Why did 1st Armoured Regiment have to be stripped of its tanks?

Why was 1 Armd Regt nominated to become the Army’s experimentation unit, instead of any other unit?  

Why not, for example, form a new unit, instead of dismantling an existing one (especially one with a 75-year heritage, as well as three battle honours and a Unit Citation for Gallantry; not to mention being the only unit in the Army to be entitled to carry a Standard)?  

It’s believed that the reason was … the Chief of Army said so. 

So, that’s it … in a nutshell (love it or lump it, as the saying goes); the decision’s been made.

It should be noted here that unit stakeholders are operating purely on hearsay; requests for explanations have continually been rebuffed by the CA and his staff. 

We’ve been told that 1 Armd Regt will have “an important new role in directly shaping how the Army fights”; but have had no response to our request asking what this means.

BUT, the RAAC Head of Corps at the time, the Representative Honorary Colonel, 1 Armd Regt Honorary Colonel, and RAAC Corps Conference, all voiced their opposition and asked that the decision be reconsidered.  

They were over-ruled (obviously); but why was it that they were not able to have any influence on the decision?  Why did the RAAC Rep Hon Col not receive an explanation from the Chief of Army (one which he, in turn, could pass on to stakeholders)?

Why was everything associated with the decision cloaked in secrecy?  What strings were being pulled and by whom?  Who held the controlling vote?

2nd Cavalry Regiment can be considered to have been the unit to have benefitted, being increased in size to four squadrons.  Interestingly, the CO at the time boasted that:

“From the start of 2025, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment will be home to all of the Australian Army’s combat-ready tanks and the majority of its ASLAV fleet, becoming the heaviest and most combat-capable manoeuvre regiment in the Australian Army”. 

BUT, why isn’t the RAAC responding as ‘one’ … presenting a united front in opposition to stripping tanks from 1 Armd Regt and making 2 Cav Regt a unit with incompatible dual roles?  

Unit COs have to obey orders they receive from Brigade commanders etc; there is no question about that.  How is it possible, however, that the 2 Cav Regt CO can actually boast about the increased combat power under his command, at the same time as the RAAC Representative Honorary Colonel is stating that: 

“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.” 

“It remains your Corps’ experts’ view that the optimal way to train the tanks in Townsville is to provide a dedicated headquarters over them. It is also the optimal way to train 3 Bde’s cavalry.  

“It is not that it is impossible to have 2 Cav Regt look the way it is, it’s just not optimal.” 

“Probably of more import is that … 3 Bde only has two Battlegroup Headquarters.  Raising another BGp HQ in 3 Bde should be given a greater priority to solve two problems.”

Given that 2 Cav Regt is one of only three ARA units making up the RAAC, surely the CO would avoid making public statements.  If he had to do so, one would hope that he would support the RAAC Representative Honorary Colonel (and the RAAC Corps Conference) and advocate the Corps position.  

It is simply inconceivable that a 2 Cav Regt CO would boast about his Regiment’s good fortune, one which came about as a direct result of the unfortunate disbandment of a ‘collegiate’ RAAC unit. 

The 1 Armd Regt Assn is not above boasting either. The following was contained in Management Group Minutes:

“Those who have chosen to work unilaterally do not have the same level of knowledge or understanding of either the decision taken [to strip the tanks from 1 Armd Regt] or the events that have transpired since the decision has been implemented. We have enjoyed these insights from those well-informed veterans who have been advising the Association Executive.”

Could it be that the RAAC is no longer a homogeneous Corps, with everyone working for the good of the Corps as a whole … but has become just a collection of units, each focussed on out-doing the other?

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

.

.

FILE PHOTO: An Australian Army M1A1 Abrams tank fires during Exercise Jericho Dawn 2016. Photo by Sergeant Pete Gammie.

.

.


.


.