Jump to content

A theatre made HAL-3 Seawolves Det patch


Patchcollector
 Share

Recommended Posts

Patchcollector

Happy Saturday all,

A recent find is this Seawolves piece for Det 4,Rowell's Rats.Sellers' pics.

 

Some info on the Seawolves:

 

HELICOPTER ATTACK (LIGHT) SQUADRON THREE

 

The Seawolves of HA(L) 3, an all volunteer Squadron do not have a long history or tradition going back to Korea or WW II. HA(L) 3 was commissioned and decommissioned in Vietnam and not known by many except by those that served and by the Sailors, and ground forces who owe their lives to their courage and devotion.

In early 1966 the Army, who had pioneered Helicopter Gunship tactics were flying in support of Naval Operations from Navy Ships covering the initial Brown Water Riverine Forces. It was soon discovered that there were difficulties, for the Army crews did not have the needed experience to support the missions. It was felt that Naval Aviators and Enlisted Door Gunners trained in Gunship operations would more readily adapt to the rigors of the mission requirements, in that the Riverine Forces and Navy SEALS operated around the clock and in all weather conditions. The Army Gunships were not equipped for nor their Pilots trained for all weather conditions and would not accept missions at night or during marginal weather conditions which were a necessity. A dedicated Navy Air unit was needed to cover the River operations; therefore the Seawolves were established, first from 4 detachments from Helicopter Combat Support Squadron One in July 1966. With one month training flying with the Army, the Navy Pilots and Enlisted Gunners from HC1 relieved the Army and assumed the mission duties and opened a new chapter in Naval Aviation.

Using cast off, underpowered Army UH1Bs reconfigured with night flying capabilities, HC1 distinguished themselves in combat, flying attack missions in many large battles. In April 1967 HA(L) 3 was commissioned from the four HC1 detachments which became HA(L)3 Detachments 1-4 . For better coverage as more River units and SEAL Teams were added the Seawolves evolved into nine detachments flying missions in III and IIII Corps and Cambodia . The Seawolves mission expanded to cover not only Riverine Forces, but also Marines, Army and all other friendly forces in contact with the VC/NVA.

Each detachment consisted of Two UH1B Gunships, except Det 2 staging from Nha Be which at times had four Gunships and double crews. The other eight dets had 8 Pilots and 8 Gunners, two each per bird flying alternate days to provide 24 hr coverage unless short of crewmen then they flew every day. The Gunships were heavily armed (an understatement) at first configured with two external seven shot rocket pods and 4 M60 Machine Guns fired by the Pilots. The Door Gunner fired a stripped down free M60 MG fired in an unusual way resting on the arm. Many Gunners experimented with twin M60, twin.30 Cal MG, automatic grenade launchers, and other weapons that could be used to decimate the enemy. Also carried aboard were personal weapons, rifles, pistols and various grenades, marking smokes and flares. Later the 4 external M60 MG were replaced by two 6 barreled Miniguns firing 4000 rounds per minute. Reconfigured several more times the Gunners ended up with a .50 Cal on the right door of the lead bird and a right door mounted Minigun on the trail with Free M Sixties on the deck of the Gunship as back ups.

The Squadron had two homeguard bases, with the best staff and maintenance in the world, first at Vung Tau, and as the Sqd grew and moved South, Homeguard was moved to Binh Thuy near Can Tho to be central to the 9 detachments which forwardly staged to be near enemy strongholds or areas of heavy activity. Only Det 2 at Nha Be never moved, the other Dets were Nomads of the Delta, Staging from small Naval Tactical Support Bases, with a contingent of Riverine Forces, Navy SEALs, outside of isolated Outposts, Special Forces Camps, canal banks, LSTs (Landing Ship Tanks) and YRBMs anchored in the rivers or just off the coast for quick strike capability.

Type missions flown were tree top, low level patrols to search out and destroy enemy troops, supplies and staging areas. Rocket and MG attacks putting in fire on the enemy to within a few feet of friendly forces, Hot Medivacs of WIA/KIA, Insertion/extractions of SEALs and other Spec Ops forces, Covert missions in Vietnam and Cambodia, Body Snatches(kidnapping) to get intelligence. Most missions flown were at night, in inclement weather and under heavy enemy fire at 90 knots. For the most part the Army tactics and operating procedure manuals were tossed as in they did not fit in our ever changing situations and specialized missions.

HA(L) 3 also had UH1L support Helos received in late 1969. They were nicknamed Sealords and played an active role in supporting the Seawolves in their combat missions. Manned by a Pilot, Copilot and an Enlisted Crew Chief they flew supply missions, Special Ops with the SEALS, Medivac duty and assorted other missions under enemy fire. They could be configured for combat and let the Squadron fly more missions, not having to call on the Army Slicks for they had other missions of their own to cover.

HELICOPTER ATTACK (LIGHT) SQUADRON THREE was decommissioned in March 1972 at Binh Thuy, RVN after flying over 120,000 Combat Missions and has the Distinction of being the only such designated Navy Squadron to every fly in combat and is the most decorated Navy Squadron in History. The Seawolves lost 44 Pilots and Gunners Killed in Action and had over 200 Wounded in Action.

Decorations: Awarded 6 Presidential Unit Citations for (Extraordinary Heroism). 6 Navy Unit Citations. Two Detachments also received the Meritorious Unit Citation. The Squadron also received the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry( MUC) Palm. The Vietnam Civil Action (Honor) with Palm, and several of the Detachments received the Vietnam Presidential Unit Citation

post-13386-0-09061700-1391267758.jpg

post-13386-0-87037500-1391267762.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was on ebay for awhile.....it's a weird one.....Do you think it's original to the time period?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

The only thing I have to compare it to is a low quality web image I found that does show some differences,but having said that when it comes to theatre made insignia,I've seen some big differences in quality and materials used,so right now I'm happy with what looks like an early war variation but will know for certain when I have it in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should get my book "River Patrol Insignia of the U.S. Navy Vietnam". It will benefit you (And all royalties go to the Seawolf and PBR Veterans organizations, so it doesn't benefit me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I saw that one too and it did not give me a warm fuzzy. Lettering style is weird to me. Super rare patch, if it is real it surely was not one of the best ones made. I hope it works out for you. I definately endorse Steves book . It is a great referance.

Mitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
River Patrol

Just to clarify (because I never really did at the time this thread was started), I believe this patch to be 100% fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.Thanks for yours.Just to clarify though,simply calling something "fake" without providing any proof is unhelpful,IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Providing "proof" of something being fake is not usually possible. Knowledgeable collectors know what a patch should or shouldn't look like. I have found River Patrol's determination on this particular patch very helpful and now know to avoid any similarly constructed patches. That's how you learn - study the good ones and study the bad - patterns for both types become apparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

River Patrol

Show me proof that it's real....that's how an investigation works. Show me the picture of this being worn in-country or the veteran that bought it. And if you can't.....show me that it matches construction techniques (which this patch does NOT).

 

I kinda left my answer ambigious when the thread first started, until I have better proof that it's real (pictures), it falls into the fake category. Sorry

 

.....And this IS actually helpful for me to call it fake so that young collectors finding their way through the mine fields of collecting Vietnam patches will know the turmoil in defining originality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

As I stated earlier,thanks for your opinions guys.I know that it's not too "pretty",but when it comes to theatre made VN war era patches,I don't discount a piece as not being "real" for being "ugly" :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

River Patrol

I just realized that you (and others) may not know what real ones look like....so here are two types used by the unit.

W23.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

Thanks for posting them.Mine is "uglier",but when I got it in hand I knew it was just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

River Patrol

It has nothing to do with ugly...just originality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff Williams

I have collected VN insignia (patches) for alot of years, since the 70s, I do not call myself an expert by far but I have a very sizable collection of VN insignia, mostly aviation related to US Army units. I have seen this type of construction before mostly on reproduction 1st Cav patches with different slogans on the bend.They came out in the 80s in droves along with some various unit patches that were noted in various publications. I supplied some examples of these to Gil Burkett to include in his CD on fake VN insignia. Again I am no expert but I believe this to be a poorly made reproduction. BUT that is only my opinion, I do have a large collection with alot of different construction methods of documented patches and unfortunately this type is not one. Sorry, I too have wanted some very hard to find insignia to be real when it just was not the case. Happy hunting!

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

River Patrol

Thanks for chiming in on this subject, Jeff. Good to see you here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

I have collected VN insignia (patches) for alot of years, since the 70s, I do not call myself an expert by far but I have a very sizable collection of VN insignia, mostly aviation related to US Army units. I have seen this type of construction before mostly on reproduction 1st Cav patches with different slogans on the bend.They came out in the 80s in droves along with some various unit patches that were noted in various publications. I supplied some examples of these to Gil Burkett to include in his CD on fake VN insignia. Again I am no expert but I believe this to be a poorly made reproduction. BUT that is only my opinion, I do have a large collection with alot of different construction methods of documented patches and unfortunately this type is not one. Sorry, I too have wanted some very hard to find insignia to be real when it just was not the case. Happy hunting!

Jeff

 

I know of the 1st Cav patches that you mentioned.I think I even have a few.My patch does not share the same construction traits,IMO.And yes,the Cav patches were made in "droves" as you so rightly mentioned,and are seen everywhere one looks.The repro guys are greedy people,and make as many as they can churn out.You'd think that if mine were made by the same people we would also be seeing it in "droves" as well,but mine is the only one I've seen so far.If anyone has a piece that matches mine,please post it here.

Welcome to the Forum Jeff and thanks for your opinion! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

River Patrol

Singularity does not make it original.....I have PBR patches which I have only seen that one yet I knew they were "ugly". They never made it into my River Patrol Insignia book.....finding out years later that George Peterson's company (NCHS) had 2 of the 3 "uglies" made in the late 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

I never stated that my patch was "singular".In post #17 I wrote"You'd think that if mine were made by the same people we would also be seeing it in "droves" as well,but mine is the only one I've seen so far.If anyone has a piece that matches mine,please post it here."

I highlighted the pertinent area within the context.

Many patch books have been written,and are decent references,yet most of them have errors in them.So some patches that are "good" may not make it into a book,and some that are "bad" may.It is'nt purposeful,just part of being human,as nobodies perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

History Man

Would you mind posting some better photos since you have received the patch. When it comes to the originality of the patch, I am no patch expert by any means but this looks like a reproduction.....and a recent one based off the backing and construction.

 

Philip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patchcollector

I may post some more pics when I get my patches out again,but I have this same patch pictured in another thread I posted,and honestly,the sellers' pics posted here are'nt bad.Thanks for your opinion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...