The RAAC: No one home (sadly)
It’s unbelievable, but true … at first it was thought that 1st Armoured Regiment had been temporarily prevented from joining 3 Brigade because of the lack of housing available in Townsville. There is certainly a housing shortage in Townsville, but it had nothing to do with 1 Armd Regt being stripped of its tanks.
Our next explanation was that it was the Chief of Army’s desire to get a unit which could hit the ground running; thereby making up for time loss caused by Defence’s dithering about how best to manage new technologies. 1 Armd Regt was based in Adelaide and this fitted very well with a South Australian defence industry initiative.
Finally, it was realised that the real reason behind the initiative was to save money in the defence budget to help meet the cost of the AUKUS submarines. Rather than both 1 Armd Regt and 2 Cav Regt being in Townsville; 2 Cav Regt has been restructured to include two squadrons of tanks and two squadrons equipped with combat reconnaissance vehicles (CRVs). [Rather than two RAAC regiments, each with three squadrons of AFVs.]
3 Brigade was designated by the 2023 Defence Strategic Review to be the Army’s only armoured brigade. The operating cost savings associated with the reduction in tank and cavalry squadrons and battlegroup headquarters, are significant. Of course, one has to wonder at the cut back in Army’s combat power, at a time when the Nation’s strategic circumstances are described as ‘most perilous’. How could this be?
Maybe this is not the only agenda, however. What if it was really all about restructuring the RAAC (by stealth)? What if there was a line of thought which argued, not for the first time, that ‘the tank is dead’! What if those in Defence found the footage from Ukraine showing Russian tanks being destroyed by drones, to be convincing. [Of course, you don’t have to be a Guderian to see the shortcomings in Russian tank employment.]
This couldn’t really happen … or could it? 1 Armd Regt has been turned into a non-combatant; and two armoured squadrons and a battlegroup headquarters have been removed from 3 Brigade’s ORBAT.
Why has there been no mention of active protection systems (such as Trophy APS) and associated research? Could it be that this is an area designated as ‘off limits’ by Defence as far as any suggestion of funding is concerned (meaning that investment in Army’s tank fleet is a thing of the past).
All this without a whimper of protest, at a time of strategic uncertainty.
The views of Commander 3 Brigade were sought – however, he declined to respond. There is no doubt that the military hierarchy is well in control and no dissenting views are tolerated.
Is this the way it should be? Is the Chief of Army being told what he needs to know, or only what subordinates think he wants to hear? Thank goodness for CONTACT Magazine for providing a means of expressing alternative views. It would be a very bleak landscape otherwise.
RAAC Head of Corps hasn’t responded to a request for better communication as far as corps matters are concerned. Being an official publication of the RAAC, it’s argued that the Corps Journal, ‘Ironsides’, can’t accept any ‘outside’ views contrary to Army’s position.
Seems that this is what’s wanted – total control, irrespective of whether or not the views of the Defence mandarins (and those who pander to them) are militarily sound.
Enter into no debate – get no indigestion!
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
.
Image created via ChatGPT
.
.
.
.
