All Soldiers are Weapon Bearers, but …
What is it that defines ‘soldiering’? Is it enough to say the life or job of a soldier?
The previous Chief of Army referred to “good soldiering” in the context of the culture which shapes how the Army operates. Are warfighting skills relevant here, i.e. is there a difference between an arms (combat) unit and a services (combat support) unit?
As a tank regiment, 1st Armoured Regiment was an arms unit; until, at the direction of the present CA, it was switched to being a non-combatant services unit, tasked with managing new and emerging technologies.
The CA has stated that: “Putting Australian soldiers on the ground and in harm’s way, remains the ultimate expression of our nation’s will and resolve”. 1 Armd Regt was a proud benchmark in this respect for 75 years. As it’s no longer put in harm’s way, however, it can no longer strive to be the ultimate expression of the nation’s will and resolve.
What’s this mean as far as the unit itself is concerned? Can it ever be the same as it once was, even with important new responsibilities? Obviously, the answer is no: it can only strive to be something else and excel at whatever that may be.
What does it mean to belong to an arms unit; in particular, a tank regiment?
It means a focus on destroying the enemy, before they destroy you. This requires the capacity to quickly close with an adversary and dominate the battlefield using all means available. Doing this effectively, requires quick thinking and decisiveness. Bringing an aggressive spirit, determination, and courage to the point of battle, is essential.
The bond formed by tank crews is that which sets a tank regiment apart from other units and makes it unique. The motto of 1 Armd Regt is ‘Paratus’. This holds a sense of deep significance in the context of a tank regiment constantly honing its skills and professionalism; one prepared to win at all times.
The Role of the RAAC is to: “locate, identify, capture and destroy the enemy, by day or night, in combination with other arms, using fire and manoeuvre”. While there is no doubt that the Combat Experimentation Group (CXG) is doing important work, it is different work to that of a tank regiment in the Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC). In particular, it is not constantly honing the professional skills needed to destroy the enemy. Nothing else matters in a regiment equipped with tanks.
The only answer to the loss of combat power suffered by the RAAC is for the CA to make the CXG an independent trials unit and for 1 Armd Regt to be reraised in Townsville to command the tank squadrons currently under command of 2 Cav Regt (making 3 Brigade a complete armoured brigade at last). The esprit-de-corps, pride, and camaraderie of 1 Armd Regt may then be gradually rebuilt until, once again, it is focussed on destroying the enemy.
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
FILE PHOTO: Australian soldiers and an Australian Army M1A1 Abrams conduct an amphibious assault during Exercise Keris Woomera 2024 at Banongan Beach, Indonesia. Photo by Corporal Janet Pan.
Thanks for reading the letter and taking the time to comment.
Sometimes someone can see things differently, i.e. in a way which makes us realise that what we’ve taken for granted, deserves closer attention. Not long ago, a senior officer made the point that “to make public statements contrary to a known Defence position is called insubordination”.
One might accept that this to be so … that is, until someone highlights the fundamental mistake: “it behoves every professional soldier to contribute their views clearly and professionally for the better in any situation. It would be dereliction of duty NOT to do so’.
Lt Col Cameron has made some logical points – my bippy is that as all these `new’ technologies will be across all arms it would have been more appropriate to second staffing from all arms units to ensure all skill sets and experience levels were involved in the formulation of testing and application of the new systems.
My background (Vietnam era) was in APC and Cav units and I appreciate my shortfall in understanding the nuiances of higher level command and control functions.
Well Geoff, I guess what makes sense to the normal person becomes different when viewed from lofty heights, such a pity that some of the reasons could not be shared with the normal people.
Bruce, you have obviously written this from not only your heart, but with logic and an understanding of what it means to be part of an Arms Corps, particularly an Armoured Regiment.
Unfortunately, logic and understanding, and certainly heart, are becoming less common in those who “lead” the Defence Force. To me, they appear to preparing for their PhD, their post Military Guest Speaker engagements, or perhaps political life.
Nailed it Bob.
Actually the thought just occurred to me that if the Star ranks were pared back funding would immediately become available for all kinds of projects.