The RAAC: Back to the future … the sooner the better

“From the start of 2025 … the 2nd Cavalry Regiment will be the heaviest and most combat capable manoeuvre regiment in the Australian Army”.       Commanding Officer, 2024

Because of the Chief of Army’s decision to make 1st Armoured Regiment a unit to evaluate emerging technologies, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment has been forced to adopt an organisation comprising two squadrons of reconnaissance vehicles and two squadrons of tanks.  

At first glance, it would appear that recon and close fire support roles are incompatible for a single unit.  This seems obvious … the Army’s recon assets operate ahead of the main body to gather intelligence about the enemy; while tanks provide direct fire support for the units within the main body.  

There are a range of other tasks undertaken by cavalry units, however.  These include pursuit and exploitation; providing a screen and guarding flanks; clearing obstacles; and disrupting enemy logistics units.  Is it possible that 2 Cav Regt could be optimised for these roles and 2/14 LHR (QMI) optimised for recon ahead of the main body?  

Of course … we’re grabbing at straws here.  2 Cav belongs to 3 Brigade, while 2/14 LHR is part of 7 Brigade.  Australia has just one and a half recon units.  Their squadrons must all be optimised for the best possible outcome in terms of their primary role.

As demonstrated by the quote above, however, 2 Cav Regt has seemingly welcomed its new status.  No concern has been expressed about the incompatibility of roles.  But this is as one would expect, i.e. a ‘Yes sir!’ response.  It’s the responsibility of those at more senior levels to make representations re the problems; but it’s obvious that this hasn’t happened!  

The RAAC has never before included a unit with dual roles.  What differences might a mix of roles produce?  Might it be possible, for example, for 2 Cav to form tank/recon combat teams within its own organisation?  What if 2 Cav is divided in half: Combat Team A: tank sqn/recon sqn; Combat Team B: tank sqn/recon sqn.  

One combat team operates on the basis of: a screen comprising three recon troops; flank protection comprising two recon troops; operating ahead of a tank sqn advance to contact.  This would certainly provide a basis for training.  Command of the combat team could alternate.  The other combat team undertakes continuing individual and skills training, e.g. weapons qualification (before combat teams change over).  

There is one thing that is a little unsettling about 2 Cav Regt’s dual roles.  With two recon squadron OCs and two tank squadron OCs, how is an operational command issue to be resolved, if the CO is unavailable?  One option is to appoint a ‘tank OC’ and a ‘recon OC’, to deal with such circumstances (given that, on operations, squadrons could well be at very different ends of the combat zone, operating independently).  

In the event that both 2 Cav’s tank and recon elements are involved in contacts simultaneously, the CO can decide which operation to command himself, with the other designated OC commanding the other (if necessary).

This is all supposition, of course.  Apart from the former CO’s quote (above), there’s no indication of any sort as to the directions given to the unit from 3 Brigade.  How does Brigade HQ view 2 Cav’s dual roles?  Will Brigade recon operate independently of 2 Cav’s tanks, or will there be some sort of combat team arrangement?  

There is a problem with all the foregoing in terms of combat teams, however!  How can there be any sort of combat team without infantry?  3 Brigade’s mechanised infantry would have to be involved, which means that there can’t be any sort of integral 2 Cav Regt combat team organisation (as good an idea it seemed at the time).

Interestingly, a military publication recently referred to 3 Brigade in this way: “As of January 2025, the 3rd Brigade transitioned into an Armoured Brigade with a dedicated “armoured covering force” supported by Boxer CRVs”.  Should this be taken to refer to the Brigade using a covering force designed to operate forward of the main body (i.e. tanks) … possibly providing a screen?

Another publication refers to a NATO ally considering introducing brigade reconnaissance based on ‘light’, ‘medium’ and ‘heavy’ battalions.  The heavy units being equipped with Leopard 2 tanks.  This concept is easy to understand, given the diverse range of tasks involved in gathering intelligence.   

In terms of the Australian Army’s needs, there really isn’t any alternative other than to support the recommendation of the 2025 RAAC Corps Conference; i.e. the RAAC is best served by having individual units that can focus on their own role and develop their own battlecraft accordingly. 

This means that the ARA RAAC should comprise: 1 Armd Regt (tanks); 2 Cav Regt (recon) and 2/14 LHR (QMI) (recon). 

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

.

.

FILE PHOTO: Heavy Armoured Capability Systems Live Fire Exercise (HACS LFX), 16 September 2025, at Townsville Field Training Area, Queensland. Photo by Lance Corporal Christien Vestergaard.

.

.


.


.