Why is the RAAC so subservient?
The letter below asks questions related to the Royal Australian Armoured Corps, but what is the RAAC and who represents it? The answer is that it is a broad church, comprising four ARA units and five ARES units. Its Colonel-in-Chief is HRH King Charles III. Apart from unit Honorary Colonels, there is also an RAAC Representative Hon Col. BUT, the heart of the Corps belongs to the men and women who make up its ranks, as well as the veterans and stakeholders who served previously and helped make the Corps what it is.
Why isn’t the RAAC more proactive in support of Corps matters? The reason, (as recently pointed out by the RAAC Rep Hon Col) is an acceptance that: “any utterance contrary to official policy is called insubordination”. Careers are so very easily jeopardised. As a result, no-one feels empowered to speak out, no matter how strongly they feel about an issue.
The policy is ‘don’t rock the boat’; a malaise which has come to affect all aspects of the RAAC. The abhorrent treatment of 1st Armoured Regiment is something which, surely, will get everyone’s dander up. It does … but how can anything be done, without upsetting someone?
Mustn’t bring the Corps into disrepute! The harshness of the treatment meted out to 1 Armd Regt and its stakeholders, matters not one iota. It’s ok to write a letter to complain, but that’s as far as we go. Mustn’t get above ourselves and expect either a ‘fair go’ or an explanation. Who do we think we are, after all?
It was the same when the beret was banned. There was no place for any form of public protest, even when the SASR was given an exemption because of the ‘special place’ that that Regiment occupied in the minds of the Army hierarchy. (It didn’t go amiss, of course, that the Head of Special Forces Command threatened to resign.) The Infantry did what the RAAC wanted to do, but didn’t have the gumption to achieve.
Could it be that a lack of integrity shown by the RAAC on a previous occasion, means that we don’t have the confidence to demand ethical treatment now? The circumstances involved were:
Some years ago, one particular Army acquisition was very keenly contested by a number of different manufacturers. During this period of competitive assessment, it was revealed that cash handouts amounting to tens of thousands of dollars were being made to a unit by one of the manufacturers. (The unit was to be equipped with whatever weapon system was selected from the user trials underway at the time.)
As payments direct to unit funds would show up in annual financial audits, the money was ‘masked’ by channelling it through the affiliated unit association (that entity having decided that it was not subject to the authority of Defence Instructions).
Surely, however, the Corps would have moved beyond this during the years since. Could it be, instead, that the RAAC is lacking in self-belief … i.e. ‘feeling secure enough to be itself without pretence’? There have been times when tanks were regarded as a ‘waste of space’. Jungle operations in support of infantry during WWII and Vietnam, changed such attitudes. Is it possible, however, that the ‘tank is dead’ mentality has returned? Is this the real problem that the present cohort of Army’s senior officers have re the RAAC?
3 Brigade in Townsville, Australia’s only armoured brigade, has been forced to operate short one tank squadron, a cavalry squadron and a battle-group headquarters. This is a direct consequence of making 1 Armd Regt an experimentation unit. Could it be that there is a ‘grand plan’ to reduce the size of the RAAC and make consequential savings by reducing operating costs? (Remembering that it was not so many years ago that track mileage limitations were imposed on RAAC units for this very reason.)
It used to be that one thing to watch out for was nepotism; the practice of those in power favouring relatives or friends. Today, however, nefarious behaviour is more subtle than ever. Honesty and openness can quite easily be given a back seat (next to trust and ethics) and nobody would know.
The secrecy surrounding 1 Armd Regt’s demise as a tank regiment, is a perfect example. There may well be a grand plan to reduce the strength of the RAAC, but the Defence barons are experts in sleight of hand and chances are that their plan will never be revealed. Why won’t the CA explain his intentions for 1 Armd Regt? Presumably its role as an experimentation unit is a permanent one (why otherwise would the costs involved be incurred?).
Will 3 Brigade ever become a full armoured brigade, or is its destiny tied to that of a cavalry regiment trying to balance the conflicting roles of close fire support for infantry, with brigade reconnaissance?
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
.
.
FILE PHOTO: Soldiers of 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Townsville pull a 62-tonne Abrams tank – for PT.
.
.
.
.
