How is change brought about?  By rightfulness and persistence!

Will 1st Armoured Regiment become a tank regiment again?  Will it resume its rightful place as part of Australia’s only armoured brigade in Townsville? 

Persistence goes a long way towards changing things.  Change doesn’t just happen by itself, however; someone has to take a stand (and defend the rightfulness of their position … for its own sake!).  

Some examples of successful submissions, resulting in the changes requested, are copied below.  

Submission Seeking Approval to Emblazon the Battle Honour ‘Coral-Balmoral’ on the 1st Armoured Regiment Standard.

“Following the First World War, a British/Imperial Battle Honours Committee (BHC) decided that emblazoned battle honours should be limited to ten per regiment (because of constraints on the available space on colours etc).  The same constraint was imposed following the Second World War.

Because of differences in scale, the limit set for Korean War battle honours was one theatre honour and one battle honour.  This decision was initially accepted by the Australian Army.  Twenty years later, however, it was considered that the Battle of Maryang San was so important that the BHC edict would no longer be complied with — both Maryang San and Kapyong Battle Honours would be emblazoned.  

The limit of one theatre honour and two battle honours was maintained by the Vietnam BHC.  

1^st Armoured Regiment was awarded three battle honours for Vietnam, but only Hat Dich and Binh Ba are emblazoned on its Standard.  Despite Coral-Balmoral’s overwhelming importance in terms of the Australian Army’s military heritage, the battle honour is not able to be emblazoned. 

Is it not time to question a policy founded in the days of Empire which denies an Australian unit the right to proudly proclaim all its battle honours?

This submission argues that the use of the First and Second World Wars as benchmarks on which to base the number of battle honours able to be emblazoned on the colours etc of today’s Army, is outdated and completely inappropriate in terms of acknowledging the service to the Nation selflessly given by Australian soldiers in modern conflicts.” 

As the Second World War was different to the First World War, so are modern conflicts different again.  Why should the extent to which today’s soldiers can be honoured be based on circumstances from over 70 years ago?

Why should those former members of 1st Armoured Regiment who fought and earned three battle honours for Vietnam, only be able to see two of them emblazoned on their Regiment’s Standard?  Why should members of that Regiment today, not be able to fully appreciate the significance of all the battle honours their forebears were awarded?

The emblazing should be completed as soon as possible.  It will further boost unit morale, provide enhanced public profile of the gallantry of soldiers who fought during those iconic battles, and boost the public profile of Army’s heritage.  Furthermore, for the ever- decreasing numbers of veterans who participated in the battles and are still alive, it will be seen as public acknowledgement of their job well done, before they all succumb to the ravages of time.

Submission Seeking Approval to Correct the Vietnam Theatre Honour on the  1st Armoured Regiment Standard

“You’ll appreciate that for those who were deployed on active duty on behalf of their nation, not a day goes past when they don’t think about those they served with.  It goes without saying that the nation expects that their service will be recorded accurately, especially in the places that most reverently acknowledge their sacrifices.

I was taken aback, therefore, when I learnt that the Vietnam Theatre Honour on the 1^st Armoured Regiment Standard was incorrect.  ‘Vietnam 1968-72’, should read ‘Vietnam 1968 -71’.  

Armies have carried rallying symbols into battle for centuries, e.g. the eagle standards of the Romans.  Today, heavy dragoon guard units (i.e. tank regiments) are awarded modern-day standards, in recognition of their place at the point of battle. 

The design of a standard is approved by the Sovereign and presented to a unit by the Sovereign or her representative.  It carries the battle honours of its unit and is consecrated as a reminder of the past and an inspiration for the future, when the courage which was that of the unit’s predecessors, is to be called upon again.  

The 1st Armoured Regiment is the only unit within the Australian Army to be presented with a Standard. Guidons and colours are carried by other units.

I am very much aware of the error in the date, as my tank troop was the last to serve in Vietnam and we were withdrawn from operations on 30 August 1971.  The tank squadron left Vietnam the following month.”

This might not seem an important matter.  Imagine, however, if the Standard for the British Household Cavalry was to be found to bear the Battle Honour ‘Waterloo 1816’ (instead of ‘Waterloo 1815’).  There would be national outcry in the UK and the Standard would be immediately re-emblazoned correctly.  Why should the service of the Household Cavalry be any different to that of the 1^st Armoured Regiment?  When lives are placed on the line, the bravery and courage of those involved is just the same. 

How did the error come about?  On 18 April 1979, the Vietnam Battle Honours Committee met to consider if a theatre honour should be awarded for Vietnam.  It was agreed that the Theatre Honour ‘South Vietnam 1965–1972’ was appropriate.  (Later approved as ‘Vietnam 1965–72’.)  Eligible units included 1^st Armoured Regiment, 3^rd Cavalry Regiment and the Royal Australian Regiment.

It was not intended that the theatre honour was to be awarded, irrespective of the period that a unit served in Vietnam.  The Regimental Colour of 7 Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, for example, is emblazoned with ‘Vietnam 1967-68’ and Vietnam ‘1970-71’.  The Guidon for the 3^rd Cavalry Regiment is emblazoned with ‘Vietnam 1965-72’.  The intention for the honour awarded to 1^st Armoured Regiment was obviously meant to acknowledge the period that the Regiment served in Vietnam.  The arrival year is correct; however, the departure year was 1971, not 1972.  

Can you please initiate action to recognise the service of 850 members of 1^st Armoured Regiment in Vietnam, by having the Standard of 1^st Armoured Regiment re-emblazoned ‘Vietnam 1968-1971’.

.

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

.

.

FILE PHOTO: A Centurion tank of C Squadron, 1st Armoured Regiment, moving through the jungle in South Vietnam. June 1971. Australian War Memorial file FOD/71/0305/VN.

.

.


.


.