The shameful treatment of Army’s most senior Regiment!

“Shameful describes something so bad, wrong, or disgraceful that it causes feelings of shame and dishonour; reflecting a failure to meet moral standards and violating accepted principles of right and wrong.”

1st Armoured Regiment came into being on 7 Jul 49.  Seventy-five years later, it commemorated its milestone anniversary on the Cambrai Day Parade of 22 Nov 24. 

The commemoration was held under false pretences, however!  

On 28 Sep 23, it was announced that “the 1st Armoured Regiment will be re-roled as an experimental unit to deliver and integrate emerging technologies”.   This came as a complete shock … all the preliminary planning had been made in secret!  Stakeholders, including former COs, were the last to know.  

Realising that there would’ve been an enormous backlash if the 75th Anniversary arrangements were cancelled, the annual mounted parade went ahead – for the last time (with the knowledge that, immediately afterwards, the Regiment would be stripped of its tanks).

Chief of Army and his staff refuse to answer these questions:

An Army experimentation unit was considered so urgent and important, that in order to create one, a tank regiment was removed from the ORBAT.  Is this a permanent change as far as the RAAC is concerned?    

Why was it necessary to reduce the combat power of 3 Brigade (designated as an armoured brigade) by a tank squadron, a cavalry squadron and a battlegroup headquarters (especially at a time when the nation’s strategic circumstances are described as ‘perilous’?). 

Why was the 2nd Cavalry Regiment forced to become a unit with dual roles of close fire support to infantry and reconnaissance, when these roles are incompatible for a single unit?

An experimentation unit has no entitlement to carry a Standard, why has 1 Armd Regt’s Standard (with its battle-honours and Unit Citation for Gallantry) not been ‘laid up’ in accord with its consecrated status?  Why has the unit’s heritage been allowed to be desecrated in this way?

Why was 1 Armd Regt chosen to become the experimentation unit, knowing that this means the loss of training and skills which take decades to re-establish?

Given that a tank regiment has been removed from the ORBAT to become a non-combatant experimentation unit, does this mean that the need for RAAC close fire support and reconnaissance is less now than it was previously?   

If the above is true, are the two ARA units, 2 Cav Regt and 2/14 LHR (QMI), to be the limit of the RAAC’s combat capability into the future?

What is the justification for reducing the Nation’s armoured capacity and combat power in this way?  Is it to save money in the Defence budget?

Is it correct to say that two squadrons are to be the maximum tank strength of the RAAC in the future (as three squadrons would mean a regiment and that would necessitate either the return of 1 Armd or the creation of a new unit)?

It would be interesting to see the responses that readers of CONTACT might offer, in the comments section below.

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

.

.

FILE PHOTO: An Australian Army M1A1 Abrams from 2nd Cavalry Regiment conducts an amphibious assault during Exercise Keris Woomera 2024 at Banongan Beach, Indonesia. Photo by Corporal Janet Pan.

.

.


.


.