“Publicly criticising an official Army position amounts to insubordination”

1st Armoured Regiment has been stripped of its tanks, reduced to one third of its strength and made a ‘new and emerging technology’ test-bed.

Why hasn’t it been explained to the veterans who fear for the history and traditions of their former unit, why this had to be? Why hasn’t anyone explained if this is a permanent change, or, if not, what the duration is to be? As is so often the case, this seems likely to be a failure of communication.

Former members of the unit, who are devastated at ‘their’ Regiment being made a non-combatant, after 75 years’ service crewing tanks and having been awarded three Battle-honours and a Unit Citation for Gallantry, have written to around twenty senior military and political figures from the Commander-in-Chief, down. They have also initiated a Petition to Parliament and have had numerous letters published in newspapers and defence magazines.

The Minister, in response to the letter to him, confined himself to stating that 1 Armd Regt had a new role “shaping how the Army fights”. There’s been no reply to a second letter to him, asking what this means. The CA declined to comment re the letter sent to him, on the basis that the CDF and HOC have already replied. It’s a tight run ship in other areas. While the current HOC supports the CA’s stance, the RAAC Rep Hon Col makes the point that “publicly criticising an official Army position amounts to insubordination”.

In what was a nice letter of reply, the CDF stated that “adapting the Regiment’s role” was necessary to “meet the Government’s direction”. So, really nothing to do with him. He also mentioned that the CA “sought advice from the [RAAC] Head of Corps”. The impression given here is that the HOC gave his approval, whereas the then HOC actually wrote to the CA, “requesting that he reconsider his decision”. [As did the then RAAC Rep Hon Col and 1 Armd Regt Hon Col.]

So, what would be the ‘right thing’ for the CA to do in these circumstances?

In a nutshell … explain!

It was, ultimately, his decision to strip 1 Armd Regt of its tanks and make it a non-combatant. There might be very valid reasons for having to do this. If this is the case, however, nobody benefits by keeping it a secret. Of course, there might be another agenda. Is it possible that Defence (and the CA) want to reduce the size of the RAAC and limit the Corps to two ARA units, making the new role of 1 Armd Regt a permanent one, and phasing out expensive AFVs?

Those advocating for 1 Armd Regt to return to a combat role, have been assuming that it was a temporary situation pending the completion of adequate housing in Townsville. But maybe this is NOT what’s happening. Maybe it’s the intention for 1 Armd Regt to stay as a non-combatant and be removed permanently from the order of battle.

Doing the right thing means doing what’s right for the common good (as distinct to self-interest in its many forms). Surely the CA must understand this and act accordingly, i.e. explain to 1 Armd Regt stakeholders what his intention is with respect to the long-term future of 1 Armd Regt.

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

 

 

FILE PHOTO: Australian Army soldiers from the 1st Armoured Regiment conduct manoeuvre training on an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank in Puslatpur, Indonesia during Exercise Super Garuda Shield 2023. Photo by Corporal Dustin Anderson.

.

.


.


.