Honesty is always the best policy

Let’s look at what the Chief of the Defence Force and Minister have said were the reasons for the tanks being stripped from 1st Armoured Regiment.  The Chief of Army declines to comment himself, because other responses have already been provided.  [Did someone say ‘party line’?]

The CDF’s staff made the point that the Chief of Army consulted with the previous CDF, General Angus Campbell and the Minister.  The new CDF was assured “that the analysis and reasoning behind these changes are robust and well considered”.  

This might well be so, but it doesn’t explain why the Army’s most senior unit had to be made a non-combatant, after 75 years as a tank regiment.  

The CDF’s staff went on to say that 1 Armd Regt was selected to become an experimentation unit because of “the Regiment’s reputation as [sic] some of the Army’s foremost experts in manoeuvre warfare”.  Surely this is a reason for maintaining the unit’s role, not for changing it?  

The Minister’s staff explained that 1 Armd Regt “has an important new role that will be instrumental in the Army’s transformation by directly shaping how the Army fights”.  The Minister has been asked what this means, but he hasn’t responded as yet.  

His staff further explained that 1 Armd Regt’s “longstanding expertise in combined arms manoeuvre and combat vehicle operations will be critical to validating the application of new technologies”.  Is this for real?  

Exactly what new technologies are dependent on expertise in combined arms manoeuvre and combat vehicle operations for their validation?  In effect … the ‘party line’ is that, because of the required familiarity with combat vehicles and manoeuvre warfare, only an armoured unit has the skills needed to evaluate new technologies.  This is absolute rubbish, but the decision had been made!   

There were three units to choose from.  1 Armd Regt was the obvious choice as it was located in Adelaide where the South Australian Government was setting up a defence industry ‘hub’.   

Is this really the reason that a unit which has been awarded three Battle Honours and a Unit Citation for Gallantry has been removed from the Order of Battle and had its heritage and traditions trashed?  This is simply bureaucratic nonsense; seeking only to obfuscate, not to explain.

Also mentioned by the CDF’s staff was the fact (supposedly) that “armoured regiments have been at the forefront of military innovation for more than a century”.  There was no basis for this claim a century ago and there is no basis for it today.  

The task of an armoured regiment is to destroy the enemy, using fire and manoeuvre.  Developing and practicing the skills to do this is the sole focus of the unit.  It is an all-consuming task; one on which lives depend and one on which the defence of the nation could ultimately hinge. 

Military innovation is obviously important, but it is not the task of an armoured regiment.  How on earth, could anyone think that an armoured regiment could be more usefully employed in the role of an experimentation unit?  The ‘burning’ question, of course, is whether or not the CDF, Minister, and CA believe that an armoured regiment is needed. 

The worst thing as far as 1 Armd Regt stakeholders are concerned, is being completely in the dark and having no idea at all as to what is going on.  The following question was put to the CA (inter alia) on 10 May 25:

“You’ll see that, more than anything else, former members of 1st Armoured Regiment desperately seek information about your plans for the unit. Is it to continue permanently in its current role, never to be re-equipped with tanks; or is this a temporary measure until sufficient housing is available in Townsville and you elect to bring the 3rd Armoured Brigade up to full strength? Your advice in this respect would be greatly appreciated and will be circulated to all who continue to value their service with the unit.” 

No answer has been received.  

The Defence Review in today’s ‘Canberra Times’ makes the point that: “A strategy that cannot be explained is a strategy unlikely to be sustained — and today the stakes are too high for ambiguity”.  Is the CA’s strategy for 1 Armd Regt one that can’t be explained (or won’t be explained)?

Is it simply an indulgence for the CA to play around with his units? 

Needing to create an experimentation unit from somewhere, someone mentions 1 Armd Regt:

“They’re in Adelaide … that could work!  But they’re a tank regiment, trained to destroy the enemy, using fire and manoeuvre.  

Let’s see … if we give 2 Cav Regt two squadrons of tanks, together with two squadrons of recon, will that work?  

OK … the two roles are incompatible for a single unit. But let’s give it a go and see how it pans out.  

What’s there to lose? [Apart from the skills and training which have been the cornerstone of 1 Armd Regt for 75 years.]”

Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)

.

.

FILE PHOTO: An Australian Army M1A1 Abrams fires its 120mm cannon during a live-fire serial for the Coral Balmoral Cup 2024 at the Puckapunyal Military Area, Victoria. Photo by Corporal Johnny Huang.

.

.


.


.