User talk:Oldratcatcher

Welcome!

Hello, Oldratcatcher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Oldratcher. Regret been away and have just looked at your article again.

There are obviously errors in the Official History by McNeill, like the Pith Helmets, which is reasonable, given the enormous amount of work and witnesses interviewed. I would have to go through the text in detail, but the glaring errors are the right hand section of APCs (Sgt Richards with 2 Platoon) got ahead and approached to within 100m of 10 platoon then turned around and went back to the Troop. By that time most of the enmy had already withdrawn, and the enmemy history by Chamberlain states the Commander gave the order to withdraw as they had taken too many casulties; unable to overrun D Coy; their time had expired, and were aware of reiniforcements approaching - probaly started to withdraw about 1845hrs as OC B and D Coy were able to walk around under high tracer and discuss enemy intentions after B Coy arrived at 1850hrs. The high tracer was the enemy firing back west at the pursuing APCs.

2 Platoon was not dismounted as stated, but stayed on board their APCs until after they returned to the Troop then chased the withdrawing enemy out east, which is where they ran the gauntlet through artillry fire, probably the US 155s (Not in south. There is is no fire mission to the south in the Arty Fire Log examined at AWM in 1999. Colonel P Dinham, OC 2 Platoon, statement). When the APCs arrived at D Coy postion from the eastern foray at 1910hours, 2 Platoon dismounted, followed by the other platoons, followed by CO6RAR's party. CO 6RAR then discussed the situation with Harry Smith and then ordered Charles Mollison to move his platoons across D Coy eastern our front as a screen, and this was unopposed - not one angry shot fired then, that night, or during the next three days. There was no sniper fire after the APCs returned, as suggested. The only shots fired on the 19th were by Bob Buick and Dave Harwood ( A Coy) shooting two mortally wounded enemy out of compassion.

OC D Coy did not call in air support to silence the enemy 60mm mortars, that had already been done by Arty fire, but to lay Napalm and Rockets across the front of 11 Platoon. That was not possible because the airborne FAC (via VHF radio to D Coy) could not identify where we were due cloud and rain, and OC D Coy requested the aircraft be taken away and the guns to fire again. Ops HQ 6RAR organised the USAF ordnance drop to the east on enemy rear areas.

I will leave this for now and look for your comments. Oldratcher 58.164.172.208 (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 4 March 14[reply]

Gday I have copied this to Talk:Battle of Long Tan so as not to fragment the discussion. Anotherclown (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long Tan

(help me) Your story about Long Tan is quite extensive and mostly good, but contains a lot of inaccuracies, such as Gordon Sharp reporting enemy with Pith Helmets. Not correct and indeed there were no Pith Helmets seen or recovered on the battlefield next day. I called Noel Ford OC B Coy to come back, then he was told to stop by HQ6RAR and was not given the OK to move until COMATF finally cleared the ad-hoc APC Reaction Force to move out. I did not ask to be 'relieved' - just reinforced, and the term was APC Reaction Force. A Coy was not mounted, and it took another 15minutes for them to get on board and under way.The approach of the APCs close to D Coy is quite wrong. After their second ecnounter about 800m south of us, they moved forward unopposed to within 300m and then stopped. On the move the right hand section Sgt Ron Richards got well ahead, came up to within 100m of 10 Platoon then turned around and went back. CO6RAR and the three other APCs arrived and the whole Troop turned east and chased the enemy before returning to us at 1910hrs. There was no artillery barrage to the south on the APC route, but the barrage they speak of was probably 155s out east, in depth because Arty HQ would not let us use the 155s in close support. All of 2 Platoon did not dismount, only one APC load, Lt Dinham and ten others, after the Sgt and M60 gunner rolled off the APC. Why they were on top of the APC in enemy teritory is unknown, as there was ample room inside - built to take US Squad of 12 men. I asked the FO to get the whole Regiment firing and that was denied until I argued with CO6RAR and demanded every gun they had. I believe ARTY HQ thought I was too young to be playing with 18 guns !!!

An so on - if you are interested in the facts. You quote Davies. Davies never spoke to any of us combatants, and he pursues the story that we followed enemy gear and were led into an ambush - crap. There are some fifty versions of Long Tan, all mostly incorrect.

[old ratcatcher] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.238.225 (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gday Oldratcatcher. Thanks very much for taking the time to read the article and to make cmts. I'll try to work through these where I can, although as you say there are quite a number of different versions that seem to conflict each other. Wikipedia editors use the information that is available in published sources so is only as good as what is available.

The majority of the information used for the article to date comes from the Australian official history (McNeill) and from McAulay. Other sources used included McGibbon (the NZ official history), Horner's history of the Royal Australian Regiment, Palazzo's general history, Kuring, Ham and Mollison's book on A Coy. There are also a few references to O'Neill's 5 RAR history and Anderson's history of 3 CAV as well.
Whilst you mention some of the problems you see with Davies' book it is actually only used twice (once to do with possible Viet Cong ORBAT and the other the Viet Cong attack on Phu My on 11 August). It has not been used for any of the details of the Long Tan battle.
You mentioned the issue of the Pith Helmets. This comes from McNeill p 316 which states: "The enemy had been dressed in khaki trousers and shirts. Smith added later that they were well camouflaged and wore pith helmets." I agree the wording of the article is a little in exact here as it currently says: "Sharp reported to Smith that the Viet Cong had been dressed in khaki uniforms and pith helmets...", but we still have the issue of the official history (misquoting?) the fact that they were wearing pith helmets.
Reference B Coy - at the moment the article doesn't cover this in detail I agree. Currently it states: "Meanwhile, on hearing the sounds of the fighting while returning to Nui Dat, B Company halted 2,300 metres (2,500 yd) short of the base and was ordered to rejoin D Company. Apparently under close observation from the Viet Cong, they were engaged by two 60 mm mortars as they turned around, but suffered no casualties." I don't recall seeing anything in any of the sources about them being ordered to halt etc, but will go back and check and make changes if I can find a source.
"I did not ask to be 'relieved' - just reinforced". I have changed the wording in the introduction to reflect this now (and one of the headings).
"the term was APC Reaction Force" - McNeill seems to use "relief force" fairly extensively. Happy to discuss an alternative wording though if there are sources which spt it.
Re your cmt: "A Coy was not mounted, and it took another 15minutes for them to get on board and under way." Current wording is: "A Company, 6 RAR and 3 Troop had been on standby in the company lines and departed fifteen minutes later." The delay you mention is covered here I think, although it doesn't specifically mention that they weren't already mounted (this is due to it not being mentioned in the sources as far as I can see). Do you have a source for that that could be used?
"The approach of the APCs close to D Coy is quite wrong." I'm going to have to look at this in greater depth I agree.
"On the move the right hand section Sgt Ron Richards got well ahead, came up to within 100m of 10 Platoon then turned around and went back." I believe this is specifically already covered in the article (in the D Company is reinforced section). Is it inaccurate?
"CO6RAR and the three other APCs arrived and the whole Troop turned east and chased the enemy before returning to us at 1910hrs." Doesn't the article already state this? Current wording is "Townsend arrived with elements of his headquarters aboard three more carriers at 18:50.[195] Following a number of uncoordinated manoeuvres by the APCs Townsend took command, and with the light failing he ordered Roberts to assault from the west into the flank of the main Viet Cong force... Turning north-west, Roberts moved back to the company location at 19:10." Is this inaccurate?
"There was no artillery barrage to the south on the APC route, but the barrage they speak of was probably 155s out east, in depth because Arty HQ would not let us use the 155s in close support." Not really sure how to respond here - the barrage is mentioned repeatedly in McNeill and appears as a belt on the map in that book with the caption "artillery concentration negotiated by relief force".
"All of 2 Platoon did not dismount, only one APC load, Lt Dinham and ten others, after the Sgt and M60 gunner rolled off the APC." McNeill page 334 wrote: "Dinham orderd Gross to open the rear hatch and the section poured out to protect Alcorta. They were joined by the whole of 2 Platoon from the other carriers and quickly shook out into an assault line, firing as they advanced." I will check Mollison's account and see what is said there but the official history (at least to me) seems to be saying the entire platoon dismounted).

Anyway thanks again for your cmts so far. I will make a few changes on the basis of your critique and would be most greatful if you could continue to check the article as it develops (and if you could respond to my questions above). All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]