The questions Chief of Army and his Chief of Staff declined to answer

These are the questions that the CA and his Chief of Staff, have been asked to answer (and for which no reply has yet been received):

1. Why was 1 Armd Regt stripped of its tanks and made a non-combatant, rather than creating a new unit for the new role?
Why not create a new unit to undertake the new role … rather than sacrificing a unit with 75 years’ experience crewing tanks, forfeiting its heritage and traditions (including three Battle-Honours and a Unit Citation for Gallantry)? Pretending that 1 Armd Regt’s heritage can be maintained by the Combat Experimentation Group (CXG), a unit not equipped with tanks, is a subterfuge too far.

2. Were any other units, apart from 1 Armd Regt, considered for the role; if so, which units were they?
Evaluating new and emerging technologies is not something that only 1 Armd Regt can do. Any unit, from any Corps, has the ability to do it. As surprising as it is, it appears that 1 Armd Regt was the only unit considered. Why? [Conspiracy theory suggests that the real intention was to reduce the size of the RAAC, while at the same time selecting a unit which was sure to make a success of the role.]

3. Is 1 Armd Regt’s new role to be a permanent one (in terms of current thinking)? If it is not permanent, how long is it to last?
The men and women of 1 Armd Regt deserve to know what their long-term future is to be. The CXG provides a very different career path to that of the RAAC and its traditional role. Is it intended that the two different paths will be kept separate, or are the two streams to be combined to provide a single career path?

4. Is 3 Brigade’s missing tank squadron, cavalry squadron and battle group headquarters, a permanent consequence of 1 Armd Regt’s new role; if not, will the 2025 RAAC Corps Conference recommendation to raise a new RAAC headquarters to command 3 Brigade’s tanks, be adopted?
3 Brigade’s missing RAAC sub-units will have a massive impact in terms of the Armoured Corps’ traditional role. 1 Armd Regt might be able to act as a battlegroup headquarters (BG HQ) in terms of combat experimentation. The absence of two squadrons and a BG HQ in which to gain experience and promotional opportunities in its traditional role, is what will really hurt the RAAC.

5. Will the role of the RAAC be changed from “locate, identify, capture and destroy the enemy, by day or night, in combination with other arms, using fire and manoeuvre” to include the non-combatant CXG; if so, what wording is to be used?
The RAAC’s role is a combat one in which the survival of its units depends on outperforming an adversary. This is totally different to the role of the CXG in evaluating new technology. The roles bear no similarity and are completely incompatible. The only sensible option is for the CXG to become an appropriately named trials unit, along the lines of those that have existed in the past, e.g. Tropical Trials Establishment; and for 1 Armd Regt to return to its Armoured Corps role.

6. The Chief of the Defence Force has said that 1 Armd Regt will “continue to carry the Standard presented by King Charles III”; how can this happen when the Standard was presented on the basis of 1 Armd Regt being a tank regiment (the equivalent of a Dragoon Guards unit in the early days of the British Army)? As the unit is no longer a tank regiment, there is no entitlement to retain the Standard.
The traditions that the Australian Army has adopted from the British Army are not ones that the Australian Army has any latitude to change. Unless 1 Armd Regt is to be returned to its role as a tank regiment, there is no option other than foregoing the honour of retaining its Standard.

7. Was 1 Armd Regt selected to be the CXG in order to save money in the Defence budget by reducing RAAC operating costs and manning numbers?
While this might be the ultimate conspiracy theory, refusal to explain the reasoning behind the decision to strip 1 Armd Regt of its tanks, adds credibility to it. There is no doubt that the AUKUS project places enormous strain on the Defence budget. There is also no doubt that a tank regiment’s operating costs are particularly expensive. If it was truthful, it would be nice to receive a direct answer of ‘no’ to this question (thereby enabling alternative reasoning to be examined).

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

 

FILE PHOTO: An Australian Army soldier from the 1st Armoured Regiment controls controls an M134D minigun remote weapon station attached to a modular robotic vehicle during Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025 at Townsville Field Training Area, Queensland. Photo by Lance Corporal Caitlyn Davill.

.

.


.


.