1st Armoured Regiment: New Unit, New Traditions

The Commanding Officer and RSM of the Combat Experimentation Group (CXG) have said that they are “committed to upholding the customs and traditions of 1st Armoured Regiment”.

If one was to ask why, what would their answer be?

It must be every CO’s and RSM’s dream: a completely new unit to mould and shape as they wish; plus, a completely new role, to develop and define as they judge appropriate. Why then would they commit themselves to maintaining the traditions and customs of their former unit?

Surely, the genesis of a new unit involves the making of new customs and traditions. The very fabric of esprit-de-corps is that provided by the birth, first steps, and growing pains of a new unit. This is where the stories first become known and grow into legends; the stuff that any new unit would normally celebrate and recall in the years to come. Why then?

The answer is simple … it’s what they’ve been told to do! Unless they create an impression that 1 Armd Regt’s traditions and customs will be maintained into the future, there’ll undoubtedly be a backlash. This would be a distraction which wouldn’t be helpful at a time when the unit’s new role is being established.

Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) has stated that “the Regiment’s position on Army’s Order of Battle is unchanged”. How can this be? How can a non-combatant take the place of a tank regiment on the OOB?

The CDF has also stated that 1 Armd Regt will continue to “carry the Standard”. But the right to carry a Standard is that of a tank regiment; there is no entitlement for a CXG to do so. Continuing this farce … the CDF states that “the Regiment will continue to commemorate the Battle of Cambrai and maintain its close alliance with the Royal Tank Regiment (RTR)”. Why on earth maintain an alliance with the RTR, when the CXG has nothing in common with it; rather than commencing a new alliance with 2 Battalion, Royal Yorkshire Regiment which forms part of the British Army’s Experimentation and Trials Group (albeit with an infantry focus). [It must be remembered here that the CXG’s role is to evaluate technologies across the Australian Army as a whole, whereas the British Army has Corps specific units for this, such as the Armoured Trials and Development Unit.]

The CO and RSM went on to say: “We have our strong veteran community to thank … as we are the beneficiaries and custodians of the Regiment you developed. In turn, we take on the oath to ensure the Regiment continues to perform to the expectations set by those who have come before us. Thank you for your service and support. Paratus!”.

It can be seen that there has been considerable attention given to the psychology involved in creating the impression that the CXG and 1 Armd Regt will continue into the future linked together; one and the same unit. The absence of the bond formed by tank crews, however, means that this can never be. See earlier letter “The bond formed by tank crews“.

The question at the heart of it all is why not simply create a new trials unit? The answer seems to be that poor prior planning meant that a new unit was needed which could hit the ground running, so as to make up for lost time. Of course, there’s also the element of saving money in the Defence budget by reducing the number of AFVs in the RAAC and their running and manning costs. What, however, about the ethics surrounding the manipulation of everyone involved … by those at the top? [Next letter]

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

 

FILE PHOTO (20 November 2017): Soldiers officers and vehicles of the 1st Armoured Regiment on parade to mark the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Cambrai. Photo by Corporal Craig Barrett.

.

.


.


.