Doing the Right Thing II

If you want go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.

A Story in Six Parts. (This provides an introduction and background to the Blog, which follows below on a daily basis.)

Once upon a time there was a 1AR Assn Members’ Forum. This was a page on the Assn’s website and members used it to keep in touch and discuss matters relevant to the Assn. Suddenly the Forum was closed. It was explained that it was costing members too much to keep operating. When it was discovered that this was not the case (ie. there was no cost to the Assn), the Forum was reopened.

The topic which was being discussed on the Forum when it was closed was a request for information about the history of the Centurion held by the Cairns Arty and Tank Museum. This led to a discovery that all the log books for the Centurions at Puckapunyal had mysteriously disappeared from the Tank Museum.

After the Forum was reopened, discussion on the topic continued. Suddenly the Forum was closed again. A number of reasons were given for the closure, all of which turned out to be untrue. One of them was that a post or posts on the Forum had brought the Assn into discredit. No-one was prepared to say what the post was or who had posted it. Misconduct by members was publicly announced as the reason for the closure.

One member lodged a grievance as provided for under the Constitution. He felt that members should be informed as to what their misconduct was and be given the opportunity to defend themselves. He also started a blog to provide a means for open and transparent discussion of RAAC matters.

While the grievance process was underway, members were informed that the Assn’s Constitution had to be changed. This was duly done, disciplinary provisions being extensively strengthened. The member who had submitted the grievance was now found to be guilty of misconduct under the new Constitution. He was expelled from the Assn and his grievance went unheard.

Part 2

Service in the military, no matter what capacity, inculcates a commitment to doing ‘the right thing’. This became obvious when a group of members banded together to lodge a grievance to protest at the lack of natural justice provided to the member who had been expelled. While preparing this they noticed that actions taken against the member were not in accord with the Assn’s Constitution.

Delving into this more deeply, they discovered that the process required to change the Constitution had not been followed. Furthermore, the reasons given to members for having to change it were not correct. The group sought advice from Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV), the authority for associations incorporated in that State). The outcome was that the Constitution was declared to be invalid, as were actions taken on the basis of its provisions.

The group of members who had brought about this outcome, asked for an apology from those who had misled members as to the reasons for changing the Constitution. This was not forthcoming. Not long after, the President and other committee members resigned. The new President and Committee spent $960 of members’ funds to get an independent legal opinion re the Constitution.

The findings confirmed the view of CAV that the Constitution was invalid. Furthermore, any member adversely affected by it was entitled to take action against the Association. The member who had been expelled was reinstated. He agreed not to seek an apology so as to avoid causing any divisiveness in the association.

The new C’tee examined the original Constitution and found valid reasons for changing it, eg. the CAV’s default ‘Model Rules’ are ok for a State based association, but have limitations as far as a national organization is concerned. A proposed draft was sent to members. The group which had taken action against the now invalid constitution saw that the required process was still not being adopted (by oversight).

Bringing this to the attention of the C’tee stirred up something of a hornets’ nest among some members of the Assn. Social media went into a frenzy, accusing ‘constitutionalists’ of forcing younger members to leave the association because they had become fed up with “rules and BS” which mean nothing to them.

This is a recognized situation within many ex-service organizations. At least one PhD thesis is being compiled on the subject of maintaining the interest of younger members. The C’tee have been put in touch with the author. As one member of the ‘constitutionalists’ has stated, however, the Constitution is the members’ contract with their association. It must be got right, both for the members’ and Association’s sake. There is no other option. Those donating their time and energy to help the C’tee ensure the Constitution is a valid one, should be thanked, not persecuted, by the wider membership.

Part 3

The C’tee decided to withdraw what would’ve been an illegal constitution if the draft had been approved by members. A new draft constitution is now being prepared by the members group (who have invested immense time and energy in the matter), incorporating the changes desired by the C’tee, but based on the CAV Model Rules. (It seems that the earlier draft may have been based on the NSW Department of Fair Trading Rules, which are different to those required of an association incorporated in Victoria).

The Assn AGM was held on 8 July 2017. It augured well for the Assn that there are a number of members who are prepared to stand for the vacant C’tee positions. There was hope that a valid and well thought through Constitution would soon be able to be presented to members for approval.

Part 4

A powerful ‘clique’ gathered at the AGM, intent on installing ‘their men’ in a number of C’tee positions. They addressed the AGM, venting their spleens … the person who had been expelled and reinstated, was described as a bully and a coward, “a bad apple who needs to be cut out”. The clique’s candidate for President referred to the need to clear out “disruptive” elements in his pre-election speech. Once a new Constitution was finalised, the findings of the original disciplinary hearing would simply be enforced again. The ‘clique’ didn’t attend the 1AR Birthday Dinner on the evening of the AGM … they gathered instead at a local hotel. The retiring Vice President expressed his disgust at this on social media

It has subsequently been discovered that considerable irregularities occurred in the conduct of the AGM: in particular, there were enormous discrepancies with proxy voting; the numbers of votes stated in the AGM Minutes were 30% more than figures given at the meeting to those attending; membership records were inaccurate and wrongly disallowed at least one member from voting; a person addressed the meeting, described as a “financial Affiliate Member”, but there is no provision for affiliate members in the Constitution; another ‘member’ addressed the meeting, but there is no mention of him in the list of those attending; and the financial statement was not certified by the C’tee as being true and correct, it did not cover the whole FY and did not disclose the reasons that funds had been expended.

All irregularities with respect to the Constitution have been brought to the attention of the C’tee, however, no response has been received. Six weeks after his election, the Treasurer resigned, stating that “when dealing with members’ monies on a daily basis it has to be within the rules, be open, be accountable and be transparent and most of all be honest and be sure there is some form of trail to follow”. (There had been three previous Treasurers in the past 12 months.)

It is to be hoped that governance provisions as required by law can be enacted so that the Assn will be able move ahead with its good work looking after former and serving members of 1 Armd Regt.

Part 5

Much of the new (2017) C’tee’s time was taken up with governance matters which had been long in the making. A firm of accountants were appointed to set up an accounting system to better enable the Assn to managed its financial transactions. Interestingly as a part of this, advice was given to the C’tee that my donations made for the purpose of “assisting the Association’s endeavours”(stated publicly in the Author’s Note to my book), had “created a constructive obligation in respect to the donated funds”.

Supposedly this meant that the funds could only be used as I stipulated. Of course, nothing was further from the truth … which is proven by the fact that I had no knowledge of the use of the funds to purchase either a TV set for D Squadron in South Australia, or building materials for the Mick Rainey MM Club. Both purposes I fully supported. Nevertheless, a firm of lawyers was employed to tell me not to make any further donations. I asked what I had to do to make an acceptable donation, but received no response.

The Minutes of the 2018 AGM stated that “… any future donations would be accepted without conditions”. The present C’tee is soon to consider the question: “Could the C’tee please explain why a donation made “to assist the Association’s endeavours”, (i) is not considered a donation made ‘without conditions’; and (ii) what wording does a donor have to use to meet this requirement?

Despite the above, the financial status of the Assn has been moved onto a sound foundation with stringent controls. This is a major step forward. The fact that the Defence Fraud and Investigation Unit conducted an investigation might have been an additional spur to this end.

The other step required was that of putting in place a valid and relevant Constitution. The hard work of a group of dedicated members, especially Ron Baikie and Geoff Stelmach, paid dividends. The draft Constitution prepared by them, with some amendments, was approved by members at the 2018 AGM.

One of the amendments inserted by the then C’tee was that which stated that just because you served in 1 Armd Regt, this no longer made you eligible to be a member of the 1AR Assn. Previously you were automatically eligible and would only cease to be a member if you were to be in breach of disciplinary provisions. Overnight, the C’tee has given itself the power of veto on their own terms. Now, if you apply to join (or renew your membership) and the C’tee does not consider you ‘suitable’, then your application is not approved. There is no definition as what “suitable” means in the eyes of the C’tee.

Interestingly, I was not able to attend the AGM for health reasons. I explained this to those who demanded on-line, that I attend. Immediately following the AWM, a series of photos appeared on the 1AR Past & Present FB page of a placemat with my name on it at various places within the AGM venue, coupled with the question: “Where is he?”. I complained to the new C’tee about the humiliation of a handicapped person. The President responded to say that the C’tee could not do anything with respect to inappropriate behaviour on the FB page outside their control.

At its second C’tee meeting the following policy was adopted: “Inappropriate behaviour on a private blog or a face book page with privacy settings, where access rights cannot be controlled or influenced by the association, may result in the appointment of an association Disciplinary SubCommittee to examine and report on the behaviour.

I assume that the behaviour described above would be considered to be ‘inappropriate’. So it seems that the two 1AR Assn members behind the post, escape a review by a Disciplinary Sub-Committee (and I miss out on receiving an apology). Was it not ever thus?

Part 6: The Ideal World

In such a world there would be nothing for Armouredadvocates to have to draw attention to.

This would mean:

Members of the RAAC who participated in Operation Hammersley would be entitled to the RVN Cross of Gallantry Unit Citation.

Armoured crewmen would be entitled to wear a ‘silver’ Army Combat Badge (or other such badge) to acknowledge the unique dangers they face in combat.

2/14 QMI (ACR) would be equipped with a full squadron of tanks and all ACRs, SoA, and RTC, would have access to an adequate repair pool.

2/14 QMI (ACR) would operate from a base which provided good access to training areas (and suitable housing and schooling for families).

All RAAC ARES units would be equipped with a suitable crew operated vehicle (such as Hawkei) and have roles which are in keeping with the conduct of mobile warfare.

No-one on RAAC related or personal social media would use personal insults, derogatory language, or intimidation, in an attempt to stifle free and open discussion.

The RAAC corporation would stand up and advocate for issues which adversely affect the RAAC, even if this is contrary to Defence’s ‘official’ position.

The Japanese Ha Go tank exhibited at the AWM would be described as having a crew of three (rather than four).

Serving RAAC personnel would be issued with black berets and plumes at public expense.

Information panels for exhibits in the Vietnam Gallery (AWM) and audio-visual narratives would be correct

Those personnel who do not retire as SNCO or above, would be able to request a miniature ACB to be provided to them at public expense … should they have an occasion in which they need to wear it.

First Australians who defended their families, their land and their possessions against those who endeavoured to colonise Australia by force, would be commemorated by the AWM.

ANZAC Day services would commemorate the First Australians who lost their lives defending their families, land and possessions, on the same basis as all other Australians who have died defending their nation.

Wars in which Australia participated would no longer be defined by the casualty figures at their end, but references to them (including in school text books) would acknowledge that casualties among veterans and their families continue to mount, with more wounds becoming apparent and more deaths occurring every day.

A system of Operational Analysis (OA) would be introduced which would ensure that the failure to quickly identify, report, and learn from operational experience, which happened in Vietnam, would never be repeated.

Donations would be able to be made to the 1AR Assn for the C’tee to utilise ”to assist the Association’s endeavours”.

The 1AR Assn would have valid By-Laws approved by members which would include the procedures to be followed by 1 AR Assn members/C’tee when members of the Assn and serving/former members of 1AR receive awards for their endeavours.

The above By-Laws would also include the procedures to be followed by 1AR Assn members/C’tee when members of the Assn and serving/former members of 1AR die.

The above By-Laws would also include the procedures to be followed when 1AR Assn members are in need of assistance; including how to make this known to the 1AR Assn.

RAAC related technology exhibits at the AWM would not focus entirely on the technical aspects of the vehicles/equipment, but also would incorporate the human dimension, ie. the roles of (and stress associated with) the crew operating AFVs in combat.

ADF and DVA medical procedures would take account of the unique stress factors associated with operating AFVs in combat (and in training) when assessing the mental health of serving and former RAAC personnel.

RAAC personnel would be able to wear an AFV crewman’s badge following initial qualification as an AFV crewman and until no longer qualified.

ADF personnel would be able to wear dress embellishments which indicated the number of times they had been WIA and deployed on active service in a particular conflict.

The Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) to to be introduced under LAND 400 Phase 3 would be operated by the RAAC.

Oral history interviews would be conducted with those who have crewed the different tanks used by the Australian Army, so that their experience might be recorded before they all pass away (and only the tanks are left).

Pending …

The minutes of RAAC Corporation AGMs would be made available to the members of the associations who make up the Corporation and pay for the privilege.

All RAAC personnel who serve as PMV-M (Bushmasters) crew commanders would be trained and certified to a level of competency approved by the School of Armour.

The Purposes of the 1AR Assn would include efforts to care for those less fortunate (in addition to simply promoting ‘camaraderie’) and this goal would be enacted by the C’tee.

The person who holds the logbooks for the Centurions at Puckapunyal would be known, as would the reason for the logbooks not being in Tank Museum where they belong. (It is now known that Mr M Cecil, a former employee of the AWM, has, or has access to, at least one of the missing logbooks.)

Those who were wounded in action would no longer be referred to as being ‘injured’.

No-one on RAAC related or personal social media would use personal insults and derogatory language in an attempt to stifle free and open discussion.

The 1AR Assn would have a coffin drape made (ie. a large Regimental flag) and loan/hire this to NOK for use at funerals.

The 1AR Assn would operate in complete openness, transparency and honesty, particularly as far as governance decisions are concerned.

Serving members of the RAAC would carry into combat a personal weapon which provided effective rapid and hard hitting firepower

Crossed off the List:

Those former 1AR members who desire to do so, can use a Regimental flag as a drape for their coffin.

The 1AR Assn now has a valid Constitution approved by members.

Minutes of the last 1AR AGM were published without any defamatory material.

Minutes of 1AR Assn C’tee meetings are now being made available to members.

Members of the RAAC who participated in the Battles of Coral-Balmoral are now entitled to the Unit Citation for Gallantry.

Army Combat Badges are now provided to the NOK of those who have been killed in action.

The C-B Battlehonour has been emblazoned on the 1 AR Standard

Bien Hoa, Hat Dich and Binh Ba battlehonours have been emblazoned on the 3 Cav Guidon

The dates shown on the Vietnam Theatre Honour emblazoned on the 1AR Standard have been corrected.

The insensitive (made in China) ‘snow dome’ modeled on the Centurion tank in the grounds of the AWM (in which crew were WIA), has been removed from sale at the AWM

The LAND 400 Phase 2 timetable is on track, despite the anticipated delays associated with a change in the Minister for Defence. (This means that the capability gap that would have resulted from a delay in the replacement of the ASLAV, has been avoided.)

1 Troop A Squadron 4/19 PWLH has been acknowledged as the first RAAC unit to be deployed in action (and is the recipient of the RVN Cross of Gallantry Unit Citation), rather than being designated ‘1 APC Troop (A Sqn, 4th/19th PWLH)’, the Defence proposal advocated by the RAAC Corporation.

Personnel subjected to mine incidents and the like, in which blast effects may have caused occult wounds (ie. invisible at the time), will now have the incident recorded and be subject to follow-up medicals.

The holder of the Centurion logbooks for the tanks sold by Defence is now known publicly. (Mr M Cecil, a former employee of the AWM).

A Centurion tank is now back on display at the AWM.

The RSL has abandoned its proposal to sign an MOU with the Communist Party of Vietnam, while the human rights of former SVN Armed Forces members (our Allies) continue to be violated.

DVA withdrew the lapel pin comprised of crossed Australian and Socialist Republic of Vietnam flags which the RAAC Corporation advocated be worn at the Coral-Balmoral Commemoration.

The Army has abandoned its policy banning the wearing of berets.

Attention is now given (as a matter of course) to ensuring that the health of RAAC crewmen is not affected by the transmissions of radios and other electronic equipment in their AFVs.

The National Archives/AWM have acknowledged that a mistake made, for example in an After Action Report, CAN be brought to the attention of those who refer to the original documents in order to better understand what happened.

Peter Best would receive just and compassionate treatment from Immigration authorities

————————————————–

The blog continues below, the story remains unfinished. ‘Doing the Right Thing (#I, below) lists daily Blog posts from April 2017 to 11 June 2016.) Earlier day by day posts follow below that.

To comment, move the cursor to a point level with the ‘date circle’, on the RH side of the post. This should illuminate a red rectangle which will enable a comment to be posted.

———————————————————————————————————————

11 January 2019

IFVs : Do we Know What We’re Doing?

Copied below is an article that Defence tell me they are keen to publish to encourage discussion about the role and employment of IFVs.

I make no bones about it … I’m lobbying for a rigorous debate on the subject. It seems to a pity that there a few options for this. The 1AR Assn has stated categorically that they will not support lobbying by any member, no matter the subject or potential benefit to the RAAC. This means that the C’tee will not forward a paper such as that below, to the RAAC Corporation and the issues raised cannot be considered when a briefing on the ‘Corps Today’ is given at the AGM (see yesterday’s Blog post).

Seems to me that exactly the same fear of free and open discussion that impeded equipment enhancement before and during Vietnam … continues to today in some quarters.

LAND 400 Phase 3: A Need for Review.

Request for Tender (RFT)

The RFT for LAND 400 Phase 3 (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) was recently released. Industry has until 1 March 2019 to respond with respect to the provision of 400 IFVs, including seventeen Manoeuvre Support Vehicles (MSVs). The forecast cost is $15b.

There has been a good deal more questioning about this project, than there was for LAND 400 Phase2, Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV). A contract for the supply of 211 CRVs was recently signed, with a budgetary provision of $5.2b.

Some of the questioning related to the number of IFVs to be procured to equip an infantry battalion in each of the three multi-purpose brigades. Surprisingly, 450 IFVs, plus 17 MSVs, were initially called for. This would have been sufficient for four battalions, plus training and repair pools. (No mention has been made publicly as yet of a reduction in project cost.)

Other queries in the Defence press have related to the need for the IFV at all, together with concern about its capability being over-specified. The arguments, on balance, have come out in support of both the vehicle and its level of protection (hence weight), armament, etc.

Those suggesting that the opportunity cost was not justified, had hoped that the RFT might have been delayed until after a Force Structure Review. This is not to be … but that does not mean that the operational concept for the IFV should not be debated robustly.

Basis of Provisioning

Three battalions equipped with IFVs means three battalions dedicated to the mechanised infantry role. This is necessary because a vehicle such as an IFV (two-man turret, 30mm cannon, anti-tank guided weapon, 1000hp engine, 35-40 tonne weight) requires a highly trained crew. If this is to occur, career progression must be integral to the mechanised battalion.

Dedicated mechanised units exist in armies such as those of the US, Britain and Germany. These, however, are very different to the ADF … both in terms of manpower and numbers of armoured vehicles, allowing them to maintain units dedicated to a specific operational role. Is Australia in a position to do the same, or is the flexibility to ‘mix and match’, i.e. tailor force composition to specific operational needs, more important?

The IFV is to replace the M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) with a vehicle to provide a capability to accompany tanks onto the objective. When LAND 400 was initiated, APCs were operated by the Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC); subsequently they were transferred to the Infantry. Was this the right decision?

If RAAC crews operated the IFVs, training costs would be slashed. No longer would IFV qualification involve an isolated skill set. Commonality in the operation of AFVs would enable conversion courses to be conducted for commanders, gunners and drivers.

Brigade Organisation

Has Plan Beersheba worked out as expected? How does the resulting brigade ORBAT lend itself to our likely operational contingencies? Armour and infantry in 3 Brigade provides an example.. Units are: 2 Cav Regt (one tank squadron; two cavalry squadrons); 1 RAR (mounted in PMV Bushmasters) and 3 RAR (mounted in APCs).

It should be possible to form three battlegroups within the brigade. The tank squadron might well be ‘penny packeted’ across these three battlegroups. A more hard-hitting battlegroup would be one in which the tanks were concentrated, ie: 2 Cavalry Regiment HQ: tank squadron, two 3RAR companies (mechanised), plus cavalry troop etc.

No matter how desirable this would be, it leaves the 3RAR battlegroup with no tank support. There is little point in spending $15b to equip an infantry battalion in each brigade with IFVs designed to accompany tanks onto the objective … if there are no tanks available to form the battlegroup. The obvious compromise would be to allocate a half tank squadron to each of the 2 Cavalry Regiment and 3 RAR battlegroups.

It would appear that there are either too few tanks, or too many IFVs to form a balanced force. Ideally, with a mechanised battalion in each brigade, there would be two tank squadrons in the ACR. If a single tank squadron was to be retained in each brigade, ‘balance’ would see the mechanised infantry capability reduced to two companies. This would not be ideal, however, as 3RAR would become a ‘mixed’ battalion with half mechanised. The ‘conundrum’ would be solved if the RAAC were to operate the IFVs.

The Number of Dismounts

IFV characteristics are justified on the basis of enabling them to accompany tanks onto an enemy objective. Having done so, the critical issue then becomes the co-ordination between mounted and dismounted elements. Fire support from the IFV is particularly important with only six dismounts per vehicle. In 2016 the number of dismounts was eight … why the reduction?

A 2013 RAND study examined the size of the mechanised infantry squad in the US Army:

“Ultimately, as the Bradley design evolved, the resulting IFV carried only six dismountable soldiers in the passenger space and three non-dismounting crew members. The decision to make this change, however, was based more on budgetary and political considerations than on tactical considerations or historical precedence.

“ … the result was that fire and maneuver by dismounted infantry squads became much more difficult to execute in mechanized infantry units. Importantly, the Army quickly recognized that the Bradley was not ideal as a dismounted infantry support vehicle.”

“While the support provided to dismounted infantry by a heavily armed fighting vehicle does provide some justification for weakening the dismounted squad’s independent fire and maneuver capability … this comes at the cost of reducing the dismounted infantry’s inherent flexibility, particularly in complex terrain. In such situations … such as fighting in urban areas, the vehicle may not be able to provide effective fire support to maneuvering dismounted soldiers, so the problems associated with squads that are too small become more evident.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR100/RR184/RAND_RR184.pdf

Command and Control on the Objective

Current operational thinking sees the IFV, the dismounts and the vehicle crew working hand in glove when assaulting the objective. This scenario obviously requires two commanders … at platoon level, one on the ground and one mounted (in charge of the four IFVs). Who has overall command? Will it be one or the other, or will it depend on the circumstances? Are the IFVs there to support the dismounts or vice versa?

The degree of difficulty is increased by the lack of vision available to the dismounts inside the IFV. Exiting ‘blind’ places them at considerable disadvantage Given that the IFV commander can see the battlefield and has considerable firepower at his disposal, it would seem logical for the infantry to operate in support of the IFV, ie. protect the vehicle from enemy anti-armour weapons (the traditional role of ‘panzer grenadiers’

Conclusions

If RAAC crews were to operate the IFVs, three infantry battalions would not have to be designated for the mechanised role only; allowing a focus on infantry skills and normal career progression. ADF flexibility would be enhanced accordingly and training costs slashed..

The present brigade organisation does not facilitate ‘balanced’ battlegroup organisation. There are ways to address this.

Limiting IFV dismounts to six is known to create difficulties for fire and manoeuvre on the ground.

Finally, the decision time for LAND 400 Phase 3, not only involves the best contender, but also the best way in which to incorporate the IFV into the Army’s force structure and operational planning. This is a matter which must be debated rigorously.

——————————————————————————————————

10 January 2018

The following is a copy of an email to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) re an article in their newsletter, The Strategist:

Comment on ‘Infantry fighting vehicles will complete Australia’s armoured forces’ (Strategist 21 November 2018)

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/infantry-fighting-vehicles-will-complete-australias-armoured-forces/

Congratulations to ASPI for running an article on the IFV (LAND 400 Phase 3) in Strategist. The perception behind the following comment by Declan Sullivan is to be commended: “The replacement of the M113 with the new IFV will have a significant impact on the future of Australia’s armoured forces and how they’re used.”

Unfortunately in this quote and a number of other places in the article, Declan has got his ‘facts’ wrong. To start … there are numerous references to the “M113”. This vehicle has never been part of the Australian Army’s AFV fleet. It is a petrol engine APC, operated in that configuration for a short time by the US Army. It was quickly replaced by the M113A1, a diesel engine variant. It was this that was purchased by the Australian Army.

The APC currently being used by the Australian Army is the M113AS4. This AFV is different to the M113A1 in almost every respect. If the ADF is to deploy on operations tomorrow, it will provide a greatly enhanced operational capability (albeit one which, in turn, needs to be replaced in keeping with advances in the weapons available to likely enemy forces).

Declan states in The Strategist that: “The army operates three main types of armoured vehicles, two of which are being replaced under LAND 400. The ASLAV is the most lightly armoured of the three, and has been in service in Australia since the mid-1990s. It is due to be replaced from 2020 by the Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicle. Australia’s medium-armoured vehicle is the M113,

The purchase of such a platform follows the consolidation under Plan Beersheba of different armoured platforms into mixed ‘armoured cavalry regiments’, clearly demonstrating a desire within the army to develop an effective combined arms force. Without IFVs, Australia cannot develop such a force.”

It is wrong to state that the ASLAV is more lightly armoured than the M113AS4 and to suggest a three tier Australian Army AFV construct based on armour protection. Information available on Google states that:

ASLAV: The all-welded steel hull protects the crew from small arm fires and shell splinters. The add-on armour fitted on the vehicle provides all-round protection against projectiles of up to 14.5mm. The add-on armour over the frontal arc protects the vehicle from 30mm projectiles.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/australianlightarmou/ Dec 2017

M113AS4: The hull of the M113AS4 is all-welded aluminium armour which provides protection against firing of small arms and shell splinters. The armour of the M113AS4 was upgraded with add-on ceramic armour to provide 360° protection against weapons of 14.5mm caliber. The hull was also reinforced with additional protection against landmines and IEDs blast. The troops compartment floor is fitted with spall liners based on the German Army IBD Modular Expandable Armour System.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/australia_australian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/m113as4_apc_light_tracked_armoured_vehicle_personnel_carrier_technical_data_sheet_specifications_121

In the extract above, Declan refers to “mixed armoured cavalry regiments [ACRs] as being essential to the development of an effective combined arms force. Without IFVs, Australia cannot develop such a force.”

Once again, I think he has missed the mark. The ACRs used to be comprised of APCs, armoured reconnaissance vehicles and tanks. The APCs are now operated by the infantry [as is the intention re the IFVs].

There are a number of reasons to raise concern about the introduction of the IFVs, as presently planned. I believe these to be:

RA Inf or RAAC crews for IFVs (RA Inf crews restricts three battalions to mechanised infantry role only);
Brigade organisation (it doesn’t allow balanced battlegroups to be formed); and
Number of dismounts (the six presently specified restricts fire and manoeuvre on the ground)

——————————————————————————————————————–

9 January 2019

Mushrooms

The most recent Blog post re the 2018 RAAC Corporation AGM was on 20 December 2018 (copied below). Earlier background was posted on 21/22 November 2018.

The information about the AGM provided to members of the 2/14 QMI Assn includes the following:

“The Directors [of the Corporation] have been diligent making representations to all levels of Government on our behalf; (and)

“Topics discussed during the meeting included … a briefing on the Corps to-day”.

I don’t recall either of these matters being included in the info provided to 1AR Assn members. What representations to Government were made by Directors on our behalf (did we have any say?); what’s happening in the Corps today? Why do members have to be kept in the dark?

Why does the C’tee have to assess what they believe is of relevance to members and delete reference to any other matters?

Why not simply have the Minutes agreed by all attendees and release them in full to association members?

—————————————————————————————–

[20 December 2018] The Same Meeting : What a Difference a Synopsis Makes

The synopsis of the 2918 RAAC Corporation AGM provided by the 1AR Assn and RAACA NSW reps were very different. The 1AR Assn Secretary recently advised that the C’tee will consider the Minutes and inform members of the matters they think are relevant. The following matters (reported by RAAC NSW) were considered of no value in terms of being passed onto 1AR Assn members.

“Roger Powell gave a report on progress of a proposal for a mounted statue of General Chauvel in Melbourne. The statue to be sculpted by Louis Laumen who did the excellent work on the NBWM in Canberra”.

“The reports revealed our associations are beset by two problems, geography, and the need to remain relevant to the meeds of younger former and serving soldiers. Geography is a greater problem for the ARA unit associations where soldiers are gathered from all over the nation and tend to gravitate back to where they grew-up when they complete their service. Reserve units have a geographic base with association supporting WW2 veterans who were also recruited in specific areas. A number of strategies to address these issues were discussed. An approach that removed perceived financial barriers to serving and recently separated soldiers and a friendly proactive approach to those who may be experiencing issues.

“There was a degree of concern expressed about having a tank squadron in each ACR, former tank soldiers stated it would be better to concentrate the skill set and ensure the best tank squadron could be deployed when required.”

“Reserve units will continue with the dual role of training cavalry scouts and providing protected lift capacity to those elements of the infantry regular and reserve without integrated lift capability. The cavalry scouts will be pre-allocated to regular ACRs and deployed should the ACR be on either exercise, or a combat. Jim Gillett in his report indicated 12/16 LH (HRL) had split its training between squadrons with Caboolture squadron taking on the lift training role, the Hunter Valley Cav Scout training. The important point emphasised was that crews for PMVs used in lift and light vehicles used in Cav Scout training will be trained in the vehicle minor tactics essential for protection when moving vehicles in a combat situations; and effective vehicle husbandry to ensure resources are ready when needed.”

This Blog was established to provide a forum by which RAAC matters could be discussed in an open and transparent manner. It’s disappointing that the actual Minutes of the RAAC Corporation AGM are not considered suitable for passing on to 1AR Assn members.

———————————————————————————————————————

8 January 2019

‘The Truth, the Whole Truth …’.

I’m going to have to swear the oath at the Honours and Awards Tribunal next month.

But I mustn’t get ahead of myself … Happy New Year to all readers! May it bring to you all, that which you hope for.

With thanks to Mr Google (and Scotland):

A guid New Year tae ane and a’,

An mony may ye see!

An durin aw the years tae come,

O happy may ye be!

An may ye ne’er hae cause tae murn,

Tae sigh or shed a tear!

Tae ane and a’, baith great and sma,

A hertie, Guid New Year!

FOI Update

While I was wondering (yesterday) what to focus on in the first post of the Blog, I was rung by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. I was informed that Defence had requested more time to respond to the OAIC’s proposal to release the RAAC Corporation’s supporting submission to mine re the Coral-Balmoral Battle Honour. Defence claimed that they had to contact a “third party”. Abbreviated background was provided in the 6 December 2018 Blog (copied below). More detailed background is at the Blog for 10 October 2018.

This matter has been running for two years! One has to wonder about the resources spent (wasted) on it. Two Government Departments ‘going to and fro’, an incredible amount of SOA HOC Cell/Defence HQ time, and an ESO which could have better employed its resources on behalf of its members. Previous justification for not releasing the RAAC Corporation submission was that, if this happened, members of the Corporation would no longer provide their support to it.

Another argument was that if the submission was released, I would know who wrote it (how could this be, unless it was a copy of my own submission?). If this was not puzzling enough … release was also denied on the basis that “exposure [for wrong-doing] of one member of an organisation” would lead to concern in other organisations run by volunteers. These were just three of Defence’s reasons for not allowing the submission to be released … just some of the ones that I rejected. (The OIAC agreed with me.)

Let’s hope that 2019 brings an open and transparent approach to all RAAC matters.

———————————————————————————————————–

[6 December 2018] Freedom of Information Request: Progress Report

“As we all know Noel Mc Laughlin [Chairman, RAAC Corporation] has done some pretty outstanding work in his submission setting out the grounds for justification of the emblazonment of the Battle Honour Coral-Balmoral on the Regiment’s Standard. It is fine work by a very dedicated man to both our Corps & Regiment”. 1AR Assn Facebook page, 19 Mar 17.

The RAAC Corporation wrote a supporting submission to my Ministerial re the limitation of battle honours to two per theatre. The Minister responded to my submission to say that the number has now been changed to ten (allowing the Coral-Balmoral battle honour to be emblazoned).

Sadly, the Corporation Chairman will not allow me to see his submission. Incredibly, he states that even when preparing it (having been asked by Army if the Corporation supported my proposal), he said that did not refer to the submission I sent to the Minister (which had been provided to the Corporation when drafted two years ago and has been publicly available ever since). The Facebook exchange is copied below:

Bruce Cameron That’s great Noel. Was the [RAAC Corporation] submission any different to mine?

Noel Mc Laughlin I wouldn’t know – not having read anybody else’s including yours.

An FOI request was initiated, seeking to see the RAAC Corporation’s supporting submission (thereby being able to acknowledge the Chairman’s “outstanding work”). Almost two years later the process is still going … fortunately, it’s now nearing the ‘end point’.

——————————————————————————————————————–

21 December 2018

This will be the last post for 2018 … Merry Christmas to everyone!

Next post 8 January 2019

Retrospective Awards

I attended the Defence Force Honours and Awards Appeals (DHAAT) hearing into whether or not those units that took part in the Battles for Coral and Balmoral, deserve to be awarded the Unit Citation for Gallantry. The Department of Defence stated that they would never approve an award being made retrospectively. When asked by the Chairman how Defence reconciled its position with acceptance of those awards that had been made, the response was that the Minister has the final say and we respect his decision.

I was staggered. I researched Defence’s position and made a submission to the DHAAT. It turns out that Defence have no authority to deny retrospective awards, there is nothing in the Letters Patent which gives them this power. If Defence wish to bring such a ruling into force, they must first amend the Letters Patent. Defence can maintain their position, but it is their opinion only (whoever ‘they’ happen to be).

In speaking with Defence officials subsequently, they told me that they felt entitled to argue their position and that no amendment to the Letters Patent would be made … so as to allow for retrospective awards when there a case of maladministration which could be proven.

Looking into views concerning retrospective awards more generally … I find a that common reason for opposition is that related to today’s values being superimposed on those of the past. It is argued that gallantry awards are, in fact, peer awards, ie. awards recommended by those who served under the same conditions and dangers as the recipient.

There is a substantial difference, therefore, between retrospective awards being made to those who are able to testify based on their personal experience (and substantiate the testimony of others) and retrospective awards being made to those who, together with their contemporaries, are long dead. Awards made on the basis of contemporary evidence, such as that for Coral-Balmoral, enhance (rather than demean) the Awards system.

There will always be many acts of the highest gallantry which will go unrecognised. This should not stop cases being brought forward in which the evidence of witnesses can be evaluated.

Note: The author has something of a ‘vested’ interest in this matter.

——————————————————————————————————————-

20 December 2018

The Same Meeting : What a Difference a Synopsis Makes

“Roger Powell gave a report on progress of a proposal for a mounted statue of General Chauvel in Melbourne. The statue to be sculpted by Louis Laumen who did the excellent work on the NBWM in Canberra”.

STOP PRESS!!

The following has been moved from ‘Pending’ to ‘Crossed Off the List’ (see Part 6 above).

Peter Best would receive just and compassionate treatment from Immigration authorities.

Following a Federal Court ruling, the Minister for Immigration’s decision has been overturned and Peter has been released from Villawood to spend Christmas at home (at last), Thank heavens for the Rule of Law and those who appreciate fairness and compassion on a human scale.

———————————————————————————————————————–

19 December 2018

Surplus Funds and ‘The Vision’

The last 1AR Assn C’tee report informed members that the Assn had $35,000 “surplus” funds (ie. funds additional to the required working capital).

There is a need to ensure that the Association can always pay any claims which might be raised against it that are greater than the coverage of its insurance policies.

Having ensured this, however, is it the right thing just to responsibly invest the ‘surplus’ to earn even more money and increase the surplus?

Presumable some of the Assn’s surplus comes from donations. Hopefully it was wasn’t for money donated for specific things (like ‘005’), as such donations can’t be accepted as they lead to ‘constructive obligations’. (Full chapter and verse about that are contained in previous blog posts, ie.a donation made for ‘the purposes of the Association’ had to be returned to the donor).

Hopefully the 1 AR Assn has a vision for the future of the Assn, ie an agreed goal to which accumulated funds from members’ fees and donations will be used.

The Secretary has been asked:

“A quick question … does the C’tee have any plans for the $35,000 in “surplus” funds?

I don’t know if ideas have been canvassed, but if not … some thoughts are:

reduce membership fees;
make a donation to the Chauvel Foundation…see Major General Powell’s presentation at the RAAC Corp AGM (no mention in the 1AR Assn synopsis);
liaise with the Regiment re the possibility of commissioning a commemorative trophy (eg. Coral-Balmoral); and
sponsor member of the 1AR C’tee to visit the UK to liaise with the RTR Assn C’tee and gain info re their ideas.”

——————————————————————————————————————–

18 December 2018

The Latest re LAND 400 Phase 3 (IFV)

Everyone has been very quiet recently re LAND 400 Phase 3. There are reasons to believe that Army knows that it hasn’t thought through all the issues (and they are wide ranging). I’ve written a paper which Defence is considering publishing. This addresses the three main issues:

RA Inf or RAAC crews for IFVs (RA Inf crews restricts three battalions to mec inf role only);
Brigade organisation (it doesn’t allow balanced battlegroups to be formed); and
Number of dismounts (the six presently specified restricts fire and manoeuvre on the ground)

I believe that robust discussion about these matters is needed to avoid another decision like that which allocated the role of dismounted cavalry scouts to the RAAC ARES (and a few others I could suggest) … with no debate, ie. making it a ‘fait accompli’..

There’s no been much in the Defence press recently. The Defence technology Review’s November issues reported that Germany’s Puma would not be a contender. http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/?iguid=7366de0a-6145-490b-87a5-2fe10889019d#folio=9 This is unsurprising, given that it is equipped with a remotely controlled turret (rather than a manned one, as required by the LAND 400 specs). Nor did it really want to be in competition with Rheinmetall’s KF41 Lynx.

The Pacific Defence Reporter provided the following confirmation that the Hanwha ‘Redback’ will be a contender … even though it can accommodate eight dismounts. Could this be a game changer?

“…. the K-21 is still in production, Hanwha, the RoK Army and – perhaps most importantly – the government Agency for Defense Development (ADD) – have started work on its replacement, the K-31. The version that will be offered for Australia has the marketing name REDBACK. In essence, this will have an empty weight of 36 tonnes and a combat weight of around 40 tonnes. The standard configuration will have a crew of three and carry six fully equipped soldiers with ease – or eight dismounts with some changes to their internal layout.

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/land-400-phase-3-infantry-fighting-vehicles-a-possible-australian-and-republic-of-korea-joint-procurement/

The other two contenders are General Dynamics’ ‘Ajax’ and BAE’s CV9030N Mk 111b. The latter, I understand, also providing seating for eight dismounts.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

17 December 2018

1 AR Assn Memorial, Repatriation Hospital, Heidelberg, Melbourne

Info below from: http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/conflict/multiple/display/96333-1st-armoured-regiment-association-memorial/photo/1

The monument commemorates the past, present and future personnel who have served in the 1st Armoured Regiment.

Front Inscription

1st Armoured Regiment Association Memorial: Dedicated to the past, present and future crewmen of 1st Armoured Regiment. The tracks are representative of the strength of comradeship and the support gained through teamwork. The crew is always stronger than the individual. The Centurion tank track (left) symbolises the past deeds and the Leopard tank track (right), represents present and future deeds.

———————————————————————————-

Thinking about this Memorial, I asked the Secretary 1 AR Assn ….”Who is responsible for its maintenance?”.

The Secretary responded to say that:

“There are over 400 memorials located within the grounds of the Repatriation Hospital at Heidelberg, Victoria. These are managed and maintained by the Grounds Staff at the hospital. The Manager is also responsible for notifying interested parties when anniversaries and/or events are being planned. Visitors to any of these events are able to provide feedback to the Manager over the condition of the various plaques and memorials”

He also mentioned that the last Newsletter included photos of a Coral-Balmoral Commemoration at Heidelberg during which Bob Kennard and John Brooker laid wreaths. (Herman Harberts and Doug Blackney also attended.). I am unsure if this was organised by the 1AR Assn Victorian Rep..

Anyway … given the clever thinking behind a Centurion (representing past crews) and Leopard (present and future crews) track links being incorporated in it, might the Assn consider including an Abrams track link as part of the Memorial.

The Secretary advised that the idea would be considered at the next C’tee Meeting.

As I write this, I wonder … on 8 July 2019, Doug Blackney will be 90. Would it not ne a great thing for 1 AR Assn (Vic) to organise a b’day ‘party’ for him, (A few weeks a go I organised an 90^th b’day celebration for an RAAC member here in Canberra … It was greatly appreciated by the b’day person (a surprise he wasn’t expecting) plus all those who attended (an opportunity to pay their respects and catch up with old friends).

I’ve emailed the Secretary for his thoughts on this.

——————————————————————————————————————–

16 December 2018

“I Can’t See a Problem With it”!!

On 1 November 2018, two photos were posted on a FB site under the heading “RPG damage from SVN”

The photos were of the tank I was commanding when my driver was wounded by RPG shrapnel. (One even clearly showed my name and that of my driver.) The remaining posts on the FB page in relation to this, are copied below:

Was this Phil Barwick Cent?

Some things you don’t forget. Drove a lady to see Phil in hospital with a load of troopers on a free running pass. At the parade in Sydney Phil thanked us for that visit. Years later it was still crystal to both of us. RIP Phil. Cheers

I remember Phil as a lad in Tamworth

Fond memories of a great guy. [It was NOT the tank in which Phil Barwick was WIA]

Bruce Cameron The Cent pictured is ARN 169056. It is now outside the AWM in Canberra. The driver, Peter Cadge, was severely wounded on 25 June 1971 during Operation Hermit Park. I would counsel against showing photos of damaged AFVs like this (ie. out of any sort of context) Chances are that they could trigger a PTSD episode in one or more of those who may see them and who might have lasting memories of what happened. Interestingly, the AWM used to use photos of battle damaged AFVs to create an ‘effect’ in their promotional material. They have ceased doing this after I pointed out how intensely painful it would’ve been for the parents of a M113A1 driver WIA in the vehicle.

Sorry but I have to agree to disagree. If that thought process was adopted the AWM in Canberra would have to have a clean out ! The post was placed without a cynical comment as is sometimes the case. I cant see a problem with it. Thanks for your comment. I dont agree with it but I appreciate your input.

Mate you are so right

Trev, as always, spot on.

Is this what I think?

As in ?

Uncle Wayne.

Maybe for some. Not for me. Take care.

One should not white wash the history of battles (Warts and all) as its bound to repeat it’s self again as hard as it is. I as with many other’s were in very close proximity of the contact above and still remember it vividly. Thanks for sharing it so as to not forget the crews and others on that fateful day.

My Feelings.

I was distressed to see the photos posted, purely as representative of the damage caused to 1 Armd Regt tanks by enemy anti-tank weapons. Only one of those posting comments, knew what I was trying to say (“Maybe for some. Not for me”). Clearly, the poster of the photos and the others commenting, had never been in action during which one of the men they commanded (and were responsible for) was wounded. Every day I think about what I should have done differently. I don’t need photos to be bandied about to bring this to mind. Nor do I need to be reminded that the images are lurking in the depths of the FB page.

I asked, unsuccessfully, for the photos to be deleted. [That request and the response subsequently has been deleted.] So be it … everyone is entitled to their view about such matters.

I’d almost forgotten all this, when the person who had posted the pictures, did a final post before heading off on holidays. In it, he said “… sadly I’ve managed to upset a few people [including Mr Bruce Cameron MC]”.

I emailed in reply to say: I wonder if you might care to explain to readers why [you offended me], ie. ‘you posted a graphic photo of my tank showing the damage caused when it was struck by an RPG, wounding the driver; I asked that it be taken down because of the distress caused to those involved by being reminded of the incident in this way. The request was refused”. I guess it’s symptomatic of the reason that PTSD is not understood by the wider population.

The response to my email states (inter alia) that “Had I known of your feelings regarding them [the photos] they would have been removed immediately”. Interestingly the FB page at the time included the following post from me: ““I was the crew commander when the tank was hit by the RPG. You may not see a problem with the images as presented, but I do. I think that I have the right to ask that you delete the post”.

As they say, truth is in the mind of the beholder.

——————————————————————————————————————

15 December 2018

The Missing Thirty Abrams

An extract from an article in the Australian (26 May 2018):

“Sometimes overlooked in the excitement about new ships, submarines and wheeled vehicles is that the Australian Army will spend about $2.5 billion on improving and expanding its heavy-armour capability. This consists of improvements to the existing 59 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks (MBTs) and the purchase of additional vehicles based on the same chassis for armoured assault bridging and breaching tasks. It is also possible that more MBTs will be acquired, which might take the total pool of vehicles to about 90.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/abrams-tanks-firepower-wins-them-share-of-25bn/news-story/fc788c732c4396d9e1b53d7e8a1a28bd

As has been repeated by Armouredadvocates for some years, Defence has clearly stated that the change for a centralised tank regiments to the present three geographically dispersed tank squadrons, requires an additional 30 tanks to make the organisation viable.

The following piece makes it clear that tank numbers are also down in another way:

A brigade with a mechanised battalion requires two tank squadrons to be able to form ‘balanced’ battlegroups.

The other option is to reduce the number of IFVs to two mechanised companies per brigade (crewed by the RAAC) and use the money saved to purchase the 30 Abrams needed to allow three tank squadrons to operate independently.

——————————————————————————————————

14 December 2018

Military Ethics

An article by Paul Daley recently appeared in John Menadue’s ‘Pearls and Irritations’ publication (See https://johnmenadue.com/paul-daley-the-moment-that-forever-changed-my-perspective-on-anzac-mythology-the-guardian/

My comment (published) was a follows:

Paul,

“But good history can never be preoccupied with forgetting. Its core business must always be the preservation of memory”.

Well said. It’s the value of the memory, I believe, which is often overlooked. I was dealing recently with a military situation in which the ‘facts’ were distorted at a high level to fit the political demands at the time. This meant that an investigation was not conducted into what had happened … an assessment which could have identified failures in the ‘tactical procedures’ at the time, which could have prevented the same thing happening again. What price ‘votes’ when they are counted in soldiers’ lives?

You mention that Chauvel wrote, “There are a few ‘incidents’ in the Australian official history. I would miss out anything about the Surafend affair. It should never have been mentioned in the Australian Official History and has been long forgotten in Australia.”

This is interesting in light of the General Sir Harry Chauvel Foundation, https://www.chauvelfoundation.com/ which highlights the “the values and integrity that Sir Harry displayed throughout a life dedicated to public service”. Sir Henry was a man of his time. Today, we would hope that matters which cross the boundaries of the rule of law will be made public for the benefit of the community as a whole. Human frailties run deep however.

In 1970 an infantry battalion drafted a proposal for an award to be made to it. Many of the enemy casualties claimed had been the result of the efforts of supporting arms. The award proposal made no mention of them (the supporting arms may as well not even have existed).

Today’s ethical standards are more robust; partly because, I believe, calls for openness and transparency are more stringent than ever before.

————————————————————————————————————-

13 December 2018

Australia’s Defence Preparedness: Just Right?

What are the ADF’s 2019 Key Performance Indicators (ie. in management jargon, the things that the Minister Secretary, CDF and Service Chiefs are to be assessed on in terms of their national security responsibilities)?

Assessments of threat, lead times, and industry capability, determine the size and structure of our standing and reserve forces, as well as the size and nature of stockpiling of defence related resources, stores and ammunition.

The latest Defence White Paper provides the background, but what are the key objectives that result from this strategic guidance? I suggest that some of them would be:

Australian intelligence gathering capability must be certain of detecting preparations to attack Australia at least twelve months before they could be implemented;
The ADF should be capable of deploying and sustaining a brigade (including tanks) to a location on mainland Australia, within two months of the notice to do so;
The ADF should be capable of deploying and sustaining a brigade (including tanks) to an overseas location in our region, within three months of the notice to do so;
The ADF should be capable of deploying and sustaining a battlegroup (including tanks and supporting elements) to any location within Australia or overseas within one month of the notice to do so.

——————————————————————————————————————-

12 December 2018

Army’s Operational Structure II

In the example 3 Brigade battlegroup organisation set out in the Blog for 9 December (see below), the tank squadron was split across the three battlegroups. Of course, a more hard-hitting battlegroup would be one in which the tanks were concentrated, ie:

2 Cav Regt HQ: tank squadron, two 3RAR coys (mech), plus cav troop etc.

No matter how desirable this would be, it leaves the 3RAR battlegroup with no tank support. There is little point in spending $15b to equip an inf battalion in each brigade with IFVs which are designed to be able to accompany tanks onto the objective, if there are no tanks available to form the battlegroup..

The only compromise would seem to be to allocate a half tank sqn to each mech inf battlegroup, ie:

2 Cav Regt HQ: two tank troops, two 3RAR coys (mech); and

3RAR HQ: two tank troops, two 3RAR coys (mech).

It is clear that either: (i) there are two few tanks; or (2) there are too many IFVs. Ideally, with a full mech battalion in each brigade, there would be two tank squadrons in the brigade ACR.

Retaining a single tank squadron, would see the mech inf capability reduced to two coys. This would not be ideal as 3RAR would be a mixed battalion, ie half leg inf and half mech inf. The ‘conundrum’ would be solved if the RAAC were to operate the IFVs.

Footnotes.

It seems that interest is being generated by the posts on this subject (ie. LAND 400 Ph 3 and its implications). Let’s hope that there might be some rigour in the overdue debate;
I’m to appear before the Defence Force Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal on 13 Feb 19 in relation to a submission made (by a witness to an incident) for me to me awarded the VC. I believe the process will be that the Tribunal conducts hearings with those directly involved. If, as a result, there is a need to call for expanded hearings, then that will be done (but, in truth, I don’t know the workings of the DHAAT in this regard). I mention this, not because I want to big note myself, quite the opposite. I mention it so that there will be no suggestion that this is something that was done ‘behind closed doors’. (I know that there are a few people only too willing to challenge my motives for doing things.)

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

11 December 2018

Showing Respect and Appreciation

I’ve copied below the Blog post for 10 August 2018. In the second part, I explained that I had been banned from the 1AR Assn Facebook page because I’d suggested that the retiring RSM-A should have been given more of an RAAC style send off, eg. possibly being driven away from AHQ in an ASLAV.

It warmed the cockles of my heart to see the way Major General Gus McLachlan AM was farewelled as Forces Commander last week … see https://www.facebook.com/7newssydney/videos/351213975681283/

Well done to all involved! (As is obvious, I think that the former RSM-A also deserved equivalent thoughtful planning. If the RAAC Corporation has no schedule of such retirements, I think they should consider one.)

PS. My comment on the FB post re General McLachlan’s retirement: “What a disappointment that he will not now be either CA or CDF. A great leader in all respects. One hopes that the Army/Government tried as much as possible to secure his on-going service to the nation. (There are, of course, always personal reasons which trump anything else.) Good to see his departing ‘carriage’ … no less than was deserved.”

_______________________________________________________

10 August 2018

The Good News and the Bad News!

The good news first. The C’tee of the 1AR Assn have copied the Minutes of their first C’tee meeting to members. How good is that? I’ll have to amend the ‘To be Achieved List’ set out on the Blog a week or so ago. The C’tee have also published ‘policies’ for the running of the Assn. These are not the same as By-Laws (in that there is no regulation that they have to be approved by members) … but it seems that members’ approval is to be obtained. If any provide ‘feedback’ via the Members’ Only FB page, … be careful, there could be a ‘sting’ in the tail (see below). Postscript. It seems that Assn policies are not to be circulated to members for feedback/approval … the Minutes of the recent C’tee meeting shows policies (eg. Internet communications) being approved by the C’tee in isolation.

BANNED!!

Email to the Secretary, 1AR Assn (yesterday):

“Thanks for your advice that ‘The feeling of Committee members was that [I was] using the retirement of an illustrious member of the Corps [by saying, ‘Hopefully the RAAC Corporation will mark this occasion appropriately’] to score political points, and this was not considered acceptable’.

As a result of the C’tee’s view, I have been blocked for the 1AR Assn FB pages. (I have no idea what the reference to “political points” refers to.)

May I say in response, I find it difficult to understand how an RAAC RSM-A’s retirement is first advised to everyone vide the Army Newspaper. I would have hoped that prior to the event, the RAAC Corporation would have informed member associations and arranged, either directly or through the RAAC Representative Honorary Colonel, to participate in his farewell. What about the RSMs of the RAAC units in which he had served, being surprise guests at the ‘official’ farewell ceremony. What about an ASLAV to transport him from the front of Russell Offices ‘into retirement’?

This is the equivalent of the Chief of Army we’re talking about. How many resources go into the staging of CAs’ farewells?

BUT, none of this was to be … though I understand that the former RSM-A he will be included with others who have retired after 20 years+ at the next Corps Conference Dinner at the SoA.

Isn’t it within us to do something special for those who have served the Corps in an exemplary manner?

For consideration, and action if appropriate, by anyone who can make a difference.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

10 December 2018

Army’s Operational Structure.

Has Plan Beersheba worked out as expected?

As we know, it’s a force regeneration cycle (not a force structure). At any time: one brigade is ‘training’, one brigade is ‘preparing’ and one brigade is on operational stand-by.

But how does our brigade ORBAT lend itself to our possible operational contingencies? Let’s look at armour and infantry in 3 Brigade in Townsville, Relevant units (that close with and engage the enemy) are:

2 Cav Regt (one tank sqn; two cav sqns);

1 RAR (mounted in PMV Bushmasters) and

3 RAR (APCs).

The LAND 400 IFVs being procured will replace the APCs in terms of being able to accompany tanks onto the objective.

Part of the reason advocated for the Armoured Cavalry Regiment (ACR) to include two cav sqns was that insufficient reconnaissance capability for brigade operations was able to be provided by the single cav sqn in the previous ORBAT. .

Theoretically, working with four inf coys per bn, it should be possible to form three battlegroups within the Brigade. What would these look like (given that one cav sqn would be fully committed to brigade frontal and flank recon)?

Battlegroup 1: 2 Cav Regt HQ, two tank troops; two cav troops; two 3RAR coy (mech), and one 1RAR coy (PMV);

Battlegroup 2: 3RAR Bn HQ: one cav troop; one tank troop; two 3RAR coy (mech) ; one 1 RAR coy (PMV); and

Battlegroup 3 (Reserve?): 1RAR HQ, one cav troop; one tank troop; two 1RAR coys (PMV).

One can’t but wonder whether or not ‘brigade operations’ were really in the mind of those making the decisions at the time. Maybe the two cav sqn per ACR organisation was simply an means of maintaining RAAC numbers when forced to give up manning of APCs/IFVs. Maybe the org was simply for command/administrative efficiency?

If one was to sit down and propose the best ORBAT for the Army to enable it to be flexible enough to undertake a range of different operational commitments … I wonder if it would include three battalions of infantry confined to IFVs

PS. The Operations Command Facebook page provides an insight into ADF forces on operations worldwide: https://www.facebook.com/hqjoc/?rc=p

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

9 December 2018

LAND 400 Ph 3: ‘Other’ Contenders

The CV9030 infantry fighting vehicle was developed by BAE Systems Hägglunds of Sweden specifically for the export market.

The basic CV9030 chassis is similar to the CV9040 that is in service with the Swedish Army.

To meet the specific operational requirements of the Royal Norwegian Army the CV9030N has a number of improvements including a more powerful Scania diesel engine and the installation of a new BAE Systems Hägglunds two-man power-operated turret armed with a stabilised 30 mm ATK Gun Systems Company Bushmaster II Chain Gun (or, in the CV9040, a 40m cannon).

With a weight of around 35 tonnes, one has to wonder whether or nor the protection requirements would be achieved (compared to the approx. 40 tonnes of other contenders).

The eight dismounts ‘enter and leave via a large door in the rear’. Interestingly, the CV9030 is “provided with a single vision block with associated firing port in the centre.”

I wonder whether or not contenders with eight dismounts will be discounted; or is it possible that contenders with both six and eight dismounts could be considered? With only two contenders being selected for trials, a vehicle with eight dismounts would have to be very good in all other respects.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

8 December 2018

LAND 400 Phase 3: Ajax?

Following on from yesterday … it’s been reported that General Dynamics (UK) has proposed its Ajax-based IFV as a contender for LAND 400 Phase 3 http://www.australiandefence.com.au/land/general-dynamics-enters-the-ring-for-land-400-phase-3.)

But the Ajax IFV has been rejected by the British Army for the role that the LAND 400 IFV is to fulfil. The Warrior 2 IFV is to equip the British Armoured Infantry Brigades and the Boxer IFV, their Strike Brigades. Not surprisingly, all is not as it seems.

The vehicle being put forward by GD as a contender for LAND 400 Ph 3 is a very different beast to the Ajax … so different, it’s designated Griffin III. Only the hull, it would seem, has any links to Ajax.

The original Griffin was designed as an armoured fire support vehicle, equipped with 120mm gun. Griffin III’s armament has been scaled back to a 50mm cannon and room has been found for six dismounts. Interestingly, the cannon has an automatic loader. At 40 tonnes, it should meet all the protection requirements for our new IFV.

Ok … I’ve solved my dilemma. Why was there no info available as the turret configuration for the Griffin III? I was wanting to confirm that it was a two turret … but now I understand.

It’s an unmanned turret! This sets the Griffin up as a contender for the US Army’s Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) … see November post.

While Rheinmetall has the inside running as far as LAND 400 Ph 3 is concerned (because of commonality advantages with Ph 2 CRV) there might be another contender that has an outside chance. More tomorrow.

Footnote. It seems that Griffin III is not the configuration to be proposed as a contender for LAND 400 Ph 3. (Which is unsurprising as the phase 3 specs call for a manned turret.) It seems that the Ajax variant will be equipped with a 30mm two man turret. Also of interest … it has been suggested that the UK might ditch the warrior upgrade in favour of the Ajax IFV. Things are certainly ‘dynamic’ to say the least.

——————————————————————————————————

7 December 2018

The Australian Army of the Future.

LAND 400 Ph 3 will determine the Australian Army’s operational capability for decades to come. It is instructive to compare this with the planned ORBAT for the British Army

Four brigades make up the base organisation: two Strike Brigades and two Armoured Infantry Brigades.

A Strike Brigade comprises:

One regiment of Ajax in the reconnaissance role
One regiment of Ajax in the ‘medium armour’ role
Two battalions of mechanised infantry in the Boxer IFV

An Armoured Infantry Brigade comprises:

One Challenger 2 MBT armoured regiment,
Two Warrior 2 IFV armoured infantry battalions. (Warrior’s cross-country performance enables it to accompany Challenger in mounted attacks.)

A clear distinction has been made in the roles of the two types of brigade … this results in less protection and firepower, but greater mobility, for the Strike Brigade IFVs … compared to those in the Armoured Infantry Brigades.

Warrior 2 is not far off being ready to be introduced into service. The upgrade includes a stabilised 40mm cannon and a new turret (which impinges more on internal hull volume); provision for modular armour is also made; and a new situation awareness package is included.

The original Warrior (30mm turret) carried seven dismounts. The section commander was also the vehicle commander. He dismounted with the others on the objective, leaving the gunner to provide fire support and command the empty vehicle. Reduced internal volume in Warrior 2 means that there is only space for six dismounts.

The operational requirements for LAND 400 Ph 3 seem to marry well with those of Warrior 2. This is unsurprising, given that their roles are the same, ie. to accompany tanks onto the objective. There is a BUT, however.

Given the composition of the UK’s Strike Brigades, they have flexibility to deploy a more mobile force, either in conjunction with the Armoured Infantry Brigades, or in its own right in differing operational scenarios.

The Australian Army seems to be putting all its eggs in the one basket. Fingers crossed that it’s the right one.

———————————————————————————————————————-

6 December 2018

Freedom of Information Request: Progress Report

Bruce Cameron That’s great Noel. Was the [RAAC Corporation] submission any different to mine?

Noel Mc Laughlin I wouldn’t know – not having read anybody else’s including yours.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

5 December 2018

The IFV Debate:

“Incompatible Requirements Made it Difficult to Combine Lethality, Survivability and Squad Capacity in One Vehicle.”

The RAND Corporation’s analysis of the US Army’s IFV squad size conundrum was referred to yesterday. An extract from the paper’s Conclusion is copied below …

“While the support provided to dismounted infantry by a heavily armed fighting vehicle does provide some justification for weakening the dismounted squad’s independent fire and maneuver capability—the vehicle provides covering fire while the dismounted soldiers maneuver—this comes at the cost of reducing the dismounted infantry’s inherent flexibility, particularly in complex terrain. In such situations, such as fighting in urban areas, the vehicle may not be able to provide effective fire support to maneuvering dismounted soldiers, so the problems associated with squads that are too small become more evident.

APC doctrine, on the other hand, is designed less to support the mounted maneuver fight. Rather, APCs are meant to carry infantry squads relatively close to where they are needed as dismounted fighters while providing some protection from indirect fire and direct small arms fire during the movement. To incorporate a passenger compartment large enough for nine to eleven dismounts, the APC has typically traded off mobility, armor, and large weapons.

In essence, the U.S. Army has, to date, been unable to field a vehicle that combines the passenger capacity of the APC with the lethality, survivability, and mobility of the IFV. However, the Army’s struggle to develop effective dismount tactics for Bradley units [six dismounts]continues to reinforce the need for such a vehicle.”

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR100/RR184/RAND_RR184.pdf

The more I look into LAND 400 Phase 3, the more I’m puzzled by the requirements specified. It seems to me that the fundamental premise as to how the AFV is to employed has to be examined more robustly. I contend that, if this is done, the outcome will be for an IFV with a minimum of eight dismounts, operated by the RAAC.

—————————————————————————————————————

4 December 2018

IFV Dismount Numbers

The following quote is from a Rand Corporation study:

“One of the reasons for different squad sizes is the constraints imposed by the IFVs or APCs that are used to transport and support the squads. In the case of the German Army, two different squad sizes are used: nine personnel for light infantry, and seven in the case of panzergrenadiers, which are organic to armored units. The smaller squad in the case of the panzergrenadiers is due to the carrying capacity of the older Marder or new Puma IFV. (https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR716/RAND_RR716.pdf)

In 2016, the Australian Defence Magazine stated that: “According to the [LAND 400 Phase 3] RfI brief, the ideal solution would be a tracked and turreted vehicle with high levels of protection, mobility commensurate with the Abrams M1A1 main battle tank, and the ability to lift an eight-strong infantry section.

Why was the requirement for the LAND 400 Ph 3 IFV changed to six dismounts after 2016?

Another RAND study examines the squad size conundrum in the US Army.

“Ultimately, as the Bradley design evolved, the resulting IFV carried only six dismountable soldiers in the passenger space and three nondismounting crew members. The decision to make this change, however, was based more on budgetary and political considerations than on tactical considerations or historical precedence. Commonality with the Cavalry Fighting Vehicle—being developed in parallel—drove the budget considerations. Budget savings in the post-Vietnam Army were an important selling point with Congress. In addition, important members of Congress were enamored enough with the tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire-guided (TOW) missile that the Army decided to integrate that space-hungry weapon system into the Bradley design.

Prevailing operational concepts and supporting doctrine for mechanized or combined arms operations generally supported these decisions, but the result was that fire and maneuver by dismounted infantry squads became much more difficult to execute in mechanized infantry units. Importantly, the Army quickly recognized that the Bradley was not ideal as a dismounted infantry support vehicle. Shortly after the Bradley was fielded the Army began new IFV development. The Future Infantry Fighting Vehicle (FIFV) concept of the 1980s Armored Modernization effort was intended to carry nine dismountable infantrymen. More recently, the IFV that was part of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, the XM1206, would also have carried nine soldiers in the passenger compartment.”

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR100/RR184/RAND_RR184.pdf

More to follow on this matter.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

3 December 2018

Situational Awareness System : IFV

This is Rheinmetall’s description of the SAS provided in the Lynx (a contender for LAND 400, Phase 3):

Situational awareness: The commander and gunner both have access to the Stabilized Electro Optical Sight System/SEOSS, a digital TV – IR optical system with an integrated laser range finder and fire control computer. In the fighting compartment, displays provide the crew with a seamless 360° panoramic view. Rheinmetall’s Situational Awareness System (SAS), featuring automatic target detection and tracking, enhances the hunter-killer capability and minimizes crew reaction time. Emerging threats can be swiftly engaged with Lynx’s main or secondary armament. Laser warning sensors and the Acoustic Sniper Locating System (ASLS) likewise form part of the sensor suite. A combat management system and intercom for tactical communication round out the array of on-board equipment.

Silly me … when I first saw the term SAS in the context of an IFV, I thought it referred to a means by which the dismounts could be made aware of the terrain into which they would have to leave the IFV and confront the enemy. But NO … the Lynx SAS provides nothing of the kind.

Many other Armies have opted for IFVs with unmanned turrets. Interestingly, it seems that the IFV dismounts in these vehicles will have better situational awareness, than those in the LAND 400 Ph 3 (manned turret) contenders. The sensors and cameras required to enable to an unmanned turreted IFV to operate, mean that ‘take offs’ for the dismounts can give them reasonable awareness of the external situation.

Let us hope that the tactical consequences of IFV dismounts exiting their IFV ‘blind’ on the objective … have been fully assessed.

Sorry about harping on this topic (more to follow tomorrow), but I’m not sure that the decisions to have an IFV (i) with six dismounts and (ii) operated by the Inf … would pass the ‘Pub Test’.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

2 December 2018

LAND 400 Phase 3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)

An article in Australian Defence Business Review (ADBR) from 26 Sep 18 is at https://adbr.com.au/rheinmetall-lynx-lines-up-for-land-400-phase-3/ Extracts are copied below.

“Tenders will close in first quarter of 2019, after which six months of initial evaluations are expected to result in an announcement of a shortlist of two. The chosen pair will then sign a Risk Mitigation Activity (RMA) contract.

The RMA is scheduled to start in third quarter 2020, with each contender supplying three vehicles for up to 15 months of trials to assess performance, lethality, survivability, and integration with the Australian environment. Unlike Phase 2, trials will commence with mine blast testing to assess occupant survivability.

The government will announce the winner some time in 2022. Initial operating capability (IOC) will be achieved in 2024-25, and final operating capability (FOC) in 2030-31.

Defence says it wants a total of 467 vehicles – 312 in IFV configuration, and the remainder in a mix of eight other variants, including command, joint fires, combat engineers, ambulances, and manoeuvre support vehicles.

Comment: It is my understanding that that total number of vehicles to be procured under LAND 400 Phase 3 is now 400 (467 was the initial project number).

“In an industry brief in September 2016, Defence spelled out its basic requirements for the new IFV – a tracked vehicle with a turret, the capacity to carry eight soldiers, high level of protection and mobility, and mature technology with a robust growth path. At that stage there were seven potential contenders, all indicating their willingness to build wholly or mostly in Australia.”

Comment: The current requirement is for a vehicle with a crew of three and six dismounts (possibly a change linked to the requirements for the future US Army IFV replacement … see below).

“An IFV exists to transport a group of soldiers, typically an infantry section or smaller, across the final 300 metres of the battlefield, protecting against artillery and gunfire, and armed with offensive and self-defence weapons.”

Comment: Is this really the role of the IFV?? Armour protection and defensive weapons are obvious requirements … but what about offensive weapons such as ATGW?

Rheinmetall’s Lynx KF41 is the most modern of the IFV designs in a small field to be considered under LAND 400 Phase 3. It was officially unveiled at Eurosatory in Paris in June, with Rheinmetall personnel demonstrating how it could be reconfigured from IFV to Command variant in eight hours, then back again.

The KF41 is a big vehicle – 34 tonnes in basic configuration, rising to 48 tonnes for the configuration with the main armament and highest level of protection. In comparison, the Australian M113AS4 weighs up to 18 tonnes while the US Bradley weighs up to 31 tonnes.

Though Rheinmetall has a long history of IFV design – its Marder, introduced in 1971 is regarded as the world’s first true IFV – Lynx is an all-new design, drawing lessons from Marder, from its successor Puma, and from the recent evolution of conflict.

Lynx has a crew of three and can accommodate six dismounts with all their equipment, or up to nine dismounts in the long wheelbase version. Australia has specified a high level of protection whatever new vehicle is chosen. It should be able to withstand 30mm munitions, RPGs, a 10kg mine, and an unspecified capability against EFP.

That high level of protection requires a much heavier vehicle than past APCs and IFVs. The Boxer CRV, which was deemed to provide better occupant protection than AMV35, has a maximum mass of 38 tonnes, compared with 13 tonnes for the ASLAV it will replace.

Footnote:

Comment on another website: Sounds like an abortion of an idea. Really, Six dismounted Infantry in Support of a driver and vehicle commander??! Come on now! Gee…what could go wrong… The ADF needs to stop reducing the Infantry section and put in place a IFV that can accommodate a full eight to nine man section.

My Response: To pick up on the dismount numbers … companies vying for LAND 400 Phase 3 also hope to be contenders for the US Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle ‘OMFV’ project. I’m not kidding re Optional manning, ie. the concept is that when the dismounts leave the vehicle, it would be remotely controlled to provide fire support. Like us, the US only require six dismounts. Not everyone agrees, however. Two on the contenders for LAND 400 Phase 3 provide for 8-9 dismounts. I have great respect for the LAND 400 project team, but I do think that the role (and therefore the operational requirements) of the IFV need wider discussion..

—————————————————————————————————————————–

1 December 2018

Miscellaneous

John Ainsworth (1947-2018)

Catering Officer, 1ATF. One of nature’s gentlemen has left us. If only we had more time and the ability to re-connect and remember the times we shared.

Army Newspaper.

Dear Editor,

On Page 9 of Army News Edition 1433, you refer to the “Colours of 1 Armd Regt”.

This is obviously an oversight, as 1 Armd Regt is the only unit in the Australian Army to carry a Standard (rather than Colours). Possibly the difference between Colours, Guidons and Standards might be worth consideration as the subject for an article in a future Army News.

AFV Crewman Personal Weapon

The following goal has been moved to the ‘Pendingcategoryf Part 6ove):

Serving members of the RAAC would carry into combat a personal weapon which provided effective rapid and hard hitting firepower

It seems that at least one F88C (shortened version of the AusSteyr F88) is available for Abrams crew to use to supplement their 9mm pistol when they dismount. The 9mm pistol, however, remains the issued personal weapon. Armoured crewmen deserve better. The 70 year old weapon weapon was unsatisfactory in Vietnam and it is unsatisfactory now.

How to Reinforce ‘Lessons learnt’.

The Army History Unit stated some years ago that “It’s very easy to get someone to write a list of lessons learnt; what is much more difficult is getting someone to open the book and read them”.

Work is being done on ways in which lessons from Vietnam (and other conflicts) can be kept in the forefront of soldiers’ minds today. The following ‘lesson’ is recorded in ‘Canister! On! FIRE!’:

Scenario: You are a platoon commander travelling in IFVs. Moving parallel to a track (with a patch of open ground big enough for a helo LZ, adjacent), one of the vehicles detonates an IED and one of the dismounts is wounded. What is the sequence of actions you should follow?

Solution: All the tactical procedures for securing the area should be listed, ditto medical treatment, contact report and ‘Dustoff’ request (or whatever it’s called today). How many students designated the nearly open ground as the Dustoff LZ?

Heritage: In the incident which occurred in Vietnam, the enemy had targeted both the APC and the helicopter. The detonator for the anti-helicopter IED was positioned in a tree … vanes were rotated by the air turbulence caused when the helicopter came in to land. This movement completed the electrical circuit. The helicopter was a ‘write-off’. (The site for the anti-tank IED had been chosen because of the proximity of a Dustoff LZ.)

Lesson: There will rarely be enough time to secure and check the ‘obvious’ LZ completely. Better to transport the casualty to an alternative LZ if possible.

Honorary Colonel 2/14 QMI LH Regt?

Why is it taking so long to appoint an Honarary Colonel for 2/14^th?

The previous Hon Col, Brig Maurie Meecham AM, finished his tenure in April 2017.

Surely the earlier policy ‘kerfuffle’ whereby, in order to save money, Army did away with honorary colonels being appointed on a unit basis … has not raised its meanspirited head again?

————————————————————————————————————————–

30 November 2018

John Scales’ 80^th.

A dinner was held at a Vietnamese restaurant in Canberra on the evening of 26 November to celebrate the 80^th birthday of John Scales. Fourteen people were present (some travelling considerable distance): the ‘toast’ to John follows ….

“Today is an important day … no more so than for someone who this morning, after four weeks, was able to declare that today is ‘Free Willy’ Day. I know that’s a bit cryptic, but I had to start somewhere.

Remember the days when the Best Man at a wedding reception got up and read out all those bogus telegrams making the bride and groom’s families perish from embarrassment, but amusing everyone else? Well … I won’t be going there (apart from reading one about John’s experience with the ‘knacker-cracker’ … if there’s time at the end).

What I WILL be doing is trying to stand in for those who can’t be here. While all pass on their best wishes to John, there are some comments worthy of being mentioned separately.

Barrie Wade told me not to make John laugh too much, as the other diners will think that a bomb’s gone off (I gather Barrie has memories of John’s raucous laughter in the Mess); Rod Ward wanted John to be served a Vinh Thanh beer to conjure up memories of 47 years ago, ie. put ice in a hot glass and pour hot beer over it.

Roger Tingley, a distinguished member of the Armoured Corps, shared a memory about his time as a new soldier in a recruit training battalion. I need to digress here and mention that John graduated from OCS Portsea in December 1960, along with Alan Hutchinson who’s here tonight. I assume that they were accommodated in nearby rooms at Portsea (where you got to know people really well) as Alan later asked John to be his best man.

Getting back to Roger Tingley, he was in the platoon commanded by the newly commissioned Second Lieutenant John Scales. Roger’s comment to me was that it was “because of John’s example, that I elected to join the Armoured Corps”;

Bill Burton first met John at 4/19 PWLH in 1962. He asked me to remind John of the time (many years later) spent feeding “ant lions” in the sand outside John’s tent at Nui Dat. (John can explain what ant lions are if anyone wishes to consider an alternative dining experience.) Bill also sent a cd to be passed on. In 1968 there was a popular song titled the Ballard of the Green Berets. Bill and another tank commander (Shorty Atkins) made a cassette tape based on this and titled ‘Black Beret and Silver Badge’. Shorty’s daughter, Natalie, subsequently became a well-known country singer. When it was discovered that a copy of the Vietnam cassette had ended up in the Australian War Memorial, a project was initiated to re-record the Black Beret adaption with the aim of raising funds to purchase comfort dogs to help wounded veterans from Afghanistan. Bill wanted you to have a copy.

Among others who would be here if they could, are David Watts, Lloyd Sawyer, Brian Agnew; Jack Leggett; Ron Baikie; Denzil Bourne; Chris Stephens, Bob Snape, and Peter Goldman. Peter asked me to mention that one of the Legacy widows he helps look after, is Helen Bourke (the late Peter Bourke was our squadron commander in Vietnam; John was his 2IC).

Finally, Lionel Bailey asked that I pass on his congratulations on your award of the OBE. I was completely wrong footed and sent Lionel a response to say that I didn’t think that John had been awarded the OBE. Lionel explained that John would be eligible tonight … so it is that I’d like to present John with the OBE … for those who aren’t aware of its significance, I refer to the Over Bloody Eighty award!

————————————————————————————————————————-

29 November 2018

Communications

To their credit, the 1AR Assn C’tee have encouraged members to provide suggestions that would assist with the development of a Communications Strategy

My suggestions are the following

Relationship Between 1AR Assn Facebook and 1 AR Assn Website for C’tee Communications. I believe that it is necessary to have a clear policy as to how the C’tee is to use each of these communications channels. Take ‘News’ for example … the RAACA NSW uses their Website to inform members re recent happenings eg. a report was given in relation to the RAAC Corporation AGM shortly after it was held. (The 1AR Assn is yet to inform members). A report of this type would seem to be too large for a Facebook post. Once members are aware of the role of the Website and FB, they will be able access one or the other as needed.
2, Timeliness. Following on from the above … a Communications Strategy which informs members of matters which affect them and/or were of interest to them, in a timely manner, would be highly desirable.
Ability for Members to Make Suggestions. I believe that one of the fundamental communications links between a C’tee and its members, is that which enables members to make suggestions. This should be possible, together with C’tee responses, on an open and transparent basis (for obvious reasons). The Members’ Forum which used to be a facility of the 1AR Assn Website, was an ideal basis for this interaction. (On this note, I think that members ‘suggestions’ should not automatically be regarded as ‘criticisms’ …an association which is able to benefit from the suggestions from members, is an association which will be long lived.)
Ability to Comment on C’tee Proposals. I believe that one of the (other) fundamental communications links between a C’tee and its members, is that which enables members to comment on proposals being considered by the C’tee … before they are enshrined in ‘law’. For example … suppose that a C’tee was considering introducing a measure whereby they had the right to accept or reject a former 1 Armd Regt’s application for membership without any reason being made known to the applicant (or other members).
Minutes of C’tee Meetings. It is to the credit of the present C’tee that they have made minutes of their Meetings to members. This is something which has long been sought by members.
Minutes of the RAAC Corporation AGM. Members’ funds are used to pay for membership of the RAAC Corporation. It follows that members should be entitled to read the Minutes of the Corporation’s AGM (so as to understand what the Corporation is doing on behalf of the Assn’s members). This has been denied by previous C’tees.
Courtesy and Dignity. For a long time, 1AR Assn member communications have been characterised by personal insults and innuendo (as exemplified by all the FB posts regarding this topic). It would be wonderful if on-line communications (FB and Website) could be moderated so that they were limited to discussions which added value to matters of relevance to the 1AR Assn

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

28 November 2018

Army’s Duty of Care

The following link is to an article on John Menadue’s website about logistical problems suffered by Australian Army units deployed to Iraq: http://www.johnmenadue.com/andrew-greene-australian-defence-forces-iraq-war-secrets-revealed-in-newly-declassified-report-abc-news/ I can’t vouch for its accuracy.

My response (below) has been published on the Pearls and Irritations website.

“During pre-Vietnam training in Australia, tank crews were required to wear specially designed tanksuits. These were required to be worn with the sleeves rolled down, whenever a crewman was on a tank, because of the possibility of fire. They were made with reinforced internal straps over the shoulders which meant that if a crewman collapsed inside the turret, the straps could be used to assist those above in lifting him out.

When the tanks were deployed to Vietnam … the tanksuits were too hot to be worn. Infantry jungle greens were issued instead. These had no reinforcing to assist the extraction of a wounded crew member (as had to happen on a number of occasions). Not did they provide any protection in the case of fire.

Because the Australian Army has a ‘can do’ attitude, nothing was done to provide alternative protective dress for tank crews.

What should have happened, if the Army had acknowledged its ‘duty of care’, was that flame retardant, reinforced for evacuation and suitable for SE Asian climatic conditions, tanksuits should have been procured.

The availability of these should have been known in advance. If stocks were not held in Australia, contingency planning for operations outside Australia, should have identified sources and lead times for procurement.

This level of preparedness comes at a cost. There are other examples whereby lives of service personnel were placed at risk because of the cost cutting measures imposed by the Government. Will cost minimisation continue to dominate ‘duty of care’ for the lives of service personnel on active service?

——————————————————————————————————————————-

27 November 2018

The General Chauvel Statue

The report on the 2018 RAAC Corporation AGM published by RAACA (NSW) states that:

“Roger Powell”, of course, refers to Major General Roger Powell, AM (Retd), RAAC Representative Honorary Colonel

The extract above is, of necessity in reporting on wide ranging meeting, a very brief one. Background is as follows:

General Powell has recently been appointed as an ambassador for the General Sir Harry Chauvel Memorial Foundation: “The Foundation was recently delighted to appoint Major General Roger Powell as an Ambassador. Roger has a wealth of experience in senior leadership positions, with an ongoing influence over domestic and international strategic decision-making”.

What is the Memorial Foundation?

“The Chauvel Foundation is a not for profit Australian Charity. Its purpose is to promote, support and inspire service to the community by building public awareness of the attributes, dedication and accomplishments of the Australian Light Horse and their greatest commander, General Sir Harry Chauvel.

Through three programs that bring this culturally significant heritage into public view, the Foundation will lead all Australians to building a stronger nation through community engagement and to recognise those who currently espouse the values and integrity that Sir Harry displayed throughout a life dedicated to public service.”

The “three programs” are:

The Light Horse Legend: Past and Present

The Foundation’s online Light Horse Anthology enables people to share stories, search for information, and bring the legend to life. Contributors include family descendants, school students, currently-serving soldiers and professional historians. .

The Sir Harry Chauvel Award

The Foundation is considering a series of awards to recognise the qualities and efforts of General Sir Harry Chauvel: resilience; civilian and military leadership; arts; and the indigenous contribution to Australian society.

The Sir Harry Chauvel Memorial Artwork

Renowned Melbourne sculptor Louis Laumen’s equestrian maquette of General Sir Harry Chauvel was unveiled in October 2017. Louis Laumen’s bronzed bust of Sir Harry was presented to the Shrine of Remembrance on 25 September 2018. The life-sized statue is planned for completion by 2025.

Comment:

One of General Chauvel’s granddaughtesr said recently that: “… as a member of the General Sir Harry Chauvel Foundation, my role is to encourage people to research the history of their Light Horsemen ancestors or local heroes and bring their stories home to the families and communities from which they came.

It seems that there might be a link between the General Sir Harry Chauvel Memorial Foundation, the General Sir John Monash Foundation and the Spirit of Australia Foundation.

Finally … in reference to the blogs of the previous two days, it’s interesting that society seems to have no interest in researching historical matters in living memory. It is only after generations have passed that the achievements of forebears become significant. I venture that there would have been little interest in recording the experiences of light horsemen through personal interview, in the same way that there is little interest today in recording the experiences of WWII tank crewmen by personal interview.

————————————————————————————————————————-

26 November 2018

Recording Our Heritage Before it is Too Late. III

“Daddy, what was it like to be a crewman in a Churchill tank that the 1^St Armoured Regiment operated when it was first formed? Was it very different to what it’s like in tanks you serve in today?”

“We’ll never know son … all the Churchill crewmen are now dead. There was a proposal to record their experiences some years ago, but nobody was really interested in all that old stuff”.

The email sent to the Temora Aviation Museum and the General Manager’s reply (see yesterday) were copied to the Australian Armour and Artillery Museum.

The situation was explained as below:

“I’ve just learnt that the Army Tank Museum, Puckapunyal, is fully committed to its relocation project and does not have the resources to conduct interviews.

It appears that the last opportunity to record the experiences of the crews of Australian WWII tanks, is about to be lost. It’s just possible, however, that if interested stakeholders were to act together in a joint project, some measure of Australia’s military history involving AFVs might be able to be preserved.

I would imagine that considerable commonality might exist in terms of integrating interviews into audio visual displays associated with tanks and aircraft and Temora could assist in such endeavours.

I have copied this email to the RAAC Association (NSW) which is quite likely the only means left of making contact with former crewmen of WWII tanks.

Your response to the above concept would be most appreciated.

Best wishes, Bruce Cameron

——————————————————————————————————————————-

25 November 2018

Recording Our Heritage Before it is Too Late. II

Following on from yesterday, the email below and its response are relevant:

Email 1: Dear President, Temora Aviation Museum:

I’m wondering if the info below resonates as far as aircraft crews are concerned?

I’m a former tank (Centurion) crewman who served in Vietnam. Among submissions to the AWM re their Redevelopment Project recently, I raised concern that AFV exhibits were presented on a solely technological basis:

Some years ago, I tried to get the Australian Army Tank Museum to record the experiences of WWII tank crews (Matildas, Grants etc) with the idea that visitors could stand in front of a tank, press a button (or listen to headphones) and gain an idea as to what it was like to be a crewman in the tank. If the audio conversations were based on a common set of factors, such as internal noise, temperature, communications etc; effect on crew of cross country movement; external visibility; ability to perform crew functions … then improvements (or not) achieved through technological advance/design improvements might also become evident. Unfortunately, the attitude at the time was that Museum visitors are “interested in vehicles, not people”.

In the intervening years, the last serving crewmen for some of Australia’s WWIII era tanks have died. The only thing that exists to represent their experience are salvaged versions of the tanks themselves. Unfortunately these tanks don’t speak. I’ve asked the Army History Unit to consider the possibility that such a project could be initiated before all crewmen of WWII AFVs have passed on.

It occurred to me that operating a tank in action has mny similarities with crewing an aircraft in action. Do you know of any project to record the oral histories of the crews of RAAF’s inventory of aircraft (before there is no-one left with such experience)?

Many thanks, Bruce Cameron

Email 2: Hi Bruce,

I could not agree more with your thoughts regarding telling the stories of the veterans who flew our aircraft, or in your case the, operated the tanks.

The Temora Aviation Museum initiated such a project about 10 years ago, this is called the Unsung Heroes Project you will find more information on our website at https://aviationmuseum.com.au/unsung-heroes/

To date we have recorded more than 550 veteran interviews, currently these interviews can be viewed at the Museum and we are currently investigating who the entire collection can be viewed by the general public via a website. This is a huge project but one that we are working through with the time and resource we have available.

If you go to our website you will be able to watch just a few of the interviews that have been professionally edited into a videocast and podcast. We have also integrated many of the interviews into audio visual displays that can be viewed whilst visiting our Museum.

Kind Regards Peter Harper General Manager Temora Aviation Museum

More to follow on this subject tomorrow. Note: The link to Temora’s project and what they’ve achieved is recommended viewing..

———————————————————————————————————————————–

24 November 2018

Recording Our Heritage Before it is Too Late.

Armouredadvocates has made a couple of submissions to the AWM re their Redevelopment Project, One of the matters raised was a concern that AFV exhibits were presented on a solely technological basis:

“I believe that there is an opportunity to provide better understanding as the combat experience of AFV crews. Displaying a tank is one thing, making known what it was like to be a crew member fighting the vehicle during combat … is something else entirely. There is a fallacy abroad that members of tank crews were protected from enemy fire and, therefore, their experience should not be portrayed as explicitly in closing with and engaging the enemy, as that of infantry. Of course, nothing is further from the truth. I believe that the Australian armoured experience should be represented not just by AFVs [and their technical characteristics], but also by a well-informed and engaging interpretation of what it was like for AFV crews fighting inside them.

Interestingly, exhibits at the Imperial War Museum (London) have been described in similar terms: “Much of the Imperial War Museum’s displays are technology-focused, especially in the museum’s Large Exhibits Gallery. Here, guns, tanks and aircraft are displayed clean and undamaged, presenting a sanitised version of war, which emphasises technology rather than the context in which the objects were used, the people who made and used them, and the effects they had on their intended targets. The artefacts’ captions concentrate on their technical details.” https://www.jcms-journal.com/articles/10.5334/jcms.7013/”

Some years ago, I tried to get our Tank Museum to record the experiences of WWII tank crews (Grants, Matildas etc) with the idea that visitors could stand in front of a tank, press a button (or listen to headphones) and gain an idea as to what it was like to be a crewman in the tank. If the audio conversations were based on a common set of factors, such as internal noise, temperature, communications etc; cross-country ride characteristics; external visibility; ability to perform crew functions … then improvements (or not) achieved through technological advance/design improvements might also become evident. Unfortunately, the attitude at the time the suggestion was made, was that visitors are “interested in vehicles, not people”.

The Army History Unit has been asked if a project such as that outlined above, could be initiated before all crewmen of WWII era AFVs have passed on.

PS. The photo above is of an exhibit at the Tank Museum, Bovington, UK. The designer attempted to present the tank in a way which would complement a list of technological characteristics. She “… was trying to put the Mk 1 tank into its context of how to overcome the advantages of the defence in positional warfare. The exhibit took on a life of its own and it expanded to give the viewer an experience of the whole journey from Recruiting Office to the Front Line. The final denouement when you enter the German trench and are confronted with the Mk 1 towering over you is very powerful still. It was designed in the mid-nineties and yet is still fresh”.

————————————————————————————————————————

23 November 2018

Legacy’ & Heritage

Yesterday’s post mentioned the ‘divide’ between young and old in terms of the reasons for joining regimental associations. I believe that this ‘divide’ runs more deeply.

A couple of years ago, I suggested that the Centenary of Cambrai warranted a special acknowledgement by the 1 Armd Regt and 1AR Assn. Re the former, I suggested that possibly pasr COs and RSMs might like to contribute to something which would become part of the heritage of 1 Armd Regt for the next 100 years. I emailed those whose emails I had. There was a positive response from some (eg. possibly something which would be a ‘living’ part of the Regiment’s on-going history, eg. a development scholarship for a deserving member); there was an apathetic response from many; and a few were dismissive (eg. “I don’t need you or anyone else to tell me how to spend my money!”).

With respect o the 1AR Assn, I suggested the possibility that some of the donated royalties from my book could be used to sponsor a member of 1 Armd Regt and a member of 1AR Assn to attend the Cambrai Centenary Commemoration in France (the requirement being that on their return they presented their experiences to the members of their 1 Armd Regt ‘family’). This proposal didn’t proceed because my donated royalties were returned to me as they were considered to place a ‘constructive obligation’ on the Assn as to the manner of their use (this is nonsense … as has been recounted here previously).

Why difference does any of this make in the overall scheme of things?

I reflected on this when I looked at the image sent to me under the heading ‘Cambrai Greetings’ … see below 20 Nov 18. When will the heritage of 1 Armd Regt mean as much to its former members, as that of the RTR obviously means to its former members?

Obviously, the service history of the RTR is so much greater … but is this the only factor?

It seems to me that military culture between British and Australian Armies is ‘chalk and cheese’. That’s not to say that one is better than the other … just that they’re very different.

There is more to be gained, however, by embracing the heritage of the British Army units with which we have affiliations, compared to the option of dismissing it. I referred to this in 2017 when lobbying the Minister to have the error on the Vietnam Theatre Honour emblazoned on the 1 Armd Regt Standard, corrected: “This might not seem an important matter. Imagine, however, if the Standard for the British Household Cavalry was to be found to bear the Battle Honour ‘Waterloo 1816’ (instead of ‘Waterloo 1815’). There would be national outcry in the UK and the Standard would be immediately re-emblazoned correctly. Why should the service of the Household Cavalry be any different to that of the 1^st Armoured Regiment? When lives are placed on the line, the bravery and courage of those involved is just the same.”

The view which is currently abroad, ie. that the 1AR Assn exists to promote camaraderie between former members is a valid one; but what value should be placed on the alternative, ie. the 1 AR Assn exists to (i) assist former members as needed, (ii) promote camaraderie, and (iii) foster the heritage of 1 Armd Regt. It’s one thing to state such a goal, it’s another thing entirely to implement it.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

22 November 2018

RAAC Corporation AGM : 12/13 October 2018 Part 2

Thank you to the RAACA NSW Branch for their report on the RAAC Corporation AGM. Aspects of the AGM discussions have been reported on over the past few days. The last of these relates to the extract below:

“The reports revealed our associations are beset by two problems, geography, and the need to remain relevant to the meeds of younger former and serving soldiers. Geography is a greater problem for the ARA unit associations where soldiers are gathered from all over the nation and tend to gravitate back to where they grew-up when they complete their service. Reserve units have a geographic base with association supporting WW2 veterans who were also recruited in specific areas. Soldiers join an association so they can find solace with the people with whom they served, spent their youth and sacrificed for their country. All are having a degree of difficulty with youth relationship. A young person is less than likely to associate with those as old as their grandparents.”

The generational divide experienced by ESOs has been the subject of many posts. The reason advanced for younger members joining an Association is significant. Younger members of the 1AR Assn have stated in the past that they joined to share stories and have a good time. This is in stark contrast with the reason given by older members, ie. to form a body capable of keeping in touch with fellow members and providing assistance to those in need. There are ways of harmonising such disparate interests, however, first the divide must be recognised.

Armouredadvocates has previously suggested that a survey of members to identify the range of things that members wanted from their Association, however, this idea has gone through to the keeper. The RAAC Corporation discussion is a step in the right direction.

Sadly, good ideas often flounder because of a lack of commitment to follow through with change management. Take, for example, the decision that RAAC personnel crewing Bushmaster vehicles must be trained in tactical employment (19 November post) … how will this be turned from a good idea/resolution to implementation? The RAAC Corporation has stated that it will not become involved in matters not supported by the RAAC Head of Corps. So, if the RAAC wants to maintain the position that it’s role encompasses AFVs only (and the Corps considers the PMV to be a ‘truck’) then implementation is not possible (no matter how good the proposal and how mant Corrrporation members support it).

The RAAC Corporation is akin to all other organisations … unless meetings include Action Plans, then, no matter the merit of the discussion, it serves no purpose.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

21 November 2018

The RAAC Corporation AGM (12/13 October 2018)

I’ve moved the following Goal (see Part 6 above) to the ‘Pending’ category:

‘The minutes of RAAC Corporation AGMs would be made available to the members of the associations who make up the Corporation and pay for the privilege’.

Background here is that the 1AR Assn rep for the RAAC Corporation, Mr C M Fenton. OAM) was of the opinion that members of the 1AR Assn had no entitlement to be provided information about the matters discussed at the RAAC Corporation AGM (which he attends). The former C’tee agreed and so the only recourse for anyone who wanted to know why the 1AR Assn contributes annually to the RAAC Corporation, was for them to refer to the reports provided by other Associations to their members.

The 2018 RAAC Corporation AGM was conducted on 12/13 October. The last 1AR Assn C’tee meeting was held on 2 Nov, with Minutes being circulated on 8 Nov. It was stated then that the report of the RAAC Corporation was still in draft. The Secretary has since advised that:

“The Minutes from the RAAC AGM were received after the last 1ARA Committee Meeting. The minutes from the RAAC AGM will be released after the Management Committee has considered the Minutes and approved the Minutes, or parts thereof, for release.”

It’s interesting that other Associations have ‘News’ pages on the websites and use this facility to keep members informed. It’ll be interesting to see whether or not the 1AR Assn Communications Strategy takes the same approach.

Tomorrow: The problems that beset the RAAC Associations, as identified at the RAAC Corporation AGM.

———————————————————————————————————————

20 November 2018

A photo from a former RTR CO:

…

LAND 400 Phase 3 (IFV).

Many posts have made recently regarding the decision that the new IFVs should be manned by the infantry. Readers will be familiar with the issues raised, including that of career progression within the RA Inf Corps (anyone unfamiliar only has to scroll down).

Following on from yesterday … two days of fresh air blowing through the window in a row!! (Someone with a catheter in place for three weeks and another week to go, could get carried away.)

An extract from the RAACA NSW account of the RAAC Corporation AGM (12/13 October) is copied below:

“Changes within the corps, with the Regular Infantry being integrally mobilised utilising the M113AS4 and PMV fleet as a precursor to the arrival of the MICV, and the imminent arrival of the Boxer Cavalry Reconnaissance Vehicles (CRVs) were discussed. Infantry mobility is facing the same issue as it did when 5/7 RAR was mechanised in that the ECNs for Driver and Crew Commander do not form part of an Infantry soldier’s career progression, making it difficult to fill these roles. “

Now it can only be hoped that the operational aspects (as discussed in detail in previous posts) will also be acknowledged by the RAAC Corporation. There is no doubting the fact that the IFVs should be operated by the RAAC!

More about the RAACA AGM tomorrow.

—————————————————————————————————————————

19 November 2018

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

The Bushmaster (Protected Mobility Vehicle) Recognised by the RAAC.

Armouredadvocates has advocated for years, that RAAC personnel required to crew Bushmasters should be trained to levels of competency approved by the SoA. While the RACT is responsible for driver training competencies, there is no training package agreed for crew commanders, as this role does not exist within the RACT (ie. all PMVs operate under command of ‘packet’/convoy commanders). When RAAC personnel are providing protected lift, however, the tactical situation is very different (ie. not simply a road convoy). Not only is their safety at risk if inadequately trained, so too is that of passengers and others in the vicinity. A Bushmaster which overturned during an RAAC ARES night move some time ago, was blamed on inadequate training.

The SoA has denied responsibility for conducting this training, as (supposedly) the Bushmaster is not a vehicle operated by the RAAC. Armouredadvocates has constantly pointed out the the RAAC ARES operate the vehicle. The RAAC/SOA position has been that the PMV is not an AFV but a transport vehicle; the RAAC does not want to embrace the PMV, so as to maintain a strictly ‘AFV only’ role for the Corps. In the last edition of Ironsides, the Corps RSM reiterated that the Bushmaster is not operated by the RAAC. This, of course, is incorrect; if the RAAC is to maintain the ‘AFV only’ policy, then Commander 2 Div has to be disallowed from tasking RAAC ARES units to provide protected lift capability.

What a breath of fresh air it was to read the RAACA-NSW account of the RAAC Corporation AGM held in October. An extract is copied below:

So … I’ll move the following ‘Goal’ to ‘Pending’ (see Part 6 above), but will it be moved to the ‘Crossed off the List’ category?

All RAAC personnel who serve as PMV-M (Bushmasters) crew commanders would be trained and certified to a level of competency approved by the School of Armour.

As ever, statements made are not always followed up with action; will the SoA accept responsibility for tactical training of RAAC Bushmaster crews? (This has always been the RACT position; ie. their role is to train for use of the PMV as made by the RACT, other Corps who operate the vehicle in different circumstances are responsible for appropriate training.)

Will this continue to be a ‘them’ and ‘us’ demarcation which will continue to put the lives of RAAC personnel (and others) in danger?

More on the RAAC Corporation AGM tomorrow.

———————————————————————————————————————-

18 November 2018.

Balancing the Books: LAND 400

LAND 400 Ph 2 was announced as providing 225 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles (CRVs) for a project cost of $5.2b. When the contract with Rheinmettal was recently signed, however, only 211 vehicles were mentioned.

The stated intention for the $15b LAND 400 Ph3 project is to equip an infantry battalion in each of the three multi-purpose brigades. Surprisingly, the initial number of vehicles specified was 450 IFVs, plus 17 MSVs. Simple arithmetic indicated that this was sufficient to equip four battalions, plus provide for training and repair pools. The total number to be procured has since been reduced to 400 (although more than a ten percent reduction in vehicle numbers, no mention seems to have been made of an equivalent reduction in project cost.)

Some commentators have suggested that the reduction in vehicle number for Ph2, was because the Boxer was the preferred contender and reducing the number was easier that requesting a funding increase or negotiating a cost reduction with Rheinmettal. It could also be that the ‘moduality’ of the Boxer enabled the same flexibility at a reduced number.

It has been asked before … why isn’t disclosure about such matters much more open and publicly transparent; rather than allowing rumours to develop?

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

17 November 2018

LAND 400 Phase 3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)

I’ve been spending a lot of time recently examining the trade offs between the RA Inf and the RAAC operating the IFV. Arguments came out in favour of the latter.

I was just reading the latest Defence Technology Review, when I noticed that the version of Lynx KF41 being offered as a contender by Raytheon and Rheinmetall, provides seating for nine dismounts. Three more than the LAND 400 requirement!

Why would this be done? Volume under armour is the principle factor associated with an AFV’s weight. Protection levels could be increased so much more if only six dismounts were to be catered for. I noted that the possible BAE contender also made provision for eight dismounts.

Why? Why? Then I translated ‘OMFV’ … Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. Optionally?? This is one element of the US NGCV (Next General Combat Vehicle) program. The same companies bidding for LAND 400 Phase 3, are also bidding for the US NGCV (OMFV).

It is the ultimate intention of the US to have an IFV which is able to be remotely controlled to provide fire support, when the inf inside dismount. At that point, six dismounts plus the crew will provide the necessary fighting capability on the ground. Until the crew are able to dismount in this role … it seems that provision might be being provided for 8-9 dismounts (rather than just six).

I have a feeling that the precise arrangement for LAND 400 Ph3 IFV manning and command and control (both while mounted and on the ground) has been left undefined because, at this stage, there are too many unknowns as far as allied armies and their decisions re IFV capabilities are concerned. In an ideal world this would not be the case, however, ….

———————————————————————————————————————-

16 November 2018

LAND 400 Phase 3: Infantry Fighting Vehicle (V)

I have posted about the IFV and the RAAC/RA Inf aspects, many times recently. Some journals carrying my posts, have done so intermixed among their other posts, hence the ‘continuity’ has not been the same as on this Blog.

I’ve responded to some comments as below:

Thanks all for comments. These blog posts were a series written on a day by day basis … there are, I think, five more parts. Rather than writing a fully argued and researched article, I was trying to progressively develop ‘thoughts’, which I hoped would lead to value added discussion. I’ve amended the IFV composition to 3 crew plus six dismounts in coming posts (of course 3 + 8 is still on the table as far as the contenders are concerned). Xxx, the really important discussion is coming up …presumably the section commander is located in the turret while moving and dismounts on the objective: does he also command the IFV on the move?; who replaces him when he dismounts … a spare IFV commander or a spare gunner? I try to address these questions, particularly as far as pl comd and pl sgt are concerned, in coming posts. (Note; I’ve seen the world from an inf POV and an RAAC POV, but not from a mech inf POV.)

Thanks all for comments! As mentioned above under Part 3 (above). my purpose is to generate discussion. (As an aside when I went for a job interview after the Army, I was asked what I knew about Industrial Democracy. I said that I’d just left the most industrially democratic job in the world. In the Army, I explained, before developing a plan, the advice of those who best knew the ‘ground, enemy etc’ would always be sought; when the plan was finalised, everyone would be informed in detail as to their part in it; after the plan had been executed, all those involved would be asked for their feedback. I got the job.) To me, consultation is everything.

Interesting comments (this is what ‘discussion’ is all about):

“I’ve heard Bruce Cameron’s musings from other former RAAC personnel. We’re in agreement.

“Couldn’t agree more, all the diggers in mechanised battalions want nothing to do with mech ‘if I wanted to do this, I would have joined cav’. Meanwhile, the hierarchy is flapping ‘mech is the future, you need to embrace it’ … when nobody wants anything to do with vehicles. Makes you think, if only there was a corps in the army that was dedicated to crewing armoured fighting vehicles”.

This bloke has had the same sook 3 times. Infantry are finally getting a real IFV he wants black caps driving them.

PS. If anyone wants an ‘inside’ into prostrate ‘things’, let me know … happy to pass on my experiences.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

13 November 2018

Note. No posts on either 14 or 15 November as I will be in hospital following complications re prostate surgery (bugger!)

The 8RAR Friendly Fire ‘Cover Up’.

On 18 February 1970, during Operation Hammersley:

“[CO 8RAR’s] plan was for B Company 8RAR (Jeffery) to occupy the southern most cut-off postion, 3700m south east from the encounter which had just occurred. Unfortunately, a breakdown in communications meant that neither B Company nor 2 Troop B Squadron 3 Cav were aware that D Company (Peck) had arrived at the nearer cut-off position (1200m to their south-east), while they were in action. The inevitable happened at 3.57pm as B Company, less 4 Platoon who had gone on ahead, were deploying south-east in 2 Troop’s APCs.

The circumstances under which 11 Platoon D Company (as they were later identified) were first seen, made recognition impossible. For a start, they were on high ground with the sun behind them. To those in the 2 Troop ‘carriers’ 600m away, the figures moving among the rocks on the hill ‘appeared to be wearing black and looked very suspicious indeed’. ‘We continued to observe for some time, until we received clearance from Task Force to engage; we were told that there were no “friendlies” at that grid; this was confirmed twice [by the APC Troop Leader] before we engaged. The blue-on-blue incident resulted in D Company suffering ten WIA.

Friendly fire incidents (or Blue on Blue as they are sometimes termed) were not uncommon in Vietnam This particular incident attracted considerable media and (as a consequence) political attention. Details of a regrettable saga in which the ‘facts’ were made to fit the politics, can be found in the history of 8RAR in Vietnam (Hall, Combat Battalion, p. 182). Initially, the Acting Commander, 1ATF stated that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. He was overruled, however, by the Minister for the Army. Extracts from the subsequent investigation, which placed the enemy at the scene of the friendly fire incident, are listed below:

“It is impossible to determine how many of the 11 Platoon casualties resulted from friendly fire”
“…the enemy engaged 6 Pl B Coy from an area located close to the 11 Pl [D Coy] block”;
“The overloaded state of the command [radio] was …” [a factor is causing what happened]; and
“At the time there was both friendly and enemy fire being directed at 11 Pl D Coy”;I

In an effort to conceal what had actually happened, the HQ 1ATF investigation ‘shifted’ the location of an enemy contact which involved 4 Pl B Coy at 1615hrs (almost 3km away), to near the site of the 11 Pl D Coy contact (1557hrs). As Hall observes in the 8RAR History, “it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that many of the errors [in the investigation] were deliberate”. This is confirmed by the then OC of D Company, who, when told that the 1ATF investigation stated that his men had been fired on by the enemy, exclaimed: Bullshit … that is bullshit! There was no such thing! That is something dreamt up by someone trying to skedaddle out of something”.

The outcome meant that there was no investigation into what really happened, ie. no-one looked into the system of recording locations on the 8RAR battle map (esp the timeliness of updates), This, in turn, might have prevented valuable lessons being learnt; thereby preventing the same thing happening again.

Step back! Given the unthinkable nature of the above (for anyone who believes in the ethics of our military brotherhood), is it somewhat more understandable that the same system of possibly misguided loyalty allowed HQ 1ATF to submit a recommendation for a RVN unit citation for 8RAR (the citation drafted by 8RAR) which claimed an enemy : friendly force casualty ratio which included enemy casualties actually due to supporting arms. (Surprisingly, this ratio separated out 8RAR casualties due to mines as this number was “not due to direct enemy action” … I find this a disturbing distinction to make.)

All of the above might be able to be understood (to some extent) if, when made known, those who could … stepped in the make amends. The Department of Defence, RA Inf HOC and 8RAR Assn will not do so, however. They claim that only 8RAR is entitled to the RVN CGWP Unit Citation for Operation Hammersley. No-one is disputing the RVN Meritorious Unit Commendation awarded to 8RAR simultaneously for their ‘whole’ tour of duty (despite being drafted three months prior to the Battalion’s departure).

The DOD have a standing policy that they will not approve retrospective awards, so no surprises there; it was expected that the RA Inf HOC would have passed submissions to the 8RAR Assn, but they didn’t … hence no surprises that the DOD position is followed; now we come to the8RAR Assn. They were unaware of the situation, so copies of all submissions etc were sent to the President. After consideration, there was no change; ie, the RVN CGWP Unit Citation was awarded for 8RAR’s whole tour of duty (not just op Hammersley). [Interestingly, the CGWP Unit Citation can only be awarded for heroic conduct and valour while in combat with the enemy … Op Hammersley was the only example of this quoted in the citation for 8RAR’s Meritorious Unit Commendation!]

Where to from here? Up until now, ‘due process’ had been allowed to run its course, ie. two submissions to the Minister and a submission to the Prime Minister. Having done this, the path is now open to the Defence Force Honours and Appeals Tribunal. This is an independent body and so public awareness as to their process of consideration is not be inappropriate. The extension of eligibility for the RVN CGWP Unit Citation for Operation Hammersley has been under the radar until now …. be prepared to be for a campaign to highlight things that are just, as well as pointing out things that are unjust.

————————————————————————————————————————-

12 November 2018

Extension of Eligibility re Hammersley (RVN CGWP Unit Citation)

Email to the President, Vietnam Veterans’ Association of Australia

It was good meeting you at the Vietnamese Community in Australia (VCA) gathering in Canberra recently.

I thought that I’d mention to you something which appears on the VVAA website and which will soon be the subject of consideration by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal (DHAAT) and the AWM.

The subject is the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces (RVNAF) Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation which http://www.vvaa.org.au/8rar.htm states was awarded to Eighth Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment.

The fact is that 8RAR received two awards: the Meritorious Unit Commendation (for distinguished service over a prolonged period) and the Cross of Gallantry With Palm Unit Citation (“for deeds of valour or heroic conduct in combat with the enemy”)

The Citation quoted at http://www.vvaa.org.au/8rar.htm is that for the combined awards. The Official History of the Vietnam War ‘Fighting to the Finish’, p813) states that 8RAR was awarded the “RVNAF Meritorious Unit Commendation, including Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation”

The following quote from the AWM website is relevant: “The battalion [8RAR] was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation, including Cross of Gallantry With Palm Unit Citation, by the South Vietnamese Government for its involvement in Hammersley”. (https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/U53503)

The confusion is likely to have stemmed from the fact that 8RAR drafted its own citation proposal for the RVN award (all such awards had to be forwarded by units to HQ 1ATF who on-forwarded them to 1ATF, Saigon). The approval sequence thereafter involved Free World Force HQ, RVNAF Joint Staff HQ etc.

The 8RAR Officer drafting the Citation may have taken into account that AATTV had just been/was soon to be, awarded the US Meritorious Unit Commendation and the RVN CGWP Unit Citation (two separate awards from two different countries.) The 8RAR Award proposal (surprisingly found on the ‘AATTV Award’ file in the AWM) described the Battalion’s first nine months of operations. Many of the activities related to non-combat roles such as civil affairs etc. There was no RVN award which could encompass both awards made to the AATTV.

In response to the 1ATF proposal, the RVN Joint Staff seems to have devised a plan to merge two awards into one, ie, the Meritorious Unit Commendation, including the CGWP Unit Citation … in order to be able to make the presentation requested. (There is no doubt that a presentation was asked to be made prior to 8RAR’s departure from Vietnam … hence the award proposal being drafted in August 1970, prior to 8RAR’s scheduled departure in October 1970.)

It would be greatly appreciated if the VVAA could amend its website info to reflect that of the Official History as quoted above. There is a blockbuster book in this story. I might write it myself, but I’d much prefer the 8RAR Assn to support our submission to the DHAAT for eligibility for the RVN CGWP Unit Citation awarded to 8RAR to be extended to supporting arms involved in Op Hammersley.

(Email copied to President 8RAR Association.)

————————————————————————————————————————–

11 November 2018

LAND 400 Phase 3: Time for Decisions is Here.

Recently I posted several articles re LAND 400 Phase (the IFV) … see 2 November post et al. The following ‘summary’ has been sent to two major defence related publications. At least one will run with it.

“The Request for Tender (RFT) for LAND 400 Phase 3 (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) was recently released. Industry has until 1 March 2019 to respond with respect to the provision of 400 IFVs, including seventeen Manoeuvre Support Vehicles (MSVs). The forecast cost is $15b.

There has been a good deal more questioning about this project, than there was for Phase2, Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV). A contract for the supply of 211 CRVs was recently signed. The Government’s budgetary provision is $5.2b.

Some of the Phase 3 questioning related to the number of vehicles to be procured by Defence. The stated intention is to equip an infantry battalion in each of the three multi-purpose brigades. Surprisingly, the initial number of vehicles specified under Phase 3 was 450 IFVs, plus 17 MSVs. Simple arithmetic indicated that this was sufficient to equip four battalions, plus provide for training and repair pools. (Although more than a ten percent reduction in vehicle numbers, no mention seems to have been made of an equivalent reduction in project cost.)

Other queries in the Defence press have related to the need for the IFV at all, together with concern about its capability being over specified. The arguments, on balance, have come out in support of both the vehicle and its level of protection (hence weight), armament, etc.

Those suggesting that the loss of the opportunity cost was not justified, had hoped that the RFT might have been delayed until after a new Force Structure Review. This is not to be … but that does not mean that the operational concept for the IFV is well thought through and should not be changed from here on.

Currently, three infantry battalions equipped with IFVs equates to three battalions dedicated to the mechanised infantry role. This is necessary because an Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) such as the IFV (two-man turret, 30mm cannon, anti-tank guided weapon pod, 1000hp engine, 35 tonne weight, .50cal remote weapon station) requires a dedicated crew. If this is to occur, career progression must be integral to the mechanised infantry battalion, ie. it would not be possible to interchange skills and employment tactics between traditional infantry and mechanised units.

The model of dedicated mechanised infantry units exists in armies such as those of the US, Britain and Germany. These, however, are very different to the ADF … both in terms of manpower and AFV numbers. They can afford to maintain units dedicated to a specific role. Is Australia in a position to do the same, or is the ability to ‘mix and match’, ie. tailor force composition to specific operational needs, more important?

Land 400 Phase 3 is intended to provide a replacement for the M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC). When the project was proposed, APCs were operated by the Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC); subsequently they were transferred to the Infantry. Was this the right decision?

IFV characteristics are justified on the basis of enabling them to accompany tanks onto an enemy objective. Having done so, the critical issue then becomes the co-ordination between mounted and dismounted elements of the IFV force. One way of addressing this issue is for the infantry Second in Command (2IC) to remain mounted and to command the fire support from the IFVs. This is not necessary, however, if RAAC crews command the vehicles.

If the Organisation for Battle (ORBAT) was to revert to that which existed, until recently, for over 60 years, three inf battalions (a substantial component of the Army’s strength) would not have to be designated for the mechanised role only; allowing a focus on traditional infantry skills and normal career progression for all members. ADF flexibility would be enhanced accordingly.

Another factor is that training costs would be slashed. No longer would IFV qualification involve an isolated skill set. Commonality in AFV operation (tank, cavalry and IFV) would enable conversion courses to be conducted for crew commanders, gunners and drivers. Some initial employment courses would still be required, but not nearly as many.

The decision time for LAND 400 Phase 3, not only involves the best contender, but also the best way in which to incorporate the IFV into the Army’s force structure and operational planning.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

10 November 2018

The RVN Unit Gallantry Citation Presented to 8RAR (But Not to Their Supporting Arms) Part 2

Evidence in support of the fact that the RVN CGWP Unit Citation was awarded to 8RAR for Operation Hammersley alone (thereby constituting an administrative error in that supporting arms were not also deemed eligible for the same award.

1. His Excellency, Major General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC, Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Forces, stated in a speech at the 2008 Annual Dinner of the Royal Australian Regiment Association (QLD Divison) 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”. (Note. Major General Jeffery was a company commander with 8RAR during Operation Hammersley.)

2. 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/collection/U53503)

3. 8/9 RAR Unit History. Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry Unit Citation Awarded to 8RAR. The streamer award to 8 RAR as recognition of their involvement in the Minh Dam operations (as per,Appendix 4 to Annex H, Chapter 6) is to be attached to the Regimental Colour of 8 RAR whenever it is paraded. 8/9 RAR carries the Queen’s and Regimental Colours of both 8 RAR and 9 RAR. The ‘Minh Dam’ Streamer of the award of the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry is permitted to be carried on the pike of 8 RAR’s Regimental Colour… .(http://www.rar.og.au/documents/8-9RARHistoryComplete.pdf)

4. Dr Bob Hall, the author of the 8RAR Vietnam History (and a platoon commander during Operation Hammersley): “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.

Confusion: Meritorious Unit Commendation MUC) s CGWP Unit Citation: What’s That?

On 22 October 2018, the President, 8RAR Association asked:

“I am at a loss as to where the Meritorious Unit Citation comes in. Where is there any reference to this? Is it an award by the now defunct South Vietnam Government or is it the Award under the current Australian Honours and Awards? If there is any reference to the award being granted to 8 RAR I would appreciate a heads up as to its location.”

The answer is provided in the Official History (Fighting to the Finish, p471): “On 29 October, 8RAR became the only Australian battalion to be awarded a South Vietnamese Meritorious Unit Commendation when Lieutenant General …. presented the award to Lieutenant Colonel O’Neill at a battalion parade at Nui Dat”.

Interestingly, the photo caption from a detailed account of 8RAR’s operations in the Long Hais (Operation Hammersley) states that 8RAR were presented with the CGWP unit citation for Op Hammersley (http://www.taylor.id.au/charlie.htm)

Left:

Commanding Officer 8 RAR Lt Col K. O’Neill accepts the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry Citation from ARVN Lt Gen Do Cao Tri for the Bn’s efforts in the Long Hai’s during 1970.

This confusion is clarified later in the Official History: “The RVNAF [RVN Armed Forces] Meritorious Unit Commendation, including Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation was awarded to 8RAR by … , 24 October 1970”. (Fighting to the Finish, p813.)

Conclusion. The evidence is overwhelming … 8RAR were presented with the Meritorious Unit Commendation for their remarkable tour of duty and CGWP Unit Citation for their remarkable efforts during Op Hammersley. Let us hope that those who are in a position of influence, have the grace to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of the supporting arms involved in Op Hammersley and lend their support to the submission to the DHAAT to this end.

———————————————————————————————————————

9 November 2018

The RVN Unit Gallantry Citation Presented to 8RAR (But Not to Their Supporting Arms)

“The Government of South Vietnam appreciated that the achievements of 8RAR were so significant throughout its tour of duty that they presented the Battalion with the RVN Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation in recognition of this, just prior to its departure from Vietnam in .”

The statement above is what the 8RAR Association, RA Inf Head of Corps, Defence Honours and Awards Directorate, and (hence) the Australian Government believe to be true. Because of this, they will not support eligibility being extended to supporting arms involved in Operation Hammersley. The errors in the supposed ‘facts’ are listed below. Some might well ask, why bother in setting the record straight and having all those who contributed to the outcome, acknowledged for their sacrifice and bravery? Answer … my self-respect.

Errors in Fact:

The Government of South Vietnam did NOT initiate the award to 8RAR. The citations for all RVN awards for troops operating as part of the 1st Australian Task Force (l ATF) were proposed (had to be proposed) by 1ATF. (On average, the time from proposal to approval was three months (a range from two to six months). 8RAR proposed its own award. The proposed citation was drafted by 8RAR in August 1970, and the award was presented on 24 October 1970 (seven days before the Battalion departed Vietnam). In describing the success of its operations, 8RAR included total casualties for each operation, making it seem the Battalion alone was responsible for them (of course many casualties in many operations were the result of offensive action by supporting arms). Interestingly, in highlighting the ‘them’ and ‘us’ ratio, 8RAR separated out the Battalion’s casualties caused by mines “as these were not the result of direct enemy action”.
The RVN Award Made to 8RAR was for its Entire Tour of Duty. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs was advised by Defence Honours and Awards (letter 7 May 2017) that “On 24 October 1970, the contribution made by the 8th Battalion throughout its tour of duty in Vietnam, from 28 November 1969 to 3l October 1970, was recognized by the awarding of the Citation”. (Being ‘picky’, an award for service which ended on 31 October, could hardly be made on 24 October.) Of more significance is the fact, as mentioned above, that 8RAR drafted its own award proposal in August 1970, describing “nine months of almost continuous contact with the enemy”. This was the latest date (see above) for an award to be approved and presented prior to the Battalion’s departure from Vietnam.
The RVN CGWP Unit Citation was Awarded to 8RAR for its Entire Tour of Duty. The CGWP Unit Citation is awarded to either individuals or units who perform deeds of valour or heroic conduct while in combat with the enemy. Only one such action is detailed in 8RAR’s citation, that for Operation Hammersley, conducted by “the forces of the 8th Battalion,1st Australian Task Force”. It follows that Operation Hammersley provided the justification for the RVN CGWP Unit Citation.
8RAR was Only Presented with the RVN CGWP Unit Citation. The Official History of the Vietnam War (‘Fighting to the Finish’,p813) states that 8RAR was awarded the RVNAF Meritorious Unit Commendation, including Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation”. The Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) and CGWP Unit Citation are two separate awards. The MUC is awarded to a unit for meritorious performance during a complete tour of duty. It can be assumed that this is reflected in the citation by references to civic action projects such as assisting “the local population to reconstruct their houses, roads, bridges, markets and schools etc“. It follows that the wide range of activities undertaken by 8RAR during the first nine months of its tour (when 8RAR submitted the proposal for its award) provided the justification for the MUC.

Tomorrow: Evidence in support of the fact that the RVN CGWP Unit Citation was awarded to 8RAR for Operation Hammersley alone (thereby constituting an administrative error in that supporting arms were not also deemed eligible for the same award.

————————————————————————————————————————-

8 November 2018

Who will you be thinking about during the silence this Armistice Day?

I’ll be thinking about those who are adorned with the mantle of making the world a different place to that in which competition between nation states led to the loss of so many innocent lives.

The same thing has happened over and over in the years since and every tomorrow seems destined to herald the Last Post. I know the answer, but who will listen to me?

In my despair, I think of the birth of my children. How is it that such wondrous things can occur in a world which is so conflicted? I know the answer, but who will listen to me?

Elections will be held next year, a chance for everyone’s voice to be heard. I will seek out the candidate who promises to safeguard my grandchildren’s future. Is everything now safe for our future generations? I know the answer, but who will listen to me?

My thoughts will end in despair at the outlook for the future; in frustration at the inability of those who are adorned with the mantle of leadership to do so; in anger at the misrepresentations made by those seeking my vote. What qualities are required of the person to lead our nation at such a time? I know the answer, but who will listen to me?

——————————————————————————————————————

7 November 2018

Immigration Law (Forum Discussion) Following on from yesterday:

Justice Delayed is ….

The following was posted on a Forum:

“Bruce I am 100% with you the way this man is being treated it is a bloody disgrace we as an association should do something about. Bruce come clean and tell us what was he convicted of.”

My response is copied below:

“I believe that ‘alleged’ (see PS below) crimes are like ‘alleged’ girlfriends, they are not for others to reveal. He is not being deported because of his crime per se (ie. there is no regulation which states that someone who is guilty of his offence must be deported). There is, however, a regulation which states that someone who is not an Australian citizen who commits an offence, must be deported. He has paid his penalty to society for something he may have done as a consequence of PTSD; which he suffers as a consequence of being conscripted and putting his life on the line for what he thought was his country.

Peter Dutton wanted to deport him to ensure that Australia’s Immigration laws are seen to be a deterrent. There is no end of people who have stated that what he supposedly did was completely out of character. He is wanted back in the community in which he lived. The time he has been ‘imprisoned’ in Villawood, amounts to a much much greater penalty than that associated with his offence. He endured it, because, if he just accepted the Ministerial direction, his family’s life of fifty years would have to be abandoned and would be meaningless.

The bottom line is that there has never been any justifiable basis for him to be deported (other than providing a ‘showcase’ for the Minister’s toughness.) The Federal Court has ruled that this is the case.

PS. The ‘offence’ was never proven, as he was wrongly advised to plead guilty because the offence was at the very low end of the scale and would only incur home detention (if anything). This option had the advantage for him of limited publicity. The ‘evidence’, therefore, was never tested. There is a strong case to suggest that if he had pleaded NOT guilty, the matter would not have been proven. This is a subject as astounding as anything you’ve seen on ‘Australian Story’ (as you may do one day). There are some members of our brotherhood who claim to know the charges against him. I can say categorically, that they have only one end of the stick … nevertheless, they deny him any support. If anyone was to be deported, top of my list would be those ‘hyenas’ who prey on others’ misfortune.”

———————————————————————————————————————-

6 November 2018

Immigration Law (Forum Discussion)

The following story has a parallel that we all should be aware of …

https://www.theage.com.au/national/bloody-devastated-family-members-of-aviation-pioneer-have-citizenship-challenged-20181101-p50dgl.html?btis

A baby comes to Australia with his parents; grows up and is conscripted for Vietnam (RAAC); is decorated for gallantry; suffers from PTSD; as a result, commits an offence; completes the penalty; is deported to NZ (his parents never took out citizenship); appeals the decision; spends four years in Villawood because of the lengthy nature of such proceedings; his requests for support are rejected by RAAC ex-service organisations (fortunately he has character references from his family, the community in which he lived and worked and his treating doctors).

Finally … two weeks ago, the Federal Court upheld his latest appeal.

The process is not yet over, but it seems possible that he might be able to spend next Christmas with his family.

It is encouraging to see that the rule of law can compensate for a deficit of compassion and a surfeit of self-interest, currently in our midst,

———————————————————————————-

He was/is a DVA client. The advocates involved (from VVA, I think) were great (but, of course, this is the stuff of specialist immigration professionals).

Was Villawood like a jail ?… he had to be taken in handcuffs to the PTSD specialist and his guards had to remain in ‘earshot’. The doctor said that he couldn’t treat his patient in these conditions … ‘too bad’ was the response.

This is not the first time that Minister Dutton’s edict in relation to him has been ‘thrown out’. When it happened previously (as now) a new submission had to be made for the visa to be reinstated. Some of us were concerned that while this was being processed, he might have been illegally held in Immigration detention. Unfortunately, it turns out that this is not the case (detention in such circumstances is the norm).

Initially, his military service was not part of his submission. This was seen to be a shortcoming and he was encouraged to include full details, including a copy of his Citation. The then 1AR Assn C’tee were asked to provide these on ‘official’ letterhead. They declined. Paradoxically, the RAR Corporation were most helpful.

There are some major lessons here. When the tale is finally told (ABC Story or Peter FitzSimons , perhaps?), it will serve an important function in terms of making our society more understanding of the circumstances of veterans.

Postscript. A former senior RAAC member, with influence in the area involved, was asked if he could make representation on behalf of the person concerned. He declined. Later feedback indicated that those in such positions should not be placed in situations where there was a conflict of interest. Imagine …. The Federal Court is in session and a person of distinction takes the stand: ‘Your Honour, I cannot speak in the capacity of my official position, however, as a veteran who has had the honour to lead to Australian soldiers into combat, I would like to make you aware of the outstanding military service on behalf of his country that the man before you has provided …. (Pigs might fly.)

Reader’s Comment:

On a similar thread; I, like so many of you was born O/S. Hong Kong, a British Colony. I came out at age 10 on Mum’s passport. I classed myself as Australian, even learnt the lingo. When I joined The ARA I thought I became an Australian. Went to SVN in 67 and signed another document then stating I was an Australian citizen. Returned to SVN in 70 and signed more citizen docs. Discharged in 71 and joined A/Res. I got a letter in 84 from our government stating unless I became an Australian citizen, I would have to terminate my service. I saw bloody red and told ’em to stick it up their collective clackers. I know there are a lot of our blokes with the same story.

Response by me:

I know a little about these things … coming from HK, you were a British subject; living in Australia you became an Australian resident; as such you were eligible to be conscripted.

If your parents had migrated from Germany, for example (ie. Herr Frisk), you would have been classed as an ‘Alien’. Aliens had to become Australian citizens before they could be conscripted. There is one ‘famous’ case of this process not being followed … the person concerned was conscripted, served in Vietnam, was recommended for a gallantry award. As approval for award was being finalised, it was realised that the Queen could not make such an award to an ‘Alien’. The person concerned became an Australian citizen as a result of a ceremony conducted in the field in SVN.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

5 November 2018

Unit Gallantry Citation: Coral-Balmoral.

It’s simply amazing how ‘history’ becomes ‘history’.

I received an email today, mentioning the UGC which had been awarded to units involved in the battles surrounding FSBs Coral and Balmoral. The inference was that the Citation has been a Department of Defence initiative.

Of course, nothing is further from the truth. Defence’s position is to NOT support retrospective awards, EVER!-. Credit for the ‘initiative’ was due entirely to two veterans, George Hulse and Jack Parr.

A post from last year is copied below:

Dear Ms …

As the Director of Defence Honours and Awards, Admiral Griggs (acting Chief of the Defence Force) appointed you his representative in relation to the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal’s (DHAAT’s) Inquiry into recognition for unit service at the Battles of Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral.

In his letter to the DHAAT of 1 September 2017 (attached) he states that Defence does not support the retrospective awarding of unit citations such as the Unit Citation for Gallantry (UCG), for units which served prior to 1991 (the year this award was introduced) because it “would be inappropriate to apply contemporary criteria to military activities which occurred almost half a century ago”.

As a matter of public interest, can I ask why?

If the contemporary criteria used to determine what is and what is not extraordinary gallantry today, cannot be used to make the same determination in respect to acts which occurred 50 years ago … changes to the criteria must have occurred over the intervening period. How then, is today’s definition of what constitutes extraordinary gallantry, different to that used 50 years ago?

In a unit context today, one would assume that collective action which involved an extremely high level of risk to lives in achieving an objective or in saving the lives of others, would be central to the concept of gallantry. Holding firm in the face of attacks by overwhelming numbers of enemy that had breached defences (or were about to breach defences), steadfastness in dire and/or desperate situations, outstanding and sustained bravery/performance which turned the tide of battle and influenced the result, would also seem to qualify in this regard.

Would the same criteria not have been used to assess gallantry 50 years ago (and for centuries before that)?

In October 2007, the then Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery presented the UCG to 4RAR (Commando) for gallantry in action during operations in Afghanistan in 2005/06. He referred to some of the characteristics of those receiving the award as being “initiative to a marked degree, physical and moral courage; personal and group discipline, and composure under pressure”.

If it is contemporary criteria that are described in the paragraphs above, can you please explain why it is inappropriate to apply them to military activities which occurred 50 years ago?

Another post from last year (a submission to DHAAT) re the lack of legal standing for Defence’s position is attached at CBLegal

———————————————————————————————————————————-

4 November 2018

The Battle of Binh Ba : How Might Things Have Been Different?

“I was sitting on top of the ARV’s winch house reading a ‘stick’ book …”. RAEME Vehicle Mechanic (VM), ARV Callsign 8 Delta, 6 June 1969.**

On 5 June 1969, 4 Troop, B Squadron, 1 Armoured Regiment, were supporting 6RAR/NZ on an operation north of Nui Dat. One of its tanks had lost engine power and another had gunnery problems. The plan was for a replacement tank and an Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV) to link up with 4 Troop the following day. The tank with engine problems would be recovered by the ARV and they would be accompanied on the return to Nui Dat by the tank with faulty gun control equipment. (4 Troop would still be a viable tactical entity, with three tanks.)

The tank squadron Light Aid Detachment (LAD) worked through the night. The ARV had only just arrived in-country and had to be serviced and equipped. Unfortunately, an intermittent fault with the radio harness could not be fixed.

Decision 1: Proceed as is on 6 June, don’t worry about taking a manpack radio in case the ARV’s radios fail and contact with the accompanying tank is necessary.

The replacement tank and the ARV set off as soon as the low level morning reconnaissance flight along the road had been completed.

Decision 2: The VM aboard the ARV decided not to keep a lookout for signs of enemy, electing instead to read a paperback.

Decision 3: The ARV commander allowed him to do so.

What effect were these three decisions to have on subsequent events?

It was around 7.15 am when the two Centurions approached the village of Binh Ba. Given that the VM was reading a book, there was no opportunity for him to notice anything unusual about the things happening in the village. He got his head out of his book, however, in time to see: “a group of about seven ARVN soldiers [who] were heading on foot away from the village and waved [us] down. They were pointing at the village and yelling “VC, VC!!”

Without any radio communication, the ARV was unable to warn the tank.

“As we started off again, I heard shooting-small arms fire-and stood up to see where it was coming from … It was at this moment that a loud dull thump came from ahead of us. I looked towards [the tank] and saw a huge black ball of smoke come from the left side of the turret. The tank came to a halt. We also stopped about 100 metres behind.”

The “thump” was the sound of an RPG detonating against the turret of the tank. The operator was wounded and collapsed in such a position that the turret could not be traversed. The tank proceeded as fast as it could to the ARVN post (Duc Thanh) 3km past Binh Ba. The RPG had knocked out its radios and a report about the enemy presence in Binh Ba was not able to ne made until Duc Thanh was reached.

The VM fired his rifle, but it jammed after the first round; nevertheless, this is proudly claimed as “the first shot for our side” in the Battle of Binh Ba. The ARV turned about and drove back to Nui Dat, alerting B Sqn 1 Armd Regt and Task Force HQ, when it arrived.

Conclusion.

If the crew member of the ARV had been keeping a ‘look out’, he may have detected enemy preparing to engage the tank ahead and may have seen the ARVN members withdrawing from the village sooner. This might have enabled the ARV to warn the tank ahead (eg. by firing a burst from the ARV’s .30cal).

If the ARV had been carrying a ’25 Set’ because of the intermittent fault with its fitted radios, the crew would have been able to warn the tank ahead of enemy in the village (and HQ 1ATF of the same, much sooner than occurred). This alert might have been in sufficient time to prevent the operator being wounded.

Because of the decisions made above, the possibility of preventing a tank crewman being wounded was never able to be realised. Nor was the opportunity for 1ATF to react to the enemy’s presence in Binh Ba much earlier than actually happened. Earlier call out of the 1ATF ready Reaction Force would have reduced the enemy’s preparation time and might have prevented some of the casualties incurred during the Battle.

Postscript. Astounded as I was about the admissions made in the VM’s story, I phoned the then RAEME Hon Col to alert him to this tarnish on his Corps’ reputation. He felt quite differently … this was all just part of the character of the RAEME soldier!!

**The quotes above are taken from the RAEME Know How website http://www.raeme.info/opsarv28d.php. The article (and its mistakes) were reprinted in the 1AR Assn Newsletter, Centurion.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

3 November 2018

“RPG Damage Vietnam”

The above was the caption to two photos showing a battle damaged Centurion tank in Vietnam posted on a FB page.

One reader asked: “Is this Phil Barwick’s tank?”.

I posted the following reply:

The Cent pictured is ARN 169056. It is now outside the AWM in Canberra. The driver, Peter Cadge, was severely wounded on 25 June 1971 during Operation Hermit Park. I would counsel against showing photos of damaged AFVs like this (ie. out of any sort of context) Chances are that they could trigger a PTSD episode in one or more of those who may see them and who might have lasting memories of what happened. Interestingly, the AWM used to use photos of battle damaged AFVs to create a ‘war effect’ for their promotional material. They have ceased doing this after I pointed out how intensely painful it would’ve been for the parents of the driver of the M113A1 in a photo in their newsletter, to stumble across this … their son was KIA.

The person who posted the photos on FB responded to say: “Sorry but have to agree to disagree. If that thought process was adopted the AWM in Canberra would have to have a clean out ! The post was placed without a cynical comment as is sometimes the case. I cant see a problem with it. Thanks for your comment. I dont agree with it but i appreciate your input.”

Others contributed: The blokes on the 3 Cav Facebook page have placed photos of their damaged Carrier from time to time from Viet Nam and no one has made a comment, no one re PSTD. And as Bruce would know they have done this also on the 3 Cav forum with out any one saying not to.

“Don’t look at the post People have a right as has been done before to display our history. I am sorry but if it offends you then block the author.”

Thankfully: “Out of respect for the crews. No words can describe the carnage. I believe RAAC had the highest casualty rate of all Corps in SVN. We don’t need to see battle damaged tanks and APCs. Thanks.”

I pointed out that: “I was the crew commander when the tank was hit by the RPG. You may not see a problem with the images as presented, but I do. I think that I have the right to ask that you delete the post”.

Given that it seems unlikely that the originator would delete his post out of respect for the crew, I provided the following responses:

“Re the statistics … You’re right. The rating comes from an analysis I did quite a few years ago … looking at the per capita incidence of casualties on a Corps by Corps basis (for combat units). Field engineers suffered the second highest casualty rate (from memory). I guess, to be strictly correct: ‘The RAAC suffered the highest per capita casualty rate for Australian combat units in Vietnam’.

“Re the AWM …they published a photo of a knocked out M113A1 in their Wartime magazine. There was no caption … the image was purely to give ‘effect’ (or ‘atmosphere’) to a story about the Vietnam War (nothing to do with the APC). I pointed out that in any situation in which an AFV is damaged in combat, the central issue that should come to mind is the fact that it was involved in a military operation and the vehicle’s crew had bravely put themselves in harm’s way to contribute to its success. Their suffering from wounds received and/or the suffering of their family is on-going. The AWM agreed and elected not to use such photos out of context, and, when they did use them, to include captions explaining the circumstances and crew casualties”.

Re “looking away” … good point. I have asked to be removed from the FB page.

To top it all off … I’m accused of trying to “whitewash history”. (Heaven help me.)

Summary: (I’ll keep it simple. )

Photographs were posted on a FB page for no other purpose than to show damage to a Centurion tank caused by an RPG strike (and to create, by extension, an image of the likely effect on the crew).

I was in the tank when it was hit. My driver was horrendously wounded. I lifted him down to the ground.

I found the sudden appearance of the photos distressing and asked that they be deleted.

The originator declined to do so. I decided to leave the FB group.

By contrast … the tank itself is now outside the AWM. The Memorial’s marketing staff decided to create a snow dome featuring a modal of the tank with ‘cartoon eyes’.

I explained to the AWM Director that the wounded driver and his family continue to suffer extensively today and that it was inappropriate to commemorate the service and sacrifice of the crew of this particular tank (and others) in this way. Dr Nelson was sympathetic to the distress that could be caused and withdrew the item from sale.

Question: It’s been put to me that no-one else has any concern about the photos. (To be correct, I think this should be ‘no-one else has said that they have concerns about the photos.)

Leaving this aside; Should distress felt by just one veteran suffering from PTSD, caused by the posting of photos showing the damage inflicted on his tank, be sufficient reason for the photos to be deleted from a public forum … or should the veteran’s request simply be dismissed because people who have no idea as to what happened, feel empowered to do so?

I must admit, I thought that we were a more mature society in terms of the manner in which we manage such things. There will be few people who are distressed by the photos and the manner in which they are displayed (possibly no more than the crew themselves). With respect to the latter, is it not they who should be able to advise as to the suitability or otherwise of the manner in which images of the devastation that was inflicted upon them, are displayed? It seems that others, ie those who were not present at the time, have usurped this power.

—————————————————————————————————————————

2 November 2018

LAND 400 Phase 3: Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IV)

Before considering the RAAC option, a couple of points re the IFV (II) post on 32 October.

Without having seen the characteristics required for the LAND 400 Ph3 contenders (they don’t seem to be available, unlike for Ph 2), it is assumed that;

(i) Both IFV comd and dismount commander/gunner can operate the turret cannon;

(ii) there will be no firing ports, nor vision blocks;

(iii) a hatch will be available for at least some dismounts to use;

(iv) when closed down, dismounts may be able to view an electronic vision display operated by the IFV or dismount commander; and

(v) an FO or MFC may travel in the platoon HQ IFV (which will be a ‘Command” IFV variant).

The IFV Platoon (With RAAC Crew).

In this model, it is assumed that the pl comd, pl sgt and two of three dismount section comds would occupy the gunner’s position in the turret. The RAAC gunner would assume his position once the infantry dismount. In terms of organisation

RAAC: Four IFV comds (sgt plus three cpls); four IFV gunners; four IFV drivers and a spare IFV crew comd (cpl) … thirteen in total

RA Inf: Pl comd, pl sgt, medic, radio operator, three dismount sections (Cpl plus five) … twenty two in total.

Overall, total numbers (35) come to one more than the inf crew option. This is because the pl sgt is now able to dismount.

Advantages. RAAC crewing offer the following advantages:

(i) As stated previously: the critical issue is the co-ordination between mounted and dismounted elements when attacking. An experienced commander is now available to control the IFVs in a fire support/manoeuvre role. This allows the pl sgt to support the pl comd and/or command a half platoon tactical group when dismounted. The combat strength of the dismounted force is increased.

(ii) Three inf battalions do not have to be designated for the mechanised role only; allowing a focus on traditional infantry skills and normal career progression for all members. ADF flexibility is enhanced.

(iii) Training costs would be slashed. No longer would IFV qualification involve an isolated skill set. Commonality in AFV operation (tank, cav and IFV) would enable conversion courses to be conducted in qualifying crew commanders, gunners and drivers. Some initial employment courses would still be required, but not nearly as many.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

1 November 2018

Absence of Support for Proposals Seeking to Benefit All?

The following question was posted on the 1AR Assn Social FB page:

“Why don’t we have some visual way of indicating when a veteran has served more than once in an area of conflict?”

I was the only one who responded (copy below):

“Good idea. Unfortunately, history is not on your side.

The late Nev Modystack put up a great submission for an armoured crewman badge, ie. recognition of attaining trained AFV crewman status (similar to the RA Inf Steyer ‘readiness’ badge).

Despite overwhelming support at the soldier level and NCO level, the proposal withered through lack of ‘higher’ support. Unfortunately, cost is a major factor in such matters. After massive lobbying for an Armoured Combat badge (which was granted in the form of an Army Combat Badge), Defence deemed that it was a dress embellishment and NOK of someone KIA would not, therefore, be eligible to receive it on their relative’s behalf. This was a cost saving measure and Defence were embarrassed into changing the policy.

Another proposal which has been denied repeatedly, is the reintroduction of wound stripes (or the equivalent). As thelate Jim de Turt commented, after WIA, the next highest designation is KIA. Even a very simple version of the Purple Heart would come at a cost.

The other factor in all this, is that representative organisations are very wary of using their resources to lobby on their members’ behalf.** No matter how good a proposal is, if there is a cost involved, it will be opposed by Government.

Having said all of the above, I’m sure that a coalition of veterans’ organisations could combine to bring about change.”

**Recently, the 1AR Assn C’tee stated that they would not support lobbying efforts on the part of members acting individually. Subsequently the 1AR Assn Citee was asked if it would support submissions to Defence for (i) RAAC personnel to wear a silver version of the Army Combat Badge and (ii) a study to be undertaken into the unique stress factors related to crews of AFVs in combat; and to the AWM, for the RAAC experience in combat to be represented not just by AFVs, but by an well informed interpretation of what it was like for AFV crews fighting inside them. The C’tee’s response to all proposals was that that “the Association is not a lobby group and will not lobby on behalf of individuals; furthermore, “ the Management Committee is not prepared to act as lobby group”. As justification for this position, it was stated that there was no provision for lobbying in the Constitution. [t is the right of the C’tee to adopt this stand, as it is the right of members to challenge it, should they wish to do so.]

Interestingly, the question quoted at the start (above) was also posted on the T & TA Facebook page. There have been (so far) seven comments, including one which advised that members who serve on UN forces wear a number on the relevant ribbon which designates the number of times they have been deployed in that capacity. What a good idea. Imagine the combat experience that would be reflected if the ADF were to do the same thing, eg. the service of all those who have been deployed multiple times to Afghanistan.

Back to LAND 400 Ph3 tomorrow.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

31 October 2018

LAND 400 Phase 3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles (II)

Following on from yesterday … what would the Australian mechanised infantry platoon look like if it was manned by the RA Inf?

The example IFV is 35 tons, 1000HP engine, tracked, 30mm cannon, two man turret, .50cal RWS, ATGW pod, and six dismounts (with limited, if any, visibility).

It would be normal to assume four IFVs per platoon (ie. platoon HQ and three inf dismount sections.) Another consideration here might be the ability to operate in two mounted sections. This would allow two vehicles to support the other two forward in fire and movement, as well as enabling a half platoon to dismount to be supported by their IFVs, with the other half platoon in reserve, Should such an organisation be adopted, the grouping within IFVs would need to be adjusted.

This consideration will be based on the platoon HQ and three inf section model.

The critical issue is the co-ordination between mounted and dismounted elements when attacking. One option is for the platoon commander to take charge of dismounted elements and the platoon sergeant to command the mounted vehicle crews. The pl sgt, therefore, commands one of the IFVs. If the pl comd is to dismount to lead the ground force, he cannot be a vehicle commander. He needs awareness of the terrain, however. One option is for the pl comd to travel in the gunner’s position in the pl HQ IFV. A ‘spare’ gunner would travel internally and take over from the pl comd when he dismounts.

In terms of organisation … we have a need for three IFV comds (cpls) and one IFV comd (sgt); a pl comd; four IFV gunners and four IFV drivers. In terms of dismounts there would be eighteen (six per IFV) … each section would be commanded by an NCO (l/cpl or cpl). Also in the Pl HQ IFV would be the pl comd’s signaller, a medic, and a spare IFV copmmander.

Conclusion: Organisation for the mech inf pl (RA Inf) ) would be; pl comd; pl sgt; seven NCOs (l/cpl/cpl) and 25 ptes. Total: 34 pers.

Tomorrow; the org for the mech inf pl (RAAC and RA Inf)

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

30 October 2018

LAND 400 Phase 3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles

The blog on 12 October raised the following issues:

How are the IFVs to be crewed? They’re equivalent to a light tank in every respect. Will infantry simply move from tactical dismounted field skills to crew duties in a 30mm turret/driver of a 40tonne AFV? It would seem that not all infantry will be trained to operate IFVs, ie there will be a core group with a new employment code: IFV Crewman. Will they have a career path? ?

I went on to say: “May I be excused for suggesting that the (40 tonne, 1000HP, 30mm cannon, ATGW, 50cal RWS) IFVs should be operated by the RAAC”.

The following comment was received:

“I’m interested in why you think we should change the target audience operating the IFV in the future noting US army operate Bradley using Infantry, the German army operate Puma using Infantry and the Brits operate Warrior using Infantry. Serviceability issues are not enough as vehicle husbandry is a skill and mindset that can be taught. Considering the way the platform will be employed why would you change it? It’s not going to happen without an increase to the overall size of the Army even if you can convince people it’s a good idea.”

My response was to say: “The relative sizes of these other armies have to be kept in mind; ie. US, 1,030,000 men and 45,000 AFVs; UK, 110,000 men, 5600 AFVs; Germany+, 186,000 men, 5050 AFVs. [Australia: 30,000 men, 684 AFVs.] These Armies are large enough to have specialised units, eg mechanised regiments with integral reconnaissance and tank/inf support. These units would train for specific roles and tasks and would provide coherent career paths accordingly.

The Australian Army doesn’t have this luxury. We have to mix and match and tailor forces for specific operations. Can the RA Inf afford to designate three battalions as mechanised infantry in which traditional infantry field skills take second place to mobile warfare in AFVs? I feel that, given the size of our Army, we would be better served by IFVs being operated by the RAAC. Preventing three battalions from being deployed on operations in which AFVs are not to play a major role, would be a waste of our limited resources”.

————————————————————————————————————————–

29 October 2018

I was a bit optimistic about being back to ‘normal’ by today … however there is one post which is very easy to make.

Part 6 The Ideal World (See Intro above)

It gives me great pleasure to move the following goal to the ‘Pending’ section:

Peter Best (mid) would receive just and compassionate treatment from Immigration authorities.

The Federal Court has found in his favour. The saga is not over yet, but hopefully it won’t be too long before the goal is able to be moved from ‘Pending’ to ‘Crossed Off the List’.

All that those who supported Peter were seeking, was justice. This has been denied to him over many years. As a former member of 1 Armd Regt, he might have hoped for more support from ‘official’ sources. (As an example, the then C’tee of the 1AR Assn was asked to simply provide a statement re his military service; they sided with the unjust implementation of immigration policies and declined to do so.) Others in positions to help, simply looked the other way … a brave man was left to fight for just treatment (no leniency of any kind was being sought by him) almost on his own.

It is encouraging to see that the rule of law can compensate for a deficit of compassion and a surfeit of self-interest, currently in our midst,

Hopefully, when the story is told in years to come, lessons on how our fellow veterans should be treated, will help bring about change.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

24 October 2018

LAND 400 Phase 3

It seems to have been the right thing to query the number of IFVs; the Defence Technology Review reports that an amended total of 400 vehicles is now being sought under LAND 400 Ph 3, down from the 467 vehicles previously stated (450 plus 17 Manoeuvre Support Vehicles).

Interestingly … the armament is now specified to be 30mm for commonality with the CRV. This means that the 40mm turret initially proposed by Hanwha Redback is no longer in the running.

Also … I’ve been referring to a $30m ‘mini-tank’ per infantry section of 10 men; apparently the standard section size is now nine (hence the stipulated three crew and six dismounts).

I really hope that the Army will be open and transparent with regard to (i) the thinking re crew training and career progressions vis a vis the rest of the RA Inf; and (ii) tactics for command and control once the objective has been reached and the dismounts are on the ground.

With respect to the former …I understand that infantry M113AS4 crews are being trained at the SoA. If the IFV is to continue to be crewed by infantry, it seems likely that the SoA will continue to be responsible for training. Presumably, at some point, inf personnel will be qualified as instructors and help run the Mech Wing. This provides something of a career path, with the Wing eventually being all infantry instructors. No matter how you look at it, however, the inf career progression is either mechanised or non-mechanised (which used to be infantry and armour).

It seems to me that the arguments for the Army, rather than the RAAF, to operate troop carrying helicopters, is a lot different to that for the Infantry, rather than the RAAC, to operate troop carrying ‘mini-tanks’.

Forced Leave of Absence

Off to hospital on Thursday (25^th) … stay tuned, however, next Blog Monday (29^th).

My memory has been jolted by a recent photo on the 1AR FB page … could the Battle of Binh Ba have had a different outcome?

Also to be discussed is something I raised a few days ago, what are the potential battlegroup groupings, within the current multi-role brigade structure, able to support (i) a brigade operation with cav providing forward reconnaissance and flank security and (ii) an operation not involving the brigade as a whole??

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

23 October 2018

Armour in the Australian Army : Is There Something Wrong?

On 12 October, I made the first of a series of posts under this heading (ie. the one above).

The central point I was trying to make in the first post is reflected in this extract:

“How are the IFVs to be crewed? They’re equivalent to a light tank in every respect. Will infantry simply move from tactical dismounted field skills to crew duties in a 40mm turret/driver of a 40tonne AFV? It would seem that not all infantry will be trained to operate IFVs. So, there is a core group who are trained at a greatly expanded School of Armour … they will have a new employment code: IFV Crewman. Do they have a career path?

Maybe … but how do you compare someone with six years as a field infantryman and someone with six years as an IFV crewman?

I concluded by saying: “May I be excused for suggesting that the (40 tonne, 40mm cannon, ATGW, 50cal RWS) IFVs should be operated by the RAAC”

I thought the following comment by Mitchell Curry was very perceptive

“Whatever we buy the employment model we are working on will fail.

AFVs require much attention to detail and is a career path on their own; training a handful of grunts to be crew and then hoping they stay in long enough to pass on the tiny amount of knowledge they’ll gain in their one year stint as crew members is suicide.

In 20 years we will end up with mech SGTs and WOs that only spent maybe 2-3 years on the car in total because Infantry is allowing them to rotate back to their core role between AFV positions.

As any 3rd world army will tell you, it’s not enough to buy something armoured, you need highly capable crew, otherwise highly capable dismounts will rip it to shreds.”

I don’t know anything about Mitchell, but I can’t add much to his view.

Is this why the 5/7 RAR battalion mechanisation trial was abandoned, only being continued in the form of mechanised company?

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

22 October 2018

Duty of Care : Training of RAAC Bushmaster Crews

For years now, Armouredadvocates has been advocating for the RAAC to accept responsibility for training Bushmaster crews. The official response has been that the RAAC does not operate these vehicles (see latest Ironsides … Corps RSM Comments).

Of course, as has been repeatedly pointed out, this is simply not correct.

The latest 4/19 PWLH Plumes newsletter states, for example, that “At present the Regiment has 9 x PMVs and crews at EX Jacka, conducting training with all Brigade units in preparation for Ex Talisman Sabre next year”.

Why is the matter important? The RAAC has a duty of care in relation to the training standards stipulated for members of the RAAC who crew vehicles operated by the RAAC. We have a situation in which RAAC personnel are crewing a vehicle which the RAAC says that it is not responsible for, ie. the RACT has responsibility for Bushmasters.

BUT … the RACT states that those Corps that operate Bushmaster in ways that are different to the RACT (ie. as transport vehicles in convoys under the commander of packet commanders) are responsible for training crews. The difference in operating techniques are extreme, eg in RACT usage, there is no such position as a crew commander.

It has been claimed that RAAC ARES units are operating Bushmasters under 2 Division arrangements which are not Army policy. RAAC train Bushmaster crews at unit level … so what’s the problem? The problem is that the RAAC has not prepared competency standards for Bushmaster crews (as it has for all other AFVs). Why is this? The RAAC views the Bushmaster as a truck and not an AFV, therefore doesn’t believe that it is its responsibility to set down the standards that RAAC Bushmaster crews must reach to be qualified as driver or crew commander.

BUT … how can the RAAC absolve itself, in all conscience, from responsibility when a Bushmaster rolls during a night move with an RAAC ARES unit. The unit CO stated that the accident was due to poor training. A vehicle accident occurred at Shoalwater Bay earlier this year. Casualties had to evacuated by helicopter. If details have not been covered up, they have certainly not been made public. When asked if a Bushmaster was involved, the response was no comment.

It is Armouredadvocates’ view that if RAAC units are operating Bushmasters to provide protected mobility to infantry in tactical settings, the RAAC must exercise its duty of care and prepare crew competency standards as a basis for training and proficiency certification at unit level.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

21 October 2018

Extension of Eligibility for the RVN Cross of Gallantry Unit Citation (Hamersley)

Good news! I’ve emailed Jack Chipman to say that “I believe that there might have been a breakthrough re the extension of eligibility. Can’t tell you the story at the moment, but the next few weeks should tell”.

Regrettably, it seems that there might have been some inadvertent errors involved in previous endeavours to bring this matter to a just consideration. (All will be revealed.)

Menu.

Can’t post more at this time as I’m hosting (and cooking) a seafood lunch tomorrow.

Crab (blue swimmers) on toast for starters; entre is a selection of scallops baked with herb breadcrumbs; oysters with sour cream and caviar; oysters baked with honey and bacon; main is seafood mornay (prawns/salmon. orange roughy); etc etc Wish me luck!

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

20 October 2018

LAND 400 Phase 3 Contenders

I was proven correct when I picked the contender, on the basis of operational capability, that would be selected for Phase 2 prior to the selection process … can I do it again?

Contenders:

Rheinmetall Lynx KF41: 30-35mm cannon; 6-9 dismounts;

BAE Systems: CV 90; but has not yet decided as to whether to submit a contender;

Hanwha AS21 Redback: 40mm cannon, 8 dismounts

General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS): Based on the British Ajax series of vehicles, the Ajax IFV configuration is still to be finalised.

Without going into the characteristics of the contenders … given the Australian Industrial Participation investment associated with Phase 2 (and the Lynx’s proven capability), it would seem that the Rheinmetall IFV is a no-brainer to be selected. (I’ll return to a selection based on operational capability a little later.)

Note: Whether it’s of relevance or not, is for others to judge; but, according to the 1AR Assn, over the past few years, Rheinmetall has ‘donated’ at least $20,000 to 1^st Armoured Regiment (via the 1AR Assn accounts so as to ‘mask’ the source of the funds). The process has bypassed Defence regulations regarding ‘gifts’ to Army units from commercial companies bidding for Defence contracts. One has to wonder why this has been done.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

19 October 2018

Armour in the Australian Army: Is There Something Wrong? Postscript

“ … a medium tank with troop carrying capacity…”. (The Australian)

This series of posts started out as a means of sparking a discussion on whether RAInf or RAAC should crew the IFVs. It led to an examination of the crew duties required by the new IFV (LAND 400 Ph3) and on to the way in which the vehicle will be used when it closes with the objective; the principle reason for its level of armour protection, hence its weight and tracks rather than wheels. (The protection level had initially been accepted, given the lethality and proliferation of hand -held anti-tank weapons today.)

As the subject was examined, one had to wonder if there was another question: is the organisation of Australian Army’s three multi-role brigades, as it should be? Given that each ACR has only one tank squadron, how are battlegroups to be formed? Are we looking at two tank troops and two mechanised infantry companies; or three tank troops and mech company? There would be no problem forming combat teams to deal with minor enemy objectives, but this is obviously not why the Army’s most expensive procurement project ever is underway.

With two cavalry (reconnaissance) squadrons to command, the ACR CO will be hard pressed to command both a battlegroup and brigade recon. Presumably, responsibility for the latter would go the Brigade HQ. So, is the emphasis on heavily armoured IFVs, predicated on the basis of large scale major operational commitments against well-equipped and highly organised enemy?

If an enemy at the lower end of the scale was contemplated in terms of contingency plans, one might have thought that the UK model of having the flexibility to mix and match battlegroups would be desirable. Is it a surprise that the UK have adopted this model? Possibly not, if they believe that the breakdown of European nation states might be their most likely commitment.

As at the start … food for thought?

A quote from the Australian newspaper: “The army has always preferred a tracked solution for Phase 3 because these vehicles are more like medium tanks with troop-carrying capability and so tend to have better levels of protection and manoeuvrability than their wheeled competitors, such as the Boxer.”

18 October 2018

Armour in the Australian Army: Is There Something Wrong? Footnote

When Australia chose the Rheinmetall Boxer for LAND 400 Ph 2 (ie. the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle version), the British Army, as a result, opted for the Boxer as its MIV. Extracts from UK media are copied below:

“3 April 2018 – The British Ministry of Defence announced on March 31st that it will re-join the Boxer-programme. With this, the United Kingdom, which played a major role in the vehicle’s design, development and testing from 1999 to 2004, has taken the first step to become one of the major Boxer-User-Nation.”

“The MOD conducted a comprehensive market analysis of Mechanised Infantry Vehicles in-service, entering service and in development. The analysis was guided by the British Army’s requirements and how best to deliver them. The Boxer delivered on protected mobility, capacity, flexibility, utility and agility.”

“The Defence Select Committee heard that a German-led consortium has almost certainly won the contract to build about 500 “mechanised infantry vehicles”

“These eight-wheeled ‘Boxer’ vehicles will equip highly mobile ‘strike brigades’ which will be the centrepiece of the British land warfare in the future.

The Brits have opted for a wheeled MIV which will sit between the air deployable light forces and the heavy armoured forces. In effect, they will have two MIVs: Ajax family (tracked) to accompany tanks, as well as their wheeled ‘Boxer’ MIV. (Ajax can also take the place of tanks to provide fire support for the Boxer.) This flexibility is not available to the Australian Army. We have opted to put all our eggs into the tracked, heavily armoured, fire support capable, IFV.

Is this the right decision? Should we also be considering a mix of IFV types? (It’s not too late.)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

17 October 2018

The Role of the AWM and its Achievement

The email below and its response are self-explanatory. In my view, I believe that a ‘well done’ is due to the AWM (and I’ve said so):

Dear Redevelopment Team,

“After the War is an exhibition exploring the personal stories of hope, loss,and love of ordinary Australians whose lives have been altered by war, from those who have served to loved ones left behind. Take an intimate journey through the personal costs and consequences of war, unfolding over 100 years from 1918 to 2018.” (AWM Website)

I visited the exhibition today and I congratulate the AWM for respecting the AWM Act 1980 (below) in commemorating not only those who died during the prescribed period of a war, but also as a result of their wounds thereafter.

AWM Act 1980: “1) The functions of the Memorial are: (a) to maintain and develop the national memorial referred to in subsection 6(1) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 as a national memorial of Australians who have died: (i) on or as a result of active service; or (ii) as a result of any war or warlike operations in which Australians have been on active service; “

My feedback is that I thought that the exhibition focused too much on the letter of the Act, ie. I felt it dealt primarily with the dead and their NOK.

The AWM Act 1980 makes no mention of commemorating those who have served in war and are still living (they may or may not have been physically wounded, but all carry the scars of their experience).

May I suggest that those planning the redevelopment of the AWM give consideration to those veterans who are scarred by their war experience (and their families).

I’ve personally struggled with the Question: ‘What do you say to a dying mate?”. Would it be possible for the AWM’s Redevelopment Team to consider the Question: ‘What do you (the AWM) say to those veterans who continue to struggle with their experiences from war?’.

At the moment, I don’t think that this idea has been on the radar.

————————————————————————————

Seems to me that the AWM have become leaders, rather than followers, as far as the narrative is concerned. The response from the Director’s Office is below:

“The Memorial’s redevelopment team has what we refer to as the Memorial’s role in the ‘therapeutic milieu’ firmly in mind during the design process. Whilst the plans are far from final at this very early stage the intent is to create dedicated spaces for veterans and their families to pause and contemplate their service and the Memorial is considering ways to incorporate counselling and other support services on site as well.

The Memorial has also implemented support programs such as the ‘Soldiers in Residence’ program that supports ADF personnel injured our wounded who are transitioning back to work or the Napier Waller Art Prize for veterans and serving personnel.

The Memorial is also working on plans for programs such as a ‘PTSD friendly’ after hours tour for veterans. This program will involve working with ADF personnel and veterans and the medical professionals supporting them to provide a tour that will have lower lighting levels, the sound to displays that some veterans find confronting turned off and be conducted as a private tour with no other visitors in attendance. The intent is to allow them the time and space necessary to deal with their emotions and stresses during the tour at their own pace whilst ensuring they are able to see that their experiences are recorded here for the nation to better understand.

The Memorial’s primary purpose remains remembering and explaining the Australian experience of war but the Council and the Director, Dr Nelson, are aware of the evolving role the Memorial has in the ‘therapeutic milieu’ and continues to work with the ADF, DVA and veterans’ groups to provide support for all those who have served.

Again, your correspondence has been passed to our redevelopment team for their direct consideration as well.”

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

16 October 2018

Armour in the Australian Army : Is There Something Wrong? Part 5

A couple of points from previous Parts: (i) I understand that the amphibious battalion in Townsville is actually under the command of HQ I Div (not 3 Bde); and (ii) I referred to IFV crews being training at a greatly expanded Infantry Centre; crew training at present is conducted at the School of Armour … whether this is to continue and the SoA expanded to provide the long term capability, is to be seen.

The real question being posed is that of suitability of the present IFV contenders, for the role in which Contingency Plans see them being employed.

Interestingly, the Musorian tactics (ie. the tactics of the fictitious enemy, the capability of which is used as a basis for Australian Army training) state that “when an infantry Coy dismounts from its APC, the vehicles move 100 to 200 m to the rear of the infantry and provide fire support”.

The Australian Army, on the other hand, see the IFV, crew and dismounts operating as an integrated team and having a greatly superior capability. This concept sees the dismounted infantry and the vehicle crew working hand in glove when assaulting the objective. This scenario obviously requires two commanders, one on the ground and one in the vehicle. Who is in charge overall? Will it be one or the other, or will it depend on the circumstances? Will there be any question as to who commands while the IFV is moving? It would seem logical that the vehicle commander is in charge, however, there has been heated argument about this in the past.

A second (and related ) question is whether or not the IFV is there to support the dismounted infantry or vice versa. (Note. LAND 400 requires the IFV to have the capacity to carry six dismounts.)

The degree of difficulty is increased by the lack of vision available to the commander of the dismounts while in the IFV. If the infantry are to assault the enemy position, with the empty IFVs providing fire support, they are at a disadvantage if they exit the vehicle ‘blind’. Given that the IFV commander can see the battlefield and has considerable firepower at his disposal, it would seem logical for the infantry to operate in support of the IFV, ie. protect the vehicle from enemy anti-armour weapons (the traditional role of ‘panzer grenadiers’). The other factor in support of this argument, is that the dismounted mechanised infantry platoon is much smaller (24 men) than the non-mechanised platoon (33 men).

The more one looks at it, the more the IFVs are to be used to conduct mounted warfare. Indeed, if this was not to be the case, there would be an enormous waste of money. The end result, if the present intention for the infantry to operate the AFVs goes ahead, is that infantry will have been granted a new role and the RAAC will be divested of one.

Given that the dismounts are likely to support the IFV when fighting through the objective, would it not make more sense for the RAAC to crew both the tanks and IFVs during operations? Overall command of the combined arms force should be vested in the best commander, no matter his Corps.

————————————————————————————–

Comment from D Simpson ( paratusderek@gmail.com) re the above post: “Army has a new doctrinal enemy and has done for some time, more research required from you. Perhaps research DATE (decisive action training environment) to bring you into the contemporary environment”.

This is an interesting comment, given that the quote was taken from the following Australian Army Manual (note date)

AUSTRALIAN ARMY
LAND WARFARE PROCEDURES – GENERAL
LWP-G 7-5-5
TRAINING ADVERSARY

© Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Army) 2018
3 May 2018
Issued by command of the Chief of Army
BN James, AM DSM Brigadier Director General Training and Doctrine

Nevertheless, D Simpson’s info is appreciated and the reference to DATE will be followed up.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

15 October 2018

Armour in the Australian Army : Is There Something Wrong? Part 4

Does it not seem strange that the Australian Army’s most expensive equipment procurement project ever, $15b’s worth, is to provide 450 medium tanks to equip four infantry battalions with one per section of ten men?

The German Army of the Second World War used the term ‘Panzer-Grenadier’ to describe infantry units that supported tanks. Very different thinking now drives the British Army’s organisation. The European battlefield of the future is now seen as one in which rapid advances of more than 100km per day will be commonplace.

The units that travel these distances will be required to engage enemy front-line forces. It is obviously not feasible for light cavalry to conduct such operations; nor can heavy armoured units be expected to travel as quickly as needed over such distances … ergo, the new ‘Strike’ formations.

Here we have infantry integrated with medium armoured vehicles (aka IFVs). These will be units that can break free from traditional ‘heavy’ and ‘light’ constraints … units that can travel quickly across country and deliver a powerful punch (even deal with the enemy’s ‘heavy’ elements) when they arrive. The British Army intends to procure 800 of these AFVs (referred to there as MIVs) which which have much greater mobility than main battle tanks and can almost equal their firepower

For some time in the UK there has been a distinction between armoured infantry and mechanised infantry. The latter are essentially infantry as we know them, ie. transported in APCs with the intention of dismounting before the objective; armoured infantry, however, have much better protected AFVs to allow them to close with the objective itself. An enormous amount of effort has gone into developing tactics for armoured infantry.

The Australian Army is about to purchase 450 IFVs to equip four armoured infantry battalions. But these are to be used to operate in conjunction with MBTs, not seize the initiative in operations separate to them. Are the design specifications for LAND 400 Phase 3, therefore, appropriate?

Does the Australian Army really require a $30m IFV to equip each section in four battalions? If these vehicles are justified on the basis of their ability to conduct independent operations, is not the RAAC the best qualified to conduct mobile warfare?

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

14 October 2018

Armour in the Australian Army : Is There Something Wrong? Part 3

How does a mechanised infantry battalion work?

Let’s start with a single IFV … three crew (driver, gunner and commander), plus eight dismounts. So this is an infantry section, three IFVs plus the platoon HQ IFV. It is assumed that the section commander is also the IFV commander, as is the platoon commander.

The concept of the IFV is that it is able to accompany Abrams tanks onto an enemy objective. What happens at this point? The tanks pursue the retreating enemy or defend against a counter-attack; the IFVs dismount their troops to secure the position.

Does the IFV commander dismount to command his section? If he does, presumably there is a spare IFV/section commander among the dismounts. If the section commander/IFV commander needs to remain in the IFV to control supporting fire, presumably the spare commander dismounts to command the infantry section on the ground.

One would imagine that a mechanised battalion has its own career progression, separate to a non-mechanised battalion, ie. you start off as a dismount, promoted to dismount section commander, then become an IFV driver, gunner, crew commander; then platoon sergeant etc etc.

But wouldn’t it be much more effective, if the inf sections dismounted and came under command of their platoon commander …basic infantry tactics then occurred, with fire support from the AFVs being provided by AFV crews, ie. RAAC personnel.

How do you integrate basic RAAC tank* skills, D&S, gunnery crew commanding etc, with infantry fieldcraft, to make them a single employment code? If this is not possible and it’s necessary to have two separate employment codes … why not have ECN Infantry and ECN Armour; allowing the two arms to specialise in and develop their respective strengths?

Is it possible that we are to see another failure in terms of planning, similar to that which allowed the RAAC ARES to be relegated to a dismounted role (as the new AFVs are too complex for them to operate)? How incredible is the thinking here? Turn ARA infantry into RAAC personnel and ARES RAAC personnel into infantry. Why not allocate relatively easy to operate vehicles such as HAWKEI to the RAAC ARES to enable them to develop reconnaissance skills and allow them to integrate with ARA cavalry squadrons (not only as ‘dismounts’).

*PS. The IFV in the British Army is referred to as a ‘medium tank’.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

13 October 2018

Armour in the Australian Army : Is There Something Wrong? Part 2

For those interested in Army’s most expensive acquisition ever … LAND 400 Phase 3 ($15b) is intended to provide 450 IFVs and 17 MSVs (manoeuvre/mobility support vehicles). What is the basis for the 450?

Let’s work on a three rifle coy/four pl peacetime model per inf battalion and start with one bn per bde to be equipped with IFVs. Four IFVs per pl, amounts to 48 vehs; when we include three CHQ (three vehs each incl two command variant); three coy echelons (four cargo variants each) spt coy (ten vehs); tech spt (nine repair & recovery variants),) and BHQ (five vehs), we have a total of 93 IFVs per bn; three bns equals, 279 IFVs. Inf Centre, RTC and repair pool requirements brings the total to 350. But, with approx. 100 IFVs per battalion, 450 IFVs provides for four battalions.

Is the intention to equip one battalion in 1 and 7 Bdes and two battalions in 3 Bde? (3 Brigade has three battalions, but 2RAR has an amphibious role.)

What if the ACR organisation was one tank sqn, two cav sqns and one mech inf sqn? This would meet the organisational needs for 1 and 7 Bde. What of 3 Bde?

The breadth of command for an ACR CO with a tank sqn, two cav sqns and two mech inf sqns, would be stretched to the extreme. But what if a cav sqn and a mech inf sqn were to be grouped separately. So, 3 Bde would comprise an ACR, ACR (-), two inf bn (mech), and one inf bn (amphibious).

One difference between this and the current intention (or so it seems) is that the IFVs would be operated by the RAAC (as APCs used to be). The other difference is that the structure would offer greatly enhanced operational benefits (while also being much more cost efficient).

————————————————————————————————————

12 October 2018

Armour in the Australian Army : Is There Something Wrong?

Let’s look at the situation …. we have 59 Abrams tanks. Less than a regiment’s worth.

We might have been able to get away with this while 1 Armd Regt was located in Darwin (ie. concentrated in the same location) … but now we have tank squadrons located in Adelaide, Townsville and Brisbane (Plan BEERSHEBA). Some years ago, the Army assessed that the tank fleet needed to be increased to 90 to provide for the new force structure, repair pools etc.

One might think this would be a priority, BUT …

In the Australian Army tanks exist to support infantry. The inf now operate their own APCs; AFVs which are to be replaced by Infantry Fighting Vehicles. The project cost is around $15 billion for 450 IFVs.

It might seem expensive in the context of an APC replacement. The IFV is a very different beast however …along the lines of 1000HP, 40 tonnes, two man 40mm turret, 50cal RWS, 7.62; two pod ATGM launcher and eight pax. The expenditure on IFVs is three times that of the ASLAV replacement (211 Boxers at $5.2billion).

How are the IFVs to be crewed? They’re equivalent to a light tank in every respect. Will infantry simply move from tactical dismounted field skills to crew duties in a 40mm turret/driver of a 40tonne AFV? It would seem that not all infantry will be trained to operate IFVs. So there is a core group who are trained at some greatly expanded School of Infantry … they will have a new employment code: IFV Crewman. Do they have a career path? Maybe … but how do you compare someone with six years as a field infantryman and someone with six years as an IFV crewman?

May I be excused for suggesting that the (40 tonne, 40mm cannon, ATGW, 50cal RWS) IFVs should be operated by the RAAC.

Meanwhile …. we have an urgent need for 31 more Abrams; should we be placing greater priority on three independent mechanised infantry battalions, over and above independent three tank squadrons?

Tomorrow: How should the ACRs be organised?

——————————————————————————————————————-

11 October 2018

Wouldn’t it be Nice?

I’ve copied the post from 24 April 2016, below for background.

Recently there’s been discussion on another forum about registration/identity plates ‘souvenired’ from Centurions when they were to be sent for disposal. This was plate in the driver’s compartment which listed the tank’s manufacturing details, ARN, and major repairs. (A bit like a permanent log book.)

So now we have Centurions in Museums and private hands with no log book and quite possibly, no registration plate. Wouldn’t it be good if such items were returned to Centurions that have been renovated and/or are on public display. There is a tank, for example, at the Moama RSL, 169044. (Photo below from Moama’s dedication ceremony). The club went to great lengths to restore it. The registration plate of 169044 may or may not be in it, but it’s log book is with Mr M Cecil, a former employee of the AWM. Would it not mean so much more if these items were to be reunited with the tank, rather sitting on a shelf somewhere else?

__________________________________________

24 April 2016 : The Nature of the Person with the Cent Log Books (aka Edward Kelly)

A post on the 1AR Assn Members’ Forum post around August 2014 asked if anyone had info re the Centurion that the Cairns Arty and Tank Museum had recently purchased. This started a search for the log books to help provide this info. I asked Tim Vibert, the person who bought the Cents disposed of by Defence) what had happened to them. He said “I sold them [the log books] to a private collector as a job lot on a confidential basis”.

Tim was asked if he could pass a message to the collector to tell them about the Museum’s request and ask if info about the tank’s service history could be provided (even on a ‘confidential’ basis). In the absence of any response, it was assumed that the Museum had not received any information to support their exhibit. It was thought disappointing that the owner of the log books would not contribute to Australia’s military history in this way.

This example was recently quoted when speaking to the Defence agency responsible for disposing of M113A1s. It was pointed out it would be desirable not to allow the log books of the M113A1/AS4 fleet to end up in the hands of an anonymous private collector. (It is pleasing to be able to say that Defence are very much aware of the heritage value of the AFV log books.)

The private collector now saw red and posted all sorts of insults about me on the 3 Cav Forum under the name of ‘Edward Kelly’. The Cairns Arty and Tank Museum became aware of this and contacted me recently. It appears that they did receive information about their Centurion in August 2014. The Museum Manager who had initiated the request on the 1AR Assn Forum was unaware of this, only learning of it as a result of the chatter on the 3 Cav Forum. Everyone at the Museum was very busy at the time and unfortunately no-one was advised about the info received. This was an oversight by the Museum, but the story doesn’t end there.

It turns out that the whole affair was the result of the private collector’s own making. In one of his 3 Cav posts he tells Edward Kelly what happened when I emailed Tim Vibert to ask (not “demand”) what had happened to the log books:

“When he started the charade by demanding the name of the person Tim had sold the log books to, we decided to tell him it was confidential (read for that ‘none of your business’). He’s been thrashing about making unfounded accusations and erroneous statements about log books ever since.”

So it appears that the log books weren’t sold on a ‘confidential basis’ at all; this was a fabrication decided upon to frustrate the search for information about the Cairns Museum’s tank via the 1AR Assn members’ Forum.

What a different outcome it would’ve been if the response had been ‘the owner of the log books wishes to protect his identity, but will pass on information about the service history of ARN 169052 to the Museum’. I hope the private collector derived lots of pleasure seeing me “thrashing about” trying to help in the quest to establish the history of the Cairns Museum’s Centurion.

How do things stand at the moment re the log books? It seems that while the identity of the private collector remains ‘confidential’, he is prepared to assist owners of Centurions with log book info re the tank that they own. There appears to be private network whereby these people are able to communicate with the private collector (as they own a tank they have information to trade). What about anyone else doing historical research? They may or may not be lucky. One has to assume that ‘Ed Kelly’ wants to pick and choose those with whom he shares Australia’s military history.

Of course, we still have the question as to where the log books that disappeared from the Tank Museum ended up and who made a complaint on a ‘confidential’ basis about the tone of a post which resulted in the 1AR Assn Members’ Forum being closed down. The whereabouts of the log books was being discussed at the time and the President has declared the ‘offending’ post to be secret. Possibly the Kelly gang again?

The ultimate irony is that Ned wants me to apologise for not knowing that the private collector had given info about 052 to the Museum in August 2014: “Didn’t notice an apology for getting the ‘refusal to provide the Cairns Museum’ posts wrong for the last what, 20 months? An apology would be appropriate to PC, don’t you think? Both here and on your AA blog”.

11 October 2018. Footnote. We now know that Mr Cecil has at least one of the logbooks from the tanks at Puckapunyal. He has not responded to requests as to how he came to have it, nor what other of the logbooks from the Puckapunyal (Defence) tanks that he holds.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

10 October 2018

Due Process and Freedom of Information (FOI)

I’ve copied the Blog post from 26 May 2017 below. It explains the background. It does not, however, explain how protracted this matter became. The points below are some of those I’ve provided in response to Defence’s argument that I should not be allowed to see the submission that was made in support of that which I provided to the Minister. The final outcome (of the FOI appeal process) is expected soon.

(v) My Interest is Not Relevant? Defence has argued that “there is little public interest in this issue” and that what there is would be greatly outweighed by the perceived breach of trust should the document be released. Isn’t this exactly what the FOI legislation is intended to prevent, ie the agency concerned claiming that it can’t release any information because this would be seen to be a breach of trust, the consequences of which would outweigh the public interest. The public interest is my interest. I am a member of an Association which is a member of the RAAC Corporation. The submission made to Defence was made on behalf of members; I am one such member. Is it not intended that the FOI legislation allows for a single member of the public, who feels that he has been wronged by a document that the Government holds, to seek its release. To use a defence of ‘breach of trust’ for not releasing a document, would seem to be contrary to the intent of FOI legislation.

(vi) The False Defence of Confidentiality. This has been raised frequently in the context that discussions between Army and ESOs “are conducted with an expectation of a level of confidentiality, often due to the sensitive nature of the welfare topics”. But my FOI request is to see a public document, one submitted to the Government in support of an earlier submission that I had made to a Minister … there are no welfare issues involved. Is not the very defence of “confidentiality” by Governments, the very reason the FOI legislation exists? This might be accepted if matters of ‘national security’ or personal privacy were involved … but this is patently not the case.

(vii) Alternative Scenario. The Minister responded to my submission, advising that he had approved my requests. What if he had not given his approval and it was because something in the RAAC Corporation’s supporting submission to Defence was wrong? I would have no idea as to the basis on which the decision was made. If Defence refused to release the supporting submission, an abuse of process would be perpetuated, ie. grounds for appeal, would, in effect, be denied.

(viii) The Benefits of Open and Transparent Government. If openness and transparency in government procedures are demonstrated, Defence’s administration of welfare and personnel policy would benefit as a result of increased community input; benefit would also flow to the management of welfare support to units and the level and quality of advice provided by ESOs. An increase in volunteers prepared to work with ESOs is also likely to result.

(ix) A Single Member of Government Does Not Constitute Government as a Whole. Defence argues that the “document was submitted directly to a specific Defence member … implying that … there is no expectation that it be disclosed publicly”. So, if the Chairman of a company wanting to make a donation to the Liberal Party in return for certain ‘favours’ by government, wrote directly to the PM … this could not be subject to FOI action? Yet another example of the extent to which Defence is grabbing at straws in its defence of this matter

(ix) Protecting Someone Guilty of Wrongdoing. Defence argues that the “exposure of one member of one organisation could be expected to generate concern within all organisations that are voluntarily staffed”. Excuse me? We should not do anything which would bring to light wrongdoing, because this could make others think twice about doing the same thing? If there was one single reason for releasing the document, I think that this would have to be it. Covering up wrongdoing can only be expected to lead to further wrongdoing.

—————————————-

26 May 2017: FOI Request.

Background is provided by the 5 April 2017 blog post. In essence, I asked to see a copy of the submission made by the RAAC Corporation in support of mine seeking approval for the Coral-Balmoral Battlehonour to be emblazoned on the 1AR Standard. Surprisingly, the Corporation stated that they had not seen my submission, yet they had prepared another submission in support of it (which I was not permitted to see).

The FOI Decision

My FOI request to see the RAAC Corporation’s submission has been refused because the Accredited Decision Maker is satisfied that:

(i) the effect of disclosing the Corporation’s submission could have an adverse effect on the membership of the Corporation and its operations, in that member associations could reasonably be expected to refuse to participate in future activities conducted by the Corporation; and

(ii) information in the Corporation’s submission could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of an individual or group of individuals and prejudice the Corporation’s ability to obtain similar information in the future.

The Decision Maker considered releasing the submission with “exempt matter deleted”, but decided that, as there would be nothing left, the document would be meaningless. He concluded that releasing the whole document could reasonably be expected to harm the operations and membership of the RAAC Corporation.

How can disclosure of a supporting submission to a Minister (a public document), harm an organization to the extent that RAAC member associations would refuse to continue to support the RAAC Corporation? What could the submission possibly contain, to have this effect?

I have requested a review of the decision. (As they say … sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.)

———————————————————————————————–

9 October 2018

Consultation

Congratulations to the 1AR Assn C’tee for putting out an update to members of things that have been actioned since the last AGM. This was done vide Facebook and email. (The latter being necessary as a result of a number of members being vehemently opposed to ‘social media’.)

One has to wonder what the relationship is between use of the 1AR Assn website and 1AR Assn Facebook, in terms of communicating with members.

RSL Queensland seem to have an effective policy in this respect. They have a regular newsletter which they send out by email and use for updates on policy and activities. An extract from the latest is copied below.

RSL Runner [Newsletter]: Edition 10, October 2018 As our State President Tony Ferris noted in his recent From the President blog post, the revised Constitution is beginning to take shape. The Constitution Working Party spent two days recently discussing the draft document. This included reviewing more than 80 suggestions made by our members. Each suggestion was given due consideration, and most were implemented. A draft version of the Constitution will be available for perusal and discussion on the 2018 Constitution page of our website soon.

They also have a very comprehensive website and use this for discussion of policy matters. See https://www.rslqld.org/.

Finally, the RSL Qld Facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/RSLQueensland/) is used to promote items of general interest to RSL members.

Perhaps there’s a model here that the 1AR Assn could adopt (either completely, or in part).

PS. The RSL Qld website includes links to relevant ESOs, with a short outline about their core function. Given the RAAC Corporation’s decision that ‘they’ (ie. the member associations of the Corporation) don’t have the resources to offer welfare services (despite the HOC’s request for the RAAC family to act as one in this regard) … the ‘Charter’ of the RAR Association copied below is interesting. (One former 1AR Assn C’tee member was very vocal in stating that the 1AR Assn exists to promote camaraderie only and if a member needs welfare assistance he simply tells them to go to the RSL.)

————————————————————————-

“RAR Association Supports past and present infantry servicemen who have served in or are currently serving in an Infantry Battalion of the Regiment through social activities, promoting the health and welfare of members and a ‘care watch’ program to watch over sick members or their family members. RAR also have Welfare Support Officers who are knowledgeable of legislation and connect members with relevant ESOs to help them.”

——————————————————————————————————————-

9 October 2018

Apologies … it seems that my post for yesterday was attacked by gremlins and did not appear as it shoud’ve. I’ve copied it below (and will hold today’s post until tomorrow.)

The AWM: Recognising Those Who DOW After the War has Ended.

I’ve been lobbying for some time to affect a change from a focus on those who are listed on the Roll of Honour (ie. died during the War), to acknowledge all those who die from their wounds after the prescribed period of the War (as well as those whose wounds become apparent after that date). To their credit, the AWM is now also thinking along these lines (probably nothing at all to do with my lobbying). The response below is from the Office of the Director, AWM. (Reference is made to a ‘ticker’, this comes from the following suggestion I made:

“Unfortunately, all the information currently provided by the AWM relates to the numbers killed during the prescribed periods of Wars. Would it not be appropriate for the Redevelopment Project to address this ‘other’ aspect of the Memorial’s function? I believe, for a start, that it is essential that the numbers of deaths from wounds after the end of the prescribed period should be highlighted (with the Information Panels being amended as the numbers continue to grow). Would this not focus the attention of visitors to the AWM, ie. to see the numbers of those who have died from wounds experienced in conflicts such as Vietnam, Afghanistan etc, ‘tick over’ before their eyes.

From AWM, 5 October 2018:

“To your second point the Memorial honours all those who have served through means other than simply the Honour Roll or Commemorative Rolls. We tell the stories of all who served through our exhibitions, education programs, publications, sculpture gardens, ceremonies and more. Our displays also share with visitors that the cost of war isn’t limited solely to casualties suffered during a defined period.

The Memorial is working to expand the way it represents these true costs of war today and within the proposed expansion. Earlier today for example our new special exhibition “After the War” opened. This exhibition examines the consequences of war, from the Boer War to today, including facts such as the 60,000 Australians who died in the 10 years following the First World War as a result of wounds, gassing or other issues from their time in service. It also examines the impact on soldiers and their families of serious injuries, PTSD and other ailments for years after their service has ended.

The Memorial also has other initiatives that are intended to highlight the true cost of war. Our Vietnam Medical Legacies Project will explore the long term costs, including post-war deaths, of service in the Vietnam War in a volume to be published next year. The Memorial is also working on a new monument for the ‘cost of war’ that recognises that the cost wartime service extends far beyond the names listed on the Roll of Honour.

I hope that this provides some comfort that the Memorial does indeed acknowledge the fuller cost of war beyond just those who die during a conflict.

Your comments, along with all the other feedback we have received, will be provided to Council for their consideration in relation to the development.

I have also passed your email to the team who are doing the very early gallery design work to raise the concept of a ‘ticker’ with them so they can see if such a display would be feasible (notwithstanding the technical issues relating to working out the number of deaths) within the broader concepts they are working on for the proposed additional space. Such a display would , to my mind at least, sit well alongside the proposed ‘live feed’ from Defence showing what our soldiers, sailors and airmen are doing to defend the nation on any given day.”

————————————————————————————————

6 October 2018

Correcting Mistakes in History

I’ve copied the post from 25 May 2017, below.

It resulted from a discussion about directions in relation to Long Tan. One person referred to “south” and another said “no, it was north”. It turned out that Adrian Roberts had made a mistake in his After Action Report (as can easily happened, given the circumstances in which AAR are written) and had referred to south when it should have been north (or vice versa). This could lead to considerable confusion for those studying the Battle, or so it seemed to me.

I asked the AWM if a notation could be placed on the file to explain. The response was a resounding ‘No’ … the Archives Act would not allow this under any circumstances. Not being one to accept such bureaucratic idiocy … I emailed the National Archives as below.

Lo and behold … there is a way of alerting researchers, historians etc to a known error in a manuscript. I’ve forgotten exactly what the mechanism was … I think it involved placing a notation on the catalogue entry for the file/document.

Morale of the story: if something is patently stupid, persevere and logic will eventually prevail. Heaven help us if no-one is prepared to stand up against mindless decisions, whether they be made by governments or anyone else

———————————————————————————————

Email to National Archives follows. It relates to a matter in which the AWM states that it can’t provide a notation on a file to advise that something is known to be wrong.

Dear NAA, Many thanks for your response.

“The Archives Act prohibits the alteration of records over 25 years old (section 26 of the Act), and it does not provide a right of amendment or correction.”

I guess my next step is to seek an amendment to the Archives Act. I presume I do this through the Attorney General. If you can offer any other advice as to how to initiate an amendment to the Act, I’d be very grateful if you could provide this.

I acknowledge that the Act prevents any correction or amendment to records more than 25 years old. What I am proposing is an appended notation to a record. This notation could link to a separate record where the originator of the original certifies that he made an error in writing it and offers explanation.

As you know, there is public interest involved here. Say the original record related to the Maralinga Atomic Tests and the originator (someone involved with the Tests) realised that he had made a mistake in writing the record. Correcting this might be of immense public benefit. Are we saying that it is impossible to make any correction? Presumably the originator can always make a new record … what I’m proposing is a means by which a link is made between the new and the old records. If this cannot be done, the ability to serve the public interest is denied.

I appreciate that the possibility of someone wanting to ‘dress up’ or fraudulently correct his original record is always present. This could be limited if a ‘stat dec’ was used as the basis for any new record.

I will forward my proposal to the Attorney General is you think that is the best course to follow. Your advice is appreciated.

—————————————————————————————————-

5 October 2018

Atomic Tank

I’ve copied the post below from 20 July 2017.

Centurion Tank 169041 was positioned at the site of a British atomic test. Events after that are described here:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-atomic-tank-survived-a-nuclear-test-then-went-to-w-1542451635?IR=T

After time at 1^st Armd Regt (Puckapunyal and Vietnam) and Armoured Centre, the tank was at 1 Arms Regt (Darwin) and is now in Adealide. Is there still residual radiation? It was previously classed as safe for crews to operate, but how much has understanding of radiation and its effects advanced since then?

There was concern about the effects of the radiation from the gunner’s traverse indicator (with the gunner almost sitting on top of it). The radioactive materials used in the traverse indicator have long been discontinued.

In light of today’s scientific knowledge, if a review was to be conducted of the documents held by the School of Armour in relation to ARN 169041, would there now be grounds for compensation?

—————————————————————————————–

20 July 2018. DVA Initiative: Too Little, Too Late?

The July edition of the DVA e-news advises that:

“As a result of a 2017–18 Budget measure, Gold Cards will be provided to both the surviving Australian participants of the British Nuclear Test (BNT) program in Australia, and Australian veterans who served as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force (BCOF) during the occupation of Japan immediately following the Second World War.

The measure will also provide this healthcare coverage for affected pastoralists, Indigenous people and other civilians determined to be within the same vicinity as the participants of the BNT.

In many cases, people will be automatically issued a Gold Card under this measure. However, those who cannot be identified from DVA records as either a BNT or BCOF participant will need to lodge a claim for the Gold Card.”

Well done to the RAACA (NSW), John Haynes in particular, who have been lobbying for the BCOF gold card for years. One might be thought of as being cynical, to say the initiative is not going to cost the Government very much, given the few veterans of either BCOF or BNT still alive (probably even less, if any, Indigenous people present at the time).

There is, of course, the long-standing claims that have been rejected, concerning the health consequences for RAAC crewmen exposed to the residual radioactivity associated with the tank (ARN 169041) that was placed at ground zero for one of the blasts. There is a large file on this at the School of Armour. A number of RAEME personnel were also exposed.

—————————————————————————————————————-

4 October 2018

Following on from the post on 25 September 2018, the following email has now been sent to the AWM:

Dear AWM,

The Vietnam Gallery

When the Vietnam Gallery opened 10 years ago, veterans were asked to provide feedback. This initiative facilitated considerable value-adding since being made to the information panels. Without checking every separate one, I can point to at least 26 suggestions of mine that have been incorporated.

Despite this, there are three points which continue to be of concern to veterans. These are set out below.

Bravery of Tank Crews

In two places in the Vietnam Gallery, it is stated that Centurion tanks were “nearly impervious to most enemy weapons”. In context, this gives the impression that crews were safe inside the armour protection of their tanks. Of course, the opposite was the case (this is borne out by the literal meaning of the words, ie. “nearly Imperious” means, in fact, not impervious. The armour of Centurion tanks was able to be penetrated by all enemy anti-armour weapons (RPG 2 and RPG 5, 57 RCL and 75 RCL).

Given that crews were unable to close their hatches, they were vulnerable to sniper fire and satchel charges. The 100gal petrol tank on the rear of the Centurion was vulnerable to HMG fire. The main weapon used by the enemy against tanks was the mine. With the tank ammunition stowed on the floor, it was not long before the enemy incorporated RPG warheads into mines to fire upwards, penetrate the floor armour and set off an ammunition fire.

Australian tank crews knew that at any time their tank could detonate a mine, or, taking the lead in assaulting enemy defences, be penetrated by an RPG. At no time were they buoyed by the thought that their tanks were “nearly impervious to most enemy weapons”. Their bravery was magnificent, confronting the enemy day in day out, knowing that their tanks were very vulnerable to many of their weapons.

It is suggested that the following wording is much more suitable: Despite their armour, Centurion tanks and their crews were vulnerable to many enemy weapons, particularly mines.

The Battle of Binh Ba

One of the AWM photos (BEL/69/0382/VN) used in the ‘Timeline’, carries the caption “[troops] approach village of Binh Ba on the second day of the battle”. The is incorrect. The troops shown are approaching the hamlet of Duc Trung. The caption for the actual AWM photo is now correct, but no amendment has been made to the Timeline. While the Battle of Binh Ba itself, involved fighting in an urban setting, the photo and incorrect caption give a completely false impression of the significance of the battle. One way of avoiding this confusion, would be for the Timeline to state: ’Approaching the hamlet of Duc Trung, near Binh Ba, on the second day of the Battle’.

Recognition of APCs Involved in the Battles of Coral and Balmoral

The Information Panels for the Battles of Coral and Balmoral make no mention of the defensive fire support provided by the APCs of A Squadron, 3 Cavalry Regiment. The impression is given that infantry defending both FSBs were “aided by air support, tanks and artillery fire”.

The audio-visual narrative states that, for the second attack on Coral, the infantry were aided by “artillery and air support”. Of course, the defence was boosted considerably by the firepower of the APCs. This was especially important in the absence of tanks at that time. (The AV narrative has been corrected to acknowledge the firepower of the APC Troop present during the defence of FSB Balmoral.)

Three regiments were awarded the Battle Honour ‘Coral-Balmoral’: 1^st Armoured Regiment, the Royal Australian Regiment and the 3^rd Cavalry Regiment. The involvement of only the first two Regiments, however, is acknowledged by the present wording of the Information Panels in the Vietnam Gallery.

It would be greatly appreciated if amendment to the Information Panels could be considered. Confirmation of the importance of APCs in these Battles can be provided by the Military History Section.

PS. What a day yesterday was. It started with me nearly being kicked off the bus to Sydney. My name couldn’t be found on the passenger list. After much tearing of hair, it was found that my name had been recorded as ‘Cameron Bruce’ and they were only looking under surnames starting with ‘B’.

————————————————————————————————-

2 October 2018.

The RAAC Corporation Ltd. (ACN 156 250 958)

Following on from my Post on 30 September … which stated:

The RAAC Corporation Ltd is a public not for profit company limited by guarantee. It was registered in 2012. I believe that such companies are required to submit annual financial statements, however, ASIC records only list three documents being lodged … the last in 2014 and none of them a financial statement. If this is a shortcoming, is it the fault of ASIC or the RAAC Corporation?

I now understand that a company such as the RAAC Corporation Ltd does not have to lodge a current financial report, or even have financial governance audited. Furthermore, such companies don’t have to prepare a Directors’ Report or even notify members of annual reports.

The governance regulations for the company arrangement RAAC Corporation has entered into, would seem to be much less burdensome than those for an Incorporated Association, such as the 1AR Assn.

In this respect, if the 1AR Assn was to receive a $10,000 grant from DVA, the manner in which it was spent would have to be set out in the Assn’s annual financial statement provided to the regulator (which is available to all members). Not so for the RAAC Corporation … no financial statement to either the Regulator or members.

The difference would explain why, prior to the last AGM of the 1AR Assn, those involved in the Corporation were authoritatively quoting elements of the Corporations Act, as if was applicable to an Incorporated Association (which is not the case).

One imagines that DVA are responsible for accounting for the expenditure of its grant in terms of taxpayer accountability.

NOTE: No Blog tomorrow … short hospital visit (but long trip to Sydney).

———————————————————————————————————————–

1 October 2018

AWM Functions.

Email to AWM:

“Dear ….

Many thanks for your reply regarding my suggestions to the Memorial Redevelopment Team. I appreciate your time and the detail you have provided. Congratulations to the AWM for its commendable initiatives regarding indigenous Australians and those wounded while on active service.

Based on what you’ve said, however, there are two matters that I’d like you to ask the Memorial to consider.

Firstly, “The Council adheres to Charles Bean’s vision and concept of the Australian War Memorial honouring the service of the men and women of Australia’s military forces deployed on operations overseas on behalf of the nation”.

I’ve done a search of references regarding Charles Bean’s vision and concept for the AWM and I can’t find anything that refers to only honouring those “deployed on operations overseas”. It is my understanding that he envisaged the Memorial as a place to honour soldiers (and nurses) of the 1^st AIF. This vision has evolved with time, but I can find no reference to the Memorial’s commemorative function being limited to those who served overseas. Indeed, I understand that the actions of those service personnel who helped defend Sydney and Darwin against Japanese attack during the Second World War are commemorated by the AWM.

Could you confirm that the AWM Council is of the view that the AWM is restricted to honouring service personnel who were deployed overseas and does not have a requirement to honour equally those who involved in the defence of attacks against Australia itself, i.e. those deployed on our shores at the time.

Secondly, “The Memorial’s charter and mission are to tell the story of the Australian experience of war and peacekeeping as defined by the Australian War Memorial Act, 1980.”

I’ve gone to the 1980 Act and I see that it states that: The functions of the Memorial are [inter alia]: To maintain and develop the national memorial referred to in subsection 6(1) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 as a national memorial of Australians who have died:(i) on or as a result of active service; or(ii) as a result of any war or warlike operations in which Australians have been on active”. The 1962 Act contains the same provision.

You said that the AWM has a plaque in the Commemorative area dedicated to those who were wounded and that a temporary exhibition is to be held soon to further acknowledge these returned soldiers. I see from the above, however, that the AWM’s function is to honour not only those who died during the prescribed period of a war (Ie. on active service, as per the Roll of Honour), but also those who died later as a result of wounds received during the war.

I understand that the AWM does not even know the numbers of soldiers who have died from the wounds they received as a result of their active service. Given that this is the case, how can the AWM achieve this aspect of its Function?

Unfortunately, all the information currently provided by the AWM relates to the numbers killed during the prescribed periods of Wars. Would it not be appropriate for the Redevelopment Project to address this ‘other’ aspect of the Memorial’s function? I believe, for a start, that it is essential that the numbers of deaths from wounds after the end of the prescribed period should be highlighted (with the Information Panels being amended as the numbers continue to grow). Would this not focus the attention of visitors to the AWM, ie. to see the numbers of those who have died from wounds experienced in conflicts such as Vietnam, Afghanistan etc, ‘tick over’ before their eyes.

Schoolchildren are currently taught that the cost to their country of a War is the number of killed and wounded at the end of the prescribed period, ie. 521 for Vietnam. Hundreds of Vietnam veterans have died of their wounds after the prescribed period. It is the AWM’s Function to honour them, but the AWM isn’t even aware that their deaths have occurred (and are occurring today). As I said in my original email: “The cost to the nation of its involvement in a war must not be defined by the numbers of those killed at the end of the prescribed period for that conflict”.

Could you please advise how the AWM proposes to achieve, in the long term, its Function of honouring those who have died, not only during, but also as a result of, their active service. I can name many from my Unit who died as a result of their service. Not only are they not on the AWM Honour Roll, but also they are not represented in any permanent context in the AWM (despite the requirement of the AWM Act 1962/1980 to honour them).

Note. I know the difficulty is that of determining whether or not someone died as a result of their wounds or from other causes. If they have been wounded, DVA should be able to advise if death was from wounds received on active service. This is the challenge faced by the administrators of the US Vietnam Wall … they have been able to overcome the difficulties and continue to do so because of the importance to them to honour those who died on behalf of the nation/

Thanks again for your consideration,

———————————————————————————————————————–

30 September 2018

General …

I’ve just finished drafting an outline for an episode of the ‘Australian Story’. It deals with an RAAC matter.

Suffice to say, not a lot of time to focus on other issues. What things that I’m concerned about are at the fore-front of my mind at the moment? The following will be discussed in coming days:

(i) On 6 August, my access to the 1AR Assn Facebook pages was blocked … because I suggested that it would be appropriate (after learning of his retirement in the Army Newspaper) for the RAAC Corporation to contribute to a fitting farewell for the last RSM of the Army, an RAAC member. (We have all sorts of ceremonies when a Chief of Army retires, why not something like an ASLAV to drive the departing RSM-A from AHQ and/or current RSMs from his former RAAC units being brought to AHQ to be part of the send-off.) The 1AR Assn Secretary has not responded to my inquiry as to why my access continues to be blocked.

(ii) The RAAC Corporation Ltd is a public not for profit company limited by guarantee which was registered in 2012. I believe that such companies are required to submit annual financial statements, however, ASIC records only list three documents being lodged … the last in 2014 and none of them a financial statement. If this is a shortcoming, is it the fault of ASIC or the RAAC Corporation?

(iii) .The AWM information panels include incorrect information, even after this being brought to their attention. This can be very misleading for anyone trying to understand the circumstances involved, eg. the Japanese Ha Go tank is said to have had a crew of four (with two men in the turret) … there were, however, only three in the crew. Another example relates to Binh Ba …a photograph taken the next day during the assault on Duc Trang across open ground is said to be the attack on Binh Ba.

(iv) An request under FOI for information denied by the RAAC Corporation, is about to be finalised and I am expecting the withheld material to soon be released.

————————————————————————————————————–

29 September 2018

Value Adding re AWM Exhibits.

Following on from 26 September 2018 … “just to emphasize that feedback given to the AWM can make a difference. The results of a number of suggestions are shown below. Before (B) was as initially stated on the Information Panel, After (A) is as it is now”

i. (B) The Australian casualties at Binh Ba are given as 1 KIA and 8 WIA. (A) The casualties are now referred to as ‘1 KIA and 10 WIA (most from the tank crews)’.

ii. (B) “In 1952, British tanks [at 1st Armd Regt] were replaced with Centurions”. (A) ‘In 1952, the Churchills were replaced by Centurions’. [The point being that both the Churchill and Centurion were British tanks.]

iii. (B) “The full strength of the tank squadron was not “26 tanks”. It was 20 tanks (including two dozers); six tanks were held by the Detachment 1 Forward Delivery Troop (a separate 1ATF unit)”. (A) The information is now correct.

iii. (B) FSVs were “more heavily armed”. (A). ‘FSVs were more heavily armed than the M113A1’.

iv. (B) FSV crews were “seconded from 2 Cavalry Regiment and posted on strength to 3 Cavalry Regiment“. (A) FSV crews were ‘seconded from 2 Cavalry Regiment and posted to 3 Cavalry Regiment’.

v. (B) “The listing of RAEME units that served in Vietnam is inconsistent (for example, 1 Armoured Squadron Workshop is listed under ‘Armoured Units’, but 1 Field Squadron Workshop is listed under ‘RAEME Units’ (not Engineer units). (A) The listing is now consistent.

vi. (B) “Ordnance units also seem to be confused as per the above: 1 Armoured Squadron Workshop Stores Section is listed under ‘Armoured Units’, but 106 Workshop Stores Section is listed under ‘Ordnance Units’.” The listing is now consistent.

vii. (B) “4/19 PWLH Prince of Wales Light Horse”. (A) 4/19 Prince of Wales’s Light Horse.

viii (B) 3 Cav Regt (as distinct to 1 APC Sqn) is described as being in Vietnam from 1966. (A) now ‘…from 1967’.

ix. (B) 2RAR participated in Op PINNAROO. (A) Now ‘… 2RAR/NZ participated’.

x. (B) One exhibit is that of a slouch hat issued to a soldier on enlistment in 1967. The Rising Sun badge on it has the Kings Crown. This would seem surprising, given that it was replaced with the Queen’s Crown badge in 1966. (A). A note is now included to say that ‘This is the first badge issued to … and two other [Rising Sun] badges were subsequently worn’.

xi. (B) The AWM Encyclopedia shows incorrect figures for those who served and those who became casualties. (A) The Encyclopedia figures are now correct.

xii. (B) “The Agent Orange panel refers to the 1985 Evatt Royal Commission finding Agent Orange “not guilty”. It goes on to state that Vietnam Veterans are still seeking compensation. Should the information end here?”. Disappointingly, information about Agent Orange has been removed (too controversial perhaps?)

xiii. (B) The touch panel [in the Vietnam Gallery] is incredibly hard to operate …”. (A). The screen is easy to operate.

Note. Other suggestions were made, but I’ve not had the opportunity to check these as yet. I know that some were not incorporated (as is the AWM’s right). This is a ‘work in progress’, however, as leaving some of the ‘mistakes’ gives a completely false impression to anyone interested in understanding what happened, eg. describing a photo of the assault on Duc Trung as being that of the attack on Binh Ba, the day before. (One was across open ground, the other involved close combat in an urban setting.)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

28 September 2018

The RAAC Corporation Limited.

In the post on 17 September, I referred to the recent listing of DVA grants … https://www.dva.gov.au/consultation-and-grants/grants/approved-grants-list.

I said that I could not find any grant given to the RAAC Corporation and referred to an earlier Post in which I’d stated that: “I had thought that Mr Fenton’s travel costs to attend the AGM were paid for by the Assn, but he tells me that his “traveling expenses were paid by DVA through a grant to The Corporation”. (It was, nevertheless, a tax payer funded trip and one would think that a report to members was the least they could expect.)”.

A new DVA grants listing has now been published: “25 Sep 2018 9:00 AM AEST – Chester Media Release – Funding for National Ex-Service Organisations”.

It turns out that there are a number of different DVA grants and that that awarded to the RAAC Corporation comes within the category of ‘National Ex-Service Organisations’. The Corporation has again been successful with $10,0000 being awarded “to assist with travel to conduct representational activities” (the same as that awarded to the RAR Association).

Interestingly, the grant to the RAAC Corporation was included with those for electorates in Queensland. A check with ASIC revealed that the RAAC Corporation’s registered office is located in Brisbane (Petrie Terrace) … see below:

Name: THE RAAC CORPORATION LIMITED

ACN: 156 250 958

Registration Date: 14/03/2012

Next Review Date: 14/03/2019

Status: Registered

Type: Australian Public Company, Limited By Guarantee

Locality of Registered Office: PETRIE TERRACE QLD 4000

Regulator: Australian Securities & Investments Commission

Why Petrie Terrace? It turns out that ASIC require all companies to nominate a contact address for notices to the sent to them. Captain Adele Catts is the Museum Manager for the Army Museum, South Queensland. The Museum is located at Victoria Barracks, Petrie Terrace, Brisbane. This is the Registered Address of the RAAC Corporation Ltd (c/- Capt Catts). One would have expected that the Secretary would be the nominated contact for ASIC, but maybe there are advantages in being a public company with a registered address in Queensland.

The RAAC Corporation and RAR Corporation are both classed as ex-service organisations for the purpose of the grants. While this is the case with the RAR Corporation (ie. it represents only the unit associations), the RAAC Corporation has a dual role: “The RAAC Corporation Ltd was created to provide a greater and more co-ordinated voice for all RAAC units on the ORBAT together with their respective Regimental Associations”.

Interesting that the RAAC Corporation is the voice for all RAAC units on the ORBAT, all well as RAAC associations. I had always thought that the Head of Corps was the voice of RAAC Units on the ORBAT. Obviously there was seen to be a need for greater and more co-ordinated representation than provided by the HOC.

———————————————————————————————————————-

27 September 2018

Their Name Liveth for Evermore

Nearly every day I have cause to pass by the Stone of Remembrance at the AWM. For some reason, today I wondered why the inscription states ‘Their Name Liveth for Evermore’ and not ‘Their Names Liveth for Evermore’. The latter would seem to be more correct grammatically and also more correct in terms of referring to all the names of the fallen.

I was dimly aware that Rudyard Kipling had recommended the inscription, as he had also recommended ‘Known Unto God’ for the headstones of unidentified soldiers buried on the battlefield.. The Internet informed me that the inscription comes from “Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore”, which, in turn, is from Ecclesiasticus (King James version of the Bible).

So … ‘their bodies’, but ‘their name’. One would think that there would have to be a reason, otherwise it would be ‘their bodies’ and ‘their names’. Is it because everyone is known unto God by one name (or am I thinking of ‘One Nation unto God’).

Given that this is a scholarly (rather than religious) question, I asked if any of those I knew had an insight into this. The responses I received included:

“Probably a more personal message, your loved one will be remembered, not as a mass of people but him or her”.

“Could refer in the collective sense to those sacrificed.”

While I believe both of these suggestions are correct in their own way. I decided to refer to original text. This is what I discovered:

There are men who have lived a full life and reached their potential. They married and “left a name behind them” when they died. This ‘name’ was not only the family name, but also the basket of achievements that they had accomplished, thereby building a reputation. Through their descendants, “their praises might be reported” to future generations.

BUT … there are other men who “have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born; and their children after them”.

Their name, the one encompassing their life’s achievements (the one that they did not have the opportunity to leave behind as the legacy of old men) will live on as if they had never died in their youth. People “will shew forth their praise” in the absence of any descendants to do so. These were not men “renowned for their power” or “rich men furnished with ability”. “But these were merciful men, whose righteousness hath not been forgotten”.

Conclusion: “Their Name [that] Liveth for Evermore” refers not only to the name that they received at birth, but also to the achievements, reputation, and place in the world that these men and women could have earned should they have had the opportunity to live a full life.

————————————————————————————————–

26 September 2018

Value Adding re AWM Exhibits.

Just to emphasize that feedback given to the AWM can make a difference. The results of a number of suggestions are shown below. Before (B) was as initially stated on the Information Panel, After (A) is as it is now.

i. (B) “APCS were vulnerable to machine gun fire and grenades” (A) ‘ APCs were vulnerable to mines, rocket propelled grenades and machine gun fire’.(See note)

ii. (B) “Splinter teams travelled on APCs and tanks during operations”. (A) ‘Mini teams travelled on …’.

iii. (B) “The SLR clip was found at …”. (A) ‘The 7.62mm link clip comes from an M60 GPMG …’.

iv. (B) There were no information panels to provide details re either the M113A1 or damaged 20pdr barrel. (A) Information panels are now present.

v. (B) Visitors were not informed about the presence of a Centurion tank outside the AWM, nor the connection between this and the damaged barrel. (A). This information is now provided.

vi. (B) “ … riding on the back of a Centurion tank.” (A) ‘…riding on the back of an ARV.’

vii. (B) No warning was given re the sudden flashing lights and loud noises associated with the start of a helicopter light and sound exhibit. (A). Warning is now provided.

viii. (B) An information panel stated that when the enemy acquired the RPG 7, Centurions and APCs could be penetrated … inferring that the RPG2 could do neither. (A) The panel now states that that the RPG2 was “replaced by the Type 67 (the Soviet RPG 7) rocket launcher”. There is no longer any reference to relative vulnerability of the Centurions and APCs.

ix. (B) Centurions “provided fire support for infantry patrols and protection for Nui Dat”. (A) Centurions ‘proved invaluable in providing greater firepower to support troops involved in close contact with the enemy’.

x. (B). The casualties during Operation Hammersley were 8 KIA and 16 WIA. [There was no mention of the 3KIA and 13 WIA suffered by armour and engineers]. (A). Casualties are stated as ’11 KIA and 59 WIA’. [The WIA figure is thought to be a typo, ie. 59 instead of 29 and the AWM will be informed.]

xi. (B) “520 died”. (A) ‘521 died’. [Now that the number of Australian service personnel who lost their lives serving their country during the prescribed period of the Vietnam War is correct, attention can be renewed in respect to the terminology ‘died’. The 521 lost their lives as result of enemy action, accident, illness, unable to be recovered, ie. ‘missing’, their own hand, and murder. ‘Killed’ is not correct, nor is ‘died’.]

xii. (B) The audio-visual narrative stated that the infantry at Balmoral “were supported by artillery, tanks and air”. (A) The infantry were supported by a “combination of fire from tanks, APCs, artillery and air power”.

xiii. (B) [The RAAF Caribou crew] were injured when hit by ground fire. (A). ‘[The RAAF Caribou crew] received facial cuts from glass fragments … hit in head by the remnants of a bullet’.

Note. It is acknowledged that APCs are also vulnerable to satchel charges, RCLs and snipers, however, my point was that references to “grenades”, has a very different meaning to ‘rocket propelled grenades’.

—————————————————————————————————————-

25 September 2018

Draft of an email to the AWM … pending consultation with 3 Cav guys.

Dear AWM,

Recognition of APCs Involved in the Battles of Coral and Balmoral

When the Vietnam Gallery opened 10 years ago, veterans were asked to provide feedback. This initiative facilitated considerable value-adding being made to the information panels.

One point that was raised, continues to be of concern to veterans, however.

The audio-visual narrative states that, for the second attack on Coral, the infantry were aided by “artillery and air support”. Of course, the defensive fire was boosted considerably by the firepower of the APCs. This was especially important in the absence of tanks at that time. (The AV narrative has been corrected to acknowledge the firepower of the APC Troop present during the defence of FSB Balmoral.)

It would be greatly appreciated if amendment to the Information Panels could be considered. Confirmation of the importance of APCs and their crews in these Battles can be provided by the Military History Section.

Many thanks ….

———————————————————————————————————————-

24 September 2018

Part 6: Operational Analysis III

Yesterday’s post referred to ‘drills’ and described an example (from operations in Vietnam) in which the enemy anticipated the drill that would be followed when a suspicious object was seen on a road being used by a tank troop.

Another example from 1ATF in Vietnam was doubly successful for the enemy. APCs moving parallel to a track (so as to avoid mines) came to a point where the jungle limited options for movement. The enemy correctly predicted what the APCs would do. The mine caused horrendous casualties … the vehicle was a write off. ‘Dustoff’ was called.

The helicopter saw a suitable LZ. As it was putting down, an explosion occurred. The enemy had anticipated the place which would be used as an LZ and positioned a mine which would be activated by air turbulence. The helicopter was a write off.

The IRA also capitalised on predictability. During the ‘Troubles’, a train was high-jacked, crew thrown off and driven to a siding where it was left. A month later the same thing happened. By sheer co-incidence, the helicopter pilot flying in the response commander was the same one who had been tasked for the previous incident. Just as he was about to land (in the same place he had landed previously), a sixth sense suddenly warned him and he immediately pulled up and landed elsewhere. A remotely controlled mine was later located in the LZ he had used previously. The IRA had assumed that a different pilot would select the same LZ (hence the reason for the first train high-jacking … to observe where the helicopter would land).

The Army used to use tactical drills for all situations (and it probably still does). Trouble is … a drill means predictability and any army which is predicable is going to suffer casualties.

Despite the experience of three tank squadrons in Vietnam, the last squadron still practised drills time and time again (the aim being to instinctively react in a set way when a particular thing happens*). Never was there mention that these tactics would be predicable to the enemy and would be used to their advantage. If it had been in place, a culture of Operational Analysis would have emphasised: DON’T BE PREDICABLE!!!

I wonder if tank tactics today are predicable? Do defile drills still exist? Is there any awareness of the danger of predictability?

*Sure … it can be important to have a set procedure to follow to avoid confusion, but this must not be so mindless that the enemy can take advantage.

——————————————————————————————————————-

23 September 2018

Part 6: Operational Analysis II

Following on from yesterday …if there had been a culture of OA in Vietnam, a means of dealing with suspicious objects without endangering anyone, would have been identified.

Consider a tank troop moving along a sealed road. The driver of the lead tank sees a suspicious object in the middle of the road to his front. The troop stops. The troop leader could decide to go off road and by-pass the object. But that might be exactly what the enemy wants. An anti-tank mine, which would be much more easily concealed off-road, could be positioned in anticipation of this.

It’s decided to follow the ‘drill’ and the engineer mini-team is sent forward. The sappers reach the partially buried object and begin to prod around it. Next moment there is a massive explosion. Both engineers are casualties. What happened?

The enemy had anticipated two things: the ‘drill’ and the use of bayonets. It was expected that the sappers would be sent forward, so a booby trap was set. When they prodded the near the object with their bayonets, they pierced two sheets of flywire, making a circuit, which detonated the explosive.

If a culture of OA had been in place, metal bayonets would never have been used as prodders. The change to plastic took much longer than it should have. I wonder if bayonets are still used as prodders today?

If a culture of OA had been in place, the troop leader would have had another option. He could have removed the ‘canister’ from a canister round, loaded the case and fired at the suspicious object. The force of the blast would have exposed whatever was there, quite possibly rendering it safe at the same time. (The tank would, in effect, be acting like a gigantic ‘Wheelbarrow’ EOD ‘robot’.)

I wonder what the ‘drill’ is today?

Obviously. it would be great if a drone was able to fly in front of the tanks and clear the route. This will not always be possible, however.

———————————————————————————————————-

22 September 2018

Part 6: Operational Analysis

One of the goals listed in Part 6 (above) is: “A system of Operational Analysis (OA) would be introduced which would ensure that the failure to quickly identify, report, and learn from operational experience which happened in Vietnam, would never be repeated.”

In Vietnam, Centurion tanks carried Canister, APCBC, and HE (smoke also for a short time). HE was only used during training for engaging long range targets (as it was sometimes in Vietnam). However, most operations were in very close country with visibility limited to 100s of metres (often much less). What was the arming distance for a 20pdr HE projectile? The question had never arisen in training It weren’t important … or was it?

At least one occasion occurred in Vietnam in which HE was fired and detonated much closer to the muzzle than the crew commander had expected. A crew commander in a subsequent squadron, wanted to use HE to engage a target 300-400m away. The problem was that he would be firing through a number of jungle vines, saplings etc. At what distance did the 20pdr HE round become armed? If it was detonated above ground by a sapling, would the minimum safety distance for an ‘airburst’ be greater than that for a round impacting a normal target (ie. with the blast being thrown forward)?

If the ‘System’ had failed before tanks were deployed, it was a double failure once they were on operations in close country, and a triple failure if nothing has been learnt from that experience today.

M1A1 Abrams in the RAAC use the M830A1 HEAT instead of an HE round. What is the arming distance? Unclassified sources simply state that the round won’t detonate until it has traveled a “safe distance down range”. This is given as 30m in some places and 11-30m in others. Of course, if Australian crews were to use the round during operations in jungle or urban terrain … they’d know the arming distance, wouldn’t they?

Simply put, Operations Analysis is the study of the way things have been (or are being) done with the aim of identifying opportunities for improvement. In 2011, the Australian Audit Office conducted an investigation into the extent to which the ADF was learning from its experience. The report is at https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/australian-defence-forces-mechanisms-learning-operational-activities.

It’s one thing to look at overall systems, it’s another entirely to examine the individual parts in detail. Detailed and timely OA is essential at the unit level … not an undertaking in which reports are gathered, indexed and put on shelves, but something at the heart of everything that happens. What was allowed to happen with respect to tank operations in Vietnam is an indictment on military procedures and the culture that was responsible.

More the follow. (I wonder if anyone will get in touch to advise the arming distance for the M830A1 HEAT round … I would be really pleased if they were to do so.)

PS. Of course, the other part of OA is doing something about the shortcomings identified. if we wanted an explosive round which could be used to engage targets in close country, beyond the effectiveness of canister and MG … it might well be possible to order a batch of ammunition with an increased arming distance.

—————————————————————————————————————

21 September 2018

Parliamentary Briefing: Human Rights in Vietnam II

The Vietnamese Community in Australia (VCA) briefed parliamentarians at Parliament House on 19 September 2018. A number of MPs spoke at the start. Many, including Bill Shorten, referred to the contribution that the Vietnamese Community had made to Australia in 42 years.

Following on from yesterday …

There were about 80 Vietnamese Australians present, with representatives from nearly every State (including WA). Religious leaders also attended. I was surprised at first, that there were eight ALP MPs present, but only single Liberal and Greens members. I soon realised that this was related to the size of Vietnamese communities within federal electorates. Nevertheless, I was disappointed that the human rights issues and related policy matters did not attract a wider cross section of parliamentarians.

The human rights abuses described as commonplace in Vietnam today, were horrific … moving some to tears. (A separate briefing was given to some MPs in private … I can’t imagine what atrocities were detailed during this.)

China’s Role in Vietnamese Affairs.

I was surprised that:

Chinese naval vessels are preventing Vietnamese fishing boats operating in Vietnamese water;

The Vietnamese ‘cyber security’ (read Internet monitoring) laws recently enacted are an exact copy of China’s legislation;

Chinese oil rigs are operating inside Vietnamese waters; and

The China has recently been granted 99 year leases on three stretches of land along the eastern coast of Vietnam.

Examples of Human Rights Abuses.

These included:

Numerous incidents of human rights protesters dying in custody;

The trial of one environmental protester lasted 15mins, with the verdict taking 40mins to read out (sentenced to 20 years jail)

There is no religious freedom, the Communist Party controls everything, especially any religious activity.

Church land is seized and assets confiscated.

Conclusion. I applaud Bill Shorten who stated that any government to government negotiations between Australia and Vietnam (eg. trade deal) must be predicated on tangible and sustained improvements in human rights. This was exactly what we said when the National President of the RSL proposed an MOU with the Communist Party of Vietnam. By all means seek closer ties, but do so on the condition of improved human rights, especially for former ARVN soldiers and their families. (This was too much for the RSL and Admiral Doolan scrapped his proposal. Interestingly, the idea probably came from veterans visiting Vietnam and meeting former VC … little did the visitors realise how much such meetings are ‘orchestrated’.)

—————————————————————————————————————–

20 September 2018

Parliamentary Briefing: Human Rights in Vietnam

The Vietnamese Community in Australia (VCA) briefed parliamentarians at Parliament House yesterday (19 September 2018). A number of MPs spoke at the start. Many, including Bill Shorten, referred to the contribution that the Vietnamese Community had made to Australia in 42 years.

One MP referred to visiting a school in her electorate, where the headmaster took her aside to recount a story.

The school gave all new pupils a copy of the book ‘The Very Hungry Caterpillar’. One of the new student’s parents could speak very little English. Her father worked on a processing line and each lunch hour he asked one of his friends to read him the book.

The father didn’t understand either the words or the story … but over time, he memorised the book. He then ‘read’ it to his daughter every night. One of the reasons the integration of the Vietnamese Community into Australian society had been so successful was the importance they placed on education.

I’ll post an account of the Briefing tomorrow.

——————————————————————————————————

19 September 2018

The Missing Centurion Logbooks II

The post copied on yesterday’s Blog was that of 24 April 2016. The posts from the two days before that are copied below. ‘What a web we weave, when first we try to deceive….’. Why bring the integrity of the 1AR Assn into disrepute like this? What was being covered up?

I doubt that that question will ever be answered. The location of the logbooks which should be held at the Tank Museum, however, is up to Mr Cecil.

(I’m attending a briefing at Parliament House this morning about human rights in Vietnam … this post will be late as a consequence.)

——————————————————————————————————–

22 April 2016

The Shame of the Centurion Log Books.

Why is there so much ‘secrecy’ surrounding the whereabouts of the Cent log books?

The log books for the 105 Cents sold by Defence were on-sold to a private collector on a ‘confidential’ basis.

Log books for the Cents at Puckapunyal have mysteriously disappeared.

The 1AR Assn Members’ Forum was shut down as a result of a complaint about the ‘tone’ of a post. The disappearance of the log books from the Tank Museum was being discussed at the time. The complaint was made to the President of the Assn on a ‘confidential’ basis and the identity of the complainant and details of the offending post are ‘secret’.

Someone believed to be the ‘private collector’ has posted messages on the 3 Cav forum under the name ‘Ed Kelly’ inferring that he/she is being victimized.

Why does the private collector who purchased the log books not want to reveal his/her identity?

Could it have something to do with their purchase? It seems that there was nothing illegal associated with this. Of course, one might expect that the log books should remain with their respective tanks, thereby ensuring that their service history is known to those who buy them. (Fortunately, this is happening with the M113A1s being disposed of by Defence.)

Could it be that they don’t want to make themselves available to others who seek information about specific tanks? This could mean responding to numerous requests. The up-side, however, would be to make a positive contribution to the RAAC’s history.

Could it be that they’re writing a book and wish to keep everything ‘under wraps’ during their research?

Could it be that they wish to be selective in who they choose to discuss Cent related matters with? Or is it just a money-making exercise?

It is of course a free world. Not everyone will think it right, however, that part of a nation’s military history can be subject to the whims of a single person.

————————————————————

23 April 2016

Log Books (Still)

The private collector who owns the vast majority of Centurion log books has appeared on the 3 Cav website. He reads this blog, but can’t post a comment here as that would mean that his identity would have to be revealed.

He was a reader of the 1AR Assn Members’ Forum and was aware of the request posted on that Forum for information about the Centurion acquired by the Cairns Arty and Tank Museum. His position, however, was that this was nobody else’s business (but his own). It seems that he is the person who complained about the ‘tone’ of a post on the Forum at this time. His complaint was made ‘in confidence’ to the President 1AR Assn. Who knows what influence he had/has over the President … as we know the Forum was closed and all reasons were classed as ‘secret’.

My post on the 3 Cav Forum is copied below:

What if all the log books for surviving Spitfire aircraft were in the hands of a private collector? Discovering who flew them, whether or not they were involved in the Battle of Britain, whether they were damaged by enemy fire etc, was only possible at the whim of an anonymous person. If you knew someone who knew someone and you made a very polite request (or offered enough money), ‘he’ might deem you acceptable to receive some of his largesse. Then again, he might not.

What is the attraction for the collector? One would imagine that it’s all to do with absolute power (as he’s said, it’s nobody else’s business). He has made himself the sole authority on a particular subject and can grant ‘audiences’ as he pleases. Being anonymous allows him to set the agenda. If everyone knew who he was and how to contact him, then there would be public conjecture about his motives in agreeing or not agreeing to share his ‘wealth’.

Fortunately this appears to be the only case of the documentary history of an almost complete fleet of military vehicles being vested in a single individual. Of course, it was not what Defence intended. The log books accompanied the AFVs when they were sold, as you would expect. (If you buy a second hand car, it is very comforting to have its log book.) Defence assumed that the person on-selling the tanks would be passing on its log book. One would think the tank would be worth more with its log book, but it’s a free market and he private collector obviously offered sufficient inducement to offset this.

How is Australia’s military history best served? Undoubtedly, having all the log books held by National Archives and accessible to all, would be ideal. Owners of the vehicles could acquire copies and former crews, history researchers, and associations, could read them. The worse possible situation would be for a single anonymous person to own them and ‘lord over’ their content.

————————————————————————————————————————–

18 September 2018

The ‘Missing’ Centurion Log Books

There have been a number of developments since the post copied below.

Firstly, the person who purchased the logbooks for the tanks Tim Vibert bought from the Army, was a former AWM employee, Mike Cecil.

I knew that Mr Cecil had some log books but I didn’t know either how many or for which tanks. The thing is … when he showed me his ‘shelf’ of log books, he asked me not to tell anyone that he had them. (Which I didn’t, prior to he himself making this public. He also asked me not to divulge other matters, and I have not done so.)

If we assume that the info he provided from logbooks quoted in footnotes in my book, were from logbooks that he holds … then he has at least one of the logbooks missing from the Tank Museum (that for ARN169106, which stands in front of the Sgts Mess at SoA).

This was not a tank sold to Mr Vibert, but one of a number retained by Defence and held at Puckapunyal. These logbooks were supposed to be held at the Tank Museum. When Cent ARN 169056 was transferred to the AWM in 2008, Mr Cecil know that the logbook was at (or supposed to be at) the Tank Museum (and it was, or supposedly was). The logbook was apparently transferred to the AWM with the tank (the logbook is certainly at the AWM now.) [Mr Cecil had had a long connection with the Tank Museum while employed by the AWM.]

The Army History Unit conducted an investigation into the missing logbooks, but could find no evidence that they were held by the Tank Museum at the time that the AHU took over responsibility for all such museums.

It appears that Mr Cecil was the person who made a secret complaint to the then President of the 1AR Assn about the 1AR Assn Members’ Forum. This blog was started when the Forum was suddenly closed down and members were lied to about the reasons why. The disappearance of the logbooks from the Tank Museum was being discussed on the Forum at the time of its closure. (Why would the 1AR Assn President do such a thing, ie. initiate an action which disadvantaged members, while informing them that he couldn’t tell anybody why the action was necessary.)

Mr Cecil reads this Blog. The following questions were asked of him in the post on 21 August 2018:

Do you have the logbooks for the above Centurions [ie. those for the Centurions held at Puckapunyal, including the Tank Museum]?
If so, how did you come to acquire them?
If not, do you know who does have them?

No response has been received as yet.

————————————————————————————————

The Nature of the Person with the Cent Log Books, aka Edward Kelly. (24 April 2016)

So, it appears that the log books weren’t sold on a ‘confidential basis’ at all; this was a fabrication decided upon to frustrate the search for information about the Cairns Museum’s tank via the 1AR Assn members’ Forum.

The ultimate irony is that Ned wants me to apologise for not knowing that the private collector had given info about 052 to the Museum in August 2014: “Didn’t notice an apology for getting the ‘refusal to provide the Cairns Museum’ posts wrong for the last what, 20 months?

————————————————————————————————————–

17 September 2018

DVA Grant?

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs recently released a press statement announcing the new recipients for grants. Previous DVA grant recipients are listed at https://www.dva.gov.au/consultation-and-grants/grants/approved-grants-list.

Why is this a matter of interest? The following two previous Blog posts help explain (see ‘Conclusion’ at the end.)

6 April 2018: What’s Important?

Recently, the 1AR Assn Facebook pages have been full of comments about what the Assn stands for.

Mr Fenton: “Unit Association’s do not have the logistics, money, resources, training or willing members [to look after serving and ex serving members]. Unit Association’s should be able to refer there (sic) members to the RSL”. [Apparently this is what the unit associations agreed at the last RAAC AGM … according to Mr Fenton, the 1AR Assn rep. But members aren’t provided with Minutes, so we’ll never know.]

Mr Soutar: “I get a few [members] asking me about gold cards but usually point them to the local RSL!”.

I responded to Mr Soutar to say: I suggest you refer to the register of qualifications of 1AR Assn members in your area as a first step; if there are none that you can refer the person seeking help to … you contact other ESOs such as DFWA and, VVAA,, as well as the RSL. Some people will be more qualified to help than others. The important thing is to follow the process through, so that the person who approached you for help doesn’t find himself/herself left in the gutter. (Could it be that not all State Reps have a list qualifications their members have which they are prepared to use for the benefit of the Assn?)

10 April 2018: RAAC Corporation.

In the 6 April post I asked Mr C M Fenton OAM, who is the 1AR Assn rep for the RAAC Corporation, if he could please explain what was decided at the last RAAC Corporation AGM and what the Corporation has done since then?

He has responded to say:

“It is up to The Association to pass that information down to their membership which I believe was done through the Association’s News Letter.”

Unfortunately, Mr Fenton seems not to have read the Assn’s great newsletters. His belief is mistaken, no report has been provided.

I had thought that Mr Fenton’s travel costs to attend the AGM were paid for by the Assn, but he tells me that his “traveling expenses were paid by DVA through a grant to The Corporation”. It is, nevertheless, a tax payer funded trip and one would think that a report to members was the least they could expect. I explained that it was my contention that his attendance was on behalf of the members of the Assn.

Mr Fenton rejected this as “the ‘Association’ is the member to the Corporation, not the Association’s members”. Furthermore: “I am the link between The Corporation and The Association, not to its members”. I find it had to understand that anyone could disassociate an association from the members that comprise it. However … stranger things have happened.

I summarised the ‘toing and froing’ on the Facebook site:

Here’s a summary: You were paid by DVA to attend the last AGM of the RAAC Corporation (Oct 17). You prepared a report and gave it to the 1AR Assn C’tee. The C’tee decided not to release your report to members of the Assn. I’ve copied an extract from another Assn’s report to its members re the same AGM. I imagine that our Assn feels the same re those separating from 1 Armd Regt [ie. a willingness to assist as much as is possible]?.

It’s hard to acknowledge the excellent work being done by the Corporation if we can’t be told about it. You’ve said that you can’t do anything about this. So I guess that that’s that then.

Conclusion.

As far as I can see there is nothing included in the list of DVA grants for monies given to the RAAC Corporation or for monies given to any organisation to pay for the transport and accommodation of representatives to attend meetings of any ex-service organisation.

This seeming anomaly would be quickly resolved if the Minutes of the RAAC Corporation AGMs and Financial Statements were readily available either on the RAAC Corporation website or by being made available by member associations. (Herein lies another Part 6 goal.)

——————————————————————————————————————–

16 September 2018

Part 6: Berets and Plumes

One of the goals listed in Part 6 (above) is:

“Serving RAAC personnel would be issued with black berets and plumes at public expense”.

The 1 AR Assn (and hence the RAAC corporation) don’t want to have anything to do with the matter; hence I’m compelled to go it alone. The following email was sent to Corps RSM on 11 September 2018:

“Congratulations on your appointment as Corps RSM

I write about something that you may or may not consider to be important in the wider scheme of things.

Most of those I’ve approached previously, have taken the view that ‘they can afford for it, why should any change be made’.

I submit that it’s not about whether or not a trooper’s salary is so generous that he can be expected to pay, but about the principle involved … is it the right thing to expect them to pay?

I encountered the same disregard of principle when I advocated for the NOK of those who were KIA to be eligible to receive the Army Combat Badge on behalf of their deceased loved one. (The Defence position was that the ACB was a dress embellishment and therefore someone who was KIA was not able to wear it and so it would not be issued … this would save money.) The RSM-A at the time helped me bring this mean-spiritedness and injustice before those who couldn’t just ignore it … the policy was changed and many NOK have since been presented with ACBs in very moving ceremonies.)

The matter that I wish to bring to your attention is that which requires RAAC troopers et al, to pay for berets and plumes.

I recently wrote to the Minister for Defence about the seemingly mean-spirited policy of requiring RAAC personnel to pay for their berets. The response received advised that all members are proved two slouch hats (the official headdress) at public expense, complete with Corps specific embellishments … berets are optional, however, and must be purchased using Uniform Maintenance Allowance (UMA)

It could be argued that berets are not optional for soldiers when they are ordered to wear them. Leaving that aside, RAAC specific embellishments for hats, KFF, include emu plumes. Despite what the Minister stated, these have to be purchased at members’ expense.

I replied pointing out that the Manual governing allowances states that UMA is to maintain uniforms in good condition (not to purchase new items) and that ARES members do not receive UMA.

The Minister for Defence Personnel responded to say that soldiers are required to purchase items which are not compulsory, but are nevertheless ‘required’; and UMA is provided to cover this. It was acknowledged that ARES members do not receive UMA … that was just too bad.

——————————————————————————————————

15 September 2018

Part 6 : Assistance to Members

One of the goals mentioned in Part 6 (above) is:

“The By-Laws would also include the procedures to be followed when 1AR Assn members are in need of assistance; including how to make this known to the 1AR Assn.”

It might be thought that this was self-evident as the Purposes of the 1AR Assn, as per the Constitution, include:

“(4) promote and advance or otherwise assist the welfare and well-being of members, their dependants and next of kin and any other persons as the Management Committee, branch or branches shall approve;

(5) provide all possible assistance to members in a practical and advisory capacity.”

Surprisingly, Mr C M Fenton OAM (the 1AR Assn rep for the RAAC Corporation) stated recently that all members of the Corporation passed a motion at an AGM to state that they did not have the resources to provide welfare support to their members and that those in need of assistance would be passed to organisations such as the RSL that do have the resources.

How does this stand vis a vis the Purposes of the 1AR Assn (above)? It seems to me that the relationship between the RAAC Corporation motion, the Purposes of the 1AR Assn (as per the Constitution) and the intentions of the current C’tee … needs to be clarified. (This is due, in part, because members of the 1AR Assn receive neither a copy of the Minutes of RAAC Corporation AGMs, nor any report from Mr Fenton.)

The Blog post below from 18 June 2018, is relevant (posted after the RAAC Corporation motion):

What Would I Like to See Characterise the 1AR Assn?

Question. If candidates for the 1AR Assn C’tee were to be asked to state their ‘platforms’, what would I vote for?

Answer. This is what I would say:

(i) A commitment to Openness and Transparency in all things, eg. Minutes of C’tee Meetings made available to members; and financial statements circulated for consideration prior to AGMs;

(ii) A Program of Work, with priorities, for the coming year… established with the agreement of members;

(iii) Emphasis on Consultation with Members, eg. if an initiative is to be introduced, or changes made to the Constitution, members are asked for their views and input at the earliest possible stage;

(iv) A system of Communications Between C’tee and Members established so that members at any time might ask questions or make suggestions and be assured of receiving responses from the C’tee’;

(v) A system of Communication Between Members established so the members might freely discuss ideas for the betterment of the 1AR Assn and its endeavours;

(vi) A clear Policy Regarding Donations be established so that there is no confusion as to was is, or is not, an acceptable donation to the Assn;

(vii) A Commitment to Help Former or Serving Members who require assistance to manage their personal circumstances (rather than simply referring them to the RSL as agreed by RAAC Corporation members).

(viii) A Continuation of the Good Projects initiated by past C’tees; such as awards to 1 Armd Regt soldiers/students of merit and gift packs to those on operations.

————————————————————————————————————-

14 September 2018

Part 6: By-Laws

Following on from yesterday ….

Ideal World Goal: “The 1AR Assn would have valid By-Laws approved by members which would include the procedures to be followed by AR Assn members/C’tee when members of the Assn and serving/former members of 1AR receive awards for their endeavours.”

The Secretary recently advised members vide the 1 AR Assn Members Only FB page that there were a certain number of members who believed that any decision made by the C’tee had to be approved by the Assn as a whole (or words to the effect).

I can’t access the 1AR Assn Members ‘Only FB page as a result of being banned for calling on the RAAC Corporation to ensure that the last RSM-A was provided with a farewell fitting to a member of the RAAC who had performed in an exemplary manner in that role. (I won’t comment further.)

There are a number of ‘goals’ specified in Part 6 (above) which relate to ‘By-Laws’, the definition of which in the Constitution is:

“By-laws means the By-laws approved by members at a general meeting of the Association”.

So that would seem to take care of that.

However, it seems that the current C’tee might wish to introduce a number of ‘policies’, rather than By-Laws. These policies are ones which do not have to be approved by members.

Why would you do it? Why would a C’tee seek to introduce procedures to deal with a range of important matters without referring such proposals to members?

Why would a C’tee want to circumvent members’ approval?

————————————————————————————————————–

14 September 2018

Part 6: Donations to 1 AR Assn

Part 6 has been added above. This was previously buried below and has been ‘elevated’ to keep it in the forefront of considerations. Posts, starting today, will sometimes refer to these issues.

When I donated monies earned by book and its research to the 1AR Assn (about $10,000), I did so on the basis explained in the Author’s Note at the start of the book, ie. “to assist the Association’s endeavours.”

The Assn’s accountants considered that this “created a constructive obligation in respect of the donated funds”. The Assn employed solicitors Gabbedy, Milson, Lee, to advise me that I must not make any further donations because of this. (Interesting there was no record in the last Financial Statement of payment to this legal firm for acting on the Assn’s behalf … I guess they were ‘friends’ of the then C’tee.)

I asked the C’tee if they could please explain why a donation made “to assist the Association’s endeavours”, (i) is not considered a donation made ‘without conditions’; and (ii) what wording does a donor have to use to meet this requirement?

Management Committee Response: “It is suggested that Mr Cameron take this issue up with the previous President. The current Management Committee is to enter into discussions with potential donors prior to acceptance of any significant donation”.

So … maybe my donation did not create a ‘constructive obligation’. One might think that the C’tee would want to know the criteria for this, before they entered into discussions with any other donor. Maybe the solicitors and accountants had been wrongly advised?

Part of the funding was used to purchased material for the Mick Rainey MM Club, and another part to purchase a TV for the ORs of D Sqn. I thought that was exactly the reason I donated the money. I suggested to the C’tee that funds might also be used to send a deserving member from 1 Armd Regt and another from 1AR Assn to the Centenary Anniversary of the Battle of Cambrai in France. This was a suggestion only, not in any sense, a demand. Of course, this didn’t happen, my donation was returned in full, and I don’t believe anyone attended the Cambrai commemoration.

I wouldn’t mind if the C’tee had the ‘balls’ to say … we don’t like you and won’t accept your donation to help with our endeavours as an Assn. But to seemingly ‘invent’ a quasi-legal/accounting reason and then demand that no further donations be made … is the stuff of ‘disappearing’ tank logbooks and circumventing Defence protocols related to the acceptance of ‘donations’ from commercial firms bidding for a Defence contract.

————————————————————————————————

12 September 2018

If Things Are Not Right … Should we Try to Fix Them?

Some representative associations hold the view is that they are not “lobby organisations”. To lobby, even on behalf their members, is not part of their place in the order of things. Even if the purpose was to overturn a ‘wrong’ which had been done to their members … the response would be that it is not their role to ‘lobby’ in any capacity for any reason. (Interestingly, I don’t regard writing a letter to a MP as lobbying … I think of it as a democratic right.)

It used to the case that soldiers were issued with items of uniforms that they had to wear. RAAC soldiers today have to wear berets and have to have plumes on their slough hats; neither berets nor plumes are issued … soldiers have to purchase them.

I recently wrote to the Minister about the seemingly mean-spirited policy of requiring RAAC personnel to pay for their berets. The response received advised that all members are proved two slouch hats (the official headdress) at public expense, complete with Corps specific embellishments … berets are optional, however, and must be purchased using Uniform Maintenance Allowance (UMA)

I replied pointing out that the Manual governing allowances states that UMA is to maintain uniforms in good condition (not to purchase new items) and that ARES members do not receive UMA.

The next response was that soldiers are required to purchase items which are not compulsory, but are nevertheless ‘required’; and UMA is provided to cover this. It was acknowledged that ARES members do not received UMA … that was just too bad.

It seems that something is not right, and worse still, no-one is prepared to ‘stand up’ in this respect.

With no representative body prepared to address this matter, I’ll write to the Corps RSM and the Reserve Forces Council as the next step.

I’m not holding my breath, but due process has to be followed. (I’m reminded of arguing the case for the Army Combat Badge to be provided to the NOK of those KIA … you get there in the end with a bit of persistence.)

———————————————————————————————————-

11 September 2018

The Well-Being of Members of the RAAC (Former and Present)

Following on from yesterday …

I had a quick and positive response from DVA. Part of which said:

Re Stress Factors: this is important, and Defence/DVA are currently working on improving the Transition Process for discharging members, especially for those 1500 or so personnel who involuntarily leave Defence each year on medical or administrative grounds. Defence has prime leadership in this Transition space.

I was given the email address for the Defence manager with responsibility for this. I emailed him as follows:

Dear ‘Director General’.

DVA has suggested that you might be interested in the factors that I had identified that relate to causes of anxiety in those separating from the Army who served in the Royal Australian Armoured Corps. (See my short paper below: ‘The Stress Experienced by AFV Crews on Active Service’).

I interviewed numerous Vietnam veterans during research for my book ‘Canister! On! FIRE! : Australian Tank Operations in Vietnam’. Many of them were still troubled by factors specifically related their duties as crew members in tanks or APCs. This was confirmed when I consulted with veterans today.

One, whom I’d not interviewed previously, explained that he was still troubled by the extent of wounds inflicted on an enemy soldier by his APC armament. This reminded me of my own tank driver who was worried that he had reversed over an Australian infantryman when he saw an arm caught up in one of the tank’s tracks. I added, therefore, “Coming to terms with the nature of the wounds inflicted on the enemy by the enormous firepower of AFVs” to the list included in the paper.

Not all causes of stress that I’ve identified are confined to combat. There are many which relate equally to the training environment. Should AFVs be employed on active service again, however, these same factors are likely to impact on the crews involved and be relevant when they take their discharge.

I believe (as someone without any medical qualifications) that it could well be instructive for the health care of ADF members and former members, if the stress factors related to their employment in combat (and training for combat) were to be identified and made available to those conducting health assessments.

Many thanks for your consideration ….

PS. I had to laugh … DVA also suggested that “this is something that you and/or your ex-Service Associations might like to independently raise with ….”.

Needless to say, I won’t be contacting the 1AR Assn or RAAC Corporation; but have passed on to another ESO who I believe may help co-ordinate matters.

——————————————————————————————————-

10 September 2018

The Role of Representative Service Organisations

The 1 AR Assn C’tee recently advised that:

The purposes of the 1^st Armoured Regiment Association Inc (as contained in the approved ‘own rules’ constitution) do not include any obligations for the Association to lobby external organisations on any matter, or to support any other individual who wishes to lobby on particular issues.

One of the Purposes of the 1AR Assn specified in the Assn’s Constitution is to:

“Promote and advance or otherwise assist the welfare and well-being of members, their dependants and next of kin ….”.

Despite this ‘Purpose’, the 1 AR Assn C’tee deemed that the following matter is of no relevance and they will not support my efforts to raise it for consideration (hence my having to pursue it alone).

Email to DVA:

“My interest relates to the fact that different ADF employments (eg. infantry, tank crew, submariners etc) must give rise to stressors which are unique to the those individual circumstances.

It occurred to me if these factors were known by medical practitioners who were assessing members on their separation from the ADF or treating them afterwards, it could help them to better understand the issues which most affect their mental health. If this was the case, these factors could be assembled into a generic set (eg. confidence in one’s commander), coupled with those specific to particular employments. This could be made easily accessible using the ADF and medical computer systems.

The ‘paper’ below refers to the experiences of members of Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) crews in Vietnam. For consideration as appropriate …”.

I might be losing it (even more than I knew), but surely something aimed at helping with the treatment of the mental health of 1 Armd Regt personnel who are separating from the Service or who have already separated, is directly related to the welfare and well-being of members of the 1 AR Assn, their dependents and NOK?

Obviously not. I’d ask for an explanation of what constitutes “welfare and well-being”, in the eyes of the C’tee, but I think it might be a ‘request too far’.

Interestingly …the RAAC Head of Corps recently called on the “whole RAAC familiy” to come together to assist those members and former members whose well-being required it.

Postscript. I asked the 1 AR Assn C’tee if they would care to take forward a response to the AWM (who have asked for submissions re a forthcoming major redevelopment) about the need top better portray AFV exhibits, not only as just items of technology, but also from the human perspective of those who crewed and operated them.

The response was the same, ie. this has nothing to do with the Purposes of the Assn and we will not support any lobbying in this respect. BUT … doesn’t more accurate portrayal of the service and sacrifice of members of the Assn, contribute to their well-being? Obviously not.

9 September 2018

What a Great Perspective!

The post below is courtesy of the Centurion Tank Appreciation Society. It might be that the only reason it appeared was because of the tank in the background. When I read the in-coming CO’s message, however, I thought it deserved to stand in its own right.

To me, it represents all the things that are good about leadership in the Army and the responsibility that goes with it. I wish Lt Col Mark Baker the very best for his on-going career.

22 Engineer Regiment (UK)

August 29 at 3:12 AM ·

“Hello, I’m Lt Col Mark Baker and today I succeed Lt Col Dave Bickers as the Commanding Officer of 22 Engineer Regiment.

I’d like to welcome back those of you who have been on leave and I’m sure you’re returning re-freshed and ready to take-on the challenges which lie ahead. To those of you who have recently returned from a successful operational deployment in Estonia or excellent training in Canada please enjoy your well-deserved leave, and to those of you currently on exercise in Thetford good luck over the following weeks.

I’d especially like to introduce myself to the wider regimental family; to the wives, husbands, partners and parents of those serving in the Regiment, and to the institutions, organisations and members of the local community; your support and the support we can offer you is a vital element of a healthy regiment.

It’s a great honour to have been selected to serve and lead this regiment as commanding officer. Over the next few years I look forward to being part of a team continuing to deliver and develop close-support engineer excellence, and ensuring the Regiment remains a diverse and inclusive organisation in which you are proud to either serve, support or continue your association.

I look forward to meeting as a many of you as possible in the forthcoming weeks and months.”

———————————————————————————————————-

9 September 2018

Congratulations to the 1AR Assn C’tee.

Part 5 above used to refer to the following:

I was not able to attend the AGM for health reasons. I explained this to those who demanded on-line, that I attend. Immediately following the AWM, a series of photos appeared on the 1AR Past & Present FB page of a placemat with my name on it at various places within the AGM venue, coupled with the question: “Where is he?”. I complained to the new C’tee about the humiliation of a handicapped person. The President responded to say that the Assn would do nothing (including making an apology) with respect to inappropriate behaviour on a FB page outside their control.

I raised the following question for consideration at the recent C’tee Meeting:

Part of the C’tee’s new governance policy (Annex C to C’tee Meeting Minutes) is that:

“Inappropriate behaviour on a private blog, where access rights cannot be controlled or influenced by the association, is likely to result in the appointment of an association Disciplinary Sub-Committee to examine and report on the behaviour.”

Why does this policy not ALSO apply to a facebook page?

To their credit, the C’tee amended the policy to read:

“Inappropriate behaviour on a private blog or a face book page with privacy settings, where access rights cannot be controlled or influenced by the association, may result in the appointment of an association Disciplinary SubCommittee to examine and report on the behaviour.

I assume that the behaviour described at the top would be considered to be ‘inappropriate’. So it seems that Messrs Souter and Fenton, those behind that post, escape a review by a Disciplinary Sub-Committee (and I miss out on receiving an apology).

Was it not ever thus?

7 September 2018

Policies Involving Ethics, Principles, and Doing the Right Thing :

The Secretary’s Response: Point 6

Background: I asked the Secretary if he could “please explain why you would tell someone [a friend] ‘to go running off’ to me? I consider this offensive”.

Points regarding his response have been considered in Blog posts for 2 to 5 September A final point is considered here.

Another quote from the Secretary’s response to me

I consider that people who either conspire or collude, to create a situation that did not actually exist, to be offensive in the extreme. Perhaps civil litigators would have a better idea of the actions that could be taken against the individuals who were involved in this fabrication of false evidence. It would also be interesting to know what offences may have been committed under the federal Telecommunications Act.

A second reference to ‘colluding’ and ‘litigation’. But …as I haven’t colluded with anyone, why on earth should I be intimidated by references to ‘offences committed’, or ‘civil litigators’? The innuendo here is staggering and can’t accepted without challenging the (implied) allegations … as I have done in the preceding posts.

In his email to me, the Secretary also raised matters in relation to other people … I have no idea about these matters and offer no comment.

Now here we enter into another issue. Although I advised him that I’d respond to his email “point by point”, he has informed me that “The President are of the one opinion [sic] that this matter is closed! “.

Is this ok? Send a member an email alleging all sorts of things in relation to their character, and when told that the member would respond to “point by point”, then state that the matter is CLOSED. Surely everyone has the right of reply?

————————————————————————————————————–

6 September 2018

The Secretary’s Response: Point 5

Background: I asked the Secretary if he could “please explain why you would tell someone [a friend] ‘to go running off’ to me? I consider this offensive”.

Points regarding his response have been considered in Blog posts for 2, 3, 4 and 5 September A further point is considered here.

Part of the response

“In relation to litigation, you should be aware that all emails between various parties, involved in a dispute, are subject to discovery. In general terms, this means that a judge or magistrate may order one or both parties to produce emails that are relevant to a particular matter. In 1995, in the NSW Supreme Court, Justice Sackville ordered Telstra to retrieve all their emails from backup magnetic tapes over a period of approximately five (5) years. It cost Telstra around $20 million to find just three (3) emails in an action launched by British Telecom. Even though many hundreds of thousands of emails had been destroyed by individual users, all the corporate emails were located on servers managed by email providers. The same situation exists today – that is individual users – such as you and me – can delete their emails, but there are a number of copies located on a variety of servers managed by email providers. All of these may be ‘discovered’ under a court order. Why do I need to tell you this? Because if there is any evidence of collusion between individuals on a particular matter, those emails may be located regardless if they have been deleted or not by individual users.”

So, I’m being informed of the above, because the Secretary is concerned that I may have colluded with others “on a particular matter”. I’m not just being ‘informed’, however. There is an inference of intimidation involved which is clear in the way it is stated. But to what end?

My emails can be recovered by the Courts, even if I delete them. So, am I to be intimidated into stopping sending emails? If I was, there would have to be something that I was afraid that could be incriminating if recovered from one of the “variety of servers managed by email providers”.

But I don’t mind if anyone looks at my emails, whether or not they’ve been deleted. I will stand behind them. I’ll also apologise, if in some unintended way, I’ve caused offense to someone. It seems, however, that this not the mantra of the Secretary (which is what this series of posts is all about.)

But, somewhat more interestingly, what might I have been colluding about? What sort of secret agreement might I have been involved in? Is this why the members’ group involved in drafting the new [“my”] Constitution, was mentioned earlier? (See Point 4 yesterday.) Of course not! The whole purpose of redrafting the Constitution was to create a document which met the regulatory requirements … as well as providing natural justice in terms of governance powers and members’ right. The final draft was prepared in conjunction with the President at the time and was the basis of the document subsequently approved by members. Hardly a secret agreement.

5 September 2018

Policies Involving Ethics, Principles, and Doing the Right Thing : The Secretary’s Response: Point 4

Background: I asked the Secretary if he could “please explain why you would tell someone [a friend] ‘to go running off’ to me? I consider this offensive”.

Points regarding his response have been considered in Blog posts for 2, 3 and 4 September A further point is considered here.

As mentioned yesterday (in relation to the “derogatory comment” aspect) … the Secretary included the following in his response:

“From a number of emails that were inadvertently sent to a number of current committee members, it is abundantly clear that there was a distinct pattern of email behaviour between yourself and seven (7) or eight (8) of your supporters in relation to your proposed constitution, as well as derogatory comments about the members of the previous committee (brown shirts, Stalin and not worthy to wear the black beret). It is clear that someone in your email sharing group who is not, or was not, aware of who was on their BCC list.”

To clarify … I sent emails to a number of others about the 1 AR Assn Constitution. Is this an offence? Is my behaviour being brought into question because there was a “distinct pattern” to these? If it is, I plead guilty. I sent emails to others and they responded to me; they sent emails to me and I responded to them. If this distinct pattern of emails is an offence of some sort ,please explain.

The main issue, however, is the imputation that I was responsible for a draft 1AR Assn Constitution which was in some way disadvantageous to the Assn and there were seven or eight others who should also be criticized for supporting me in this respect.

What a load of garbage!! As most members of the 1AR Assn will know, a draft Constitution was advocated by a previous C’tee. This was found to be invalid. A number of members banded to-gether to propose a draft Constitution which would meet regulatory requirements. This was never “my constitution” and those involved were never supporters of “me”. All those involved worked together for the good of the Assn … their draft (with some amendments) has been approved by members.

One might think that the Management C’tee would thank them.

———————————————————————————————————

4 September 2018

Policies Involving Ethics, Principles, and Doing the Right Thing : The Secretary’s Response, Point 3

Background: I asked the Secretary if he could “please explain why you would tell someone [a friend] ‘to go running off’ to me? I consider this offensive”.

Points regarding his response have been considered in Blog posts for 2 and 3 September. A further point is considered here.

The Secretary included the following in his response:

So, just to get this right … some people emailed others and copies of these emails went to unintended recipients, including current C’tee members. This is not unusual … it happens all the time (says he, somewhat red faced).

Apparently, however, someone (who supposedly I know or whose emails I receive) has made derogatory comments about members of the previous C’tee … calling them “brown shirts, Stalin, ‘not worthy to wear the black beret’.

If this was so, is it alleged that I approved of this? It appears that this is the case (as it is ‘my’ email sharing group) and I totally refute the imputation. You only have to go back some months on the 1 AR Assn FB page, where Mr Soutar attempted to publicly humiliate me with a reference to Hitler (a post that was acceptable in terms of the 1 AR Assn FB Admins).

Supposedly, I have an “email sharing group”. I refute this also. I send emails to many people, including a number of so called ‘groups’. If the Secretary wishes to belittle me in relation to supposed derogatory comments on emails, let him make these comments known, so that they can be seen in context. I will stand by whatever I wrote (or apologize if I’ve made an unintended mistake).

I’ll address the other ‘point’ from the quote above, tomorrow.

————————————————————————————————

3 September 2018

Policies Involving Ethics, Principles, and Doing the Right Thing: The Secretary’s Response, Point 2

Following from yesterday …

In my email to the Secretary, I said: “Surely, you realise that what you say as ‘Mr James’ has to be seen to be the same view you hold as the Secretary, 1AR Assn?”

The Secretary’s response to me stated that:

“If you cannot make a distinction between Russ James the individual and Russ James the Secretary, then you also have a problem.”

Let me see if I can get this right. There are times when you are Secretary of the 1AR Assn and times when you are not. As an example, you might be Secretary when we are in your ‘office’ and not the Secretary at all other times. But this might not be right as you might be filling in a Lotto entry in your ‘Office’. So the delineation is more like, you’re the Secretary when you’re thinking like the Secretary and not the Secretary at all other times.

How would this work for other holders of public office. Take the PM, he could do whatever he likes and say whatever he likes when he’s not in the PM ‘groove’. Of course, this wouldn’t really work, because no-one would know what mode the PM was in and if he wanted to disown something he said, he could just say ‘I wasn’t speaking as the PM, I was just being Scomo (and Scomo, the individual, can’t be held accountable, only Scomo, the PM).

So now Mr James states that I have a problem because I can’t differentiate between the two Mr Jameses … one the Secretary and the other ‘Not the Secretary’. I wrote to the Secretary’s email address and received a response from the ’Not the Secretary’s’ email address …does this say something? Presumably Mr James was in the Secretary groove when he opened the email, but moved to the ‘Not the Secretary’ mode when he answered it. This is the ultimate convenience for public officials … being able to be asked a question in an elected capacity and answer it in a non-elected capacity.

I’m sorry … I could make a distinction the Secretary and the individual, but it isn’t along the lines you have proposed. My distinction would be that anything to do with the 1AR Assn is dealt with as the ‘Secretary’ and anything done in a private capacity ’eg. filling in a Lotto coupon’ is dealt with in a ‘Non-Secretary’ capacity.

It is my belief that any matters related to the 1AR Assn that are dealt with by the person who is the Secretary, are always dealt with by him in that capacity. I sent an email to the Secretary about a 1AR Assn matter and received a response from the ‘Non-Secretary’. I don’t believe I have a problem by raising my concern in this respect

P.S. A note from the Secretary … I’m accused of “escalating” that matter, ie. an issue being dealt with in a ‘Non-Secretary’ capacity, is increased in importance, if it is referred to the Secretary. Although a response from the Secretary was requested, this could not be made because of respective levels of importance (which the Secretary allocates).

————————————————————————————————

2 September 2018

Policies Involving Ethics, Principles, and Doing the Right Thing:

The Secretary’s Response, Point 1

The Secretary of the 1AR Assn emailed a friend about a matter related to the Assn, saying:

“End of Story – Finis – go running off to Bruce so that he can copy some of my response on ArmouredAdvocates”.

When I learnt of this, I emailed the Secretary, asking

Can you please explain why you would tell someone ‘to go running off’ to me? I consider this offensive.

His response to me said, in part, “I do not particularly care what you consider to be offensive”.

Did I read correctly? The Secretary of the Assn is saying that he doesn’t care what a member considers to be offensive; at a time when the C’tee is considering a policy regarding what to do about inappropriate behaviour by members on the Internet.

Surely what is and what isn’t considered offensive is at the heart of any such policy? One would hope that what is considered offensive to ordinary members will be taken into account, as well as what is considered offensive to members of the C’tee.

The C’tee has recently approved provision within the Constitution to deny former members of 1 Armd Regt becoming members of the 1AR Assn, if the C’tee considers them unsuitable. Members have no idea as to what makes them suitable or unsuitable in the eyes of the C’tee. Presumably the C’tee is now to implement a policy based on what is, or is not, offensive in their eyes only.

——————————————————————————————

1 September 2018

Stress Suffered by RAAC AFV Crews.

The 1AR Assn has been asked:

As you know, there is a problem with the health of former service personnel and those taking their discharge today. It seems to me that, in relation to RAAC personnel, there are some unique circumstances which have not been taken into account. Would the RAAC Association support a study being undertaken along the lines proposed below? This is to be discussed at the next C’tee Meeting

Whether or not with the support of the 1AR Assn/RAAC Corporation, I will be developing the draft below. If anyone can contribute, please do.

—————————————————————————–

The Stress Experienced by AFV Crews on Active Service

Purpose.

The aim of this paper is to draw attention to some of the factors which may have affected the mental health of Armoured Corps Vietnam veterans, in order to better anticipate the needs of future veterans separating from the Service.

Human Factors in General.

When considering the performance of an AFV, there are obvious characteristics which affect its capability, such as suspension, armour protection, number of rounds carried, visibility provided for crew to control vehicle movement and acquire targets, ease of maintenance, etc etc.

These factors are taken into account when choosing between two contenders for a particular combat role (such as with the LAND 400 combat reconnaissance vehicle at present).

But what are the factors which determine … not how well the crew can fulfil their responsibilities, but rather how safe and confident they feel, eg. whether or not they are likely to suffer anxiety in any of its forms when occupying their crew station?

The British Defence Standard for Designers of Military Land Vehicles acknowledges that identifying these is far from an easy task as “human factors issues are not always quantifiable, unlike engineering parameters”. Furthermore, “humans do not all react in the same way” and their performance varies “with stress, tiredness and extreme environmental conditions”. To complicate matters, man is adaptable and often compensates for “deficiencies in system design to the eventual detriment of his own efficiency, safety, health or well-being”.

Morale.

There are two main determinants of the degree to which AFV crewmen feel ‘comfortable’ in terms of their survivability. Foremost is their confidence in the overall superiority of the system in which they are a part (ie. their commanders at all levels, their battle grouping, and their equipment) … vis a vis the enemy. Following from this, is their confidence regarding the provisions which have been made for their individual protection.

What happens, however, when a loss or reversal in combat is suffered (eg. an AFV is penetrated, causing crew casualties). It is understandable that confidence in the superiority of the overall system is reduced, while provisions for individual survivability are also called into question.

Matters Affecting Confidence in Individual Survivability

All military training is conducted on the basis that it equips service personnel with skills superior to those of the enemy. This means that AFV crewmen are confident in meeting their responsibilities when under fire. They know that their fellow crew members are similarly trained and they will support each other.

When the enemy demonstrates that they possess an equivalent ability, AFV crew have to accept that their vehicle could be penetrated by an anti-armour weapon or severely damaged by an anti-tank mine, leading to a catastrophic ammunition fire. Apart from the obvious anxiety of being wounded or killed at any time, the following matters are some of those which become particularly important:

Being able to exit the AFV quickly if it is ‘knocked out’ or experiences a fire (particularly important for someone like a tank gunner who does not have direct access to the outside);
Knowing that the vehicle fire-fighting system will always operate immediately and effectively;
Being assured of the fire/flash retardant capability of crew combat clothing;
Being kept informed of what is happening beyond the AFV itself and not being forced to imagine the possibilities;
Being able to maintain contact with other crew members and not put in a situation of feeling isolated and alone (as can happen when the inter-communication system fails) and
Knowing that medical support will ensure that all wounded will immediately receive life-saving treatment and evacuation.

Loss of confidence in any of these areas will significantly increase the anxiety and fear that comes with the stress of battle. Should information overload occur in this digital age, the situation will be exasperated.

Post -Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

One definition of PTSD is a particular set of reactions that can develop in people who have been through a traumatic event which threatened their life or safety, or that of others around them. It is generally recognised that it is not only the experience of a single traumatic event which can generate these reactions, other stressful situations (especially if repeated over and over) can have the same effect.

Conclusion.

AFVs, by definition, operate at the forefront of operations against the enemy. Even if a crewman does not directly experience a traumatic event, being enclosed in a vehicle which could be penetrated by an enemy rocket or detonate an anti-tank mine at any time, gives rise to stressful feelings associated with being wounded or killed, being trapped inside an AFV and burnt to death; and/or being abandoned in a disabled vehicle on the battlefield. These thoughts are often made worse by a lack of communication with other crew members, feelings of isolation, and a constant uncertainty about what is happening around him.

There are unique factors which impact on the stress experienced by the crews of AFVs on active service. These must be taken into account when any assessment is made of their mental health.

—————————————————————————————————————————

31 August 2018

Guess what? Just received the following comment: “I have placed responses here before but nothing gets posted? I have time to waste right now so I will try again”. The response: “Don’t bother. Neither my readers nor I are interested in what you do when you want to waste time. Matters related to the betterment of the RAAC are never a waste of time!”.

The RAAC Corporation : Truth and Honesty

To cut a long story short … I made a submission to the Minister for the Coral-Balmoral Battlehonour to be emblazoned on the 1 Armd Regt Standard and for the Vietnam Theatre Honour to have the dates corrected.

The Minister’s office got the letter; sent it to Defence; Defence got the letter and sent it to Army; Army got the letter and sent it to 1 Armd Regt; 1 Armd Regt got the letter and asked the RAAC Corporation if they supported the proposal. The RAAC Corporation made a submission in support of mine.

I asked the Corporation if I could see their submission, they said ‘No!”. I submitted an FOI application, as I believed that withholding such material was unjust (what would the situation be if my submission was not approved because of something incorrect in the Corporation’s statement, supposedly ‘in support’?).

On 19 March 2017, it was stated on the 1AR Facebook page on that:

Bruce Cameron That’s great Noel. Was the submission any different to mine?

Noel Mc Laughlin I wouldn’t know – not having read anybody else’s including yours.

Meanwhile …the FOI process grinds away. Defence justify their latest refusal to provide a copy of the document, in part, as the basis that:

“Ex-service organisations (ESO) are formally recognised by Army as demonstrated in Chief of Army Directive 19/2014 detailing the relationship between Army and ESOs in providing support for wounded, injured and ill soldiers that are still serving and in the process of transition to the civilian life. Many ESOs maintain an informal arrangement with Army to provide welfare support to unit members, and in some cases, are provided the use of vacant office space in support of their work. Many of the ESOs have similar charters as the third party to this request. ESOs are managed by volunteers. The exposure of one member of one organisation could be expected to generate concern within all organisations that are voluntarily staffed.”

Interestingly, at the most recent RAAC Corporation AGM, a motion was passed that member associations did not have the resources, particularly trained members, to provide support to ‘wounded, injured and ill members (or soldiers)’. It was agreed that in these circumstances, personnel in need of welfare assistance would be passed on to the RSL. (I have argued against this policy.)

Defence also makes the point that the “exposure of one member of one organisation could be expected to generate concern within all organisations that are voluntarily staffed”. Excuse me? We should not do anything which would bring to light wrongdoing, because this could make others think twice about doing the same thing? If there was one single reason for releasing the document, I think that this would have to be it. Covering up wrongdoing can only be expected to lead to further wrongdoing. (Of course, it would be even worse if exposing something done really well was to cause concern amongst others.)

Defence also argues that the “document was submitted directly to a specific Defence member [presumably the 2IC 1 Armd Regt who had asked the RAAC Corporation if they supported my submission to the Minister]… implying that … there is no expectation that it be disclosed publicly”. So, if the Chairman of a company wanting to make a donation to the Liberal Party in return for certain ‘favours’ by government, wrote directly to the PM … this could not be subject to FOI action?? Yet another example of the extent to which Defence is grabbing at straws in its denial with respect to this matter.

Why does the RAAC Corporation refuse to release a submission made to Defence on behalf of those it represents? I am one of those. Why am I prevented from seeing representations made on my behalf? How could it be, that doing this would result in “exposure” of a member of the RAAC Corporation executive and this would create concern among other members [that they might also be ‘exposed’]? What is it, that has to be kept secret?

——————————————————————————————————

31 August 2018

What’s my Relationship with Mr Cecil? Part II

Following on from 28 August 2018 ….

As described, I wasn’t told about ‘Mud & Dust’, but the Acknowledgements in the book thank me for my help, Suffice to say, I was very disappointed at being knowingly misled by Mr Cecil.

Supposedly, I was “helping” with the research and contributing to the accuracy of the material in the book (which I didn’t know anything about) … therefore, any inaccuracies, especially as regards AFVs, are partly my fault.

I looked at the book and, with respect to the AFV aspects, in particular … was astounded! If, as clearly implied in the publication, I had been consulted … I would have given differing advice regarding about 66 AFV matters and 46 matters more generally.

A few examples of the AFV aspects are:

p98. “Centurion bridgelayer cs 98D”. The callsign of the tank bridgelayer was 92D (as is shown on the vehicle in the photo).

p100. An impression is given that the Centurion’s UK radios were incompatible with the APC 46/49 installations, in the same way that they were incompatible with the infantry 25 set. This is not correct. Tanks were able to communicate with the APCs because the more recent 46/49 sets had both and old and new ‘squelsh’ setting, whereas the 25 set did not

p104. It is stated that the tank squadron organization in Vietnam comprised three troops of four tanks. As well as being factually wrong (i.e. the official organization was four sabre troops of four tanks), no mention is made of the three tanks per troop order by the task force commander during 1969-70, nor the five tank troop organization adopted in 1971.

p104. “…in November [1968]…the ARVs…carried the callsigns 8B and 8D”. This is not correct. At that time the callsigns were 38B and 38D. (C Sqn LAD became operational on 1 Nov 68; 8B and 8D were the earlier callsigns of the vehicles with 1 Armd Sqn Wksp.)

p113. “ARN 169104 survived an RPG attack in February…”. This description understates the fact that during the attack, the tank was penetrated by three RPG rounds which wounded all the crew, set the tank on fire and forced it to be abandoned.

p125. It is stated that Centurions could push a path through the thickest jungle. Of course, this is not correct. Had it been so, reaching infantry pinned down in front of enemy bunker systems would have been relatively easy. An appreciation of the enormity of what was achieved by tank crews in attacking enemy positions, requires an understanding that the enemy sited his bunker systems in the areas of jungle which were most inaccessible to tanks. Tactics developed accordingly, including guidance from the air (if available).

p136: “…the last tank of C Sqn…to pass the dias in August 1971″. In fact, it was the only tank to pass the dias.

A few examples of the more general matters;

p13. “R&R : Rest and Recreation”. Rest and Recuperation is the formal meaning of the abbreviation.

p18. “1ATF [had] responsibility for securing an entire province”. As the second task Force Commander stated: ‘1ATF did not, as is often supposed, have responsibility for the security of the populated areas of Phuoc Tuy. That responsibility rested squarely on the shoulders of the Province Chief’.

p29: “The Australian Government declared on 30 March that the Australian force was to be reduced by 650 personnel…”. The declaration was actually for a reduction of 1000 personnel, 650 Army and 350 RAAF/RAN.

p53. “…the enemy quickly rolled over the 1RAR Mortar Platoon area and into 102 Fd Bty’s position.” The wording suggests a total capitulation of the Mortar Platoon. As is well known, the position was restored by the determination of the inf to hold ground and fight on, calling for arty fire support as well as Spintex to be fired over their heads. Suggest more appropriate wording would be : ‘…the enemy managed to penetrate the 1RAR Mortar Platoon area and reached 102 Fd Bty’s position.’

p68. ‘…during Operation Toan Thang II in May 1968’. Operation TOAN THANG II took place during the period 13 June—18 July 1968.

p89. “… causing severe injuries, if not death.” The effects of enemy action on Australian soldiers are correctly referred to as ‘wounds’, not injuries.

p105. “1 Fd Sqn had developed two mine roller systems…”. It was, in fact, 1 Fd Sqn Wksp that designed and developed the mine roller systems.

p170. The reference to “MAT” should be MATT. 1ATF employed Mobile Advisory and Training Teams; whereas the US employed Mobile Advisory Teams, MATs. (See also abbreviations at p13.)

Conclusion:

So, where do we stand? I’ve been misled and lied to, and, as a result, the history of the RAAC and the service and sacrifice of its AFV crews have been misrepresented. In my view, there is nothing worse. I think that this pretty well sums up my feelings. I’m not surprised that the AWM does not hold a copy of ‘Mud & Dust’ on its Reference shelves.

——————————————————————————————————–

30 August 2018

Rules of Engagement Etc.

The following article was posted by Greg Lockhart on John Menadue’s Pearls and Irritations http://johnmenadue.com/greg-lockhart-tearing-down-our-heroes/

My comment is as below.

Hi Greg,

Well done in addressing this matter.

While researching a book I was writing about Vietnam, I cast widely. One of the publications I read contained a very confronting account. It was about a night ambush. A wounded enemy soldier could be heard moaning; the HQ was radioed and the response was; ‘Don’t bring back any prisoners!’. Following these orders, the “entire ambush party stood up and emptied their magazines into the body of the wounded soldier”.

To make matters worse, the Foreword was written by a serving senior Army Officer. He stated that the book upheld the finest traditions of the Australian Army.(I like to think he wrote his introductory piece without reading the book itself.) But, at face value, the actions described (ie. a clear abuse of the Rules Of Engagement,ROE) were condoned at a very high level in the public arena.

What do I do? This was an account of unlawful killing (an offence for which I believed there is no statute of limitations). The telephone book had a number for a Defence Whistle-blower hotline. I rang, but they don’t deal with such things, this was a matter for police. So I wrote to the Minister.

Of course, by now I had started to receive pressure from those in the Unit involved … I was supposedly bent on denigrating their reputation. The names of very senior officers were mentioned. To their credit, once I provided copies of the letters I’d written to the Minister, my motivation was accepted and supported.

The published account was such that the Minister had no option other than to have the incident investigated with a view to laying charges, if substantiated. The outcome was that the author had ’embellished’ what had happened, for the sake of greater impact in his book.

How to achieve something positive from all this? I wrote to the Minister again and asked for assurance that ADF training related to the Geneva Convention and ROE were adequate. His response was that a check had been made and training was considered to be appropriate.

What started out as high-level support for an apparent operational failing, which could have cast a slur on all Australian soldiers who served in Vietnam, was investigated and the reputation of Australian soldiers found to be valid. The training of our soldiers today was also confirmed to be appropriate. If the incident had happened as described, however, I believe that we’d all be culpable if our response was to ignore it and do nothing.

I think the above suggests that some soldiers might give accounts of things which actually happened on operations and some might give accounts of things which didn’t happen, although they believed/said they did. All such accounts, if breaches of ROE, need to be investigated without any bias one way or the other. Only then will the reputation of Australian soldiers be able to be maintained.

So where do you stand? Is ADF training adequate?

In my case, it was. During a tank night ambush in Vietnam two enemy were seen approaching (that is, two pairs of legs were seen through the very ‘ordinary’ starlight scopes provided at the time). Rules of Engagement such that we could not engage unless the enemy were positively identified (taken to mean, carrying weapons) … so what do we do? Count Down … Three, Two, One: Switch On! The order related to the tank searchlights which had been set up prior to the ambush.

I don’t know who got the biggest shock, us, or the largest buck deer anyone could imagine! (The four legs turned out to be attached to one animal, albeit a big one).

——————————————————————————————-

28 August 2018

What’s my Relationship with Mr Cecil?

This question has arisen following the blog posts on 25/26 August 2018.

During most of my writing of the story of Australian Tank Operations in Vietnam, Mr Cecil was helpful (he was an employee of the AWM at the time). I acknowledged this at the start of the book.

Towards the end, however, he became somewhat distant. He explained that he was working on a “secret project that he was even allowed to tell his fellow staff members about”. I accepted this and continued to pass photographs and other material to him that I thought might be useful for the AWM.

Given that he was the Curator of Military Heraldry and Technology, I also passed on to him items like my uncle’s WWII RAF collar stud with hidden compass and a collector’s selection of ‘made safe’ ammunition from WWI and later. I didn’t receive an official receipt. I trusted him to pass them on for the benefit of the AWM. I now know that I should’ve received an AWM ‘receipt’.

It turned out that his secret project was a book being undertaken by him in his AWM role about ‘vehicles’ used in Vietnam. (It was published under the title ‘Mud & Dust’.) The reason for becoming ‘distant’, was I believe, that the Director of the AWM told him not to have anything more to do with me, as I had been advocating persistently for corrections to be made to RAAC related matters in the Vietnam Gallery. Examples of these are:

The narrative states that “Balmoral was occupied by soldiers of 3RAR and a tank squadron”…this should be ‘soldiers of 3RAR and a tank troop’.

It is stated that APCs were vulnerable to machine gun fire and grenades. Presumably the reference to grenades was meant to be RPGs. It would be better to say: ‘APCs offered very little protection against anti-armour weapons such as RPGs.

The caption accompanying a weapon display states that when the enemy acquired the RPG7, Australian tanks and APCs could be penetrated. This infers that the RPG2 could do neither. This is incorrect. The RPG2 could penetrate APCs and Centurion tanks; the latter, anywhere other than the front of the hull and [front of the] turret.

Part II soon.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

27 August 2018

See ‘Part 5’ above (just added).

———————————————————————————————-

26 August 2018

It’s the Detail That’s Important.

Question 1: Why is the following quote and footnote from ‘Canister! On! FIRE!’(COF) so important?

“While all of the tanks deployed to Vietnam were supposed to have been fully upgraded, one of the dozers [169079] was not fitted with RMG/IR. With only one dozer in the tank squadron for the Ambrose Contingency Plan, the new Establishment for Vietnam (which included two dozers) might have come as a surprise.”

Footnote: “The logbook for the other dozer, ARN 169106, shows that its modifications were not completed until 5 October 1967″. M.K. Cecil, pc, 24 March 2003. This could explain why the crew commanders, Sergeants Bob Snape and Graeme Millington, were required to remain at Bandiana right up until the last minute to help prepare their vehicles.

Answer: Because it shows that the logbook for the most significant Centurion in terms of 1 Armd Regt’s operational service might not have been lost. Mr Cecil either had it, or had access to it, in 2003. It was supposed to have been held in the Tank Museum; but along with all the other logbooks for Centurions at Puckapunyal … it later ‘disappeared’. We now know that Mr Cecil had referred to it before it supposedly vanished. It’s to be hoped that he will help with the search for it (and the others) … see yesterday’s blog.

Question 2: Why is Centurion ARN 169106 (now located outside the Sgts Mess at SoA) significant?

Answer: It was the first tank from 1 Armd Regt RAAC to fire a main armament round in action; the first tank to detonate an anti-armour mine; and the first tank to be penetrated by an anti-armour weapon. Quotes from COF provide background:

8 March 1968: “Not long after, with the vegetation becoming thicker, [Sergeant Bob] Snape sensed movement close at hand. He immediately traversed and ordered his gunner, Trooper Des Mahar, to fire canister. This was a speculative engagement, designed to pre-empt a possible ambush. While no sign of enemy was revealed, the incident was significant historically: the first tank round had been fired in action by 1st Armoured Regiment, RAAC, since being raised on 7 July 1949.”

22 May 1968: “There was no doubt that the blast was a powerful one. Lance Corporal John Panton, travelling directly behind in 3ZeroDelta, recalls ‘a roadwheel going up into the air well above the dust cloud’. Should the running figure have been a VC, using the commander’s machine gun to engage him, was not an option for McConnell: the ammunition belt for the commander’s .30cal machine gun had been thrown into the air by the blast. He was now wearing it around his neck. Informing those in other vehicles was also impossible, that is, until the radios were retuned.

6 June 1969: “Trooper Peter Chapman, 2ZeroEcho’s operator, was standing on his seat looking out over the top of the turret, when he heard small arms fire raking the side of the tank. He immediately dived into the turret to prepare the guns for ‘action’. That instant, an RPG penetrated the turret directly above him.

[I wonder how many of us even know about the RPG strike, let alone have looked for it when we passed the tank?]

————————————————————————————————-

25 August 2018

The Accusations

Mr Soutar, a member of the 1 AR Assn, has recently posted on a Facebook site that I “tried to destroy Tony Crook’s [The then President of the 1AR Assn] military & civilian careers with accusations of the theft of log books from the museum”; “An investigation was conducted which found him [Crook] not guilty and I don’t have the courage to apologise”; and “I’m a FUCKING IDIOT and no-one is prepared to stands [sic] up to [me] and, hold [me] to account”.

The Facts:

I did NOT accuse Mr Crook of the theft of log books from the Tank Museum. I stated that it had been reported that the log books had gone missing from the Museum while he was a member of the Museum C’tee, but there was no evidence for this (ie. whether or not he was ever a member of the C’tee or if he was, that the logbooks disappeared during that period). The Army History Unit considered that the disappearance of the logbooks was significant and that an investigation should be conducted. As I’d stated, there was no evidence that Mr Crook had been responsible in any way, so it was no surprise that the investigation did not reach any such conclusion. If the investigator had wanted to do so, I could’ve been asked who it was that reported the matter. I wasn’t and it seemed that the investigation was rightly focused on matters related to inventory and record keeping at the time.

We now know that Mr Cecil had, or had access to, one of the missing logbooks in 2003. Mr Cecil was, at that time, an employee of the AWM. He had been appointed to provide advice to the Tank Museum C’tee and so visited Puckapunyal frequently in that capacity. (Interestingly, his wife, a fantastic artist, was commissioned to do the portraits of contemporary RAAC personnel in the Messes and Museum.) This arrangement whereby the AWM advised re the management of the Museum changed when the Army History Unit became responsible for all Army museums. The investigation (above) found that the logbooks were not present when they took over.

The questions, as asked of Mr Cecil on the blog a couple of days ago, are

Do you have the logbooks for the above Centurions [ie. those at Puckapunyal which should be in the Tank Museum]?

If so, how did you come to acquire them?

If not, do you know who does?

Mr Cecil and Mr Crook would have been well acquainted. They may or may not have been friends. When Cent ARN 160056 was transferred to the AWM from Puckapunyal in 2008, Mr Cecil said that the logbook was in the Tank Museum* and arranged for it to be transferred to the AWM..

When the subject of the missing logbooks was raised on the Members’ Forum in 2015, the Forum was quickly shut down. Mr Crook stated that a formal complaint had been made, but he was not at liberty to say who had made it or what it was about.

There is a lot more to the ‘story’ than that referred to above. If Mr Soutar wishes to rake over this point by point, I’m prepared to do so. He should be aware, however, that the matters involved bring no credit to either the 1 AR Assn or a number of individuals.

An associated matter is to be considered at the next 1AR Assn C’tee Meeting …

“1AR Assn policy states that:’Inappropriate behaviour on a private blog, where access rights cannot be controlled or influenced by the association, is likely to result in the appointment of an association Disciplinary Sub-Committee to examine and report on the behaviour.’ Why does this policy not also apply as follows:’Inappropriate behaviour on a private Facebook page, where access rights cannot be controlled or influenced by the association, is likely to result in the appointment of an association Disciplinary Sub-Committee to examine and report on the behaviour?’.”

Defence acted appropriately when the Centurion fleet was disposed of. Logbooks stayed with their vehicle, as with a car when it is sold (this is recognised to increase its value). The logbooks for tanks used as range targets went to Australian Archives (those for tanks which had been used in Vietnam, went to the AWM). Log Books for tanks retained by Defence stayed with the tanks, ie, logbooks for the tanks at Puckapunyal were held by the Museum, logbooks for the Cents at Bandiana went with them. In keeping with this arrangement, the logbooks for tanks sold privately, went to the purchaser of the tanks (these were later bought in a bulk lot by Mr Cecil),

———————————————————————————————

24 August 2018

The Ideal World

(The following post from 19 July 2018 has been updated.)

In such a world there would be nothing for Armouredadvocates to have to draw attention to.

This would mean:

Members of the RAAC who participated in Operation Hammersley would be entitled to the RVN Cross of Gallantry Unit Citation.

Armoured crewmen would be entitled to wear a ‘silver’ Army Combat Badge (or other such badge) to acknowledge the unique dangers they face in combat.

Serving members of the RAAC would carry into combat a personal weapon which provided effective rapid and hard hitting firepower.

2/14 QMI (ACR) would be equipped with a full squadron of tanks and have access to an adequate repair pool.

2/14 QMI (ACR) would operate from a base which provided good access to training areas and suitable housing and schooling for families.