Thanks to serving soldier for insightful comments re 1st Armd Regt

A current serving member of 1st Armoured Regiment recently wrote an open letter to me. (I’d previously written a similar letter to the CO and RSM; sadly they declined, or were not allowed, to respond.) The serving member, together with a colleague, enabled a number of misconceptions about the unit to be clarified and this was greatly appreciated. I sincerely hope that they weren’t punished for taking the initiative as they did. (While the opportunity to comment further has been closed down, at least we’re not like other regimes that ban the Internet altogether.)

The following paragraph encapsulates the thrust of the letter received:
“Isn’t it better to have members of our own Corps, the end users, being the ones to work with these equipment manufacturers, tell them what it is we actually need, have a say in the kit we get and how it’s used? Rather than dragging the name of the unit you claim to love through the mud you should be proud that 1 Armd is leading the charge.”

There is no doubt that there should always be a means by which the ‘end-users’ can influence the nature of the materiel they are compelled to use. I agree entirely … not just for major items of equipment, but for everything: rations, ammunition, clothing etc. I’ve had personal experience of this process working well, having been the trials officer for the RAAC’s Scorpion turreted, Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle. I’m also aware of occasions when the opposite was the case. During one attack in Vietnam, the enemy’s bunkers wouldn’t collapse under the weight of our tanks and my troop didn’t have enough main armament rounds to engage them all; so, I ordered grenades to be used. Imagine our surprise when the grenades failed to explode (extra circlips had been fitted without us being told).

The work 1 Armd Regt is doing to develop counter-drone technology is also very important. (It is to be hoped that the Combat Experimental Group (CXG) won’t become fixated with drones and will also be involved in the development of Active Protection Systems (APS) for tanks.) There is no doubt that the CXG fulfils an important need for Army. Of course, it was General Stuart’s predecessors who should’ve initiated action to form a unit to manage new and emerging technologies. Not having done so, it was left to the present CA to respond as he did (with 1 Armd Regt being the unit sacrificed).

Those of us who beseech the CA to return 1 Armd Regt to a combat role, do so for two reasons. Firstly, the CXG is a great idea, however, it can’t be made possible at the expense of our sole tank regiment; leaving 3 Brigade deficient a tank sqn, a cav sqn, and a battlegroup headquarters. 1 Armd Regt and CXG must exist as separate entities in their own right.

Secondly, it’s been said that “1 Armd Regt is still on the ORBAT and maintains a combat role, albeit focussed on experimentation”. This is impossible. A unit can’t be a CXG one minute and combat-ready the next. A unit is either a combat unit or it isn’t; one or the other.

A combat unit trains and hones its professionalism and skills constantly; this is especially the case if the unit is a tank regiment. Not to do so, is to gamble with lives.

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

 

FILE PHOTO: A controller vehicle is followed by two optionally crewed combat vehicles during a land autonomous systems teaming demonstration at Puckapunyal Military Area, September 2024. Photo by Corporal Michael Currie.

.

.


.


.