Demise of 1st Armoured Regiment: Cases for and against

Arguments that have been made in support of 1st Armoured Regiment becoming an experimentation unit include those set out below:

“There are so many positives to take away from the current structural changes. The men and women that make up the Regiment are doing great things, whilst maintaining the customs and traditions of the Regiment and wearing the hat badge that many have served under.  It quite possibly could have been the end of the unit, but it continues…”.

Response … customs and traditions aren’t being maintained and it’s impossible to expect them to be; 1 Armd Regt, for example, has no entitlement to retain the Standard; saying that 1 Armd Regt could have been disbanded has no basis whatsoever; why should 1 Armd Regt continue to wear the unit’s badge … an experimentation unit has no affiliation to either tanks or the unit’s motto, ‘Paratus’. 

“It happened … did everyone agree?  I am certain there was opposition; however, as has been mentioned many times, the ‘powers that be’ made a decision and the Regiment continues. Some wise decisions were made to maintain the unit, albeit in a different and important role.

Response … so, if the CA (or ‘powers that be’) decree, everyone says ‘Yes Sir!’ … irrespective of whether or not it is a reasonable and ethical decision; irrespective of whether or not stakeholders were consulted; irrespective of whether or not the preliminary planning took place in secret.  What happened to openness and transparency? What about the basic obligation of all Army personnel to raise matters, if they become aware of them, which could be harmful for the service? 

“…it lacks vision, it lacks the understanding that a tank can be destroyed by systems that are substantially cheaper than a tank. This is the classic ‘but it has always been this way’ fallacy. We must look to the future of warfare …”. 

Response … drones have not made the tank obsolete.  Automatic Protection Systems have proven capable of countering them.  Tanks are essential to land force operations; but it is not a part-time role … a dedicated tank regiment is essential to continually develop the skills and tactics needed to ‘destroy the enemy, using fire and manoeuvre’, and maintain operational readiness.   

“Sound leadership is required from the whole of the Regimental family, including both you and I. Let’s demonstrate to the current members of the Regiment what that looks like, through healthy demonstrated behaviours.”

Response … leadership, or rather lack of it, is exactly why the RAAC is now in the weakest position it has ever been as an Arms Corps … this, at a time when our strategic situation is described as ‘perilous’.  It would seem that those who have no appreciation of the need for (and value of) reconnaissance and close fire support, have much to answer for.  If no-one is prepared to stand up for the capability that the RAAC can bring to bear at the forefront of battle, then it deserves to be marginalised.  

“Please provide a single example when you ignored direction from the CGS back in your day?”

Response … it’s all to do with ethics, which one comes to understand more as one gets older.  The ADF needs a Code of Ethics; it will happen eventually.  At present, ADF members have to obey lawful directions.  There is a process to follow for directions which are lawful, but considered unethical.  Stripping the tanks from 1 Armd Regt was undoubtedly an unethical decision, especially with respect to the manner in which it was done and the lack of consultation involved.  

“There has been a decision from higher to structure the army in its current structure for a reason. 1AR should take pride in being the unit that has been chosen to lead the army’s push into future warfare.”

Response … this is the standard line, i.e. the Army knows what it’s doing; just accept it.  Sadly, the RAAC has been decimated without any explanation.  Providing one (i.e. an explanation) has to be the starting point … it can’t be assumed that anyone understands why 1 Armd Regt had to be stripped of its tanks and heritage.  Nor can it be assumed that anyone understands why the RAAC’s combat power had to be reduced at a time when our strategic circumstances are described as ‘perilous’.   RAAC stakeholders are perfectly within their rights to expect an explanation.  It’s unbelievable that this hasn’t happened before now and that Australians have to keep asking.

Openness in decision making? Mate, you’re a civilian. Why would the Chief of Army, or anyone in Army for that matter, tell you anything?

Australia is not a totalitarian regime (like some other nations).  All citizens have the right to question decisions made on their behalf.  If military or political authorities decline to respond, then the media (such as CONTACT) is available to bring influence to bear.  This is the meaning of democracy.

“But the stark reality of today’s warfare is such that both equipment and tactics will require far less face-to-face combat, and therefore very different methodologies to out manoeuvre and overcome our adversaries!!!”

Response … The nature of warfare is certainly changing, but face-to-face combat is still its central core.  Drones can’t occupy territory, nor hold ground. Combined arms teams are the key to land warfare and the tank is the central element in terms of offensive action and the provision of close fire support for infantry.  

“1 Armd Regt in its new role as a Combat Experimentation Group (CXG) is uniquely placed as the only Army unit outside of SOCOMD to be trialling new and emerging technologies to counter these sorts of new threats; will give us the opportunity to make the ADF a more lethal force.”

Response … no-one has said that a CXG is not worthwhile; the issue is that it doesn’t warrant the removal of 1 Armd Regt from the ORBAT.  A tank regiment dedicated to perfecting its crew and tactical skills is essential to provide the basis of Army’s combined arms teams.  1 Armd Regt, as a tank regiment, is a vital element of Army’s land warfare capability.  

“It [1 Armd Regt] is still on the ORBAT and maintains a combat role, albeit focussed on experimentation”.

Response …  I have to disagree. A unit can’t be combat-ready one minute and a Combat Experimentation Group, 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.

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

.

.

FILE PHOTO: An Australian Army trooper from the 1st Armoured Regiment remotely controls a weapon system on an optionally crewed armoured vehicle during a demonstration in Puckapunyal, Victoria. Photo by Sergeant Tristan Kennedy.

.

.


.


.