1 September 2015 - armouredadvocates



1 September 2015

Italian Tankette on Display at the AWM

On loan from Canadian War Museum, the Carro Veloce (‘fast tank’) L3/33 is thought to have been captured in North Africa between 1940 and 1941 by British and Commonwealth troops.

In 1929 the Italians purchased a number of Vickers Carden-Loyd light tanks from Britain .  The first version they produced under licence was the CV 29, after this came the CV 33.  In 1938 the CV 33 was redesignated the CV L3/33.

It weighs approx 3 tonnes and is about 3m long and 1.5m high.  Initially armed with a single machine gun, it was later equipped with two.  The driver sat on the right hand side and the gunner on the left.  Powered by a Fiat four-cylinder, 2.7 litre petrol engine, the CV’s small size is an advantage during reconnaissance work.

[pic]

After its capture, the Carro Veloce was taken to England where it was examined before being sent to Canada.  It will be on display at the Memorial about two years (an M3 Stuart from the AWM being displayed in Canada in exchange).

Interestingly, the Carden-Loyd light tank on which the CV design was based, was itself the basis for the Universal (Bren Gun) Carrier.  This has been described as the most widely manufactured AFV in history.

Defence Force Reserves 2015 Conference (21 August 2015)

Still no outcomes, transcripts, or media releases.  What’s happened?

Vale : Curly Templeton 

From Gerry McCormack (see also earlier posts):

“Curly Templeton Drove off The Parade Ground yesterday, 31st Aug 2015. 

His funeral was held at Palmdale just North of Gosford and was attended by about 200 people. Curly retired there in 1985 and set about making his mark on the district especially with Legacy. He was President of the local branch (Brisbane Waters) in 1989- 1990 and again 1997-1998. 

His AATTV mates were in strength, especially his former CO during his time in SVN, Brig Ray Burnard. 

Curly was selected from the NZ Territorial Forces to attend the NZArmy OTU and then by the NZ Army to be one of the 10 Kiwis to come to RMC Duntroon 1950-53. He graduated into the RNZAC but then transferred to the RAAC in 1957. His first posting was to 1 Armd that year, then promoted Capt and made Adjt Jan 1958 to KRG Coleman and then JM Maxwell. Over to 10th LH, back to 1 Armd on promotion and then Staff College, LWC and AATTV. Into the Directorate where he looked after the Lts and Capts of the 1970’s and made himself well known to us all. 

——————————————————————————————————

2 September 2015

Email Exchange With 1AR Assn Committee re Chris Leihy 

Dear C’tee (30 August) 

“I ascertained some time ago that unit associations are ‘free’ to list those whose death is largely associated with wounds they received on active service … as DOW. 

A number of late Vietnam veterans are listed on the 1AR Assn Honour Roll on this basis.  Is it possible for the 1AR Assn to establish if Chris should be listed in this way?  (Circumstances relating to his service are copied below …  a partial extract from my book, ‘Canister! On! FIRE!’) . See Blog post of 30 August.

—————————————————————————–

Dear Bruce (1 September) 

Thanks for the concern re Chris status, your first point of call is DVA once they have determined the nature of his death and confirmed him as DOW we would certainly list him that way. 

Again many thanks for your concern and good luck with DVA.

—————————————————————————–

Dear C’tee (1 September)

Thanks for your reply to my email.  

May I remind you of my question: “Is it possible for the 1AR Assn to establish if Chris should be listed [on the 1AR Assn Honour Roll] in this way [ie. as DOW]. 

My purpose in asking was to draw attention to the wounds that Chris suffered in Vietnam and the consequent medical issues he endured throughout life (“Leihy had to have two cracked teeth removed. He was able to see again after three days. Later operations included triple spinal fusion, pins in an arm, and the insertion of a steel plate in his mouth. He later suffered major hearing loss and had to walk with the aid of sticks.”)  

I had hoped that he might be honoured by the Assn with his listing on the Honour Roll, if it was found that these wounds were responsible for his early death. 

You avoided answering the question.  Of course it is ‘possible’ for the 1AR Assn to do this … I was just being polite.  

My question really was: ‘Will the 1AR Assn do it?’.  Your response makes it clear that the Assn will not (though no reason is given). 

You have stated that I (or anyone other than the Assn) need to establish the nature of the cause of Chris’ death by contacting DVA. 

You are misinformed here.  There are three (possibly four, I don’t know the details as to where Sgt S Stone was WIA) former members of 1AR listed on the 1AR Assn Honour Roll whose death could be attributed to their wounds, but who died after the prescribed period of the Vietnam War.  

I investigated at some length with the AWM and DVA as to how those in these circumstances could be respectfully honoured.  DVA have no requirement (nor responsibility) to determine whether a soldier’s death (outside the prescribed period of a war) is attributable to active service.  

I was able to establish that if unit associations determined that one of their members died as a result of wounds suffered, then they (ie. the unit associations) may list that person on their Honour Rolls.  

How is the cause of death established?  It is up to the Unit Association to set guidelines.  I would suggest that the first port of call (to use your phrase) is the Noticas information re the incident in which the wounding occurred.  Following that, enquiries with the NOK/family are likely to verify the effect that the wounds had on the health of the member in later life; finally, the treating doctor could give an opinion.  

Obviously, from your response, the 1AR Assn C’tee is not prepared to allocate resources for such an undertaking. (I’m surprised, as I would’ve expected this to be the very least that a unit association would be prepared to do for one of its deceased members who had been WIA.)  

Given that the Association representing the unit with which Chris was serving will not do so, individual members of 1st Armoured Regiment will honour his memory to the best of their ability.

——————————————————————————————————

3 September 2015

Vietnam Casualties

Just when we’ve got the PM and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs referring to the sacrifices made by service personnel in Vietnam, a new book refers to “521 men”.  (The point being that not all 521 were men.)  It’s easy to see how the Army newspaper can come to make the same mistake (see last week’s posts).

Of course in terms of misinformation, the fundamental omission is that of not qualifying the figure by noting that 521 is the number of fatalities up until 29 April 1975.  The hundreds of others who have died as a direct result of their wounds after this date, are not mentioned.

Speaking of which …

Email Exchange With 1AR Assn Committee re Chris Leihy (cont from yesterday)

Dear Bruce (2 September)

“You are very quick to criticize the 1AR committee for not doing what you want, when you want, things take time and you of all people should know this.  Instead of asking the Assoc to do something and then writing a rude letter when you don’t get you way, ASK  the Committee is there anything I can do to make this happen?, we are not hear at your beck and call, we are all volunteers with families and full time jobs.   

I am not going to let this  become a political football and I am not going to get into an argument with you about this, but if you think that Chris`s early death is attributed to wounds he sustained and therefore should be classed as DOW, please get in touch with Chris`s family, because according to the Honor Roll dept of DVA (I have just spent an hour on the phone to them) the request must come from the family and they will have to produce all the medical evidence to DVA. I thank you for your concern which I believe is an genuine effort to honor Chris.”

Dear C’tee (2 September) 

“If you believe that certification from DVA is required before the 1AR Assn can list someone as DOW on the Assn’s Honour Roll, then the Assn should remove the names of those currently listed whose deaths occurred outside the prescribed period of the Vietnam War; there are three … another is not listed on the Vietnam Nominal Roll so must be from another conflict.  (I explained the actual requirements for such listing in my earlier email. ) 

You have spent an hour on the phone to DVA, I’ve spent years campaigning to have the sacrifice of those who die as a result of their wounds, but are ineligible to be listed on the AWM’s Roll of Honour because of the date of their death …. formally acknowledged by the Nation.  Progress is slowly being made in this respect. 

Second point … I simply asked if it was possible for the Assn to establish if Chris’s death was caused by his wounds (at this time I thought the Assn’s Vic Rep was in touch with Chris’s family).  

If you’d simply said that the C’tee is keen to establish if this was the case, but is too busy to follow up at present …  then help in doing so, could have been offered.  Instead, you avoided the question, while making it clear that the Assn was not prepared to do anything along these lines.  

So be it … others will seek to determine if the wounds of a member of the Assn whose tank detonated a mine and whose subsequent operations included triple spinal fusion, pins in an arm, and the insertion of a steel plate in his mouth and who lived out his remaining life with major hearing loss and walked with the aid of sticks …  has justification to be listed as DOW.”

——————————————————————————————————

4 September 2015

September: Defence White Paper Month?

Everything is very quite… has the Dept of Finance finished doing the numbers?

Paratus. 

The Paratus topic is becoming really interesting.  Email (yesterday) to the Corps Historian:

“There is some discussion as to whether Paratus means ‘Ready’ or ‘Prepared’.  (Both meanings are quoted in ‘official’ publications.) 

Of course it’s usage goes back the Aust Tank Corps badge in 1927.  

Do you happen to know of any documentation (letters patent etc) which indicate the origin of the motto? 

There is an argument to suggest that it is wrong to attribute the meaning to a single word.  

There is, for example, evidence of an oath taken by Roman legions: “We will do what is ordered and at every command we will be ready“ … the ‘ready’ being Paratus. 

Also, in a military context, Paratus can mean “equipped”. That raises interesting speculation as to whether those who originally proposed the motto were aware of that interpretation, ie. a regiment fully prepared with the right kit, soldiers, and training to do the job.” 

LAND 400 Phase 2 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV) 

Tenders have closed and as reported previously, there are four contenders.  The latest issue of the very up to date and comprehensive ‘Defence Technology Review’ provides some surprising news.

Previously Armouredadvocates advised that BAE Systems Australia  intend to offer the Patria Armoured Modular Vehicle (AMV).  Built by Patria (Finland) the vehicle can be fitted with various turret options, and is currently in-service with a number of armies. Armour protection against 30 mm APFSDS rounds is part of the modular concept.  Two uparmoured Polish Army vehicles were allegedly hit in Afghanistan by RPG-7 rockets, but were not penetrated.  On the face of it, the main shortcoming would seem to be the pwr when fitted with maximum modular armour protection.  

[pic]

DTR advises that BAE systems have opted for a 35mm weapons system, compared to the 30mm turret options expected to equip the other contenders.  The increased effectiveness of the armament is expected to be major plus, but the increased weight has to be wondered at.  (Britain’s Warrior IFV is to be fitted with a 40mm gun, however, this is a tracked vehicle.)

A previous AA post advised that “General Dynamics Land Systems & Thales have not decided which vehicle to offer.  It is expected to be either LAV 700, LAV 6.0 or Piranha V”.  No decision had been announced when DTR went to press yesterday.

What a great project this is.  Major global AFV manufacturers are vying to offer a MOTS vehicle tailored to best meet Australia’s unique requirements.  Fingers crossed that the project team will continue to be resourced to keep up the good work.

——————————————————————————————————-

5 September 2015

Communicating RAAC Matters

Last month Armouredadvocates asked why the RAAC Corporation didn’t use its own website to communicate with the RAAC ‘family’.  The RAAC Corporation website  now has a ‘News’ page.  Fingers crossed that the website will attract the attention it deserves and relevant news items will be posted accordingly.

RAAC ARES Units. 

Previous posts have referred to a ‘crisis’ in the RAAC ARES.  This refers to the possibility that RAAC units will be forced to adopt a dismounted ‘light cavalry’ (aka infantry) function, rather than maintaining a role of augmenting the ARA RAAC units.  Armouredadvocates provided a position statement for the 2015 Defence Reserves Association Conference which was held recently (copied below).

So far no transcripts from the Conference have been made public, nor outcomes announced.  The Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence, the Hon David Feeney, addressed the Conference and his Office has kindly provided a copy of his speech.

Two extracts from his speech are copied below:

“The capability requirement of Army Reserve is now precisely defined. Army Reserve must now stand up a Ready and Deployable military capability every single year: a Battle Group Plus.” 

“To add to this challenge, components of the Battle Group Plus generated by Army Reserve include specialists, who will require a special training focus. The cavalry force elements of 2 DIV must now be proficient in operating and sustaining PMVs, specifically Bushmasters. The plan of the former Labor Government to roll out Bushmasters to the cavalry of 2 DIV is a critical test for Plan BEERSHEBA; it is emblematic of the reality that Army Reserve is delivering a ready and deployable capability every year.” 

It is clear that this concept is complexly at odds with RAAC ARES units being relegated to dismounted infantry.  The Shadow Minister’s full speech can be found under ‘Articles’ … 2015 DRA Conference Speech

A Position Statement re the RAAC ARES for the 2015 Defence Reserves Conference.

The function of RAAC ARES units is that of augmenting the RAAC ARA capability to conduct mobile operations. 

The goal of RAAC ARES force structure is to provide for a regt HQ and both a cav and APC sqn to be linked with the multi-role ARA ‘ready’ brigade, as per Plan Beersheba. 

The above structure is to be supported by remaining RAAC ARES units, using limited cadre and pool training assets, as required according to the status of their paired brigades as part of the ‘readying’ and ‘reset’ force generation cycle. 

The function of unit establishment reviews and resource allocation is to ensure that each three years, an RAAC ARES ACR (-) will reach the operational readiness level required to support the ARA multi-role ‘ready’ brigade and will be capable of maintaining this level of readiness for 12 months. 

The above position statement recognizes that on-going commitment is required to agree unit roles, unit cadre entitlements, and training pool composition and location. Such a challenge, however, is well within the capabilities of ARA/ARES joint implementation arrangements.       

——————————————————————————————————

6 September 2015

Paratus

The research into the meaning attributed to it when the motto was decided upon continues …  We have on one hand the oath taken by Roman legions: “We will do what is ordered and at every command we will be ready” … the ‘ready’ being Paratus.

A number of other meanings are possible, however.  For example, also in the context of the Roman legions, Paratus can mean “equipped”.  This raises interesting question as to whether the person who originally proposed the motto was aware of that interpretation, ie. a regiment fully prepared with the right kit, soldiers, and training to do the job. 

At this point it is important to acknowledge that the significance of the original question is not just that associated with military history per se, but rather that related to the fundamental acceptance of the motto by which a Regiment serves, ie. if an attribution to a motto is made, then that becomes the heart of a Regiment’s tradition.  It’s fascinating to think that there is so much more behind the motto, than that conveyed by a single word.

In terms of Paratus as ‘equipped’, General Sir John Monash is quoted as saying: “Make it your creed to equip yourself for life, not solely for your own benefit but for the benefit of the whole community.”

AWM.

Interesting time spent last week advising the AWM re captions for Vietnam photos not yet released to the public.  Came across a photo of the late John McCarthy which was a better image than that shown on the Roll of Honour.  Also noticed a photo of ‘Bud’ Abbott and Danny Handley which might be of interest to Military Heraldry and Technology team re the M113A1 in the Collection that they crewed.

Yesterday was the ‘Big Things in Store’ open day at the AWM Annex at Mitchell.  Of particular interest was Centurion 169108 (one of few centurions which was not rebuilt after Vietnam).  Stephen White,  building the 1:6 scale model in the UK (based on 169064), was keen to see photos of specific aspects.  One of which was that related to the carriage of pioneer tools.  Interestingly, when the track guards were replaced at 106 Fd Wksp, the brackets for securing tools were left off.  If I’d been asked, I’d have been sure that the tools were always carried on the track guards.  Now I’m not sure where we carried them.

[pic]

Because of its almost unique build standard, 169108 was purchased by the AWM from a private owner.  As is related in ‘The Shame of the Centurion Lof Books’, this means that they don’t have the log book for it (and are unlikely to be able to acquire even a copy, given the refusal to share any information on the part of the private collector who purchased the log books of Centurions sold by Defence … on a confidential basis).

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

7 September 2015

Update on Herbie

Herbie’s gall bladder operation has been delayed … fingers crossed that he’ll be home from hospital very soon.

LAND 400/ARES RAAC

Part of one of the posts on 4 September stated (in relation to LAND 400): “What a great project this is.  Major global AFV manufacturers are vying to offer a MOTS vehicle tailored to best meet Australia’s unique requirements.  Fingers crossed that the project team will continue to be resourced to keep up the good work”.

There was considerable concern earlier in the year that the First Pass Approval and subsequent Request for Tender (RFT) might be delayed, resulting in a ‘capability gap’.  Fortunately this turned out not to be the case and the project is proceeding on schedule.  The reason that the timeline associated with a capability gap became so critical, is interesting.

It might be partly explained by Andrew Erskine (a nom de plume) who wrote the following in the Winter 2007 edition of the ADA’s Defender journal:

“Our Vietnam-era M113 armoured personnel carriers, even when some are upgraded, will still be limited in where they can be safely and effectively deployed. They are now, in effect, only a regional peacekeeping capability. Our ASLAVs needed considerable modernisation before they could be committed to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are also now nearing the end of their second decade in harness. Our new Bushmaster armoured trucks are proving capable but they are not armoured fighting vehicles and were never intended to be. They were essentially the result of a money-driven compromise that again postponed the necessary replacement of the M113 and the ASLAV by a proper infantry fighting vehicle ” 

There is a fundamental issue here.  Was it the right decision to categorise the Bushmaster as a ‘truck’ and transfer responsibility for it to the RACT?  The dilemma is made apparent by the allocation of Bushmaster, under Plan Beersheba, to the RAAC ARES … a situation which has left some bodies arguing that the RAAC ARES should be restricted to a dismounted light cavalry (aka infantry) role.

Armouredadvocates does not know all the ‘facts’, but takes the view that providing armoured mobility to infantry is a RAAC role.  It is acknowledged that the approach to the objective and delivery onto the objective, require different vehicles (eg. an IFV for the latter).  If armoured protection is necessary for the former, however, then the skills associated with contact with the enemy are also necessary.  These skills are vested in the RAAC, not the RACT.

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

8 September 2015

LAND 400

“Land 400 delayed as Rosomak heads down under.”  This was the headline of an article in the latest edition of a UK military equipment magazine.  It went on the say: “The Australian Army is to receive three Rosomak 8×8 armoured fighting vehicles by the end of the year for testing for the Land 400 Phase 2 programme.“ 

First thoughts are … so it is that misinformation is circulated and rumours get started.  What “delay”? And if there was a delay, what does the Rosomak 8×8 have to do with it?  Although the RFT completion date was extended by some weeks, it really doesn’t follow that the Project itself has been delayed.  Reference to three Rosomak vehicles being delivered to Australia is of greater interest, however.

The Rosomak 8×8 is actually the Polish manufactured version of the Patria AMV.  An update on the Patria/BAE contender for LAND 400 was given in Armouredadvocates last week, 4 September.  (See recent comment in the Australian Defence Magazine, below.)

Under LAND 400 requirements, each manufacturer whose contender is selected for evaluation will be required to provide three vehicles.  The authorative Defence Technology Review (August edition) suggested that three contenders would be an ideal number for evaluation, but that would leave one of the four tenderers significantly ‘out of pocket’.  Tenders have only recently closed.  If the UK article above is to be believed, it must be assumed that all four contenders are to be evaluated.  Whether or not this is the case, will be ‘officially’ known in the coming months.

ADM:  “BAE Systems is teaming up with Patria to offer the AMV35 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV). This solution combines Patria’s Armoured Modular Vehicle (AMV) and BAE Systems Hägglunds’ E35 turret system. Both are qualified and in service with NATO nations. 

The BAE Systems-Hägglunds manned turret system is fitted to the CV90 family of infantry fighting vehicles operated by seven nations. It has been used on UN and NATO missions across the globe, including Afghanistan.  

“The AMV35 is an outstanding combat reconnaissance platform that integrates BAE Systems-Hägglunds’ E35 turret onto a modern, agile, highly protected Patria Armoured Modular Vehicle (AMV), both of which have attained a fearsome reputation based on their operational performance in Afghanistan,” BAE Systems Australia Chief Executive Glynn Phillips said.”

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

9 September 2015

Japanese Tankette on Display at the AWM

The Ha-Go light tank is a fascinating AFV (one of its ‘quirks’ is having its turret offset to the left of the hull).  Unfortunately it is not on permanent display at the AWM.  The following letter to the AWM is self-explanatory.  The references quoted tell the amazing story of the tank’s acquisition and restoration.

[pic]

Dear Sir,

In the ABC news item  from last month, Karl James is featured in connection with the Type 95 Ha-Go Japanese light tank which was moved to the AWM as part of the VP Day 70th Anniversary Commemoration.

The article states that “The so-called ‘tankette’ is one of two identical Japanese infantry weapons, each of which carried a crew of four and weighed more than seven tonnes”.  While I don’t understand the reference to “two identical Japanese infantry weapons”, I wish to query the reference to ‘a crew of four’.  This information was contained in the AWM’s media backgrounder  . 

(This document also states that: “The tank was obsolescent by 1942, and completely outclassed allied tanks later in the War”.  I think the media backgrounder meant to advise that the Type 95 Ha-Go light tank ‘was completely outclassed by allied tanks later in the War’.)

The backgrounder probably drew on the AWM’s collection data, ie. “The Type 95 tank had a crew of four: commander, gunner, driver, and hull gunner” ().  As far as I can find, the AWM is the sole source to refer to a crew of four.  

All other references, books/Internet, refer to a crew of three (driver, bow machine gunner, and commander).  The first two were seated next to each other and the commander had to load, aim and fire the turret weapons by himself.  A few of the Internet references are: ; ; ; and  .(There was another contemporary Japanese tank which had a crew of four, the Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank, but this weighed 15 tonnes.)

Could you please pass this query to the relevant area for any value it might contain.

——————————————————————————————————-

10 September 2015

2015 Defence White Paper

September was mooted as the time for release of the DWP, however, this now seems unlikely.  A recent media report suggests October, however, Minister Andrews won’t commit to any specific timing other than “later in the year”.  He has emphasized that all aspects will be fully costed and one suspects that the Department of Finance are working overtime. 

LAND 400

Defence advises that: “Detailed [tender] evaluation is currently underway.  An announcement of the initial short list of Tenderers selected to participate further in risk mitigation activities (RMA) is currently planned for March 2016.”

The latest issue of Defence Technology Review advises that Elbit/STK are likely to offer a second generation version of their UT 30mm unmanned turret.  Armouredadvocates earlier assessment of this bid is copied below.  It seems that the unmanned turret option might have been chosen to save weight, given the limited power to weight ratio (see below).  The choice makes for added interest in the mix of contenders to be evaluated: two man turrets, one 35mm and two 30mm; and a 30mm unmanned turret.

“Elbit Systems of Australia (ELBA) have teamed with Singapore Technologies Kinetics (STK) to offer the Terrex II 8 x 8.  Elbit have a corporation relationship with Israel and have been involved with a number of IDF projects.  Presently the Terrex II is undergoing evaluation as part of the US Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle Project.  Being able to swim is not a requirement for the Land 400 CRV; however it would certainly be a bonus if the operational requirements can be met.  Applique armour is available and this might hold the key.  With a likely weight of 30 tonnes and engine power of 300 KW, however, the limited power to weight ratio (pwr) is likely to be a shortcoming.  Armouredadvocates feels that the ‘Conclusion’ below remains valid, though this could change if ELBA/STK come up with an up-engined Terrex which the MOTS criteria.”

Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) 

Dear Editor,

In yesterday’s ‘issue’ of the Strategist, Rapid Fire states: “On 3 September, four US soldiers were injured in an explosion on Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, in an incident that suggests that the fight against Islamic State might be developing a new front”. 

I know that the use of the term “injured” comes from the US Air Force Times, however, it’s not in quotation marks, so one has to assume that it’s ASPI’s editorial policy.

I’m sure that you’re aware that it’s a mark of respect for service personnel to differentiate between those who are ‘injured’ by, say, tripping over a tent peg, and those that are ‘wounded’ by enemy action.   Some of us have been trying to promote this difference for some time (see attached sample). 

RAAC Corporation

No new ‘news’ on the RAAC Corporation’s website.   Wonder what the Corporation is doing?

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

11 September

Herbie Green Update

“Herb is now home … minus his Gall Bladder …  he sounds very weak and his convalescence could be slow”.

Am I Right?

Is this a photo of the late Peter Priedie (‘owner’, John Baxter, RAAC Facebook page)?

Japanese Tankette on Display at the AWM

The query to the AWM re the crew of the Type 95 Ha-Go Light Tank was posted a couple of days ago.  The AWM have responded to say that the tankette actually had a crew of four (see below, one has to wonder if the ‘petty officers’ were those assigned to the AFVs while on the landing craft, rather than being members of their crews).  The Tank Museum at Bovington has been asked to consider. 

From AWM:

Most modern  secondary sources propose that the Ha-Go was crewed by three.  I have often quoted that figure myself.  However, this is contradicted by the following three sources, which indicate that the crew was indeed four: 

Recent research conducted in Japan by Colonel Tim Gellel, Director, Attaché and Overseas Management , International Policy Division, an expert Japanese linguist, has uncovered the names of the crewmen of the Ha-Go tanks deployed by the Japanese forces at Milne Bay in August 1942.

Kure No.5 Special Naval Landing Force Tank Crews 

|Tank Crew |  |Fate |

|No.1 Detachment |Petty Officer 1st Class Ishigami |Survived |

| |Naminaka |Killed 31 Aug 1942 |

| |Tanabe |Killed 28 Aug 1942 |

| |Emura |Killed 31 Aug 1942 |

|No.2 Detachment |Petty Officer 1st Class Itō |Survived |

| |Hashimoto |Killed 31 Aug 1942 |

| |Shiokawa |Killed 25 Oct 1944 |

| |Yamaguchi |Survived |

Okada, T., Nyūginia no Bohyō (New Guinea Tombstone), Sōei Shuppan, Tokyo, 1998, pp. 23-24.

 

Research and Development Division, Directorate of AFV Production Melbourne. Report on Examination of Japanese Light Tank. February 1943.   Those undertaking the assessment were unsure of the crew numbers, as the tank has only one seat, but thought :  “Crew: Presumably four persons., ie Commander Gunner and Loader Machine gunner in turret, Driver and Machine Gunner at front”.( p 3. )    “The turret is so cramped that it would be virtually impossible to load and fire the turret machine gun and the main armament at the same time”.( P34)

 

Allied Land Forces Headquarters SWPA Technical Intelligence Summary No 4 July 1943 p14 came to the same conclusion :  “Crew: Presumably four persons, that is Commander Gunner and Loader Machine gunner in turret, Driver and Machine Gunner at front” 

While the two contemporary sources essentially repeated themselves in respect of crew information, the two reports covered much different analytical ground and together formed part of what can only be described as the most comprehensive and authoritative analysis ever undertaken of the tank’s structure, performance and ergonomics.   

The Pony Soldiers Who Almost Never Were.

The circumstances associated with achieving the correct of the first Australian armoured unit to be deployed on active service since the Second World War have been reported in previous posts (July/August).

A summary of all that went on is contained in the Sepetember edition of the 4/19 PWLH newsletter, Plumes.  A copy is included in ‘Articles’, under the same title.

More re the Late Chris Leihy. 

(i) The 1 AR Assn C’tee has responded positively to a suggestion to invite Chris’ family to visit Puckapunyal to see 169005, the tank Chris was crewing when he was WIA.  The C’tee will also consider inviting the other two crew members from that time.

This is certain to be something of lasting significance to all involved and would be a wonderful gesture on the part of the Assn.  Present day members of the SOA could also gain valuable insight into their heritage, should some be able to be able to attend

(ii) The following message has been sent to the contact for AnzacSteel.  It has ‘bounced’, however, and there are no other contacts.  If anyone is able to pass on, this would appreciated by all,

Hi Guys, 

Re .  

Chris Leihy, the gunner of 169005 when it detonated the mine which killed the driver, recently died. 

His family, who researched a little of his army service, were disappointed to see his surname misspelt. 

“The driver, Trooper Jim Kerr, was killed instantly, and the gunner Trooper Chris Lehy severely wounded.”  

They asked if it might be possible to correct this. 

Many thanks,  Bruce Cameron

RAAC Corporation

Questions have been asked by Armouredadvocates re the RAAC Corporation ‘News’ page  .  Does it really contain information: ‘about recent events or happenings’?  The present content seems a bit misleading to those who access the site expecting to learn about such.

Rec Leave. 

Armouredadvocates will be in recess until 25 September.  We will be visiting family in Penang, including newly born twins.

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

25 September 2015

Birth of the Tank

Brig Stephen White, MBE … former CO 4RTR, reminds us that a significant Centenary has recently passed.

21 September 1915 marks the Centenary of the birth of the tank.  Her Majesty the Queen, Colonel-in-Chief RTR sent her congratulations on this notable anniversary to all associated with the RTR.

Further info is provided by David Fletcher (the now retired Tank Museum historian) at    .

A related article is at: .[pic] [pic]

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

26 September 2015

AWM Roll of Honour

The correspondence below, following on from previous posts, is self explanatory:

Dear (AWM),

Thanks for the info below.

I have to apologise … I’d mistakenly thought that Clements and Holland were listed under 3 Cav Regt, rather than RAAC.

As such, there is no ‘error’ per se; it is, instead, a matter of omission.

I had thought that 1 APC Sqn was a unique entity, but of course the engineer field squadrons are in the same position, ie. not having a higher regimental identity, so being listed as RAE.  There is still a difference, however, as all engineer units are in the same category and therefore there is no differentiation between casualties.

What sets 1 APC Sqn apart is that all the other 21 RAAC casualties are listed according to their regiment (either 3 Cav or 1st Armd).  This immediately draws attention to the two names which are not listed in terms of the unit with which they served.  Unit identity is paramount within the RAAC, no more so than when a new unit (1 APC Sqn) is raised for deployment on active service … one which subsequently played a major role in one of the Australian Army’s most significant battles (Long Tan).

The rationale the AWM is following is clear, however, I think you’ll be able to appreciate the feelings of veterans who believe that ‘one size doesn’t (always) fit all’.

Although it’s not immediately apparent, there might be some form of solution possible.  Something to ponder.

Thanks again for your help,

———————————————————————–

Dear Mr Cameron,

Your query regarding Temporary Corporal Clements and Trooper Holland has been passed to me.  My area manages the research and administration for the Roll of Honour.

The situation with Clements and Holland is that on the bronze Roll of Honour panels, they are in fact listed under the Royal Australian Armoured Corps, not under 3 Cavalry Regiment.  While it is acknowledged that 1 APC Squadron was a unit in its own right and these men were indeed serving with it at the time of their deaths, the smallest Armoured Corps units expressed on the Roll of Honour are regiments.

In compiling the Roll of Honour, very careful consideration was given to the appropriate level for representing units.  This structure has been in place now for many years and it would simply not be feasible to consider making changes to it now.

However, the Memorial’s online Roll of Honour does provide more detail on each individual listed and in the case of Clements and Holland, their unit is shown as 1 APC Squadron.

Clements: 

Holland: 

I trust this satisfactorily explains the situation, but please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions.

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

Vale : Nev Calliss.

It’s been reported that Nev has passed away.  More details as they become available.

[pic]

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

27 September 2015

Nev Calliss

Funeral will be at 12.45pm on 1 October 2015 at the Enfield Memorial Park, Clearview (Adelaide).

AWM Roll of Honour : Omission of 1 APC Sqn

For those who might wonder … Armouredadvocates is pursuing this matter (see ‘Yesterday’) because the RAAC Corporation has formally determined not to do so.

Priorities re RAAC

With the RAAC AGM coming up, I had cause while in Penang to consider the top three issues affecting the RAAC.  I offered the following advice:

1.  RAAC ARES Crisis.  The need to clearly define the role of the RAAC Ares in terms of conducting mounted operations (ie not quasi infantry, aka dismounted light cavalry).  Following from this is the crucial requirement to ensure the ARES have adequate vehicles and resources (cadre equipment and training pools) to enable Plan Beersheba readiness states to be met.  The Defence White Paper (DWP) will have an influence (good or bad).

2.  Inability to Fulfil Armoured Mobility Role.   If LAND 400 Ph3 is delayed (DWP outcome), a capability gap will result.  The consequences of this must be made known to decision makers, stakeholders and the public.

3.  Risks Associated With RAAC Use of Bushmaster PMV.  There is no approved competency based training manual for RAAC Bushmaster crew commanders.  Accidents have already occurred.

RAAC Corporation

Following on from recent AA posts, the RAAC Corporation () has replaced its ‘News’ page with an ‘Info ‘ page.  Still no link to contact the Corporation, however.

One can only imagine that the Corporation Council wants all communications to be conducted via member associations.  Too bad if you’re not a member of a member association eg. a member of the public, a journalist, a Government employee (DVA etc), or another ESO etc.

——————————————————————————————————-

28 September 2015

Nev Calliss

From Bill Burton … condolence cards may be sent to:

Mrs Anne Calliss (abbreviation of Joanne)

PO Box 243

Ingle Farm SA 5098

The RAAC Family : Are Communication Links Effective? 

The 1 AR Assn maintains a website.  This includes pages designated as ‘Latest News’ and ‘Vale’.  Those who look to the website for this information might wonder why there is no mention of the passing of Chris Leihy and Nev Calliss.

It happens that info re the passing of Chris was received by the 1 AR Assn and passed on via other websites.  The C’tee decided to advise details re Nev’s passing via its Facebook site.

Those who don’t have Facebook are regarded by the C’tee as living “in the dark ages”. “If this Association is to survive then we have to move with the times” [and ignore] the “want’s [sic] and needs of the precious few”.

This is all very well, but surely if the Assn is not going to use its website to communicate with its members, the C’tee should so inform them.

The fact that the website has been abandoned, is borne out by the refusal of the C’tee to correct the typos “Boar War” and “Brain (Spider) Webb”, after having these brought to their attention.

The above is mirrored by the RAAC Corporation’s website.  There is not only no means for anyone to communicate with the RAAC Corporation, but also the Corporation declines to provide information on anything that it is doing or has achieved/not achieved.

The success of Army operations is dependent on the extent to which information is provided to those participating.  Surprisingly, once out of uniform, this maxim disappears.

To finish … the story re Chris Leihy was posted earlier in September.  At Armouredadvocates’ suggestion, the 1AR Assn C’tee will invite Chris’ family to visit Puckapunyal to see the tank in which Chris was WIA (169005, being restored vide donations to the Assn).  There are other ‘positive’ stories which will be communicated by this blog as soon as possible.

The RAAC Family has much to be proud of … this can only be fully realised if communication links are effective.

——————————————————————————————————

29 September 2015

Rip’s Home

Rip Riley has beaten the odds and is back home recuperating.  Best wishes to a stalwart from Armouredadvocates!

Defence White Paper 2015.

Letter (below) to the Editor, Canberra Times, sent in today.

“Dear Sir,

There was an interesting juxtaposition on September 29. Articles by Nicholas Stuart (“It’ll be steady as she goes”, Times2, p1) and Hugh White (“Payne treading a minefield”, Times2, p4) both related to the coming Defence White Paper (DWP). Kathryn Spurling’s letter (“EFFECTIVE ARMY”) supported the view that “the primary role of the army is to fight and win”.

It can be argued that this role is really to deter attack. Such reasoning is at the heart of institutions such as the police force and the tax office. Both are resourced on the basis of being capable of effective action when deterrence fails.

In terms of the DWP, there are two crucial elements: the assessment the threat and the assessment of the resourcing needed to act as a deterrent and counter the threat if deterrence fails. Australia’s military deterrent comprises a resourced standing component and a partially resourced reserve capability.

Its effectiveness depends on the accuracy of the threat assessment and associated warning times. Linked to this is the accuracy of the lead times required to train forces, acquire equipment and build up stock levels. The complexity of modern arms means such lead times are increasing (although partially offset with training simulators and a responsive defence industry).

Stuart suggests that the draft DWP lacks “insight”, while White recommends that Marise “bin it”. Rather than allowing the process to be politicised, it is hoped that the Minister will accede to the professionalism of our Defence personnel (as argued in Spurling’s letter).”

——————————————————————————————————-

30 September 2015

Defence White Paper: LAND 400 

Two weeks to go.  What will it mean for LAND 400?

The Australian newspaper seems to know: The “price tag of the new naval forces over the next 20 years has forced Defence to make cuts in other areas, with the size of the army’s planned new AFV fleet to be reduced”.  It is the third phase of LAND 400, “the replacement of 1960s era M113A1 APCs, that will be hit by the cuts”. 

This was exactly the concern of the then RAAC HOC, speaking at the 2014 RAAC Corporation AGM (see ‘LAND 400 III, under ‘Articles’ below).  He stated that because of the planned expenditure on RAN and RAAF big ticket items, LAND 400 “needs advocacy from outside to keep it on the table” (AGM Minutes, now removed from the RAAC Corporation website).

Given the RAAC Corporation’s refusal to lobby on this matter, Armouredadvocates wrote to all Council members stressing the importance and urgency of advocacy.  When this failed, AA undertook to raise public awareness of the consequences of a capability gap arising, should LAND 400 be delayed (letters/emails to newspapers and Ministers, articles in journals and blogs etc).

As things turned out, LAND 400 Ph 2 (ASLAV replacement) is proceeding on schedule.  Now another challenge arises.  If the M113A1/AS4 replacement does not continue as planned, what will be the effect?  Where will it be felt most?  Obviously a capability gap will arise.  How will this impact the RAAC ARES?  (The RAAC Corporation’s answer at the last AGM was to re-role the ARES to dismounted light cavalry, aka infantry.)

The above emphasises the AA post on 27 September:

“Priorities re RAAC

With the RAAC AGM coming up, I had cause while in Penang to consider the top three issues affecting the RAAC.  I offered the following advice:

1. RAAC ARES Crisis.The need to clearly define the role of the RAAC Ares in terms of conducting mounted operations (ie not quasi infantry, aka dismounted light cavalry).  Following from this is the crucial requirement to ensure the ARES have adequate vehicles and resources (cadre equipment and training pools) to enable Plan Beersheba readiness states to be met.  The Defence White Paper (DWP) will have an influence (good or bad).

 

2. Inability to Fulfil Armoured Mobility If LAND 400 Ph3 is delayed (DWP outcome), a capability gap will result.  The consequences of this must be made known to decision makers, stakeholders and the public.

 

3. Risks Associated With RAAC Use of Bushmaster PMV.There is no approved competency based training manual for RAAC Bushmaster crew commanders.  Accidents have already occurred.”

——————————————————————————————————-

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download