‘Australian Project Waler APC’ Take Two!

G'day gents

I have been reading a book 'On Weapons Decisions: How Australia Chooses to Arm Itself (1963-1996)' by John Bruni (again!)

Under Part 2, Chapter 5 Patterms of Procurement 1983-1992, it talks about the early 1980's plans to replace the Australian Army's M113A1 APC fleet with an indigenously design Project Waler (between 800-1,000 vehicles). The project attracted 14 companies responses in 1981.
By 1982, three company's were contracted to conduct cost and feasibility studies for vehicle concepts.
These were- Evans Deakin; ESAMS and Goninan companies.
It was estimated that over all cost for these vehicles would be in the range of A$500 million, with the first vehicle entering service in 1995.
It states the design concepts offered significant technology advances in terms of hull design, armour, engine, suspension and weapons options.
But as per usual with Australian defence projects increasing costs added to the Waler's own demise
In 1985 Kim Beazley (Defence Minister) indefinitely postponed the development of Waler, due to the doubling of the projects cost.

Can anyone please shed some light on this projects?
Has anyone got any pictures, drawing or technical data for any of these designs?
I will endeavor to find out more via the School of Armour and the Armoured Museum at Puckapunyal!

Regards
Pioneer

This was posted almost exactly four years ago in AHF.
It's the FMC proposal.

CostasTT said:

This was posted almost exactly four years ago in AHF.
It's the FMC proposal.

Click to expand...

Woow thanks CostasTT!!
Is this all you have??

Regards
Pioneer

You are welcome.
And yes, it's all I have. An Aussie had used it as a quiz subject.

CostasTT said:

You are welcome.
And yes, it's all I have. An Aussie had used it as a quiz subject.

Click to expand...

That was, I believe me, IIRC. ;D

Not much has ever been published about Waler unfortunately. Paul Handel would be your best bet, I think but his hands are somewhat tied by what Army will allowed to be published. I have been told though that the Armour Museum holds a fairly extensive collection related to Waler, including models of the various proposals.

Is that the armour museum at Pucka? If yes, its only 500m from my front door.

rickshaw said:

CostasTT said:

You are welcome.
And yes, it's all I have. An Aussie had used it as a quiz subject.

Click to expand...

That was, I believe me, IIRC. ;D

Not much has ever been published about Waler unfortunately. Paul Handel would be your best bet, I think but his hands are somewhat tied by what Army will allowed to be published. I have been told though that the Armour Museum holds a fairly extensive collection related to Waler, including models of the various proposals.

Click to expand...

You are Brian? Well, I'm Sitz in AHF. Small world.

nebnoswal said:

Is that the armour museum at Pucka? If yes, its only 500m from my front door.

Click to expand...

Well go man go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
Don't even wait until its open!!!!!!!
Tell the crusty old WO that Pioneer sent you!!!
Take a camera too!!!
I want be up there until about two weeks.
Good hunting old boy!

Regards
Pioneer

Thank's heaps rickshaw
I am about to write an email to DOD about obtaining info on Project Waler! Do you think it's worth while to do so?
Do you have a contact point for this Paul Handel?
If so (and I appreciate his existing workload and prepared to wait!) could you please forward it to me in a PM?

Regards
Pioneer

Pioneer said:

Thank's heaps rickshaw
I am about to write an email to DOD about obtaining info on Project Waler! Do you think it's worth while to do so?
Do you have a contact point for this Paul Handel?
If so (and I appreciate his existing workload and prepared to wait!) could you please forward it to me in a PM?

Regards
Pioneer

Click to expand...

I've met Paul once and have his card somewhere around but I suspect I've lost it. You'd be better off contacting his boss, Roger Lee, Director of the Australian Army History Unit. The unit is in charge of all Army Museums, including the Armoured Corps at Pucka. Roger's a nice bloke so if you ask politely, you might get some help.

However, I think you'll find that a great deal of this is still restricted.

Thanks Rickshaw, as per usual you are a gentleman!!
I will take you advice and try via Roger Lee!


I can nut but wonder how much the end Waler might have cost, and how much of a capability improvement it may have afforded the Australian army, when one looks at the continuing problems, issues and cost blow outs with the Project Land 106 M113 Upgrade (designated M113AS4)? Not to mention the M113AS4's true ability to operate with the M1A1 Abrams - compared to what Waler might have offered!

Regards
Pioneer

The Armour section in Technology in Australia 1788-1988 seems to suggest that the armour research behind Project Waler was the result of Australian experience with M113 armour in Vietnam. It goes on to mention that "The work on penetration mechanics ... by M. E. de Morton and R. L. Woodward included laminates of metals and non-metals, reactive armour and spaced armour."

Can we infer from this that vehicle designs for Project Waler would have had laminate and/or composite armour?

Pioneer said:

Thanks Rickshaw, as per usual you are a gentleman!!
I will take you advice and try via Roger Lee!


I can nut but wonder how much the end Waler might have cost, and how much of a capability improvement it may have afforded the Australian army, when one looks at the continuing problems, issues and cost blow outs with the Project Land 106 M113 Upgrade (designated M113AS4)? Not to mention the M113AS4's true ability to operate with the M1A1 Abrams - compared to what Waler might have offered!

Regards
Pioneer

Click to expand...

Project Land 106 has turned into the biggest disaster. I suspect the real reason why its being continued with is that DoD does not want another Seasprite disaster being admitted to. The problem is, as with so many defence related projects some very poor thinking is behind it. It was sold as an "upgrade project" which was intended to be "minimal cost". The result has seen a massive cost blowout and the vehicle buy has been, as a consequence cut in half. I used to work for a company that designed and built the pilot milling machine for the hulls. I used to go down and watch the pilot project and see how they were building these things.

To make matters worse, in the over 15 years since they started, the entire strategic picture has changed, the vehicles are now meant to keep pace with the M1, not the Leopard and are barely capable of it. In the end, it would have been easier and I suspect cheaper to just have purchased an MICV from overseas. Don't get me wrong, the Project 106 upgrade will, eventually deliver a very nice M113 but the M113 is no longer suitable for use on the battlefield, except as a battlefield taxi for support units.

Waler was simply too expensive for the ADF. It would have compounded many of the problems that the M113 project has had. As it would have been the first major AFV project attempted in over 50 years downunder, like the Collins class it would have had problems. The numbers to be purchased would have been too small for economies of scale and therefore per unit, very expensive. We'd have been better of purchasing M2 Bradleys/Warriors/Marders/etc. from overseas. Unfortunately while very cheap, BMP vehicles would have been too small for us to use effectively.

The cancellation of Project Waler had a lot more to do with the divergent strategic outlooks of the Australian DoD and the Australian Army rather than cost and complexity. The then defence minister was keen on reducing Australia’s exposure to the Cold War and was sold on a crazy idea of restructuring the armed forces to defend Australia from an invasion. This meant the Army was slashed and funds transferred to building ships and airbases to defend against a fantasy threat.

The Army’s far more sensible and flexible plan was to build a mix of light and mechanised capability based amongst the population centres of Australia ready for deployment rather than isolated in the far north west. The 1st Brigade located in Sydney in the 1980s was to relocate to Victoria (Pucka) where it was to join with the reserve 4th Brigade as a new mechanized 3rd Division. The reserve brigade was to be boosted with higher numbers of regular personnel (as was later tested on this brigade) and brought up to a mechanised standard. The division HQ which had been reserve but was winding down was to be a reestablished as a regular HQ. The existing 1st Division with 3rd and 6th (regular) Brigades was to stay in Queensland and focus on the light role. The Waler AFV was to be the primary equipment of the new 3rd Division.*

While it is pretty hard to predict the success of the project it would have a significant advantage over the contemporary M113 upgrade in being a project designed for the capacity of Australian industry and from a clean sheet rather than the importation of an upgrade package from an aftermarket vendor in Germany. One would also hope that in the late 1980s the less overwhelming nature of project management bureaucracy would enable problems to be addressed and dealt with far better than they are today.

Information on Project Waler would no longer be classified or commercial in confidence. Army Tank Museum provides access to material by appointment, bothering AHU is going outside the CoC and never a good idea. The best way to guarantee access to the Waler materials is for research for publication. Just ring the Army Tank Museum at Pucka and tell them you are researching for an article on the project.

* For more information on this topic and the Army's opposition to the Government's 'Defence of Australia' plans see "The Australian Army: A History of its Organisation 1901-2001" by Dr Albert Palazzo.

Topic cleaned. Operation "zero tolerance" in effect.

CostasTT said:

This was posted almost exactly four years ago in AHF.
It's the FMC proposal.

Click to expand...

This vehicle looks like M-113,M-114 and M-2 put together.

I wonder, was there any consideration given to the use of gas turbines in any of the designs?

Is anyone familiar with Lance Procter of Motive Power Pty? In a submission to the Australian Senate, he states (without backup details) that Project Waler was "cancelled because the specification was wrong". If true, that makes it sound more like obsessive spec tweaking rather than simple unaffordability.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/fadt_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/dmo/submissions/sub22.doc

BTW, Procter repeats the same claim for Project Mulgara (LSRV) ... which rings true.

Mulgara specification sounds like it was nigh on impossible to meet: http://www.4wdonline.com/Mil/Aus/Mulgara.html. If they'd relaxed the ground clearance they could have used the Mokes again.

Apophenia said:

Is anyone familiar with Lance Procter of Motive Power Pty?

Click to expand...

He makes a crap load of money servicing Australia’s booming mining industry but would probably much more enjoy building AFVs for the ADF except for the mind bogglingly bad bureaucracy that hampers such programs.

Clearly both the Waler and Mulgara specifications were flawed in that they were overly ambitious. Each project was eventually killed off because at least one of the key stakeholders didn’t want it. In the case of Waler it was the civilian leadership and in the case of Mulgara the Army leadership. While Mulgara would have been fun for training it would have been an operational liability. Waler would have been ideal for the actual military commitments of the Australian Government from 1985 to the present date.

Which were not foreseen when the Waler was cancelled. Ah, that wonderful hindsight again, Abraham! :

Actually, with some of the technology available now, e.g. independent wheel drive, the Mulgara specs might well be doable.

rickshaw said:

Which were not foreseen when the Waler was cancelled. Ah, that wonderful hindsight again, Abraham! :

Click to expand...

Well actually it was. However if you've ever spoken to Kim Beazley about this (heard of him before) he will tell you that the policy of the Government when he was defence minister was to "sit out" the problems of the world. However when these problems arose said Government was unable to sit them out: Kuwait, Somalia, and so on. That they had downgraded Army capability to deal with these problems resulted in a reduced capacity to respond which was shown to its full effect in East Timor.

Hey great link Apophenia!!

This just goes to reiterate to me that the ADF has fallen hook, line and sinker into what I call the 'bling factor'!
With the ADF as a whole being so much involved with two of our biggest (and oldest) allies - the United States and Britain, our military has and is exposed to some of the most modern weapons systems/platform available. Our troops have witnessed what these weapons are capable off, but often not seeing or being part of the maintenance and logistics of keeping them operational! Defence and the ADF have in many cases taken the simplistic attitude of 'they have it, we want it!
Don't get me wrong! As a digger myself, I can not but be impressed with some of the hardware, stopping power and accuracy of some of these weapons systems/platforms.
But as good as these systems are, not all of them fall within the category of what is needed or truly operatable in the scope of the ADF!
An perfect example of this is the Army's Project Land 17, and its SPH component!
The Army, after operating with the Dutch in the Gan, could not but help be impressed by the PzH2000 system, what with its complexity, fire-rate, accuracy etc............. But there is no way in hell the Australian Army (or the ADF as a whole!) could justify its capability, weight and cost. The PzH2000 was designed for a European battlefield scenario. A scenario Australia or the ADF is not likely to see!
I personally think that the ADF, the Australian Government has to seriously look at the likes of South Africa's, Israel's and Singapore's approach to developing specific weapons systems / platforms for the ADF's needs! But the Government and ADF has to really and seriously work out if it wants to truly be an 'ADF' or a sheriff in support of the U.S and British military and government!!
Also in my book, which does not help the true and long term cause of the ADF, is the growing trend of 'Revolving doors', where former influential Australian politician's have been gaining Defence Industries appointments after politics - ie. Peter Reith (Australian Defence Minister 2000-2001) employed by Tenix! Andrew Peacock - former United States Ambassador to Mauritius. Midway through 2002 Peacock joined Boeing Australia Holdings as President of Boeing Australia. Coincidence or private defence industries cleaver and calculated utilization of powerful and influential political insiders?
For a while I have been asking my self who (which Australian ex-politician do we have working in the French defence industries????)
Add to this the joking and farcical Special Senator Committee's to overwatch Defence acquisition!
Non of them are working! Why you have to seriously ask!

Regards
Pioneer

Pioneer said:

With the ADF as a whole being so much involved with two of our biggest (and oldest) allies - the United States and Britain, our military has and is exposed to some of the most modern weapons systems/platform available. Our troops have witnessed what these weapons are capable off, but often not seeing or being part of the maintenance and logistics of keeping them operational! Defence and the ADF have in many cases taken the simplistic attitude of 'they have it, we want it!

Click to expand...

Bling is not the problem. Some of the simplest equipment acquisitions have been stuffed up as much as the most complex. The problem is Australia’s perineal industrial problem: bad management. In Defence it is exacerbated by the requirements/contracting agent (Army, etc) having little or no idea about the industrial process required to build equipment. These are issues associated with small forces trying to operate a procurement system en par with a large force. The same issues are seen in Canada and other similar countries. The solution is to streamline and integrate the procurement process as in Israel and the old South Africa.

Pioneer said:

The Army, after operating with the Dutch in the Gan, could not but help be impressed by the PzH2000 system, what with its complexity, fire-rate, accuracy etc............. But there is no way in hell the Australian Army (or the ADF as a whole!) could justify its capability, weight and cost. The PzH2000 was designed for a European battlefield scenario. A scenario Australia or the ADF is not likely to see!

Click to expand...

None of this is accurate. The requirement for a fully protected artillery system arose out of the need to sustain offensive support in the face of insurgent fires. It doesn’t matter if the PzH2000 is designed for fighting in the Arctic or the Tron World if it fits these requirements. The problem with this program is Army wanted said protected artillery system to have a 52 calibre barrel and be integrated with AFATDS. Unfortunately there is no such system with both. So a two year offer definition process has been slung on potential contractors. The easy solution to this was just to jettison the very long range requirement (L52 barrel) and buy Paladin guns off the shelf so they could work with the required fires battle management system (AFATDS). But the procurement system as structured can’t handle such simple logic unless it comes from the ministerial level.

Pioneer said:

Also in my book, which does not help the true and long term cause of the ADF, is the growing trend of 'Revolving doors', where former influential Australian politician's have been gaining Defence Industries appointments after politics

Click to expand...

This kind of thing has no real negative impact on Defence. Since the key decisions are being made willy nilly by the political element having former political operators at least gives the industry a chance to talk the right language. I doubt any of these guys has had any kind of real success in changing opinions by Government they just provide a door opening capability.

Some good points I taken on board Abraham Gubler!

and buy Paladin guns off the shelf so they could work with the required fires battle management system (AFATDS). But the procurement system as structured can’t handle such simple logic unless it comes from the ministerial level.

Click to expand...

I have to agree 100% mate.
But again, the brass in the army would see this as old technology an non-'bling', even though you and I both know that apart from its silhouette, it is almost an entirely new and far more capable system than its original M109 ancestor, but without the important excessive weight and cost (although its rate of fire and crew size may not be in accordance with the likes of the AS-90, PzH2000 or the K9 Thunder!)

I wonder how much the U.S Government (or for that matter the German/Dutch Government 'M109L52') would be willing to sell 32 x second-hand / surplus M109A6 Paladin's for?
(In the case of the Dutch M109L52, the original M126 series gun is replaced with the longer 52-caliber cannon from the PzH 2000. Trials have revealed that the M109L52 is 90% as effective as the PzH 2000, while the unit price of the M109L52 is only 15% to 30% of the PzH 2000.

Out of curiosity does anyone know what the going price might be for the Giat Industries Caesar 155mm SPH?

Regards
Pioneer

Sorry Rickshaw I missed this post!

Rickshaw - To make matters worse, in the over 15 years since they started, the entire strategic picture has changed, the vehicles are now meant to keep pace with the M1, not the Leopard and are barely capable of it.

Click to expand...

Agree!!

Rickshaw - In the end, it would have been easier and I suspect cheaper to just have purchased an MICV from overseas. Don't get me wrong, the Project 106 upgrade will, eventually deliver a very nice M113 but the M113 is no longer suitable for use on the battlefield, except as a battlefield taxi for support units.

Click to expand...

Agree!!

Rickshaw - We'd have been better of purchasing M2 Bradleys/Warriors/Marders/etc. from overseas. Unfortunately while very cheap, BMP vehicles would have been too small for us to use effectively.

Click to expand...

I don't know Rickshaw!
I deem the likes of the M2 Bradley/Warrior/Marder as to heavy, to capable and way too expensive for what our army needs (not to mention that neither are amphibious!!).
I for one would have been happy with the likes of an Australian variant of the FMC AIFV (or even today a Aussie adaption of the Singaporean Bionix 25 IFV and Terrex ICV).
In fact I would gladly support future joint Singapore/Australian weapons / weapons platforms R&D!!
The vehicle should also be air transportable by C-130 Hercules (not relying on the C-17's)!!
As for your idea of a variant of the BMP series, at the time-frame of 'Project Waler' these vehicles were still deemed as in the enemies camp (1980's) and I doubt the Australian army/government would have approved of their consideration (let alone the Soviet's wiliness to sell them to us!)
I for one love the design and simplicity of the BMP series, which the West has unsuccessful attempted to emulate, for its size and cost! Saying this in the eyes of most western armies (and most likely our own!), I don't think some of the characteristics of the BMP series would be appreciated (although the likes of the Finnish, Greek and Swedish armies seem to appreciate them!! It would be very interesting to find out why they personally find these Soviet designed and built MICV's such a useful design!!!!!)
Do they have a BMP-1 or 2 at Pucka??

Regards
Pioneer

Abraham Gubler said:

rickshaw said:

Which were not foreseen when the Waler was cancelled. Ah, that wonderful hindsight again, Abraham! :

Click to expand...

Well actually it was.

Click to expand...

Was it? The 1987 White Paper made no such prediction, Abraham. That was the government's official thinking on the subject, at the time. As much as you enjoy applying hindsight to the problem, to those of us who make an effort to understand such matters, we must work with the sources of information available at the time.

However if you've ever spoken to Kim Beazley about this (heard of him before) he will tell you that the policy of the Government when he was defence minister was to "sit out" the problems of the world.

Click to expand...

Kim? I've met him several times over the years, starting in 1986 when he opened my Master's degree course. A nice fellow. Unfortunately, not necessarily the best man for the job of Defence Minister. Too much of an enthusiast. Reminds me of someone.

However when these problems arose said Government was unable to sit them out: Kuwait, Somalia, and so on.

Click to expand...

Decisions, which on the surface you appear to believe to have run counter to the Government's strategic policy actually fit quite well within the long-term policy and planning which the Government had carefully built up beforehand and which it an enunciated in policy documents, statements, etc. in 1987, Abraham. Remember what I said about using the information, available at the time?

I'm interested though, in trying to understand your thinking on how Project Waler would have helped us to react any more quickly or fully to those situations.

That they had downgraded Army capability to deal with these problems resulted in a reduced capacity to respond which was shown to its full effect in East Timor.

Click to expand...

The Army has never had the capability to deal "with these problems", Abraham. Government never had the will, either, after the debacle of Vietnam. You seem to expect the Australian Army to be acting like The World Police or something. We are a middle-ranking power. Our military power reflects that ranking.

I'm interested though, in trying to understand your thinking on how Project Waler would have helped us to react any more quickly or fully to the situation in East Timor, when it occurred.

rickshaw said:

Was it? The 1987 White Paper made no such prediction, Abraham.

Click to expand...

Your point about White Paper predictions like much of your rambling response doesn’t seem to have much to do with the argument. The issue is that the White Paper defined Australia’s security concerns as being primarily about continental defence and with the subsequent force structure review rearranged the Government’s defence investment to meet this ‘continental defence’ need. Which Mr Beazley has explained as being a gambit to ensure Australia “sits out” the wider problems of the world. Yet events have transpired from the day the White Paper was published that Australia could or would not “sit out” such events. One would therefore logically infer that the White Paper was not worth the paper (white or any other colour) it was printed on. And the reduction in Army capability it mandated a foolish and highly harmful endeavour that has resulted in the Government(s) unable to use the ADF to meet the full demand of its needs.

rickshaw said:

Unfortunately, not necessarily the best man for the job of Defence Minister. Too much of an enthusiast. Reminds me of someone.

Click to expand...

So you don’t just insult me.

rickshaw said:

The Army has never had the capability to deal "with these problems", Abraham. Government never had the will, either, after the debacle of Vietnam. You seem to expect the Australian Army to be acting like The World Police or something. We are a middle-ranking power. Our military power reflects that ranking.

Click to expand...

Well I guess you haven’t noticed any Australian military deployments – as part of international coalitions – in the past 20 years. Ohh that’s right… you’re just of the opinion that these were solely for the benefit of Army brass obtaining gongs (Australian slang for medals).

rickshaw said:

I'm interested though, in trying to understand your thinking on how Project Waler would have helped us to react any more quickly or fully to the situation in East Timor, when it occurred.

Click to expand...

I stated repeatedly it was cut backs to Army capability as a whole of which cancellation of Project Waler was just a part that had reduced the capability to respond to such crises.

As far as I can see, this debate is adding nothing of interest but going in circles. Going to close it for pruning, again.

Ok gents
This is my second attempt at the Australian Army’s ‘Project Waler’ research!!
Please let’s keep it focused and on track, so as to stop it being shut down by the administrators!!
Now I have put out letter/emails of request to different Government and Army departments to obtain further information.
Today I had an appointment with persons in uniform regarding Project Waler, as well as visiting the Armour Museum at lovely sunny Pucka.
At the Museum, I was rapped to be shown two scale models that were design submissions to Project Waler.
One was of a tracked concept from Vickers in conjunction with EASAMS Ltd of Sydney, armed with a single 7.62mm MG turret.
The other was a 6x6 wheeled concept from Vickers in conjunction with EASAMS Ltd of Sydney, armed with an 81mm turreted mortar.
I have made headways in organising the viewing of other models, so I will keep you posted!
Also as a bonus, I was given a sneaky peak at the Target Study Submissions folder of the West German Krauss-Maffei company. This was amazing! As it had engineering and multi-view drawings of tracked, 4x4, 6x6 and 8x8 wheeled designs I have never seen before. One of these 8x8 wheeled designs looked something like a refined Soviet BTR-80 (but longer and squattier)! But due to corporate confidentiality, I was not allowed to take any copies. But I will attempt to contact and request these from Krauss-Maffei themselves.

Oh and Rickshaw, the picture you posted in the original ‘Australian Project Waler APC’ forum was a proposal of FMC Company, in conjunction with A. Goninan and Co. Of Newcastle

Please keep searching your ends, and I will keep you informed of further info from my sources as I get them!!!!

Regards
Pioneer

Pioneer said:

At the Museum, I was rapped to be shown two scale models that were design submissions to Project Waler.
One was of a tracked concept from Vickers in conjunction with EASAMS Ltd of Sydney, armed with a single 7.62mm MG turret.
The other was a 6x6 wheeled concept from Vickers in conjunction with EASAMS Ltd of Sydney, armed with an 81mm turreted mortar.
I have made headways in organising the viewing of other models, so I will keep you posted

Click to expand...

Well done.

G'day all

overscan (PaulMM) has been good enough to unlock this topic again in the interest of discovering more information on Project Waler, so let's please keep the subject matter tight.

As to our last liasing, I must admit I haven't followed through with the leads regarding the Armoured Museum at Pucka, since getting out of the 'system', but this I'm happy to report has changed as of this year. I've sent of formal requests to the Armoured Museum (again!) to gain an appointment to view the information they have.
I've contacted the Author of 'Evans Deakin History' book, in the hope that she has/had access to Evans Deakin documentation. (Evans Deakin as a business closed in 1990, I believe.)
I've also sent an email to the Australian Archives in Canberra requesting any info they might have on the topic.

I'm in the process of writing to Kim Beazly, in the hope that after all these decades, he might give some insight.

I've emailed United Group Rail
who took over Goninan in 2005, in the hope they might have archived documents.

Gents, if you have any more contacts, please let me know, as I want to follow them up.

Regards
Pioneer

Ok gents, I've found three files in the National Archives of Australia re Project Waler - one is marked as "Open"; two are marked as "Not yet examined". Have sent off a request to see if I can access them.

Does any forum member live in Canberra Australia?


Regards
Pioneer

"Project Waler was identified in the early 1980s as being one of three major defence procurement exercises where Australia and New Zealand could collaborate. The New Zealand Army is believed to have held discussions with the Australian Army regarding joining the project in order to replace its M113s"

(Source: Jennings, Peter, 1987. New Zealand Defence Policy Under Labour)

"At that time it was hoped that the vehicles selected by the Army could also be sold for export."

(Source: Stackhouse, John 1981. Advance Australia Where?. The Bulletin, Defence 81 supplement.)

Regards
Pioneer