An Honourable Institution?
The Chief of Army has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, declaring that the Australian Army is a national institution which “earns and sustains the trust of the society it serves”.
A pre-requisite for any such institution is that it is honourable; indeed, trustworthiness and integrity are included among Army’s values.
How is it then, that the tanks are stripped from a unit which has crewed them for 75 years, turning it into a non-combatant technology test-bed, against the recommendations of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC) Representative Honorary Colonel, the Immediate Past Rep Hon Col, the 1 Armd Regt Hon Col, the RAAC Head of Corps, and the RAAC Corps Conference?
The RAAC was united in its opposition … so what?
Disappointingly, everything related to the decision-making was done in secret. Why? If the intention had been made known in advance, there is no doubt that there would’ve been a backlash against it. This would’ve been a major distraction at a time when it was least needed, i.e. when everything to do with the Defence Strategic Review was being closely scrutinised.
So, it was best that there be no warning, particularly no debate about Army’s most senior Field Force unit being removed from the Order of Battle. (Not forgetting the heritage associated with 1 Armd Regt’s length of service and the fact that it had been awarded three battle-honours, as well as a Unit Citation for Gallantry, in Vietnam.)
How to minimise the ‘fall-out’?
The psychology involved was good. Create the impression that 1 Armd Regt (now the Combat Experimentation Group, CXG) will continue to maintain the traditions and heritage of the former unit. Statements by the CO and RSM indicating their commitment to this end, appeared in RAAC newsletters. The Chief of the Defence Force stated unequivocally that 1 Armd Regt would continue to parade the Standard, maintain an alliance with the Royal Tank Regiment, and commemorate Cambrai Day in future years.
Why would the new CXG want to do any of these things?
It wouldn’t, if it hadn’t been ordered to. Why on earth maintain an alliance with the RTR, when the CXG has nothing at all in common with it … rather than commencing a new alliance with 2 Battalion, Royal Yorkshire Regiment which forms part of the British Army’s Experimentation and Trials Group. It must be every CO’s and RSM’s dream: a completely new unit to mould and shape as they wish; plus, a completely new role, to develop and define as they judge appropriate. The genesis of any new unit involves the making of new customs and traditions.
The CA has stated that “the Australian Army’s future is fighting on the beaches, rivers, coastal waters and archipelagos of the Indo-Pacific”. There are likely to be some who will think that an Army optimised for littoral manoeuvre, is not one with a tank regiment high on its list of priorities.
Shhhh! Don’t raise this, don’t provoke any discussion … just accept that 1 Armd Regt’s got a different role. Pretend it’s still on the ORBAT and everything remains the same.
A tank regiment which has been stripped of its tanks, however, is without the close bond formed by tank crews. Such a unit can never be the same, no matter how much the CA might order it to be.
There is no doubt that the Australian Army is a national institution, but is it honourable and trustworthy? This requires an absence of deliberate manipulation; openness and transparency in decision making; and a willingness to debate controversial issues.
The prosecution rests.
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
FILE PHOTO: Australian Army birthday cupcakes prepared for Army’s 121st birthday activities at Russell Offices in Canberra on Tuesday, 01 March 2022. Photo by Corporal Sagi Biderman.
Agree with the other comments. This sort of flawed content isn’t worth posting.
I agree wholeheartedly with the other commenter. Please CONTACT, stop publishing Bruce’s letters. His input has become invalid and serves only to fuel his own fire.
Mr Prosecutor/Bruce, please stop this.
On a short look, 17 of your letters have been published by CONTACT since the start of July. That is one every 2.25 days. That’s not healthy.
Your arguments have lost punch, and your rhetoric reads as petty. I do not anticipate you started your writing with this as a reflection of your arguments. You should therefore stop.
You have served with distinction, and nobody will take that away from you – but if someone was to look at your recent work, they might be forgiven in thinking that you have only served to white ant a defence force that is making decisions (tough decisions mind you) to focus on the next fight. This fight is something we have had not required to consider for generations, and as a result, concern regarding naming conventions is silly.
The Australian Army still employs tank, and the exploits of the 1st Armoured Regiment are a strong part of that history. I implore you to find a way to respect the CDF and CAs decisions, and above all – find a way to internal peace. This cannot be healthy for you, and for those that are close to you.
To CONTACT. I think it is rather evident that oxygen is being provided to a line of arguments that might not be of particular benefit to the author, the reader, nor the publication itself. Please reconsider publishing these in future.