1 Armd Regt: What it all Comes Down to (3 Cav Again?)

There is no such thing as an RAAC chain of command. Neither the Representative Honorary Colonel nor the RAAC Head of Corps have any authority. RAAC unit COs have a chain of command to their Brigade Commander … no-one else.

Rep Hon Col, Maj Gen Michael Krause, AM, explains: “What we can do is agree a Corps position which we can use as a basis for advocacy. Where it is at odds with the current Army position, then COs do what they are told, while still advocating change.”

The 2024 RAAC Corps Conference decided that the Corps’ position re 1 Armd Regt was:

(i) It is Army’s best interest that both 1 Armd Regt and 2 Cav Regt, remain on the ORBAT as combat units.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The best operational outcome for Army is to form two battlegroups in Townsville, one commanding the cavalry and one commanding the tanks.
(iv) The best way to achieve this outcome is to raise RHQ 1 Armd Regt in Townsville and to assign the tanks to it.

Attendees at the 2025 Corps Conference saw things differently, however …

While the need to have two battlegroups (tanks and cavalry) in Townsville was maintained, it was decided that the experimental unit (now titled Combat Experimentation Group, CXG) should be retained as an RAAC unit.

Not only that, but according to General Krause, the Armoured Corps now “embraces the [CXG] unit as a part of the Corps and is strongly supportive”, recommending that its “headquarters should be established as a manoeuvre BGp HQ of the Future”. Furthermore, “an RAAC trade model is being formulated which gives everyone an opportunity to serve in the unit”.

The Rep Hon Col summed things up by saying: “The RAAC is in good hands, has a plan for the future, and the will to see it through”.

The ‘plan’ in essence, is NOT to get the CA to change his mind (as per the previous Corps Conference), but to embrace his concept and take ownership of it. The second BGp HQ still has to be formed, but that’s almost assured in order to restore 3 Brigade’s combat power (i.e. the tank and cavalry squadrons missing from 2 Cav Regt), plus the command flexibility provided by the missing BGp HQ.

In a word … capitulation! Rather than mount a persuasive argument along the lines of the position agreed at the 2024 Corps Conference, the RAAC has simply given up the fight.

All that remains is to decide whether or not 1 Armd Regt is relocated to Townsville, or if it stays with the CXG. Either way, the RAAC will need to raise a new unit.

Will this see the return of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment?

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

 

FILE PHOTO: Soldiers from the Australian Army’s 1st Armoured Regiment and the New Zealand Army’s 16 Field Regiment conduct observation of a target at Project Convergence Capstone 5 (PCC5) at Fort Irwin, California on the 11th March 2025. Photo by Corporal Nakia Chapman.

.

.


.


.