Infantry fighting vehicles displace core armour roles

A series of five articles was published by CONTACT during October and November 2018, titled “Armour in the Australian Army: Is there something wrong?” – Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, in which I argued the case for the RAAC to crew the now soon-to-be delivered Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs): 

“The result – if the present intention for the infantry to operate the IFVs goes ahead – is that infantry will have been granted a new role and the RAAC will be divested of one.  Given that the six dismounts are likely to support the IFV when fighting through the objective, would it not make more sense for the RAAC to crew both the tanks and IFVs during operations?  Overall command of the combined-arms force should be vested in the best commander, no matter his Corps.” 

The lack of vision available to the infantry while in the IFV means that, irrespective of whether the IFV is there to support the dismounts or vice versa, they are at a considerable disadvantage when having to exit the IFV ‘blind’ on the objective. 

There was never any chance of the infantry-centric Army adopting this course.  Nevertheless, the case had to be made on behalf of the RAAC, as the leading proponent of manoeuvre warfare.  

The RAInf is now grappling with the establishment of a career path for IFV crews and their instructors.  Interestingly, the AUKUS cost-saving imperative resulted in the 2023 Defence Strategic Review reducing the number of IFVs from 450 to 129.  [The ‘Redback’ IFV weighs 42 tonnes and is armed with a 30mm cannon, 12.7 mm remote weapon station, and ATGM.  It is expected to enter service with 3RAR (3 Brigade) in 2027.]

Between 22 April and 25 November 2025 (when these statistics were compiled), CONTACT published 81 letters related to the demise of 1st Armoured Regiment.  [How great it is for the veterans of 1 Armd Regt to have such a supporter!]  The letters attracted 207,952 views, an average of 2567 per letter.

Four letters, however, stood out from the rest … registering over 10,000 views each.  A seemingly incredible number!  One can’t but wonder what it was that made these stand out from the others, as far as readers were concerned?

That with the most views, was ‘Open letter to CO and RSM, 1st Armoured Regiment’.  This was published on 19 June, notching up over 13,000 views.  The reason for this is explained by the fact that 31 readers made comments.  The highest number recorded.

‘Why bother campaigning for 1 Armd Regt to be returned to a combat role?’, published on the 6th of July, attracted 12,215 views and seven comments.  Interestingly, ‘George’ said as part of the comment he made … “publishing these letters is making you a leper within the Armoured Corps community. Your views may be shared by many, but your approach isn’t working and your name is now the butt of the joke”.  I didn’t reply, but if I had, I’d have said that ‘If you believe in something, don’t give up on it because of what others say”.

The third letter was ‘Army’s Transformation: Sadly, It’s Not All Good’.  This was published on 23 July, with 10,123 views and nine positive comments. One of which was: “So inept to remove a brilliant Regiment from service to have it become a non-entity without understanding the gained experience that First Armoured Regiment has. This is wasting years of know-how and delivering no beneficial result.”

Finally, What Will the Chief of Army’s Reply be? received 10,114 views when published on 17 May.  A letter to the CA was copied and part of the interest would’ve been explained by those wanting to see its content. [No response from the CA has been received, nor is it ever likely to be.]  

Two comments were made about this letter, one of which was from me.  Someone raised the fact that I should be more cognisant of national security.  I answered as follows: 

“Dear ‘Trooper’, Well done for considering security issues. The thing is, sometimes it’s only our democratic freedom of speech that enables shortcomings in defence preparedness to be made known. Bringing public attention to bear is the only means that concerned citizens have available to them (after writing to responsible ministers). 

In the letter, I had gone on to say: “On a different matter … a story about the experiences of a 93-year-old former RAAC member is currently being drafted, and what an amazing story it is!  Enlisting in 1951; learning driving and servicing (D&S) skills for three A vehicles and two B vehicles with the cadre staff at 1 RNSWL; teaching RAAC recruits how to drive a Matilda tank at 12 National Service Training Battalion at Holsworthy; and then Centurions arrive, and the story continues”.  Maybe this helped spark interest.  [The ‘History’ article was subsequently published in CONTACT under the title “The RAAC’s First Days: Brian Agnew’s Service”.]

Another letter, one which got 8120 views, was also associated with comments.  It was Comments on the Demise of 1st Armoured Regiment, published on 7 June.  A selection of 13 comments was copied.  These demonstrated the capacity of readers to offer informed judgements and revealed considerable insight and awareness across the defence spectrum.

There’s no doubt that CONTACT does a magnificent job in informing readers about Defence matters.  Without media outlets such as this, debate would be completely stifled (a technique that Defence uses to maximum effect).

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

.

.

FILE PHOTO: Hanwha Redback infantry fighting vehicle.

.

.


.


.