Army’s Transformation: Sadly, It’s Not All Good

“There are no soldiers, no team, no call signs that won’t be affected by Army’s transformation and future direction, and I couldn’t be prouder of what we are achieving.“  Lieutenant General Stuart.

This is certainly the case as far as the Royal Australian Armoured Corps is concerned; affected that is.

Part of this transformation sees the end of what, for 68 years, had been Army’s sole tank regiment (later sharing tanks and becoming one of three Armoured Cavalry Regiments). Now, after 75 years in total, 1st Armoured Regiment has been stripped of its tanks and given a new, non-combatant, role.

It used to be that the Regiment’s raison d’être was to perfect its tank-craft and hone its professional skills. This was a never-ending journey, one that sought to continually improve its capability. The goal was to live up to its motto, Paratus. This meant being ready at all times to employ mobility and firepower decisively, making a real difference at the point of battle.

But the Chief of Army wanted a unit to manage the introduction of new and emerging technology. The model recommended to him was that of the 2nd Battalion, Royal Yorkshire Regiment in the British Army. This might appear to be the equivalent of 1 Armd Regt; tasked as part of their Experimentation and Trials Group (ETG) with testing new ideas. That Battalion, however, is an “Agile, adaptive future Light Infantry force at the heart of developing, testing and challenging Infantry warfighting concepts and capabilities.” 2 Yorks is an infantry battalion (one of 33 in their regular army) testing new infantry ideas.

The Brits have Corps-specific units, such as the Armoured Trials and Development unit, to trial new technology. In Australia’s case, we remove our only tank regiment from combat duties, and task it to evaluate technology for the Army as a whole. How could this be?

The pleas of senior RAAC officers not to throw away the years of training, were brushed aside. The pleas of veterans to respect the heritage, battle honours, and Unit Citation for Gallantry, were brushed aside.

What the CA wants, the CA gets!

While it would be a funny Army if this wasn’t to be, one has to wonder if it’s a personal goal, or something that he is being pressured by the Minister and the Department, to achieve. No matter which way you look at it, however, 75 years’ service to the nation, deserves better! Deserves, in fact, to have the opportunity to serve for another 75 years.

Being a tank regiment, the equivalent of a heavy dragoon regiment in the British Army’s early days, 1 Armd Regt was awarded a Standard (a unique honour for the Australian Army). The Chief of the Defence Force wants the unit to keep it, although as a non-combatant, there is no entitlement to do so. Another example of tradition being trampled on, in the quest for ‘transformation’.

The demise of 1 Armd Regt as a tank regiment, also means the loss of a tank squadron, a cavalry squadron and a battlegroup headquarters from 3 Brigade in Townsville (supposedly an armoured brigade). This is a significant loss of combat power and flexibility. It remains to be seen whether or not the post-exercise findings from Talisman Sabre 2025, conveniently overlook this ‘sub-optimal’ situation.

1 Armd Regt’s veterans are proud of all that they achieved when serving their nation at the forefront of battle. Seeing 1 Armd Regt removed from its combat role, makes them feel gutted and distraught.

Noting that the CA couldn’t be prouder of his achievement, increases their sense of betrayal.

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

 

FILE PHOTO (March 2025): Soldiers from Australia’s 1st Armoured Regiment experiment with a ground uncrewed system (GUS) on patrol during Project Convergence Capstone Five (PCC5) at Fort Irwin, California. Photo by Corporal Nakia Chapman.

.

.


.


.