White Lies, Pork Pies, and Whoppers
How does one get to the truth of a matter when it is constantly hidden behind half-truths? This happens whenever Defence needs to hide the real reason for something, such as why it was that 1st Armoured Regiment was stripped of its tanks.
Half-truths are a subtle way of combining fact and falsehood to manipulate perception and belief. While they contain elements of truth, they mislead by creating false impressions.
The Chief of the Defence Force stated that 1st Armoured Regiment was selected for its new role because of its “reputation as some of the Army’s foremost experts in manoeuvre warfare[sic]”. The reputation part is undoubtedly true (or, more correctly, it was true), but it has absolutely nothing to do with the reason for stripping it of its tanks and giving it a new role managing new technologies.
The same can be said of the reasoning used by the Minister for Defence when he stated that the new role assigned to 1 Armd Regt “will be instrumental in the Army’s transformation by directly shaping how the Army fights”. This is another meaningless half-truth, one designed to create an image of critical importance; linking this to the new role.
The fact is that any unit in the Army could have been given the role, but only 1 Armd Regt has the massive operating costs associated with a tank fleet. In years past, the magnitude of these costs has been capped by track mileage limits imposed on RAAC units.
In the Chief of Army’s eyes, a ‘win- win’ situation was created: save a ‘mint’ on operating costs (including an almost 40% reduction in 3 Brigade’s armour costs in Townsville), while creating a unit which could hit the ground running (to make up time lost with Defence’s dithering about how to evaluate new technologies).
Of course, the urgency of the need to save money in the Defence budget is all to do with the explosion in costs associated with the AUKUS submarines. As the ADF’s capabilities in other strategic areas are constrained, the Air Force and, in particular, the Army, have to accept cutbacks in their expenditure.
IF the CA had not turned 1 Armd Regt into a Combat Experimentation Group (CXG), it would now be a tank regiment, part of 3 Brigade (the Army’s only armoured brigade). 2 Cavalry Regiment would also be a full-strength homogeneous unit as part of the brigade. Even more importantly, the tank craft and skills of 1 Armd Regt would have been retained and the heritage and traditions of 1 Armd Regt would not have been lost (despite the claims of the CXG).
Sadly, the opportunity for strong opposition to the CA’s proposal by the RAAC’s senior officers, has long passed. (Although united in opposition, they failed to convince him; many have now opted to await the next CA, likely to be appointed in the coming months.)
How long will it take to rebuild the skills and tank craft of 1 Armd Regt? Fortunately, 2 Cav Regt presently comprises four squadrons, two tank and two cavalry. Splitting the squadrons between the two units will allow some continuity as far as training is concerned.
What a mess to sort out and what terrible disruption as far as families are concerned! All this at a time when our strategic circumstances are classed as ‘most perilous’. How much has the Army’s combat power been reduced? Does anyone care?
The setback is one from which RAAC may never recover. May we be blessed with leaders who can work miracles!
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
.
.
.
.
