Australian Army - Exercise Chong Ju

[juddy]

The Australian Army’s firepower and manoeuvre demonstration at Puckapunyal Military Area, called EXERCISE CHONG JU.

EX CHONG JU is named after a series of offensive actions by the 3rd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR) on 29 October 1950 against North Koreans, during which infantry company advances were supported by US Army tanks and artillery.

Artillery from 53 Independent Battery fired 105mm rounds in support of the biannual exercise. The battery usually supports courses run by the School of Artillery.

53 Independent Battery was the only Australian battery to bring its guns to bear against the Japanese during the Battle of Kokoda in 1942

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/842.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/799.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/863.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/864.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/865.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/866.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/853.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/867.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/868.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/869.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/870.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/800.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/871.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/872.jpg

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip>
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/853.jpg
<snip>Notice the M113 have grown an extra set of wheels!

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/852.jpg
Image Source: http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/tanks/apc.jpg

[juddy]

Notice the M113 have grown an extra set of wheels!

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/852.jpg
Image Source: http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/tanks/apc.jpg

Upgrade. or new build???

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Upgrade. or new build???Upgrade, all being done at Tennex (now BAE systems) at Bandiana.

New electronics, armament and still room for the troops, note the new turrets.

[Hymie]

They're longer, heavier and are no longer Amphibious.

[robzilla]

This bloke must have wagged the "Never point a gun at someone" lessons :p

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/800.jpg

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip>

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/842.jpg

<snip>I thought the point of camouflage was to hide the item from the background.

With all the M113 in nearly identical patterns they are highly visible by the repetition. They may as well have been painted bright red!

[Cap]

This bloke must have wagged the "Never point a gun at someone" lessons :p

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/800.jpg

haha - I was thinking the same thing with a few shots. Great pics BTW :cool:

[BBC]

And now ..........the ADF do not possess the combat capability to manouvere their Main Battle Tank across water obstacles.

Our brightest and best forgot to address that need!


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/799.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/800.jpg

[slug_burner]

That is based on the premis that if you have the Tanks then they will have to give us the money to buy the equipment to cross water obstacles.

[digger]

I thought the point of camouflage was to hide the item from the background.

With all the M113 in nearly identical patterns they are highly visible by the repetition. They may as well have been painted bright red!

yeah, but I cant find all 26 of them in the picture!!

[Blknight.aus]

And now ..........the ADF do not possess the combat capability to manouvere their Main Battle Tank across water obstacles.

Our brightest and best forgot to address that need!

I dunno, they managed to get them here over what I wouldn't consider to be an insignificant body of water...

[BBC]

I dunno, they managed to get them here over what I wouldn't consider to be an insignificant body of water...

Yes, we can get them across the Pacific but, we can't get them across something like the Murray. Their tactical mobility has not been catered for.

[THE BOOGER]

might have to keep the leopard bridgelayers a bit longer:D

[BBC]

might have to keep the leopard bridgelayers a bit longer:D

They don't fit over them...plus... a significant difference in weight.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

yeah, but I cant find all 26 of them in the picture!!You expect me to believe that the Australian Army had all 26 running at the same time?

Do you think I was born yesterday? :D :p

[Lotz-A-Landies]

And now ..........the ADF do not possess the combat capability to manouvere their Main Battle Tank across water obstacles.

Our brightest and best forgot to address that need!Just out of interest how many times did the leopards need to cross a river when in service?

Do you think that the brass and politicians have bought the refurbed Abrams with the intention that they will only ever deploy to a war zone with the US and will use the US to supply the river crossing ability?

[weeds]

They don't fit over them...plus... a significant difference in weight.

a mate of mine was up in darwin last year test the new bridging, pretty sure it was the new tanks..........oh and of course there were issues, from memory a tank got stuck on the bridge as well, typical day in the defence force

[weeds]

Just out of interest how many times did the leopards need to cross a river when in service?

Do you think that the brass and politicians have bought the refurbed Abrams with the intention that they will only ever deploy to a war zone with the US and will use the US to supply the river crossing ability?

gotta agree, the defence is being a little smarter these days and aligning our equipment with other countrys so that we don't have to deploy our equipment and that our guys can hop straight into say an american tank

i glance over the latest ARMY rag and some gunner received medals for serving with the brits and pretty sure they used there guns and were trained on them during pre-deployment training, once you know the basics your halfway there

[zulu Delta 534]

Back around 1967/8 we were tempted by the Sheridan Tank, another Yank invention, and it had amphibious qualities. Only took around half a day to set it up with its rubber waterproof skirt, but hey, it worked!
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/728.jpg
This shot was taken at Mourilyan Harbour in FNQ (not too far from Innisfail). An interesting day to say the least, but it floated. The skirt fitted snugly to the hull fully encasing the upper deck. In this first shot the top of the turret with the crewey sitting gingerly in his place, guiding a totally blind driver into the water and the barrel of the gun can just be seen protruding from the skirt at the front. (Excuse the focus but it was the best I could do on the day.)
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/729.jpg

These later shots were taken in Jarrah Creek, in the Innisfail district FNQ.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/730.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/731.jpg

So it was amphibious, but ever so slightly vulnerable.

At the same time trials were being carried out on the Carriers in similar conditions.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/732.jpg

We didn't buy the Sheridan!
Regards
Glen

[cartm58]

rubber skirt was what made the sherman funnies float in the water on DDay landings anyway for the British unit ones the American army ones all sunk as they were released too far from the beaches and the rough waves flooded them and they sank.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

rubber skirt was what made the sherman funnies float in the water on DDay landings anyway for the British unit ones the American army ones all sunk as they were released too far from the beaches and the rough waves flooded them and they sank.The Brits called used the name Hobart's Funnies for the DD and a number of other tanks, after Royal Engineer Maj-Gen. Percy Hobart. The yanks called the Sherman Duplex Drive (Sherman DD) the Sherman Donald Ducks.

The big problem at Omaha with the launching of the Sherman DD too far out (as many as 3 miles in rough seas) was seen as cowardice by some British destroyers looking on as the event unfolded.

Of the 29 Sherman DD launched by the 741st Tank Regiment 27 sank, the main problem was that the commanders were told to steer towards a particular church steeple, with the strong currents present at the beach the tanks were carried east and as the commanders tried to maintain a heading towards the steeple they put their beam to the swell and waves. The sinkings came as the long sides didn't have the same strength as the bow and stern and the floatation skirts collapsed sinking the tanks. The same scenario happens with surf boats, while they keep the waves at their stern they can ride the waves into the shore, if they put their beam into the wave they get swamped.

Had the tank commanders kept their heading straight towards the shore many of the tanks would have survived.

[korg20000bc]

My Dad told me that in Vietnam they were doing a river crossing in a M113 and the crew forgot to put some type of fording board in the correct position and carrier went to the bottom. It was a mad rush to get out of the sinking vehicle.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Yes there is a board on the front over the engine hatch that needs to be swung out so the hull planes on top of the water. Without the board deployed the bow wave pushes up the sloped front of the hull and the whole machine dives under the waves. :eek:

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/awma_mus/images/M113A1.jpg
Not that this variant the "Fire Support Vehicle" with a cast steel Saladin turret would be capable of swimming.

The main reason the M113 was able to swim was because it pumped the water out as quickly as it came in and the hull displaced just enough water for the thing to float. Overload it or have the bilge pumps fail and it quickly became a submarine.

[THE BOOGER]

My old veh at 2 cav was called AQUANOUGHT for a very good reason found the bottom of jervis bay, someone drove it off the ramp of the tabrook a little to fast:wasntme: once water is over the air intake it gets sucked in to fast for the bilge pumps:D it was an MRV with a scorpian turret they had more floatation added to the front

[Blknight.aus]

the M113 properly prepared is totally water proof.

The biggest leaks in any of the OSS ones at 1AR used to be the door handle in the ramp and 15015 didnt even leak there.

[Sly]

The M113 s have come a long way since I drove them. I saw a refitted one at the S of A a while back and it had almost all the things the boffins promised to us in the early 90s. It was also a shock to see all the kit / tech we used ,to be in the museum on display. Theres a set of mine rollers looking just like the day we uncrated them out side SEQT hangers. Put them on a panzer and quickly realized that you can go fowards but not backwards with them on, I bet the gouges in the concreate are still there.
All things aside I still think that M1A1 rebuilds that we bought as a MBT were a dud deal !.
Please dont jump on and rave about it, unless you have lived in the shadow of the tank regiment. Uninformed comment only cheapens the argument.

[korg20000bc]

The M113 s have come a long way since I drove them. I saw a refitted one at the S of A a while back and it had almost all the things the boffins promised to us in the early 90s. It was also a shock to see all the kit / tech we used ,to be in the museum on display. Theres a set of mine rollers looking just like the day we uncrated them out side SEQT hangers. Put them on a panzer and quickly realized that you can go fowards but not backwards with them on, I bet the gouges in the concreate are still there.
All things aside I still think that M1A1 rebuilds that we bought as a MBT were a dud deal !.
Please dont jump on and rave about it, unless you have lived in the shadow of the tank regiment. Uninformed comment only cheapens the argument.

Not many people will be taking part in your conversation then...

[THE BOOGER]

The M1 deal also came with offroad tankers to keep them supplied with fuel:D other than fuel use they arnt to bad:o oh and crossing some of our bridges out back they are over weight
Ill comment, I lived at 1 armd for a while.

[BBC]

Just out of interest how many times did the leopards need to cross a river when in service?

Do you think that the brass and politicians have bought the refurbed Abrams with the intention that they will only ever deploy to a war zone with the US and will use the US to supply the river crossing ability?

Lotz-A,

It is not a matter of how many times did the Leopards need to cross a river when in service...it is a matter of....they could.

The ADF Abrams can't. There is an operational need to be able to cross gaps. The ADF should only ever be looking at deployment under their own command. If so, make sure all the tools are in the tool box.

[Blknight.aus]

thats not how we play now....

In theory...

we're a light footprint organisation. WE go in with the minimum kit possible and use whatever we can get locally to augment....

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Lotz-A,

It is not a matter of how many times did the Leopards need to cross a river when in service...it is a matter of....they could.

The ADF Abrams can't. There is an operational need to be able to cross gaps. The ADF should only ever be looking at deployment under their own command. If so, make sure all the tools are in the tool box.So what you're saying is that neither the Abrams nor the rebuilt M113 can cross rivers?

Then that is an oversight (but typical of Defence procurement * ), I wonder if they are believing the Global Warming hysteria and believe there won't be any rivers left that need crossing? (the last bit is flippant I know :( )

Are the Auslavs at all amphibious or are we a completely dry land Army now?

* our last two defence helicopter purchases are all grounded - Yes the Eurocopter is currently grounded too.

[PAT303]

The M113 s have come a long way since I drove them. I saw a refitted one at the S of A a while back and it had almost all the things the boffins promised to us in the early 90s. It was also a shock to see all the kit / tech we used ,to be in the museum on display. Theres a set of mine rollers looking just like the day we uncrated them out side SEQT hangers. Put them on a panzer and quickly realized that you can go fowards but not backwards with them on, I bet the gouges in the concreate are still there.
All things aside I still think that M1A1 rebuilds that we bought as a MBT were a dud deal !.
Please dont jump on and rave about it, unless you have lived in the shadow of the tank regiment. Uninformed comment only cheapens the argument.

I've never been a tanker but have talked to-read the books written by people that are and what they say about the Abrams is quite different to the spin given by comanders on TV.IMHO we should have replaced the Leo 1's with Leo 2's. Pat

[Blknight.aus]

So what you're saying is that neither the Abrams nor the rebuilt M113 can cross rivers?

Then that is an oversight (but typical of Defence procurement * ), I wonder if they are believing the Global Warming hysteria and believe there won't be any rivers left that need crossing? (the last bit is flippant I know :( )

Are the Auslavs at all amphibious or are we a completely dry land Army now?

* our last two defence helicopter purchases are all grounded - Yes the Eurocopter is currently grounded too.

the M1A1 does not have the deep ford capability of the leopard nor can it cross on our current bridging equipment (max bridging the ADF currently has is a 50T limit engineers pontoon) While it would probabley be able to carry the M1A1 You wouldnt want anything to go wrong.

The stretched M113 (which is specced as the M113A4) now has too much weight on it to be able to float but it can still use all the existing portable bridging equipment that it could before it was stretched.

I believe that the mortar and fitters varient not having the turret might just make the grade for boyancy but as the trim vane is now omitted they would be limited to fording in reverse as going forwards with the trim vane missing or retracted leads to sinking. I also suspect that the new grouserless Track would be pitiful for propulsion as the Buckets relied on the track for propulsion.

[lardy]

gotta agree, the defence is being a little smarter these days and aligning our equipment with other countrys so that we don't have to deploy our equipment and that our guys can hop straight into say an american tank

i glance over the latest ARMY rag and some gunner received medals for serving with the brits and pretty sure they used there guns and were trained on them during pre-deployment training, once you know the basics your halfway there

When you say guns are you talking field artillary or do you really mean rifles as in the 556mm sa80 plastic spastic ?

[weeds]

When you say guns are you talking field artillary or do you really mean rifles as in the 556mm sa80 plastic spastic ?

artillery guns

nothing wrong with the plastic fantastic rifles........F88's

[Blknight.aus]

you seen the RODUMS that are out on the new version of it?

[akelly]

* our last two defence helicopter purchases are all grounded - Yes the Eurocopter is currently grounded too.

Someone must not have told the pilot of the Tiger I watched flying yesterday...

[THE BOOGER]

MRH 90 and sea sprite but we sent the sprites back or are they still at nowra:)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Someone must not have told the pilot of the Tiger I watched flying yesterday...The grounded/cancelled purchases I'm referring to are the MRH90 Eurocopters Defence grounds new chopper fleet - ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/19/2903502.htm) and the Navy's 1 billion $ SeaSprite debacle Bureaucracy killed Seasprite deal: Defence Association - ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/05/2180958.htm)

[juddy]

MRH 90 and sea sprite but we sent the sprites back or are they still at nowra:)

In 1997, Australia signed an $A 667 million contract with Kaman to purchase 11 upgraded SH-2G (A) “Super Seasprites,” with modernized avionics. This compact helicopter design was thought to be well suited to operation from the RAN’s ANZAC Class frigates, and even from patrol boats with helicopter decks. The first helicopter was unveiled in 2003, but by 2005 up to 40 deficiencies had been identified including inability to operate in bad weather and low-light conditions, and inability to meet Australian airworthiness certification standards. Placing modern avionics into a 1960s airframe proved challenging indeed; the helicopters were restricted to “passenger and supply transport in good weather” in 2005, then grounded in May 2006.

The project is now 6 years behind schedule, costs have risen over 50% to $A 1.1 billion (currently about $900 million) for 11 helicopters, and the program is being used as a case study in the Australian Defence College’s leadership and ethics course. It’s estimated that at least $A 45 million more and 29 months of work would be required to make them serviceable, with full operational status unlikely until at least 2010. Other SH-2 operators include New Zealand (from its ANZAC frigates), Egypt, and Poland.

In 2007, Australia’s Liberal Party government elected to continue the Super Seasprite program – but their successor Labor government has reversed that decision, and come to an interesting agreement with Kaman…

March 20/08: The government of Australia and Kaman Corp. announce an agreement re: cancellation of the Seasprite contract. Subject to US Government approval under defense technology export laws, Kaman will own the 11 SH-2G-A Super Seasprite helicopters, along with spare parts and associated equipment, for sale on the open market. The Australian Government and Kaman would share in the profits of subsequent sales on a 50/50 basis, with a guaranteed financial return of A$ 39.5 million/ $US 37 million. At least $25 million will be paid by March 2011, plus $6 million (US) each in 2012 and 2013.

Kaman will forego payment on approximately $35 million (US) in net unbilled receivables in exchange for the helicopters, spare parts and equipment, which will be recorded as inventory and is expected to exceed the amount of the net unbilled receivables and the guaranteed payments. The Australian government described it as A$ 30 million worth of spares that will be retained by Australia for use on the Seahawk and Black Hawk helicopter fleets.

The cancellation avoids A$ 150 million in planned spending on the Seasprite project.


And theres a bunker of Penguin Missiles, never going to be used that were for the sea sprites..
Still not bad looking..

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/620.jpg