Private Bluebottle

The role of infantry is to take and hold ground. All other corps support that. Unfortunately, they also tend to forget it.

Are you for real??? </font>

Well, you heard it here first. The Australians are admitting that their infantry are the queens of the battlefield. I never realized 'Priscilla, Queen of the Desert' was a documentary on the Aussie military... </font>

RAAC didn't deploy any units to Korea. Some individuals may have served, attached to UK armoured units but no Australian Armoured Corps units participated. Of course not. However, as we are extremely unlikely in our area of strategic interest to encounter tanks, I think its a fairly safe bet that we don't need a full MBT of the most recent types. As much as our turret heads hate to admit it, it is infantry in our region which is still Queen of the Battlefield and thence their job to support it, rather than the other way 'round. [ July 01, 2004, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

Have to be SWPA. Either New Guinea or more likely Borneo. I seem to have a memory in the back of my mind of some Japanese light tanks being encountered by a Mathilda. This does show one of the major problems the RAAC has faced for most of its existence - it needs to justify itself. Indeed, it nearly lost the Leopard AS1s about 15 years ago, because Treasury pointed out their parade queen status, versus their massive costs to keep. The Army lied at the time and hid the true costs. While I think we do need a tank. We need one optomised for our defence environment. Not to provide a means for the Army to run off at the behest of Washington and earn a few more gongs (the main supporter of expeditionary warfare is of course the Army, as it means they can swan around the world on extended tax-payer provided hols and do a bit of duty-free shopping in exotic locations, even if the adrenalin has to be got pumping occasionally and it does mean they have to kill a few of the locals in the process. The other services are much happier supporting "Fortress Australia", as it means they get the biggest slices of the budget pie ).

It also means that our defence forces are in danger of once more becoming the Janissaries of Washington. I fought long and hard in the 1960s to see an end to that. I've no desire to see it return. The worst aspect of it is that it now limits our government's foreign policy options - either we work in concert with Washington or we are stuck with vehicles which are completely inappropriate to our strategic environment. We can't use them for the defence of Australia because our infrastructure will not support their transport around the nation (interesting that the Army recently held an exercise in South Australia where they shipped Leopard AS1s down from Darwin on the Ghan, showing its defence utility). We can't use them for intervention in our region, as we lack the means to transport them and anyway, they're far too heavy for deployment in most of the region anyway (if you think Oz has poor infrastructure, let me introduce you to Oceania!). This purchase is more to do with saving JWH's embarassement after he promised an "armoured brigade group" back in 2002 for possible use in the intervention in Iraq. It has little to do with sound strategic thinking. We may have needed a new MBT but the Abrahms was not the right one. Not even the Leopard II was the right one. What we need is something about the size/weight of a Leopard AS1, with improved protection. We do not need a 120mm gun.

Those who live on the Sydney break-water should be careful...

Funny, I was always told if you wanted certain illegal substances, you asked a Kiwi. :eek:

Them is speakin' words, them is! How dare youse blokes say I'm just a wet pom? My grate-grate-granddad was brought here in chains. The moment he stepped ashore, he was an Aussie, through and through and his chains were struck off and a stubbie shoved in his hand! He drunk a loyal toast to Australia and my family has never looked back. His crime to be transported? Strikin' a senior officer in the bloody Pommie army. Good on yer mate! Just what them Poms deserved. As for yer intended visit to Oz, mate, I'd welcome yer on the wharf with a slab, a bucket o' prawns and barbie full o'snags. Then I'd kick the sh*t out yer, in the nicest possible way o' course, yer loveable bastard. Bring yer ol' mum as well, she can join the missus over at the salad table and watch the fun. Now watch out the red-back don' bite yer on the goolies when yer go to the dunny, OK?

Oh, yes. No one questions all that ****e. But what have you all done for us lately, eh?? </font>

What the hell, and you're an immigrant spokesman for how wonderful Australia is, eh? Or has Australia given up on teaching 'proper English' then (which, given that the buggers communicate in some sort of drunken private code, I'd be more than willing to believe). </font>

Generally I'd agree with you but the vehicles were equipped to carry their weapons in an aggressive manner, not just merely within them. They were intended, if necessay to be able to defend themselves. So their weapons were mounted, not just carried. The British developed two specialised carriers - the "Bren" and the "Scout". Expense and a desire for a common vehicle which could carry out both roles produced the "Universal". Australia (and New Zealand) only produced their own versions of the Universal. The Australian version only had skid-steering, instead of track warping, featured a large, transverse air vent across the top of the bulkhead behind the driver and was designed from the outset to carry a Vickers as well as the Boys and Bren in the forward compartment. This is detailed in Mike Cecils excellent Profile on Australian pattern carriers. There are numerous pictures in it of Aust.Pat. Carriers carrying vickers, in the desert and elsewhere. The Aust.Pat.Carrier had provision for a Bren to be mounted on top of a pole, for AA work or in a low pintle, behind the driver, on the right side of the vehicle, to cover the forward arc, over his head. Not in the Australian Army. There are numerous pictures of Lewis guns in use with Australian forces in the first 2 years of the war, as a replacement for the Bren gun. Do not assume that the British experience is the same as that of the whole Commonwealth or Imperial forces'.

I've been through the thread from start to finish, some interesting comments. However, I have a few questions and one or two points, which don't appear to have been made yet. 1) Why, in the Commonwealth TO&Es are there insufficient towing vehicles for the 2 Pdr AT guns? 2) Why is there this artificial seperation between AT rifle equipped carriers and pure Bren gun equipped carriers. My understanding was that universal carriers were equipped with both an LMG and an AT rifle, as well as a 2in mortar. 3) To further complicate that point, Australian universal carriers (Local Pattern) were equipped with Vickers MMGs/AT Rifles/Bren guns and upon occasion, all three were carried, as well as the 2in mortar. 4) Australian officers' headgear - below Brigade level, particularly early in the war, even battalion commanders wore steel helmets, not peaked caps, when in the line. A minor quibbled, I know but one worth thinking about. 5) Early in the war, Australia and the UK could not supply sufficient Brens to equip all units. Often the venerable Lewis was substituted. I can't seem to find it anywhere in the game.

Thanks Jon. I did a quick search and found this: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=022573#000016 However, its a discussion about smoke, not HE or AP rounds. Even so, its interesting. One question though, why does this bloke Rexford refer to himself in the third person? :confused: ps. Where's my turn? [ November 27, 2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

I detect some possible hyperbole here. 17,000 rounds, in the larger scheme of things, is really not that much. I would be interested how they could play a vital part in later battles[!]. Just an example - for 710 10cm K18 in 1939, ammo production was 93,000. For 800 guns in 1940, 1.26 million rounds were produced. </font>

Oh, well, somebody has to do it, I suppose. Never had anything to do with the 1/15 RNSWL. Part o' the Rum Corps. Unhappily my one exercise in NSW was also my last as I resigned afterwards because of the Rum Corps mentality.

I remember reading something about that but cannot remember where. I don't suppose you have a reference handy?

Obviously a Mk.I* traction engine, hailing back to the 2nd Boer War! While the Mk.II had an armoured cab and pulled armoured wagons, the Mk.I* didn't. The Mk.I* though, was an improvement over the original Mk.I in that a seat was provided for the driver, who otherwise had to stand. Neither the Mk.I(*) or the Mk.II were terribly successful in their role of pulling armoured land trains across the African veld, purely becuase "Johnny Boer", once they became aware of the clumsiness of the machines, started digging massive numbers of pits, similar to the Elephant traps that the natives did. The result was that the traction engines became largely confined to roads, where because of the Victorian era restrictions on road transport they had to be preceeded by a soldier carrying a red flag, which slowed them to the point of uselessness.

Wasn't aware there was an RAAC museum at 'matta. Which regt? "Oh, goody! Eccles! Eccles! Look what the strange man gave me!" "Wow! A picture of some licorice all-sorts! I gotta picture of a cream bun!" "Want to swap your picture of a cream bun for my picture of some licorice all-sorts?"

To not hand over our hard (or in some cases, ill-gotten) shekels and decide not to purchase the game? [ November 26, 2003, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

Ah Bluebottle (in my best Neddie Seagoon voice)! We have a bridgelayer version at the Regt Museum. It looks pretty sad compared to the Matilda and the Centurion - even the Mk1 Ferret looks like a more practical AFV. Now shut up or I'll set Eccles and Moriarty onto you! Ying tong, ying tong, .... </font>

The naming of tanks was undertaken as a direct order from the Prime-Minister and Minister of Defence, Mr. Churchill who felt he was easily confused by the nomenclature adopted by the British Army to describe AFVs (usually a "A" letter followed by a model number). The result was the mass adoption of names. Aircraft and engine names were more a combination of marketing by the manufacturers or because the RAF preferred to name their aircraft distinctively to differentiate between them.

A good point. Even so, it still raises the question, is there any substantial difference between the US 75mm HE round and the German/Italian 75mm HE round in CMAK? As I'm yet to recieve the game, I can't tell. It is an interesting anecdote though!

I ran into an interest bit of narrative when I was going through George Thayer's _The War Business_ (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1969). I thought this would be of some interest to some of you, if not outright amusing for most. Colonel George Burling Jarett's greatest moment came in 1941-42 when he was the ammunition adviser to the British in North Africa. The British were short of 75 mm tank ammunition, and they turned to Jarrett for help. He heard that there was some superior quality German 75 mm ammunition that had been captured at Tobruk; but, he was informed, the shells would not fit the Allies' guns because the rotating band was too large. Undaunted, Jarrett set up a mobile machine shop on the banks of the Suez Canal; each shell was mounted on a lathe and the rotating band was turned down by Royal Ordnance Corps technicians. He knew that the German 75 mm ammunition became fully armed when rotated at 1,500 rpm, so he kept the lathes turning no faster than 400 pm. There were no accidents but, he told me, "It scared the life out of a lot of people." These shells, some 17,000 pieces, were to play a vital part in later battles of the North African campaign. [Note p. 34]

I must say, I was very disappointed by the choice of scenarios in the demo. Why are both American versus German? It would have been a great deal better if BFC had included a Commonwealth versus Axis scenario IMHO. Not everybody in the world wants to play Americans all the time. Was this a conscious decision or one made which merely assumed that unless it had Americans, no one would be interested?