Reorganising the reorganisation of the reorg
Seems change is as good as a holiday, or is it the old let’s keep the troops busy.
Maybe it’s because Chief of Army is an infantry general or the cavalry don’t want to soil their vehicles with grunts.
Well what ever the reason – here we go again!
According to recent reports from Defence and ARMY newspaper, the RAInf will take back the M113 and the Bushmaster and the RAAC will now get two ASLAV squadrons per ACR.
So over the years, the M113 was manned (sorry personed) by the cavalry, then the infantry, then the cavalry – and now they’re going back to the infantry.
The Bushmaster was personed by the infantry, then transport and now the infantry again.
All this reorganising must keep hundreds of staff offices busy and destroy more trees than a bad tank driver at Mt Bundy.
Still it gives the appearance of progress.
No one has mentioned extra Land 400 vehicles (Boxer or AMV 35) for the extra three cavalry squadrons that will be needed.
It’s no wonder we can’t afford more, we waste so much time, effort and money reorganising.
I guarantee when the M113 replacement Land 400 phase 3 vehicle (Lynx or CV9035) is finally operational – with it’s complex turret – it will come back to the cavalry.
Remember colonel – if you have a dozen eggs, you can organise them five different ways – but you still only have 12 eggs.
Or is this just a strategic deception to get more Land 400 vehicles?
Peter Rewko spent 33 years in the Regular and Reserve Army, and deployed overseas on exercises and operations, including Iraq in 2008. He was in the Cavalry for the majority of that time. He is still married after 25 years, with two adult sons. He lives in Beaudesert, Queensland.
RELATED ARTICLE: Editor’s Blog – ‘Is Plan Beersheba old hat‘
2 thoughts on “Reorganising the reorganisation of the reorg”
Well written Trevor Long – I to, am sometimes aghast at the decisions made (without consequential blame being allocated after things go wrong) regarding the use of Infantry forces and the use of Armoured vehicles whether they be in Light Armoured Vehicles, or in Tracked Armoured Vehicles. Its true our near neighbours are busily creating squadrons of Mounted Infantry, and multiple Armoured Infantry Regiments, and we are being forced to accept second rate, hastily thought out, reorganization plans for our existing Infantry and Armoured Units, to suit government plans to reduce expenditure and impress the crowd at the same time. Tell the Members of Parliament who promote this kind reorganization rubbish, to grow a brain and stop insulting the professional integrity of ordinary soldiers!
Upfront admission: I am am a former Reserve Armoured officer.
I believe that the infantry should man the current M113 and Bushmaster fleet. Why, because in this day and age light infantry battalions are not the future, whether we train only in the defence of Australia or as expeditionary forces. Mechanised and motorised infantry skills need to be developed. Infantry needs to understand the speed at which mobility can assist deployment, navigation and manoeuvre and how best to use those skills to defeat an enemy, this does not happen when you are foot mounted!
I could never understand the logic in removing the mechanised component from infantry in the first place (1Bde), especially when many of our allies were mounting and training infantry in their own protected vehicles.
The other benefit this produces is that it upskills infantry ready to transition to the Land 400 Phase III vehicle (whatever that will be).
As far as buying additional Cav vehicles is concerned that will not be an issue as the structures of the two Cav Sqns will accommodate the proposed buy.