The Chain of Command must stand for something …
The essential element is that someone is responsible for making a decision; as compared with the procrastination that often accompanies committee-based ‘group thinking’.
Having made the decision, responsibility must be accepted by the commander involved.
Those who do not like a decision, must trust in the outcome determining the fate of the decision maker, i.e. the consequences of the decision will reside beside the decision maker’s name … for good or bad.
The Chief of Army made the decision to strip the tanks from 1st Armoured Regiment and give it a non-RAAC role as a Combat Experimentation Group (CXG), evaluating emerging technologies. As the chief stakeholder, the RAAC was united in its opposition. Nevertheless, the decision went ahead.
Others were consulted. The Chief of the Defence Force advised that the decision was “carefully considered by Lieutenant General Stuart, who sought advice from the Head of Corps and consulted with my predecessor and the Minister for Defence”. The inference here is that the HOC was supportive. This is correct; the HOC had just changed, with Brig Andrew Moss, AM, CSM, taking over.
The year before, the Hon Col 1 Armd Regt (Brig Ted Acutt) stated that “The RAAC Head of Corps, Brigadier Chris Gardner, AM, DSM, has written to the Chief of Army (CA) requesting he reconsider his decision and further consider the forming of 1st/2nd Armoured Cavalry Regiment (ACR) as an alternative to the Innovation and Experimentation Unit”.
He further advised that the RAAC Representative Honorary Colonel, Major General Craig Orme, DSC, AM, CSC, has written to CA with the same request, as had Maj Gen Roger Powell, AM, the Immediate Past RAAC Rep Hon Col.
The thinking behind the 1st/2nd ACR proposal is unknown. Was it the right position for the RAAC to adopt, or did it ‘confuse’ the issue? How could the formation of 1st/2nd ACR be a realistic alternative to the creation of an emerging technologies unit?
Maybe the idea was actually to accept the new unit being raised with 1 Armd Regt manpower, but, at the same time, ensure that a merged 1 Armd/2 Cav allowed regimental traditions and heritage to be maintained; while keeping open a possible ‘delinking’ in the future?
Come the end of 2023, of course, the ACR concept was dead and specialised brigades were ‘in vogue’. Nevertheless, the concept of a merged, 1st/2nd Armd Cav, could have had merit in terms of maintaining 1 Armd Regt’s traditions and heritage (which will surely be lost by the Combat Experimentation Group). How could they possibly be maintained, while simultaneously establishing the CXG’s new traditions; or putting it the other way, ‘How can CXG be asked not to create their own heritage?’.
The Hon Col 1 Armd Regt made the point that “much has gone on behind the scenes”. Could this, unwittingly, have been part of the problem? Rather than ‘secret’ discussions, maybe the RAAC would have been better served if the issue had been dealt with openly, in public.
It would undoubtedly have made everyone sit up and take notice, if the RAAC Rep Hon Col, the Corps Conference Secretary, the 1 Armd Regt Hon Col, and 1 Armd Regt Association President had all publicly proclaimed their opposition to the CA’s proposal (rather than penning individual letters).
None of them were immune to repercussions, however. As the RAAC Rep Hon Col has made clear … public statements that are in conflict with announced Army policy are referred to as ‘insubordination’. Countering this is the view that it is incumbent on all soldiers (retired or otherwise) to contribute their views clearly and professionally for the better in any situation. Not to do so, is a dereliction of duty.
Of course, the enormity of what was being done would have taken everyone by surprise. Never before had the senior regiment in the Army been struck off the ORBAT and made a non-combatant. [Not forgetting that this was a regiment that had operated tanks for 75 years, been presented with a Standard (the only time this had happened), as well as being awarded three Battle Honours and a Unit Citation for Gallantry.]
In the spirit of openness, all letters published by CONTACT Magazine are copied to the RAAC Rep Hon Col and HOC, as well as the Hon Col 1 Armd Regt and Maj Gen Powell.
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
.
.
FILE PHOTO: An Australian M1A2 SEP v3 main battle tank is test fired remotely for the first time to check the main gun for safety before a live-fire to qualify crews on the new systems at the Puckapunyal Military Area, Victoria, 5 November 2024. Photo by Corporal Michael Currie.
.
.
.
.
