Re: US seeks bases in Australia

[Sunny]

Just like to add, that anyone who states that Phuoc Tuy is "such flat
terrain" has never seen it, let alone worked in it.

"gblack" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> m...
> : "gblack" > wrote in message
> >...
> : > : The SAS was limited in capability because they were accustomed
> to
> : > short
> : > : range patrolling. They could not hack it when working with the
> 101st
> : > : Airborne Division LRRPs who visited them in Phuoc Tuy province
> in
> : > 1967.
> : > : The Australians complained about the distances traveled on long
> : > range
> : > : patrols and they ended up getting tired and careless in the
> process.
> : > : There was no excuse for that on such flat terrain. The SAS men
> were
> : > : clearly out of shape.
> : >
> : > Funny. A search of the Net comes up with articles like
> : > http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Vietnam/SP.htm
> :
> : > which refutes your position
> :
> :
> : A search in the history of the Australian SAS supports my position.
> : SAS: Phantoms of War, by David Horner. I shouldn't have to hit you
> : Kangaroos over the head with this one so often.
>
> One book huh. Wow what a depth of research you have attained. One
> bloody book
>
> : Get off your glutes and go to a library, pops.
>
> So real life doesn't count in your world!
>
> : Britain's Small Wars Web site is a propaganda mill for the lazy and
> : simple of mind. The authors rely on the same methods used by Venik.
>
> Uhuh. All the Unit histories are inncorrect eh.. and you're the only
> squaddie marching in step
> Why so long in getting back. Aren't you allowed computers in there ?
>
>
>
>

[Evan Brennan]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message >...

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message >...
> "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> >
> > The SAS was limited in capability because they were accustomed to short
> > range patrolling. They could not hack it when working with the 101st
> > Airborne Division LRRPs who visited them in Phuoc Tuy province in 1967.
> > The Australians complained about the distances traveled on long range
> > patrols and they ended up getting tired and careless in the process.
> > There was no excuse for that on such flat terrain. The SAS men were
> > clearly out of shape.
>
>
> Oh Evan, what a sad trolling piece of **** you are.


SAS: Phantoms of War, says otherwise. Why do you insist on being
my patsy?


> Squadrons performance won great praise from their American allies


David Horner said that his beloved Australian SAS whined about the
great distances covered by the obviously better conditioned 101st
Airborne LRRPs and that SAS men got tired and careless as a result.
There was no "great praise" from these Americans, according to he.

If only General Westmoreland could have gone on these patrols to
see what a bunch of crybabies populated the SAS. At least the SAS
was smart enough to kiss Westmoreland's ass when they copied his
Recondo school back in 1960.

Brown-nosing did have its rewards.


> In Vietnam the
> The SAS patrols had such an impact on the VC that one report
> stated that the VC had placed a bounty of $US5,000 dead or alive
> on the head of each 'Ma Rung' - Phantoms of the Jungle.


Uh, not quite. : )

Horner said that "$5,000 US" was just "a rumour". He said the SAS
thought it was a joke because no documents were found to support it.
No names of Viet Cong were given, which usually suggests "bull****"
or bartalk after one too many Foster's. Horner mentioned another
another "rumour" of "up to 6,000 piastres" paid for SAS men. Again
he said that no documents were found to support this.

They also can't seem to find the name of the VC who supposedly
invented the name "Ma Rung". Maybe it was invented by a drunken
Australian reporter.

Another interesting part of Horner's book is the numerous group
photos of Australian SAS men after 1967. Most of them are wearing
AMERICAN uniforms and carrying AMERICAN weapons like M-16 and
grenade launchers. The SAS was so enamored of AMERICAN airmobility
and insertion techniques that they eventually used five helicopters
to support just ONE five-man patrol. Australian infantry was not
so lucky and that's why Charlie ran circles around them.

What the SAS learned fast is that methods used in Malaya and
Borneo did not cut the mustard in Vietnam. They adjusted, unlike
your infantry units. Their actions speak louder than your words.

(Read this book because you still need help) David Horner. SAS:
Phantoms of War, A History of the Australian Special Air Service.
Allen & Unwin, 2002. ISBN 1 86508 647 9

>
> Keep going, making you look foolish is easy, but satisfying in a 'picking at
> scabs' sort of way.


Someone give this chimp a Rubik's cube and we can rid him from our
sight forever.

[gblack]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
: "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
:
: "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
: > "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
: > m...
: >
: > >
: > > The SAS was limited in capability because they were accustomed
to short
: > > range patrolling. They could not hack it when working with the
101st
: > > Airborne Division LRRPs who visited them in Phuoc Tuy province
in 1967.
: > > The Australians complained about the distances traveled on long
range
: > > patrols and they ended up getting tired and careless in the
process.
: > > There was no excuse for that on such flat terrain. The SAS men
were
: > > clearly out of shape.
: >
: >
: > Oh Evan, what a sad trolling piece of **** you are.
:
:
: SAS: Phantoms of War, says otherwise. Why do you insist on being
: my patsy?
:
:
: > Squadrons performance won great praise from their American allies
:
:
: David Horner said that his beloved Australian SAS whined about the
: great distances covered by the obviously better conditioned 101st
: Airborne LRRPs and that SAS men got tired and careless as a result.
: There was no "great praise" from these Americans, according to he.
:
: If only General Westmoreland could have gone on these patrols to
: see what a bunch of crybabies populated the SAS. At least the SAS
: was smart enough to kiss Westmoreland's ass when they copied his
: Recondo school back in 1960.
:
: Brown-nosing did have its rewards.
:
:
: > In Vietnam the
: > The SAS patrols had such an impact on the VC that one report
: > stated that the VC had placed a bounty of $US5,000 dead or alive
: > on the head of each 'Ma Rung' - Phantoms of the Jungle.
:
:
: Uh, not quite. : )
:
: Horner said that "$5,000 US" was just "a rumour". He said the SAS
: thought it was a joke because no documents were found to support it.
: No names of Viet Cong were given, which usually suggests "bull****"
: or bartalk after one too many Foster's. Horner mentioned another
: another "rumour" of "up to 6,000 piastres" paid for SAS men. Again
: he said that no documents were found to support this.
:
: They also can't seem to find the name of the VC who supposedly
: invented the name "Ma Rung". Maybe it was invented by a drunken
: Australian reporter.
:
: Another interesting part of Horner's book is the numerous group
: photos of Australian SAS men after 1967. Most of them are wearing
: AMERICAN uniforms and carrying AMERICAN weapons like M-16 and
: grenade launchers. The SAS was so enamored of AMERICAN airmobility
: and insertion techniques that they eventually used five helicopters
: to support just ONE five-man patrol. Australian infantry was not
: so lucky and that's why Charlie ran circles around them.
:
: What the SAS learned fast is that methods used in Malaya and
: Borneo did not cut the mustard in Vietnam. They adjusted, unlike
: your infantry units. Their actions speak louder than your words.

The difference was that in Vietnam the troops were under US command
and not permitted to carry out the tried and proven tactics workied
out in Malaya/Borneo

: (Read this book because you still need help) David Horner. SAS:
: Phantoms of War, A History of the Australian Special Air Service.
: Allen & Unwin, 2002. ISBN 1 86508 647 9
:
One book...
say, the Australian and New Zealand SAS were operating with the
American Special Forces against the Taliban or did that little detail
escape your myopic view...

[Sunny]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
>
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> > >
> > > The SAS was limited in capability because they were accustomed to
short
> > > range patrolling. They could not hack it when working with the 101st
> > > Airborne Division LRRPs who visited them in Phuoc Tuy province in
1967.
> > > The Australians complained about the distances traveled on long range
> > > patrols and they ended up getting tired and careless in the process.
> > > There was no excuse for that on such flat terrain. The SAS men were
> > > clearly out of shape.
> >
> >
> > Oh Evan, what a sad trolling piece of **** you are.
>
> SAS: Phantoms of War, says otherwise. Why do you insist on being
> my patsy?
>
> > Squadrons performance won great praise from their American allies
>
> David Horner said that his beloved Australian SAS whined about the
> great distances covered by the obviously better conditioned 101st
> Airborne LRRPs and that SAS men got tired and careless as a result.
> There was no "great praise" from these Americans, according to he.
>
> If only General Westmoreland could have gone on these patrols to
> see what a bunch of crybabies populated the SAS. At least the SAS
> was smart enough to kiss Westmoreland's ass when they copied his
> Recondo school back in 1960.

Where are you getting these "facts" from?
The SAS started in 1957 as a Coy of the Royal Australian Regiment and used
training methods similar to the British SAS until the Borneo Emergency in
1962 when they were expanded to a full blown Regiment.(formally completed on
4 Sep 1964.)
At the time of the deployment to SVN (1966) the SAS also had one of the
three squadrons committed to Brunei.
Where was this so called "Recondo school" established?

> Brown-nosing did have its rewards.
>
>
> > In Vietnam the
> > The SAS patrols had such an impact on the VC that one report
> > stated that the VC had placed a bounty of $US5,000 dead or alive
> > on the head of each 'Ma Rung' - Phantoms of the Jungle.
>
>
> Uh, not quite. : )
>
> Horner said that "$5,000 US" was just "a rumour". He said the SAS
> thought it was a joke because no documents were found to support it.
> No names of Viet Cong were given, which usually suggests "bull****"
> or bartalk after one too many Foster's. Horner mentioned another
> another "rumour" of "up to 6,000 piastres" paid for SAS men. Again
> he said that no documents were found to support this.
>
> They also can't seem to find the name of the VC who supposedly
> invented the name "Ma Rung". Maybe it was invented by a drunken
> Australian reporter.
>
> Another interesting part of Horner's book is the numerous group
> photos of Australian SAS men after 1967. Most of them are wearing
> AMERICAN uniforms and carrying AMERICAN weapons like M-16 and
> grenade launchers. The SAS was so enamored of AMERICAN airmobility
> and insertion techniques that they eventually used five helicopters
> to support just ONE five-man patrol. Australian infantry was not
> so lucky and that's why Charlie ran circles around them.

Bull****, how come the US Military attached observers to our units, to find
out why we were having such successes against the VC?
>
> What the SAS learned fast is that methods used in Malaya and
> Borneo did not cut the mustard in Vietnam. They adjusted, unlike
> your infantry units. Their actions speak louder than your words.
>
> (Read this book because you still need help) David Horner. SAS:
> Phantoms of War, A History of the Australian Special Air Service.
> Allen & Unwin, 2002. ISBN 1 86508 647 9

Broaden your reading, to include other authors and historians.

[Evan Brennan]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message >...
> > SAS Captain Tony Danilenko transferred to AATTV but didn't last
> > long in the big leagues. He got killed leading a Montagnard unit
> > on the border of Laos. He probably got careless since he was
> > accustomed to fighting second class VC units while on the usual
> > milk runs in the lowlands around Phuoc Tuy. Laos featured more
> > rugged terrain and it was crawling with elite NVA counter-recon
> > units and other nasties not found in Phuoc Tuy province.
>
> and yet the SAS trained the US special forces at Westmorelands request.
>
> A sad attempt to denigrate the work he did.


Which work is that?


> > > were sent to help the MACV-SOG
> >
> >
> > And SOG was there to help them. It's called cross training, exchange
> > of ideas, etc.
>
> No, it's called training. Westmoreland insisted on it being done by SASR
> for the US SF.


Nope. MACV-SOG troops trained on Okinawa and had they had their own
Recondo Schools at Kham Duc and Hon Tray Island. SASR was not involved.


> > The SAS also sent their boys to the USA for more training. For
> > example the commander of 2 Squadron, Brian Wade, attended the
> > stateside Ranger, Pathfinder, special warfare, diving and HALO
> > parachute courses. Based on the quota system, Australians and
> > other Allied countries sent their recon patrol leaders by special
> > appointment to get trained by American LRRPs at the MACV Recondo
> > School.
>
> > No, General Westmoreland started the first Recondo School at Fort
> > Campbell in 1958.
> >
> > The Australian SAS commander L.G. Clark later went to the USA to
> > get trained by American instructors. When he returned, he opened
> > up his own recondo school at Ingleburn in 1960. The students were
> > called "Rangers". He even ripped off the name from us.
>
> Yet where it counted, in Vietnam, Westmoreland insisted that the US
> SF be trained by SASR.


That explains why Australian soldiers were trained by American LRRPs
and Rangers, by appointment, at the 5th Special Force Recondo School
at Nha Trang.


>>>> Sour grapes, L'acrobat. Australia was mostly useless in Vietnam as well.
>>>> An obviously jealous Australian general explained why he wanted many
>>>> more helicopters so they could operate and fight like the American LRRP
>>>> Recondo type units:
>
>>>> " The fleeting enemy and our rifle are too evenly matched. This was
>>>> one of the reasons in asking for medium tanks which can accompany
>>>> the infantry in most places with their canister guns. Dispersed or
>>>> dispersing VC can nearly always elude our foot infantry who have
>>>> insufficient immediate contact firepower while on the ground mobility
>>>> of our infantry is no better and usually inferior to that of the VC...
>
>>>> On the other hand, small parties of infantry operating where the enemy
>>>> has freedom of unobserved movement can reap a comparative harvest...
>>>> We would like to do more SAS type ambush patrols but we do not have
>>>> the Iroquois lift and gunships to do it "
>
>>>> ~ Major-General Tim Vincent
>>>> December 1967

> > >why did you remove the reference to the ALLIED effort?
> >
> > We cannot remove what was never there.
>
> "WE"?, just you Evan, just you.


I don't see anyone agreeing with you.

By now, everyone knows what General Vincent said. Everyone but you.

[Bernd Felsche]

(Evan Brennan) writes:

>"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...

>> Oh Evan, what a sad trolling piece of **** you are.

>SAS: Phantoms of War, says otherwise. Why do you insist on being
>my patsy?

*PLONK*
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Evan Brennan]

"The CO" > wrote in message >...
>
> How many MIA Americans in Vietnam? Still? I believe we have about
> 6 or so.


How many pilots did you have, about 6 or so?

Three million Americans served in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand.
Against about 50,000 Australians.

[Sunny]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "The CO" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > How many MIA Americans in Vietnam? Still? I believe we have about
> > 6 or so.
>
>
> How many pilots did you have, about 6 or so?
>
> Three million Americans served in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand.
> Against about 50,000 Australians.

Has it escaped your keen brain that the Australian population is a tad
smaller than the US.
(BTW Quality will outclass quantity any day)

[Evan Brennan]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message >...
>> By the way, Australia was nearly as useless during World War II.
>> The disgrace started on your home front. Their unwillingness to
>> help began to manifest itself in the form of Australian dockyard
>> workers, who rejected changes to union contracts to aid the war
>> effort. They also refused to work when it was raining. They
>> received double and triple-time pay on weekends, so many of the
>> laborers did not feel a need to show up during the rest of the
>> week. The spineless Australian government failed to intervene,
>> because they did not care if Allied troops were getting killed
>> in battle.
>
>> As of consequence, US troops were pressed into service to move
>> cargo and they usually did so more than twice as fast as the
>> Australian dock workers. Later, the Yanks tried to automate the
>> process by bringing in cranes and forklifts but the dock workers
>> reacted by staging strikes. They should have shot the lazy
>> Australian *******s on sight -- a formal firing squad was too
>> good for them.
>
>> With friends like Australia, we do not need enemies.



Should also mention that when the Australian Army sent the Centurion
tanks to Vietnam, the dock workers in Sydney pilfered the tools on
every vehicle.

Another stirring tribute from Australia to its fighting men. ; )

[Evan Brennan]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message >...
> >The really sad and pathetic part, is that the
> > Australian Task Force was supposed to be guarding the approaches to
> > Long Binh and Bien Hoa at that time. Yet the units you were supposed
> > to check attacked our bases anyway. Despite being given the chance to
> > redeem themselves, the Australian Army managed to screw that up too.
>
> On 10 May 1968 (after the Tet offensive) IIFFV officially requested that
> 1ATF be deployed into AO Surfers (north of Long Binh).


Yes, that explains why half of the 5th VC Division attacked the northern
perimeter of Long Binh. Had you looked at a map you have noticed that the
5th VC Division staging areas were north of Long Binh.

[Evan Brennan]

"Sunny" > wrote in message >...
>
> Crap, how do you equate "Ambush Patrols" and with noisy helicopters and
> gunships?


Where do get this crap?

The SAS reserved five helicopters for every 5-man patrol. It says
so in their unit history.


"Sunny" > wrote in message >...
> . The really sad and pathetic part, is that the
> > Australian Task Force was supposed to be guarding the approaches to
> > Long Binh and Bien Hoa at that time.Yet the units you were supposed
> > to check attacked our bases anyway. Despite being given the chance to
> > redeem themselves, the Australian Army managed to screw that up too.
>
> Fire support base Coral rattle any bells ?


Yes, your Australian troops at FSB Coral and FSB Balmoral were saved by
US airstrikes.


> 1969/70 we so dominated Phuoc Tuy that your military


Only because the 5th VC Division and D445 were shattered by US troops
in Bien Hoa Province during Tet, with their remnants worked over again
by US troops during Mini-Tet 1968.

[Brash]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "The CO" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > How many MIA Americans in Vietnam? Still? I believe we have about
> > 6 or so.
>
>
> How many pilots did you have, about 6 or so?

**** off idiot.

--
De Oppresso Liber.

[L'acrobat]

"gblack" > wrote in message
...


> Why so long in getting back. Aren't you allowed computers in there ?

Mummy needed to use the computer.

[L'acrobat]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
>
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> > >
> > > The SAS was limited in capability because they were accustomed to
short
> > > range patrolling. They could not hack it when working with the 101st
> > > Airborne Division LRRPs who visited them in Phuoc Tuy province in
1967.
> > > The Australians complained about the distances traveled on long range
> > > patrols and they ended up getting tired and careless in the process.
> > > There was no excuse for that on such flat terrain. The SAS men were
> > > clearly out of shape.
> >
> >
> > Oh Evan, what a sad trolling piece of **** you are.
>
>
> SAS: Phantoms of War, says otherwise. Why do you insist on being
> my patsy?

You've found one book which you insist on misquoting, you've been caught
lying repeatedly.

You are a troll and a sad one at that.

>
>
> > Squadrons performance won great praise from their American allies
>
>
> David Horner said that his beloved Australian SAS whined about the
> great distances covered by the obviously better conditioned 101st
> Airborne LRRPs and that SAS men got tired and careless as a result.
> There was no "great praise" from these Americans, according to he.
>
> If only General Westmoreland could have gone on these patrols to
> see what a bunch of crybabies populated the SAS. At least the SAS
> was smart enough to kiss Westmoreland's ass when they copied his
> Recondo school back in 1960.
>
> Brown-nosing did have its rewards.


Yawn, Westmorland insisted that US SF troops be trained by the SAS. End of
story.

>
>
> > In Vietnam the
> > The SAS patrols had such an impact on the VC that one report
> > stated that the VC had placed a bounty of $US5,000 dead or alive
> > on the head of each 'Ma Rung' - Phantoms of the Jungle.
>
>
> Uh, not quite. : )
>
> Horner said that "$5,000 US" was just "a rumour". He said the SAS
> thought it was a joke because no documents were found to support it.
> No names of Viet Cong were given, which usually suggests "bull****"
> or bartalk after one too many Foster's. Horner mentioned another
> another "rumour" of "up to 6,000 piastres" paid for SAS men. Again
> he said that no documents were found to support this.


Uh, not quite :) David Horner said so, not fact.

>
> They also can't seem to find the name of the VC who supposedly
> invented the name "Ma Rung". Maybe it was invented by a drunken
> Australian reporter.

Yawn.

>
> Another interesting part of Horner's book is the numerous group
> photos of Australian SAS men after 1967. Most of them are wearing
> AMERICAN uniforms and carrying AMERICAN weapons like M-16 and
> grenade launchers. The SAS was so enamored of AMERICAN airmobility
> and insertion techniques that they eventually used five helicopters
> to support just ONE five-man patrol. Australian infantry was not
> so lucky and that's why Charlie ran circles around them.


Yawn, yet as you are well aware those very charlies were utterly defeated in
Austs AO and moved into surrounding US AOs, why do you insist on making it
so easy cretinboy?

>
> What the SAS learned fast is that methods used in Malaya and
> Borneo did not cut the mustard in Vietnam. They adjusted, unlike
> your infantry units. Their actions speak louder than your words.

Yawn.

>
> (Read this book because you still need help) David Horner. SAS:
> Phantoms of War, A History of the Australian Special Air Service.
> Allen & Unwin, 2002. ISBN 1 86508 647 9

I have, you regularly misquote it.

Perhaps if you weren't a lying, trolling piece of **** you would be better
at this stuff?

>
> >
> > Keep going, making you look foolish is easy, but satisfying in a
'picking at
> > scabs' sort of way.
>
>
> Someone give this chimp a Rubik's cube and we can rid him from our
> sight forever.

Yawn. Dull boy.

[L'acrobat]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
> > > SAS Captain Tony Danilenko transferred to AATTV but didn't last
> > > long in the big leagues. He got killed leading a Montagnard unit
> > > on the border of Laos. He probably got careless since he was
> > > accustomed to fighting second class VC units while on the usual
> > > milk runs in the lowlands around Phuoc Tuy. Laos featured more
> > > rugged terrain and it was crawling with elite NVA counter-recon
> > > units and other nasties not found in Phuoc Tuy province.
> >
> > and yet the SAS trained the US special forces at Westmorelands request.
> >
> > A sad attempt to denigrate the work he did.
>
>
> Which work is that?
>
>
> > > > were sent to help the MACV-SOG
> > >
> > >
> > > And SOG was there to help them. It's called cross training, exchange
> > > of ideas, etc.
> >
> > No, it's called training. Westmoreland insisted on it being done by SASR
> > for the US SF.
>
>
> Nope. MACV-SOG troops trained on Okinawa and had they had their own
> Recondo Schools at Kham Duc and Hon Tray Island. SASR was not involved.
>
>

Westmoreland insisted on the training being done by SASR
for the US SF it's well documented trollboy.





> > > The SAS also sent their boys to the USA for more training. For
> > > example the commander of 2 Squadron, Brian Wade, attended the
> > > stateside Ranger, Pathfinder, special warfare, diving and HALO
> > > parachute courses. Based on the quota system, Australians and
> > > other Allied countries sent their recon patrol leaders by special
> > > appointment to get trained by American LRRPs at the MACV Recondo
> > > School.
> >
> > > No, General Westmoreland started the first Recondo School at Fort
> > > Campbell in 1958.
> > >
> > > The Australian SAS commander L.G. Clark later went to the USA to
> > > get trained by American instructors. When he returned, he opened
> > > up his own recondo school at Ingleburn in 1960. The students were
> > > called "Rangers". He even ripped off the name from us.
> >
> > Yet where it counted, in Vietnam, Westmoreland insisted that the US
> > SF be trained by SASR.
>
>
> That explains why Australian soldiers were trained by American LRRPs
> and Rangers, by appointment, at the 5th Special Force Recondo School
> at Nha Trang.
>
>
> >>>> Sour grapes, L'acrobat. Australia was mostly useless in Vietnam as
well.
> >>>> An obviously jealous Australian general explained why he wanted many
> >>>> more helicopters so they could operate and fight like the American
LRRP
> >>>> Recondo type units:
> >
> >>>> " The fleeting enemy and our rifle are too evenly matched. This was
> >>>> one of the reasons in asking for medium tanks which can accompany
> >>>> the infantry in most places with their canister guns. Dispersed or
> >>>> dispersing VC can nearly always elude our foot infantry who have
> >>>> insufficient immediate contact firepower while on the ground mobility
> >>>> of our infantry is no better and usually inferior to that of the
VC...
> >
> >>>> On the other hand, small parties of infantry operating where the
enemy
> >>>> has freedom of unobserved movement can reap a comparative harvest...
> >>>> We would like to do more SAS type ambush patrols but we do not have
> >>>> the Iroquois lift and gunships to do it "
> >
> >>>> ~ Major-General Tim Vincent
> >>>> December 1967
>
> > > >why did you remove the reference to the ALLIED effort?
> > >
> > > We cannot remove what was never there.
> >
> > "WE"?, just you Evan, just you.
>
>
> I don't see anyone agreeing with you.
>
> By now, everyone knows what General Vincent said. Everyone but you.

They are laughing at you trollboy. but you are used to that.

[L'acrobat]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
> >> By the way, Australia was nearly as useless during World War II.
> >> The disgrace started on your home front. Their unwillingness to
> >> help began to manifest itself in the form of Australian dockyard
> >> workers, who rejected changes to union contracts to aid the war
> >> effort. They also refused to work when it was raining. They
> >> received double and triple-time pay on weekends, so many of the
> >> laborers did not feel a need to show up during the rest of the
> >> week. The spineless Australian government failed to intervene,
> >> because they did not care if Allied troops were getting killed
> >> in battle.
> >
> >> As of consequence, US troops were pressed into service to move
> >> cargo and they usually did so more than twice as fast as the
> >> Australian dock workers. Later, the Yanks tried to automate the
> >> process by bringing in cranes and forklifts but the dock workers
> >> reacted by staging strikes. They should have shot the lazy
> >> Australian *******s on sight -- a formal firing squad was too
> >> good for them.
> >
> >> With friends like Australia, we do not need enemies.
>
>
>
> Should also mention that when the Australian Army sent the Centurion
> tanks to Vietnam, the dock workers in Sydney pilfered the tools on
> every vehicle.
>
> Another stirring tribute from Australia to its fighting men. ; )


Yawn, and a number of aircraft factories in the USA in WW2 were renowned for
their poor quality work due to the males working there being more interested
in shagging the females working there than doing the work.

Another stirring tribute from the USA to its fighting men. ; )

Which is worse, no toolkit on arrival or a badly built aircraft?

You really are dumb aren't you Evan.

[L'acrobat]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
> > >The really sad and pathetic part, is that the
> > > Australian Task Force was supposed to be guarding the approaches to
> > > Long Binh and Bien Hoa at that time. Yet the units you were supposed
> > > to check attacked our bases anyway. Despite being given the chance to
> > > redeem themselves, the Australian Army managed to screw that up too.
> >
> > On 10 May 1968 (after the Tet offensive) IIFFV officially requested that
> > 1ATF be deployed into AO Surfers (north of Long Binh).
>
>
> Yes, that explains why half of the 5th VC Division attacked the northern
> perimeter of Long Binh. Had you looked at a map you have noticed that the
> 5th VC Division staging areas were north of Long Binh.

Check your dates idiot.

[L'acrobat]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "Sunny" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > Crap, how do you equate "Ambush Patrols" and with noisy helicopters and
> > gunships?
>
>
> Where do get this crap?
>
> The SAS reserved five helicopters for every 5-man patrol. It says
> so in their unit history.

Yawn.

>
>
> "Sunny" > wrote in message
>...
> > . The really sad and pathetic part, is that the
> > > Australian Task Force was supposed to be guarding the approaches to
> > > Long Binh and Bien Hoa at that time.Yet the units you were supposed
> > > to check attacked our bases anyway. Despite being given the chance to
> > > redeem themselves, the Australian Army managed to screw that up too.
> >
> > Fire support base Coral rattle any bells ?
>
>
> Yes, your Australian troops at FSB Coral and FSB Balmoral were saved by
> US airstrikes.

Yawn.

>
>
> > 1969/70 we so dominated Phuoc Tuy that your military
>
>
> Only because the 5th VC Division and D445 were shattered by US troops
> in Bien Hoa Province during Tet, with their remnants worked over again
> by US troops during Mini-Tet 1968.

Yawn.

Dull boy.

[gblack]

"Sunny" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
: m...
: > "The CO" > wrote in message
: >...
: > >
: > > How many MIA Americans in Vietnam? Still? I believe we have
about
: > > 6 or so.
: >
: >
: > How many pilots did you have, about 6 or so?
: >
: > Three million Americans served in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and
Thailand.
: > Against about 50,000 Australians.
:
: Has it escaped your keen brain that the Australian population is a
tad
: smaller than the US.
: (BTW Quality will outclass quantity any day)

That is what gets up his nose.......

[gblack]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
:
: "gblack" > wrote in message
: ...
:
:
: > Why so long in getting back. Aren't you allowed computers in there
?
:
: Mummy needed to use the computer.

I get the feeling that where he is they don't let them use anything
sharp.
And he has to type with a big crayon...
with keycleaning breaks :-)


:
:

[L'acrobat]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >
> > SAS: Phantoms of War, says otherwise. Why do you insist on being
> > my patsy?


"The Aussies taught us a lot about small unit ops" Brig General Ellis
'Butch' Williamson to David Horner 29 Apr 1986







When we (the Paras) found something we shot at it. We did not wait and
establish the patterns, look for opportunities after out thinking the VC
commander. We were just not patient enough - too much too do in too little
time. We did not use reconnaissance enough. Our ambushes were for security
not to kill. Australians were quiet hunters - patient, thorough, trying to
out-think the VC. I would not have liked to operate at night and know there
was a chance of ending up in an Aussie ambush.



Lt Col George Dexter CO of 2/503rd Bn to David Horner 10 May 1986


Phantoms of War isn't the only book Dave wrote...

[Pits]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "> Should also mention that when the Australian Army sent the Centurion
> tanks to Vietnam, the dock workers in Sydney pilfered the tools on
> every vehicle.
>
> Another stirring tribute from Australia to its fighting men. ; )

Mr Brennan. I have sat and watched your posts
The incident/s you speak of have no bearing on the subject.
Some facts.
1 If your talking about the day we loaded onto MV Jeparit later to become
HMAS Jeparit
the thieving wharfies have always stolen any thing that they could. I have
also observed
what you call I think Longshoreman knock off whole containers off a
Columbus
line ship. Containing stoves and fridges destined for relief in a decimated
country.
Thus I think if your trying to score points of troll you are barking up the
wrong tree.

Turning back to our cents' all the wharfies got were some sidchome spanners
long handled shovels and rods used to clean barrels.
What they got in return was a bloody good hiding behind number 13 shed at
Balmain
and even one member of the Jeparit's crew got himself blacklisted from
Australian ships
for next 15 years as he loaded against union orders. He made a good career
move
as ended up engineer on Norwegian Tankers and made heaps more money
but was "black" when in Oz a brave man with principals . Recall his Name
was Frank
Loveridge.

Mr brennan I doubt that you were even a serving member of anything
but sit fat dumb and stupid with a over burden prejudice getting flawed
data off the web and some books.Trying to intimate that your
possessed of experience and knowledge.It is obvious that
your either afraud or an embittered person.
either way get some help.

Bottom line your a loathsome spotted reptile who needs to get away from
the pc for a while .

This **** was over thirty years ago and many have moved on.
Having said that -where are you and happy to debate it with
Photos diaries and in depth knowledge with you any day?
Whatever the reasons for that sad war and ALL its casualties
you do your fellow countrymen no honour by such posts.

Move on cobber and say something constructive rather than
proving what a stroker you are.


Phil.

[Rob Knight]

I've been lurking in this news group for some time and as my first post I'd
like to make one small suggestion.

We know our troops do well, and most of the yanks do appreciate the
contribution that the ADF make (I've got a few yank friends - I've asked
them), but arguing with this drop kick, Evan, is counter productive.

Just killfile this *******, he really isn't worth the time or effort.

Mace

[Ted Harrison]

"Rob Knight" > wrote in message
...




> Just killfile this *******, he really isn't worth the time or effort.


There's a whole PhD in that one line, Dr Mace.

[gblack]

"Rob Knight" > wrote in message
...
: I've been lurking in this news group for some time and as my first
post I'd
: like to make one small suggestion.
:
: We know our troops do well, and most of the yanks do appreciate the
: contribution that the ADF make (I've got a few yank friends - I've
asked
: them), but arguing with this drop kick, Evan, is counter productive.
:
: Just killfile this *******, he really isn't worth the time or
effort.
:

Looking back over his hate posts against the Pom and Aussie military I
am forced to state that we have (in Evan) a disturbed character
here...


:
:

[Gooneybird]

Welcome to the club, mate. I hope you won't be shocked to discover that more
than one of us has his aluminum foil beanie wrapped too tight. Comes with the
territory, I guess.

George Z.

"gblack" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Rob Knight" > wrote in message
> ...
> : I've been lurking in this news group for some time and as my first
> post I'd
> : like to make one small suggestion.
> :
> : We know our troops do well, and most of the yanks do appreciate the
> : contribution that the ADF make (I've got a few yank friends - I've
> asked
> : them), but arguing with this drop kick, Evan, is counter productive.
> :
> : Just killfile this *******, he really isn't worth the time or
> effort.
> :
>
> Looking back over his hate posts against the Pom and Aussie military I
> am forced to state that we have (in Evan) a disturbed character
> here...
>
>
> :
> :
>
>