Author Topic: PYP: Command Recon  (Read 9861 times)

Offline Phoenix

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • THANKS 86
    • REMLR
  • Location: Launceston, Tasmania
  • REMLR No: 129
PYP: Command Recon
« on: August 15, 2012, 09:09:25 AM »
There are not nearly enough Command Recon photos about the place, especially in service photos, so I decided to post some this morning!!!


This one is from the army apprentice school


I think this one might be as well


These look very new, perhaps a delivery photo??


This pic will be familiar to many, from Paul Handell


Same with this one, from Paul Handell


Same with this one, from Paul Handell
REMLR Webmaster
Eden - 1961 Series 2 Ambulance, 108-098

Offline zulu delta 534

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
  • THANKS 99
  • Location: Loganlea
  • REMLR No: 226
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2012, 04:57:42 PM »
Photo No. 2 looks like a bandsman from 1 RAR (Tac signs!).
Regards
Glen

Offline korg20000bc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • THANKS 16
  • Location: Northern Midlands, Tasmania
  • REMLR No: 301
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2012, 05:56:40 PM »
Photo No. 2 looks like a bandsman from 1 RAR (Tac signs!).
Regards
Glen
My Dad in the same unit/Band

Well, 1RAR band, anyway.
Your name will also go on zee list!

Offline juddy

  • REMLR Inc
  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 2516
  • THANKS 62
    • www.landybitz.com.au
  • Location: Queensland
  • REMLR No: 352
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2012, 07:28:21 PM »
When were the CR demobbed?
1991 110 Truck Surveillance (RFSV), Winch MC2 *51-656*
2004 Truck, Carryall, Lightweight, Modified Military Special, With Winch, MC2/3 205-301, Haulmark PT1-1.2 *205090* No5 Trailer

Images 2008-2017 J Burton

Offline FFRMAN

  • REMLR Committee
  • Veteran
  • ***
  • Posts: 2808
  • THANKS 207
  • Location: Western Vic.
  • REMLR No: 314
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2012, 07:32:26 PM »
When were the CR demobbed?

mine was 1968
Lots...............
VMVC 251,

Offline firey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • THANKS 4
  • Location: S/E QLD
  • REMLR No: 165
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2012, 08:12:41 PM »
Mine was 1982...

Peter

Offline juddy

  • REMLR Inc
  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 2516
  • THANKS 62
    • www.landybitz.com.au
  • Location: Queensland
  • REMLR No: 352
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2012, 08:41:06 PM »
Another question then for you swb boys. Why was the 90 not selected after the series swb was withdrawn.
1991 110 Truck Surveillance (RFSV), Winch MC2 *51-656*
2004 Truck, Carryall, Lightweight, Modified Military Special, With Winch, MC2/3 205-301, Haulmark PT1-1.2 *205090* No5 Trailer

Images 2008-2017 J Burton

110574

  • Guest
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2012, 08:57:32 PM »
When were the CR demobbed?

mine was 67

Offline DennisM

  • Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 1003
  • THANKS 254
  • Location: Hunter Valley
  • REMLR No: 70
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2012, 07:30:27 AM »
The 90 was released in 1983, it was about this time that the  110 came into being, the boffins most likely would not have considered a swb (90) at the time, just my thoughts, cheers Dennis

Offline korg20000bc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • THANKS 16
  • Location: Northern Midlands, Tasmania
  • REMLR No: 301
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2012, 08:12:52 AM »
They never ordered any SWB's during the Series III era either, did they?

So, there must have been a realisation that the SWB was less adaptable to varied needs.
Your name will also go on zee list!

Offline Uncle Ho

  • REMLR Inc
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 305
  • THANKS 54
  • Location: Godwin Beach Qld.
  • REMLR No: 003
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2012, 11:21:47 AM »

The Army stayed with the 2/2a SWB's, but there may have been the odd Navy or RAAF series 3 about.

Offline juddy

  • REMLR Inc
  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 2516
  • THANKS 62
    • www.landybitz.com.au
  • Location: Queensland
  • REMLR No: 352
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2012, 01:28:54 PM »
Did they ever trial S3 SWB????
1991 110 Truck Surveillance (RFSV), Winch MC2 *51-656*
2004 Truck, Carryall, Lightweight, Modified Military Special, With Winch, MC2/3 205-301, Haulmark PT1-1.2 *205090* No5 Trailer

Images 2008-2017 J Burton

Offline zulu delta 534

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
  • THANKS 99
  • Location: Loganlea
  • REMLR No: 226
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2012, 02:57:45 PM »
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

Offline juddy

  • REMLR Inc
  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 2516
  • THANKS 62
    • www.landybitz.com.au
  • Location: Queensland
  • REMLR No: 352
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2012, 03:23:43 PM »
Thanks Glen.. Interesting stuff...
1991 110 Truck Surveillance (RFSV), Winch MC2 *51-656*
2004 Truck, Carryall, Lightweight, Modified Military Special, With Winch, MC2/3 205-301, Haulmark PT1-1.2 *205090* No5 Trailer

Images 2008-2017 J Burton

Offline korg20000bc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • THANKS 16
  • Location: Northern Midlands, Tasmania
  • REMLR No: 301
Re: PYP: Command Recon
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2012, 04:07:04 PM »
Off topic or not; this is what I want from REMLR.
Thanks.
Your name will also go on zee list!