Army’s Transformation: Sadly, It’s Not All Good
Share the post "Army’s Transformation: Sadly, It’s Not All Good"
“There are no soldiers, no team, no call signs that won’t be affected by Army’s transformation and future direction, and I couldn’t be prouder of what we are achieving.“ Lieutenant General Stuart.
This is certainly the case as far as the Royal Australian Armoured Corps is concerned; affected that is.
Part of this transformation sees the end of what, for 68 years, had been Army’s sole tank regiment (later sharing tanks and becoming one of three Armoured Cavalry Regiments). Now, after 75 years in total, 1st Armoured Regiment has been stripped of its tanks and given a new, non-combatant, role.
It used to be that the Regiment’s raison d’être was to perfect its tank-craft and hone its professional skills. This was a never-ending journey, one that sought to continually improve its capability. The goal was to live up to its motto, Paratus. This meant being ready at all times to employ mobility and firepower decisively, making a real difference at the point of battle.
But the Chief of Army wanted a unit to manage the introduction of new and emerging technology. The model recommended to him was that of the 2nd Battalion, Royal Yorkshire Regiment in the British Army. This might appear to be the equivalent of 1 Armd Regt; tasked as part of their Experimentation and Trials Group (ETG) with testing new ideas. That Battalion, however, is an “Agile, adaptive future Light Infantry force at the heart of developing, testing and challenging Infantry warfighting concepts and capabilities.” 2 Yorks is an infantry battalion (one of 33 in their regular army) testing new infantry ideas.
The Brits have Corps-specific units, such as the Armoured Trials and Development unit, to trial new technology. In Australia’s case, we remove our only tank regiment from combat duties, and task it to evaluate technology for the Army as a whole. How could this be?
The pleas of senior RAAC officers not to throw away the years of training, were brushed aside. The pleas of veterans to respect the heritage, battle honours, and Unit Citation for Gallantry, were brushed aside.
What the CA wants, the CA gets!
While it would be a funny Army if this wasn’t to be, one has to wonder if it’s a personal goal, or something that he is being pressured by the Minister and the Department, to achieve. No matter which way you look at it, however, 75 years’ service to the nation, deserves better! Deserves, in fact, to have the opportunity to serve for another 75 years.
Being a tank regiment, the equivalent of a heavy dragoon regiment in the British Army’s early days, 1 Armd Regt was awarded a Standard (a unique honour for the Australian Army). The Chief of the Defence Force wants the unit to keep it, although as a non-combatant, there is no entitlement to do so. Another example of tradition being trampled on, in the quest for ‘transformation’.
The demise of 1 Armd Regt as a tank regiment, also means the loss of a tank squadron, a cavalry squadron and a battlegroup headquarters from 3 Brigade in Townsville (supposedly an armoured brigade). This is a significant loss of combat power and flexibility. It remains to be seen whether or not the post-exercise findings from Talisman Sabre 2025, conveniently overlook this ‘sub-optimal’ situation.
1 Armd Regt’s veterans are proud of all that they achieved when serving their nation at the forefront of battle. Seeing 1 Armd Regt removed from its combat role, makes them feel gutted and distraught.
Noting that the CA couldn’t be prouder of his achievement, increases their sense of betrayal.
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
FILE PHOTO (March 2025): Soldiers from Australia’s 1st Armoured Regiment experiment with a ground uncrewed system (GUS) on patrol during Project Convergence Capstone Five (PCC5) at Fort Irwin, California. Photo by Corporal Nakia Chapman.
.
.
.
.
Share the post "Army’s Transformation: Sadly, It’s Not All Good"
I am highly intuitive with several proven results.
The great blockade is already here in a electronic manipulation has been since 2000.
My pc was hacked 200x by the prc.
having travelled to SE Asia every year and tested parameters and response like ASEAN a formidable strength observation still counters for much + and minus.
Thai military is adapting martial law on the Cambodian border. Something is happening with CRA penninsular prc want a naval cutting, Loas, I have met the odd border jumper. We need our ASEAN, study it!
“wheels within wheels” beware
So inept to remove a brilliant Regiment from service to have it become a non entity without understanding the gained experience that First Armoured Regiment has. This is wasting years of know how and delivering no beneficial result.
Well said, Doug. See responses to Rich and Odd Job.
Maybe it is tacit acknowledgement of the effect of drones against armoured vehicles as shown in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The Abrams performed poorly in that conflict, and another 49 to the AFU isn’t going to turn the tide in Ukraine’s favour. We must rethink why we should have the Abrams and see if we can go with other lighter and affordable alternatives.
Hi Odd Job,
The tank’s not obsolete. Far from it … it remains the key to manoeuvre warfare. Automatic Protection Systems (APS) have been developed as one of the counters to drones. Why, you may well ask, are they not being fitted to our tanks? It seems that the emphasis at present is on saving money in the Defence budget. Stripping tanks from 1 Armd Regt is one way of doing this. Does it make any sense from a Defence preparedness point of view … NO. Unfortunately, it seems that the present CA might want to be CDF, hence he must be seen to toe the line and is not prepared to argue the case to reverse the decline in Army combat power (despite the dire strategic circumstances). I’ve asked for a meeting with him to discuss this. Someone has to try and point out the obvious.
Great article.
Prime example of ideological driven expediency, whilst actively excluding expertise, experience and knowledge of the professionals who live and breath the actual logistics and causality.
Can some one in plain English explain what is going on with the tanks in the Australian Army . We are actually getting 75 tanks replacing 59 as well as a range of other support vehicles . That means fire power but articles on the 1st Tank regiment suggest we are reducing our capabilities, does not make sense
Hi Rich, Good observation. It does not make sense (no matter how you look at what’s happened). One of my letters from some time ago, asked the question: “Where’s the missing squadron?”. Without the courtesy of any comment from the CA, it appears that he’s been pressured into creating the Combat Experimentation Group (CXG, as 1 Armd Regt is called now) … which had to hit the ground running, to meet Defence’s needs.
The model for 1 Armd Regt’s role, was the UK’s 2 Bn Royal Yorkshire Regiment. BUT this is an inf unit developing future INF war-fighting techniques. In our case, we strip the tanks from our only tank regiment and make it a non-combatant (throwing away years of training and tank-craft skills; not to mention heritage and tradition). They say that the latter will be retained, but this is impossible for a unit which is without the close bonds formed by a tank regiment.
The consequence of this is that 3 Brigade in Townsville, designated as an armoured brigade by the 2023 Defence Strategic Review, is without a tank squadron, a cavalry sqn, and a battle-group HQ. An enormous loss of combat power and flexibility at a time when our strategic circumstances are described as “perilous”. Pure nonsense, no other word for it.
so much for CLASS.