1



Suggestions provided to the AWM in reponse to their re quest for feedback after the opening of the Vietnam Gallery.

1. Armoured Matters

(i) My main point relates to the Long Tan AV, which I think has been expertly compiled from a technical perspective. I'm worried, however, that the significant contribution that the APC Troop made to the outcome is not portrayed. I believe that the average person viewing the presentation will leave with the impression that the APCs were tardy in getting to D Coy (no mention of swollen creeks, RCLs, or confused orders) and ‘all’ they did was to deliver A Coy (no mention of the mounted assault through the enemy to reach D Coy).

(ii) The 3 Cav Regt 'story' states that the unit fought in every major operation conducted by 1ATF from 1966—1968, including 'Tet', Coral, Binh Ba etc. At first I was staggered that Long Tan wasn't mentioned; then I realised that "1966" should be '1967'. (In the same section, "4RAR" is referred to as the last battalion to serve in Vietnam, it should be '4RAR/NZ'.)

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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'.

 

(v) It is stated that "tanks were used in the defence of both bases [Coral and Balmoral]". This is misleading. It would be more accurate to state that 'tanks were used in the defence of Balmoral and in clearing operations around Coral'.

(vi) The description of Balmoral states that the inf were supported by arty, tanks and air. I believe that the support from Bruce Richards' APCs was also important in the defence of Balmoral.

(v) Reference is made to 8RAR suffering 8 KIA and 16 WIA during Operation HAMMERSLEY. I think these are 'just' 8RAR's casualties from the mines at the end (in fact, one of those WIA, later died of wounds). The important point, however, is that there were casualties from other Corps as well...3KIA and 13 WIA to be precise. These were mainly RAAC. Given the subject of the panel (‘Armoured Operations’)...it would seem appropriate to mention them.

(vi) The audio from the Binh Ba AV was still out of action today; however, from memory (when I first saw it), the footage of the tanks and infantry assaulting Duc Trung on 7 June 1969, is used to illustrate the clearance of Binh Ba the day before. Of course, the latter was very different and the footage used gives a completely false impression. Given that no actual footage exists, possibly computer graphics could be used...such as that prepared by David Hay (a tank crewman WIA at Binh Ba) which shows the layout of the village and the routes taken by the combined arms force.

(vii) The Australian casualties at Binh Ba are given as 1 KIA and 8 WIA; in fact they were 1 KIA and 10 WIA (including 8 tank crewmen). I can provide names/Noticas details etc.

(viii) Four tanks, not three, took part in the initial sweep through Binh Ba.

(ix) The caption to photo BEL/69/0382/VN states that it shows Australian troops approaching the village of Binh Ba. In fact, it shows them approaching the hamlet of Duc Trung, just to the north of Binh Ba, on 7 June 1969.

 

(x) Operation OVERLORD is described as being conducted by 3RAR, 4RAR/NZ and C Squadron 1 Armd Regt. In fact, it was a brigade operation also involving 2/8 Battalion 3 Brigade 1 Air Cav Div (US Army). Possibly more importantly re the AWM, A Squadron 3 Cav Regt participated as a squadron.

(xi) 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.

(xii) The 1 Armd Regt 'story' refers to "another two tank dozers", together with two bridges arriving in August 1968. In fact, two dozer tanks and two bridgelayers arrived in Feb 68. No more came in August. (It was important that these equipments arrive first in case mobility problems were encountered.)

 

(xiii) The Centurions are described as providing fire support for infantry patrols and protection of Nui Dat. Most people think of patrols as being small, ie. section or platoon size. Centurions were not allocated on this basis. 'Providing fire support for inf operations' would be better. Far more significant than defending Nui Dat in terms of Centurions' roles, was their involvement in defending FSBs.

(xix) 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).

 

(xx) "In 1952, British tanks [at 1st Armd Regt] were replaced with Centurions". Centurions were also British tanks. 'In 1952, the Churchills were replaced by Centurions', or 'In 1952, the Churchills were replaced by another British tank, the Centurion'.

 

(xxi) The 100gal fuel tank at the back of the Centurion did not "explode" when it was hit; this gives the wrong impression. Fuel caught fire...the fire was extinguished...the tank continued its task.

 

(xxii) The FSVs are described as being needed to protect FSBs, thereby allowing the Centurions greater scope to support 1ATF. This is a different explanation to that expressed by the COMAFV in April 1971: "We agree that the FSV should be tested ... and are concerned also that we should have the means to deal with bunkers after the tanks are withdrawn...".

 

(xxiii) FSV crews are referred to as being "...seconded from 2 Cavalry Regiment and posted on strength to 3 Cavalry Regiment". What does "posted on strength" mean? Is it the same as 'posted to' or 'seconded from 2 Cav to 3 Cav'?

 

(xxiv) The FSVs are described as being "more heavily armed", may I suggest that 'more heavily armed than the M113A1' be used to avoid any confusion in the context.

 

(xxv) Try as I might, I can't see that photo FOD/71/0304/VN shows someone riding on the back of a Centurion tank. Is it an ARV?

 

(xxvi) The Armoured panel refers to "splinter teams"; but ‘mini-teams' operated with armour.

 

(xxvii) An information panel should be provided, I believe, to accompany the M113A1. Ditto, the tank barrel.

 

(xxviii) Info should be provided to inform visitors about the existence of the tank outside (and the connection between this and the barrel).

 

(xxix) The Centurions' "side skirts" didn't fill up with mud and debris, they caused mud and debris to build up around the tracks behind them.

 

(xxx) "4/19 Prince of Wales Light Horse", should be '4/19 Prince of Wales's Light Horse'. It is stated once correctly and twice incorrectly.

2. Other Corps Matters

(i) The listing of RAEME units that served in Vietnam seems to be 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'); 

 

(ii) 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'. 

 

(iii) A number of RAEME units seem to have been missed out (I think I'm right here), including: 1ATF LAD; Field Regiment LADs; and Det 131 Div Loc Bty Wksp.

(iv) 161 (Independent) Recce Flight is the designation given re a photo showing a unit aircraft in Sep 65. It was actually 161 Recce Flight at that time, not changing its name until well into 1966.

 

(v) The Arty panel refers to 1ATF being supported by US "heavy" artillery, but illustrates the point with a photo of a 155mm ('medium') artillery gun).

(vi) "2RAR" are referred to in relation to Op PINNAROO. I think this should be '2RAR/NZ'.

(vii) The RAAF section includes the windscreen from a Caribou which was hit by ground fire. The crew are described as having been "injured", shouldn't this be 'wounded'?

3. Miscellaneous

(i) The GPMG clip is not from an SLR.

 

(ii) The Rising Sun badge on the slouch hat is the King's crown variety which was replaced with the Queen's crown badge in 1966.  It seems unusual for this to be issued in Sep 67, but stranger things have happened.

(iii) 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? If nothing else, the subsequent distribution of the Agent Orange Compensation Fund would seem relevant.

(iv) As one of those who has to be careful of bright flashing lights/noises (lest an epileptic fit is triggered), I was surprised that there was no warning of what to expect in the Dustoff AV. I was able to move away quickly, but it could be a more serious health risk for others.

 

(v) The Claymore is described as being operated "electronically", should this be 'electrically'?

 

(vi) The touch panel screen is incredibly hard to understand how to operate in terms of moving the 'down/up' arrows. If it is not to be be modified to follow the finger, then instructions should be provided.

(viii) "Nearly 60 000 Australians served in Vietnam" Is it the AWM's intention NOT to acknowledge Australian civilians who served their country in Vietnam, eg. entertainers, Red Cross, Salvation Army, civilian nurses etc? This appears to be so at the moment...the 520 refers only to service personnel (not 'servicemen', as it includes Barbara Black). As this is the case, should not the panel state '520 service personnel', so as it acknowledge that OTHER Australians died, ie. those on the Commemorative Roll (seven, I think)?

 

(ix) "520" This is not correct, the figure should be 521. The fact that Private Abbott's family did not want his name on the Roll of Honour, does not mean that he shouldn't be included in the 'cost to the nation'. [520 is the number of names on the Roll of Honour]

 

(x) "died”..This is not correct. Some of the 521, are: missing, presumed dead.

 

(xi) "520 died" This is not correct. It applies only to those Australian service personnel (other than Abbott) who died, or are missing presumed dead, while on the posted strength of an Australian military unit in Vietnam during the prescribed period of the Vietnam War. It does not include those Australian service personnel who were wounded, lived on in extreme pain, were cared for by distressed families for years, and died after 29 April 1975. The supreme sacrifices made by these veterans are not 'recognised' anywhere. Many I suggest, if it is the intention only to acknowledge Australian service personnel, that the wording be changed to read:

 

'Nearly 60 000 Australian service personnel saw active service in Vietnam. Of these, 521 died or are missing presumed dead, during the prescribed period of the War: 496 Army, 17 airforce and 8 navy.....Many others have subsequently died as a direct result of their service.'

 

(This brings to mind that the AWM Encyclopedia should be amended.  Not only does it refer to 520, but it also states that 50 000 Australians served in Vietnam... I think the wounded figure needs to be brought in line as well.)

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download