In our ADF superiors we trust (or hope)
On 7 Nov 24, the Chief of Army said: “I’ve set four strategic priorities for our Army. The central one is trust. It’s trust within our own teams within the Army. It’s trust with the society that we serve and trust with the government that we serve, the government of the day”.
Society’s trust in the Army is critical to maintaining its legitimacy within our democracy. Gaining this trust, requires that the CA’s decisions be seen to result in fair and just outcomes.
This is exactly the opposite of what happened when the CA stripped tanks from 1st Armoured Regiment and gave it a non-RAAC role evaluating emerging technologies (completely contrary to the recommendations of the RAAC leadership team).
Erosion of trust was inevitable, given the secrecy involved in the decision making. In a word, the RAAC was ambushed. There was no prior consultation: just an announcement on 28 Sep 23: “The 1st Armoured Regiment will be re-roled as an experimental unit to deliver and integrate emerging technologies. This will remain in Adelaide”.
Who was ‘in the know?’ One imagines that the Commanding Officer 1 Armd Regt was informed (confidentially) in advance … rather than just having the decision ‘sprung on him’. But honestly, who knows what information was shared (or with whom)? Some rumours suggested that recruiting shortfalls had left many units ‘hollow’. Was this a factor which somehow influenced the future of 1 Armd Regt?
As was probably inevitable, there was a leak. Three days prior to the announcement, former CO 1 Armd Regt, Major General Fergus McLachlan, AO (Retd), tweeted speculation that the unit could be absorbed into the 2 Cav Regt. [This is partly what transpired … 2 Cav Regt was expanded to four squadrons, two tank and two cavalry; despite the roles of close fire support and reconnaissance being incompatible for a single unit.]
When asked for his thoughts after the announcement, General McLachlan said “… let’s not lose sight of the fact that an already very small Army loses two combat units (7RAR and 1 Armd Regt) to resource new capability”.
The role of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC) is to locate, identify, capture and destroy the enemy, by day or night, in combination with other arms, using fire and manoeuvre. It is the task of a tank regiment to destroy the enemy — plain and simple (but many facetted in terms of the skills and expertise involved to reach operational ‘readiness’). 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 had been a guardian of this capability for 75 years.
Defence bureaucracy was in overdrive trying to ensure that the news that was soon to ‘break’, was well received. It seems that influence at a very high level was brought to bear to ensure that members of 1 Armd Regt understood the ‘national significance’ of the new role that the unit would soon be committed to. In effect, they were ‘brainwashed’ to this end. Anyone who wished to continue as a member of a tank crew (a role which overnight had become one of lesser importance) would be transferred to 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Townsville.
Why was the importance of delivering shock action in armoured vehicles, belittled in this way? The Royal Tank Regiment describes this role well: “We are masters of mounted close combat, fusing mobility and firepower to shatter the will and cohesion of the foe”. Suddenly, however, the critical skills involved in destroying the enemy, became of secondary importance to those of a unit employed to evaluate new and emerging technologies.
What’s all this say about ‘Trust’? Can the society that is served by the Army, trust it completely? Sadly, an organisation that doesn’t consult its stakeholders, isn’t one that can be trusted. The same can be said for an organisation that ignores the overwhelming recommendations of its senior officers.
The institutional integrity of the Army is, undoubtedly, put at risk in such circumstances.
What is the future for a 1st Armoured Regiment which is no longer in harm’s way and can no longer strive to be the ultimate expression of our nation’s will and resolve? Can it ever be the same, even with important new responsibilities in other fields as a non-combatant?
Of course not.
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
.
.
FILE PHOTO: An Australian Army Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 main battle tank during a live-fire serial as part of a qualification course for Royal Australian Armoured Corps soldiers at Puckapunyal Military Area, Victoria. Photo by Corporal Jacob Joseph.
.
.
.
.
