Australian Armoured units serving during the Vietnam War

Armoured personnel carriers

The ubiquitous APC first appeared in the conflict in mid-June 1965 as part of the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (1RAR) group, then operating under the command of the 173rd United States Airborne Brigade in Bien Hoa Province.

At the vanguard of the APC's 7-year-long deployment to South Vietnam was 1 Troop, A Squadron, 4/19th Prince of Wales Light Horse.

Equipped with the American M113A1 family of armoured vehicles, the Troop and its successors were highly mobile. Their vehicles could operate over a wide range of terrains, including heavily forested areas and, with their amphibious capability, could also ford streams and cross inundated paddies.

In 1966, the 1st Armoured Personnel Squadron worked with the 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (5RAR), and 105 Battery, Royal Australian Artillery, to establish the 1st Australian Task Force base at Nui Dat.

Shortly afterwards, although not for the first time, they proved their worth in a perilous situation.

During the Battle of Long Tan in August 1966, APCs were one among several elements that swung the course of the battle in the Australians' favour. While artillery had a devastating effect on the enemy and the infantry, pinned down and under heavy fire, withstood assault after assault, it was the arrival of the APCs from 3 Troop 3rd Cavalry Regiment, firing from their .50 calibre machine guns into an enemy force massing for yet another attack, that forced them to disperse and withdraw.

APC crews could expect to spend lengthy periods away from the Nui Dat base. While away, the men would spend much of their time in vehicles that effectively became their home during operations.

Armoured vehicles required constant maintenance, some of which, including changing tracks in the field, was carried out by crew members.

Heavier maintenance tasks and repairs were done by the Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RAEME). In the case of APCs, RAEME personnel undertook, among other tasks, major engine repairs, gun replacements and any required welding. While the field crews were expected to ensure that the vehicles' supplies of oil, other lubricants and water were maintained.

Unfortunately, APCs were very vulnerable to mines and their thin armour made them targets for recoilless rifle fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

Every time they went into the field, crews risked death or injury from these devices, and images of damaged APCs are a vivid reminder of the dangers these men faced.

The 3rd Cavalry Regiment, for instance, suffered 20 deaths during the war, 17 of whom were killed in action. Another 110 members of the unit were wounded in action, and one author has suggested that one in 7 members of the Regiment could expect to become a battle casualty in Vietnam.

Having been among those present at the establishment of the Task Force Base, the Cavalry were among the last to leave. No 1 Troop helped close down the base area and left Vietnam on 12 March 1972.

AWM FAI/70/0852/VN

Tanks

Australian tanks, in the form of elements of C Squadron, 1st Armoured Regiment, reached Vietnam in February 1968.

Eventually, the squadron's organisation included:

• 4 tank troops
• 2 gun tanks at squadron headquarters
• a Special Equipment Troop of 2 tank dozers and 2 bridge layers
• a Light Aid Detachment (LAD) from the RAEME with 2 armoured recovery vehicles and 2 fitters' tracks.

Not everyone, including some in the Armoured Corps itself, was of the view that tanks would be effective in South Vietnam.

The Centurion with which they were equipped had been developed in the United Kingdom and intended for use in northern Europe. However, the Army's experience of tank operations in jungle settings against the Japanese during World War II suggested that armoured units could play a useful role in such conditions.

The idea that tanks might be of value in South Vietnam gained impetus after 2 operations in which Australians suffered losses that shocked the relatively small force: Operation Bribie and Operation Renmark in February 1967.

During Operation Bribie, having attacked into a strong defensive position, an Australian force suffered the loss of 8 men killed and 27 wounded. During this fight, APCs were used almost as if they were tanks, a hazardous practice not recommended in armoured doctrine.

During Operation Renmark, no enemy troops were seen until after the damage had been done. Seven Australians were killed and 26 wounded, all victims of mines and booby traps.

The rate of losses and the manner in which these men met their deaths or were wounded informed the thinking of some senior officers who believed that a third battalion was needed in South Vietnam and that tanks, with their mobility and firepower, were necessary to support the infantry.

Months passed, however, before the decision to send tanks, along with a third battalion group and other units to South Vietnam was taken on 6 September 1967. More months passed until the tanks reached the theatre of operations.

Tanks were first used in action on Operation Pinnaroo in April 1968, serving alongside infantry, artillery, engineers and the APCs.

Support in jungle and rural areas

But it was not until May 1968 that tanks experienced their first major test, during the Battle of Coral–Balmoral.

On the Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral, the tanks served as an adjunct to artillery, but it was outside the wire that they demonstrated their true worth.

In a series of encounters with enemy bunkers, the tanks proved that they could work in tandem with the infantry to destroy these well-fortified positions. Their canister rounds shredded foliage, deprived the enemy of cover and killed anyone unfortunate enough to be in a bunker under tank fire.

Crews could also use the weight of their vehicles by turning the tank on its tracks to crush bunkers beneath it.

For some in the infantry, the mental shift from being wary of working with tanks to considering them a most valued asset took just a single action and a matter of hours.

Thereafter, tanks were regarded as a welcome addition to the Australian force.

Working closely with the infantry, they undoubtedly saved many Australian lives.

Over time, events proved that in most environments tanks and infantry were a powerful combination. Tank crews needed infantry to locate targets and engage enemy troops, particularly those armed with rocket-propelled grenades, and the infantry needed tanks to clear lines of sight, open pathways, and destroy bunkers.

Support in urban areas

Having proved themselves on many occasions in jungle or rural settings, tanks also demonstrated their effectiveness in an urban setting during the Battle of Binh Ba in June 1969.

Described in 5RAR's after-action report as a 'battle-winning factor', the tanks at Binh Ba weren credited with playing a major role in keeping Australian casualties low. Only one Australian was killed in the battle, but most of the 11 wounded were members of tank crews.

As part of the withdrawal from Vietnam, the 1st Armoured Regiment was recalled to Australia, leaving South Vietnam in September 1971. For the infantry who remained, the absence of tanks rendered their task more difficult and more dangerous.

Conditions in South Vietnam

To serve in Vietnam was to serve in a hot, humid tropical environment. To serve inside an armoured vehicle during the war was to compound the discomfort of a climate that was very foreign to most Australians. Alternating between an unpleasantly hot dry season and a wet season during which the relative humidity could approach 100%, South Vietnam's climate drained men of energy and demanded high levels of endurance.

For APC crews, the dry season meant operating through a constant haze of dust that penetrated their clothing and permeated their pores. The dust worked its way into their eyes and ears, causing conjunctivitis and ear infections.

The heat and humidity could become difficult to bear inside an armoured vehicle that magnified the outside temperature.

In the wet season, a different set of problems emerged, not the least of which was the need to be vigilant about getting one's vehicle bogged.

Rain and damp caused the most obvious and most common problems. Men stayed wet for much of the time, and being inside a vehicle made little difference if the hatches were open.

Crews whose APCs' floors were covered with sandbags for extra protection against landmines had to contend with the added weight when the sandbags took on water, as well as the unpleasant odour of mildew and rot common in tropical environments.

Tank crews, not surprisingly, experienced similar discomforts. As one Australian engineer put it:

The Centurion tank … some situations we had to have the hatch down … even with the armoured personnel carriers you had to be hatched down at different times, looking through periscopes which is very frustrating. Of course heat built up in the tank … and the armoured personnel carrier, gets very hot with weapons going off, cordite, heat of the motor, heat of everything else that's going on all the time. It's very uncomfortable.

[Desmond Kearton, RAEME, Australians at War Film Archive, interview no 1449.]

As one author on the subject of armour in South Vietnam put it:

It can be a test of human endeavour inside a noisy metal box all day in 40-degree heat, with 80 per cent relative humidity and no one has had a shower for a week.

[McKay, G., and Nicholas, G., Jungle tracks, Australian armour in Vietnam, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 2001, p. 37.]

Of course, the climate was something that everyone who served in South Vietnam had to reckon with.

In combat, however, the crews of armoured vehicles and, indeed, infantrymen travelling in APCs faced heavy-calibre weapons and the ever-present threat of landmines whose explosive power could be measured in tens of kilograms.

APCs, with their relatively thin armour, were vulnerable to rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) fire, as well as recoilless rifles, mines and booby traps. Even the more heavily armoured Centurion tanks were at risk should an RPG hit them in the wrong place. Proving the value of armour on combat operations in South Vietnam was not without cost.