Stupid decisions and the reasons behind them

Stripping the tanks from 1st Armoured Regiment would have to be one of the most stupid decisions ever made by a Chief of the Australian Army.

All because he badly wanted a unit to undertake an experimentation role; 1 Armd Regt was in Adelaide and this fitted in nicely, as the city was gearing up to become a defence industry hub.

The unit he removed from the ORBAT, 1 Armd Regt, was the oldest Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC) unit, with 75 years’ service; it had been awarded three battle honours and a Unit Citation for Gallantry for service in Vietnam.  It was also the only unit in the Army to have been presented with a Standard.  

Its once proud Heritage is now no more.  

How is it possible that the senior ARA unit of the Army, could be summarily ‘dismissed’ from its role of “closing with and destroying the enemy, by day or night, in combination with other arms, using fire and manoeuvre”, with no regard, whatsoever, for its Heritage?  

The unit no longer has an Armoured Corps role and no longer contributes anything to the betterment of the RAAC.

Of course, we don’t know the circumstances in which the decision to strip the tanks from 1 Armd Regt, was made.  Was the CA forced to make it an experimentation unit, or was it simply his choice to do so?  If he was forced into the position, what were the reasons behind it?

The Artificial Intelligence (AI) answer as to why such decisions are made is: 

“Stupid or poor decisions are typically made when the brain relies on automatic mental shortcuts under stress, allowing emotions, cognitive biases, or limited information to override rational, long-term thinking”.

Another website explains cognitive biases in this way: 

“These invisible forces shape how we perceive, interpret, and respond to the world, often without us even realizing it. They’re shortcuts our brains take to save time and effort, but they can lead us astray in surprising ways.”

Surely, the decision-making experience of someone who becomes CA, means that cognitive biases play no part in the decisions he makes.

Unit stakeholders have been told by the Minister for Defence that: “1 Armd Regt has an important new role that will be instrumental in the Army’s transformation by directly shaping how the Army fights”.  There has been no reply to a letter asking what this means.

Why was it a stupid decision?  The CA has got his experimentation unit, but what has he given up to get it?  

For 3 Brigade (Army’s only armoured brigade) … he’s given up a battle-group headquarters, a tank squadron, and a cavalry squadron and he’s had to make the Brigade’s 2 Cav Regt a dual-role unit with incompatible roles (fire support for infantry and intelligence gathering).  

2 Cav Regt no longer has any operational capacity whatsoever.  At best, it can be considered a training unit … capable of maintaining some level of recon and close fire support skills.  

Any operational commitment would see the unit having to be split into two separate entities. It’s anyone’s guess how long it would take to bring them up to an acceptable combat readiness standard.  

This, at a time considered by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), “as the most challenging security environment since World War II, requiring an acceleration of defence capabilities”.   

The 2026 National Defence Strategy focuses on defending Australia’s northern approaches.  Yet Townsville’s 3 Brigade has been weakened … how can this be justified by the creation of an experimentation unit in Adelaide?

It doesn’t make sense … no matter which way you look at it!

Why, for heaven’s sake, wasn’t a new unit raised for experimentation purposes?  

Surely, creating the CA’s legacy (if this was the ultimate goal), didn’t require 1 Armd Regt to be removed from the ORBAT! 

A new unit could’ve been raised and the skills and training of 1st Armoured Regiment preserved.  Wouldn’t this have been a better solution?

Could it be that the infantry’s take-over of responsibility for armoured mobility (i.e. mechanised infantry fighting vehicles) have meant that the RAAC had to surrender part of its nominal strength (in a quid pro quo arrangement)?  The possibility of 1 Armd Regt being sacrificed as a compensator, is just unbelievable … but it can’t be ruled out!

How long will it take to retrain and requalify 1 Armd Regt crews, not to mention the length of training needed for the Regiment’s tank-craft to be relearnt and assimilated?  

The question has to be asked: How much has Army’s combat power been weakened?
It was, without doubt … a stupid, stupid, decision!

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

.

.

ChatGPT image

.

.


.


.