Comments on the Demise of 1st Armoured Regiment

A number of articles have been published in Contact Magazine as part of a campaign to have 1st Armoured Regiment returned to its combat role. [After 75 years-service to the nation, the Chief of Army decided to strip it of its tanks and give a role as a non-combatant; at a time described as the most perilous for the nation since the cold war.]

The range of supporting comments made demonstrate the capacity of readers to offer informed judgements, revealing considerable insight and awareness across the defence spectrum. A selection is copied below (with minor corrections for grammar and spelling).

—————————————————————–

“1st Armoured Regiment should be kept as a complete combat unit. The Regiment has a vital role to play providing fire power and support to our infantry battalions. We have more strategic threats today than we have had for many decades. To diminish combat power at this time is a high-risk gamble.” (Kevin)

“The destruction of the tank regiment is tragic, considering its seniority, history and battle honours.” (Former member of 1 Armd Regt)

“The removal of the tank from 1st Armoured Regiment and giving them a role without tanks, is like giving a sailor a posting to a job at sea without a ship. Senseless and illogical.” (Ken)

“Brilliant read …wouldn’t one think we could incorporate a ‘trials’ unit in Cultana [SA] under DSTO or at Waikerie.” (Anon)

“I know from Vietnam, the infantry would rather be backed up by tanks than anything else.” (Peter)

“The purpose of 1 Armd Regt has always been to operate the army’s tanks. A cavalry regiment’s role is to operate the faster and more mobile armoured vehicles of the army. Both units have vital roles to play in the army. The research and testing facility should be named just that or be a wing of the armoured training centre.” (Mal)

“To trash such a large number of learned skill-sets and deny ongoing combined arms training to the few troops we have, seems inexplicable. Multiple skill-sets [are required] to develop the tools needed going forward (armour being one), but this scenario depletes the core force upon which to build future armoured forces…”. (Geoff)

“Return 1 Armd Regt to its combat role asap…”. (Retired ex RAAC)

“The 1st Armoured Regiment has been a pivotal part of all RAAC tank units. It’s the only unit to receive a Standard and has been providing tank support to brigades for 75 years. We need to expand our tank capability. The mixed armoured combat role is a thing of past; even US and Europe have gone back to conventional armoured unit roles.” (Retired ex RAAC)

Unbelievable that Australia does not, or can’t see reason to, maintain at least two armoured units of an equal force strength. (Anon)

“To keep referring to it as 1st Armoured Regt is an embarrassment to those who served with it. A move to Townsville (where armour is concentrated including SP Arty and an Armd Engr Sqn) would have been wiser.” (Former RAAC Assault Trooper and RASIGS)

“Perhaps we should consider making the person redundant who organized 1 Armd Regt’s removal from the ORBAT – at least it would reduce the number of ‘toadies’ in the upper echelons of the ADF that everybody is complaining about.” (Iain)

“It was a very unexpected decision to virtually scrap 1 Armd Regt. Pride, tradition and esprit de corps thrown out like the baby’s washing. ADF should at least rename the facility in Edinburgh to something more appropriate (possibly ‘research facility’). One hundred percent behind the idea of two [armoured] regiments in Townsville. (Phil)

 

FILE PHOTO: An Australian Army soldier from the 1st Armoured Regiment with an uncrewed ground vehicle equipped with a prototype communications system and experimental drone launcher during Project Convergence Capstone 5 at Fort Irwin, California. Photo by Corporal Nakia Chapman.

.

.


.


.