Ongoing Campaign to Return 1 Armd Regt to it’s Combat Role

“The M1A2 SEPv3 will upgrade the current Australian fleet of M1A1 SA tanks with no changes to Royal Australian Armoured Corps force structure.” – CONTACT article 1 May 2021

 

The above quote from an article on this platform on 1 May 2021 referred to the approval granted by the US for the sale of 75 M1A2 SEP v3 Abrams tanks to Australia.

No-one was to know that three years later, the RAAC would be a very different Corps – 1st Armoured Regiment in Adelaide, stripped of its tanks, made a non-combatant, and reduced to one third of its normal strength – and, 2 Cav Regt in Townsville commanding a hybrid unit of four squadrons, two tank and two reconnaissance.

The motto Persevere will always be associated with the AATTV.

However, it is also the well of determination that those involved in the campaign to return 1 Armd Regt to its combat role, have to frequently sup at.

It looks as if our letter to the Governor-General, the Commander-in-Chief of the ADF, has ‘gone through to the keeper’.

Sent on 27 Feb 25, a response should have been received by now.

Maybe this is to be expected, given that the appeal it contained was based on the Chief of the Defence Force’s own letter which provided grounds to describe his decision to decimate 1 Armd Regt … as unethical and unreasonable.

Similarly, after two months, it seems certain that the Chief of Army is ‘missing in action’.

He could, of course, have taken the view that the CDF had already provided an answer, one which he couldn’t change, even if he’d wanted to (which he didn’t).

The RSL Defence and National Security Committee joined the CA in declining to respond to our communication.

In the RSL’s case, it was a letter about: “A Matter Concerning a Weakening of Defence Preparedness and an Unconscionable Loss of Army Values and Heritage”.

Not something of importance to the RSL, presumably.

It was too much to have expected replies from the Commander, 1st Division or the Commander, 3rd Brigade … and we weren’t disappointed.

Story outlines sent to TV programs the Insiders, Four Corners, and 60 Minutes, also seem not to have ‘made the cut’.

To his credit, the Minister of Defence didn’t let us down.

He responded (at the same time) to both our letter to him and our letter to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

He explained that 1 Armd Regt has been given an important new role.

Although not a combat role (which was the particular focus of our letter), it involves “directly shaping how the Army fights”.

The Minister was asked in a follow-up letter on 11 Mar 25, what this means (a response is awaited, but not expected).

He also made reference to 1 Armd Regt’s “longstanding expertise in combined arms manoeuvre and combat vehicle operations”.

Given that this expertise relates to the period prior to the unit being stripped of its tanks; its relevance is puzzling.

It was a pleasant surprise to receive details of a resolution decided upon by the 2024 RAAC Corps Conference (a meeting of COs and senior leaders of RAAC units) concerning the future of 1 Armd Regt: “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”.

This is exactly what advocates for the return of 1 Armd Regt to its combat role, have been seeking.

The RAAC’s Representative Honorary Colonel has made it very clear, that “any public criticism of a position taken by Army, is called insubordination”.

The RAAC Head of Corps might have been expected to offer his backing, however, he sees his responsibility as being that of supporting the CA (contrary, surprisingly, to the decision made by the RAAC Corps Conference).

The 1 Armd Regt Association wrote a long and forceful letter, pre-dating ours, to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

A reply was prepared by the Chief of Staff to the CA at Army HQ.

The Brigadier said that 1 Armd Regt’s “relocation from Edinburgh, South Australia to Townsville, Queensland was considered appropriate and is supported by the Government”.

Fantastic … exactly what we were hoping for!

You guessed right: the CA’s Chief of Staff had made a mistake (along with a few others, which we wrote to him to correct).

One of the purposes of the RAAC Corporation is to ‘represent the interests of the serving and ex-serving ordinary members of The Corps’.

It is surprising, therefore, that it’s kept away from any lobbying or other involvement, as far as the demise of 1 Armd Regt is concerned.

Attempts to make contact with the Corporation and seek support, have been unsuccessful.

It might be, of course, that it assisted the 1 Armd Regt Assn, a member association, in preparing their letter.

Paradoxically, our first lobbying initiative, a Petition to Parliament, will be the last to generate a response.

The petition was open for signatures for four weeks from 19 Jan 25.

Despite 1 Armd Regt Assn declining to promote it (wanting instead to run their own campaign), 176 signatures were received.

This greatly exceeded the 50 needed for the responsible Minister to have to respond.

What wasn’t known until recently, was that Ministers had 90 days in which to do so.

Lastly, we come to Australia’s CONTACT magazine. Brian Hartigan’s support has been tremendous. The magazine has published at least six articles:

• A Petition to Return the Combat Role (and Pride) to1 Armd Regt 4 Jan 25
• Can the CDF or a Service Chief do Anything he or she Wishes? 17 Feb 25
• The Bond Formed by Tank Crews 16 Mar 25
• The Unjust Treatment of 1 Armd Regt: Who Should Apologise? 30 Mar25
• Army Cut Back … Why? 5 Apr 25
• Many Problems Hindering Brigade’s New Roles 11 Apr 25

Find the above letters (and more) here

Readers have offered a number of insightful comments, including:
“The purpose of 1 Armd Regt has always been to operate the army’s tanks. A Cavalry Regt’s role is to operate the faster and more mobile armoured vehicles of the army. Both units have vital roles to play in the army. The research and testing facility should be named just that or be a wing of the Armoured training Centre.”

“1st Armoured Regiment should be kept as a complete combat unit. The regiment has a vital role to play providing fire power and support to our infantry battalions. We have more strategic threats today than we have had for many decades. To diminish the combat power at this time is a high-risk gamble.”

“It was a very unexpected decision to virtually scrap 1 Armd Regt. Pride, tradition and esprit de corps thrown out like the baby’s washing. ADF should at least rename the facility in Edinburgh to something more appropriate. To keep referring to it as 1 Armd Regt is an embarrassment to those who have served with it.”

In conclusion, everyone knows that the right decision is for 1 Armd Regt to command the tank squadrons in Townsville, with 2 Cav Regt, looking after the reconnaissance squadrons.

It might be that this can’t happen until sufficient housing is available in Townsville.

This doesn’t mean that the campaign comes to an end … quite the opposite.

The underhanded manner in which 1 Armd Regt and its veterans were treated, demands an apology.

This group of former 1 Armd Regt members will keep pushing until a just outcome, acceptable to all parties, is reached.

 

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

 

P.S. A response from the CA has recently been received (dated 10 April 2025). As expected, given the fact that responses had been received from the CDF and Defence Minister, he declined to address the matter further.

 

 

FILE PHOTO (2021): An Australian Army M1A1 Abrams at Shoalwater Bay, Queensland. Photo by Private Jacob Hilton.

.

.


.


.