• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Aussies used MAG58 and Bren in Vietnam?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
D

Destraex

Grizzled Veteran
Sep 2, 2011
368
67
#1
I know the Aussies had MAG58s in the borneo conflict before vietnam and still heavily use them today in unison with the minimi (60s are rare now iirc).
The Bren was also in the arsenal but prolly just used by reserves.

Also the 66mm LAW?
 
Last edited:
#2
Its curious timing, in the 50's (iirc) when the army were shopping for a gpmg, the Mag58 & M60 were both under consideration. There were no exhaustive comparative selection trials held as per what would have been usual. the M60 essentially was adopted because the delivery time frames were supposedly sooner, than what FN could promise.

then of course postwar, the Mag58 ultimately supercedes the M60.

info regarding the L4 Bren in Aus Service, has been harder to ascertain. They def had some, because lithgow did a number of conversions, but dont know if they featured in RVN & at what level, given they already had M60's & L2a1's
 
Upvote 0
#6
I have a book called Australian Military Operations in Vietnam by Albert Palazzo.
It's actually by the Australian Army History Unit.

36942473883_fa1d6a4063_z.jpg
 
Upvote 0
#7
Lemonater47;n2306156 said:
They simply weren't allowed to take their L4s. Even though their webbing had L4 pouches and such.
Click to expand...

That would seem to fit, as i've a few friends who served around that era & later, (but didn't deploy/reserves etc), they mentioned coming across the L4 in Aus.

regarding the LAW, yes the Australians did carry them, but as pointed out enemy vehicles against which to use them (particularly in Phouc Toy province) were rather scarce, they could be used against structures etc but they weren't optimised for that role, & of course were single use/ disposable.
Also they had some short wheel base Land Rovers, set up as carriers for 106mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifles (could be man portable too) which would have been more potent against serious emplacements, hard points, bunkers etc
 
Upvote 0
#9
AATTV;n2306269 said:
FYI, i've also got that book & a few others by the army history unit, & while they are very good, the odd misnomer has crept in on some of their other titles.
Click to expand...

The correct way to deal with the "misnomer" would be to write in to the author I guess and ask for the sources. Rather than discounting a professional author out of hand. It might turn out that we, rather than the author, are wrong. Stranger things have happened.

I only have two of that series and have enjoyed both Crete and Vietnam enough to want the others. It's nice to have a book series in this format specific to all these little known Australian engagements.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#11
Destraex;n2306277 said:
The correct way to deal with the "misnomer" would be to write in to the author I guess and ask for the sources. Rather than discounting a professional author out of hand. It might turn out that we, rather than the author, are wrong. Stranger things have happened.

I only have two of that series and have enjoyed both Crete and Vietnam enough to want the others. It's nice to have a book series in this format specific to all these little known Australian engagements.
Click to expand...

Yes I should address them, i suppose - of the handful of factual mistakes, a few of them are blatant, but still its easy to see how they could be made as they are widely spread & deeply help.

check out, "oneshot kills" in that series, regarding the history of Australian army sniping. Its a good overview of the last 100 years. Would be nice if it went into alittle more depth at times, but still worth a look.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu