The Bond Formed by Tank Crews

Admiral Johnston, the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF), graduated as a naval officer in 1982. His career has involved commanding not only naval vessels, but also Australian ground forces on operations. Such commands, however, can’t help him understand what it’s like being a member of a tank crew; especially the tight knit bond formed under armour in the face of adversity. Few are privileged to experience this, a bond that reaches into all corners of a unit; setting it apart from all others. If he’d been a submariner, he might have had some idea as to what his orders would do.

FILE PHOTO (September 2023): 1st Armoured Regiment conduct manoeuvre training on an M1A1 Abrams tanks in Puslatpur, Indonesia, during Exercise Super Garuda Shield 2023. Photo by Sergeant Jarrod McAneney.

When he stripped 1st Armoured Regiment of its tanks and made it a non-combatant, he failed to realise that the unit could never be the same. He thought that it would continue on as it had in the past, just in a different role. But this isn’t possible. A regiment comprised of tank crews, tight knit as they always are, is different to any other sort of unit. The close-ties formed by the crews, and their resulting esprit-de-corps, is unique. The unit might take on a new role, but without tanks and those who crew them, it will be a completely different entity… this will always be so. When it lost its tanks, 1 Armd Regt also lost the traditions and heritage built up during its 75 years’ service to the nation. Without tanks and their crews, it’s impossible to replicate them.
For some, the close ties that exist within a tank crew meant that it was like a small family. You all stick together and everyone does his bit for his little community. Trust was one of the key elements. You trust them and they trust you. Living, training, and fighting in the close confines of your steel monster creates a work place and a work ethic like no other. Operating ‘closed down’ for lengthy periods is part of the routine that goes with the job. Four men (and now, women too) grow into a tight cohesive group; becoming a living part of their armoured beast, knowing it and its idiosyncrasies inside out. Individual crew tasks must be perfectly timed and completed in unison, to operate the tank successfully.
After a while, it’s like you’ve all grown up together. You share everything; know each other’s lives and loves, hopes and dreams; know what pisses each of them off or makes them happy. The true meaning of brotherhood becomes a reality. To this end, everyone knows his job inside out … fail in your job and you fail your crew. Each of us had the lives of the others in his hands and he knew it. Our duty became that of caring for each other; we would do anything for one another.
A tank crew is a unique team, one with potentially the greatest diversity of rank in the Army. The driver may be a trooper and the commander any rank from corporal to lieutenant colonel. When fighting as a crew, rank is irrelevant and trust in each other and in each other’s skill is paramount. It’s not an uncommon thought for those reminiscing: “I miss my crew and nothing will make me forget them”.
A tank regiment deprived of its tanks, can never be the same. A new unit title should be devised, the previous one only being resurrected should it ever be re-equipped with tanks. Keeping the title, serves only as an attempt to suggest that nothing has changed, i.e. 1 Armd Regt as a tank regiment is the same as 1 Armd Regt stripped of its tanks and given a new role. But it’s NOT and can never be.
Let’s face it … the RAAC, its stakeholders, and veterans, were ambushed. A unit which had spent 75 years learning to survive and win on the battlefield, day after day … was suddenly told that its tanks had been transferred to another unit and it would no longer be a fighting arm of the Army. A 75-year heritage deserves better than this. The problem is that the decision makers didn’t realise that they can’t just strip a tank regiment of its tanks and give it another role.
Well … they can and they did; but what was the outcome? In essence: an orphan which belongs no-where; one newly minted without the customs and traditions that its predecessor built up during the 75 years that it was equipped with tanks.
The CDF stated that “morale in the Regiment is high (in fact, “improved in 2024 from the previous year”). Furthermore, the soldiers take pride in “the cutting-edge work” that they are involved in. What does this mean? It means that the new (one third size) unit is being led well and being given rewarding tasks. What it does NOT mean is that the heritage and traditions of 1 Armd Regt when it was equipped with tanks have been maintained in any way. This is as expected: new unit … new challenges … new traditions. Unfortunately, the heritage, esprit de corps, tank-craft and skills built up during the unit’s service to the nation between 1949 and 2024, are now completely wasted. Is this reasonable? Of course not.
The CDF also stated that 1 Armd Regt will continue to be commanded by a Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC) officer. Why? The role of the RAAC is to: “to locate, identify, capture and destroy the enemy, by day or night, in combination with other arms, using fire and manoeuvre”. Obviously, there is no place for a non-combatant unit in the RAAC.
Last year, in relation to 1 Armd Regt, the RAAC leadership group decided that: “The best operational outcome for Army is to form two battlegroups in Townsville, one commanding the cavalry and one commanding the tanks. The best way to achieve this outcome is to raise RHQ 1 Armd Regt in Townsville and to assign the tanks to it”.
The solution is obvious … if you have a tank regiment, you equip it with tanks. It follows that a tank regiment not equipped with tanks is something quite different (and should be named differently, so as not to be mistaken for something it isn’t).
A petition to return 1 Armd Regt to its combat role has been sent to Parliament and a response is awaited. An appeal has also been sent to the Commander-in-Chief of the ADF, the Governor-General. It argues that the action of the CDF is unreasonable and unethical (both valid grounds for his decision to be reconsidered).

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

.

.


.


.