Is an Army unit something that the Chief of Army can do with as he likes?
Share the post "Is an Army unit something that the Chief of Army can do with as he likes?"
He’s the one in charge … so, why not? If he wants a unit to undertake a new role managing emerging technology, what’s wrong with him simply stripping tanks from 1st Armoured Regiment and making it a non-combatant?
What’s wrong … is that a unit is much more than just the numbers of those serving in it at a particular time. A unit is what esprit-de-corps, heritage and tradition, makes it. This is accrued during the service of former members; and maintained and built upon, by those currently serving.
An Army unit has stakeholders in the same way that a business does. These are people who have an interest in it and who are impacted by decisions affecting it, i.e. former and serving members.
1 Armd Regt has crewed tanks for 75 years. Stripping it of its tanks is obviously a decision of major significance for stakeholders. One would anticipate widespread consultation. There was none.
Nor were options involving other contender units, seriously entertained. Serving members were given a choice: either stay with the unit in Adelaide and become a Combat Experimentation Group (CXG); or transfer to 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Townville, for those who wished to continue crewing tanks. Former members were not consulted; nor were they given any warning about what was to happen.
The announcement on 28 Sep 2023, was a complete surprise: “The 1st Armoured Regiment will be re-roled as an experimental unit to deliver and integrate emerging technologies. This will remain in Adelaide.”
1 Armd Regt was awarded three battle-honours and a Unit Citation for Gallantry for its service in support of Infantry and the conduct of independent operations, in Vietnam. The nature of what this involved, i.e. destroying the enemy, is described best by the Royal Tank Regiment:
“We are masters of mounted close combat, fusing mobility and firepower to shatter the will and cohesion of the foe. This is shock action – the sudden and concentrated application of violence”.
Decades spent developing the expertise to destroy the enemy’s will and cohesion through shock action — have been completely wasted. So much for the ideal of building a legacy to pass on to those following; a legacy encapsulating 75 years’ heritage and tradition. It all comes to nothing now!
As far as the Chief of Army is concerned, a tank regiment is just another Army unit. He doesn’t understand the nature of the close bonds formed by crews operating within the confines of their tank. These are bonds which reach into every corner of the unit and make it unique. A tank crew is a highly skilled team, able to collectively execute their duties in a way which makes their tank an effective weapon of war; one capable of shock action.
Members of the 1 Armd Regt Association expressed themselves as follows:
“The pain that Army’s decision has caused the 1st Armoured Regiment veterans, particularly those who served in combat in South Vietnam, cannot be understated. To be frank, they all feel gutted as they watch the Regiment stripped of its tanks and armoured warfighting capability. They see the demise of the Regiment’s esprit-de-corps that they feel they spilt blood to create.
That esprit-de-corps continues to define much of who those veterans see themselves to be, their self-esteem, their pride, and what they carry and draw strength from daily. To them, it feels like betrayal and has generated fear and bitterness in a good number. They sense the risk this poses to the generations of soldiers who will fight and die in the future defence of Australia’s interests.”
There is little doubt that 1 Armd Regt will, at some point in the future, return to being a tank regiment. One has to wonder how long this will take and at what financial cost? In the meantime, Australia’s only armoured brigade is forced to operate without a tank squadron, a cavalry squadron and a battle-group headquarters.
Not only are false lessons being inculcated, but the RAAC is also missing out on experience being gained across the Corps in a range of differing appointments. Furthermore, the brigade’s sole armoured unit is compelled to operate on a dual-role basis with tank and cavalry squadrons; despite these roles being incompatible.
One has to assume that operational readiness and combat power are not high priorities for the CA.
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
.
.
FILE PHOTO: An Australian Army M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams main battle tank provides support for soldiers during an urban assault at Shoalwater Bay Training Area as part of Exercise Talisman Sabre 25. Photo by Corporal Michael Rogers.
.
.
.
.
Share the post "Is an Army unit something that the Chief of Army can do with as he likes?"
Why is this person continuously posting these letters to the CA get a life, go to therapy, get a new hobby!
It’s an Army not your personal toy or something you owned?
Much as one can sympathise with the passion of the author, exigencies of the service take priority. The RAR once had nine battalions. Since the early 70s, six of the nine battalions have seen significant disruption. 2,4,5,7,8 and 9 RAR have seen mergers, demergers, role changes, name changes etc at no ultimate detriment to the competence and skill of the units. A quick look at the disbandment of enormous numbers of British units since WWII will show an Order of Battle unrecognisable over the period of eighty years but the competence and spirit of British Forces on the ground have not diminished. I would be far more concerned that units have lost autonomy rather than identity. I understand that unit messes are a thing of the past and that even most single soldiers seem to be encouraged to live out rather than in barracks where comradeship is really fostered
Note that 1RAR, as the senior battalion, has not been merged. 1st Armoured Regiment is the senior unit in the RAAC and hence, the senior unit I the Australian Army.
Its time to let go of the past and move on. Everything changes and that’s OK
It is becoming extremely tiring to read these, which is the equivalent to the effort that diggers apply to the EKO in order for it to occur. If we just complain enough, it might change?
A common theme amongst all these articles is the focus on the history, battle honours and such. It lacks vision, it lacks the understanding that a tank can be destroyed by systems that are substantially cheaper than a tank. This is the classic ‘but it has always been this way’ fallacy. We must look to the future of warfare, we must upskill our people and we must put bodies to this experimentation effort. Overall, this is what is killing those who are serving, this complete lack of vision and ability to think outside of this rigid old school mentality.
Your assertion that this is just a “that’s the way it has always been “,shows your lack of knowledge of armoured warfare. It has changed markedly over the years, but is still relevant. Just ask the Israelis.
I think you’ve misunderstood the message. Essentially what has been said is that 1 AR always had tanks and therefore it should have tanks. It has battle honours because of its armour and therefore should have the same role.
As someone who is former 2Cav having this split role is ridiculous as it was well said, Cav and Armour aren’t operationally compatible.
Hi 2 Cav,
Thanks for your support. What really gets me is the secrecy and lack of openness involved. The Chief of Army says that one of his top priorities is creating trust in society, yet there was zero consultation with the RAAC (the senior leadership of which were united in opposing tanks being stripped from 1 Armd Regt). The rationale for the decision still hasn’t been explained. It seems that the only person to know in advance of the public announcement in Sep 23, was the CO.
Hi 2 Cav (again),
Just realised … by “rationale”, I mean why was it necessary to change the role of a unit like 1 Armd Regt (with 75 years’ service, three Battle-honours and a Unit Citation for Gallantry) rather than raising a new experimentation unit? Was the thinking that of saving money in the defence budget (for the AUKUS subs) or was there a recruiting shortfall? There is no doubting the importance of the experimentation unit, but why did 1 Armd Regt have to be removed from the ORBAT?
No one will explain!
I honestly don’t think he needs to explain it. I’ve done 17+ years and I’m an NCO and I’d say majority of decisions only have merit to the commander who makes them. The rest of us are left wondering why and now working through the ‘reinventing the wheel’ process we see time and time again as a result of new commanders.
The why I think isn’t that difficult in the initial iteration of CXG. Tactical experience to apply CXG directives, some focal points surround automation of the hardware they use etc. I would imagine raising an entirely new unit at this stage of trialling such a capability is infinitely more difficult than re-roling one.
Hi NCO,
I think that the CA would agree with you and that’s why he did as he did … but at what cost over the long-term?
The removal of a tank regiment from the ORBAT is massive loss of combat power and crew skills from which the RAAC may never recover. The bonds that unite tank crews have been destroyed. Using tanks to close with and destroy the enemy is a role which used to be entrusted to a single unit. The ACR ‘trial’ proved the wisdom of this. The dual roles of recon and tanks are incompatible in a single unit. How many years will it take to make good the loss of battlecraft and skills involved? It will be interesting to see the position soon to be taken by Gen Stuart’s successor.
I would have thought in these days of enlightenment that some comment would have been provided so that all personnel would understand the what’s and why’s.
Not a matter of questioning the decision but to ensure that the troops understand the rationale, if the message is not clearly understood then the result is as we have seen. The important point is that when people are being led they have an idea of the direction.
Easy to say as I have not been involved and perhaps steps I mentioned may have taken place, still seems some misunderstanding though.
I understand that passion and drive from proud former members of the Regiment. Your dedication is commendable. In my honest opinion, warfare is advancing faster than ever, the Regiment has been given the massive task of being Army’s first CXG, this decision I’m sure was no a simple one to be made, however I truly believe that the Regiment was selected as it was up to the task. As you state the masters of close mounted combat, combined with the best Cavalry soldiers in the world and selected strong performing battle hardened Infantry soldiers. I couldn’t think of anyone better to make sure the very best emerging technology gets selected, tested and brought into service, to protect and advance our Army. Have you asked any of the current members of the Regiment? From what I have been told they are doing an excellent job and are enjoying the work they are doing.
Hit the nail on the head
What concerns me is the sudden impact that must have been for those with families … to either follow the ‘career’ and relocate to T’ville; or stay in Adelaide because of either the new job attraction or children’s schooling (or both).
Seems to me that there should be more to career planning than a sudden choice such as this having to be made.
This is extremely disconnected from the reality of the entirety of Army. Here we are concerned about a singular ECN posting (which everyone does) to a new location but disregard the other many ECNs who face the same struggle every 2-3 years. This can’t be a reason to use as a means to justify your issues with what has happened at 1 AR. I’m onto my 12th move with two kids. I’ve changed ECNs and done specialist training. It is hard to contain my frustration at this statement honestly.
Well written article and great points made – helps me appreciate the significance of what has happened and the adverse effect on moràle and warfighting capabilities… But the short answer to your thesis is yes, CA can and just has done what he wants, and I guess only CDF could stop him?
What more would you expect from a Defence Department which is more interested in DEI quotas than having enough people to properly fulfil the needs of the Defence Force?