If I remember correctly the army lost interest in short base vehicles after the first one or two contracts with the 2a. The thinking of the day was that the days of a stand alone Command Reconnaissance vehicle type vehicle (read horse for WW1, Jeep for WWll) was uneconomical as its use was extremely limited to a driver and one passenger plus gear, whereas a 109 could do the same work and also have the added benefit of carrying a larger load and more personnel when necessary, and that was about 80% of the time. This thinking was across the board vehicle-wise at the time as in 1964 a tracked reconnaissance vehicle was trialled but passed over for a similar design with added troop carrying capabilities for the very same reasons. (I am referring to the trialled M114 and the accepted M113).
Modern thinking seems to be reverting slightly back towards the old way as the at present still under review Hawkeii is a smaller version of the Bushmaster, but at 7 tonnes it can't really be compared to a short base rover.
There was nothing a short base could do that a long base could not do, whereas this was not the case conversely, hence the shortie was considered a waste of taxpayers money, so to speak.
I may have mentioned this before but back in 1966 when the Australian task force was first committed to Vietnam, the standard convoy training within a Transport Company dictated that the Section NCO rode and controlled his section, from a motor cycle (Harleys were still in service but just being replaced by BSAs.) (We were trained in this situation right up until our departure.)
Just before embarking, the thinking was (sensibly) that a motor cycle was perhaps not the most appropriate vehicle in this type of combat situation so a decision was made that perhaps a short base Land Rover would be the ideal vehicle from which the Section Commander could control his section.
This never came about and when the Company actually arrived in country, the poor old Sect Commander was left vehicle-less, no bike, no land rover. Luckily 1 RAR had a couple of RCLs that were surplus to their requirements (lack of armoured enemy) so we seconded two of these vehicles to accommodate 10 sect Commanders. Even these were replaced in later days by 109s as besides being all that were available they offered a much greater arc of fire from the rear mounted M60.
All this means little as far as this thread is concerned except to point out that by 1966 the Shortie was seen to be deemed a thing of the past.
Regards
Glen
