Why bother campaigning for 1 Armd Regt to be returned to a combat role?

1armd_regt_standard

…the answer is easy.

Those responsible can’t be allowed to continue detracting from 1st Armoured Regiment’s hard-fought heritage.

A unit with 75 years’ service crewing tanks, deserves to continue in its role for the next 75 years – or at least until tanks are declared obsolete.

1 Armd Regt has always exceeded expectations. For many years it was responsible for training all RAAC recruits; as well as selecting and training NCOs for postings, not only within the unit, but for other positions as well.

Indeed, the majority of APC crew commanders at the Battle of Long Tan, were trained by 1 Armd Regt.

The following statement was very apt at the time: “The general efficiency of the RAAC depends in no small measure on the success achieved by the Regiment in the many tasks allocated to it”.

1 Armd Regt became eligible to carry a Standard because it was a tank regiment, the equivalent to what had once been a heavy cavalry regiment (i.e. dragoon guards) in the British Army. Carried by nobility and high-ranking knights, it was the largest of the flags flown by armies in the Middle Ages.

The Regiment’s Standard was presented by His Royal Highness Prince Charles in 1981, making it the only unit within the Australian Army to be so honoured. (A new Standard was presented by the Governor-General 20 years later).

The Standard is emblazoned with three battle-honours from Vietnam (the limit used to be two, but the author successfully lobbied to have this changed).

The Streamer of the Unit Citation for Gallantry is attached at the top of the Standard.

Having been stripped of its tanks, however, the criteria for parading with the Standard, no longer exists. (The Chief of the Defence Force, among others, is happy to forego history and tradition and have it retained, nonetheless.)

But what’s behind all this? What brings former crewmen together whenever an opportunity arises?

There’s a driving force … a timeless bonding that few can adequately describe; camaraderie and comradeship, together with affinity and rapport. Generations drawn together by the same unifying spirit. There is an inseparability between the experiences of the past and the esprit-de-corps that existed at the time; one that doesn’t diminish. A true brotherhood from Churchill to Centurion to Leopard to M1A1 to M1A2.

The Chief of Army has said that: “Putting Australian soldiers on the ground and in harm’s way, remains the ultimate expression of our nation’s will and resolve”. 1st Armoured Regiment was a proud benchmark in this respect for 75 years. But, just two years ago, that responsibility was passed to others, unilaterally.

What is the future for a 1st Armoured Regiment which is no longer in harm’s way and can no longer strive to be the ultimate expression of our nation’s will and resolve? Can it ever be the same, even with new responsibilities in other fields as a non-combatant? Of course not.

The role of the RAAC involves closing with and engaging the enemy. The unit ethos, esprit-de-corps, heritage, tank-craft and skills built up by 1st Armoured Regiment over 75 years, have been completely lost, now that it is no longer a combatant.

The efforts one makes to have 1 Armd Regt returned to combat status are not for one’s-self, but for them, i.e. all those whom one had the honour to serve with, no matter the time or place.

As a Regiment, everyone worked together to hone their skills and professionalism: jockeying back off a hill; ensuring every round destroyed the target; maintaining radio watch; attacking with vigour; making a ‘brew’, and the like.

If former members were to do the same now, maybe enough attention would be drawn to the extent of the injustice involved, that others will take notice.

If that happens, who knows what might follow?

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

 

FILE PHOTO (November 2018): The Standard of the 1st Armoured Regiment is marched onto parade.


.

.


.


.

24192 Total Views 4 Views Today

Posted by Brian Hartigan

Managing Editor Contact Publishing Pty Ltd PO Box 3091 Minnamurra NSW 2533 AUSTRALIA

7 thoughts on “Why bother campaigning for 1 Armd Regt to be returned to a combat role?

  • 12/07/2025 at 1:12 pm
    Permalink

    I vote for this regiment to continue it’s professional military Intelligence perfection until tanks were not needed in modern ground warfare.But they will be always the main panzer arms thrust into the adversary military formation.Gid bless America and Australia and our King Charles III

    Reply
  • 09/07/2025 at 12:34 am
    Permalink

    I do understand the writers passion! (I’m 82)
    But the stark reality of today’s warfare is such that both equipment and tactics will require far less face to face combat, and therefore very different methodologies to out manouver and overcome our adversaries!!!

    Reply
  • 08/07/2025 at 12:37 pm
    Permalink

    While I appreciate the passion with which you are pushing for (your vision of) the future of your beloved 1 Armd Regt, publishing these letters is making you a leper within the Armoured Corps community. Your views may be shared by many, but your approach isn’t working and your name is now the butt of the joke.
    What you cannot foresee from the outside is that there is a future for “your” Regt. The Army is in a phase of reorganisation and will eventually (in my view) need to separate the recon assets of A and B Sqn 2 Cav Regt from the heavy tanks assets of C and D Sqn. This will involve a return to a pre Plan Beersheba style tank Regt. What you fail to see is that by maintaining 1AR as an organisation, they have set the stage for it the be moved to TSV, have assets allocated to its Sqns and to do with with minimal fuss as the administrative structure is still in existence.
    My advice to you (as by far the most passionate and outspoken critic) and others who have strong opinions on how the DSR and subsequent NDS effected 1AR, is to just chill, watch over the coming two to three years and realise that no amount of letter writing or vocal whinging (which is how this is perceived) will (nor should it) impact the decisions being made to ensure the Army can project combat power into the near region in the shortest amount of time possible. Your experience is always valid, but the last time Australia fired a tank main gun in anger was over 53 years ago and the technology, tactics, strategic environment and personnel have changed. We will always look back for lessons learned and for guidance, but you’ve gotta let go and trust that the RAAC and the Regts are in safe hands and that internally there is people just as passionate (and vocal) as yourself looking to do what is best for the country, Army, Corps and 1AR.

    Reply
  • 08/07/2025 at 10:25 am
    Permalink

    The heritage, competence and bravery of the RAAC can never be disputed.
    But warfare is changing and we must change to in order to deliver on our key mission to the Australian people.
    Pimply nerds are taking out MBTs in the Ukraine theatre like they level up in a game. Adapt or die.

    Reply
    • 08/07/2025 at 10:59 am
      Permalink

      We need a defence force that is cost effective and provides a realistic level of safety for the country. However, the espirit de corp of such a unit is a powerful weapon too, as the good gentleman points out. I’d much rather have soldiers from such a unit engaging an enemy with the latest weapons, rather than the imaginary “pimply nerds” fighting in the Ukraine.

      Reply
    • 11/07/2025 at 6:17 am
      Permalink

      Bruce how about you enjoy your retirement and leave these decisions to the professionals.

      The role of the unit is whatever the army needs it to be. Not to do what it always has done for nostalgia purposes.

      While your at it, why not start lobbying for cav to get horses back…

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *