GarryOwen's Random Historical Notes

Just caught up on this ; great info here Tom . I'll have to find these books too .
Thankyou for posting / sharing . Please keep it up as you can .
Lots of great info here .

Thanks very much jimmila.

Tom

"Both Chinese APCs and Russian tanks (T34/85s) were manufactured with their gasoline tanks on the outside of the vehicle. Therefore it was not necessary to score a direct hit to disable or set them on fire. VNMC artillery learned to mass their fire against these targets and exploit this weakness. (I could find no photographic evidence that this applied to T54s.) Martin, Warriors of the Sea, p. 90"

Which would be great if it was even remotely true. In the first instance both the T-34 and the Chinese Type 63 APC encountered in Vietnam used diesel engines. Yes, diesel is flammable but if you manage to set fire to an auxiliary fuel tank the biggest result you are likely to get is some scorched paint in the immediate area. Auxiliary fuel tanks are typically plumbed in such a manner as not to spread fire back to the engine or main tank. Typically they would be emptied first on the road approach to the FEBA.

Even hits on auxiliary petrol tanks don't do a lot of damage.  Type 63  APCs don't actually have auxiliary/external fuel tanks so no idea what the quoted author means.

Massed artillery was and remains an effective tool against armour. It can do all sorts of nasty things to tanks. Tank armour is quite thin on things like engine decks and turrets so a direct hit can take out a tank quite handily. Even near misses can, through a combination of blast and shrapnel,  degrade optics, break tracks, jam turrets etc, etc. The idea though that the South Vietnamese were massing artillery fire with the hope of setting fire to an auxiliary fuel tank (to what end?) is simply silly.

Bunkers

"An artillery round with an impact fuse can destroy any bunker or foxhole it lands on. McKenna, Kontum, p 178"

"A bunker with one layer of rubber tree logs and a heaping pile of dirt might have taken a hit from a mortar round but not a heavier artillery shell. McDermott, True Faith and Allegiance, Page 69"

Well... maybe. Obviously bunkers vary in their construction techniques and relative strength but it seems that indirect fire was less than useful in actually destroying them.

From the Australian Army Training Information Bulletin 69: Infantry Battalion Lessons Learned From Vietnam 1965-71.

The section on artillery support is instructive.

"Results. The primary jungle and secondary growth surrounding the target area were almost totally destroyed. Large trees were shattered at their base and had fallen across the system. No bunker received a direct hit. Very little structural damage was done to any bunker. A 500 lb bomb fell within 3 m of one bunker but nothing more than a few cracks and shifting of the overhead protection resulted. The only cratering was from the bombs and the 8"rounds using concrete-piercing fuse."

The TIB was the result of a conference of officers with battalion service in Vietnam, so a fairly professional selection of views. That summary bears out various contact reports and  battle damage assessments carried out throughout the war. I doubt the NLF and PAVN in Phuoc Tuy were super sappers, able to build more impermeable field defences than their colleagues elsewhere.

The TIB is worth reading, as it is a mine of useful information. I still have my battered copy but it's now available online.  

https://www.army.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/tib_69_infantry_battalion_lessons_from_vietnam_1965-71_0.pdf

Excellent link, thanks Corisco!

My pleasure. You might find these an interesting read: The RAE Tunnel Rats Association newsletters, some real gems in there along with loads of good period photos and stories (mostly engineer foccussed naturally enough)

https://www.tunnelrats.com.au/newnewsletters.php

You might particularly enjoy this one as it has a piece of the Tractor Job, probably the SASR's most famous ambush.

https://tunnelrats.com.au/pdfs/newsletters/Holdfast-28.pdf

I have so far only looked at your first link, Corisco. Quite interesting, particularly the comments about the enemy and the discussion of the FWF weapons. Thanks for posting.

Tom