How will the new history of RAAC depict 2023/24?
The first volume of the RAAC history was written by the late Maj Gen R N L Hopkins, CBE. It covered the period up until 1972, i.e. the end of the Vietnam War. The second volume is currently being written by Lt Col Leo Purdy, RAAC (Ret’d) … a widely published author on armoured issues.
The Corps history was, in fact, mentioned in a recent letter to ‘CONTACT’:
“So how did it happen that the Australian Army’s senior-most unit was designated to be stripped of its tanks, and, on top of this, be given a non-RAAC role? Cost cutting is known to be involved, but to what degree did this influence the decision?
What discussions took place? What were the options considered … surely there were alternatives? Who influenced the discussions the most and what were the reasons for this? Was everything openly discussed and records kept, or were outside influences involved?
These are the questions that must be answered and recorded in the history of the RAAC.”
There are many other questions that need to be answered.
Here are some suggestions …
Why did the RAAC Representative Honorary Colonel not inform HRH, King Charles III, of what had happened to the senior regiment of the RAAC (for which he is the Colonel-in-Chief)?
Why did the RAAC Rep Hon Col not inform the Royal Tank Regiment what had happened to its affiliated unit?
Why was there no consultation with 1st Armoured Regiment’s Hon Col prior to stripping his unit of its tanks?
What advice did Brig James Davis, AM, the Director General, Future Land Warfare and former Commanding Officer, 2nd Cavalry Regiment, provide to the Chief of Army? (It’s understood that it was contrary to the position taken by the RAAC Corps Conference, i.e. form RHQ 1 Armd Regt and have it command the tanks in Townsville.)
An army unit is much more than just the numbers of those serving in it at a particular time … it 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. This being the case, why was the senior unit of the Australian Army, demoted after 75 years’ service (against the recommendations of the highest ranked officers of its own Corps)?
Why was 1 Armd Regt designated to be the Combat Experimentation Group, rather than any other Army unit? Were any other options, apart from 1 Armd Regt, considered?
Why did the CO 2 Cav Regt boast publicly (with the support of the then Hon Col of the unit) that: “From the start of 2025 … the 2nd Cavalry Regiment will be the heaviest and most combat capable manoeuvre regiment in the Australian Army”, rather than supporting the position arrived at, at the RAAC Corps Conference?
The role of the RAAC is to “locate, identify, capture and destroy the enemy, by day or night, in combination with other arms, using fire and manoeuvre”. This does not include ‘experimentation’ in any capacity. Why then is 1 Armd Regt still an RAAC unit, albeit in name only?
A petition, ‘A Plea to Restore 1st Armoured Regiment’s Combat Role’ met all the requirements for it to be presented to Parliament. This was done on the 19th February, 2025. Parliamentary protocols state that the Minister is expected to respond within 90 days. Why has there been no response?
Why has Australia’s only armoured brigade (3 Brigade, Townsville) been forced to operate short a tank squadron, a cavalry squadron and a battlegroup headquarters, at a time of strategic peril?
Why must false lessons continue to be inculcated across 3 (Armoured) Brigade, when it’s based on a completely inappropriate RAAC organisation?
Why does 2 Cav Regt now have dual roles of close fire support and reconnaissance, when these two roles are incompatible within a single unit?
The Chief of the Defence Force has said that 1 Armd Regt was selected for its new role because of its “reputation as [sic] some of the Army’s foremost experts in manoeuvre warfare”. Should this reputation be true, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a unit’s suitability for evaluating new and emerging technology. What did the CDF mean when he said this?
1 Armd Regt is the only unit in the Army to have been presented with a Standard. As a tank regiment, it was the modern-day equivalent of a British Army dragoon guards’ unit, i.e. ‘heavy’ cavalry. An experimentation unit, however, has no entitlement to a Standard. When will it be laid up in accordance with its consecrated status? [The Standard can be represented to 1 Armd Regt when it becomes a tank regiment again.]
Perhaps the Chief of Army’s Chief of Staff, Brig Matthew Campbell, AM, or the RAAC HOC, Brig Andrew Moss, AM, CSM, might like to take up the challenge of answering these questions on behalf of the CA?
Then again, maybe the CA’s acceptance of 3 (Armoured) Brigade’s significant shortfall in combat power indicates a relative unimportance of its role in national defence … not enough, at least, to warrant concern at senior officer level?
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
.
.
FILE PHOTO (November 2024): Australian Army and Indonesian National Armed Forces soldiers, supported by an M1A1 Abrams tank, conduct a combined joint-force entry operation as part of Exercise Keris Woomera at Banongan Beach, Indonesia. Photo by Leading Seaman Rikki-Lea Phillips.
.
.
.
.
