A Detailed Account of the Vietnam War Engagement (23–24 February 1966)

The Battle of Suoi Bong Trang, fought between 23 and 24 February 1966, stands as a significant engagement during the Vietnam War, involving the combined forces of the United States, Australia, and New Zealand against the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. The battle unfolded amidst Operation Rolling Stone, an American security initiative aimed at safeguarding engineers constructing a critical road near Tan Binh in Binh Duong Province, approximately 30 kilometres northwest of the Bien Hoa airbase. During this intense confrontation, the 1st Brigade of the US 1st Infantry Division and the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (1 RAR), attached to the operation, successfully repelled a regimental-sized Viet Cong night assault. Overwhelmed by the firepower of artillery and tanks, the Viet Cong suffered severe casualties and were forced to retreat by dawn. Post-battle, the US and Australian forces did not pursue the retreating Viet Cong but focused on securing the battlefield and tending to their own wounded. Despite intermittent harassment from Viet Cong snipers and mortar fire, the road construction continued, culminating in its completion on 2 March 1966.

The Strategic Context of February 1966

In February 1966, the United States launched a road-building program aimed at disrupting the Viet Cong’s mobility in the regions surrounding Saigon. The US 1st Engineer Battalion, under Lieutenant Colonel Howard Sargent’s command, was tasked with constructing an all-weather road connecting Route 13 and Route 15 in central Binh Duong Province, west of Ben Cat. This road was strategically designed to sever the Viet Cong’s supply lines between War Zone C, the Mekong Delta, the Iron Triangle, and War Zone D. Additionally, it was intended to link the two forward brigades of the US 1st Infantry Division between Phuoc Vinh and Lai Khe, thereby extending the South Vietnamese government’s authority into the area.

As the road construction progressed, Viet Cong Local Force units began a campaign of harassment against the American engineers. They engaged in daily sniping, laying mines, and sabotage activities to impede the construction work. In response to these disruptions, the US 1st Division initiated Operation Rolling Stone on 11 February 1966, a comprehensive security operation aimed at protecting the engineers and their work. Colonel Edgar N. Glotzbach, commander of the US 1st Brigade, was assigned the task of securing the area. He deployed one of his three battalions to guard the engineers on a rotating basis, while the other two battalions conducted offensive operations to keep the Viet Cong off balance.

The Involvement of 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (1 RAR)

At the request of the American divisional commander, Major General William E. DePuy, the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (1 RAR), under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Alex Preece, was temporarily detached from the US 173rd Airborne Brigade and placed under the operational control of the US 1st Division until 5 March. DePuy specifically selected the Australian battalion for its reputation for aggressive and effective patrolling. Supporting 1 RAR were Australian M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) from 1 APC Troop, engineers from 3 Field Troop, Bell Sioux light observation helicopters, Cessna 180 fixed-wing aircraft from 161st Independent Reconnaissance Flight, and 105-millimeter L5 Pack Howitzers from 161st Battery, Royal New Zealand Artillery.

The headquarters of the US 1st Brigade was located approximately 1,000 meters east of the engineer base camp near the hamlet of Tan Binh, just north of the new road and less than five kilometres west of Route 16. The brigade’s constituent battalions were dispersed across the area, conducting search and destroy operations, leaving the area only lightly defended. Despite the harassment faced by the engineers, contact between the US and Australian forces and the Viet Cong had been sporadic during the early weeks of Operation Rolling Stone.

Australian intelligence had assessed that at least two Viet Cong Local Force platoons, and possibly a Local Force company, were operating in the area. However, they cautioned that the Viet Cong likely had the capability to concentrate a Main Force battalion in the area with little warning. The Australians were tasked with protecting the engineer base, the laterite pit, and road work parties over a distance of 6,000 meters, as well as safeguarding engineer reconnaissance parties as they moved forward to plan new sections of the road.

The Lead-Up to the Battle

On 19 February 1966, 1 RAR was airlifted into the area, relieving the 2nd Battalion, US 38th Infantry Regiment. Upon arrival, Preece immediately implemented a program of 24-hour dispersed patrolling, which quickly reduced the level of Viet Cong activity against the road construction. To bolster the defence, two platoons of American M48 Patton tanks were also deployed to the area, patrolling during the day alongside the Australian APCs and securing the laterite pit at night.

Several engagements with the Viet Cong occurred, and by 22 February, the Australians began to suspect that a major attack was imminent, noting that they were now facing Main Force elements. In the early morning of 23 February, three Viet Cong soldiers were killed in an Australian ambush, while several others were wounded but managed to escape. The dead soldiers were well-equipped with new AK-47 assault rifles and other gear, indicating their affiliation with the 761st Main Force Regiment. A significant quantity of ammunition, rations, and medical supplies was also captured. Later that night, a North Vietnamese engineer officer was killed in a separate ambush, further supporting the Australians’ suspicions of an impending attack.

The Viet Cong’s Assault

Unbeknownst to the US and Australian forces, three battalions of the Viet Cong 9th Division were preparing for a large-scale assault on the American and Australian positions. The attacking force, numbering around 2,000 men, included the J10 Battalion of the 761st Regiment, the 707 Battalion of the 763rd Regiment, and the D800 Independent Battalion. By the evening of 23 February, the Viet Cong had completed a 25-kilometer approach march and were positioned near the village of Ap Bo, utilizing local women and youths as porters to carry ammunition and supplies.

Viet Cong reconnaissance parties had easily located the American headquarters, which was conspicuous due to the noise and light emanating from the area. The Viet Cong commander planned to launch a three-pronged assault on the American and Australian positions, with the aim of surrounding the defenders and preventing them from concentrating their forces. Fire support for the attack was provided by 60-millimeter and 82-millimeter mortars positioned in the vicinity.

By late afternoon on 23 February, 1 RAR had established an all-round defensive position near the Suoi Bong Trang creek, west of the US 1st Brigade’s headquarters. The American engineers had also moved into a new defensive position within the Australian perimeter. In anticipation of the impending attack, additional American forces, including a platoon of M48 Patton tanks and a second field artillery battery, were deployed to defend the Brigade Headquarters. The 1st Battalion, US 26th Infantry Regiment, returned from the field and augmented the defences, joining Company B, 1st Battalion, US 28th Infantry Regiment.

The Battle Unfolds

At 22:00 on 23 February, soldiers from B Company, 1 RAR, occupying the western sector of the Australian perimeter, observed lights approximately 250 meters in front of their position. Major Ian McFarlane, the company commander, requested artillery and mortar fire to target the location, but his request was denied by Preece. Meanwhile, a small Australian standing patrol deployed forward of the main defensive position, led by Private Walter (Bruno) Brunalli, observed the lights moving closer to the US 1st Brigade’s headquarters.

By midnight, the American forces stationed on the eastern approaches also reported hearing movement and seeing intermittent flashes of light through the trees. Shortly after midnight on 24 February, sporadic firing broke out across the area as forward American listening posts detected small groups of Viet Cong moving outside the perimeter. After one of the sentries opened fire, two Viet Cong were killed, and the remainder withdrew into the darkness.

The American and Australian forces remained on high alert, bracing for the main Viet Cong assault. At 01:45, the battle commenced with a heavy barrage of Viet Cong mortar and small arms fire. The Americans responded with a barrage of small arms fire, machine guns, tank fire, mortars, and artillery. The intensity of the firefight grew over the next hour, and at 03:00, the Viet Cong shifted their fire to the northwest side of the American perimeter, augmenting their barrage with recoilless rifles.

Glotzbach anticipated a full-scale ground assault, but the Viet Cong were held back by the overwhelming firepower of the American defenders. The Americans, supported by eight field artillery batteries, including 8-inch and 175-millimeter howitzers from Phuoc Vinh, unleashed a devastating barrage on the Viet Cong positions. Some artillery units even fired directly at the Viet Cong, lowering their tubes to fire over open sights.

Meanwhile, the Australian standing patrol remained in position despite the proximity of the Viet Cong. The intense American fire directed at the area soon caught the Australians in the crossfire, and Brunalli was wounded in the arm. Although the Australian position was not the primary focus of the Viet Cong assault, it came under attack from 60-millimeter mortar fire, resulting in the death of an American sapper. There was initial confusion over the source of the rounds, with both Glotzbach and Preece speculating that the fire might have originated from US 1st Brigade’s headquarters or from supporting artillery batteries.

However, the subsequent recovery of fragments revealed that the mortars were of Chinese origin, confirming they had been fired by the Viet Cong. This realization prompted Preece to request artillery support from the American battalion tasked with providing fire support. At 04:10, the main Viet Cong assault was finally launched, with infantry supported by heavy machine guns and recoilless rifles.

The Viet Cong managed to close to within 150 meters of the Australian perimeter before being forced to ground by the concentrated Australian and New Zealand artillery and mortar fire. The determined defence and overwhelming firepower broke the momentum of the Viet Cong assault, forcing them to retreat back into the jungle. As dawn broke on 24 February, the Viet Cong were in full retreat, leaving behind significant casualties.

The Aftermath

The Battle of Suoi Bong Trang was a decisive victory for the US, Australian, and New Zealand forces. The Viet Cong’s regimental-sized attack had been repelled with heavy losses, and the road construction continued, eventually leading to the completion of the vital supply route on 2 March 1966. The battle demonstrated the effectiveness of combined arms operations, with artillery, tanks, and infantry working in concert to thwart a determined enemy attack. The battle also highlighted the growing capability and professionalism of the Australian and New Zealand forces, who played a crucial role in the defence of the engineer base.

The battle had a lasting impact on the Viet Cong’s operations in the region. The heavy losses suffered during the engagement forced the Viet Cong to reconsider their tactics and avoid large-scale frontal assaults against well-defended positions. The battle also underscored the importance of maintaining strong defensive positions and the value of artillery in providing critical support during engagements.

In the years that followed, the Battle of Suoi Bong Trang would be remembered as a testament to the bravery and tenacity of the soldiers who fought there. The battle remains an important chapter in the history of the Vietnam War and serves as a reminder of the sacrifices made by those who served in that conflict.

The Javelin missile system has become one of the most effective and versatile anti-tank weapons in modern warfare. Developed by the United States, the Javelin is known for its ease of use, precision targeting, and lethality against armoured vehicles. Since its introduction in the 1990s, the Javelin has been widely adopted by various military forces around the world and has proven itself in numerous conflicts.

The FGM-148 Javelin was developed as a successor to the M47 Dragon, which had limitations in range, accuracy, and lethality. The Javelin was a product of a collaboration between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, combining advanced technology to create a portable, shoulder-fired missile system capable of defeating modern tanks.

One of the Javelin’s key features is its fire-and-forget capability. Unlike earlier systems that required the operator to maintain a line of sight with the target until impact, the Javelin allows the user to fire the missile and immediately seek cover, enhancing their survivability on the battlefield. The missile’s guidance system, equipped with infrared imaging, autonomously tracks and homes in on the target after launch.

The Javelin missile system consists of two main components: the Command Launch Unit (CLU) and the missile itself. The CLU, which weighs about 6.4 kg (14 lbs), is the targeting and launching component that houses the infrared imaging system, a day sight, and controls. The missile, stored in a disposable launch tube, weighs approximately 15.9 kg (35 lbs) and is equipped with a tandem-shaped charge warhead designed to defeat reactive armour.

When preparing to fire, the operator uses the CLU to locate and lock onto the target. Once the missile is launched, it ascends in a curved trajectory before diving down onto the target from above, where the armour is typically thinner. This top-attack mode is particularly effective against tanks and armoured vehicles. The Javelin can also be fired in direct-attack mode for engaging bunkers, buildings, and helicopters.

Since its introduction, the Javelin has been used in numerous conflicts, demonstrating its effectiveness against a wide range of targets. The system was first deployed in 1996 by U.S. forces, and it saw extensive use during the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. In these conflicts, the Javelin proved highly effective not only against tanks but also against fortified positions, light vehicles, and even personnel in cover.

The Javelin has been exported to several countries and used by various military forces. It gained significant attention during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where Ukrainian forces used Javelins to devastating effect against Russian armoured columns. The success of the Javelin in this conflict has further solidified its reputation as a game-changing weapon system.

The Javelin’s portability, ease of use, and fire-and-forget capability make it a highly versatile weapon on the battlefield. Its ability to engage targets at ranges up to 2.5 km (1.5 miles) and its effectiveness in both top-attack and direct-attack modes give it a significant tactical advantage over earlier anti-tank systems.

However, the Javelin is not without its limitations. The high cost of each missile, which can exceed $175,000, makes it an expensive option, especially when used against lower-value targets. Additionally, while the system is highly effective in open terrain, its performance can be reduced in urban environments where obstacles can interfere with the missile’s flight path.

The Javelin anti-tank weapon system represents a significant leap forward in military technology, providing ground forces with a reliable and effective tool for neutralizing armoured threats. Its proven track record in multiple conflicts has made it a staple of modern arsenals, and its continued development and deployment ensure that it will remain a key asset in future warfare.

Australia is home to nearly half a million military veterans, many of whom are active participants in the workforce. However, a significant portion, around 60%, struggle with long-term health issues. Of these, about half face persistent mental health challenges, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and an elevated risk of suicide.

While disclosing these conditions can pave the way for essential workplace support, many veterans choose to remain silent. This silence often stems from a fear of stigma and the potential impact on their professional lives. Unfortunately, keeping quiet can create a cycle of isolation, where veterans feel compelled to continue concealing their struggles, even when it might be in their best interest to seek help.

This issue is particularly pronounced in roles that require full disclosure, such as Australian government positions needing security clearances. Veterans who initially choose not to disclose their mental health conditions may find themselves trapped, forced to seek external assistance privately without informing their employers. This secrecy can lead to self-harm or even mental health crises, leaving employers unaware and unable to provide the necessary support.

At the University of Queensland, a team is studying the complex dynamics of how and when veterans choose to disclose their mental health conditions. Through surveys and interviews, they have identified a wide range of approaches to disclosure.

On one end of the spectrum, some veterans refuse to reveal their health concerns to anyone, including close family members. They often feel that others cannot truly understand their experiences, and fear that disclosure might damage their relationships. On the other end, some veterans are subjected to frequent, mandatory disclosures, sometimes as often as every six months. This constant scrutiny makes them feel as though their personal lives are on display to supervisors and human resource managers, leading to a sense of vulnerability and invasion of privacy.

One veteran recounted an experience where, during a government job application process, all veterans diagnosed with PTSD were asked to identify themselves in a crowded room. They were then required to fill out extensive documentation detailing their condition, treatment, and medication regimen, long after other applicants had finished.

Another veteran described the intricate decision-making process involved when considering new contracts or contract renewals. They would assess factors such as the length of the contract, the contracting firm’s health policies, reporting requirements, and the actual support offered for mental health. Importantly, this veteran also sought out insights from fellow veterans to gauge the firm’s true commitment to supporting mental health.

Despite the challenges, many employers genuinely care about their employees’ well-being but struggle to convey that message effectively. One veteran-turned-business owner shared that the best way to build trust with veteran applicants was by first disclosing some aspect of his own health condition, thus creating a mutual sense of understanding and support.

Our study is ongoing, and while it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions, we hope that our findings will contribute to creating safer, more supportive environments for veterans. By understanding the delicate balance veterans must strike between reaching out for help and fitting into the workforce, we aim to make it easier for them to disclose their conditions and access the support they need—potentially saving lives in the process.

Richard O’Quinn, The University of Queensland; Emma Knight, The University of Queensland; Justin P. Brienza, The University of Queensland; Laura Ferris, The University of Queensland; Tarli Young, The University of Queensland

A place for veterans and their families to get help, support & access the services they need.

SMEAC Inc. is a veteran run and operated charity which runs on the mantra of Veterans Helping Veterans.

SMEAC is currently in the process of refurbishing Camp SMEAC an amazing piece of infrastructure located on the Sunshine Coast, less than an hour from Brisbane and around 10 mins from Caloundra.

Camp SMEAC sits on around 50ha of mostly bush, surrounded by Beerwah State Forest to the North, South and East and the magnificent Ewen Maddock Dam to the West.

Camp SMEAC is being created specifically to work with and support Veterans and Veteran families catering for their unique needs.

Camp SMEAC has been created specifically to work with and support Veterans and Veteran families catering for their unique needs.

CLICK LINK for more information

SMEAC Inc. | Camp SMEAC, Veterans Helping Veterans

ED: From my inbox from Brian Hurlock

The world is slowly waking up to the fact that people have been deceived by the most costly and environmentally destructive fraud in history: the so-called Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change theory and its false alarmism based on the demonization of CO2.

As my mate, author John Dawson, wrote in his book “Climate Alarmism”:

“CO2 does not pollute the planet; it greens the planet. Plants evolved when there was up to 6,800 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, 16 times more than today, so plants are now on a CO2 starvation diet. Nearly all plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2. Greenhouse growers have known this for a long time, which is why they raise CO2 in their glasshouses to 2,000 ppm about the level you breathe in a crowded or poorly ventilated room.”

Forget the propaganda about CO2 being a pollutant driving the modest, naturally cyclical “global warming” period. And consider the trillions of dollars wasted worldwide on the fraudulent fantasies of so-called “renewables” money that was needed for other essential areas of life and development. This has left the Western world with degrading infrastructure and huge cost-of-living increases, which should make you not only sad but angry! Nearly every financial difficulty faced by grassroots people in the Western world can be blamed on the false alarmists of the Climate Change fraud and their pursuit of the insane idea that so-called “renewables” will ever be economically viable, reliable, or efficient enough to provide baseload power 24/7, 365 days a year, now or in the future!

And the cost!

Hooroo 4 now,

Brian Hurlock

Click Link below

500 Million Years of Unrelatedness between Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature

By Jo Nova – Sunday

And Then the Climate Pledges Evaporated

The tech giants are backing away. Microsoft and Google have quietly given up on their carbon neutrality goals, no longer boasting about their environmental efforts. This comes after their emissions have increased by 29% and 50%, respectively, over the past four or five years. More than 500 companies had pledged to achieve net zero emissions by 2040, but 96% of them are failing to stay on track.

To distract us from discussing how the climate bubble has burst, some companies are now blaming artificial intelligence (AI). The claims the world is facing mass death and boiling oceans, and despite wind and solar power still not being as cheap as claimed, Big Tech is retreating from their role in “saving the world.” Why? Because AI uses a lot of electricity? It’s as if these CEOs, once hailed as saviours of the planet, are now more focused on capturing the AI market than preserving the environment. The so-called planetary heroes have reverted to being robber barons in business.

Dr. Jemma Green, who sells software for renewable energy markets, is trying to spin a tale of bad luck, but it doesn’t add up. The truth is, if net zero technologies were truly cheap and effective, and if CEOs genuinely cared about the planet, they wouldn’t be abandoning their commitments. But they are.

Why Are Big Corporations Quietly Abandoning Their Climate Commitments?

Jemma Green, in a Forbes article, discusses AI’s energy demands and corporate climate hypocrisy. Companies like Google, Microsoft, and Shell once positioned themselves as leaders in sustainability, setting ambitious net-zero goals to align with global environmental efforts. However, the rapid rise of energy-hungry AI is forcing these companies to reconsider—or even abandon—these commitments.

Corporate climate pledges surged recently, with over 500 companies globally committing to net-zero emissions by 2040. This momentum continued between June 2022 and October 2023, with a 40% increase in new net-zero targets. Yet, as the AI revolution gains traction, cracks in these promises are beginning to show. Recent analysis reveals that only 4% of these companies are on track to meet their goals, highlighting a disconnect between corporate rhetoric and reality.

Despite the headline, Green isn’t even trying to explain why this shift is happening. After blaming AI for a few paragraphs, she notes that other giants like Shell, Gucci, and EasyJet are also stepping away from their goals, which pokes a hole in her thesis that AI is the sole culprit. After all, Gucci isn’t exactly trying to sell AI programs.

What Green is documenting is the corporate world quietly erasing their mistakes. For instance, Shell has abandoned its 2035 target of a 45% reduction in net carbon intensity, citing “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition.” This target was a key milestone towards Shell’s broader goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Similarly, luxury fashion house Gucci, which once committed to carbon neutrality through verified carbon offsets, quietly removed its claim of being “entirely carbon neutral” from its website in May 2023.

The truth is, if the Earth were in real danger, smart CEOs and billionaires—who have to live on the planet too—would be pushing for nuclear power as if their children’s lives depended on it. Instead, it seems it was all just an intellectual fashion contest, a quick subsidy grab, and maybe some even believed wind and solar power would be useful. But they don’t anymore.

Defender Blog

Australia’s fuel supply, a critical component of national security, depends heavily on maritime routes through the western Indian Ocean. Despite the Royal Australian Navy’s long history of operations in the region—ranging from counter-piracy and counterterrorism to supporting the Gulf Wars—Australia’s focus on the western Indian Ocean has been limited. This oversight could have significant consequences as the region becomes increasingly contested.

Australia’s engagement in the western Indian Ocean is often seen as part of its alliance responsibilities with the United States or a means of gaining operational experience. However, the fundamental reason for maintaining a presence in this region is that maritime security there directly impacts Australia’s national security, particularly its fuel supply.

Since the introduction of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ concept in the 2013 Defence White Paper, Australia has predominantly focused on the eastern Indian Ocean. This focus was reinforced in subsequent documents, including the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper and the recent National Defence Strategy (NDS). The NDS highlights Australia’s primary military interest as the area encompassing the Northeast Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. This focus is logical, given the strategic importance of oil and gas reserves on Australia’s northwest shelf and the Malacca, Sunda, and Lombok straits, which are vital to Australia’s maritime trade.

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has taken steps to strengthen its presence in the northeastern Indian Ocean. This includes naval diplomacy through the Indo-Pacific Endeavour, upgrades to facilities on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and the expansion of HMAS Stirling, Australia’s primary naval base in Western Australia. These initiatives align with Australia’s broader strategy of bolstering its military capabilities in the region, ensuring the security of its northern approaches and the critical maritime routes that pass through them.

However, confining Australia’s Indian Ocean strategy to the northeastern quadrant is a mistake. The western Indian Ocean is of strategic importance, not only due to population growth in Africa and trade relationships with the European Union but, most importantly, because of Australia’s dependence on fuel imports. Australia imports 90% of its fuel, and any disruption to this supply chain would have immediate and severe consequences for the nation’s economy and defence capabilities.

While Australia imports refined fuel primarily from South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia, the crude oil needed to produce that fuel largely comes from the Middle East, crossing the western Indian Ocean. A disruption in this supply chain—whether due to piracy, conflict, or strategic moves by other nations—would directly threaten Australia’s fuel supply. For example, China’s growing influence in the region, exemplified by its base in Djibouti and investments in regional ports, poses a potential risk to Australia’s fuel security.

Australia cannot afford to ignore the western Indian Ocean in its maritime strategy. While Australia has historically relied on its partners and allies for security in this region, it has also maintained an independent presence through nearly three decades of continuous naval deployments. This combination of alliances and independent operations has been crucial in ensuring maritime security, and it must be continued and expanded.

To safeguard its national security, Australia must increase its engagement in the western Indian Ocean. This can be achieved through more frequent deployments of naval vessels and aircraft, as well as investments in regional capacity building. Such actions would not only strengthen Australia’s presence in the region but also build relationships and enhance the Royal Australian Navy’s ability to operate effectively in the western Indian Ocean.

Australia’s focus on the northeastern Indian Ocean is understandable, but it should not come at the expense of neglecting the western Indian Ocean. As this region becomes more contested, Australia must adapt its maritime strategy to ensure that its fuel supplies—and, by extension, its national security—are protected. This means becoming more active in the western Indian Ocean, both independently and in collaboration with allies, to secure the maritime routes essential to Australia’s survival and prosperity.