How much spare ammo is carried?

[saaumm]

I was wondering, how much ammo does an infantryman carry to battle for all types of guns from rifles to smg? Question also covers British and American infantryman.
Thanks,
Saaumm.:rolleyes:

[Rising Sun*]

Which war?

Which army?

Anything from 20 to 50 rounds was standard issue (when a standard issue was available) for Australian troops in WWII and, as I recall up to 60 rounds even in Vietnam when we had moved from repeater to semi-auto rifles, although many troops made their own arrangements for more.

[Deaf Smith]

I don't know about Australia, but in Vietnam 120 I think was the standard for the M-16.

Deaf

[Rising Sun*]

I don't know about Australia, but in Vietnam 120 I think was the standard for the M-16.

Deaf

That could well be right as the M16 had an automatic capacity and smaller, lighter rounds than the semi-auto Australian 7.62 L1A1 SLR.

[RicemanCDN]

i am pretty sure the ammount issued for the mauser is 25 cartidges. thats the germans ofcourse

[flamethrowerguy]

i am pretty sure the ammount issued for the mauser is 25 cartidges. thats the germans ofcourse

Actually more like 60. Two ammo pouches with 6 clips (5 rounds) each.

[Schuultz]

Puh, that's quite a bit. The Mauser ammo is pretty darn heavy, too...

So how much MP40 or StG44 ammo would they carry around with them? Considering how the weapons would fire a lot more rounds at once, but would also be lighter, it would have to be a good bit more? An uneducated guess on my part would be something around 90 - 120?

[Nickdfresh]

By the Cold War, about 210 rounds of 5.56mm was typical...

In WWII, combat loads varied of course. But I forget the exact amount US soldiers were issued in Torch and Italy. I want to say for the typical M-1 toting rifleman it was about 72 rounds with theoretically, hopefully more not far away...

[RicemanCDN]

Actually more like 60. Two ammo pouches with 6 clips (5 rounds) each.

i read in a book they were issued 25 cartridges being 5 clips but then again it was russia and supplies are short

[flamethrowerguy]

Puh, that's quite a bit. The Mauser ammo is pretty darn heavy, too...

So how much MP40 or StG44 ammo would they carry around with them? Considering how the weapons would fire a lot more rounds at once, but would also be lighter, it would have to be a good bit more? An uneducated guess on my part would be something around 90 - 120?

MP40: six magazines with 32 rounds each = 192
StG44: six magazines with 30 rounds each = 180

[Rising Sun*]

Looks like my memory of 60 rounds being basic Australian issue in the Vietnam era might be wrong, as shown by this recollection by an infantryman who served there.

The standard weapon of the infantry soldier in Vietnam, the SLR (self loading rifle). The L1A1 is the Australian version of the Belgian FN FAL rifle. It entered into service with the Australian Army in 1959. The L1A1 was a reliable, hard-hitting, gas-operated, magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle, with a maximum battle range of 300 metres and a practical rate of fire of 20 rpm. It fired a 7.62mm long round. With a full 20 round magazine it weighed 4.96Kg. We generally carried 150-200 rounds of ammunition. http://freepages.military.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bobw/weapons.htm

Then again, my recollection of basic issue being 60 rounds might be correct, because I recall that I always thought that if I ever got up the sharp end I'd carry about two to three times the basic issue, which is in the range he says they actually carried.

As the quote comes from one of the last Australian units to serve in Vietnam, the rounds carried reflects a lot of experience since the mid-sixties on what the average grunt needed in the field, regardless of whatever the issue table said.

[Rising Sun*]

More on the Australian ammo carried in Vietnam, for a different battalion to the one in my last post and covering service during the Vietnam war.

L1A1 Self Loading Rifle (SLR) - semi auto - fired a 7.62mm standard NATO round - weight 10lbs - magazine capacity 20 rounds - range 300metres - standard issue weapon for all soldiers in the Australian Army. Very robust and dependable weapon. Each soldier carried at least 150 rounds each. http://www.4rarmuseum.com/Unit%20Organisation.htm

The ammo was included in the grunt's basic load (which I think I'd be struggling to lift off the ground now) which indicates distribution of MG ammo, MG spare barrel and other items.

A Typical Load carried by an Infantry Soldier.

Individual items of gear included, basic webbing harness, weapon and ammunition, a shell dressing, entrenching tool, machete, M26 grenade, nine full water bottles, five days rations, small stove and hexamine tablets for cooking, shaving gear, steel mug, shelter, lightweight blanket, hammock, spare socks and bayonet.

In addition each 10 man section shared a load of, 6 x 100 round belts for the M60 MG, spare barrel for the M60 MG, M49 flares, smoke grenades, white phosphorus grenades, grenade spigots and ballastite cartridges, claymore mines, detonating cord, plastic explosive, M79 rounds, M72 LAWs, spare radio batteries, torch, starlight scope night vision device, panel markers for identification to aircraft, binoculars, compass, maps, protractor, pace counter, strobe light, secateurs, medical kit, watches, codes and writing equipment.

Signallers carried the ANPRC Radio with spares batteries and handset and antennas.

Platoon medics carried a comprehensive medical kit.

http://www.4rarmuseum.com/Unit%20Organisation.htm

I'm a bit surprised by a Section carrying a Starlight scope as standard equipment in the field as I thought they were pretty high tech in their day and were kept to places, being mostly static or well defended positions, where they weren't likely to be captured.


Vietnam (1964-1971): soldiers carried 5-7 days rations and 5-9 water bottles.
1 RAR (1965-66) – Mortar Platoon MFC with Radio Set AN/PRC 25, three days rations and four water bottles - 123 pounds (55.9 kg)
8 RAR (1969-70) -
Machine Gunner - 105 pounds (47.72 kg)
Platoon Commander - 80 pounds (36.35 kg)

4 RAR (1971) - average loads of 77 pounds (35 kg) to 88 pounds (40 kg)
Radio Operators - loads of up to 105 pounds (47.7 kg), probably applied to machine gunners as well. http://www.defence.gov.au/army/ahu/books_articles/Articles/The_Infantrymans_Load.htm

[Schuultz]

Hm, how well did the FN FAL/L1A1 perform in the Jungle setting anyway? Made by a Belgian producer, I'd be surprised if it was meant for that kind of climate?

[Rising Sun*]

Hm, how well did the FN FAL/L1A1 perform in the Jungle setting anyway? Made by a Belgian producer, I'd be surprised if it was meant for that kind of climate?

It performed very well, as testified unfortunately by the many people it killed in Vietnam.

What it hit tended to stay hit, unlike the lighter M16 round at times.

A standard demonstration to recruits to give them confidence in the power of their weapon, which I experienced, was to have an instructor fire a round into a 44 gallon steel drum filled with water up the range. It caused sudden and spectacular damage to the drum, as it would to a human even though the human was not as constrained as the water was by the relatively thick steel.

The Australian version wasn't produced in Belgium but at Lithgow in the State of New South Wales in Australia.

The weapon wasn't complicated, apart from my clumsy experience of never being able to work out which gas setting worked best, and was easily field stripped on the fairly rare occasions it couldn't fire.

There was no reason it couldn't work as well in jungle, or perhaps more accurately the tropics, than anywhere else if properly maintained for its environment, which is the same for any other weapon.

The only aspect for a rifle in jungle that differs from other applications is length, because it's close country, but in reality there's not that much difference in most cases as shown by the fairly small reduction in length between the standard SMLE and the jungle carbine version,

[BM59_Fan]

Can you define just exactly you mean by "Spare Ammo". I mean do you consider what is carried in the basic kit as Spare? The basic kit can be called a standard loadout. Or are you referring to how many bandoleers or ammo over and above what is carried in pouches or on a harness?

[Major Walter Schmidt]

I heard they issued 60 in the civil war...

[Schuultz]

Well, but that's for muzzle-loaders, so that's plenty.

[RicemanCDN]

i dont think 60
u see the puchs they used to hold cartridges and there is deffinately not 60

[Schuultz]

Again, Riceman, you have to be careful. If I am correct in assuming that the 60 bullets refer to Muzzle loading rifles, the pouches they held are plenty. All it has to carry is a small round bullet of the size of a earplug at its largest.
The powder would be carried separately.

[RicemanCDN]

i am pretty sure there are in cases with powder and shot in paper

[RicemanCDN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJHxlGQ4hNM
i am correct watch this and u will see

[RicemanCDN]

in the revoloutinary war ur method would work cause they would have powder horns as opposed to the percussion cap

[Major Walter Schmidt]

Well, I think the pouches held 40, but soldiers carried 10 in each pocket...

[Schuultz]

in the revoloutinary war ur method would work cause they would have powder horns as opposed to the percussion cap

That's exactly what I was about to say. Also, as the percussion caps were state-of-the-art back then, you can be sure that there would have been people still using them, especially in the South, though I have to admit that I didn't think of the percussion cap.

[Dixie Devil]

Experienced troops heading into combat usually carry as much ammo as they physically can. There were some troops in Vietnam that would carry up to 1500 rounds (75 mags) for their M-16s but with that load you wouldn’t be carrying much else.

[Schuultz]

Well, if they felt like they needed it... I can't imagine carrying that much Ammo on me - it must be almost impossible to move quickly while carrying that kind of a load...

[herman2]

Guys, did every soldier in ww2 get to carry handgrenades, in addition to ammo; or were only certain soldiers allowed? Were handgrenades avail to all as many as they wanted or were they rationed. What you think?

[RicemanCDN]

That's exactly what I was about to say. Also, as the percussion caps were state-of-the-art back then, you can be sure that there would have been people still using them, especially in the South, though I have to admit that I didn't think of the percussion cap.

hahaha i know i had to think about it for a little bit

[RicemanCDN]

Guys, did every soldier in ww2 get to carry handgrenades, in addition to ammo; or were only certain soldiers allowed? Were handgrenades avail to all as many as they wanted or were they rationed. What you think?

i am pretty sure the werchmact issued every rifleman in every section with 1 stick grenade.There is 10 men in a section including the squad leader or GruppenFührer then there is a Machine gunner with his loader and another assistant that carried straghit ammunition and had no weapons except a pistol he would stand in the back during combat but move forward when ammo was needed or hand to hand combat.the rest were Rifleman and they were all issued grenades but this is all theoretical they usually did not have enough grenades for every solider

[Dixie Devil]

Well, if they felt like they needed it... I can't imagine carrying that much Ammo on me - it must be almost impossible to move quickly while carrying that kind of a load...

Yes that would be quite a load, I imagine it was members for that units like the 'Blues Company' and such that were inserted into hot spots from helicopters that would pack a load like that. They pretty much hit the ground fighting and weren’t so much patrolling. That was just an example though to show that normally men would carry as much ammo as possible. As long as it doesn’t weigh you down too much you can’t have too much ammo.

[Firefly]

It performed very well, as testified unfortunately by the many people it killed in Vietnam.

What it hit tended to stay hit, unlike the lighter M16 round at times.

A standard demonstration to recruits to give them confidence in the power of their weapon, which I experienced, was to have an instructor fire a round into a 44 gallon steel drum filled with water up the range. It caused sudden and spectacular damage to the drum, as it would to a human even though the human was not as constrained as the water was by the relatively thick steel.

The Australian version wasn't produced in Belgium but at Lithgow in the State of New South Wales in Australia.

The weapon wasn't complicated, apart from my clumsy experience of never being able to work out which gas setting worked best, and was easily field stripped on the fairly rare occasions it couldn't fire.

There was no reason it couldn't work as well in jungle, or perhaps more accurately the tropics, than anywhere else if properly maintained for its environment, which is the same for any other weapon.

The only aspect for a rifle in jungle that differs from other applications is length, because it's close country, but in reality there's not that much difference in most cases as shown by the fairly small reduction in length between the standard SMLE and the jungle carbine version,


Aye, when i joined up we had the SLR, it was a mother of a weapon, 20 round mags, big kick, accurate, easy to maintain and from my experience, very reliable. Enough stopping power to floor a Bull!

[Rising Sun*]

Just had lunch with a mate who did a half tour as an armoured officer in Vietnam. He thinks 60 rounds was about the standard issue for Australian troops, although they carried more.

[student-scaley]

Just had lunch with a mate who did a half tour as an armoured officer in Vietnam. He thinks 60 rounds was about the standard issue for Australian troops, although they carried more.

I'm sure you've heard about the battle of Long Tan, apparently they had got used to firing very few rounds and so had started to carry fewer than normal. Resulting from this when the battle had been going on for a few hours they were down to literally a handful of rounds per man. When the plt sgts/SQMS etc were carrying out cas/am they were literally re-distribting on or two rounds per man.

Moving on, I'm not sure about WW2 but I know that the 'average' (ha ha) British rifleman should carry 330 x 5.56mm and possibly a further 150 x 5.56mm in a bandolier for the LSW/Minimi. Added to that grenades and if he's really lucky some 7.62mm link or 51mm mortar round, plus if he's super lucky he might have a LAW as well!

[Schuultz]

the 'average' (ha ha) British rifleman

:rolleyes:

[navyson]

the 'average' (ha ha) British rifleman

Was he walking or crawling?:D

[Rising Sun*]

I'm sure you've heard about the battle of Long Tan, apparently they had got used to firing very few rounds and so had started to carry fewer than normal.

I've read various books and other accounts on Long Tan, albeit mostly a long time ago, and can't recall that aspect, but it could be correct. Do you have a source?

The reference to firing very few rounds might be a misunderstanding of Australian fire discipline, which was different to the American approach in Vietnam. Single aimed shots with the semi-automatic SLR but under pressure 2 to 3 more or less aimed rounds was the Australian training standard, rather than the American tendency to apply overwhelming and often automatic firepower in the general direction of the enemy.

Regardless of the amount of ammunition carried by the Australians, running out was primarily a consequence of Long Tan being an encounter battle which was way, way beyond anything the vastly outnumbered Australian patrols expected to find in seeking out enemy crews which had shelled their base with mortars and recoilless rifles a day or so earlier. These were not the sort of mostly self-supporting patrols which went into the bush for weeks at a time and were equipped accordingly but just forays from the base intended to be of a short distance and duration, and equipped accordingly.

The enemy was equipped at the other end of the scale.

The enemy were well equipped and were almost certainly prepared for a major assault on the base rather than a contact out in the field. Most of the enemy soldiers carried ammunition for crew-served weapons which were not in evidence on the battlefield in addition to their personal AK or SKS rifle with up to 250 rounds of ammunition. Furthermore, most were found to have 2 or 3 grenades on them, with some Grenadiers carrying satchels of 15 to 20 grenades. These were not used during the battle. http://www.6rarassociation.com/battlelongtan.htm

Resulting from this when the battle had been going on for a few hours they were down to literally a handful of rounds per man. When the plt sgts/SQMS etc were carrying out cas/am they were literally re-distribting on or two rounds per man.

After a few hours of intense close quarter small arms engagement with a force about 25 times larger than their own, it is surprising that the Australians hadn't run out of ammunition earlier (and weren’t obliterated by then, but that’s another story). That they hadn't run out of ammunition and that they inflicted numerically (but, as is to be expected for the smaller force, not proportionally) higher casualties* on the enemy is, in part, testament to their fire discipline and, in particular in this engagement, to the special forces standards of training imposed on his mostly conscript infantry troops by former commando officer Major Harry Smith who commanded D Company which bore the brunt of the action. Not to mention the heroic actions of the RAAF helicopter crews in flying into a very hot zone controlled by the enemy to re-supply the trapped infantry with ammunition, and the rescue by the cavalry.



*The losses inflicted upon the enemy by Australian infantry are uncertain, but here are some figures.

Footnote

(VC Defector) In 1969, Ex Sgt Loc of D445 Bn, Battle of Long Tan, a guide and interpreter with 6 RAR stated that most casualties were caused by artillery. That the total number of VC killed in the battle was well in excess of 1,000. Most of these they were able to carry out on the night of 18 August to a very large hospital complex dug out in the mountains to the North-East of the battlefield. There were also 1,000 missing from the units. He refused to believe that the total Australian force was only about 100 men with casualties of 18 killed and 25 wounded.

Enemy Casualties
• 245 KIA (Body Count)
• 3 Captured
• 150 KIA (Subsequent Intelligence estimate)
• 500 WIA (Subsequent Intelligence estimate)

• NOTE: During Operation MARSDEN in late 1969, Australian forces captured a Viet Cong dispensary that had a list of dead and wounded attributed to Long Tan. Those figures were 878 KIA/Missing/Died of wounds and approximately 1500 WIA


Friendly Casualties

6 RAR
• D Coy: 17 KIA , 23 WIA
• A Coy: 3 injured
• B Coy: 1 WIA

3 Tp 1 APC Sqn
• 1 DOW (Cpl Clements) 1 WIA (remained on duty)
http://www.6rarassociation.com/battlelongtan.htm

[Nickdfresh]

...

The reference to firing very few rounds might be a misunderstanding of Australian fire discipline, which was different to the American approach in Vietnam. Single aimed shots with the semi-automatic SLR but under pressure 2 to 3 more or less aimed rounds was the Australian training standard, rather than the American tendency to apply overwhelming and often automatic firepower in the general direction of the enemy.

...

Maybe it's because their bullets cost twice as much meaning they had to be fired half as often? :D

The US also used the 7.62mm NATO M-14 and found cases of small unit infantry firefights resulting in the near wiping out of US units firing semi-auto against North Vietnamese better armed for jungle combat with AK-47s. That's not necessarily the main reason it was withdrawn, I believe the jungle humidity played havoc on the wooden buts and steel carriers and barrels. The weapon was also expensive and difficult to manufacture in numbers needed by the United State's armed forces as a standard issue rifle..

[Schuultz]

Maybe it's because their bullets cost twice as much meaning they had to be fired half as often? :D

Or maybe it has something to do with the Australians being tree-hugging hippies?
They'd rather get hit than shoot any unnecessary bullets into the Jungle. :D

On a more serious note: I'd say that both approaches had their advantages and disadvantages.

The single fire obviously allows for a lower waste of ammo and is budget-friendly. It also means that the soldiers should be able to concentrate a bit more on the enemy fire, as they aren't distracted by all their own fire.

The fully automatic Rambo-technique made sure that the enemy would be suppressed and wouldn't dare to fire back/fire well aimed shots. They should also have a harder time making out separate targets.

[Rising Sun*]

Maybe it's because their bullets cost twice as much meaning they had to be fired half as often? :D


Actually, you're half right there.

Australia lacked, and lacks, the wealth, industrial resources and manpower of the US, so our infantry tactics in and since WWII reflect that by employing the opposite of the massive firepower and manpower which American military doctrine dictated. In Vietnam we were more of an aggressive patrolling force than an assault force.

[Rising Sun*]

Or maybe it has something to do with the Australians being tree-hugging hippies?
They'd rather get hit than shoot any unnecessary bullets into the Jungle. :D

I think you might be a little right there.

I have some hazy recollection about Australia having to pay compensation for damage to rubber tree plantations in Vietnam and or troops being warned not to damage them to avoid paying compensation. Or maybe it was to avoid getting the local owners off side.

They must have forgotten about it in the Long Tan rubber plantation, because they shredded it.

On a more serious note: I'd say that both approaches had their advantages and disadvantages.

The single fire obviously allows for a lower waste of ammo and is budget-friendly. It also means that the soldiers should be able to concentrate a bit more on the enemy fire, as they aren't distracted by all their own fire.

The fully automatic Rambo-technique made sure that the enemy would be suppressed and wouldn't dare to fire back/fire well aimed shots. They should also have a harder time making out separate targets.

Agreed, but effective suppressing fire can also be achieved with a low expenditure of ammunition by having two or three riflemen concentrate staggered single or 2 to 3 round bursts on a target.

But that's more applicable to fire and movement on a small scale. In a large scale assault, and certainly in large scale defence, the fully automatic weapon is far more effective in a furious battle,

[Nickdfresh]

RS*,

I just saw some black and white footage of Aussies in the bush in Vietnam, and assume it to be from the earlier part of the Allied involvement in what was probably the early to mid-60s...

Of course most of them had FNs, but I think I saw one with what I think is called an Owen sub-machine-gun. Do you know how these tended to fare in 'Nam? Did the infantry like these weapons?

[Rising Sun*]

RS*,

I just saw some black and white footage of Aussies in the bush in Vietnam, and assume it to be from the earlier part of the Allied involvement in what was probably the early to mid-60s...

Of course most of them had FNs, but I think I saw one with what I think is called an Owen sub-machine-gun. Do you know how these tended to fare in 'Nam? Did the infantry like these weapons?

Might be an Owen gun if any remained in service after the replacement, and inferior, F1 was introduced around 1963. Otherwise it'd probably be an F1.

If it has one pistol rearwards of the top mag it'll be an F1, if it has one pistol grip there and one pistol grip forward of the mag it'll be an Owen.

The Owen was very popular with WWII diggers in the tropics. The F1 wasn't.

[Rising Sun*]

Nick,

I've done a bit of research and it appears that the Owen was used in Vietnam in the early years, then replaced by the F1.

It's probably not known much outside Australia, but the Owen has an interesting history, being invented by a lone inventor and then by remarkable good luck being taken up and refined by a manufacturer. Here's a thorough treatment of the history, operation and technical aspects of the gun.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/owen_gun.txt

[student-scaley]

I've read various books and other accounts on Long Tan, albeit mostly a long time ago, and can't recall that aspect, but it could be correct. Do you have a source?

The source comes from my old 2ic, I'll ask him where he got that little snippet from. I've actually been looking for a good boo on Long Tan for a while now, my local waterstones has so far produced no results.

The reference to firing very few rounds might be a misunderstanding of Australian fire discipline, which was different to the American approach in Vietnam. Single aimed shots with the semi-automatic SLR but under pressure 2 to 3 more or less aimed rounds was the Australian training standard, rather than the American tendency to apply overwhelming and often automatic firepower in the general direction of the enemy.

Regardless of the amount of ammunition carried by the Australians, running out was primarily a consequence of Long Tan being an encounter battle which was way, way beyond anything the vastly outnumbered Australian patrols expected to find in seeking out enemy crews which had shelled their base with mortars and recoilless rifles a day or so earlier. These were not the sort of mostly self-supporting patrols which went into the bush for weeks at a time and were equipped accordingly but just forays from the base intended to be of a short distance and duration, and equipped accordingly.

The enemy was equipped at the other end of the scale.

http://www.6rarassociation.com/battlelongtan.htm



After a few hours of intense close quarter small arms engagement with a force about 25 times larger than their own, it is surprising that the Australians hadn't run out of ammunition earlier (and weren’t obliterated by then, but that’s another story). That they hadn't run out of ammunition and that they inflicted numerically (but, as is to be expected for the smaller force, not proportionally) higher casualties* on the enemy is, in part, testament to their fire discipline and, in particular in this engagement, to the special forces standards of training imposed on his mostly conscript infantry troops by former commando officer Major Harry Smith who commanded D Company which bore the brunt of the action. Not to mention the heroic actions of the RAAF helicopter crews in flying into a very hot zone controlled by the enemy to re-supply the trapped infantry with ammunition, and the rescue by the cavalry.



*The losses inflicted upon the enemy by Australian infantry are uncertain, but here are some figures.


http://www.6rarassociation.com/battlelongtan.htm

Naturally :D

[student-scaley]

Was he walking or crawling?:D


Running! I'm sure older, wiser and tougher infantry types who've done Junior/Senior Brecon will confirm to you that the weight they have to tab about with is not that far off.

[Nickdfresh]

Nick,

I've done a bit of research and it appears that the Owen was used in Vietnam in the early years, then replaced by the F1.

It's probably not known much outside Australia, but the Owen has an interesting history, being invented by a lone inventor and then by remarkable good luck being taken up and refined by a manufacturer. Here's a thorough treatment of the history, operation and technical aspects of the gun.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/owen_gun.txt

It was definitely and Owen IIRC...

[Rising Sun*]

The source comes from my old 2ic, I'll ask him where he got that little snippet from. I've actually been looking for a good boo on Long Tan for a while now, my local waterstones has so far produced no results.

Here are some good ones on it, from an overall viewpoint and the viewpoints of participants at various levels, although Amazon and other book lists probably have some or all titles.

https://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/592119/used/Battle%20of%20Long%20Tan

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?binding=&mtype=&keyword=long+tan+the+commanders

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?binding=&mtype=&keyword=gary+mckay+long+tan+warrior&hs.x=19&hs.y=10

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?binding=&mtype=&keyword=terry+burstall+soldiers+story

It's an interesting story which still has unhealed wounds about whether or not there were intelligence failures or command incompetence which led to the Australian forces not being adequately warned about the enemy forces they could encounter.

There are differences of opinion among the participants and authors about various other aspects, such as illustrated here.


Transcript
17/8/2000
Hero of Long Tan's "mercy killing" upsets comrades

KERRY O'BRIEN: Tomorrow marks the 34th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, the bloodiest single encounter experienced by Australians during the Vietnam War.

18 diggers were killed in a rubber plantation near their army base at Nui Dat.

Retired sergeant Bob Buick, whose platoon lost 13 soldiers, has now written a book about the battle, in which he admits to killing a critically wounded enemy soldier the next day.

His admission has sparked its own war of words.

Bernard Bowen reports.

BOB BUICK, AUTHOR: You could feel the blast of the artillery and the rain was pouring down.

You could see the tracer coming, whizzing past you.

You change magazines when you ran out of ammunition and you were trying to kill the other bloke, who was trying to kill you.

You look around and there's your mates, you know, the other blokes in your platoon, some dead, some wounded, some blokes shooting and getting shot at.

BERNARD BOWEN: Bob Buick is regarded as one of the heroes of Long Tan, decorated for his part in Australia's bloodiest battle of the Vietnam War.

As platoon sergeant, he assumed command of his men when their lieutenant was shot dead, repelling the enemy against overwhelming odds and losing 13 diggers in the process.

BOB BUICK: You become a soldier, you've got a good chance of dying, a better chance of being wounded, and if you don't get killed or wounded, you've still got the memories, so that's part of being a soldier.

BERNARD BOWEN: They are memories Bob Buick has now put in print with the publication of his book 'All Guts and No Glory', a story he initially wrote for his family.

BOB BUICK: I got my son's old computer and my wife said to me, Beverley said, "You better write a story about yourself because the kids don't know what you did."

LEX McAULAY, MILITARY HISTORIAN: It's a book written by an infantry platoon sergeant who was called on to lead the platoon in a desperate action in time of war and I cannot recall any other book written by an Australian infantry platoon sergeant.

So, in that respect, I give him full marks.

BERNARD BOWEN: Military historian and Vietnam veteran Lex McAulay describes the book as a no-nonsense memoir by a no-nonsense soldier.

LEX McAULAY: Some of the things that Bob has said in his book possibly could have been left unsaid, but that's Bob Buick -- what you see is what you get.

He's up front.

BERNARD BOWEN: One chapter in particular has raised the ire of some of his comrades in arms.

In describing what happened the day after the battle, Bob Buick -- seen here attending to a wounded digger -- makes a brutally frank admission.

After coming across a critically wounded enemy soldier, a man the sergeant believed had absolutely no chance of survival, he shot him dead, reconciling it as a mercy killing.

BOB BUICK: It's something that I think that is part of soldiering.

It's just one of those things.

It's nothing I'm proud of but it's something I did at the time and if it had been me, I would have hoped that someone would have done the same for me if the roles were reversed, so it's just one of those things that happens in war.

War is not nice at all.

TERRY BURSTALL, MILITARY HISTORIAN: The thing that I'm upset about is him going into graphic detail about killing a wounded enemy soldier, which is completely and utterly against the Geneva Convention.

BERNARD BOWEN: Military historian Terry Burstall is also a Long Tan veteran, although he wasn't in Bob Buick's platoon.

TERRY BURSTALL: Bob says it was a mercy killing in his book, but if it was a mercy killing, would he have done the same to an Australian?

Because it was only -- we were only 15 minutes from a hospital by helicopter.

Helicopters had been in to take our own wounded out.

BOB BUICK: The criticism just rolls off my back.

BERNARD BOWEN: It doesn't upset you?

BOB BUICK: No, no, no, I expected it.

At any time you put anything down on paper, no matter what it is, you're going to rub someone up the wrong way, and who cares?

BERNARD BOWEN: But some Long Tan veterans accuse Bob Buick of reopening old wounds with his account of the battle.

President of the Long Tan Association, John Heslewood, who was a private in Bob Buick's platoon, believes his book doesn't serve any useful purpose.

JOHN HESLEWOOD, LONG TAN ASSOCIATION: There's a lot of blokes who have have had problems over the years with things that happened in Vietnam, and over the period of years are starting to get over it with the help of friends and counselling and that sort of stuff.

And then all of a sudden you pick up a book and read that sort of thing, you know, about people being killed and that, wounded.

LEX McAULAY: I think Australian soldiers always judge each other harshly, and especially their superiors.

BERNARD BOWEN: Lex McAulay isn't surprised that some former soldiers are sniping at their old platoon sergeant, but he believes the flak is unwarranted.

LEX McAULAY: If any reasonable army was going to war again and they could order another 10,000 copies of Bob Buick platoon sergeant, they probably would.

BERNARD BOWEN: Why do you think he is making these claims?

TERRY BURSTALL: Well, perhaps he's making peace with his God.

I don't know.

BERNARD BOWEN: Now retired and living on Queensland's Sunshine Coast, Bob Buick just shrugs off the criticism.

He knows that what happened while his men were clearing the battlefield has always been a sensitive issue, but he makes no apologies for his actions then or for his statements now.

BOB BUICK: There are critics no matter who you are or what you do, there's always critics, so I didn't write it as an official history -- I just wrote it as the Bob Buick story. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s164813.htm

[2nd of foot]

Ammo scales for the SLR in the BA was very much the same as that in the Napoleonic war (150) and not all of it was carried by the soldier but in company reserve. You are dealing with planning rates and the holding of ammo stokes prior to war starting as opposed to what they actually carry in combat. Some admin troops in both gulf wars only had a mag or so of ammo. But mech troops would have boxes in the vehicle to resupply on return after a short walk outside (being mech you carried/had available lots of stuff that light/air portable did not). The planning scale for the SLR was 5 mags plus a bandoleer of 50. One mag was with the CQMS as a company reserve. The bandoleer could and normally was link as opposed to clips of 7.62. You also had a slack handful of tracer. With the SA80 you still had the 5 mags but now the capacity was 30 not 20 and the bandoleer was 150 in 10 rd clips. The GPMG had gone from the rifle pl with the introduction of the LSW so no need to carry link. This changed with the introduction of the mini and the reintroduction of the GPMG back into the Pls.

You would also have 51mm mortar distributed within the pl (but normally kept within pl HQ). A variety of grenades were carried depending on task but would consist of HE, smk WP and signal (coloured). When the 66mm was in use most would be offered one to carry. The 84 was restricted to the crew, so about 4 or 6. Can’t remember what the SMG scale was as no one took it seriously. If you were air portable you would also be invited to carry 81 ammo and possibly a Milan missile. When the 94 was introduced the scale was one each (deep joy).

A mortar man would also have his part of the mortar (about 6 Kgs) plus 2 bombs plus his SA ammo. The Green Howards did a trial (they were air portable at the time) with each man carrying what was meant to be their combat load for a heli lift behind the enemy. The number one could stand up and slowly walk but could not lift his foot onto the tail ramp of the Chinook. :(

[Deaf Smith]

Anthony Hubert in Korea had his platoon carry double basic load. Plus as many grenades as they could carry.

And I remember one guy in Vietnam said, after stuffing his rucksack with M-16 mags, that he would rather go hungry one night than out of ammo one night.

That gives you a hint as how GI's at the front think.

Deaf

[Schuultz]

Well, but all that aside, they still have to be able to carry it...

[Rising Sun*]

Ammo scales for the SLR in the BA was very much the same as that in the Napoleonic war (150) and not all of it was carried by the soldier but in company reserve. You are dealing with planning rates and the holding of ammo stokes prior to war starting as opposed to what they actually carry in combat. Some admin troops in both gulf wars only had a mag or so of ammo. But mech troops would have boxes in the vehicle to resupply on return after a short walk outside (being mech you carried/had available lots of stuff that light/air portable did not). The planning scale for the SLR was 5 mags plus a bandoleer of 50. One mag was with the CQMS as a company reserve. The bandoleer could and normally was link as opposed to clips of 7.62. You also had a slack handful of tracer. With the SA80 you still had the 5 mags but now the capacity was 30 not 20 and the bandoleer was 150 in 10 rd clips. The GPMG had gone from the rifle pl with the introduction of the LSW so no need to carry link. This changed with the introduction of the mini and the reintroduction of the GPMG back into the Pls.

You would also have 51mm mortar distributed within the pl (but normally kept within pl HQ). A variety of grenades were carried depending on task but would consist of HE, smk WP and signal (coloured). When the 66mm was in use most would be offered one to carry. The 84 was restricted to the crew, so about 4 or 6. Can’t remember what the SMG scale was as no one took it seriously. If you were air portable you would also be invited to carry 81 ammo and possibly a Milan missile. When the 94 was introduced the scale was one each (deep joy).

A mortar man would also have his part of the mortar (about 6 Kgs) plus 2 bombs plus his SA ammo. The Green Howards did a trial (they were air portable at the time) with each man carrying what was meant to be their combat load for a heli lift behind the enemy. The number one could stand up and slowly walk but could not lift his foot onto the tail ramp of the Chinook. :(

Thanks for that.

Nothing elevates a semi-informed thread like a very well informed post.

The bandoleer could and normally was link as opposed to clips of 7.62.

My recollection of Australian ammunition in the Vietnam era is that there weren't any clips for SLR mags. I can't recall anything like the SMLE charger for an SLR mag. My recollection is that we had to feed each round into the mag by hand. So we had to carry weight of the mags as well as the load rather than being able to carry lighter chargers to insert in a mag in action.

Link was carried for the M60 by the MG crew and dispersed among some other section members. It could be used to fill SLR mags in an emergency but that was only a secondary use against the primary use of feeding the MG.

[tankgeezer]

When I was in service, a tank commander, each armor crewman was issued a 1911-A1 pistol. For this he had 2 magazines in a belt pouch. Each tank had a pair of M-3 smg's and those came with a 4 mag pouch I believe the mags were 30 rds, but may have been 20. The tank itself loaded 63 rds (M-60-A1) for the main battery, 6k rds for the co-axial MG, and 800-900 rds for the M-85 Cal. .50.
I would be foolish to run around with only those few rounds for the pistol, and kept at least twice the number of magazines for my guys. In those days we had no mine dischargers on board, so the pistols, and smg's were pretty much it for keeping the bugs away. If a neighbor was near enough, he might hose your vehicle with coax fire to clear away the trouble, but sometimes it wasnt possible.

[Rising Sun*]

If a neighbor was near enough, he might hose your vehicle with coax fire to clear away the trouble, but sometimes it wasnt possible.

Didn't you have canister to use for that, among other things?

[Schuultz]

Oh Wow, this thread has suddenly turned extremely interesting! :D

[2nd of foot]

My recollection of Australian ammunition in the Vietnam era is that there weren't any clips for SLR mags. I can't recall anything like the SMLE charger for an SLR mag. My recollection is that we had to feed each round into the mag by hand. So we had to carry weight of the mags as well as the load rather than being able to carry lighter chargers to insert in a mag in action.


The original FN had a split top cover and two notches so that you could load into the mag as it was on the rifle in a similar way to the SMLE.

http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/gorge/7460/FALwood.jpg

The SLR had a full top cover and was issued with a sped loader for the five round clips. The one I saw were made of plastic and never left the stores (that’s why they are called stores) and as part of your training test you had to hand load loose rds into a mag in X seconds.

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/PH_FN_SLR.gif

UK operational ammo came in clips of 5 and bandoleers of 50 and I think tins of 400. Stuff purchased for training came in cartons of 20, in liners of 200, in plastic boxes of 1000 or tins of 400. For a short time after the Falklands we had lots of captured ammo that was abysmal.

A bandoleer with clip.

http://www.forces80.com/images/P1010007.JPG

The link bandoleer was for 50 rds but I remember getting 125/150 rds into it. Excellent bit of kit and enabled you the though link around the section without it getting dirty.

http://www.forces80.com/images/P1010008.JPG

[2nd of foot]

If a neighbor was near enough, he might hose your vehicle with coax fire to clear away the trouble, but sometimes it wasnt possible.

We would do that to the tanks and for some reason they would get very upset. :shock: The holes in sleeping bags, food boxes and water cans may have been the reason but I am not sure.:confused:;)

[Rising Sun*]

2nd of foot

Thanks for another highly informative post.

The SLR had a full top cover and was issued with a sped loader for the five round clips. The one I saw were made of plastic and never left the stores (that’s why they are called stores) ...

:mrgreen:

UK operational ammo came in clips of 5 and bandoleers of 50 and I think tins of 400. Stuff purchased for training came in cartons of 20, in liners of 200, in plastic boxes of 1000 or tins of 400.

Maybe that explains why I can't recall clips, as I was only ever in training. Or maybe my memory is just stuffed 40 years after the event. After reading your last post I've realised that I was also unthinkingly and wrongly equating 'clip' with 'charger' in my last post.

The link bandoleer was for 50 rds but I remember getting 125/150 rds into it. Excellent bit of kit and enabled you the though link around the section without it getting dirty.

http://www.forces80.com/images/P1010008.JPG


What I had in mind when I was referring to link was just MG belt, like this.


http://www.ausvets.com.au/vietnam/1967/tamborinelge.jpg
Source: http://www.ausvets.com.au/vietnam/1967/ops1967.htm

[forager]

"Spare ammo?"

[Rising Sun*]

"Spare ammo?"

If it ain't in the magazine ready to feed into the breech, it's spare, or perhaps more accurately extra, at that moment.

[pdf27]

The one I saw were made of plastic and never left the stores (that’s why they are called stores)
Once upon a time (long before I started), my lot had a storeman known as "mickey the mud rat" who had realised that if he had nothing in his stores, he had no work to do. Therefore, whenever he saw an unsuspecting soldier near his stores he would grab them, wheel them in, and issue them with something. He's probably unique in the history of arms, however.

[tankgeezer]

Didn't you have canister to use for that, among other things?
The Earlier M-48 W/ the 90 mm gun had a can round available, The M-60 had a 105mm (English L7 gun) no can round, but we did have a thing called a Bee Hive round, (fletchette round for the dogmatic) which loaded 5,000 13 gram hard steel darts. This round could be set to function just a bit out the tube, or at any distance available on the fuze ring. The problem with fly swatting is that the darts would cause alot of collateral damage to softer parts of the tank. Plus the nearest bursting distance is 75 mtr from the muzzle, too far to do any good close up. Vehicle intervals were 50 mtr. So, the best thing was the .30 cal coax MG. That is if it felt like working that day, they were cantankerous, that was the old M-73, a later version, the M-219 was little better. mechanically, a clumsy machine, too Rube Goldberg to depend upon. In the heat of things one used whatever was at hand, better to damage the tank, than lose the crew.

[Schuultz]

So, I hope you don't mind me asking, but did you actually ever have to do that?

[tankgeezer]

We would do that to the tanks and for some reason they would get very upset. :shock: The holes in sleeping bags, food boxes and water cans may have been the reason but I am not sure.:confused:;) You shot up their beer.......:mrgreen:
Schultz:
If you were asking me if i ever had to fire on a friendly, no, I didnt nor was I ever in need of "grooming" ,but it was a part of our unit doctrine,sort of an agreement among Brigands.

[Nickdfresh]

You shot up their beer...


:( That's a warcrime.

[tankgeezer]

Sad and true,,, all hail the ale that hit the ground before its time.......

[Rising Sun*]

The link bandoleer was for 50 rds but I remember getting 125/150 rds into it. Excellent bit of kit and enabled you the though link around the section without it getting dirty.

http://www.forces80.com/images/P1010008.JPG

It might be a perspective issue as the rounds seem to get a bit shorter from right to left, but the first round on the left seems to be a lot shorter than the others, and maybe fatter or maybe it just has a different link around it?

[Rising Sun*]

:( That's a warcrime.

It's worse than that.

Particularly when inflicted by one's own side. :D

[Deaf Smith]

http://www.forces80.com/images/P1010008.JPG

That is an exellent idea. In Vietnam the M-60 had lots of trouble with dirt in the links. Since they had bandoleers for M-16 ammo, I fail to see why we didn't make such for the M-60.

Deaf

[student-scaley]

Once upon a time (long before I started), my lot had a storeman known as "mickey the mud rat" who had realised that if he had nothing in his stores, he had no work to do. Therefore, whenever he saw an unsuspecting soldier near his stores he would grab them, wheel them in, and issue them with something. He's probably unique in the history of arms, however.

That is truly unique for stores. Tell me, is he still serving and where can I find him?

[2nd of foot]

A number of questions points so I will do them in one go rather than 3 or 4 posts.

It might be a perspective issue as the rounds seem to get a bit shorter from right to left, but the first round on the left seems to be a lot shorter than the others, and maybe fatter or maybe it just has a different link around it?

On closer look it does not seem right but I hope you get the idea. If you look at the 4th rd from the right you can see a loop that the end rd would go though to keep it at the opening. It was possible to feed from the case if needed.

tankgeezer

Same with me and only in Canada.

I read in a book about the Ausy use of tanks in VN and using AP rounds very effectively to remove undergrowth and expose enemy positions, it was titled something like “The Big Battalions” and covered the early history involving the transition form Malaya to VN

pdf27

It’s a lot easier to account for kit if you only need to go through 1033s. But a truly remarkable store man.

[Rising Sun*]

I read in a book about the Ausy use of tanks in VN and using AP rounds very effectively to remove undergrowth and expose enemy positions, it was titled something like “The Big Battalions” and covered the early history involving the transition form Malaya to VN

Australian tanks certainly used AP to destroy bunkers and underground positions in Vietnam. The round would penetrate under the position before detonating and was much more effective in that application than whatever other rounds the tanks were carrying in infantry support roles. Apparently it was quite effective. I seem to recall reading that the enemy were often killed or wounded by concussion from the detonation.

[BriteLite]

Anthony Hubert in Korea had his platoon carry double basic load. Plus as many grenades as they could carry.

And I remember one guy in Vietnam said, after stuffing his rucksack with M-16 mags, that he would rather go hungry one night than out of ammo one night.

That gives you a hint as how GI's at the front think.

Deaf

Lt Col Anthony Herbert. He authored a book about his Army experiences. If one has the opportunity, Soldier is a remarkable story. Ultimately he was forced out for his compelling and critical assesment of the US Army in Nam.

[2nd of foot]

Australian tanks certainly used AP to destroy bunkers and underground positions in Vietnam. The round would penetrate under the position before detonating and was much more effective in that application than whatever other rounds the tanks were carrying in infantry support roles. Apparently it was quite effective. I seem to recall reading that the enemy were often killed or wounded by concussion from the detonation.

Sorry, I have cause you to misunderstand and due to my use of abbreviations that can be interpreted in different ways. :oops:

Where I have AP I mean Anti-personnel not armoured piercing, or I would have used HESH or APDS. Totally my fault. The AP round would cut through the undergrowth and clear it way. Not sure which round was used but I think it was developed following experience in Korea.

In Burma they used APDS and caped to destroy Japanese bunkers made from hard wood that were impervious to other fire. It was a very good tactic as the HE tank rounds had little to no effect.

[Nickdfresh]

The US Army used their tank destroyers' 76mm HEAT rounds against Japanese bunkers during WWII in the Pacific, mainly because there were few Japanese tanks. And for most of the War, the Army/Marines often used HE rounds against the flimsy tanks in the IJA arsenal...

[Firefly]

Signing out kit is a very old trick amoungst suppliers, if all your kit is signed out, then wheres your worry?

[Rising Sun*]

Where I have AP I mean Anti-personnel not armoured piercing, or I would have used HESH or APDS. Totally my fault. The AP round would cut through the undergrowth and clear it way. Not sure which round was used but I think it was developed following experience in Korea.

Ah! That makes more sense, as I was wondering how HEAT or HESH rounds could clear scrub.

Are the anti-personnel rounds you are talking about like a giant shot gun round with lots of little balls? We called them 'canister' during the Vietnam era (may still do for all I know). They would clear scrub. I've mentioned this elsewhere on the forum, but a bloke I knew who served as an Australian tank crew member in Vietnam was involved in a situation where tanks used canister on other Australian tanks (same as TG mentioned above as was agreed in his group) to clear VC off them. He said that all that was left was just shreds of flesh and clothing.

As you mentioned earlier, it also made a mess of their bins and everything else outside the hull and turret.

Off topic, but when I was training as a machine gunner (M60) during the Vietnam era we used to use the weapon to clear fire lanes in light scrub. And a lot of fun it was, too.

In Burma they used APDS and caped to destroy Japanese bunkers made from hard wood that were impervious to other fire. It was a very good tactic as the HE tank rounds had little to no effect.

Following up on this discussion, yesterday I asked a bloke who served in an Australian armoured - but cavalry, not tanks - unit in Vietnam about using tank rounds as bunker busters. He confirmed that armour piercing rounds were used effectively in that role and caused injuries by concussion, but as he wasn't directly involved in such events he couldn't recall whether they were HEAT or HESH. After reasoning out the way each round operates he came to the conclusion that he was buggered if he knew which one was used as he could see applications for both.

Maybe both were used. HESH for bunkers with an above ground element, HEAT for bunkers or tunnels etc which were below ground?

I think there might be a reference to tanks using armour piercing rounds during an Australian operation against enemy bunkers in Vietnam in Gary McKay's book In Good Company - One Man's War in Vietnam.

[TheBeam]

Off topic, but when I was training as a machine gunner (M60) during the Vietnam era we used to use the weapon to clear fire lanes in light scrub. And a lot of fun it was, too.


More off topic: this reminds me of Maxim travelling around pre-WWI to sell his machineguns. He'd set up a demonstration where he'd use the machinegun to cut down a fairly large tree.

[Rising Sun*]

More off topic: this reminds me of Maxim travelling around pre-WWI to sell his machineguns. He'd set up a demonstration where he'd use the machinegun to cut down a fairly large tree.

I have a vague recollection of seeing a photo of that, after the event, possibly on this site but I can't find it.

Anyway, Maxim's effort has been considerably improved upon. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6e_1203989047

Beats me how there is no recoil on that weapon. I suppose it must be due to the mount.

[Schuultz]

Yeah, definitely has to be the mount. I'd love to see them try to hold that gun while firing ^^.

I'm also surprised there's no army guys around them watching, they must've been behind the camera - I highly doubt they'd be allowed to play with that toy without supervision.

[TheBeam]

I'm also surprised there's no army guys around them watching, they must've been behind the camera - I highly doubt they'd be allowed to play with that toy without supervision.

That video is from the show Mythbusters....I love that show!

And army supervision??? Why would they possibly need that??? Being American IS enough. Afterall, miniguns are perfectly legal for civilians to own and use (http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_p2.html). (See #2)

[Rising Sun*]

I'd love to see them try to hold that gun while firing ^^.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOddZhT1S1U

[Schuultz]

That video is from the show Mythbusters....I love that show!

And army supervision??? Why would they possibly need that??? Being American IS enough. Afterall, miniguns are perfectly legal for civilians to own and use (http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_p2.html). (See #2)

There's some which are legal to use, but not the one they were using in the video. That one's a lot more modern. :D

Ask and ye shall receive

I was hoping for a non-movie one ^^

[Rising Sun*]

I was hoping for a non-movie one ^^

Why? Don't you think what you see in movies is real? :rolleyes: :D

[tankgeezer]

Yeah, definitely has to be the mount. I'd love to see them try to hold that gun while firing ^^.

I'm also surprised there's no army guys around them watching, they must've been behind the camera - I highly doubt they'd be allowed to play with that toy without supervision.
Although G.E. builds mini's, that Mini-gun is owned by Mr. Dillon of the Dillon corp.(they also manufacture mini's,) and in this case was fired on the Dillon range.It has also been featured on episodes of Monster Garage, Future weapons, and some other shows.
There are no military types there, only technical support people, and (most likely,) Mr, Dillon. they are firing 100% trace so it makes a good show.
There are a small number of mini's in private hands, but they are expensive to buy. (and feed)

[tankgeezer]

Ah! That makes more sense, as I was wondering how HEAT or HESH rounds could clear scrub.

Are the anti-personnel rounds you are talking about like a giant shot gun round with lots of little balls? We called them 'canister' during the Vietnam era (may still do for all I know). They would clear scrub. I've mentioned this elsewhere on the forum, but a bloke I knew who served as an Australian tank crew member in Vietnam was involved in a situation where tanks used canister on other Australian tanks (same as TG mentioned above as was agreed in his group) to clear VC off them. He said that all that was left was just shreds of flesh and clothing.

As you mentioned earlier, it also made a mess of their bins and everything else outside the hull and turret.

Off topic, but when I was training as a machine gunner (M60) during the Vietnam era we used to use the weapon to clear fire lanes in light scrub. And a lot of fun it was, too.



Following up on this discussion, yesterday I asked a bloke who served in an Australian armoured - but cavalry, not tanks - unit in Vietnam about using tank rounds as bunker busters. He confirmed that armour piercing rounds were used effectively in that role and caused injuries by concussion, but as he wasn't directly involved in such events he couldn't recall whether they were HEAT or HESH. After reasoning out the way each round operates he came to the conclusion that he was buggered if he knew which one was used as he could see applications for both.

Maybe both were used. HESH for bunkers with an above ground element, HEAT for bunkers or tunnels etc which were below ground?

I think there might be a reference to tanks using armour piercing rounds during an Australian operation against enemy bunkers in Vietnam in Gary McKay's book In Good Company - One Man's War in Vietnam.


The U.S. version of the Hesh round is(was in the 70's) called the HEP (high explosive, plastic) it worked as the hesh does, but had no mesh container within the projectile casing. It was the officially preferred round for bunkers, but the heat, being a large, and unfriendly shaped charge could be used against non, or thin concrete bunkers with good results. For thicker concrete structures, the HEP was still better as its design cause it to form a very strained shockwave through the concrete, blowing hopefully large, and lethal chunks off of the inside surface of the wall it impacts (Spalling) It was capable to a degree, of doing this when applied to armor as well.

[Rising Sun*]

The U.S. version of the Hesh round is(was in the 70's) called the HEP (high explosive, plastic) it worked as the hesh does, but had no mesh container within the projectile casing. It was the officially preferred round for bunkers, but the heat, being a large, and unfriendly shaped charge could be used against non, or thin concrete bunkers with good results. For thicker concrete structures, the HEP was still better as its design cause it to form a very strained shockwave through the concrete, blowing hopefully large, and lethal chunks off of the inside surface of the wall it impacts (Spalling) It was capable to a degree, of doing this when applied to armor as well.

In Vietnam the enemy bunkers were generally field earthworks. Reinforcement was pretty much limited to timber, mostly from local trees etc, much like Japanese bunkers in WWII.

I think that HEAT might have been the appropriate round as HESH / HEP type rounds mightn't have had enough solid structure to apply the spalling force to.

[tankgeezer]

In Vietnam the enemy bunkers were generally field earthworks. Reinforcement was pretty much limited to timber, mostly from local trees etc, much like Japanese bunkers in WWII.

I think that HEAT might have been the appropriate round as HESH / HEP type rounds mightn't have had enough solid structure to apply the spalling force to. True, the log dirt type bunker was best taken by a shaped charge,think I said that, but Charlie liked the RPG for bunkers, and we had the LAW which would be good for that. (If it worked) and a 105 heat round was always available from your friendly neighborhood tanker's problem solving kit. (Its the easiest round to find, looks like a whisky bottle,,,,)

[Rising Sun*]

True, the log dirt type bunker was best taken by a shaped charge,think I said that,

You did say that, but I mistook it on a quick read for a reference to non-concrete bunkers.

Which, oddly enough, would include earth and log bunkers. Sorry. :oops:

[forager]

The bunkers I saw in RVN were a long ways from any roads or tracks which would enable anything bigger than a 3.5 or a LAW.

3.5s were generally unavailable to conventional troops and LAWs, while effective were very unreliable.

You had to flank bunkers if possible and assault them which was not a great idea.

A much better idea was to use any artillery or air support you could get.

I worked with CIDG and we had few resources of that kind.

We surprised some guys in a bunker once and 5 guys in it ran out hands up.

My Cambodes shot them like dogs. Quite understandable from their point of view.

As advisors we had to take a back seat to some goings on.

[tankgeezer]

You did say that, but I mistook it on a quick read for a reference to non-concrete bunkers.

Which, oddly enough, would include earth and log bunkers. Sorry. :oops:
No need to be sorry, I really wasnt sure i had mentioned that,,, Senior moment,,, anyway Piper!! up spirits!! :)

[Rising Sun*]

No need to be sorry, I really wasnt sure i had mentioned that,,, Senior moment ..

Senior moment is the gentle term. Realists call them CRAFT moments (Can't Remember A Fucking Thing). :D

[Rising Sun*]

I worked with CIDG and we had few resources of that kind.

What's CIDG?

[Rising Sun*]

It was definitely and Owen IIRC...

And here, at about 3:33 mins:secs, is what looks very much like an Owen gun in (Commonwealth Film Unit propaganda / morale boosting / historical / whatever) film of Australians in Vietnam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pUNkD7CZ-o&feature=related

I love the way a bit after that scene how Australian artillery is dropped into a bare field in supposeldy hot support action by the US Chinooks and then the artillery is seen, supposedly moments later, doing fire plots in an established camp. Boy, could the Aussies perform miracles in moments! :rolleyes:

I am very fond of the comment about the American general refusing to accept the change of name of the 4/19 Prince of Wales Light Horse (in which I served) to 1 APC etc by insisting that that they "lend tone to his outfit" and then referring them as the King George III Light (or, even better, White - I can't be sure) Horse. (I assume this was a delightfully ironic reference to the King who caused and lost the American War of Independence, or maybe the American general thought he had promoted the unit. :D )

[TheBeam]

...the American general refusing to accept the change of name of the 4/19 Prince of Wales Light Horse ... and then referring them as the King George III Light (or, even better, White - I can't be sure) Horse. (I assume this was a delightfully ironic reference to the King who caused and lost the American War of Independence, or maybe the American general thought he had promoted the unit. :D )

OMG! LOL! Did he go on to advise George W. Bush?

[Yosh1aki]

What's CIDG?I think it may mean Civilian Irregular Defence Group.

[Rising Sun*]

It was definitely and Owen IIRC...

More on the Owen in Vietnam.

Only had a short life in Vietnam. They were carried by Platoon Commanders, Forward Scouts and Stretcher Bearers among others. They remained with us until October 1966. There were no real problems with the weapon; it was the ammunition that failed. I think there were several attempts to prove that the gun/ammo was no longer suitable and should be replaced with many more 5.56 weapons. Success finally came when the Armourers provided copies of a formal instruction that the weapons were not to be test fired with any ammo older than 1954. The only rounds that the Battalion could get for operations were made in the early 1940's. Bye-bye OMC's, hello AR 16's. My bold http://www.5rar.asn.au/narrative/memoirs.htm


The Owen wasn't the only WWII weapon to serve with the Australians in Vietnam.

The move into Nui Dat, part of Operation Hardihood, saw us picking up all of our faithful weapons and walking into the rubber trees. It was here that I became aware that one of the Company Quarter Master Sergeants (CQMS), Lofty Cunningham from Support Company, had brought along an old friend of his from a previous affair (or marriage, I'm not quite sure.) Yes, Lofty decided that we needed at least one .303 Short Magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) that he had used in Korea. I told him we could look after it provided he had the ammunition. So unknowingly we became the last Infantry Battalion to carry Owen Sub Machine Carbines and .303 SMLE rifles into war. Same link

[Rising Sun*]

My recollection of Australian ammunition in the Vietnam era is that there weren't any clips for SLR mags. I can't recall anything like the SMLE charger for an SLR mag. My recollection is that we had to feed each round into the mag by hand. So we had to carry weight of the mags as well as the load rather than being able to carry lighter chargers to insert in a mag in action.

Hah!

My memory proves that sustained use of alcohol preserves the brain just fine!

It must suck to be a teetotaller! :D

The greatest weakness of the SLR was that the ammunition was heavy and that, in very bad times, the re-supply was by ammo packed in boxes and there was no quick way of loading them into a magazine. During the battle of Long Tan, all the 5 RAR Armourers were on the helipad loading 15 rounds into extra magazines that were then pushed out of a helicopter into the D Company 6 RAR site. The original FN version had a bridge over the body that allowed for magazine filling from rounds held in clips. The Australian made version did not. http://www.5rar.asn.au/narrative/memoirs.htm

[Cuts]

My recollection of Australian ammunition in the Vietnam era is that there weren't any clips for SLR mags. I can't recall anything like the SMLE charger for an SLR mag. My recollection is that we had to feed each round into the mag by hand. So we had to carry weight of the mags as well as the load rather than being able to carry lighter chargers to insert in a mag in action.

Hah!

My memory proves that sustained use of alcohol preserves the brain just fine!

It must suck to be a teetotaller! :D

The greatest weakness of the SLR was that the ammunition was heavy and that, in very bad times, the re-supply was by ammo packed in boxes and there was no quick way of loading them into a magazine. During the battle of Long Tan, all the 5 RAR Armourers were on the helipad loading 15 rounds into extra magazines that were then pushed out of a helicopter into the D Company 6 RAR site. The original FN version had a bridge over the body that allowed for magazine filling from rounds held in clips. The Australian made version did not.

http://www.5rar.asn.au/narrative/memoirs.htm

Sorry to say this pal but perhaps you should have a word with 'er indoors - I think she's been putting some alcohol-free liquid, (eg Fosters,) in your VB bottles !

There was indeed an Aussie guide for the five rd chargers, made of steel and coated with a proprietary material called Nylon 11, though I don't think six charger guides equals the Remington rimfire... ;)
The coating was slick in order to expedite loading and non-reflective.

I'd imagine that the mags at Long Tan were pre-loaded at the HLS mainly to ensure the Diggers didn't have to charge their own while in contact, and that the mags, (SLR mags being more robust than those of the FAL,) would protect the rds which otherwise might get damaged in the free drop/helicast.

The bandolier below is Aussie, marked: AUST/ MKI CPI N 6/67 the year after Long Tan.
http://images.trademe.co.nz/photoserver/50/82438950_full.jpg You'll find it here (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Antiques-collectables/Militaria/Modern/auction-215497253.htm).
However the charger guide looks more like the Brit one than the Australian guides I've seen, although that's not to say that other models weren't in use.
Just not at your unit. :D

If I've got any photos of the Aussie ones I'll get them scanned in.

[Rising Sun*]

Just not at your unit. :D

Given that we did our M113 drills out of trucks and Land Rovers, my unit's few M113s being reserved for more important tasks (and more important people) that's entirely possible. :D

It's also possible that our leadership thought that chargers were too technologically challenging for us. :)

[Uyraell]

Not for nothing were M113's at times called "Prayer Wagons" . . . am told NZ commissioned type august persons tended to reserve the APCs for officers to use . . . resulting in said "Prayers" that charlie had managed to line up his sights on one that was occupied by the aforementioned august personage(s).

The other application for the term "Prayer Wagon" being that one did not have a chance of surviving the experience if one's APC were hit by an rpg: i.e."Not a Prayer".

I don't know that any Kiwi APCs were actually knocked out while so-occupied though.

Regards, Uyraell.