WI Australia puts warfighting first 1965-1972.

While Vietnam was being fought Australia maintained forces in the region in support of other, peacetime, arrangements such as the Far East Strategic Reserve. Requests for extra support in Vietnam were being made but these were rejected, all the while our forces are maintaining a regular round of FESR and Alliance exercises and force/flag showing commitments in the SEA region.

WI govt policy was that combat operations come first, that having Australian forces in action is a better detterent than showing the flag in the FESR? I'm not going to suggest that moving a Sabre sqn and a few warships to Vietnam will alter the war, but it could alter Australia's standing in SEA and change our defence and foreign policy.
 

Cook

Banned
Confrontation (1964-1966): Australian troops deployed in Malaysia defending against Indonesian invasion.

Prior to the fall of Sukarno Indonesia had the second largest Communist Party in Asia.

Worth considering when discussing alternative deployments during that period.
 
The Konfrontasi wound down as Vietnam wound up, by 1967 the spectre of combat arising from the Konfrontasi was virtually gone while the DDGs were being flogged in Vietnam. Would sending the Darings and Rivers to operate off SthV in support of the ATFV be as effective an ongoing deterrent to Indonesia as the FESR and regional exercises?
 
According to an Australian Army presentation at an exhibition I was at recently, Australian troops and aircraft regularly operated several kilometres inside Indonesian territory during the Konfrontasi, chasing Indonesian forces.
 
The Claret Ops, which started in 1964 under very tight control and were extended up to 10km in 1966. The SASR did the Claret penetrations rather than regular RAR units.
 
Forward deployment was not about putting all our eggs in one basket, Riain. And fighting in South Vietnam was never the main aim of nineteen sixties foreign policy, John Gorton admitted as much when he said it was a political quid pro quo for the Americans.

It was about participating in a series of interlocking arrangements, hence SEATO, and the lingering commitment to letting the British act as a major power in the 'Far East'.

Withdrawing forces from Thailand and Malaysia wouldn't have made much sense (particularly the latter).

Cook said:
Confrontation (1964-1966): Australian troops deployed in Malaysia defending against Indonesian invasion. Prior to the fall of Sukarno Indonesia had the second largest Communist Party in Asia.
Worth considering when discussing alternative deployments during that period.

To a certain extent, yes, but the reason we sent forces to Borneo was to confront Sukarno's Indonesia on behalf of and as part of the British Commonwealth.

Yet Australia never lifted a finger over Dutch New Guinea.
 

Larrikin

Banned
RAR in 60s

One battalion was on deployment in Malaysia, two were in Vietnam, that means 3 were just back, reforming and training, and 3 were training to go and on standby in Australia.

The SASR maintained as large a force in Vietnam as possible, the RAAF flew Canberras out of Thailand and choppers in support of the ground forces, and about the only ship the RAN could have added to their rotation off the coast would have been the Melbourne.
 
1965 1 btn in Malaysia, 1 btn in Vietnam.
1966 1 btn in Malaysia, 2 btns in Vietnam.
1967-70 3 btns in Vietnam.


I'm more interested in the Sabre sqn in Thailand 1965-68, whose air defence role freed up USAF forces for offensive combat. Or the warships, including Melbourne, that were part of the nearby FESR and escorted Sydney to Vung Tau but didn't fire a shot. Surely these warships could do a combat patrol for a few days before heading back to Singapore.
 

Larrikin

Banned
RAN

1965 1 btn in Malaysia, 1 btn in Vietnam.
1966 1 btn in Malaysia, 2 btns in Vietnam.
1967-70 3 btns in Vietnam.


I'm more interested in the Sabre sqn in Thailand 1965-68, whose air defence role freed up USAF forces for offensive combat. Or the warships, including Melbourne, that were part of the nearby FESR and escorted Sydney to Vung Tau but didn't fire a shot. Surely these warships could do a combat patrol for a few days before heading back to Singapore.

HMAS Hobart was awarded a US Presidential Unit Citation for its time on the gun line. Other RAN destroyers also spent time in rotation on the gun line.

We deployed approximately one third of our peace time strength in rotation to Vietnam, no more was going to go as it was not a full blown war to the death, and we had other possible responsibilities.
 
All 3 DDGs did multiple tours and Vendetta did 1 tour. That leaves Melbourne, 2 Darings and 6 River class frigates as modern ships that never did a tour of Vietnam. However many of these ships did escort Sydney to Vung Tau.
 
Just read that the fleet commander suggested in 1967 that since the active role in Malaysia had ended the 2 ships stationed there should be used in Vietnam. He was told by his superior that deployments to the FESR and Vietnam were government decisions not Navy ones.
 
Top