job during the operation.  The operation would have been very different had we not had the armoured and engineer support we had. 

Conclusion. 

The CGWP Unit Citation awarded to 8RAR justifiably referred to “the forces of the 8th Battalion” which “with modern tactics and a determined spirit … conducted continuous operations against the area and destroyed the enemy’s secret zone, causing great casualties to the communists and forcing them from the area, thus bringing peace to the Vietnamese people living there.”  

Eligibility for the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation awarded to 8RAR for the ‘deeds of valor and heroic conduct’ displayed during Operation Hammersley, should be extended to members of: A Squadron, 1 Armoured Regiment; B Squadron 3 Cavalry Regiment; and 3 Troop, 1 Field Squadron, who provided combat support which was essential to the success of the Operation.

This would be in accord with the eligibility extended to 2 Squadron, RAAF for the CGWP unit Citation awarded to the 35th Tactical Fighter Wing, US Air Force, and the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal’s recent decision that eligibility for the CGWP Unit Citation awarded to the 173rd Airborne Brigade, should be extended to the Brigade’s supporting units.

The 35th Tactical Fighter Wing, US Air Force and the US 173rd Airborne Brigade were presented with CGWP Unit Citations within weeks of 8RAR receiving the same award.  In both the former cases, eligibility has been extended to supporting units, as it was evident that the intention of the Republic of Vietnam was that this be done.  As recounted above, the efforts of the units that supported 8RAR, deserve no less.——————————————————————————————————3 July 2015

1st Armd Regt Assn AGM (10 July 2015)

The four Motions that are listed on the Agenda as proposed by me, are seconded by Jack Chipman.   The following two additional motions that I’d like added to the Agenda, they are seconded by Trevor Lowe.

‘Canister! On! FIRE!’(COF) Royalties.

Funds donated to the Assn from COF proceeds amount to $9172 as of December 2014.  A second print run is now being sold, as are ‘ebooks’ vide

Apple itunes. Royalties amounting to about $400 pa for the next two years can be expected.

Motion:  When thinking about how to spend the COF royalties (about $10,000), the C’tee take account of the coming Centenary of the Battle of Cambrai, which will also be the 50th Anniversary of the decision to send tanks to Vietnam, resulting in the urgent training of tank crews and their deployment into battle just a few months later.In this respect, consideration be given to use of the funds to commemorate these anniversaries in a way which acknowledges their significance as far as both the 1st Armd Regt and the Assn are concerned.  One possibility to be considered should include the provision of subsidies for representatives, judged to be particularly deserving, to attend Commemoration events in France, and, on return, report on their experiences for the benefit of members of 1st Armd Regt and the Assn.

Constitution and By-Laws.  These documents govern matters applicable to the membership of the Association as a whole, eg. lead times for submitting proposals for consideration at an AGM; as well as responsibilities of the C’tee (eg. lead times for notification of an AGM).

Motion.  It is moved that the 1AR Assn Constitution and By-Laws be posted on the Assn website so that they are accessible by all.

Re the second Motion, the by-laws and constitution are accessible under ‘Articles’.  It is explained that the by-laws “set out the minimum standards to be applied in the effective and efficient operation and management of the 1st Armoured Regiment Association by all members“.

Interestingly, according to By-law 7 (para 2.2): “The Secretary shall, not less than twenty-eight (28) days prior to the AGM, forward to all Ordinary Members copies of business to be addressed at the AGM including the Annual Report, Annual Balance Sheet and Financial Statement.

Today is 3 July, the AGM is to be held on 10 July … only an outline Agenda has been received (unless there is no business to be addressed other than C’tee reports).  How can members comment on activities for the past year and the financial situation, unless this information is provided in advance of the AGM?  The President has been asked if the reports are to be received prior to the AGM.——————————————————————————————————4 July 2015

1AR Assn By Laws.

The following apparent error in the definition of ‘Conflict of Interest’ has been pointed out to the C’tee:The term “conflict of interest” is defined as: “A situation where a person has a personal interest in a matter the subject of a decision or duty of that person.”

It is to be expected that everyone will have personal interest in matters coming before the Assn (otherwise, why would they be a member?).  A ‘conflict of interest’ is

generally thought to occur when a person might achieve a personal benefit as a result of situations that they could influence.

Mephisto at the AWM, Canberra.

After 70 years of exhibition in Queensland the First World War German tank Mephisto has arrived at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.  To commemorate the centenary of the First World War, the Memorial has collaborated with the Queensland Museum to display Mephisto outside Brisbane for the first time since it was transported from Europe after the end of the Second World War.  On display in Anzac Hall from 27 July.

In late 1917 the German Army produced 20 A7V Sturmpanzerwagen’s (roughly ‘armoured assault vehicle’) which were deployed in combat the following year.  The cumbersome war machines, weighing 32.5 tonnes, clambered into action in April 1918.  The crew normally consisted of up to seventeen soldiers and one officer: commander (officer, typically a lieutenant), driver, mechanic, mechanic/signaller, twelve infantrymen (six machine gunners, six loaders), and two artillerymen (main gunner and loader).

The German tanks were engaged in actions at such places as Villers-Bretonneux, a small French village that was recaptured by Australian soldiers at the cost of 1,200 lives.  The A7V’s were involved in the first tank versus tank action.

Unlike modern tanks, the A7V has no turret. Instead, it has a cupola for the commander and driver, and its main gun, a 57mm Maxim-Nordenfelt, is carried in a mounting in the front, allowing limited traverse.  Six Maxim 08 machine guns are carried in mountings, two on each side and two to the rear.  It’s cross country performance was poor because “its hull overhung its tracks both front and rear”.

The A7V Sturmpanzerwagen known as Mephisto (a ‘demon’ in German mythology) was immobilised in an area close to Villers-Bretonneux called Monument Wood. In July 1918 a detachment of soldiers from the 26th Battalion, mainly comprised of Queenslanders, helped recover the abandoned tank and drag it back to the allied lines.

It was sent to Australia as a war trophy, arriving at Norman Wharf in June 1919 where it was towed by two Brisbane City Council steamrollers to the Queensland Museum, then located in Fortitude Valley. It remains the sole surviving A7V tank in the world.——————————————————————————————————5 July 2015

1 Armd Regt Assn By-Laws

Email to ACT Rep:

“I thought that I should mention other aspects re the By-Laws which should probably be considered at the same time as that which I referred to yesterday.

By-Law 1 refers to a membership application form being attached as ‘Annex A’, however, it doesn’t seem be there; andBy-Law 7 states that the Secretary must give at least 14 days notice of an AGM; but also states that “All Notices of Motion and other business to be submitted to an Annual General meeting (AGM) must be forwarded to reach the Secretary not less than 60 days prior to the AGM”.

Are we serious?  It seems to me that someone is having a lend.Please request the C’tee to consider.  I’d appreciate your advice re the outcome of their considerations

Note: The By-Laws are able to be accessed vide ‘Articles’ below. 

History:  The Army Combat Badge.

Part of an email from yesterday…(Sorry about using the ‘I’ word so often, but this predates armouredadvocates.)

You might be interested to know that I was involved in advocating for an ‘armour combat badge’ (for which all those from other Corps who supported armour would be eligible); eventually a ‘senior officer’ (retd) delegation was to meet with the Minister and I was asked to prepare an Options Paper.  One of the options I proposed was an Army Combat Badge.  I did so with a very clear caveat that this could only be considered if the ICB was withdrawn, because to have both an ACB and an ICB would be divisive and counter-productive in terms of the combined arms concept at the time.

Of course, subsequent ‘manoeuvring within Army saw the ICB/ACB situation we have now.  (One of the other options presented was for a different combat badge for each combat arm; I personally thought the best option was to have both an ICB and an Armour Combat Badge, for which supporting corps, eg. RAE and RAEME, would be eligible.)  Anyway the saga continues … I read the Defence Instruction when the ACB was introduced.

I just couldn’t  believe it; if you were KIA your NOK would not be eligible to receive it, because the ACB was classed as a ‘dress embellishment’.  The bureaucracy was

endeavouring to save money.  We managed to embarrass the ‘powers that be’ into overturning this, but I’m still working on correcting another penny pinching issue.  You only receive a miniature ACB at public expense if you’re a senior NCO or officer.

Other ranks are not thought to need one because they’re unlikely to wear formal attire.  I proposed a compromise to allow ORs who had cause to wear a miniature, to complete an application form to have one issued.  Not approved.  My last request to the (just past) RSM-A, went unanswered.  I think it’s appalling that a person such as Graham Edwards, AM, if he had not been infantry, would have had to buy his own miniature ACB.——————————————————————————————————-6 July 2015

LAND 400 : A Crucial Project, Well Managed 

There can be no greater boost for an old soldier than to meet his or her counterparts serving today.  They are confident, enthusiastic, and, above all, professional.  This does not just happen … it comes about as a result of good training; which, in turn, comes about through good leadership.

So it is with LAND 400.  One cannot but be impressed with the way in which this project is being managed.  It is not just a single vehicle acquisition.  LAND 400 aims to acquire a number of different AFVs, for a number of different roles (each and every one of them crucial to Army’s ability to counter future threats).  This is undoubtedly the most important and complex land systems project ever undertaken.

A bipartisan understanding of this was on show at ASPI’s 2015 Land Conference, ‘Army’s Future Force Structure Options’.  Both Government and Opposition spokesmen emphasized the importance of the project and the need to meet the timetable set by the project team to avoid a significant gap in Australia’s defence capability: “The Govt believes LAND 400 is critical component of Army’s future force…to survive in an increasingly lethal environment” (Stuart Robert, Assistant Minister for Defence) and “LAND 400 isn’t to fight major tank battles. In a future INTERFET or RAMSI this equipment will be vital” (David Feeney, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence).

The Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Angus J. Campbell, DSC, AM, made it clear that vehicles to be procured were not ‘just’ platforms (wheeled or tracked).  LAND 400 he said, aimed to:

“… deliver vehicles that are more than replacements for their predecessors—they provide protected weapon systems, which are also a hub for communications, information, sustainment and fire support, enhancing the capacity of a ground force to absorb surprise and achieve tactical success in an era of democratised lethality.”  

Conference speakers also ‘put to bed’ the divisive argument that specifications for LAND 400 vehicles (particularly protection levels) were not in keeping with prevailing strategic guidance.  Defence backed this in a recent public statement:

“Far from representing a ‘crusade to preserve the true fighting spirit of the army‘ or a desire to ‘undertake large-scale, high-intensity operations‘ against highly sophisticated adversaries, Land 400 seeks to replace our increasingly obsolete platforms and underwrite Army’s contribution to the flexible and capable military options Government demands from the ADF well into the twenty-first century.” 

The deadline for LAND 400 (Phase 2, Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle) tenders closes on 6 August 2015.  Eleven weeks thereafter, risk mitigation activities commence, prior to final evaluation.  It is obvious that everything possible is being done to ensure the project is brought in on time, to specification, and on budget.  An ‘off the shelf’ solution is being sought to avoid the potential problems associated with unproven designs.

Soon after the request for tender was released in February 2015, there was concern within industry that the specifications and timetable called for, were overly ambitious.  Five months later, however, there are reported to be three firm tenderers and one still deciding.  Only one consortium has withdrawn because of an inability to meet the timings required.  The companies submitting tenders represent the top echelon of AFV manufacturers.  (In a perfect world, project timing would be expanded to allow all manufacturers to bid; this is rarely an option with defence projects where delay means obsolescence and obsolescence means a gap in operational capability.)

Nothing is ever perfect, however, and one speaker at the ASPI Conference raised an area needing more work (on the one hand): “Army not great at communicating their story to the public.  ASPI’s ‘Strategist’ has been most helpful for debate on LAND400″.——————————————————————————————————-7 July 2015

Extension of Eligibility of the CGWP Awarded to 8RAR for Operation Hammersley

The RAAC Corporation’s Position and the Consequences.  As it is understood, President 1 AR Assn supports the RAAC Corporation Chairman’s view that the Corporation cannot take the lead re the CGWP Submission, because the 3 Cav (Vietnam) Association is not a member of the Corporation (the Submission seeks to have those who provided support from 1AR, 3 Cav and RAE, acknowledged).  The 1AR Assn, therefore, has to advocate the award alone.  If unsuccessful, the RAAC Corporation might then offer support.

What’s this mean in terms of the Submission? The Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal (DHAT), where the real power lies in terms of approving the Submission, can only consider it after Defence Honours and Awards (DHA) have ‘knocked it back’.  So, 1 AR Assn submits to DHA, it is knocked back (as expected) and is resubmitted to DHAT.  If it is knocked back, the new submission, supported by the RAAC Corporation, is submitted to DHA and then, finally, DHAT.  The whole process has been made twice as complicated as it need be, with consequential lessening of its chances of approval (compared with a Submission which is supported by the RAAC Corporation right from the start).

The Lack of Moral Justification for This Position. Part of the RAAC Corporation’s Constitution refers to fostering the interests of the RAAC.  The members of 3 Cav Regt who served in Vietnam did so as part of the RAAC.  Some are members of the 3 and 4 Cav Regt Association (a member of the RAAC Corporation), some are members of the 3 Cav Regt (Vietnam) Association (not a member of the RAAC Corporation), while others are not members of either Association.  How petty can we be as former members of the RAAC, to deny to those who fought with 3 Cav Regt during Operation Hammersley, the best opportunity to achieve the recognition that is due to them?  Apart from anything else, recognition for them, is recognition for the RAAC.  Isn’t this what the RAAC Corporation stands for??.

Reason for 1 AR Assn’s Acceptance of the Position.  Whenever a Director of a Corporation is also the President of one of the Corporation’s own member Associations, there is likely to be a conflict of interest. By simply agreeing to the position of the Corporation Chairman, 1 AR Assn is not only a party to denying due recognition of those who served with 3 Cav Regt, but also denying its own members the best chance of due recognition of their gallant efforts.

What Should be Done. The President of the 1AR Assn should step down from his Directorship of the RAAC Corporation and strongly advocate the justification for the RAAC Corporation to support the Submission (noting in doing so that there is minimal work involved … the Submission is complete, it only needs to be submitted.)

I’m reminded that a number of people sign off emails with the words “Yours in Armour”,how hollow this sounds in light of the above

8 July 2015

1 AR Assn Members’ Forum 

Reasons Given by the C’tee for Closing it.The cost to the Assn was too great and the C’tee had a responsibility to safeguard members’ funds (it later became known that there was no cost to the Assn, ‘charges’ were being met by the Webmaster);

Then the reason became ‘a formal complaint had been made’. Details about the complaint and the person who made it could not be made known because the complaint was made on a confidential basis.  (The Forum was subsequently re-established on a no cost basis with a ‘disclaimer’ re any responsibility for the views expressed);

The Forum was then shut down again because, according to the President in the Assn newsletter, “some content posted was offensive and was not representative to the standard and values that the Association abides to”;

Then it was revealed that the shut down had been a result of a threat of litigation; (“I have a responsibility to the reputation of our Association and to protect us from litigation”)and then finally;

The President explained at the EGM in Albury (May 15) that because of “….changes to the legislation in Victoria and that under the current constitution we are not covered for liability insurance. This was a deciding factor to remove the forum”, i.e. the offensive content, formal complaint, threat of litigation and lack of liability insurance, meant that the C’tee had no choice.

The President 1 AR Assn has now advised (6 July 2015) that there was no formal complaint, nor threat of litigation. There was, however, some concern expressed about the “tone’ of some of the posts on the Forum.

The Lack of an Open and Transparent Forum to Discuss RAAC Matters.

Armouredadvocates was established because of the obvious duplicity (set out above) associated with the closure of the 1 AR Assn Members’ Forum.  Members were accused of making offensive remarks, but were not given any opportunity to defend themselves because the complaint was ‘confidential’.

We are now told that the remarks were not offensive, but that they were made in a ‘tone’ which was presumably, ‘unacceptable’.  Who they were made by and to whom the tone was unacceptable, nobody can be told because of the confidential nature of the complaint (which we know now was not a formal complaint and did not include the threat of litigation). 

The 1 AR Assn AGM Motion to Reinstate the Members’ Forum.

The 1 AR Assn C’tee has stated that the greatest shortcoming affecting its running is a lack of communication between (i) the C’tee and the members and (ii) the members themselves.  Maybe the C’tee could communicate with members through the State reps and vice versa.  If one member has an idea, sharing it with other members is the best way to add value and build consensus.

Will this sway the C’tee at the AGM?  I think not.  I believe the response will be that there is no liability insurance and therefore our hands are tied.  This, of course, is just an excuse.  If the potential contribution of members was valued, the C’tee would investigate the potential liability that the Forum represented and how this can be avoided.  Is a ‘Disclaimer’ stating that remarks made on the Forum are those of the individual and not the 1 AR Assn, not good enough?  How is the Forum different to the 1 AR Assn Facebook page?  Can libelous remarks made on that forum without any liability on the part of the Assn?

9 July 2915

A Submission to Have Eligibility for the CGWP Unit Citation Awarded to 8RAR  Extended to Supporting Arms involved in Operation Hammersley (to be considered at the 1AR Ass AGM tomorrow)

To simplify consideration of this matter, there are just two issues to be decided.

Question 1.  Was the CGWP Unit Citation awarded to 8RAR for its actions during Op Hammersley or for service throughout its tour of duty in Vietnam?

Answer 1.  The CGWP unit Citation was awarded to 8RAR for its action during Operations Hammersley.  The Submission includes a quote from the then GG and Commander-in-Chief of the ADF (an 8RAR company commander during Hammersley) stating that this was the case.  It also includes a quote from the battalion’s history in Vietnam to the same effect (written by Dr Bob Hall from ADFA, an 8RAR platoon commander during Hammersley) to the same effect.

Further evidence is provided by the Australian War Memorial Unit History for 8RAR: “The battalion was awarded … Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation, by the South Vietnamese government for its involvement in Hammersley.” (https://www.awm.gov.au/unit/U53503/)

Furthermore, the Submission makes the point that the purpose of the CGWP Unit Citation was to recognise ‘deeds of valor and heroic conduct’.  The only such deeds referred to in the 8RAR Citation were those related to Operation Hammersley.

Question 2: Given that the CGWP Unit Citation was awarded to 8RAR for Operation Hammersley, should those involved from other supporting arms also have been acknowledged?

Answer 2.  The submission includes overwhelming evidence that the outcome of Operation Hammersley would not have been the success it was, if it were not for the deeds of valor and heroic conduct performed by the tank and APC crews and engineers, both RAE and RAEME (recovery vehicle crews), involved.  The 8RAR Historian, Dr Bob hall, is also quoted to this effect.

Furthermore there is evidence that the Republic of Vietnam were aware that the success of Operation Hammersley was due not only to 8 RAR, but also its supporting arms.  The Citation itself makes this clear: “But with modern tactics and a determined spirit, the forces of the 8th Battalion, 1st Australian Task Force conducted continuous operations against the area and destroyed the enemy’s secret zone, causing great casualties to the communists and forcing them from the area, thus bringing peace to the Vietnamese people living there”.

Conclusion.  

The CGWP Unit Citation was awarded to 8RAR for Operation Hammersley, the success of which was due to the combined arms nature of the operation.  Eligibility for the award should be extended to the members of the supporting units that comprised the ‘forces of the 8th battalion’ at the time.——————————————————————————————————

10 July 2015LAND 400 Phase 2 (Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle): Wheels or Tracks?

There have been reported ‘rumblings’ on the part of industry to the effect that Defence has stated a preference for a wheeled CRV, despite the fact that this is not

reflected in the formal requirement documentation.  This is creating a quandary because, with ‘protection’ as first priority in terms of design characteristics, meeting the mobility requirements leads tenderers to opt for a tracked option.  Defence has refused to be drawn into making a formal statement that only wheeled options will be considered.

This is how it should be.

A wheeled vehicle would be preferred if it can meet both the protection and mobility requirements.  It is unlikely, however, that such a vehicle exists (either wheeled or tracked).  At the end of the day, a compromise solution will have to be accepted.  This is why design characteristics are prioritised.

There are two possibilities: a wheeled vehicle with possible compromises in protection and mobility in soft going; and a tracked vehicle with compromised mobility across firm terrain.  As always, it is a challenge for industry to back the right horse.  But it must never be a gamble.  The decision has to be made on a detailed analysis of the factors involved.

Defence has given protection top priority, so it would seem that there is little scope for design flexibility here.  However, appliqué armour is something that could offer options, ie. the ability to vary upper vehicle protection in accordance with particular threat scenarios (protection against IED blast would seem likely to be a constant).  A contender with a high power to weight ratio, such as the LAV 700, could have an advantage here.

More than anything else, mobility priorities relate to the likelihood of deployment to differing operational theatres.  Will the reconnaissance elements be deployed forward and/or as flank security across wide areas of firm terrain, or in an urban setting with well developed road system; or will they be deployed off roads in soft (moist or sandy) terrain?

It is not surprising that Defence has stated that the Operational Concept Document must be read in conjunction with the Key Requirements Matrix.  To this end, it would be ‘nice’ if the 2015 Defence White Paper was available to help inform industry.  Defence are acting responsibly, however, in consistently working to a timetable which will avoid a gap in operational capability occurring (which, if it did, would jeopardise the lives of RAAC crews during training, as well as on operations).

——————————————————————————————————-11 July 2015

LAND 400 Phase 2 (Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle): The Contenders 

Tenders close soon.  Who will be in the running?

GDLS- A. 

General Dynamics Land Systems and Thales have signed a memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to offer the evolutionary LAV 700, LAV 6.0 and Piranha V.  The 30mm manned turret options are uncertain.

LAV 700 is soon to enter service in Saudi Arabia; LAV 6.0 (LAV III surveillance upgrade with sixth generation suspension) is being delivered to Canada, and Piranha V is in service with a number of European armies and has been selected by Denmark to replace its M113 fleet.

GDLS have ASLAV and M1A1 support facilities in Australia, while Thales also has a proven track record as the manufacturer of the Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle (PMV).  The ASLAV (based on a modified Piranha 1 design), M1A1 and PMV are all currently in service with the Australian Army.

Piranha V: 8×8; 30t, 100kph, APC/recon vehicle with modular protection and applique armour options; RWS (below).

,LAV 6.0: 8 x 8, 29t?, 100 kph?, APC/recon vehicle with high levels of protection (incl boat shaped hull); 30mm RWS (below).

LAV 700: Up-engined version of LAV 6.0.

Advantages:  (i) Joint tender building on facilities already well established in Australia to support AFVs; (ii) evolutionary proven AFV design in service with many armies; (iii) LAV 700 may have power to weight ratio to support increased protection level. 

Disadavantages:  (i) No CRV variant as such, ie. with manned 30mm turret; (ii) vehicle design evolutionary, but dated.Other contenders to come ….

——————————————————————————————————12 July 2015

LAND 400 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle : Is a Tracked Option Feasible?

Defence has placed protection as most important in the order of design priorities.  A company tendering for LAND 400 might feel that the consequent weight of armour will dictate tracks (rather than wheels), in order as to reduce ground pressure and provide acceptable cross country performance.

Setting firepower as second priority after protection, underscores the fact that the role of today’s cavalry is a lot more than reconnaissance (as it had traditionally been viewed for many years).  The wider value of cavalry forces in terms of independent offensive operations is now appreciated by the Australian Army.  More than anything else, this capability, means that cavalry units are expected to be more versatile in terms of their deployment, than ever before.

It follows that the characteristics of CRVs must help facilitate this versatility.  This means, in part, being able to travel long distances quickly, being able to negotiate urban environments and being able to survive enemy encounters at close range.  Of course, protection is not just about armour and weight; it is also a function of firepower and mobility.

There is advantage in a mixed tracked and wheeled AFV fleet.  Enemy defensive positions are always likely to be sited in places where the terrain presents the worst possible access for attacking forces (especially AFVs).  A tracked IFV, following tanks and carrying infantry onto the objective, is obviously desirable.  If the AFV fleet included a wheeled CRV, the tracked AFV could undertake some of the tasks that a wheeled AFV could not.

Of course, should a tracked AFV provide the best compromise between protection and mobility and be able to fulfill the CRV role (with requisite reliability), then there are real advantages of commonality across the AFV fleet as a whole.

——————————————————————————————————-13 July 2015

What’s Behind The 1 Armd Regt Assn’s Decision to Maintain an Association Facebook Page, But Not a Members’ Forum?

The President explained at the EGM in Albury (May 15) that because of “… changes to the legislation in Victoria and that under the current constitution we are not covered for liability insurance. This was a deciding factor to remove the Forum” (which occurred around December 2014).

Previously members had been told that there had been offensive content posted, leading to a formal complaint and the threat of litigation (“I have a responsibility to the reputation of our Association and to protect us from litigation”). The nature of the offensive material and who had posted it, could not be revealed because the complaint was “confidential”.

On 6 July 2015, the President stated that, in fact, there had not been any offensive content, formal complaint, or threat of litigation.  There had, however, been some concern expressed about the ‘tone’ of a post or posts on the Forum.

Why maintain the charade of a confidential formal complaint and litigation and then ‘fess up’ to a litany of lies and deceit?

When the formal complaint story first emerged (after the initial falsehood that the site cost too much to run) members’ attention turned to the matter under discussion at the time. This related to the person (decribed as a “private collector”) who had acquired (on a “confidential basis”) the log books of the Centurions sold by Defence; and whether or not he/she would make a little information available to the Cairns Artillery and Armour Museum (related to the history of a Centurion that the Museum had purchased).   In the course of this, it was learnt that the log books of the Centurions at Puckapunyal had ‘disappeared’ from the Tank Museum.

When the Forum was closed on the basis of the ‘facts’ above, Armouredadvocates was set up with the aim of getting to the bottom of the mystery.   Why did the complaint have to be confidential? (It was presumed that this was to protect the identity of the person with the log books … why does this have to be kept secret?)  Why were all members who used the Forum tarred with posting material so offensive that it detracted from the reputation of the Association and resulted in a threat of litigation? Why were none of the Forum users allowed to defend their integrity?  (It was presumed that the person whose post led to the complaint couldn’t be named because this would identify the topic which could, in turn, identify the complainant.)

Having gone to so much trouble, why is it now said that there was no truth in any of things members had previously been told?

Is it possible that the attention being given to the Centurion log book saga was getting too ‘hot’? Was it thought best to just deny that there had ever been a formal complaint and hope the whole matter would simply fade away?  What other explanation can there be?

The reason given for not agreeing to the AGM motion to reinstate the Forum will be interesting to see. If, as expected, the excuse given is the lack of liability insurance, Armouredadvocates will report on the Association’s liability with respect to its Facebook page (albeit a ‘closed group’).

——————————————————————————————————-14 July 2015

VALE. 

Sad news that Brian ‘Spider’ Webb passed away yesterday in Mansfield.The photo below is from Col Filtness’s website  http://front-idler.tripod.com/front-idler-page-3.html.

Col has had an on-line tribute to Brian for some time.  It is well put together and very fitting.

 1st Armoured Regiment Association Website and Facebook Page

The Assn C’tee maintains a Facebook page, but has closed its web based Members’ Forum on the grounds that the Assn has no legal liability insurance.  If this was anything other than an excuse, the Assn’s Facebook page would have to be closed as well.  The following explains why.

The Legal Liability of ‘Owners’ of Internet Forums (Including Facebook Pages and Blogs)

Laws exist to prevent the publication of material which breaches privacy or is threatening or racist.  A person or organization that does this, or allows this, is legally liable.

How the law applies depends on the nature of the electronic publication.  If an individual operates a personal blog, he/she is responsible for the content they post.  The same applies to an organization that publishes material on a webpage.

This would seem to be a matter of stating the obvious.  However, it’s necessary to distinguish between this situation and that in which people other than the ‘owner’ can post material.

With most personal blogs, owners can decide to either moderate posts made by others or to allow them to post material direct onto their site.  As the owner of Armouredadvocates, I have elected to moderate all posts by others.  This means that the post comes to me and I have to approve it, before it can appear on the blog.  In undertaking this responsibility, I become liable for all material on my site.

It would be different if I allowed people to post directly onto the blog.  I cannot know what every person might write and therefore cannot be held liable if something is racist etc.  That is, until I am told about it.  Once I am aware of it, I am liable for the consequences of its publication unless I immediately remove it.  The same legal

responsibility applies to an individual or organization that operates a forum on a website or a Facebook page.

It is obviously sensible for a site which permits posts to be made directly by others, to put up a prominent Disclaimer stating that the views expressed in posts are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily supported by the owner of the site.Everything seems straight forward so far, but …

The law seems to apply a different standard to published material which is defamatory or is in contempt of court.  In these cases, an owner might be found liable even though he was not aware that the material had appeared on his site.  It can be argued that he had been reckless in allowing the material to be published.

Does a ‘closed group’ Facebook site provide protection against liability? Absolutely not.  Publication of material which is defamatory breaches the law, irrespective of the number of people who have access to the publication.  Reduced liability might be argued in terms of any compensation payment, but who’s to say that the material has not been subsequently spread widely by word of mouth.

The forum operated by the 3 Cav (Vietnam) Association takes a wise approach to this matter.  Even though it is a ‘closed group’ requiring a password for access, a number of users are appointed as moderators.  If any one of them sees a post which could result in legal liability (or breaches the forum’s code of conduct), they have the authority and the means to immediately remove it.  This would seem a wise policy for all.

——————————————————————————————————-15 July 2015

1st Armd Regt Assn Webpage.

The sad news was reported yesterday re the passing of Brian ‘Spider’ Webb.  The 1st Armd Regt Assn Webpage mentions this and advises that funeral details will be posted as soon as known.

How does a member discover this?  If he knows already that Brian has died, he can go the ‘Vale’ page on the website.  But if he simply goes regularly to the ‘Latest News’ page, he’ll be none the wiser.  The only option is to regularly check the Vale page.Would it not be a good idea to place an asterisk (or other attention gaining device) against the ‘Vale’ heading on the home page (or to link posts on Vale with ‘Latest News’).

Modernisation of the Army

The 2015 ASPI Land Conference (Army’s Force Structure Options) was held recently.  Videos of some speakers are now available on line.

Armouredadvocates recommends that those interested in modernization of the RAAC (incl LAND 400) watch the address given by Maj Gen ‘Gus’ McLachlan, AM, Head

of Modernisation and Strategic Planning — Army (a former CO 1 Armd Regt and Comd 1 Bde).  The link is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-t7mNnvmLw&list=PL0-bcfeS6XTesN90OsaSBoPUtRXHrqQUL&index=6

1st Armd Regt Assn Members’ Forum (That Was)

Posts for the last two days have focused on the 1st Armd Regt Assn’s decision to close its Members’ Forum, supposedly because of a lack of liability insurance.

The Forum was closed because of a confidential ‘formal’ complaint which threatened litigation.  The academic grounds for litigation were discussed in yesterday’s post.  Was there any justification for the Forum to be closed on this basis?

The discussion on the Forum at the time related to the person who held the log books for the Centurions that had been sold, related to this was the fact that the log books for the Centurions at Puckapunyal had mysteriously disappeared.

Given that the identity of the ‘private collector’ was unknown, it was speculated that it must be a woman (ie. someone who has to hide behind ‘confidentiality’ can’t have any balls).  Does this constitute grounds for litigation? There is obviously no defamation, so no it does not.  (There could be grounds for a breach of the website’s code of conduct, if there was one, on the grounds of being ‘sexist’.)

Further speculation compared the person who collected logbooks on a confidential basis to a person with stolen paintings, i.e. they are the only ones who get any satisfaction from looking at them.  Does this constitute grounds for litigation?  Obviously not.

It was then thought that the ‘private collector’ might be writing a book based on the log books.  If this person is not prepared to help a museum seeking information about one of its exhibits, why should former tank crews not boycott the book?  Does this constitute grounds for litigation?  This is a hypothetical question … there is no book; the author, if there was to be one, is not identified; so there can be no direct affect on sales.  No grounds for litigation.

Finally, it was discovered that Centurion log books had gone missing from the Tank Museum.  There was no suggestion that there was a connection in as far as the ‘private collector’ was concerned.  It was simply a mystery which could not be investigated by the Army because it occurred after the Army History Unit transferred responsibility.  Was there a connection between this event, its mention on the 1st Armd Regt Assn Members’ Forum, and the closure of the Forum?

Nobody knows … the reason for the closure of the Forum was a confidential ‘formal’ complaint which threatened litigation and members had to be protected against litigation.

16 July 2015

Just in:

The late Brian Webb: The funeral service for Brian ‘Spider’ Webb is to be held at: 1400hrs, Wed 22 July, Mansfield Funeral Chapel, 11 Highett St, Mansfield (info from Tony Crook, President 1 AR Assn)

——————————————————————————————————-LAND 400 Contenders : Rheinmetall Defence Australia

Rheinmetall intend to offer the recently configured ‘Boxer CRV’, ie the Boxer (currently in service with the German and Royal Dutch Armies) fitted with Rheinmetall’s Lance two man 30mm turret (in service with Spanish Army).  This combination was previously marketed (2014) as an IFV.The Boxer is a collaborative venture between Germany and the Netherlands.  It replaced the M113A1 in the German Army and has been ordered by the Lithuanian Army.

Characteristcs: 8×8, 103kph, 36 tonne, 537 kw (720hp), two man 30mm turret, range 1050km, pwr 15 (kw/t), ground pressure ?

The power to weight ratio of the Boxer is virtually the same as the ASLAV.The ground pressure of the Boxer will be much greater than that of either the M113A1 or ASLAV.  Direct comparison of ground pressure, however, is not an accurate indicator of relative mobility between tracked and wheeled vehicles.  The Boxer, for example, is fitted with a Central Tyre Inflation System (CTIS), which should markedly improve its mobility in soft going.

Other mobility factors, such as ride characteristics and reliability (mtbf), will be important with regard to the versatility required of the CRV.

Advantages:  Promotion material claims that the Boxer was designed as an APC which could accompany Leopard 2 across country, giving the best of both worlds, “mobility of a tracked vehicle across country and that of a wheeled vehicle on roads”.

Disadvantages:  No in-service experience re the platform/turret combination;

Comparison: If GDLS were to offer the LAV 700 (31t, estimated weight with a 30mm turret) it’s power to weight ratio would be 17 (kw/t).  This is better than Boxer, but protection is unlikely to be as good.  (LAV 700 also has CTIS.) 

Comment:  Comments have been made in the media about the likely ‘ground pressure’ of a heavy wheeled CRV.  NGP by itself, however, has been found to be a very poor predictor of mobility in terms of wheels vs tracks. Wheeled AFVs today are fitted with Central Tyre Inflation Systems (CTIS), which should markedly improve their mobility in soft going (and is not usually reflected in ngp figures).

Other mobility factors, such as ride characteristics, will be important with regard to the versatility required of the CRV.  Power to weight ratios (15-17 kw/t re the wheeled contenders) will also relevant in terms of comparison.

More than anything else, it’s the forecast operational deployment which is the key in terms of contender suitability, ie. vehicle performance characteristics, of themselves, are of little significance.  The Operational Concept Document holds the key as far as the overall mix of characteristics required, is concerned.

17 July 2015

Funeral : Brian Webb 

The service is to be held at 2pm, 22 July, at Mansfield Funeral Chapel, 11 Highett St, Mansfield.  The 1 Armd Regt Assn is organizing a wreath.  Col Filtness will place it if need be (ie. in the absence of Assn representation). 

1st Armd Regt Assn AGM.

The Minutes are out ….

1 Armd Regt Members’ Forum.  The C’tee have stepped back from using the lack of liability insurance as an excuse for not maintaining a Forum to communicate with members (unsurprisingly, as if this was the case, the Assn’s Facebook site would have to be closed as well)..  The current reason is: “Unable to do [ie. reinstall the Forum] with the current Website capabilities.  Matter to be considered once new Web site is operational”.

This is positive and hopeful.

It was, that is … until the next Item was read, a proposal from two members of the C’tee to scrap the Forum altogether on the basis that “forums are fast becoming an expensive thing of the past and these days are being over taken by Facebook & Twitter.  Everyone fully realises this except a few who still live in the dark ages”.

They went on to say that : “The want’s [sic] and needs of the precious few should not and never should outweigh the many”.  The AGM decision was the same as that above, ie. matter to be reconsidered.

One almost feels that there is a fear on the part of the C’tee associated with having an open line of communication with their members.  If there was such a LOC, it could be used to inform members re the proposed 1RTB Affiliation (Minutes, para 3) and allow members to ask ‘Who’s Gary Howlett? (apart from being the “person looking into the affiliation”).

It would also allow us to ask what is this (from President’s report); “We have received correspondence from Chris Gardner the incumbent Regimental Commanding Officer, Chris is currently in the US on long term study”?  Mick Murdoch is the CO, 1st Armd Regt.  It must be a typo of some sort … an officer is never going to be on long term study while also commanding a unit.

If info about all the following things was provided vide the Facebook site, it’s a pity that the C’tee fails to acknowledge that not all members use Facebook.

Correspondence refers to ‘Cpl Matt Young’s care package’ and the ‘3/4 Cav Beersheba Function’, but info about these things has not been provided to members.  Also there was mention that the C’tee had discussed “membership types”, but again, no information about this has been provided.  Similarly, the financial accounts refer to $500 being spent re the “D Sqn TV”.   This is undoubtedly a well merited gift (?), but should there not be some info given to members.   The Assn seems to be doing some good things, but shouldn’t the members be told?

Protocol to be Followed on the Passing of a Member.  The AGM Minutes (Motion 5) state that the only means of conveying sympathy to the NOK of a member or someone who has a long association with the Regiment is to send a letter of “congratulations”  (It is presumed that this is a typo).

It had been expected that there might have been some practicalities which could have been relevant in such circumstances; eg. if a member becomes aware of someone having just died, who should they inform… the Assn Sec or their State rep?.  There is nothing on the current website which alerts members to funeral details etc which are posted under Vale.  Why not connect this to a ‘flashing light’ when such info has been posted?  Are there circumstances whereby the C’tee will consider sending a wreath or arranging for a representative to attend a funeral?  Should there be a means by which members can contribute to a wreath for someone they knew well?

 Now to get down to ‘tin tacks’ …

“I know there have been a few hard days of late because of one main person but I have no wish to ruin everyone’s day so I wont mention him.” (Anthony Soutar, Tas State Rep … photo from Linkedin below)  Presumably this person is one of those who Soutar states in the Minutes “should take a good look at themselves”.

What a pity Anthony isn’t prepared to mention who this person is, but has to hide behind the ‘I don’t want to ruin everyone’s day’ excuse.  Some people would think

that the “main person” who has caused him a “few hard days” should be ‘outed’. But Anthony doesn’t want “to mention him“.  One can’t but wonder why.

There are other references worthy of note:

“The feedback [about the Reunion] was positive and reassuring to confirm that we are on the right track, despite the negative comments that appear on other forums from a minority of Association members.” (Assn President)  Is the right to disagree, not something which is at the heart of a democracy?

I’m reminded of the organisation which dismisses all negative feedback as criticism, rather than embracing it as an opportunity to continually improve.

18 July 2015

Minutes of 1 Armd Regt Assn AGM (see yesterday’s post)

Email to 1 AR Assn president: I’ll respond point by point (not on the basis of criticism, but that of trying to help the Assn’s continual improvement) …

The Motion on the part of two c’tee members and the report by the Tas state rep.There is no place for the abuse of individual members and their views, esp on the part of C’tee members, in the recorded Minutes of matters at an AGM.  I would contend that it is the place of the President to prevent this.

Gary Howlett.As far as members are aware, Gary is not a C’tee member (or even a member of the Assn).  It is reasonable to ask why this person is looking into the

Assn’s affiliation with 1RTB.  “All you have to do is ask?”  That’s what I’ve done … but no answer as yet.

Chris Gardner.Chris is obviously not the “incumbent CO” as per the AGM Minutes, but the ‘in-coming CO’.  “All you have to do is ask?”  That’s what I’ve done … now I understand that there’s a ‘typo’.

Protocol for Funerals.I’m unaware as to where this has been explained (other than sending a card to the NOK). I have suggested a protocol for funerals below … for consideration.

Cpl Matt Young’s Care package’ and the D Sqn TV. I’ve checked the Assn newsletters back to (and incl) Mar 14, but can find no reference to these things.  Can you please advise.

3/4 Cav Beersheba Function.If information about the Beersheba function was provided at the AGM, it has only reached  13 members (actually 14 as the Attendance List doesn’t include Peter Moore).  Presumably the 3 & 4 Cav Regt Assns wrote to the 1AR Assn so that info re the function could be advised to members.

Different Types of Assn Membership.As above, if information about the different types of membership was provided at the AGM, it has only reached 14 members.  Surely there is a need to inform the wider membership about such matters.

Lack of Information Being Provided to Members.These comments “deliberately sabotage” ; “the information is manipulated and turned against us”; “deliberately sabotage anything we do” are not constructive (nor is a debate as to whether or not they’re true).  The point I’m making is that there is much more that can be done on the part of the 1 Armd Regt Assn C’tee to communicate with the Assn’s members.  Comments such as those by the Tas and Vic C’tee members in the AGM Minutes are inflammatory in this regard and should never have been allowed to appear.

“The Association is bigger that both of us,we need to work together to make the best of our strengths and weaknesses.”  I agree completely.  The stumbling block is the litany of lies and deceit associated with the closure of the 1 Armd Regt Assn Members’ Forum.  Can you please advise who made a formal ‘confidential’ complaint; what it related to (ie. whose post it was that contained what you’ve described as “content [which was] offensive and not representative to the standard and values that the Association abides to”) and what the nature of the threat of litigation was that led you to say: “I have a responsibility to the reputation of our Association and to protect us from litigation”.  

Suggested Protocol Following the Death of a Member or Someone with a Strong Association with 1st Armd Regt.

Person who becomes aware of the death advises State Representative by phone.  If he is unable to get in touch, he then sends follow-up email, with cc copies to Sec and Asst Sec.  (State Rep informs colleague if the deceased person resides in another State.)

State Rep Action.On receipt of advice, State rep confirms circumstances, and, if appropriate, establishes contact with NOK (or otherwise works through person who provided notification).  Details (including funeral arrangements when known) passed to Webmaster for posting under ‘Vale’ (with flashing light indicator or link under ‘Latest News’) and also to Vice President.

Vice President Action.VP considers the circumstances and recommends to President whether or nor a wreath should be provided and if representation from the Assn (and the Regiment) is appropriate (taking account of NOK wishes).  Advice is also provided to the Editor of the Assn newsletter. 

President Action.As appropriate, President approves expenditure re wreath, arranges for representation, and advises 1st Armd Regt and Assn Patron.  President sends card to NOK.

Note.  If not already available, the C’tee might give consideration to the printing of suitable cards to go on wreaths and to be sent to NOK. 

Correction:  The correction has been made to the AGM Minutes re the Motion about the protocol of expressing sympathy to the NOK of those who have died.  As to be expected, rather than referring to “letters of congratulations” in such circumstances, this has been replaced by “letters of condolence”.  Unfortunately, it seems as if a ‘global correction’ has been applied, as the Assn’s response in terms of members who have received awards is to be made by “letters of condolence”.

——————————————————————————————————-19 July 2015

New Forum.

Trevor Hyde (who maintained a very successful Black Berets site for many years) has opened a new Forum at http://www.black-beret.com/#bn-forum-1-1-515671655/10393/783044/show   It is an ‘open’ site and Trevor explains:“Welcome to this Black – Beret web site. It is hoped that it is used for communicating, looking at photo of times gone by and is used by the past, present and all members from the RAAC.  The idea of this is to try and fill a void; those who don’t wish to use the social media pages can message here.”

Army’s Land Power Forum  

For those interested, Army operates a public forum related to modernization across land warfare as a whole.  Individuals, both military and civilian, can contribute.  An article published yesterday relates to the role of AFVs in generating shock action on the battlefield and can be found here: http://www.black-beret.com/#bn-forum-1-1-515671655/10393/783044/show .  Those who wish can subscribe to receive notification as new articles are published.

‘Rip’ Riley in Hospital. 

The 3 Cav (Vietnam) site advises that Rip was medivaced from Nanango to Toowoomba Hospital and is resting comfortably … http://3cav.asn.au/

1:6 Scale Centurion Model.  

Speaking of Rip, the project to build a model based on his Vietnam Cent (169064) is nearing its conclusion.  An introduction to this is provided in ‘Tanks, Crews, and Models’ (see ‘Articles’).  One can understand the incredible effort to get the ‘stab’ operating perfectly, but the same attention to details has gone into making one sixth scale beret badges.  Simply amazing.  See (page 34 of the progress of this build): http://www.armortek.co.uk/Forum3b/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3931&start=495

Restoration Projects.

During my work in researching COF, I found that it was the ‘stories within stories’ which were the most interesting.  Seems to me that this is borne out by that below.

From a military history network (R Pruce EME SNCO 8/9 RAR Wksp RAEME):  “

There was a tank restoration programme [on TV] a few years ago, one of the episodes featured a Cent AVRE 165. Whilst “stripping it back” they found a “bluey” (a fold up aerogramme written by soldiers/families that was free on op tours). They managed to track the individual down (was a CPL now a civilian) and invited him to the AVRE relaunch once it was complete.  Picture below of the actual CPL (whose name I cannot remember) cooking eggs on the Cent exhaust, somewhere in the Middle East in early 91.”

Wikipedia advises that: “In the 1991 Gulf War, 12 FV4003 Centurion Mk5 AVREs were deployed with 32 Armoured Engineer Regiment as part of British operations during the war“.——————————————————————————————————-

20 July 2015

Networking.How good it is when networks work.Staring with a request from a former 1AR member, you move to a friend of his (ex 3RAR ’68 Vietnam) who treated someone who was blown off a carrier and suffered fractures to the spine and both legs, wanting to find out how he’d ‘ended up’.  The circumstances led to an LAD guy (armourer), who’s now been put in touch with his ‘medic’ from that time. 

But there are stories within stories.  The armourer who inspected 3RAR ‘refurbished’ weapons prior to their deployment recommended that the lot be replaced with new ones.  His next posting was to SVN … and the following links are just too mind bending to try and recount.

Commanding Officer, 1st Armd Regt.

Info from the 1AR Assn AGM advises that Chris Gardner (currently on long term study in the US) is to take over from Mick Murdoch as the next CO (presumably as of Jan 16).

Armouredadvocates wishes Chris every congratulation!  What an honour it will be for him to be CO at the time of the Centenary of Cambrai.

1st Armd Regt Association Newsletter : July 2015. 

The July 2015 newsletter is at:  http://paratus.org.au/julynewsletter.pdf  What happened to the State reports, apart from WA and Vic ?

Interestingly … queries were raised re the lack of reports from the ACT (Fenton) and Tas (Soutar) State Reps in the 2014 AGM Minutes.  Reports from all State Reps are included in the Minutes of the 2015 AGM.

Submission re the Extension of Eligibility for GGWP Awarded to 8RAR 

The following is from the July 1AR Assn newsletter: 

“Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with Palm Citation. For A Squadron’s actions during Op Hammersley.

A submission is being prepared for A SQN1 AR SVN to receive the Vietnamese Cross of gallantry with Palm Citation as part or the 8 RAR group during OP HAMMERSLEY. The award was intended we believe for the group as a whole but only given to 8 RAR. We believe this is wrong that needs to be rectified. At this year’s AGM it was decided the association should be part of a delegation to press for the award to be passed on to A SQN SVN. More as we progress through the submission.”

I’m surprised that the Submission is referred to as “being prepared”.  I thought we’d done a pretty job on it (presumably which is why it was sent as is to 3-4 Cav Regt Assn as had been drafted) … but it’s good to know that we’ll hear more as the 1 AR Assn C’tee ‘finalises’ it.

Interestingly, the following wording has been retained:  “This submission is presented by the Chairman and Members of the Advisory Committee of the RAAC Corporation, on behalf of the President and Committee of the 1 Armoured Regiment Association”. 

The RAAC Corporation had previously stated that it could not advance the submission as the 3 Cav (Vietnam) Association is not a member of the Corporation.  One would’ve thought that the Corporation could have advocated on behalf of the 1st Armd Regt Assn and 3-4 Cav Regt Assns, both members of the Corporation.  Maybe this is to be done (then again, maybe the wording has been overlooked.

I don’t need acknowledgement … but I really do believe that Bruce Scott deserves recognition for highlighting both (i) the scope of the Citation which referred to the

‘forces of 8RAR’ and (ii) the references in the 8RAR history and Michael Jeffery’s address to ‘The CGWP Unit Citation being awarded to 8RAR for Op Hammersley’.  If this had not happened, the Submission would not have reached the stage that it has.

21 July 2015

LAND 400 : The Contenders (cont) 

BAE Systems Australia intend to offer the Patria Armoured Modular Vehicle (AMV).  Built by Patria (Finland) the vehicle could be fitted with a number of turret options, one being the 30mm two man turret currently being manufactured by BAE Hagglunds (Sweden) for fitting to a Norwegian IFVThe Patria AMV has been selected by South Africa, Finland, Croatia, Macedonia, Poland, Sweden, UAE and Slovenia  “The vehicle weighs between 14t and 24t according to the armour and weapons systems, ammunition and crew.” (Army-Technology.com)

Characteristics: 8×8; 100kph; 30t (est); 540hp (402); ptw ratio 13.4; 800km range.

“The Patria AMV is fitted with modular ballistic protection. Armour composes of interchangeable modules of various thickness and can be tailored to suit mission requirements. Heavy armour is removed during peacetime and for transportation. However it is restored once the vehicle arrives in the combat theatre.  Maximum protection level is against 30-mm armour-piercing rounds. Vehicle also has a top-class mine protection. It can withstand up to 10 kg TNT blast. Two uparmoured Polish Army vehicles were hit in Afghanistan by RPG-7 rockets, however armour was not penetrated and vehicles managed to return to base.’  (Military-Today)  “…best protection in its class providing frontal sector protection against APFSDS rounds up to 30mm and excellent defence against IEDs”.  (Patria brochure)“BAE Systems welcomes the opportunity for regular Australian Industry engagement and it is committed to exploring Australian products and services for LAND 400

Phase 2. As the prime contractor, a main objective is to establish the in-country capability to sustain the Australian Patria AMV fleet throughout its service life as the Army’s Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle.”  (BAE Systems website)

Advantages: Proprietary 30mm turret available; proven operational service with good protection levels.

Disadvantages:  Power to weight ratio (ptw) is well under the mark; 

Comment.

The additional armour added for operations in Afghanistan prevented any amphibious capability.  This is not a requirement for LAND 400 (nor presumably for ops in Afghanistan), but it would be desirable if it was a capability which could be made use of in certain operational circumstances.It is encouraging that the concept of appliqué armour has worked well, but the overall weight must suggest an automotive upgrade (which will be unproven).

22 July 2015

Rip RileyFrom George Stewart on the 3 Cav (Vietnam) site: “Rip is home, taking things very quietly for the moment”.

Forthcoming Book.Russell Linwood ASM is close to finishing ‘Men Against Steel – Australians in Anti-Armour Combat’‘ with the backing of the Army History Unit.  Check Big Sky Publishing for availability.  The period during which the RAAC had responsibility for ant-armour is well covered, as is the employment of anti-armour weapons by the enemy in Vietnam. 

LAND 400 (Phase 2): Which Contender is Most Likely (on Paper)?The key issue in terms the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV) contenders is that which best provides the versatility required by cavalry operations.  The CRV is probably a misnomer in this regard.  It is well recognized today that the cavalry assets available to a commander offer much wider potential for employment than just reconnaissance (as important as that task is).  The versatility of being able to undertake light offensive, stability, and security operations, offer considerable advantage.It is no surprise that protection against IEDs and anti-armour weapons at close range is a priority.  A CRV must be able to survive if ambushed and be capable of generating the shock action needed to dominate the enemy.  Firepower must be hard hitting and decisive.  Mobility must enable cavalry to deploy quickly over long distances and through populated areas.

How do the Contenders Compare?

GeneralDynamics Land Systems & Thales have not decided which vehicle to offer. It is expected to be LAV 700, LAV 6.0 or Piranha V.  LAV 700 is an up-engined version of LAV 6.0, so could have a good power to weight ratio (pwr) to facilitate appliqué armour.  While LAV 6.0 and Piranha V are in-service, LAV 700 is soon to do so in Saudi Arabia (which would have to be a positive for a wheeled AFV in sandy terrain).  A limitation would seem to be that there is no configuration currently fitted with a manned 30mm turret.  This is offset by GDLS/Thales proven track record in terms of AFV supply and support to the ADF.

Rheinmetall Defence Australia intend to offer the recently configured ‘Boxer CRV’, i.e. the Boxer (currently in service with the German and Royal Dutch Armies) fitted with Rheinmetall’s Lance two man 30mm turret (in service with Spanish Marines).  The integration of the turret and platform will be a definite positive in terms of the Military Off the Shelf (MOTS) solution being sought. The Boxer is likely to be the heaviest, but best protected, contender.  While its pwr of 15: 1 (kw/t) is the same as the ASLAV, it’s not quite as good as that estimated for the LAV 700;  but Boxer has a higher level of protection (than LAV 700).

BAE Systems Australia  intend to offer the Patria Armoured Modular Vehicle (AMV).  Built by Patria (Finland) the vehicle can be fitted with various turret options, and is currently in-service with a number of armies. Armour protection against 30 mm APFSDS rounds is part of the modular concept.  Two uparmoured Polish Army vehicles were allegedly hit in Afghanistan by RPG-7 rockets, but were not penetrated.  On the face of it, the main shortcoming would seem to be the pwr when fitted with maximum modular armour protection.Conclusion.  Boxer would seem to have an advantage in terms of its turret integration, level of protection and pwr.  Modular/appliqué armour protection is a common characteristic.  The flexibility offered in this regard by the different contenders (coupled with possible engine upgrades) could be a ‘game changer’.

Note: For latest info re LAND 400 (and other Defence projects) see ‘Defence Technology Review’——————————————————————————————————23 July 2015

Rip RileyRip has reported that he’s “home again for bed rest, may need a pacemaker to correct heart fluttering …”.Best wishes Rip, for a speedy recovery!

The Future Battlefield : Part 1

How Likely Are Robotic/Automated Battlefield Vehicles? 

“… robotic/automated systems can be characterised as systems where sensors can trigger effectors without waiting for a human.”  Dr Patrick Hew, Senior Research Scientist, Defence Science and Technology Group.  (DFLW Blog, 15 July 2015http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Blog/Articles/2015/07/Robot-enabled-warfare). 

The point of this quote is to highlight the fact that the traditional ideas of robotic warfare are in need of review.  We must differentiate between weapons which are remotely controlled by humans (e.g Remotely Piloted Vehicles, RPVs) and those which operate independently with no human interface.  The latter have been in use for decades (and longer) … booby traps (including pit traps), mines, IEDs, and not to forget Vietnam’s mechanical ambush (banks of Claymores initiated by a trip wire).The difference can be thought of in terms of robots which have some form of supervisory control and those which are self-supervising (or automated).  To date, the latter are limited to the ‘set and forget’ examples mentioned above.  The possibility of self-supervising robots undertaking an independent mobile role on the battlefield is unlikely any time soon.

Supervised (or controlled) robots are likely to have an ever increasing impact on battlefields.  Take reconnaissance for example.  Cavalry can already deploy RPVs to scout ahead of ground forces and send back data.  Not everything can be detected from above, however.

Is it possible that remotely controlled ground vehicles, carrying a variety of sensors, could be sent forward of manned cavalry forces, to sense and report?  ‘Sense’, of course, could include visual information, as well as data from other detectors.  This is easily within the bounds of today’s technology (indeed, has already been achieved commercially, see below).

How possible is the obvious extension of this … the ability of such robots to be used to engage targets, either with their own weapons, or by being detonated themselves?  Also very feasible today.  It’s just the nature of the battles currently being fought, which is holding back the advanced development of such weaponry.  When the need arises, the solutions will be there.  Are self-supervising robotic vehicles likely?  Not in the immediate future.

“Powerful, modular and combat-ready, the Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System (MAARS®) from QinetiQ North America is an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) designed expressly for reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) missions to increase the security of personnel manning forward locations. MAARS can be positioned in remote areas where personnel are currently unable to monitor their security, and can also carry either a direct or indirect fire weapon system.”——————————————————————————————————

24 July 2015

Hammersley CGWP Unit Citation Submission

After the RAAC Corporation said that it couldn’t advocate for this in the first round, it seems that there has been a change of thinking and the Corporation is now doing so.  Great news!

Black Berets Association?The following item is included in the Agenda for the 3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn AGM on 8 August: “Update on proposal to contact other associations with the aim to form a Black Berets Association – John Winter [President]”

Background to this can be found in the minutes of the May 2015 C’tee meeting: “John spoke about what he saw as the future of the association.  It is his belief that the way ahead is through an all encompassing RAAC ‘Black Berets’ Association or in lieu of that an all Cavalry Association.  It was agreed that we should work towards this aim and as the first step seek committee approval, which if forth coming, to then write to all other current associations seeking their view”.

Watching Brief (Issues of Concern for the RAAC)

The following update has been made:

2015 Defence White Paper: What will it mean for the RAAC?

LAND 400 Phase 2: RFT closes on 3 Sep 15.  What will the contenders be?

M1A1 Abrams Squadron for 2/14 LHR (QMI) ACR :  Where to be based?  When?

RAAC ARES Role: Augment ARA or different? (White Paper)

RAAC ARES equipment for role: When will it be provided? (White Paper):

Infantry/Armour Training in WA: Any at all?  (White Paper)

LAND 400 Phase 3 and 4: Approval?  (White Paper)

Crew Commander Training for RAAC Bushmaster Role:  Should it be done at SOA?  When will a schedule of competencies be approved for training?

Using Bushmaster to conduct training for armoured warfare: Should it be done?  Is it safe?

Operation Hammersley CGWP Unit Citation Submission : Progress by RAAC Corporation?

Men against Steel: Australians in Anti-Armour Combat 

On 21 July the following info was posted: “Russell Linwood ASM is close to finishing a new book [one of a series ‘commissioned’ by the Army History Unit].  Check Big Sky Publishing for availability.  The period during which the RAAC had responsibility for anti-armour is well covered, as is the employment of anti-armour weapons by the enemy in Vietnam.   

The structure of the book is now set out below:

Chapter 0 – Introduction – Background to anti-armour resulting from the changing nature of warfare and the rise of armoured fighting vehicles (AFV) and mechanised warfare, and a summary of rest of book.Chapter 1 – Armour and Anti-Armour concepts. Subsequent chapters to cover equipment, training and operations. Merge part of this chapter with Chapter 0 to become Ch 1, with technical components shifted to an Annex.Chapter 2 – World War 1 and the inter-war yearsChapter 3 – World War 2 – Middle EastChapter 4 – World War 2 – Mainland Australia and South West PacificChapter 5 – 1946 to 1991 (incl Operation Desert Shield)Chapter 6 – First Gulf War to the present (incl Operation Desert Storm)Chapter 7 – Other anti-armour assets and tactics eg main battle tanks, obstacles, indirect fire and air (Convert to a technical weapons Annex to incl both AFV and anti-armour weapons)Chapter 7 – Future developments in the anti-armour battle – both equipment and tacticsChapter 8 – Epilogue – the “so what” -lessons learnt from both fighting armour, and from studying the anti-armour combat process itself

Annex – Armour and Anti-Armour concepts – what armour protection is and how it is defeated, with illustrations and photosAnnex – Anti-armour weapons – concise description of both ours and enemy, with images of each (chapters to contain minimum tech info to enable reader to follow the story without distraction)——————————————————————————————————-25 July 2015

The Future Battlefield 

Part 2 :  What Impact Will Rail Guns and Lasers Have?

“BAE Systems officials said an electromagnetic rail gun firing a kinetic energy warhead could be a real option for the Army’s next generation Future Fighting Vehicle.”  DefenseTech, 23 Oct 14.

A rail gun uses stored electricity to generate sufficient energy to propel a projectile at very high velocity.  Instead of a barrel, it is fitted with a pair of parallel conducting rails, between which the projectile is accelerated by electromagnetic force.

So … velocities higher than can be achieved with conventional guns, means improved accuracy and longer range; no cartridge cases, means reduced size and silhouette of the weapon platform; smaller ’rounds’, means faster rate of fire; and absence of combustible propellant, means increased survivability.  The list of advantages goes on, but not everything is as it seems.

In 1981, George Sawyers (former RAAC officer) gave me a tip.  The Engineering Design Establishment (EDE) had built a rail gun.  He suggested that I ask if they could give me simplified drawings to allow me to propose a project at the UK’s Royal Military College of Science (part of the course that I was about to attend).  I did, they

did, and the project team built a scaled down (but still powerful) version.  It was the first rail gun fired in Europe (publically, at least).

We were captivated by the super velocity that was achievable.  It was a surprise, therefore, when our research found that projectile velocity can be too high to penetrate armour effectively.  Overall, the fact that velocity had to be ‘tailored’ in terms of targets, was not really a disadvantage at all (just a matter of regulating the size of the current pulse before firing).

“Laser weapons mounted aboard U.S. Navy ships and large trucks have already shown the power to shoot down flying drones during test trials. That early success has encouraged the U.S. military to fund a new effort to develop smaller versions of these weapons that can fit light ground vehicles such as the military Humvee.” IEEE Spectrum 15 Apr 15

Earlier this year, Lockheed Martin demonstrated the potential of high powered lasers: “Known as ATHENA, for Advanced Test High Energy Asset, the ground-based prototype system burned through the engine manifold in a matter of seconds from more than a mile away. The truck was mounted on a test platform with its engine and drive train running to simulate an operationally-relevant test scenario”.It has been stated that fibre optic lasers are revolutionising military applications.  

Comment.  It cannot be denied that a revolution in vehicle based weaponry is imminent.  The days of conventional ballistics (i.e. propellant and cartridge cases) as the only solution for all applications are long gone.  Could a manned AFV or a supervised robot incorporate such weapons?  Most definitely.

——————————————————————————————————-26 July 2015

1st Armd Regt Assn : AGM Minutes

I’ve advised that “condolence” should read ‘congratulations’, but these things take time…. 

Honours and Awards. Action to be taken by 1st Armd Regt Assn C’tee when a member or someone who has had a strong association with 1st Armd Regt becomes the recipient of an award such as, but not limited to, that announced in the Australia Day or Queen’s Birthday Honours List.

Motion 04/15: That the 1st Armd Regt Assn C’tee consider the most appropriate manner and style of congratulations to be conveyed to the recipient on behalf of the Assn, post the agreed ‘protocol’ on the Assn’s website, and thereafter act accordingly. Proposer: Bruce Cameron Seconder: Jack Chipman

This is currently done by letters of condolence. Procedure will be written into Association By-Laws

The Future Battlefield: Part 3 Developments in Armour Materials 

Conventional Armour

“Known as super bainite, the new armour steel has been developed to have outstanding ballistics properties and, in tests, it has performed better than ‘normal’ steel armour. The material was invented and developed in the UK, with production ear-marked to take place in Port Talbot, South Wales. Under the agreement the steel will be turned into seven different items, including perforated armour plates that could be used on future frontline armoured vehicles”.  Army-Guide.com“Super bainite sounds like something out of a comic book, and indeed given its strength and armouring properties Wolverine might like to consider it as an upgrade to his adamantium-enhanced skeleton and claws. But even Wolverine would think twice about taking on a tank armoured with super bainite, which offers a new type of super-strong, affordable ballistic protection for armoured vehicles.”  Army Technology.com. 21 Aug 14.

Reactive Armour

Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) counters penetration by breaking up the HEAT jet or AP projectile.  Tandem warhead HEAT anti-armour weapons (eg, RPG) are able to defeat ERA.  Further developments are occurring in ERA, as well as an alternative, Non Explosive Reactive Armour (NERA).  

Comment.  Are developments in armour protection likely to keep up with developments in weapon systems?  The rail gun technology will certainly challenge protection levels, but is this necessarily the way AFV technology will develop?  AFVs, both manned vehicles and controlled robots, require vision optics.  High powered lasers could make these inoperable, irrespective of the vehicle’s armour.————————————————Conference:  Optimising Armoured Vehicle Protection and Mobility, Whilst Defeating The Blast; 23rd November to 24th November 2015, London, United Kingdom

This conference is “dedicated to enhancing the protection of military vehicles and those carrying out missions through this vital land force asset”.  One would expect that the Australian Army will be represented.

27 July 2015

Recruiting. 

Thanks to Graeme Rees Jones for this … https://www.youtube.com/v/kQ3_o7F7mqY&autoplay=1&rel=0

The Continuing Log Book Saga

Question:  Why did the 1 AR Assn Members’ Forum have to be completely shut down by the President, rather than just removing the post which supposedly contained offensive material, with a reprimand being given to the author of the post?

Answer:  Members were told that the complaint was confidential.  Deletion of the post and explanation of the reason would identify the complainant and his/her cause for concern.

The topic being discussed at the time of closure related to (i) the “private collector” who purchased, on a confidential basis, the log books for the Centurions sold by Defence; and (ii) the ‘disappearance’ of thirteen Centurion log books from the Tank Museum.

It is understood that the person who now holds the purchased log books is writing a book based on the information they contain.

There is no evidence to suggest that this person has any connection with the log books which have gone missing from the Tank Museum.

Further questions will have to be asked, however, if a book is published which contains log book data related to the Centurions at Puckapunyal (including ARN 169106, the first 1 Armd Regt RAAC tank to fire a round in anger; the first to detonate an anti-tank mine and the first to be penetrated by an RPG.).

How could the Tank Museum have allowed the log books which contain the full history of each the Centurions in its collection, to simply go ‘missing’?  Surely for any museum, the provenance documents for major items in its collection, are regarded as being of the utmost value.

How could these Centurion log books just ‘disappear’?

——————————————————————————————————

28 July 2015

RAAC Deployment to Timor (1999): Part 1 of an extract from Jane’s Defence Weekly: 3 May 2000,  ‘BY THE BOOK: The Australian Army in East Timor’, Ian Bostock (now Editor, Defence Technology Review) 

Australian armour provided infantry elements with protected tactical and combat mobility, and conducted escort, security, surveillance, reconnaissance, response, communications, search, vehicle check points and force presence operations in all phases of Operation ‘Warden’.

Three units provided armoured vehicles for Operation ‘Warden’: B Squadron 3rd/4th Cavalry Regiment (B Sqn 3/4 Cav); C Squadron 2nd Cavalry Regiment (C Sqn 2 Cav); and 5/7RAR.  Two M113A1 armoured personnel carriers (APCs) from B Sqn 3/4 Cav were deployed into Komoro Airport on D-Day for use by 2RAR to secure air and sea points of entry.  The unit’s 43 remaining armoured vehicles were deployed via HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Jervis Bay by 18October. 

B Sqn 3/4 Cav, regarded as the Australian Army’s ‘Centre of Excellence’ for infantry protected mobility, provided a two-company lift capability for 2RAR and achieved an average availability rate of 96%.  This came despite an average vehicle age of over 30 years and the paucity of spare parts provisioning and maintenance support brought about by deploying ‘light’ with support elements reduced because of manning shortages or space limitations aboard amphibious transport ships.

Some 70% of M113A1 movements were by road and track; the rest were cross-country or via creek lines.  As the most common type of armoured vehicle deployed by INTERFET, the M113A1s were able to negotiate terrain that proved impassable to other vehicles, particularly in steep, confined terrain during the monsoon season.  The M113A1’s superior cross-country mobility often meant it was the only vehicle type able to deploy or redeploy infantry patrols, sniper teams, civil-military operations teams nd retransmission sites to remote villages and border areas.  When poor weather in East Timor’s high country prevented helicopter operations, the M113A1 was the only Australian platform capable of fulfilling these key mobility tasks.

A significant contributing factor toward the overall success of 2RAR operations was the high level of familiarity between it and B Sqn 3/4 Cav.  Both units belong to 3rd Brigade, are based at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville, Queensland, and have been

training together for some years.  The co-operative culture and collective understanding of each other’s standard operating procedures that existed between the two units was identified as a major advantage for Operation ‘Warden’ commanders.

“We conducted a lot of aggressive and regular patrolling of our AOs to identify and deal with any militia and to build up confidence among the local East Timorese people and to show them that we were serious in maintaining security and looking after their welfare … it was important they could see why we were doing what we were doing.  It was typical hearts and minds stuff”, Capt Steve Wilson, second-in-command B Sqn 3/4 Cav told JDW.

Despite the flexibility and overall effectiveness of B Sqn 3/4 Cav operations and the ability of its ageing M113A1s to soldier on, specific weaknesses and deficiencies were identified early during Operation ‘Warden’.  The squadron lacked an additional APC troop to provide a full battalion- lift capability.  This degraded 2RAR’s ability to extend its presence throughout its AO quickly.

The principal weaknesses concerning INTERFET’s use of Australian M113A1s were: the deployment by C-130 Hercules of just two M113A1 APCs on D-Day without replacement vehicles or crew and no repair and recovery vehicles, has been deemed as unnecessarily risky; and the inability to adequately support the M113A1 fleets of B Sqn 3/4 Cav and 5/7RAR, particularly with respect to spare parts provisioning.  Some two months after D-Day, less than 4% of B Sqn 3/4 Cav’s supply demands had been met, with only a small fraction of this percentage delivered in the required quantities.

The M113A1s also attracted criticism, including:

– an ageing and maintenance-intensive power train and an obsolete steering and braking system that runs ‘hot’ when the vehicle negotiates hills, bends and corners;– mixed old and new communications suites;– lack of effective shade protection for stationary vehicles;– lack of a global positioning system (GPS) and an integrated tactical navigation system linked to Battlefield Command Support System (BCSS);– lack of an effective wide field-of-view night driving device; and– lack of an effective integrated armoured fighting vehicle crewman ensemble.

In addition, the M113A1 APC’s T-50 one-person turret possessed no night-fighting capability and was unable to apply accurate and discriminating fire from its 12.7mm and .30 calibre machine guns because of a lack of any sighting system or powered gun control equipment.

Part 2 to follow tomorrow.——————————————————————————————————-

29 July 2015

LAND 400: Replacement of the ASLAV and M113A1/M113AS4  (PART 2)

The versatility required by cavalry vehicles, the ‘shock action’ generated by armour, and mobility requirements which favour a mixed wheeled and tracked AFV fleet, have been recent Armouredadvocates topics.

Part 2 of an account of the Timor deployment involving both ASLAV and M113A1 is presented below, courtesy of the author.  See YESTERDAY for Part 1.

There are obvious lessons relating to contingency plans and the support of forces deployed at short notice (very similar to those when the first tank squadron was deployed to Vietnam 30 years earlier).  There are also other factors worthy of note, however … related to the requirements for the replacement AFVs to be procured under LAND 400.

RAAC Deployment to Timor (1999): Part 2 of an extract from Jane’s Defence Weekly: 3 May 2000, ‘BY THE BOOK: The Australian Army in East Timor’, Ian Bostock (now Editor, Defence Technology Review) 

HMAS Tobruk deployed most (22 vehicles) of C Sqn 2 Cav into Dili on 21 September.  These immediately began to provide mobility, protection and communications for 3RAR.

It was the first time 2 Cav, a dedicated tactical reconnaissance unit, had acted in the APC role; 3RAR, a light infantry parachute battalion, was also not used to operating as dismounted infantry. As with the M113A1s, C Sqn 2 Cav’s ASLAV 8 x 8 armoured vehicles experienced difficulties in the supply of spare parts and consumables once the initial 28 days’ provisions were exhausted.

It is known that ASLAV crews felt vulnerable to enemy small-arms fire and then-unknown anti-armour threats during the early stages; some said they would have preferred to have been operating in concert with a troop of Leopard AS1 main battle

tanks on landing at Dili.  The Leopard AS1 tanks of  1st Armoured Regiment were on short notice standby during the initial stages of Operation ‘Warden’.

Lt Col Michael Krause, commanding officer of 2 Cav, believes the army’s response in East Timor – weighted in favour of rapid deployability over firepower, protection and close-combat capabilities – was an appropriate and measured one.  However, “if it [the largely unopposed lodgements and subsequent deployment of INTERFET forces] had gone a different way and we didn’t have the Leopards, then we would have been fighting with one arm behind our backs”, he said.

“The fact we had the Leopards ready to go, I’m sure that played on the minds of our opponents.  If we hadn’t had the Leopards available, it would have removed one of the cards from our deck … the important thing is to have that card to play,” said Col Krause. “Would I have liked to have seen Leopards in Dili?  Of course I would,” he told JDW.

When C Sqn 2 Cav was reinforced later during Operation ‘Warden’, it reverted to its reconnaissance role and was assigned its own AO.  An ASLAV section was detached to 3RAR to provide mobility and a quick- response force in the Oecussi enclave.

The initial requirement to employ C Sqn 2 Cav in the infantry mobility role meant the unit was not permitted to deploy with its own organic recon scouts.  This hampered the squadron’s flexibility and effectiveness in later phases, and forced 3 Brigade to assign up to a platoon of soldiers – members of a mortar platoon, a support company and a field artillery battery – to act as recon scouts.  The assigned troops were not familiar with ASLAV or cavalry operations, or with operating in a dispersed and highly mobile manner.  As a result, the capacity of local commanders to extend information- gathering operations beyond terrain inaccessible to vehicle movement was diminished.

Col Krause said: “The exciting thing from our point of view is that this is a peacekeeping operation to which we are sending armour.  Five years ago, I suggest that would have been unthinkable.”

For C Sqn 2 Cav, the objective was to deny the enemy fast movement, slowing his operational tempo significantly and forcing him into difficult terrain where his movements, and therefore his ability to react, will be slowed.  “Once the ASLAVs arrived into an AO and started dominating the road systems, we completely dislocated our adversary,” said Col Krause.

ASLAVs were able to patrol most villages and negotiate most roads and tracks in their AOs.  Overall mobility was deemed excellent throughout C Sqn, 2 Cav’s deployment, and far superior to the supporting Land Rover, Unimog and Mack trucks in rear echelons.  The considerable mobility gap between ASLAV and support vehicles often caused operations to be held back until the support vehicles caught up.  There appears to be an outstanding requirement for bulk fuel, water, rations and ammunition to be provided by an ASLAV-based platform.

Yet there were shortcomings in both the ASLAV-PC (personnel carrier) and the ASLAV-25. These included a lack of:

– a hybrid tactical navigation system with vehicle-integrated GPS;– a BCSS capability to improve commander and gunner situational awareness;– applique armour to enhance crew survivability; and– a behind-armour commander’s weapon station in the ASLAV-PC.

Before East Timor, there was a perception that the use of armour would likely escalate a conflict.  However, the Australian Army’s experiences during Operation ‘Warden’ revealed that the introduction of armour prevented a confrontation from escalating and resolved it in Australia’s favour, and generally without a need to fire.

“In East Timor, we saw something we don’t see a lot of on exercise – we saw people scared of armour.  We often talk about shock action, we talk about the psychological effect of armour – we saw that in East Timor,” Col Krause said.

For the Australian Army as a whole, indeed much of the ADF, there is wide agreement that Operation ‘Warden’ stretched it to the limit.  Hollow frontline combat units needed to be brought up to full war- strength levels; this came about by drawing personnel from other units not earmarked for deployment.  Similarly, equipment and war stocks were found to be deficient in some units and were cannibalised from lower-priority units to reach allocation and provisioning targets.

——————————————————————————————————30 July 2015

Former RAAC RSM-A Returns to Canberra.

Great to see WO1 Pedro Rosemond OAM CSC (Retd) back in Canberra on 6 July for the opening of the Pace Stick Room by Col Scott Winter, AM.  Pedro, the fifth RSM-A, presented his pace stick to be included in a display cabinet (made especially by WO1 Brian Heenan, OAM).  WO1 Don Spinks OAM, who has just taken over as the 10th RSM-A, is the second RAAC soldier to hold the position.

The Pace Stick Room is that within the Soldier Career Management Agency – Army in which decisions are made re the appointments of Army’s most senior NCOs. (Army Newspaper, 30 July 2015.)

The Late Neville Modystack

The latest DFWA newsletter (Second Edition 2015) includes an article on Trooper Billy Sing.  The Bibliography refers to ‘Gallipoli Sniper : The Life of Billy Sing’, John Hamilton, Pan MacMillan, 2008.The Acknowledgements in the Hamiliton publication refer to Neville Modystack “who has been unstintingly helpful in sharing this [a paper he had researched and prepared on Bill Sing] and other records with me”.

Nev would be pleased … not only for the acknowledgement of his efforts, but even more so for the acknowledgement of Billy Sing in the naming of the annual award for the Australian Army’s Champion Sniper.

He was also a great encouragement to me in terms of my book.RIP Nev.

LAND 400 Phase 2

For those following the commercial teaming arrangements …“BAE Systems today signed a memorandum of understanding with Saab Australia to maximise Australian industry involvement in its bid for a major combat vehicle program.

BAE Systems is the prime contractor pursuing Defence program Land 400 Phase 2 Mounted Combat Reconnaissance Capability with Patria of Finland. Saab products are inherent in the vehicle design. Joining forces with Saab Australia will allow the BAE Systems-Patria team to substantially exceed the 200 Australian advanced manufacturing jobs and $100m in supply chain value already identified by the team for the manufacturing phase of the program. The vehicles will then be sustained in Australia for the next 30 years.”

Asia Pacific Defence Reporter, 6 July 2015

31 July 2015

The Mephisto on Display at the AWM

The story behind the AWM’s display of the German A7V was told early in July, soon after its arrival in Canberra (copied below).  The exhibit was opened to the public a couple of days ago.

Of related interest in the story of the First Tank vs Tank Battle.  This occurred on 24 Apr 18 at Villers Bretonneux, France.  A section of three British Mark IV tanks, two Female and one Male, (under the command of Capt F C Brown) encountered three German A7Vs.  Fortunately, as it happened, two of the German tanks were well behind the leading one.  Apart from the forward facing 57mm gun, the A7V had two machine guns on either side (another two at the rear).  This may have enabled the

German crew to engage the Female tanks with armour piercing (‘K Bullets’) MG fire.  Whether because of the effect of this, or of the 57mm fire, the Female Mk IVs were forced to withdraw.

Initial rounds fired from Mk IV Male missed their target.  Second Lieutenant Mitchell then ordered his driver to stop so as to give his gunner the chance of a well aimed shot.  There is some difference of opinion as to whether the German tank was hit and forced to withdraw or overturned as a result of sliding into a ditch.  (Armouredadvocates will follow up on this … any input appreciated.)

Postscript.  Attention has been drawn to the account in the RTR history (thanks Rodger).  This states that the Mk IV tried to get on the flank of the A7V and, whilst taking evasive action, the German tank overturned into a sand pit.  The other two German tanks withdrew, allowing seven British Whippets (light tanks) to attack and inflict heavy casualties on the German infantry.

One representation of the sequence of events can be seen at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5ICGyyay_M

Note: It is believed that Mephisto was part of the German section described above; however, en route to V-B it was immobilised by the ground conditions and was captured by AIF troops.

‘Tank Warfare : The Story of the Tanks in the Great War’, Frank Mitchell MC, is likely to make interesting reading.————————————–Mephisto at the AWM, Canberra.

After 70 years of exhibition in Queensland the First World War German tank Mephisto has arrived at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.  To commemorate the centenary of the First World War, the Memorial has collaborated with the Queensland Museum to display Mephisto outside Brisbane for the first time since it was transported from Europe after the end of the Second World War.  On display in Anzac Hall from 27 July.In late 1917 the German Army produced 20 A7V Sturmpanzerwagen’s (roughly ‘armoured assault vehicle’) which were deployed in combat the following year.  The cumbersome war machines, weighing 32.5 tonnes, clambered into action in April 1918.  The crew normally consisted of up to eighteen soldiers and one officer: commander (officer, typically a lieutenant), driver, mechanic, mechanic/signaller, twelve infantrymen (six machine gunners, six loaders), and two artillerymen (main gunner and loader).

The German tanks were engaged in actions at such places as Villers-Bretonneux, a small French village that was recaptured by Australian soldiers at the cost of 1,200 lives.  The A7V’s were involved in the first tank versus tank action.

Unlike modern tanks, the A7V has no turret. Instead, it has a cupola for the commander and driver, and its main gun, a 57mm Maxim-Nordenfelt, is carried in a mounting in the front, allowing limited traverse.  Six Maxim 08 machine guns are carried in mountings, two on each side and two to the rear.  It’s cross country performance was poor because “its hull overhung its tracks both front and rear”.

The A7V Sturmpanzerwagen known as Mephisto (a ‘demon’ in German mythology) was immobilised in an area close to Villers-Bretonneux called Monument Wood.  In July 1918 a detachment of soldiers from the 26th Battalion, mainly comprised of Queenslanders, helped recover the abandoned tank and drag it back to the allied lines. It was sent to Australia as a war trophy, arriving at Norman Wharf in June 1919 where it was towed by two Brisbane City Council steamrollers to the Queensland Museum, then located in Fortitude Valley. It remains the sole surviving A7V tank in the world.——————————————————————————————————