Open letter to CO and RSM, 1st Armoured Regiment
Share the post "Open letter to CO and RSM, 1st Armoured Regiment"
Dear Commanding Officer and RSM,
1st Armoured Regiment
You may not be aware, but the Army and (surprisingly) the Armoured Corps, have imposed a ‘blackout’ concerning the decision-making process which led to 1 Armd Regt being given a new, non-RAAC, role.
One would’ve hoped for the widest possible consultation, but the then 2 Cav Regt Honorary Colonel has advised that he had “zero consultation and zero pre-warning”. This is very surprising, given the significant impact on his unit.
One can’t but wonder what the history of 1 Armd Regt and the RAAC will say about 2023-2025. Obviously, you’ll be able to describe the circumstances affecting yourselves and the what’s left of the Regiment, but what do you know about: the discussions that took place at a high level; the options and alternatives considered; who had the greatest influence and the reasons for this; and whether records were kept of the decisions made? Without doubt, a detailed compilation of events will be recorded at some stage.
Initially it was thought that the lack of housing in Townsville was the issue and that the new role would only be a temporary one. Now it seems that the intention was always to have 2 Cav Regt command four squadrons; with the consequential budget savings being the driving factor.
The Head of Corps has asked veterans to get behind the Regiment and support it in its new role. This is impossible, however, as long as the Chief of Army declines to explain why he decided to make the unit a non-combatant, forfeiting its 75-year heritage crewing tanks.
As you know, the bond formed by crews extends into all parts of a tank regiment and makes it a unique entity. Without this, it seems inappropriate for the unit to continue to be named 1st Armoured Regiment; especially when it is no longer involved in closing with and engaging the enemy. The Regiment’s title can be restored when it becomes a tank regiment again (which will undoubtedly happen, despite the retraining cost).
Given that C Sqn is the sub-unit undertaking the trials activities, presumably its organisation (as well as that of RHQ) has changed considerably … lending itself to a new identity, one more akin to the role actually being performed.
Is this something you would support, or do you want to continue to be an RAAC unit with a non-RAAC role?
Yours sincerely,
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
FILE PHOTO: An Australian Army soldier from 1st Armoured Regiment talks to a British Army soldier from 2nd Battalion, Royal Yorkshire Regiment, about emerging technologies during Project Convergence Capstone 5 (PCC5) in Fort Irwin, California, 9 March 2025. Photo by Corporal Nakia Chapman.
.
.
.
.
Share the post "Open letter to CO and RSM, 1st Armoured Regiment"
To all serving members who contributed to the Discussion … thank you!
Disappointingly, I suspect that ‘God’ might have stepped in to stop any further comments being made
I hope that the question the 1 Armd Regt leadership team is addressing, is: How does their experience with CXG benefit members of the unit for their next Corps posting? [With recruiting and retention being what it is, I imagine that this is becoming an important issue. In fact, it’s been suggested that this is the real reason for not making 3 Brigade a complete armoured brigade.]
It used to be that the esprit-de-corps of 1 Armd Regt attracted those who (i) liked the RAAC role of closing with and engaging the enemy, and (ii) sought to develop their careers based around serving in the unit. It seems that the idea of the RAAC including a tank regiment is now a thing of the past. I wonder how long it will be before the RAAC role is changed?
Dear ‘Someone Who Believes’,
The resolution decided upon by last year’s RAAC Corps Conference was the following:
“The creation of an Experimental Unit in Army is sensible and useful, but it has no relationship with 1 Armd Regt. That is, the two are separate ideas and calling the Experimental Unit, 1 Armd Regt is both unnecessary and actually confusing. The best operational outcome for Army is to form two battlegroups in Townsville, one commanding the cavalry and one commanding the tanks. The best way to achieve this outcome is to raise RHQ 1 Armd Regt in Townsville and to assign the tanks to it.”
The Combat Experimentation Group is a great idea, however, it can’t be made possible at the expense of our sole tank regiment; leaving 3 Brigade deficient a tank sqn, a cav sqn, and a battlegroup hq. A tank regiment’s sole purpose is to perfect its skills and professionalism. Not to do this is to gamble with lives.
Open letter to Bruce Cameron.
As a current serving RAAC member of A Sqn 1 Armd Regt I think we should get some facts straight.
Whilst we are not currently equipped with tanks or CRVs, the until is still maintaining currency with corps training (with all tank qualified personnel in the unit, minus a couple ones and twos due to medical reasons etc, being qualified on the brand new M1A2 SEP V3).
Further, if you have been keeping track of the war in Ukraine, I am sure you would have noticed the amount of ground being won by either side has slowed considerably. Degrading to mostly static trench warfare.
One of the major causes of this has been the prevalence of UAS in the battlespace, with many sources stating that 80% of all casualties in the Ukraine are caused by drones, and over 4000 drones produced per day.
Due to the sheer number of drones in flight, both sides are under almost constant observation, therefore it is almost impossible to force concentrate for large scale offensive operations.
As such, a large, highly trained, expensive armoured battlegroup can be made ineffective by a disproportionately small group of individuals using comparatively very cheap equipment. Tanks will never be obsolete, however until we find ways to combat these new threats we won’t be able to effectively do our job as armoured crewmen.
1 Armd Regt in its new role as a Combat Experimentation Group (CXG) is uniquely placed as the only Army unit outside of SOCOMD to be trialling new and emerging technologies to counter these sorts of new threats, as well give us the opportunity to make the the ADF a more lethal force.
You should be proud that those people employing this new kit are highly trained, highly motivated RAAC and RAINF soldiers and officers. People that are experienced in their corps skills, able to give the yay or nay to new pieces of kit and develop the doctrine and TTPs at the coal face.
Would you prefer the ADF remains behind the 8-ball when I comes to acquisitions?
People in suits who work inside an office building all day telling us what it is that we need?
Commonly receiving equipment that is not quite fit for purpose or 10 years too late?
Isn’t it better have members of our own Corps, the end users, being the ones to work with these equipment manufacturers, tell them what it is we actually need, have a say in the kit we get and how it’s used? Rather than dragging the name of the unit you claim to love through the mud you should be proud that 1 Armd is leading the charge.
Without ways to counter the new threats we face, a large armoured Battlegroup is just a large target.
All of this is open source information, if we know this, the enemy does too.
We need to adapt.
We need to modernise.
The future is now.
Chris,
Many thanks for your letter. There are a number of points to be made in response. The first is to emphasise the importance of continually developing and nurturing the skills and professionalism within a tank regiment. This is not achieved by doing a conversion gunnery course. The tactics of manoeuvre warfare must be continually developed and refined … so that they are equally instinctive in both open and close country and so that they are superior to the new technologies employed by the enemy.
The resolution decided upon by last year’s RAAC Corps Conference is instructive:
“The creation of an Experimental Unit in Army is sensible and useful, but it has no relationship with 1 Armd Regt. That is, the two are separate ideas and calling the Experimental Unit, 1 Armd Regt is both unnecessary and actually confusing.
The best operational outcome for Army is to form two battlegroups in Townsville, one commanding the cavalry and one commanding the tanks. The best way to achieve this outcome is to raise RHQ 1 Armd Regt in Townsville and to assign the tanks to it.”
Chris,
Continuing my response …
What part is the CXG playing in the development of Active Protection Systems (APS) fitted to tanks? This would have to be a priority if the ADF valued its tank asset. Obviously, it doesn’t. If it did, 3 Brigade in Townsville would be a complete armoured brigade with 1 Armd Regt, 2 Cav Regt and 3 RAR (Mech).
If the Chief of Army has given in to pressure to save money, then the Army needs someone with balls to point out to him exactly how long it takes to train a tank regiment to reach combat proficiency. Having a split tank/recon cavalry regiment is a gamble with lives that no-one has to right to make.
Ben Petersen,
You say: “Please stop writing these articles Mr Cameron. You’re making a fool of yourself.”
Can you give an example (or two) of any errors I’ve made please?
Please stop writing these articles Mr Cameron. You’re making a fool of yourself.
“The Chief of Army has openly stated that the end state for 1 Armd is to become the Tank Regiment in Townsville, he just isn’t put a timeframe on it yet.”
Please show me!
Well done for the honesty
Bruce,
The whole Regt (RHQ, A, B and C SQNs) is a ‘combat experimentation’ unit, not just C SQN. It is still on the ORBAT and maintains a combat role, albeit focussed on experimentation.
You are hung up on the fact that nobody is telling you why a decision was made, and you are implying that there are underhanded reasons why this is the case.
2 Royal Yorks underwent a similar change to an experimental unit and maintained all their customs and traditions. I see no reason why the same shouldn’t apply to 1 Armd.
The Chief of Army has openly stated that the end state for 1 Armd is to become the Tank Regiment in Townsville, he just isn’t put a timeframe on it yet.
You are someone whose contribution to tank warfare is held in high regard across the Corps, but this campaign is undermining your credibility.
A current serving tank soldier
“The Chief of Army has openly stated that the end state for 1 Armd is to become the Tank Regiment in Townsville, he just isn’t put a timeframe on it yet.”
Please show me!
Hi ‘Currently Serving’ (again),
You say that: “It [1 Armd Regt] is still on the ORBAT and maintains a combat role, albeit focussed on experimentation”.
I have to disagree. A unit can’t be combat-ready one minute and a Combat Experimental Group, the next.
A unit is either a combat unit or it isn’t; one or the other. A combat unit trains and hones its professionalism and skills constantly; this is especially the case if the unit is a tank regiment.
John, Thanks for the statement. Only C Sqn and RHQ currently exist (A and B Sqn pers went to 2 Cav). 2 Royal Yorks is an inf unit trialling inf equipment; 1 Armd Regt is a unit with a non RAAC role, trialling equipment for the Army as a whole. (The Brit Army has corps specific trials units.) The CA has refused to say how long 1 Armd Regt will remain a non-combatant, even when asked directly. When 1 Armd Regt does become a tank regiment again, heaven knows what the retraining cost will be. Bruce
Bruce,
You are wrong. The Regt still has A, B and C SQNs. Personnel posted out, but the subunits still exist.
Please stop saying they don’t.
Hi ‘Current Serving Tank Soldier’,
Can you please explain how sub-units can continue to exist after their personnel have been posted out?
The Chief of Army was pressured to save money in the Defence budget; he stripped 1 Armd Regt of its tanks and reduced it by two thirds of its size; saving money, but leaving 3 Brigade in Townsville short a tank sqn, a cav sqn and a battlegroup hq (at a time when our strategic circumstances are the most perilous experienced).
I’ve written to the CO and RSM, asking why, without an RAAC role, 1 Armd Regt shouldn’t be renamed (say ‘Army Trials Unit’) and stop wearing black berets and silver badges. (The unit name can always revert to 1 Armd Regt when its tanks are returned.) No reply as yet. [See letter in Contact magazine; search under my name.]
Bruce,
You seem to think that anyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion is wrong. I’ve told you A and B Sqn still exist, you’ve told me they can’t possibly because all the pers have posted out.
I don’t know what to tell you other than A, B, and C SQNs still exist. Whilst the majority of pers posted out, there were still pers that posted in.
If A and B Sqn don’t exist, it’s news to those who have paraded in these SQNs since the year began.
Dear ‘Current Serving’,
Can you please explain “personnel posted out, but subunits still exist”? C Sqn forms the Combat Experimentation Group, what is the strength of A and B Sqns? What role do they have?
Being a tank regiment is a 24/7 job. What’s the point of converting to M1A2SeP3, if the unit is not totally committed to tank-craft and continual improvement? See the latest post to Contact (CO 4RAR/NZ letter.)
Bruce,
I told you the Regt also had pers post in.
C sqn forms the support sqn, and log experimentation function; A and B form the combat experimentation functions. A is focussed on Human Machine Teams, and B uses the Modular Robotic Vehicle.
I know where you’ve got the idea that only C Sqn exists, from an erroneous article published by ADM that misquoted the CO, which meant to say C Sqn was undertaking experimentation duties in the latter part of 2024 before the other SQNs assumed these roles in 2025.
The soldiers all maintain their Corps skills so that when their posting to 1 Armd ends after 2-3 years they can post to 2 Cav, 2/14 or the school (or other units depending on Corps).
Dear ‘Current Serving’,
Many thanks for explaining. That certainly throws a different light on how everything is being managed.
It also illustrates one of the problems … that of a lack of communication. We’ve asked the Head of Corps to help with this. He undertook to do so, but no change as yet.
There’s no doubt that important work is being done, however, as said in other posts, there is a need for BOTH a Combat Experimentation Group AND a tank regiment. We’ll keep our letters going to this end. Thanks again!
Dear Current Serving (again)
You’ve said that “the soldiers all maintain their Corps skills”. Apart from gunnery qualification, leadership and fitness, what RAAC skills are these? Presumably they lose all their armoured tactical professionalism and skills?
I guess the question that the leadership team must be addressing is: How does their experience with CXG benefit them for their next Corps posting? [With recruiting and retention being what it is, I imagine that this becoming an important issue.]
Hi Paul,
The Strategic Defence Review designated 3 Brigade to be an armoured brigade. Such a brigade would be expected to comprise a tank regiment, a cavalry regiment and a mechanised infantry regiment. All three capabilities are presently being re-equipped with new armoured fighting vehicles.
Army’s present order of battle means that 3 Brigade is under-strength by a tank squadron, a cavalry squadron, and a battle-group headquarters. The significant loss of combat power is bad enough, but the brigade’s inability to deploy a third battlegroup means a loss of flexibility and command and control; which many would regard as totally unacceptable as far as manoeuvre warfare is concerned (this being the essence of an armoured brigade).
Can you throw any light on this, at a time described as the most perilous in our strategic circumstances?
John and Mark, Thanks to you both for helping to highlight the injustice which has undoubtedly occurred.
Contact Magazine deserves credit for publicising it. When the pages of history are written, the circumstances (which today are a closed book) will be known to all. I wonder how many will be able to hold their heads high, regarding that which they have concealed.
Bruce Cameron
Maybe Mr Cameron should read the Defence Strategic Review
Sounds to me that leadership is unaware of leadership principles. My training in leadership had “Explain the reason for orders”.
From experience, I have come to realise that far from being open and honest, the Defence Leadership wants to keep its staff in the dark.
If it is a simple question of Money, then say so. Or, if another reason, have the courage to tell the truth and be done.
There has been a long list of decisions from Army Headquarters that have been both contradictory and shall we say deceitful. Once again let’s close ranks and f#$& what everyone else thinks.
I see nothing has changed in 20 years.
Leadership is about hard decisions not justifying yourself.
Well done Bruce. Transparency for the present generation to understand, appropriate engagement to secure support from veterans, and documentation for history.
Hoping we’ll see the current situation change soon.
Commanders intent – ensuring the Army is configured for future combat not simply aping what is evidently rapidly becoming dated CONEMP. The decision to rerole 1 AR was a bold and ambitious move to make a leap ahead in Army knowledge of emerging and disruptive tech. Many criticise the ponderous acquisition cycle – this move is aimed at the strategy and concepts phase of the acquisition cycle. Enabling the understanding of requirements through live force experimentation with experienced combat soldiers.
Instead of weeping over past glories it would behove those with leadership skills to encourage and embolden those excellent members of 1AR who are leading army into the future. Looking back and whining is how one loses- showing resilience and determination is how we learn and prevail
Dear ‘Someone Who Believes’,
The resolution decided upon by last year’s RAAC Corps Conference was the following:
“The creation of an Experimental Unit in Army is sensible and useful, but it has no relationship with 1 Armd Regt. That is, the two are separate ideas and calling the Experimental Unit, 1 Armd Regt is both unnecessary and actually confusing. The best operational outcome for Army is to form two battlegroups in Townsville, one commanding the cavalry and one commanding the tanks. The best way to achieve this outcome is to raise RHQ 1 Armd Regt in Townsville and to assign the tanks to it.”
The Combat Experimentation Group is a great idea, however, it can’t be made possible at the expense of our sole tank regiment; leaving 3 Brigade deficient a tank sqn, a cav sqn, and a battlegroup hq. A tank regiment’s sole purpose is to perfect its skills and professionalism. Not to do this is to gamble with lives.
Bruce, if only your passion was evident when RAAC decided to take 3 and 4 Cav off the ORBAT. Where were you then? As I have stated previously, 3 Cav Regt fought alongside you in SVn, yet you did not fight for 3 Cav in 2013/14 when their battle honour embazoned guidon was laid up and ordered off 2 Cavs parade ground. As a result, there would be few who support your ideals if, in typical tankie style you choose only the battle you think you can win. Boldness, Audacity, Courage and Flexibility are our traits as RAAC veterans, yet you seem to be less flexible than you once were. As a 25 year RAAC veteran, I too am often gobsmacked by the decisions made by the current serving, but their decisions do not keep me awake at night, nor dictate when or where I can go fishing. Before you do any more harm to your solid, but past reputation, may I request you cease and desist, and go on through your final days holding your beret-clad head high knowing that the decisions you made when you were a decision maker mattered, and leave the decision makers of today to arn their keep.
Resolute and Tenacious, Forward, Forge, Courage, Australia
May I remind Chris and all who make comments on this web site- we play the ball, not the man. In other words do your own reputation a service and attack Bruce’s arguments with logic and counterpoint, and refrain from personal attacks.
Hi Chris,
As “a current serving RAAC member of A Sqn 1 Armd Regt” and “a 25-year RAAC veteran”, you must be the A Sqn SSM. Either that, or we have two people using the same name or some very experienced troop sergeants in A Sqn?