"Background of the Aussies in Vietnam" Topic

Folks,

Am putting the finishing touches on Grunt Forward. One of the new features is a more in depth look at the background of the leaders. For Australia in Vietnam were most of the officers long standing soldiers? Drafted? How did they get there?
How about the NCOs?

Thanks for the info

Joe

There is a very nice summary book "Australia in the Vietnam War" that discussed all this. Many of the troops were veterans of other foreign adventures.

Joe, about 50% of the officers and NCO's were ARA (regulars) and about 50% were conscripts who had volunteered for service outside Australia (Australian law only allows troops to serve outside Australia if they have signed a waiver, volunteering for overseas service- that includes the ARA, but you may not be allowed to serve beyond 4 years if you don't sign the waiver in the ARA). The numbers varied from battalion to battalion, but that's a good average for 1966-1973.

Up until about '70 all the ARA SNCO's, WO's (all were ARA, no conscripts were promoted above CPL in the battalions heading to RVN) and Officers above the rank of 2LT/LT were likely to have prior experience in RVN, Malaya, Borneo and/or Korea.

The exceptions are:

1. Australian Army Training Team Vietnam (1962-1973). They were 100% ARA (or CMF who had been ARA) and all (except some ADMIN staff) had seen prior active service.

2. 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (deployed to RVN in May 1965, RTA June 1966) was attached to the US 173rd Airborne Brigade. This battalion was the only one that was 100% ARA. 80% of the members (except the junior officers and "jubies"- privates who had completed IET's [similar to US AIT] and just marched into the battalion) had previous active service Malaya and/or Korea, the RSM having served in WWII, on the Kokoda Track.

3. Special Air Service Regiment was all ARA or CMF Commandoes who'd volunteered to do a tour with SASR. They tended to have a high percentage of veterans, all their SNCO, WO and OFFR's needing to have active service before being accepted to the Regiment or being cleared for promotion from CPL.

These books will give you some of the background I think you're looking for:

Vietnam Task. The 5th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment 1966/67. ( link )

COMBAT BATTALION: The Eighth Battalion in Vietnam ( link )

Delta Four : Australian Riflemen in Vietnam ( link )

Hope this helps.

Dal.

Thanks Dal ! Yes, a lot of people don't know about the Aussies as part of SEATO fighting in SE Asia. And as usual, the old "ANZACs" did their duty in a professional and effective manner …

Two books by Lex Macauly(sp?), "Coral" and "Long Tan" can best be found used. "Coral" is about an assault on a fire base as well as actions in and around the base. "Long Tan" is about a company that set out into the rubber plantation near the main Australian base and ran into a regiment sized VC Main Force unit on the way to attack the base. Excellent books.

Another by the same author is "Blood and Iron" about the Australian battles along the Kokoda Track in New Guinea in WWII.

conscripts who had volunteered for service outside Australia (Australian law only allows troops to serve outside Australia if they have signed a waiver, volunteering for overseas service- that includes the ARA,

Is this true? I know a couple of guys of the right age who were terrified of the conscription lottery because of the fear of being sent to Vietnam. Did they have nothing to worry about?

L 4, most people here don't know that there were more than Aussies, Kiwis, Yanks and Ruff-Puffs in Vieties. South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand also had troops there, as well. Any others that you know of?

Shardik, short answer is "NO!". Or you can read the longer answer below.

Dal.

Is this true? I know a couple of guys of the right age who were terrified of the conscription lottery because of the fear of being sent to Vietnam.

Yes, mate. That's why they had to form the AIF to serve overseas in WWI and WWII- they couldn't use the militia forces.

There were 287,000 men conscripted between 1951 and 1972, but only 26,000 served overseas. From 1965 63,000 were called up and only 19,000 (3 in 10) went to Vieties- see link . Many of those conscripted from 1965 served in Malaysia, where we maintained a battalion until 1973. However, if you signed the Overseas Service Waiver you didn't get to pick the country where you served. You were volunteering to serve overseas- the Army got to pick where that was.

The law also applies to Ares/CMF and ARA, as I said. It's found in the Defence Act 1903 (sorry, can't remember the reference) and is the reason there were conscription referenda during WWI. It's also why Curtin's government changed the law in 1943 to include some areas to the immediate north, so the AMF (militia, containing a lot of conscripts) could help the 2AIF retake them from the Jap.

Did they have nothing to worry about?

No- unless they were really unlucky. Less than 20 men were deployed to RVN without having signed the waiver (and a few more to Malaysia, which was pretty quiet then- few contacts and no KIA's). Three (from memory) served their tour before the mistake was realised, the rest were approached and given the choice to return to Australia. About half elected to stay on (they were already there and back then there were some good rewards for having done active service, such as the DVA Gold Card for free medical and dental when you get older).

HOWEVER! There was a world of pressure put on nasho's to sign the waiver at times (eg when we expanded from one battalion to three in RVN). That included "contact counselling" in a couple of cases (there's two I know of where the perpetrators were charged and reduced in rank), but generally meant the nasho' got every job going, would be rostered for duty most weekends and would be punished for the most minor transgressions- unless he signed the waiver. But a Nasho couldn't be forced to sign the waiver, which is why less than 10% of the Nasho's went overseas. You could tough it out if you didn't want to go- and most Nasho's did tough it out.

The anti-war movement, unions, the ALP (particularly Jim Cairns) and the Australian Socialist Party spread a shed load of BS about conscription after Holt restarted conscription to expand the Army for service in RVN. They started the myth that all nasho's would be sent to RVN once they were conscripted, which really ramped up the anti-war movement's demo's and protests in return.

A lot of people (Simon Townsend, etc) did know the truth, but used "I don't want to go to Vietnam!" as their excuse, instead of saying "I don't want to go into the army for two years- it will disrupt my social life and people will yell at me.". That myth was still being presented in history text books my sons were using in NSW high schools in the late '90's. I had a right barney with my younger son's history teacher about it, when the teacher refused to teach the truth (even though he admitted the text was wrong, he had to teach the text).

A lot of returned Nasho's also said they were forced to go, because Vieties veterans were treated very badly in the 60's, 70's and 80's (for that matter, anyone in uniform, or who wore medals on ANZAC Day, could expect a mouthful, if not a blue, from some feral uni student). Better to say you'd been forced to go than admit you'd volunteered to be a "baby-killing psychopath". That also helped perpetuate the myth.

If you ever hear a bloke whining about being forced to go to Vieties, on ANZAC Day in the RSL, then it's a good bet he's lying (and is probably a wannabe- lots of them about these days). With the few exceptions he had to sign the waiver to be sent, which means he was essentially a volunteer.

I seem to recall reading all engineers were ARA, no nasho's

Nah, Matt. Frank Smith, a mate of mine in 1 FER back in the '70's, had been called up and went over as a Nasho' in '69 or '70. He liked it and decided to stay on. He and the RSM 1 FER used to organise huge Fletcher-Pratt WWII Naval games, using the parade ground. It's bloody hard to get a hit when you're trying to judge inches from 120m away.

Dal.

Thanks for all the info guys! Want to give your country its due.

Cheers

Joe

PS Joe, sorry for hijacking your thread. I'm glad to be of help with info, if needed.

There was little, if any, difference in effectiveness between ARA and Nasho's in Vieties. Australia rotated units in and out, not individuals as did the US. As a result the units retained a cohesiveness and esprit de corps that rotating individuals possibly could not sustain. Everyone had trained as a battalion, they all used the same SOP's and worked off the same page of the book. The officers and NCO's knew the men and vice versa. The downside is that reo's found it harder to fit into their sections- they were outsiders replacing a member of an established team, not just another cherry rotating through 365 days.

That lesson had been learned in Korea, when one battalion (3 RAR) had personnel rotated through tours, the unit remaining in theatre from 1950 to Armistice, while the other two battalions (1 and 2 RAR) rotated in and out as units. While there was nothing to choose between the units' performances (if anything, 3RAR had the better record), it was found that a lot of admin and organisational problems were avoided if rotating units.

Not sure if that needs reflecting in your rules, though.

Shardik, I got an email about troops (mainly Nasho's, but also some ARA objectors) being compelled to got to Vieties. When paraded and Warned For War Service the troops are formally warned out that they are going on active service, that while on active service they will be under the War Service provisions of the DFDA (DLM pre-1983) and then sign that they have understood the warning and the provisions of being on War Service. At that time those who have not signed the Waiver also do that.

How does that relate to Vieties? It's possible that troops were ordered to sign both the Waiver and the ACK when warned for war service before deploying to RVN. And that it was legal to do so.

I'll do some more digging (satisfy my own curiosity and see whether what I've believed for a long time is wrong). Not for the first time I'm starting to think the whole conscripts to Vieties situation is more confusing than any set of rules-every time you think you've got it worked out, suddenly there's new questions. So my comments about bloke whingeing about being forced to go to Vieties may be wrong. I don't think it is, but….

Cheers.

Dal.

Thanks for the info Dal, very interesting

L 4, most people here don't know that there were more than Aussies, Kiwis, Yanks and Ruff-Puffs in Vieties. South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand also had troops there, as well. Any others that you know of?

Yes, that is all I know of … Some are unaware of how many Canadians joined the US military to fight in SE Asia. But they were part of the US forces … not CAF. However, they too served and performed very well.

… about 30,000 Canadians volunteered to fight in southeast Asia.[36] Among the volunteers were fifty Mohawks from the Kahnawake reserve near Montreal.[37] One-hundred and ten (110) Canadians died in Vietnam, and seven remain listed as Missing in Action. link

Also Most people here too know very little about Vietnam … Save for what they see in the movies … But that is pretty much with any historical topic … sadly …

I have to put my hands up and admit I never knew Canadians fought in Vietnam. The stuff you can learn from this site never ceases to amaze me.

Wonderful thread ! … great info Dal !

May I offer that the Australian Regular Army (ARA) of this period was a very small, almost 'cadre' Army which was expanded quickly by the National Service (Nasho) Program to flesh out the numbers needed to be able to deploy to Vietnam (and still retain a minor committment to Malaya), and although there was a degree of dissent between 'Regs' and 'Nashos' in the ranks ..many senior Commanders state that the forces deployed to Vietnam were some of the best prepared troops to be deployed overseas in the Australian Army's history.
May I also offer that from the Australian Army's experience in the Pacific in the latter half of WW2,.. 'Jungle Warfare' was emphasised in infantry basic training. So the 'Australian Army' that deployed to Vietnam was a small-unit-tactics jungle-warfare-oriented force by pedigree, with many of the Officers/NCOs having very recent experience in the counter-insurgency in Malaya and the Indonesian Confrontation in Borneo. The lessons learned from Malaya and Borneo were primarily of patient, stealthy jungle patrolling (/ambushing), and separating the insurgents from their support-base in the local population.

This was nearly the diametrically opposite type of fighting force to the US Army, which excels in very aggressive 'big-unit' warfare, using battle-tactics that were developed for the expected WARPAC ('conventional')WW3 conflict in Europe.

good stuff.

Thanks again

Joe