Why has the RAAC been decimated?
Why has 1st Armoured Regiment been stripped of all its tanks and given a new role as a non-combatant, evaluating emerging technologies … at a time when Australia’s strategic situation is described as ‘perilous’; or according to ASIO, an ‘increasingly volatile strategic environment”?
The government’s response to the 2023 Defence Strategic Review designated that the 3rd Brigade in Townsville would be an armoured brigade. Why is it that the brigade is forced to operate short one tank squadron, one cavalry squadron and a battlegroup headquarters? (This being a significant reduction in the combat power of a standard armoured brigade)
Were the cutbacks (above) in the strength of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC) necessary in order to save money in the Defence budget by reducing its operating costs and manning numbers?
Were these savings necessary because of the ‘blow out’ in costs associated with AUKUS?
The 2025 RAAC Corps Conference recommended that 3 Brigade’s tanks be commanded by a new battlegroup headquarters. Will this recommendation be adopted? If not, why?
Defence advises that the role of the RAAC is: “to locate, identify, capture and destroy the enemy, by day or night, in combination with other arms, using fire and manoeuvre”. Although 1st Armoured Regiment has operated tanks for 75 years, it has now been turned into a non-combatant experimentation unit. Why is it still regarded as part of the RAAC?
1st Armoured Regiment was the only unit in the ADF to have been presented with a Standard. As it is no longer a tank regiment, however, it ceases to be entitled to this honour. When will the Standard be ‘laid up’ in accordance with its consecrated status?
A number of letters have been written to both the Chief of Army and his Chief of Staff requesting the opportunity for (two) representatives of 1st Armoured Regiment’s veterans to meet with one or other of them. This is a very reasonable request in the circumstances, yet there has been no response. Why is this? Could not even a small amount of time be spared to explain why 1st Armoured Regiment had to be stripped of all its tanks and whether or not this is a permanent change of role for the unit?
With 1st Armoured Regiment becoming an experimentation unit, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Townsville has been forced to take on the dual roles of reconnaissance and the provision of close fire support using tanks. These roles, however, are incompatible for a single unit. Reconnaissance vehicles are designed to use speed or stealth to gather intelligence, while the task of tanks is the opposite … destroying the enemy using fire and manoeuvre. The Chief of Army is urged to return 1st Armoured Regiment to its rightful role as a tank regiment … why is this not possible?
The National Defence Strategy 2024 makes it clear that the Army must have the capacity to secure and control strategic land positions and sustain protracted combat operations. The tank obviously has a crucial role in this, being “at the core of the ADF’s combined arms fighting system”. Added to this, it is one of the few parts of the “ADF that can successfully operate in medium- to high-threat land environments”. Furthermore, “because of their versatility, tanks can be used in a wide range of scenarios, environments and levels of conflict in the region”. Why must the Army continue without a dedicated tank regiment, the absence of which reduces its ability to defend the Nation?
Chief of Army has stated that “the Australian Army’s future is fighting on the beaches, rivers, coastal waters and archipelagos of the Indo-Pacific”. An essential element of the projection of land power in the littoral region, relates to seizing and controlling vital terrain and infrastructure. Tanks can achieve this because their mobility and situational awareness enable them to deploy quickly and bring their firepower to bear exactly where needed. Given the importance of this role, will 1st Armoured Regiment be reinstated as a tank regiment? [This would seem to be important, given the Landing Craft Heavy to be commissioned before too long.]
Some people believe that tanks are no longer viable as a military entity because of the seeming success of drones in conflicts elsewhere. As has always been the case, however, as soon as a weapon is developed … a counter-measure becomes available. This is how it is today with Active Protection Systems (APS). The focus of a tank regiment is that of developing and perfecting the tactics needed to destroy the enemy. 1st Armoured Regiment has been exceptionally good at doing this for 75 years; it deserves the opportunity to continue to do so. Why has an investigation into the procurement of APS not been initiated?
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
.
.
FILE PHOTO: An Australian Army M1A1 Abrams main battle tank fires its main armament during Exercise Gauntlet Strike at Puckapunyal Military Training Area. Photo by Corporal Dustin Anderson.
.
.
.
.
