Registry of Ex Military Land Rovers
Vehicle Variants => 106 MM RCL, aka The Gunbuggy => Topic started by: Diana Alan on June 22, 2012, 11:26:12 PM
-
There are frequently questions I want to ask and feel not enough to start a new thread, so thought I'd start this one for general information.
Gunbuggy chassis number and ARN
In the REMLR ARN list for census 6005B http://remlr.com/ARN/ARNs_gunbuggys.php (http://remlr.com/ARN/ARNs_gunbuggys.php) it shows a number of vehicles with a chassis change in the notes section. e.g. 112-722 originally had the chassis later under 112-724. 112-726 originally had the chassis later under 112-723 whos original chassis seems to have been lost from the buggy lists.
Do we have any idea when these chassis swaps took place and was it a full factory strip down re-build or just the plates swapped around?
Support bracket for 106 front wheel ramp
112-512 has the mount where the ramp fixes to the chassis bracket through two angle iron pieces sticking out like wings from the side of the ramp matching two angles off the side of the chassis bracket.
112-245 has the ramp that has a tab on each side that straddles the chassis bracket and is bolted on through a pair of tubed holes extending from one side to the other.
Do we know when the change happened?
Aero screen glass
Do we know whether the glass in the aero screens is laminated or ballistic glass?
-
wHAT iD LIKE IS A SCHEMATIC/PLAN OF MODS TO GUNBUGGYS..
EG:-
~length of guard to top of front slope panel
~length of base of same panel (outer)
~how much is cut off the rear tub to create the g/b tub?
~what distance of centre is cut from the front of the tub to allow the 106 wheel to travel
~how are front flaps secured now ..
~what size are the panel pieces put in over the fuel tank fillers
etc...
are all these measurements uniform across the gunbuggies?
all the stuff we'd get from a works document normally but that I understand isn't available for us,
really need someone who can cad these vehicles so we can have it all recorded for ever as a serious reference document!!
Lots of photos please..
Thanks...
-
I recently had my paws on a couple gunbuggies... ;D
I noticed a couple things I wonder if people can tell me are they:-
a) standard / normal across the fleet?
b) what is their purpose?
On the drivers side just behind the rear drivers seat area the capping on the tub top has been changed and 'blanked" over the hoop hole on the passengers side the "hoop hole" is still open on both..... Why?
There is a stud/or knob on the drivers side dash between the steering wheel and the door... It seems like a large version of the knobs to which the series seat backs are secured with the leather strap... what is it for?
thanks in advance
-
The gubuggy carried a First Aid kit, it sat in the dash and was held in place by a short length of elastic strap, which came through the 2 holes on base of parcel tray and looped over the knob on top rail of the dash, without uncovering my gunbuggy I'm not sure about your 1st question, cheers Dennis
PS just had a look, the area on RHS is where the drivers weapon was stored whilst driving,,.
-
Dennis, was the first aid kit generic to all vehicles including the Mk3's do you have any photos or other info on them?
-
Mate give me a day or so and I will photograph the kits that I have cheers Dennis
-
With regard to individual items of kit (medical kit) that were placed into vehicles, from what I have read and been told by veterans, is that what ever the Americans had we pinched/bartered for, one veteran told me he seemed to remember the first aid kit in the gunbuggy that he used had a soft US pack. So after many months of trolling ebay this is what I found, it is complete
(http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu319/DJM110/new/IMG_0987.jpg)
this is how they were mounted in the gunbuggy.
My 109WKSP truck has this type with our NSN
(http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu319/DJM110/new/IMG_0989.jpg)
I only have 4 of these kits, they do come up for sale on occasions, so if you see one grab it
(http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu319/DJM110/new/IMG_0988.jpg)
the larger of the 3 is a SEATO kit, it is meant to mount in a vehicle like in my WKSP, you can see the two tags to mount it, it is also complete
(http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu319/DJM110/new/IMG_0990.jpg)
looks like the 'Povidine/Iodine has a slight leak LOL, anyway some one else may be able to expand on this.
I have read several books on the Med/nursing side of the conflict and it seems the US was far better equipped than our lads, anyway cheers Dennis
ps note that all the kits NSN start with 6545
-
thanks for the photos Dennis, they are great reference pic's, looking at them, I would guess that the soft pack would fit into a Mk3 first aid kit holder.
-
I googled NSN 6545 and found this crowd which might be worth a look http://www.armyproperty.com/nsn/6545-01-534-0779
Cheers Charlie
-
You gunbuggy guys may have seen this before from an RAASC report, re Convoys in Vietnam, 1966.
They're taking no chances after some intel on a VC ambush threat. Huey gunships, sector FAC on call, etc, and the author is thinking the Landys are not the thing for the escort job - he'd prefer Ferrets..
fascinating:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZgaJYi-JL7Y/UT8bp2O0dYI/AAAAAAAACjg/FUFB71aYw3Q/s720/RAASC-convoy-12jun66.jpg)
-
The reports make it clear the 1Co RAASC command was not being shy -the diary mentions "infantry like" operations (Nui Dat resupply task) and interactions with RAR a lot, and then there's the buckets with every packet from Cav. Sure spices up the diary for RAASC back in Australia.
But... I'm sure training RAASC drivers for ferrets would tread on Cav toes. Its unrealistic, perhaps on purpose, to ask for ferrets when they knew they were unavailable. Perhaps they're being clever and subtlely scheming for RAASC driven convoy buckets?
Everyone wants a feather in their hat.
-
The two "gun landrovers" were 111 578 and 110 807, as has been stated once or twice before!
In this isolated case and on this particular subject I strangely enough find myself agreeing fully with Maj Glendenning . The Ferret would have been the ideal vehicle for convoy escort operations, relatively fast, nimble, agile and offered some protection at least. (Today in Afghanistan they use ASLAVS to do this job!)
Obsolete military thinking in Australia of the day on the operations of convoys in 1966 stated that "packet Commanders" rode a motor cycle, (and I might add the only motor cycles we still had in service in 1966 were ex WWll Harley Davidson (farm implements)).
Luckily this archaic thinking was recognised for what it was before any transport people were committed to the theatre on a Harley and the thinking then turned around to replacing the Sect Commdrs allotted bike with a short base Land Rover.
This never happened for a couple or reasons, one, the whole 'Company vehicle allocation' (right across the Army) would have to be altered and this would take time, and secondly about this time the "powers to be" had decided in their wisdom, that a short base vehicle was useless so all orders and contracts to supply 88" vehicles stopped forthwith.
Remember that in 1963-4 we were looking for a tracked replacement of the Ferret in the form of the ill fated M114 and similar vehicles. These were also bypassed in favour of the M113 APC. See 6 Tropic Trials info on REMLR
There was absolutely nothing else on the books that would have done the job as far as a Transport Company's entitlements were concerned.
As it was we ended up receiving two 'gunbuggies' from the Grunts which involved Corps transfer paperwork, whilst the Ferrets were still sitting in an Ordnance Depot somewhere in Australia (probably Sth Kensington Vic) awaiting disposal. The paper work transferring from RAAC to RAASC would have been as minimal as the gunbuggy transfer was and most Tpt NCO's would have been already licensed for the vehicle.
Probably a lot of "Tankie self importance" got in the way of common sense once again.
Regards
Glen
-
I have found a Diary listing RAAOC members learning to drive the buckets about 2 years after the Ferret being mentioned. The order also restricts them to driving "only within 1ALSG" whilst learning (until they get their permit). Thats a 2AORD diary, Vungers Dec 68.
Perhaps the RAASC members did the same thing? Would the RAAOC instructors and competency testers be Cav members?
+
I'm considering the flexibilities of the Ferret as you mention... but in the end I'd vote for the 113. Its in country, there are easier spares access, the VC know what they are. Did the 50's froggies use Ferrets? I don't know. If they did it would raise the risk that the Ferret may draw undesirable attention from the Yanks.
-
Diana, the gingerbeers would have driven the M113s on mine clearing ops on a "drive only" licence, which was a rather common licence code.
Drive only licences were issued where the vehicle mentioned on the code had to be moved for some other reason rather than for its operational purpose, recovery, delivery; that sort of thing, and as a result, other corps members often held these licences.
Licensing problems could be simply overcome in about 1 minutes time with a signature from a testing officer (and in my position I had access to a few of these!)
As for the availability of M113s in country, these things were pretty new to us in the mid 60's and spare parts were a rarity at the time. The first carriers to go over were a section of the 'Prince of Wales Light Horse' who were posted to Bien Hoa as support for 1RAR in 65, and by the time these carriers got down to Nui Dat in 1966, spare parts were so hard to come by that they were being driven by a driver with two pieces of string attached to his overall epaulettes so that the crewie could transmit his desire to turn the vehicle by pulling the appropriate rein, so to speak. (In 1966 I conned a "mickey mouse" headset and mike combination from the yanks to operate my section radio hands free from a truck, whilst the tankies were still using string!) Spare parts did become more readily available later on when the POW Light Horse were replaced by the newly formed and renamed Cav units equipped with shiny new equipment. Remember, these new APC's still weren't the real answer to our requisites, they still had to be modified over the years by fitting turrets from older previously operated vehicle types to make them effective.
The carriers caused enough headaches as far as fuel supplies were concerned (also mentioned in detail in 1 Coy Commanders diaries) being diesel when the rest of the Aust Army was still archaically running on petrol, and as a result all RAASC units were geared for the one POL system.
The logistics involved in changing that alone would counter any thought of using carriers over Ferrets/Landrovers.
In hindsight the gunbuggies did an admirable job, did earn their keep once or twice, and could be used for lots of other little jobs as well. A couple of mods occurred over the years, the buggies we seconded from the grunts were simply fitted with an upright pipe mount welded to the 106 front wheel guide and clamped to the front tub wall, and this offered a very limited arc of fire to the front quadrants and also fed hot expended shell casings straight down the drivers shirt collar.
Later a cranked swivel was fitted to the top of the pip bringing the gun forward about 12" or so and this allowed a greater arc of fire but still limited to the front quadrants, and also shifted the disposal points of hot expended shell casings to laps and elsewhere!
5 Coy RAASC who came into country in 1967 and stayed for the duration later on changed their escort vehicles to long wheel base L/R/s with the gun mounted on the "cranked mount" mid tub to allow a 360 degree arc of fire.
In the early days mines were a bit of a problem and as a result all convoy vehicle floors were covered with sandbags.
Hindsight can be a great asset but unfortunately in a lot of cases it is not used in the right context compared to when the event actually occurred and often glosses over other contributing facts.
In those same diaries you may note that in 1966 (or perhaps 1967 I can't remember when) a statement was made about the start of the amalgamation of RAE (tpt) with RAASC (in the form of the RAE unloading section at the Hard stand) being a fore-runner to a new Corps. That new Corps came into place in 1973 or thereabouts when RAASC ceased to be and was replaced by the RACT.
Also early on in the diaries it was mentioned on more than one occasion about the need for an extra Transport Platoon in country to facilitate the needs of 1ATF. This took nearly two years to bear fruit, with the additional involvement of 26 Tpt Coy and 86 Tpt Platoon who operated Diamond Reo semi trailers on the resupply convoys.
You also have to read between the lines and understand that these diaries were written by a representative of Her Majesty, under Her employ, and therefore had to be rather guarded about how they suggested things that were in fact basic requisites in the field that were overlooked by "pen pushing" logisticians in Canberra and also guided (misguided) by politics.
The more you read, the more you will probably understand, but don't fall into the trap of putting yesterday's events into today's context!
Regards
Glen
-
Thats great, pity they didn't list ARN for the "Gun Landrovers".
I have found one instance only, but I've a way to go yet.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hgBiQo6olhk/UUFeliozq7I/AAAAAAAACnY/90iz-C_wOyA/s949/RAASC-convoy-29dec66.jpg)
-
Here is a rare report where RAASC convoy struck wire strung across the route, in the rain.
Of course it'd be raining for best effect.
Dated 6sep66. Maybe the convoy escorts got bars fitted after this? "Did not stop to investigate".
I say rare because its the only one in reams of reports. History:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-BDYfr5McUWo/UUFejjPkYhI/AAAAAAAACnI/lGG7EDqko0I/s720/RAASC-convoy-wires-6sep66.jpg)
-
Keep reading, you will come across my name a couple of times.
Regards
Glen
-
Keep reading, you will come across my name a couple of times.
Regards
Glen
Glen
I didn't know that you had been on report?? I hope the punishment wasn't too severe!
Diana ;D
-
+
I'm considering the flexibilities of the Ferret as you mention... but in the end I'd vote for the 113. Its in country, there are easier spares access, the VC know what they are. Did the 50's froggies use Ferrets? I don't know. If they did it would raise the risk that the Ferret may draw undesirable attention from the Yanks.
:P
I've been educmacated now, I have seen the light. These RAASC convoy drivers and commanders would've seen the yanks who got around in some ferret looking armoured cars:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aodcurator/3410120063/in/set-72157616235908031 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aodcurator/3410120063/in/set-72157616235908031)
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3302/3410120063_4e24138be3_o.jpg)