Dream World: How to address the wrongs done to the RAAC

For attention: RAAC Head of Corps; RAAC Representative Honorary Colonel; and, Honorary Colonel 1st Armoured Regiment.
cc: Chief of Army

Gentlemen, please meet with the Chief of Army, standing firm in the importance of your roles as RAAC Head of Corps, RAAC Representative Honorary Colonel; and Honorary Colonel, 1st Armoured Regiment respectively.  Stand up against the Chief of Army and don’t allow her to order you into submission.  

Please discuss the following matters:

1. Negotiate differing viewpoints with the CA, acknowledging that she has the final say.
2. Raise the matter of 1st Armoured Regiment’s demise, i.e. the unit’s reduction to that of a non-combatant, with a complete loss of heritage (not even having an RAAC role).
3. Seek the return of 1 Armd Regt’s combat status. 
4. Endorse 1 Armd Regt’s relocation to Townsville, to join 3 Brigade.
5. Argue for 2/14 LHR (QMI) to remain as an RAAC ARA unit, based on geographic location and the need for the spread of units to be ‘balanced’. 
6. If all the above fails, seek to have the 1 Armd Regt Standard ‘laid up’ appropriately.

What outcome might the above be expected to achieve?

Previous Letters to the Editor of CONTACT have been widely circulated; yet have only drawn limited comments.  This isn’t helped, of course, by the fact that 1 Armd Regt COs have banned comments being made in response to letters published.  

One can only imagine the range of comments that might be made by unit members, should this ban not be in place.  

Is it possible that some might be listening with ‘tin ears’; even worse, that some might be listening, but not hearing! 

I said in an earlier letter, that the situation was enough to make me want to hand back my Military Cross.  Maybe this is the way to bring attention, of the sort that hasn’t been generated previously, for the unconscionable demise of 1 Armd Regt. 

Presumably, the handing back of the medal could be managed in a way that could attract nation-wide media attention.  At the very least, it might force an explanation (which has so far been completely absent) for the injustice meted out to 1 Armd Regt.  

After the late Brian Sullivan, I am the only Military Cross recipient to have fought as a member of a tank crew.  It seems to me that I have a duty to persuade those responsible to explain their actions; i.e. ‘after 75years service as a tank regiment, why was 1 Armd Regt stripped of its tanks and made a non-combatant, without any arrangements being made to safeguard its heritage?’

The BIG question is whether or not anyone cares about 1 Armd Regt’s heritage?  Quite possibly they don’t!  

It’s obvious to me, however, that I don’t have any choice … only by testing the waters, will I know the extent of the support that exists for action to be taken.

It’s interesting to note that the (1 Armd Regt) Experimentation Unit is seemingly going along quite well (though I’m banned from the unit’s Facebook page, and don’t have any idea about what’s happening).

But what can its members think when they reflect on the fact that, in order to create their unit, a tank regiment was lost from the ORBAT and 3 Brigade in Townsville is now forced to operate short one tank squadron, a cavalry squadron and a battlegroup headquarters (as well having to accept a dual-role unit when the roles are totally incompatible). 

What should have happened is that 1 Armd Regt and 2 Cav Regt should both be part of  3 Brigade (with a case being made for 2/14 LHR (QMI) to continue to be an RAAC ARA unit). 

The various ‘factions’ that were involved, should have had no part in influencing the decisions made.  RAAC management must at all times be seen to be open, honest, and trustworthy.  

An explanation as to how the decision was made to make 1 Armd Regt a non-combatant, and exactly what ‘influencers’ were involved, is needed now.

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

.

.

ChatGPT image

.

.


.


.