“1 Armd Regt” muddies future for Corps

Now that 1st Armoured Regiment no longer has an RAAC role, and 2nd Cavalry Regiment comprises a dual role unit with the totally incompatible roles of close fire support and intelligence gathering, what does the future hold for the RAAC? 

Thank heavens for 2/14 Light Horse Regiment (Queensland Mounted Infantry) and the RAAC ARES units.  Thanks to them, the RAAC might continue on as the leading exponent of mounted warfare.

Is this being hard on 2 Cav?  No.

It’s impossible for any unit placed in its position, being constantly pulled between either providing close fire support for infantry or gathering intelligence … to succeed in both roles. 

COs will undoubtedly endeavour to achieve the task imposed on them by the Chief of Army, but it’s simply impossible to do justice to both roles simultaneously.

The Army has never had a dual role unit before … obviously, for good reason! 

The two roles are so totally different, how does a commander bring them together?  Does he try – or does he maintain separation between the two halves of his command?

The big question, of course, is what it all means as far as the RAAC itself is concerned?  

Not having an RAAC role, 1 Armd Regt no longer contributes to the achievements of the RAAC.  How can this be a good thing?

The senior Regiment of the Australian Army is an experimentation unit, grouped with others such as Battle Lab, “the Australian Army’s tactical experimentation and training unit”.  

Given that: “the Australian Army Battle Lab aims to provide Army with a decisive edge by rapidly turning new ideas, cutting-edge technology and the latest warfighting tactics into capability” … what ‘value-adding’ does 1 Armd Regt provide by doing the same thing?

I wrote to the OC Battle Lab asking this question; surprisingly, there was no response.  

One might have expected that every opportunity would be taken to explain Battle Lab’s role; while at the same time justifying the importance of the work undertaken by 1 Armd Regt personnel.  Why the need for secrecy of any sort?

It remains only to finish with the words of the RAAC’s most senior officer, the Representative Honorary Colonel, pointing out that:

“The creation of an Experimental Unit in Army is sensible and useful, but it has no relationship with 1 Armd Regt. That is, the two are separate ideas and calling the experimental unit 1 Armd Regt is both unnecessary and actually confusing.
The best operational outcome for Army is to form two battlegroups in Townsville, one commanding the cavalry and one commanding the tanks. This has benefits for training and operational focus. The best way to achieve this outcome is to raise RHQ 1 Armd Regt in Townsville and to assign the tanks to it”. 

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

.

.

ChatGPT image

.

.


.


.