Written and researched by Ernie Chamberlain

In the Australian Parliament on 18 August 1971, Mr Lance Barnard (Labor – Deputy Leader of the Opposition) referred to Phước Tuy Province (South Vietnam) as: “a quiet 

backwater of the war”.  However, when reviewing VC activity in Phước Tuy in May 1966 – ie before 1 ATF deployed into Phước Tuy, the first Task Force commander – Brigadier David

Jackson, declared that the Province “was not a backwater”.

 

How intense was “”pre-ATF” fighting in the Province ? In very late December 1964 – prior to 1 ATF’s arrival in Vietnam, the VC 761^st and 762^nd Regiments (late retitled the 271^st

and the 272^nd Regiments) launched a multi-regimental attack against the mainly Catholic New Life village of Bình Giã (18 kilometres north of Bà Rịa Town – just east off Route 2 on

Route 327 – ie about 12 kilometres north of the future 1 ATF location at Núi Đất. Three Vietnamese ARVN Ranger battalions (30^th, 33^rd and 38^th) attempted a relief of Bình Giã but

suffered very heavy casualties; and the 428-strong 4^th Vietnamese Marine Battalion also lost 112 killed and 71 wounded in the fighting at Bình Giã. Three US advisers were

captured: a captain, a sergeant (later executed) and a private first class. The VC forces were armed with the first of their AK-47s in the South – delivered by sea in trawlers from the 

North and landed on the Phước Tuy coast north of Phước Hải in readiness for the battles of Bình Giã and Chòi Đồng in north-central Phước Tuy. The VC’s C440 and C445 Companies

– a few months later to become the D445 Battalion, also attacked at Bình Giã, as memorialized in the major monument in Bà Rịa (inaugurated in late November 2025).

 

On 11 November 1965, the 3^rd Battalion on the 275^th VC Main Force Regiment attempted to ambush an ARVN convoy (52^nd Ranger Battalion) on Route 15 about 10

kilometres north-west of Bà Rịa Town. Forewarned by a VC defector, the Rangers repelled the 275^th Regiment’s attack – and the VC force suffered very heavy casualties. A US JUSPAO

Report of 30 November 1965 noted “300” VC (and also “500” VC) were killed in that action at Kim Hải. On 18 November 1965, US President Johnson awarded a citation to the 52^nd

Ranger battalion.

 

On 6 January 1966, MACCORDS (MACV Civil Operations and Rural Development Support) Team 89 – based in Vạn Kiếp (a large ARVN base and training centre on Bà Rịa’s

eastern outskirts), lost three US KIA in a D445 ambush. During subsequent US operations in Phước Tuy Province in the period April to mid-September 1966, US forces reportedly lost 

87 personnel KIA and 408 WIA – in Operations Abilene, Hardihood, Hollandia and Toledo.

 

In the period 9 March – 9 April 1966 – as an element of the 173d US Airborne Brigade during Operation Abilene, the 1RAR Battalion Group operated in southern Long

Khánh Province and Phước Tuy Province as part of the US 1^st Infantry Division (“The Big Red One”) commanded by US General W.E. DePuy. Operation Abilene had the aim of

“destroying the 94th [ie the 274^th] VC Regiment, the 5th [ie the 275^th] VC Regiment, and the attacking the VC’s Mây Tào Secret Zone.” In a “southern” phase of Operation Abilene, on

4 April 1966, two US battalions conducted a search-and-destroy operation north and north-east of the VC- controlled village of Long Tân (while an ARVN force searched the village) – and then moved

the villagers to Đất Đỏ, Long Điền and Hòa Long. 1RAR returned to Biên Hòa from Operation Abilene’s logistic base area at Bình Ba on 8 -9 April 1966 by – road and air, to prepare for Operation Denver in the Sông Bé area of Phước Long Province.

Soon after – on 11 April 1966, Charlie Company/2nd Battalion of the16th Regiment of the US 1^st Infantry Division engaged a VC force that included the 800^th Battalion (ie

1/274^th VC Regiment) in north-eastern Phước Tuy – about 5 kilometres south of the Long Khánh/Phước Tuy border and about 8 kilometres east of Route 2. Initially unsupported by

other US companies, the 134-strong Charlie Company suffered 48 killed in action (KIA) and 58 wounded in action (WIA). Reportedly, the bodies of 41 VC were found on the

battlefield, and 100 -150 VC were assessed by MACV as having been killed or wounded in the battle. That engagement on 11 April 1966 is known as the Battle of Cẩm Mỹ in US

military records – and as the Battle of Tầm Bố in Vietnamese communist accounts.

 

A 33-page history of the fighting in Phước Tuy Province before the Australians arrived in the Province in May/June 1966 was published as Annex D in the 5RAR history “Vietnam Vanguard”

in 2020 (Ron Boxall & the late Robert O’Neill). https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6124/html/appendix04.xhtml?referer=&page=31#  

1966 -About 17% Living Under VC Control in Phước Tuy 

According to the US 1^st Infantry Division’s “after action” report following Operation Abilene in March-April 1966 in Phước Tuy and Long Khánh Provinces, of Phước Tuy and

Vũng Tàu’s population of 138,000 (Phước Tuy – 100,000; Vũng Tàu – 38,000): 87,000 lived in government-controlled areas; 22,000 in areas “undergoing pacification”; 12,000 in areas

considered “relatively free of VC”; and 17,000 were “living in VC-controlled areas”. A curfew was in effect between 10pm and 4am – but was “not rigidly enforced” and the “VC 

infrastructure was established down to village and hamlet level.” “Approximately 32% of the population is Pro-GVN, 12% Pro-VC, and 56% are neutral.” The VC had “a high degree

of control over the rural population and had little difficulty moving throughout the province.

 

The US 1^st Infantry Division report summarised VC presence in Phước Tuy Province as: 4,900 personnel – including the 274^th and 275^th VC Regiments, two “Local Force” battalions

(860 Battalion [sic- ie D445 Battalion] – 500 strong; and 310^th Battalion [sic] – 350 strong), one Local Force company (C-25), and five Local Force platoons.

 

 

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has firmly rejected Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s suggestion that Australia could send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine, arguing that the responsibility lies with Europe.

Albanese’s remarks, made without prior discussion, came after US President Donald Trump paused military aid to Ukraine, urging President Volodymyr Zelensky to negotiate with Russia. The suggestion marked a sharp shift from the government’s earlier stance dismissing the idea of Australian peacekeepers in Ukraine.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called for an international coalition to enforce any ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, with France backing the proposal. While Albanese signalled openness to Australia’s involvement, Dutton rejected the idea outright, emphasising that Europe should bear the responsibility for security on its own continent.

“I don’t support boots on the ground in Ukraine,” Dutton said in Brisbane. “The Europeans have that task, and what President Trump has pointed out is that Europe needs to do more in its own defence. That’s a statement of the obvious.”

Dutton reiterated Australia’s ongoing support through military aid and training rather than direct deployment. His position aligns with Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy, who stated earlier that such a commitment was not being considered. A government spokesperson also confirmed there was no active proposal for an Australian peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

Trump’s decision to suspend military assistance is intended to push Ukraine toward negotiations, with White House officials stating that the pause allows for reassessment of aid contributions. Military analysts warn that a prolonged halt could weaken Ukraine’s defensive capabilities despite stockpiles from the Biden administration.

Following discussions with European leaders, Starmer declared Britain’s willingness to participate in a peacekeeping mission, potentially deploying troops and air support. However, Zelensky has previously insisted that any peacekeeping effort must include the US, as Europe alone lacks sufficient military strength.

With the situation evolving, Dutton’s stance reflects a pragmatic approach—supporting Ukraine while ensuring that Australia does not overextend its military commitments in a conflict where regional players must take the lead.

 

The passage of a three-ship naval task group off Australia’s east coast has been dismissed by some as a routine operation in international waters, a stance echoed by Chinese officials who accuse Australian politicians of “deliberately hyping” the issue. However, this event highlights broader concerns regarding Australia’s defence preparedness.

Many commentators have pointed to Australia’s naval shipbuilding shortcomings, citing generations of failure to meet necessary production numbers. The current shipbuilding program will not take effect until the 2030s, leaving a concerning capability gap. Yet, a more pressing question arises: what if the Chinese navy did enter Australian waters, or worse, sought to interfere with air and maritime movements by declaring an air defence identification zone, as they frequently do around Taiwan? Could Australia respond effectively?

The answer lies in the core principles of Australian defence policy in 2025. Military strategy is built on three pillars: ends, ways, and means. The 2024 National Defence Strategy outlines deterrence as a key objective, relying on diplomacy, economic strength, and military power. To support this, Australia must have an operational plan to deny open access to its waters, including a rapidly deployable maritime task group comprising frigates, submarines, and supply ships, alongside air power from the Royal Australian Air Force.

However, the critical issue remains the means. Australia’s defence capabilities will not fully materialise until the next decade, creating a shortfall in military readiness. While plans for new ships, submarines, and long-range missiles are crucial beyond 2030, the immediate need for an effective deterrence strategy remains.

One potential interim solution lies with the Australian Army. A rapid acquisition of land-based anti-ship missile systems could provide a credible deterrent against hostile naval incursions. Similar to Ukraine’s success in countering the Russian Black Sea Fleet, land-based strike capabilities could enhance Australia’s ability to protect its waters before new naval assets become operational.

The recent presence of a Chinese naval task group near Australian waters underscores the urgency of implementing an effective military strategy today, not years from now. Australia must address its defence vulnerabilities with immediate and pragmatic solutions to ensure national security in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific region.

Australia’s F88 rifle, history and evolution

 

https://cove.army.gov….​ https://cove.army.gov….​ https://cove.army.gov….​

The Australian Army is one of the most advanced and well-equipped military forces in the world, and a significant part of its strength lies in its powerful military vehicles. These machines are designed to tackle a variety of combat scenarios, ensuring the safety and security of the nation. From cutting-edge armoured vehicles to advanced tactical transporters, the Australian Army relies on some of the most sophisticated technology to maintain its operational superiority. In this video, we dive into the top 10 most powerful military vehicles of the Australian Army, showcasing the strength, versatility, and advanced engineering behind these formidable machines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edd3_FIqWgA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

An MQ-9B SeaGuardian with the Sonobuoy Dispensing System installed under the inner wing hardpoint. (All images credit: GA-ASI)

SAN DIEGO – General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) has successfully tested its advanced Sonobuoy Dispensing System (SDS) on the MQ-9B SeaGuardian, further cementing its status as the only remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) capable of carrying, deploying, and monitoring sonobuoys. The test, conducted from January 20-30, marks a major milestone in expanding the SeaGuardian’s role in anti-submarine warfare (ASW).

The SDS pods deployed multiple sonobuoys to conduct onboard thermal-depth and acoustic data processing. Utilizing Directional Frequency Analysis and Recording (DIFAR), Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy System (DICASS), and Bathythermograph sonobuoys, the SeaGuardian successfully detected, tracked, and analyzed underwater targets, collecting critical acoustic intelligence. The tests correlated ejection speed with stress/strain data to refine future deployment capabilities, further advancing this cutting-edge technology.

“This demonstration represents a major leap forward in unmanned capabilities and marks a major milestone in proving that an unmanned aircraft can perform end-to-end persistent ASW operations,” said GA-ASI President David R. Alexander. “The success of this testing paves the way for enhanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities on the MQ-9B SeaGuardian. We look forward to continued collaboration with the U.S. Navy as they explore innovative solutions for distributed maritime operations in the undersea domain.”

The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) AIRWorks department played a key role in supporting and overseeing the development, ensuring that the system meets the evolving needs of naval warfighters. NAWCAD has partnered with GA-ASI in multiple ASW demonstrations, including the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise in July 2024, demonstrating the increasing operational viability of unmanned ASW platforms.

SeaGuardian’s Expanding Role in ASW

Beyond its ASW capabilities, the MQ-9B SeaGuardian is a highly sophisticated UAV designed for multi-domain operations, including electronic warfare (EW). The platform boasts endurance ranging from 24 to 40 hours, depending on payload, and can cover a cruising distance of approximately 4,300 kilometers (2,322 nautical miles). Equipped with advanced sensors such as the Raytheon SeaVue XMC radar, GA-ASI Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar, and Leonardo SAGE 750 electronic intelligence (ELINT) system, the SeaGuardian provides comprehensive maritime domain awareness.

GA-ASI first tested the SDS pods on an MQ-9A Block 5 in November 2020. More recently, the system was evaluated in February 2024 during an exercise with Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) at the Navy’s W-291 test range in Southern California, where a SeaGuardian deployed eight AN/SSQ-53 and two AN/SSQ-62 sonobuoys using a pneumatic ejection system developed by Italy’s AREA.

With these advancements, the MQ-9B SeaGuardian is poised to become an integral part of future ASW operations, working alongside manned platforms like the P-8A Poseidon to enhance maritime patrol and undersea surveillance.

Media Contact:
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.

 

ED: I received this article in my inbox … I am providing this information as received I have no knowledge of blast pressure injuries or any recommendations for treatment if you feel you are affected, please do your own research.

CLICK LINK to read the Military.com article

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/02/06/blast-pressure-injuries-may-affect-more-brain-of-troops-new-data-shows.html

Hi Ray,

Very good article on BOP.

Attached references show that US Army and USMC have already identified the issues and adjusted training safety procedures. All available online.

Australia is far behind ADF studies and DVA support.  NZDF slowly catching up.

How do you get screened??

If you have had accepted (or are claiming) sensorineural hearing loss and/or tinnitus it means you highly likely to have been exposed to blast overpressure.  DVA will cover $$ of BOP Screening with specialist neurologist** under PAMT.

Paul Scanlan is the Australia POC leading the BOP fight in Australia. Contact details below.

Cheers

Richard McDonagh

**BOP SME is Vigil: he can advise on who are Australia’s BOP Specialist Neurologists.

Paul Scanlan 

Founder | Vigil Australia

Email | Instagram | LinkedIn

60 Minutes Australia: The Blast Wave (2024)