1 November 2015

UK Centurion Trials Manus Island.

Earlier this morning a neighbour knocked on my door and said that he's been looking at some of his deceased father's papers and asked if I was interested in this photo (he knew that I'd been in the armoured corps).

After chatting with him, it turns out that his father was involved in tropical trials on Manus Island after WWII.  Hence this is very likely to be one the UK tanks trialled there in 1951/52.

 

 

ASPI's 'The Strategist'

The Government funded Australian Strategic Policy Institute's daily newsletter 'The Stategist' provides informed debate on military matters.  A number of recent extracts are copied below.  Initially, I was quite surprised by the first, but I think I can understand the concept from a logistics viewpoint.  Presumably all three Tiers could exist in the RAAC.

Army Tiers.  "Army equips its soldiers according to their ‘Tier’, of which there are three. Broadly speaking, Tier 1 Combatants perform niche tasks, such as combat diving or military free fall parachuting. Tier 2 Combatants fight either on foot in the dismounted role or while mounted in Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs). Tier 3 combatants provide general support to combined arms teams. This tiering approach has nothing to do with a soldier’s status; rather, it allows Army to tailor combat equipment to the specific needs of its combatants."

Mineclearance.  "Army currently employs eight remote control tracked MV-10 Mine Flails, developed by Croatia-based DOK-ING. The medium sized MV-10 was selected for the LAND 144 Countermine Capability project. The system can clear all types of anti-personnel mines, anti-tank mines and unexploded ordnance."

Isreali M113A1 Replacement.  "Last but not least, Israel is producing a prototype armoured vehicle called the Eitan. The plan is to design a vehicle that’s cheaper and

lighter than existing Namers and M113, which could therefore be produced en masse." 

RAAC Corporation 2015 AGM   (see Minutes under 'Articles')

There was no mention of the situation re RAAC Honorary Colonels (?).  Armouredadvocates lists the following item under 'RAAC Issues':

Honorary Colonels.  The RAAC Corporation Chairman’s 2014 Annual Report states: “The decision by DG-PERS to reduce the Honorary Colonels from 9 to 6 was as one which caused some heartache.  Since that decision, I have been informed by the Advisory Board Chairman that the abolition of some of these appointments has been stayed for the time being. Let us hope the stay becomes permanent"  The issue was further discussed at the AGM and the HOC stated that he was committed to maintaining the existing numbers.

How many Hon Cols are there at present?  I can only count eight.  There would be nine if 3/4 Cav Regt had one, but it seems that while Brigadier Rod Earle, AM (Retd) is Patron of the 3/4 Cav Assn, he doesn’t hold the position of Hon Col. The Hon Cols for A Sqn 3/9 SAMR and A Sqn 10 LH (Col Chris Burns CSC Ret’d and Brig Phil White AM RFD) are being targeted by Defence (presumably as a cost saving measure), but who is the third they have their sights on?

Is it correct?  Advice contained in a 1/15 RNSWL newsletter is that: “the unbroken line of Regimental Honorary Colonels extending from Lord Carrington in 1888 to Colonel Lee Long will break on 1 January 2015. From that point we will share a “Colonel Commandant” with 12/16 HRL. The first holder of this office to be Major General Ian Spence, a former CO 12/16 HRL.”

As mentioned above, 1/15RNSWL and 12/16 HRL now share a ‘Colonel Commandant’.  This is in line with the regional arrangements that apply to other Corps, eg: RAA, Colonel Commandant Eastern Region; RAE, Col Comdt Southern Region; and RAEME, Comdt Vic-Tas.  As above from the RAAC Corp, DG-Pers has reduced RAAC hon cols from nine to six.  Without B Sqn 3/4 Cav, there are eight RAAC units.  With 12/16 and 1/15 combined, which other unit misses out if only six hon cols are approved?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 November 2015

The RAAC ARES Crisis

At the 2015 RAAC Corporation AGM, the HOC, Brig Mark Brewer CSC and bar, advised that

"The GRES linking to the Bdes is currently through Cav Scouts.  It's not a formal arrangement …".  General Porter (COMD 2 DIV) has been given a priority focus and that is GRES roles and tasks and to progress to a trade model.  They have a role in PMV manning for a Combat Bde but being a transport asset is not the intended end

state.  Recon Scouts with a vehicle is what we are moving towards.  A vehicle that has a commander.  The challenge is vehicle numbers and sustainment money."

The Corps RSM, WO1 Peter Swinfield, stated that "Until the vehicle solution is identified, Cav Scout is still the paid ECN for GRES".

John Colvin, AM, RFD, ED (12/16 HRL) commented that "it is difficult to promote the GRES model with only one ECN and no vehicle platform and in some way [it, ie the GRES model] is on the verge of collapse".  HOC responded to say "We hear what has been said but COMD 2 DIV is working on it

Reg Williams (3/9 SAMR) said that"with only one vehicle (a PMV) it is insufficient to try and maintain a squadron focus.  HOC agreed that platforms are compelling but said that there are just not enough.

Interestingly, Maj Gen Stephen Porter, AM (Comd 2 Div) had this to say at the 2015 DRA Conference: “There are many challenges that face the Reserve into the future. The key issue being is there sustainable capability we can contribute to the total force in addition to the Reserve Battle Group. I think there is and it is quite possibly in the areas of Cavalry Scout, Transport, Logistics and Medical, but there may be others.”

Conclusion

Cutbacks in Defence funding have meant that there is insufficient money to meet the cost of the RAAC ARES units being equipped with vehicles.  They are obviously unable to fulfil the RAAC role of mounted combat.  The units are part of Plan Beersheba in name only.  They are not part of the Reserve Battle Group and exist only to allow the ARA to focus on more highly trained roles, while the ARES provide the much less skilled cavalry scouts (aka assault troopers).  

BUT, Army is moving towards a model whereby RAAC ARES return to mounted recon units.  (As Armouredadvocates suggested recently, possibly the new Hawkei could be involved here.)  The question is, by the time this happens, will the morale of RAAC ARES have run down to such a degree that there is no longer a basis in the Orbat on which to build.

To what degree has the RAAC ARES been involved collectively in discussing these issues?  What a pity that the RAAC Corporation has determined that such matters are not part of its charter.  (What useful ideas might have arisen if a specific forum had been held prior to the RAACC AGM, with ARES unit delegates being asked to present the views of their units.)  It was mentioned at the RAAC AGM that the numbers if the ARES are the lowest they've been for decades … is this any surprise?

Footnote.  Being confined to a dismounted role for members of RAAC ARES units is like members of TAVR Parachute Regiment Battalions (UK) being told that they can no longer parachute.  Having been a member of one of the latter units, I took both my red and black berets with me to a meeting with the Deputy CA some years ago … so as to refer to them when explaining what they mean to those who wear them.  The full story will be recounted in due course (along with others) … I believe that it will be of

interest to those who value openness and transparency, the basis on which Armouredadvocates is founded.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 November 2015

2015 Soldiers Medallion Awards 

The medallion is awarded for soldiers, Cpl and below, who perform exemplary duty and would not otherwise be eligible for recognition.  It's great to see that soldiers from all RAAC units are honoured.  

RAAC Corporation ACT Sub-Branch

The 2015 RAAC Corporation Annual Report advised that: "…the Corporation was asked to look at the viability or otherwise of establishing a Sub-branch or Chapter for ACT-based serving RAAC members and former members living in the area." 

The 2015 RAACC AGM Minutes advise that the sub-branch's activities will be "1 AR Assn controlled and there is no intent to transition to an RAACA Branch."  One has to wonder what the consultation process was re the nature of the sub-branch.  Or is this too much to ask?

RAAC Corporation 2015 Annual Report

The Chairman advises that he attended the August 2015 Ex Service Organisations Round Table (ESORT) pre-session meeting.  A "briefing note [was sent] to all Member Assns and info addressees on 28/8/15", however, at least some ordinary members missed out on the benefit of this communication.  (A matter which has been raised previously.)  A summary of the outcomes of the actual Round table can be found on the DVA website.

DVA's New Principal Medical Adviser 

Congratulations to Dr Ian Gardiner who has been appointed to the above position.  He was with the Defence Centre for Occupational Health and Safety when I last I knew of him.  I had written to the CA to explain that in researching 'Canister! On! FIRE!' I'd come across many former RAAC personnel who suffered from head and neck tumours and acoustic neuromas.  I felt duty bound to bring this to the attention of the ADF.

Dr Gardiner contacted me and I explained that the comparison with the general population needs to be made on the basis of those personnel who had constant exposure to radio transmissions (rather than the service population in general).  I was concerned that there might have been proximity to antennae or reflective surfaces which might impact a particular group.  The outcome was that you were twice as likely to suffer from the above if you were an RAAC crewman before an international standard was introduced with respect to AFV design.  (This doesn't translate to a high percentage, but nevertheless, much greater than the national average.)

Sadly this was the sort of topic discussed on the 1 Armd Regt Members' Forum before it was closed down; as a result of which, this Blog was established … 'you can only do so much'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 November 2015

RAAC Corporation Advocacy

On 13 October 2015, following the 2015 RAAC Corporation Chairman's Annual Report, Armouredadvocates stated: "The fact that the RAAC Corporation will only advocate positions which have the support of the HOC, compromises the HOC’s position.  Far better for the RAAC Corporation to be seen as an independent body which consults widely and advocates in the best interests of the RAAC.

At the 2015 RAAC Corporation AGM, the HOC referred to the RAACC's advantage of being able "to speak freely where perhaps their units cannot".  

Armouredadvocates rests its case. 

The RAAC ARES Crisis (cont)

Yesterday Armouredadvocates stated that:  "Cutbacks in Defence funding have meant that there is insufficient money to meet the cost of the RAAC ARES units being equipped with vehicles.  They are obviously unable to fulfil the RAAC role of mounted combat.  The units are part of Plan Beersheba in name only.  They are not part of the Reserve Battle Group and exist only to allow the ARA to focus on more highly trained roles, while the ARES provide the much less skilled cavalry scouts (aka assault troopers)."

Obviously, scarce defence funds should not be spent where there is no operational need.

On 7 October 201, Armouredadvocates stated: it has "argued previously that the RAAC ARES has the capacity to participate in the Plan Beersheba force generation cycle, providing a battlegroup to the ARA ‘Ready’ brigade.  The RAAC ARES contribution could comprise an ACR(-) made up of a cavalry squadron and an APC squadron.  There is a very real need for this supplementation.  

A single cav squadron and a single APC squadron are inadequate to meet operational requirements at the brigade level.  (The proposed org would provide a training basis for the RAAC ARES at both regimental and squadron levels.)  The new Hawkei (PMV-light) are designed for the recon role.  They could provide a suitable vehicle to develop a supplementary recon capability.  The Bushmaster could provide the basis for supplementary armoured mobility capability.

Surely the time has come whereby the operational need must be clearly defined.  If there is no requirement for cavalry and APC augmentation of the 'Ready' brigade, then so be it … consign the RAAC ARES to infantry duties.  If, however, the

operational need is such that a single cavalry and a single APC squadron are insufficient to support the Ready brigade, then we must have the fortitude to say so.  Anything else is a failure of leadership in allowing a capability gap.   Watch this space!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 November 2015

Armouredadvocates Blog 

I've been asked if posts on the Blog can be tagged and accessed by Category.  I'm sure that this is possible, though not immediately obvious as to how it's done.  Will do so as soon as time allows. 

RAAC Corporation Membership 

We now know that the members of the School of Armour (SOA) are represented in terms of the RAAC Corporation by RAACA (Vic).  Indeed, all ranks of the SOA are members of the RAACA (Vic).  Is a representative of the SOA invited to the RAACA (Vic) AGM?  Does the RAACA (Vic) sponsor student prizes at the SOA?

Silver Army Combat Badge.

It was in early August that a submission was drafted for RAAC personnel to be awarded 'silver' ACB (rather than bronze ones).  As with submissions for the battlehonour Coral-Balmoral to be emblazoned of the Standard of 1st Armd Regt and for eligibility for the award of the Vietnamese CGWP unit citation awarded to 8RAR for Operation Hammersley, to be extended to supporting arms, the silver ACB proposal seems to have run out of 'official' supporters.  Lacking any feedback, Armouredadvocates will forward it to the Minister for an official response.

A particular supporter of this initiative was the late Brigadier Ian Bryant, AM.  At his urging, the following paragraph was included in the epilogue of 'Canister! On! FIRE!':

"The nature of the dangers faced by AFV crews is unique. In the same way that guidons and colours have for centuries acknowledged the pre-eminence of armour and infantry on the battlefield, the RAAC Association took the lead in arguing that an Armour Combat Badge should be awarded to armoured crewmen and those who support them in combat. The official decree was that only infantry deserved individual recognition, an Army Combat Badge being created for all others. The gallant service of past crews demands that appropriate recognition of those involved in armoured combat today be pursued vigorously at all levels, until achieved."

Submission Seeking Approval for RAAC Personnel to Wear a 'Silver' Version of the Army Combat Badges.

 Background. 

For many years, the Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC) Association campaigned for an Armoured Combat Badge to acknowledge the service of Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) crews in closing with and engaging the enemy (in the same way that the Infantry Combat Badge, ICB, acknowledges the equivalent action by the infantry).

Eventually a meeting with the Minister was arranged.  An options paper was prepared as the basis for discussion.  One of the options was an Army Combat Badge.

It was recommended that if this option was chosen, the ICB should be withdrawn to avoid a situation which could be seen as contrary to the concept of combined arms operations.  This proposal was rejected, however.  Only the Royal Australian Infantry (RA Inf) were considered to warrant individual recognition.  An Army Combat Badge would be created to acknowledge all others who participated in combat.

While this decision corrected the anomaly whereby members of other Corps who accompanied infantry into battle, e.g. Royal Australian Artillery (RAA) forward observers, were previously denied any recognition, RAAC members lost their bid for acknowledgement of their unique place at the forefront of battle.

Aim 

This submission argues that the importance of the RAAC's role on the battlefield and the nature and extent of the dangers faced by the crews of AFVs in combat, warrant specific recognition and they should be allowed to wear silver (in accord with their uniform accoutrements), rather than bronze coloured, Army Combat Badges.

Justification. 

Gallantry of AFV Crews. The right to carry guidons and colours has for centuries acknowledged the fact that two corps are central to the conduct of warfare.  Armour and infantry provide the complementary manoeuvre elements by which a commander can dominate the battlefield.  The decision not to acknowledge the unique role of armour in this respect, shows a lack of understanding of the inherent gallantry of AFV crews when committed to combat.

An AFV is more that simply an armoured vehicle.   Having closed with the enemy, it is the crew who bring its guns to bear. It is their spirit and determination to achieve fire superiority at the point of battle, despite the risks, that is at the heart of modern warfare.

Vulnerability of AFVs.  The combat power that the crews of AFVs bring to bear has a force multiplier effect which helps win battles and save lives.  This capability has been known since the First World War. It was emphatically demonstrated by Australian armour in the jungles of New Guinea during the Second World War and more recently in Vietnam.  Rather than being immune to enemy fire, the opposite is the case.

In Vietnam and Afghanistan, AFV crewmen knew only too well that their vehicles could be penetrated by the numerous anti-armour weapons possessed by the enemy,

and even their heavy machine guns.  Furthermore, because they were compelled to operate with open hatches, crews were vulnerable to sniper fire, shrapnel, and satchel charges.  Not always being able to travel off-road, AFVs were susceptible to mine attack, something that the enemy exploited.   Success on the battlefield was achieved through the bravery and boldness of vehicle crews and the shock action which resulted. 

Infantry Support.  It is unlikely that the RA Inf would object to the proposal.  The fact that armour and infantry personnel share the dangers of close combat on the battlefield is inescapable.  The extract below is from a letter written by the CO, 4RAR/NZ to the OC C Squadron, 1st Armoured Regiment, when the tanks were withdrawn from Vietnam:

"It was indeed a sad day when your tanks ceased to be operational. The effort and outstanding esprit-de-corps of your unit have truly been a major factor in the operational success of 1ATF units.  There is no doubt in my mind that casualties would have been much greater without your unfailing support and willingness to accept calculated risks to assist my men, especially in bunker contacts, and thereby carry the day in the true spirit of armoured-infantry co-operation.  

I do not believe that there is one man under my command who would not feel a great sense of personal relief and pride in Australian arms when observing C Squadron press home the attack with typical aggression and determination.  Without you, our task is obviously more difficult, but should we ever be committed to fight a war again – and we probably will be – then the infantry could ask for no better comrades in arms… ."

Cost.  The proposal is at no cost to Army.  Silver Army Combat Badges are already available through the RAAC Association.  Unit regimental funds can meet the small cost involved for serving members; while former members can purchase their own.

Eligibility.  Eligibility is as specified for the Army Combat Badge.  Units can purchase in bulk and issue, while former members can be required to attach a certificate of eligibility from their unit association. 

Conclusion.  

The gallantry of AFV crews in facing the unique dangers presented by close combat on the battlefield warrants specific recognition.  Approval should be granted for RAAC personnel to wear a silver version of the Army Combat Badge.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 November 2015

The RAAC Corporation : We Have a Voice! 

The following is an extract from the report of the President of the 3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn to its recent AGM:

"The RAAC Corporation, of which we are the Foundation Member Association, has been in constant communication and keeps us abreast of happenings. They have linked up with ADSO to give more clout to major issues and are continually monitoring the welfare of all RAAC members, both serving and ex-service men and women. They have lodged submissions to a Senate Standing Committee inquiring into the mental health of Veterans and are continually monitoring major issues. As a member Association we are part of this – WE HAVE A VOICE. The relationship between the Corporation and the Corps is First Class. The Corps consequently has a voice through us to the Corporation up to the highest levels of Government and Army. How can we squander that???".  

Is this really the case?  If, for example, members of a newly raised 3/4 Cav Sqn experienced, say, a systematic injustice of some kind, do they have a voice through us [the 3&4 Cav Regt Assn] to the Corporation up to the highest levels of Government and Army.?

The RAAC Corporation has stated that they will not advocate a position which is not supported by the HOC.  In the above situation, it is likely that the HOC will have no other option than to say that, as this is the policy of the Comd 2Div, then B Sqn 3/4 Cav Regt must accept it.  It would seem that, in fact, the Corps does NOT have a voice through the Assn to the highest levels of Government and Army. 

It should be noted that at the recent RAAC Corporation AGM, the HOC referred to the RAAC Corporation's advantage of being able “to speak freely where perhaps their units cannot”.   

Will the RAAC Corporation change its position?  

As stated previously by Armouredadvocates: “The fact that the RAAC Corporation will only advocate positions which have the support of the HOC, compromises the HOC’s position.  Far better for the RAAC Corporation to be seen as an independent body which consults widely and advocates in the best interests of the RAAC".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 November 2015

3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn

The 3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn is going through difficult times, with the C'tee frustrated at not being able to attract any interest, like alone support, from Assn members.

A frequent topic on this site has been Communication.  The 3/4 Assn has an excellent website and forum.  Many members read posts, but few contribute.  The following is taken from the Minutes of the recent AGM:

"The prospect of amalgamating/merging with another Association had been discussed with the President by our Patron, Rod Earle, separate from the meeting but was not readily accepted by the membership at this time. Further investigation and

consultation will be undertaken and reported back to the members for their further consideration."

As a member of some years, this comes as a surprise.  I don't recall being asked my views on amalgamation (presumably with 2/14 LHR (QMI) Assn).  Communication again.

The following suggestion was made was respect to current 'crisis':

"I suggest that the C'tee email members and ask them to number the activities of the Assn listed below in order of importance to them personally (and add any which have been missed or they think should be added).  At the AGM the C'tee would be able to identify the activities of most significance to members and plan accordingly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 I feel that the importance of the 3& 4 Cav Regts Assn is to facilitate:

            occasions to catch up with mates;

            a means of sharing news about mates;

            support to maintain the history and traditions of 3 Cav, 4 Cav, and 3/4 Cav;

            commemoration of those who have gone before;

            advocacy for veterans' rights;

            advocacy on behalf of those serving today;

            support and mentoring for 3/4 Cav Sqn when it is reformed;

            informed debate about RAAC matters, past, present and future;

            assistance for former RAAC members who are going through difficulties;

            investigation of possible affiliation with 3 Cav (Vietnam) Association;

            support for the RAAC through membership of the RAAC Corporation.

The response was that this has already been tried, without success.  As a member of some years standing, this comes as a surprise.  I don't recall being asked my views on the what I value most in terms of my membership.  Communication again.

Army operations are totally dependant on communication.  Why is it that this art is lost when we retire?  Seems to me that this problem is directly linked to that of a lack of openness and transparency (deliberate or otherwise) in organizational management.  (Which is why this blog was established.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 November 2015

3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn

A comment on yesterday's blog post from Kel Ryan, a former soldier completing a PhD on 'Pathways for the advocacy of the issues of the Australian Defence Community in the 21st century'.

"I commend you on an interesting blog not only for its content but for the regularity of the posts. The committee of the 3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn is not alone in the challenges it is facing in attracting interest and overt commitment from the members. There are many ESOs across the country that are facing similarly testing times as they move from one generation of members to another, from the focus on one conflict or deployment to another and the changing attitudes of individuals to membership in organisations.

Sometimes we try too hard to be involved in the lives of association members and those who could be members. Research tells us that membership of and involvement in an ESO, despite it representing a significant event or time in our lives, is not a priority for many younger service and former service personnel. Those who are ESO leaders in these challenging times need to simply tough it out if they believe that the association is of value and will be of value in the future for the current generation. This current generation have to work their way through post-service employment, marriage/children, education and simply establishing themselves for the next 40 plus years of their lives. This is what many of us had to do as we sought our place in society.

If the ESO is viewed as being of significance in the lives of its members and potential members it will survive. Of course the converse is true so the committee can do one of two things. First it can seek to merge with a like ESO and accept that at least the history of the association, its culture will possibly survive and the issues of importance to the members will be dealt with. The second option is to revert to a focus on the basics and simply maintain links with the members and potential membership through, for example, Peer Support networks. These provide an opportunity to maintain links locally and or over the various social media networks. These are the weapon of choice of the present generation of warriors. It is the ‘virtual world’ that is their means of maintaining contact, passing information and developing and advocating issues. They do not operate by attending meetings and are not keen on an overt emphasis on the past. Peer Support networks occur in coffee shops, over the net, around the pie van or over a beer or glass of wine. They give us the opportunity to stay in touch and to identify how each of us is travelling. They maintain the links and are the opportunity to grow again. "

When I mentioned to Kel that his "second option" closely matches the view of the late Murray Clarke (former 3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn member): "The Association just has to be there, it need not actually do anything more than just exist so if members wish to locate an old mate or just say g'day they could", he had this to say:

"The words of Murray Clarke sum up beautifully what I see as the future of some of the present ESOs.  Keep them alive for the time when they are needed for a more

active role - should the need arise. Such Associations that he [Murray] refers to comprise men of shared experience, shared culture and those are the linking factors."

If anyone wishes to email me their experience in coping with the above challenges, I'll pass onto Kel.  He would appreciate such input, but probably wouldn't be able to respond personally until he finishes writing his thesis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 October 2015

LAND 400

The project office reports that "An open Request for Information (RFI) to further investigate the cost to the Commonwealth associated with the acquisition and support of a tracked and turreted Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) to meet the LAND 400 Phase 3 Mounted Close Combat Capability requirement is scheduled for release during November 2015".

This sounds positive, ie. the timetable hasn't been interrupted because of Defence White Paper considerations.  Of course the RFI could be cancelled, but this would seem unlikely.

Abrams Tanks

The latest issue of Defence Technology Review hints that the Defence White paper will endorse the purchase of 12-13 Abrams M1A1 tanks to provide for the three tank squadrons required by the ACR organization under Plan Beersheba.  The procurement of six M88A2 Hercules ARVs has already been foreshadowed.  

The RAAC : ARA vs ARES.

The above indicates that the future for RAAC ARA units is looking good.  As previously reported, funding directed to meet ARA needs, has left the RAAC ARES without vehicles (even if they had them, there are no funds to sustain their operation).  A vehicle solution is being sought, however, in the interim the units are consigned to a dismounted light cavalry role.  It has to be asked how long this situation can last before the ethos of the RAAC mounted combat role is lost.  

Vale : 'Toddy' Todiorovic

Toddy passed away on 7 November after a fall.

Armouredadvocates posted this on the 1 Armd Regt Facebook page:

"Farewell Toddy.

The following is an extract from 'Canister! On! FIRE!' which says something about the sort of person he was. Sadly too, both his troop leader (Warren Hind) and crew commander (Lance Clarke) from that time predeceased him.

'Apart from his headset and beret flying off, Clarke recalls the belt of ammo from his flex machine gun being ‘stretched vertically before falling back’ on top of him. Looking down into the turret, he saw ‘flame around the gunner’s [Trooper Ilija (Toddy) Todorovic’s] head’. Todorovic also has clear recollections:

The roar of the explosion seemed to go on forever. I could feel the mine exploding through the seat and it felt like someone was punching me from underneath; into my thighs, buttocks and the bottoms of my feet. I was momentarily totally disorientated and close to passing out. The explosion threw me around a bit. I struck my head and face on something. Big deal. I was alive and so were the rest of the crew."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 November 2015

1 Armd Regt : Traditions

On 4 November, I sent the following email to the 1 AR Assn ACT rep:

"If you go to http://paratus.org.au/QStore.pdf, you'll see errors in the representation of 1AR's traditions. 

The C Sqn hat badge and sticker and the 1 AR sticker show the tank advancing from the green fields to the mud; whereas the colour patch and 'lion' lapel badges are correct, ie. the tank and lion are advancing from the mud to the green fields. 

Can you please forward to the 1AR Assn C'tee and ask that these errors be corrected. 

A recent post on Armouredadvocates is copied below 

Many thanks" 

No response as yet.  I'm not holding my breath, but someone needs to make sure that we get these things right … otherwise they lose all meaning and significance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

D Sqn 1 Armd Regt ‘Logo’.

I saw the above on the Internet today and emailed Australian Armed Services Mascot Lapel Badges (https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=australian%20armed%20services%20mascot%20lapel%20badges)  to say:

“I recently saw a badge for D Sqn 1st Armd Regt, the tank on the unit badge is advancing towards the left (and the head of the logo is facing to the left) … this means that the tri-colours in the background should be ordered left to right: green, red, brown (rather than vice-versa). As it is, the squadron is advancing from the green fields through the blood to the mud (rather than the reverse as it should be).”

This is not really a ‘copyright’ issue, however, it is about the correct presentation of regimental history.  There are a couple of ‘back stories’ here.

(i)  During one of my postings to the Regiment, I asked Christies in Sydney to make a car bumper badge with the regimental badge backed by the brown, red and green.  The RSM (Percy White) saw me one day and said you know you’ve got the colours the wrong way round.  I was almost going to say: ‘No I haven’t …that’s from the mud, through the blood to the green fields beyond‘; then I realised, the tank on the badge is advancing to the left.

(ii)  An Army design catalogue exists of unit colour patches.  One of them is for 1 Armd Regt which has the backing  (L to R) brown, red, green; and the tank advancing to the left.  It is marked as ‘CANCELLED”.  The next colour patch shows the backing (L to R) as green, red and brown.  This is the colour patch worn today.

(iii).  The C Sqn 1 Armd Regt badge used to have (and might still have) the same design fault as that of D Sqn’s.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 November 2015

New Thales Australia Contract 

ASPI's Strategist reported yesterday that:

"Thales Australia are looking to supply the Hawkei 4×4 light mobility vehicle to the Polish armed forces. The Australian-designed Hawkei (aka baby Bushmaster) was recently announced as the winner of a contract to supply 1,100 vehicles to the Australian Army. Although the Australian vehicles will be built in Bendigo, Thales have said that they’re open to working with local industry for the Polish vehicles".

(Thales have teamed with General Dynamics land Systems to tender for LAND 400 Phase 2, CRV.) 

Why do we Celebrate Cambrai Day? 

The post below is from last month.  It was forwarded to the HOC for any value it might be in briefing the CA who will be attending the RAACA (NSW) Cambrai Dinner.

I realise now that I might've been wrong.  We, ie. former RAAC members, don't seem to see Cambrai Day as "an opportunity to participate in a memorial service to honour all those who have suffered in the course of serving their Nation in AFVs".  Rather, the Day has become something else.

I wonder what the response would be to a suggestion that Cambrai Day 'events' throughout Australia include a moments silence to honour all those who have suffered in the course of serving their Nation in AFVs?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armouredadvocates, 1 October 2015

"It was a surprise when the following question was posed on the 1 Armd Regt Assn Facebook page on 28 September:

“… why [does the 1st Armd Regt] celebrate Cambrai day when the only Aussies there where [sic] the Australian Flying Corps, the RAAF have a Cambrai Village in WA, they seem to have more rights to it than AS Tankies?”.  A surprise … not least because it came from the Manager of the RAAC Memorial and Army Tank Museum. 

Given that the museum exists to commemorate to the history of the Corps, the question will be regarded as an honest attempt to enhance this.

The following is one response.

The Australian Tank Corps (ATC) was gazetted in 1927;

The first tank unit in the Australian Army, 1st Tank Section, was formed in 1929;

The ATC was affiliated with the Royal Tank Corps (RTC) in 1933;

“Each year on 20 November, the anniversary of the Battle of Cambrai, 1st Tank Section paraded at the Cenotaph in Sydney, where a short memorial service was held in keeping with the traditions of the RTC.”  (‘Australian Armour’, Hopkins)

The 1st Armd Regt came into being in 1949 (seven months after the AAC became the RAAC).  1st Armd Regt was affiliated with the Royal Tank Regiment (RTR) in 1951 (adopting the RTR’s birthday, Cambrai Day, as its own … an association which continued on from the 1st Tank Section, see above).  Until 1965, 1st Armd Regt was the only Regular Army unit in the RAAC.   It follows that Cambrai Day became the day of commemoration for the Armoured Corps, as well as the 1st Armd Regt.

The significance of the Battle of Cambrai was that tanks were used en masse for the first time and commanders capitalised on the effect of shock action.  Since 1933, the significance of the commemoration of Cambrai Day by Australian armoured soldiers,

is that it provides an opportunity to participate in a memorial service to honour all those who have suffered in the course of serving their Nation in AFVs.

It is fair to say that Cambrai Day has been commemorated by members of the AAC and RAAC for over 80 years.  Hopefully the answer to ‘why?‘, will be passed on to those coming behind."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12 November 2015

A gremlin got into the system and this post has had to be recreated:

Closure of the 1st AR Assn Members' Forum

Sometime ago, the C'tee was asked which of the following reasons given for shutting down the Forum was true.  The president responded yesterday.  Answers are shown in bold. There is some conflict between responses, eg. 32 formal complaint, #6, no formal complain and contradiction of one's own statement #3).  A summary will be posted tomorrow.

The cost to the Assn was too great and the C’tee had a responsibility to safeguard members’ funds (it later became known that there was no cost to the Assn, ‘charges’ were being met by the Webmaster);  True 

Then the reason became ‘a formal complaint had been made’. Details about the complaint and the person who made it could not be made known because the complaint was made on a confidential basis.  (The Forum was subsequently re-established on a no cost basis with a ‘disclaimer’ re any responsibility for the views expressed);  True 

The Forum was then shut down again because, according to the President in the Assn newsletter, “some content posted was offensive and was not representative to the standard and values that the Association abides to”;  False see 2 

Then it was revealed that the shut down had been a result of a threat of litigation; (“I have a responsibility to the reputation of our Association and to protect us from litigation”)and then; False see 2

The President explained at the EGM in Albury (May 15) that because of “….changes to the legislation in Victoria and that under the current constitution we are not covered for liability insurance. This was a deciding factor to remove the forum”, i.e. the offensive content, formal complaint, threat of litigation and lack of liability insurance, meant that the C’tee had no choice.  True and relates back to 2 

The President 1 AR Assn then told me (telecon 6 July 2015) that there was no formal complaint, nor threat of litigation. There was, however, some concern expressed about the “tone’ of some of the posts on the Forum.  True 

2015 AGM Minutes: "Unable to do [ie. reinstall the Forum] with the current Website capabilities.  Matter to be considered once new Web site is operational”.  True 

1AR Assn C'tee: "Forums are fast becoming an expensive thing of the past and these days are being over taken by Facebook & Twitter.  Everyone fully realises this except a few who still live in the dark ages”."The want’s [sic] and needs of the precious few should not and never should outweigh the many." Don't Agree with the comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13 November 2015

Closure of the 1AR Assn Members' Forum

The Cairns Artillery and Tank Museum acquired a Centurion (ARN 169052 if my memory is right).  A former member of the Regiment posted a message on the Forum to say the Museum was keen to find out about the history of the tank.  After some investigation it was found that the only source of this was the log book.  The topic was discussed further on the Forum.

Where were the logbooks?  The person who had purchased the majority of Cents from the Army was contacted.  Tim Vibert said that he sold the log books as a single lot, on a confidential basis, to a private collector.  He was asked if he could pass a message to the purchaser to let him/her know about the Cairns Museum's quest.  He said he would, but nothing was heard in response.

In the course of seeking information about the whereabouts of log books, it was revealed that the log books for the Centurions at Puckapunyal had 'disappeared' from the Tank Museum.  The Army History Unit were unable to investigate the loss because it had happened before the AHU assumed responsibility for the Museum

Suddenly the members' Forum was closed down (in such a way that all posts were lost).  The original explanation was that it was costing the Assn too much to run.  When this was found to be untrue, members were informed that a "formal complaint" had been made.  No information as to the basis of the complaint or who it was made by, was able to be provided because it was made "on a confidential basis".

The injustice of not being able to respond to the complaint was raised by members.  Further explanations were provided.  One was that the content of messages on the Forum was "offensive and was not representative to the standard and values that the Association abides to".  Another was that a threat of litigation had been made and the C'tee has "a responsibility to the reputation of our Association and to protect us from litigation".  The C'tee has now admitted that both these reasons were untrue.  There was no offensive content, but there was "some concern expressed about the “tone’ of some of the posts on the Forum".

Why continue to get to the bottom of why the Forum was shut down?

To achieve the natural justice that members of the Assn are entitled to.

1AR Assn members set out to help the Cairns Artillery and Tank Museum and add to the heritage of the RAAC.  This led to enquiries as to the whereabouts of the Centurion log books.  Some were found to have gone missing from official holdings.  A person whose identity is kept secret by the C'tee, complained about the 'tone' of posts on the Forum and it was immediately closed, without giving the Assn members any opportunity to respond to the complaint (or apologise if their 'tone' was inappropriate).  False reasons were given by the C'tee for closing the Forum.  The Founding President of the Assn commented that all procedures affecting members should be conducted in an open and transparent manner.

Armouredadvocates was established as a direct result of the above, ie. to provide an open and transparent space to advance RAAC matters.  Should Armouredadvocates bow to pressure to stop seeking answers?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14 November 2015

Armoured Cavalry Regiment Squadrons. 

Following Cambrai Day, 1 Armd Regt will comprise A Sqn (APC), B Sqn (tank) and C Sqn (ASLAV).  The tank sqn that heads off to the 2 Cav ACR will become C Sqn.

There would seem to be benefit in having a standard sqn make up in each ACR, ie.  tank, APC and ASLAV sqns having the same sqn designation.

The coming Cambrai Day parade will be significant in the Regiment parading with four squadrons, incl two tank squadrons … this is not expected to occur again for some time (if ever).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Progress Following 1AR Assn AGM 

With a C'tee mtg coming up, a request was made re progress with the following matters which were considered at the last AGM (the President's update in bold)" 

*  Progress re the submission (drafted by Armouredadvocates) to emblazon the Coral-Balmoral Battlehonour on the Standard;  is with General Krause   [RAAC Corporation Advisory Board]

*  Progress re the submission (drafted by Armouredadvocates) for the extension of eligibility of the Vietnamese CGWP Unit Citation awarded to 8RAR for Operation Hammersley, to A Sqn 1 Armd Regt.  is with Pedro [Rosemond] and Colin Toll  [RAAC Corporation Advisory Board]

*  Progress re the finalization of the 1AR Assn By-Laws so as they can be posted on the Assn website, as stated was to happen at the last 1AR Assn AGM;  Being reviewed, delay due to tech problems with the web site. 

*  At the the RAAC Corporation AGM, the 1AR Assn president stated the Assn "website was now up and running".  At the last 1AR AGM, when asked about re-establishing the members' Forum he said " Unable to do with the current Website capabilities. Matter to be considered once new Web site is operational".  Is the current website (which doesn't seem to have changed, the 'new' one and does this mean that there'll be no members' forum?  delayed … was to be ready however …. no [new] forum will be considered at this stage.

*  Progress re Motions 4/15 and 5/15 at the last AGM to post, on the website, the Assn's protocols to acknowledge those who receive honours and awards and those who who die.  Included in the By Laws 

*  Progress re the last 1AR Assn AGM regarding the Motion relating to the royalties for Canister! On! FIRE!, the decision being "Sponsorship of both 1st Armoured Regiment and 1st Armoured  Regiment Assoc. members to be considered. Follow up discussions to take place by the committee."        Nothing in place we discussed sponsoring some members from the Regt to France in 2017, lead is Scott Winter             

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bringing key Vietnam battle into spotlight

FSB Coral Article from Ray Payne's Veteran Network  (Balmoral is not mentioned, but it assumed it will be included.)

"The efforts of Australian soldiers against enemy forces in the Battle of Fire Support Base Coral was a defining moment in the Vietnam War.

But ask the average person about it and most are likely to say they have never heard of it.

University of Southern Queensland Lecturer Leonie Jones has made it her mission to change that through a documentary that will be aired on the History Channel on Anzac Day.

Ms Jones said she felt obligated to make sure as many people as possible know about the three week battle, where 25 Australians lost their lives and another 99 were wounded.

"I wanted the story to be told to give a sense of closure to the soldiers because they have never been publicly acknowledged for their sacrifice," she said.

"There's a lot of focus on the Battle of Long Tan, but there were a lot of other battles that were fought in Vietnam by Australian soldiers and I'm happy the veterans have finally been able to find a voice and get their story out to the general public."

Ms Jones travelled across Australia and Vietnam to interview more than 150 veterans of the Battle of Fire Support Base Coral as part of her PhD research.

The documentary, which has been seven years in the making, chronicles the largely untold and unknown story of the biggest and most sustained battle fought by Australians in the war.

It also uncovers how insufficient reconnaissance and poor operational planning allowed the North Vietnamese to exploit the disorganised defence and penetrate the Australians' perimeter.

Acclaimed Australian actor William McInnes tells the important story, which includes actual footage, photos and artefacts from the battle, as well as interviews with survivors.

Mr McInnes spent a day at USQ Springfield's broadcast media centre to provide voice-over narration for the documentary.

"When you have the chance to be a part of something that is unlocking a part of Australian history and telling a great story, it's always a treat to be a part of," he said.

"The story reveals so much about the bravery of these soldiers and the amount of action they saw.

"I don't think people realise how important this battle was and while it was a unique battle it is definitely a story that needs to be told."

USQ Senior Lecturer Daryl Sparkes was integral in helping Ms Jones produce the film."

--------------------------------------------------------------

15 November 2015

The Closure of the 1AR Assn Members' Forum 

Support has been overwhelmingly in favour of continuing to get to the bottom of the reason behind the closure.

Pressure also been brought to bear to allow the injustice to be forgotten.

This prompts consideration of what a 'negotiated' outcome might look like.

For Armouredadvocates, a satisfactory result would be:

For the Cairns Armour and Artillery Museum to receive information regarding the history of ARN 169052, the Centurion tank in its collection (it would seem that this could be provided without revealing the owner of the logbook by communicating through the 1AR Assn President);

For the President, 1 AR Assn to give an undertaking that the C'tee will not initiate any action which negatively affects members of the Assn, when the basis of this is referred as being 'secret'; and

For the 1AR Assn Members' Forum, shut down on the basis of a secret complaint, to be re-established.

--------------------------------------------------------------

16 November 2015

(Note:  There will be a delay in posting tomorrow due to a scheduled power outage.)

RAAC Heritage : 3 Cav Regt

Their latest newsletter (http://www.2-14lhrqmi.asn.au/documents/Newsletter%20Nov-Dec%2015.pdf) shows that the 2/14 LHR (QMI) Assn is in great shape, as is 2/14 LHR (QMI).

What a different story this is to that of the 3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn.  Not only is 3/4 Cav Regt not to be re-raised as an ARES squadron until 2017, but the Assn is struggling to find a focus to unite its members.

Sure, the guidons of both 3 Cav Regt and 4 Cav Regt are being cared for by the School of Armour, but it has to be asked if it would not have been a better outcome for the three ACRs on the orbat to be 1 Armd Regt, 2 Cav Regt and 3/4 Cav Regt, with 2/14 QMI continuing as an ARES unit.

The author is not aware of the decision making involved which has led to the current arrangements, but it has to be questioned in light of the resulting inability to build on the proud operational heritage of 3 Cav Regt.

Armouredadvocates suggested to the 3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn C’tee that they ask members what they valued most in terms of their membership, suggesting a number of different things that they might nominate.  One of these was the possibility of some form of linking with the 3 Cav Regt (Vietnam) Assn.  The idea was scoffed at by the President, chiding the author for not knowing the circumstances as to how the Assn came to be formed.

It seems to me that the 3 Cav Regt (Vietnam) Assn might well be keen to help maintain the heritage of their Regiment and prevent its ‘soul’ being lost.

What better partnership than the 3 Cav (Vietnam) Assn and the 3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn working together to ensure that when the 3/4 Cav Regt (ARES) is re-raised, it has rock solid foundations on which to build … with (i) well prepared measures in place to support and mentor the fledgling squadron, and (ii) former members keen to bring to life the history of the unit’s battle honours and ensure that 3 Cav’s operational heritage provides inspiration for those going forward.

Such a focus might prove to be a uniting influence as far as members of 3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn are concerned; providing a basis on which they can interact positively with each other in a win win situation.

-------------------------------------------------------------

17 November 2015

LAND 400.

Patria, one of the contenders for the LAND 400 Phase 2/CRV (see below from Australian Defence Monthly) has recently unveiled the IFV in its Armoured Modular Vehicle (AMV) family, presumably a candidate for LAND 400 Phase3.  See Defence Technology Reviewhttp://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/#folio=14

Likely weight suggests that those who have recently drawn attention to the need to upgrade supporting logistic assets, might well be correct.

ADM: "BAE Systems is teaming up with Patria to offer the AMV35 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV). This solution combines Patria’s Armoured Modular Vehicle (AMV) and BAE Systems Hägglunds’ E35 turret system. Both are qualified and in service with NATO nations."

Sentinel II.  This is the name that’s been given to the Ebit Systems/Singapore Technologies (ST) Kinetics contender for LAND 400 Phase 2/CRV.  Previously named Terrex II, one has to wonder whether naming the contender after Australia’s WWII manufactured tank might be a good or bad omen.  (There are arguments both ways.)

————————————————————– 

Abrams ‘Refresh’ 

From the latest Army newspaper:

THE first of 10 “refreshed” M1A1 Abrams tanks has been delivered to the School of Armour as part of a major Tank Technical Refresh and Remediation Program.

CO School of Armour Lt-Col Andrew Abbott welcomed the delivery of the refreshed and remediated M1A1 platforms as providing a significant boost to the unit’s effectiveness. “We expect our ability to deliver training to be significantly enhanced as a consequence of improvements to the vehicles’ performance and reliability,” Lt-Col Abbott said.

Work began on the M1A1 Tank Technical Refresh line in October last year.

The M1A1 Tank Technical Refresh and Remediation Program will update the baseline configuration of the Army’s 59 M1A1 Abrams tanks and address obsolescence and fatigue risk by conducting a deep level service and selected engineering changes.

Joint Logistics Unit –Victoria (JLUV) in Bandiana is undertaking the refresh of the tanks, following intensive on-the-job training by tank repair specialists from the US Army Depot at Anniston in Alabama.

The Army’s seven M88A2 Hercules armoured recovery vehicles will also be refreshed, beginning in early 2017.

Work on the M88A2 will be undertaken by a BAE Systems team from the US at Joint Logistics Unit North (JLUN) in Darwin.

Both refresh programs are expected to end in 2018.

The refresh program is being managed by the tank program team in the Mounted Combat Systems Program Office within Capability Acquisition and Support Group’s Land Systems Division (LSD). Tank National Fleet Manager Maj Ian Thomason said each tank was partially disassembled in order to carry out a comprehensive maintenance schedule.

“This will allow the teams at JLU-V to confirm the configuration baseline across the fleet, as well as implement major upgrades, including heavy suspension and hydraulics,” Maj Thomason said.

To maintain the availability of the tank capability across Army, the tank program is simultaneously conducting a fleet rotation. This, in combination with the refresh program, will allow the tanks to be supported through to life-of-type.

——————————————– 

18 November 2015

LAND 400

From yesterday's ASPI's 'Strategist':

"The other impact of recent operations has been a valuable—and sometimes costly—series of lessons about contemporary battlefields. The rise of well-armed and agile non-state groups means that even relatively low-level conflicts can be lethal. As Western militaries found to their cost in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s no longer safe to take lightly armoured or soft-skinned vehicles into conflict zones.

There’s a trend towards increased protection against improvised explosive devices and other threats. Army’s M-113 armoured personnel carriers have been around for half a century and, despite an expensive upgrade, they aren’t fit for purpose today. The Bushmaster vehicle has proven to be a great success in protecting its passengers and the ASLAV has been an excellent armed reconnaissance vehicle, but it’s clear that greater protection is going to be needed in the future.

Greater protection comes at a greater cost, and the Army’s ability to replace its entire fleet of vehicles will depend on money. That isn’t a new problem. In 2010, ASPI noted that a significant and wide-ranging upgrading of the Army’s protected mobility

vehicles and armour wasn’t guaranteed to happen any time soon, given the 2009 Defence White Paper’s expensive naval initiatives."

At last there seems to be an understanding about the need for the protection levels specified.  It wasn't so long ago that industry was 'chomping at the bit', saying that the operational requirements were unrealistic and would never be able to be achieved (within their profit margins).

The RAAC ARES 'Crisis'

The 12/16 HRL report in the latest 'Ironsides' makes the point that "the PMV is no longer a platform with which we can sustain the Crew Commander and Driver team relationship, so critical to that 'move', 'shoot' and 'communicate' proficiency".

Maj Gen 'Gus' McLachlan AM, Head Modernisation and Strategic Planning - Army, stated in his space that "Army HQ has directed the crew commander role within the reserve PMV units be retained to allow us to grow NCOs".

Those serving, both ARA and ARES, are doing everything they can to make the best of a bad situation.  Within the constraints imposed by Government, funding for Defence equipment projects has left the RAAC ARES unable to contribute to the RAAC role of conducting mounted warfare.  But … as per previous posts, those who are in positions to be able to make a difference, are doing everything they can to turn this situation around.  The question has to be asked (again) will these efforts be able to bring about change before the ethos of the RAAC ARES is lost?  More importantly, will remedial action be implemented before the effect of capability gaps is unable to be reversed?

---------------------------------------------------------

19 November 2015

Closure of the 1AR Assn Members' Forum

It is of interest that the 1AR Assn Assn president stated recently that

"All I can say is that you are the only member who pushes this [a quest to reveal the reasons behind the closure of the Forum] - during the AGM where we had over 300 members present and not one member made any comment when we opened the floor. You must be right and the other 700 member must be wrong".

It seems that AGM and the EGM (held in Albury some time before) might have been confused.

A the AGM, the following motion was moved:

"Just over 12 months ago the 1st Armoured Regiment Association's Member's Forum was closed, reopened and closed again. Members are now limited to the use of Facebook, which is not universally popular. In December last year the 3rd Cavalry Regiment (Vietnam) Association's SITREP Forum also closed but was reopened under different management shortly afterwards. That forum now has over 180 members and has active, ongoing discussion. Among the contributors are former members of the 1st Armoured Regiment who

are uncomfortable with Facebook. The value of the forum method of communication is well demonstrated through the recent SITREP posts concerning the extension of the award of the RVN Cross of Gallantry With Palm (CGWP) Unit Citation to the Australian units of the US 173rd Airborne Brigade. That discussion led directly to the preparation of the submission for the extension of 8RAR's CGWP to its supporting units (which include A Sqn 1 Armd Regt) during Operation Hammersly. "

Motion 10/15: That the Assn reinstate a member’s discussion forum accessible from the Assn website as an alternative to Facebook Proposer: Trevor Lowe, Mick Rainey. Seconder: Dean Martin, Bob Snape 

Decision: Unable to do with the current Website capabilities.  Matter to be considered once new Web site is operational.

The next motion was (in part): "It is a no brainer forums are fast becoming an expensive thing of the past and these days are being over taken by Facebook & Twitter. Everyone fully realises this except a few who still live in the dark ages. …. The want's [sic] and needs of the precious few should not and never should outweigh the many. 

Motion 11/15: That the subject of a forum is now closed and should be placed in history.  Proposer: Anthony Soutar (a C'tee member); Seconder: Iain Reynolds (a C'tee member)

Decision of the AGM was: "Matter to be considered once new Web site is operational".

Next 1AR Assn C'tee Mtg.

The next C'tee mtg will be before Christmas.  The Assn website is now up and running.  Given the AGM decision above Armouredavocates has asked what the outcome of the 'reconsideration' has been?

Mr Soutar has made his position clear: "I hope the forum crap has been firmly been put to bed".  Is this what the AGM agreed to as a "reconsideration"?

Interestingly, Mr Soutar also advised that C'tee that: "Of late I have noticed a small about of infighting on the Regimental association FB page. This is B.S. and the admin should be all over this. We are not a group of children, we are ex and current serving members of this Regiment and I for one have no time for this sort of crap. I know social media has a way of blowing out but I for one will not put up with crap."

But this is what he said with respect to the 1AR Assn Members' Forum:  "Of late there has been a fair bit of infighting within the Assn which all it is really doing is pulling the great group apart and must be stopped in it's tracks". 

One can't but wonder whether the "infighting" in Mr Soutar's mind, equates to 'robust discussion'; this raises the question as to whether or not guidelines should be posted with respect to what is acceptable discussion and what is unacceptable "crap" in the opinion of the C'tee.

---------------------------------------------------

20 November 2015

Cambrai Day : "The value of tanks in the offensive has been conclusively proved".

The following article in the SMH of 20 November 1933 is of interest: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17025564 ('Tank Corps' Celebrations') 

RAAC Force Structure

"A fully-costed Force Structure Review will underpin the White Paper. The Force Structure Review will assess Defence's future capability needs and propose a force structure that addresses Australia's defence objectives within an agreed allocation of funding."  (Department of Defence website.)

What will the above force structure mean for the RAAC ARES?

The HOC stated at the RAAC Corporation AGM recently, with respect to the ARES: "Recon scouts with a vehicle that is what we are moving toward".  The vehicle has not yet been identified, however.  The HOC went on to say: "A vehicle that has a commander.  The challenge is vehicle numbers and sustainment money.

As per yesterday's post:  'The question has to be asked (again) will these efforts be able to bring about change before the ethos of the RAAC ARES is lost?  More importantly, will remedial action be implemented before the effect of capability gaps is unable to be reversed?'

If one looks at how this situation came about , there will no doubt be a number of lessons which can be learnt.  The question is, are they the same lessons which have been identified (possibly many times) previously?

Major General Gus McLachlan, AM, address to the Military Comminications and Information Systems (CIS) Conference, Canberra, Wednesday, 11 November 2015.

Now here's a subject which is particularly relevant to the RAAC's ability to conduct mounted warfare

http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Speeches-and-transcripts/HMSPA-address-to-the-Military-Communications-and-Information-Systems-Conference

------------------------------------------------------

21 November 2015

The RAAC ARES 'Crisis' (Cont)

Following yesterday's post, it seems that Army's website hasn't caught up with new plans re the RAAC ARES:

"In order to fulfil the enduring annual Army Reserve capability requirements, the generic structure of the 2nd Division formations developed for Plan BEERSHEBA include, a Royal Australian Artillery mortar capability under the command of an Infantry battalion, the re-roling of all Army Reserve Royal Australian Armoured Corps units to the production of Bushmaster crews, and the embedding of the Brigade Operational Supply Company within each Combat Services Support Battalion."  

(http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Projects/Plan-BEERSHEBA/Reserves) 

Roger Nobel, DSC, CSC

What a great steward of the RAAC …

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-18/army-brigadier-roger-noble-farewells-townsville/6951188

The reference to him taking up an educational role with the Army in Sydney is a little vague.  The following from the Townsville Bulletin explains:

Brig Noble will take on his new post as director-general army training at Victoria Barracks, Sydney next year.

“I will essentially run the training and education for the army so it'll be pretty good to come out of this job and do that.” he said. “(Training) has been a big focus of 3rd Brigade over the past two years. It’s what we’ve done well. 

The New 1AR Assn Website 

Tubby's done well, see: http://www.paratus.org.au/ .  It will be interesting to see if Armouredadvocates suggestion to have the Vale header flash when a new notice is posted, has been taken up.

--------------------------------------------------------

22 November 2015

Something a little different on a Sunday …there is a 'link', stay with it.

ADF Submarine Force.

"Finally, to venture into more sensitive territory, it is not difficult to deduce that the main reason the US is keen for Australia to acquire a new generation of SSKs is not power projection but rather the contribution they would make to intelligence gathering, specifically in the area of communications electronics support measures (CESM). The Kestrel CESM system fitted to the Collins class, for example, provides “wideband signal search, narrowband audio interception and direction finding (DF) over the HF, VHF and UHF bands”.[8] Apart from the considerable strategic benefit offered by the intelligence it provides, this capability presently gives Australia valuable ‘coin’ in the intelligence sharing agreement with the US. Whether or not it could be provided safely and effectively by sophisticated aircraft (manned and unmanned) or satellites rather than submarines is a key question."  Jon Stanford. 'Australia’s New Submarine: What is its Mission?', http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=4814 

The statement above seemed to resonate with something said by the previous Minister for Defence.  (Which surprised me as I hadn't thought of submarines in these terms.)

Just recently, however, a retired senior naval officer published an article in a reputable journal, saying that the intelligence gathering capability of submarines was negligible.  Unfortunately I can't find this article (despite searching for an age.)

Suffice to say … is 'intelligence gathering' a primary factor in acquiring new subs?

As mentioned a day or so ago, the Defence White Paper 2015 is to be released in conjunction with a detailed Force Structure Review.  Someone, in the process of presenting an academic paper, has this to say:

"To privilege the RAN, at the expense of the RAAF and Australian Army hardware needs, distorts and compromises force structure capabilities designed to confront a multitude of threats".

Armouredadvocates has faith in those serving within the Department of Defence charged with making decisions concerning force structure … that they will do so in the best interests of Australia's defence and the members of the ADF.

----------------------------------------------------

23 November 2015

The RAAC ARES 'Crisis' (Cont)

(Quotes from 'Ironsides', 2015 Edition)

The RAAC ARES Unit's Perspective … 

"But we managed to maintain mounted recon skills using Land Rover Regional Force Surveillance vehicles (RFSVs) without a directed need for that specific capability…".A Sqn, 3/9 SAMR

"The two directed tasks for the squadron are to provide Protected Lift, through the PMV and to provide Cav Scout support to the unit's paired ACR, in this case 2nd Cavalry Regiment.  Whilst the remainder of the squadron's PMVs are still to arrive …".  A Sqn 10 LH

"PWLH was given the 2 Div lead on the new Mercedes G Wagon Surveillance & reconnaissance Vehicles (SRV) evaluation to determine the vehicles suitability to train cavalry scouts and junior officers,"  4/19 PWLH

"The training block provided the opportunity for PMV crews to commence the integration with 12/16 HRL, with all participants involved in small arms practice".  1/15 RNSWL 

"Now the PMV is no longer a platform with which we can sustain the Crew Commander and Driver relationship, so critical for the "move", "shoot" and "communicate" proficiency."  12/16 HRL 

-------------------------------------------------------

The ARA Position … 

"I have asked the Commander 2nd Division to investigate ways to enhance the Reserves and to propose options.  Rest assured that I am open to all sustainable options to build a single integrated Army with a strong reserve contribution".  Lt Gen Angus Campbell , DSC, AM

"The finalization of Plan Beersheba will require a "one Army" approach which means we must resolve the roles and tasks of the RAAC reserve units … Army HQ has directed the crew commander role within the reserve PMV units be retained to allow us to grow NCOs".  Maj Gen 'Gus' McLachlan, AM. 

------------------------------------------------------- 

What Do We Know ? 

The CA has asked the Comd 2 Div to investigate and propose options [re the roles and tasks of the reserve units] (above).

The Comd 2 Div is conducting a review (previous post).

The RAAC position as presented at the 2015 RAAC Corporation AGM by the HOC: Recon scouts with a vehicle that is what we are moving toward”.  The vehicle has not yet been identified, however.  The HOC went on to say: “A vehicle that has a commander.  The challenge is vehicle numbers and sustainment money.

What Does the Future Hold?

On 4 November 2915, Armouteredadvocates posted:

Yesterday Armouredadvocates stated that:  “Cutbacks in Defence funding have meant that there is insufficient money to meet the cost of the RAAC ARES units being equipped with vehicles.  They are obviously unable to fulfil the RAAC role of mounted combat.  The units are part of Plan Beersheba in name only.  They are not part of the Reserve Battle Group and exist only to allow the ARA to focus on more highly trained roles, while the ARES provide the much less skilled cavalry scouts (aka assault troopers).”

Obviously, scarce defence funds should not be spent where there is no operational need.

On 7 October 2015, Armouredadvocates stated: it has “argued previously that the RAAC ARES has the capacity to participate in the Plan Beersheba force generation cycle, providing a battlegroup to the ARA ‘Ready’ brigade.  The RAAC ARES contribution could comprise an ACR(-) made up of a cavalry squadron and an APC squadron.  There is a very real need for this supplementation.  

A single cav squadron and a single APC squadron are inadequate to meet operational requirements at the brigade level.  (The proposed org would provide a training basis for the RAAC ARES at both regimental and squadron levels.)  The new Hawkei (PMV-light) are designed for the recon role.  They could provide a suitable vehicle to develop a supplementary recon capability.  The Bushmaster could provide the basis for supplementary armoured mobility capability.

Surely the time has come whereby the operational need must be clearly defined.  If there is no requirement for cavalry and APC augmentation of the ‘Ready’ brigade, then so be it … consign the RAAC ARES to infantry duties.  If, however, the operational need is such that a single cavalry and a single APC squadron are insufficient to support the Ready brigade, then we must have the fortitude to say so.  Anything else is a failure of leadership in allowing a capability gap to emerge.

(Of course, it could be that the operational need doesn't exist at the present time, but could do in the future … therefore there is a need to keep the skill set alive, so as to form a basis for rapid expansion.)

-------------------------------------------------------

24 November 2015

Vietnam Today 

Yesterday I met the Vietnamese Army exchange instructor at RMC Duntroon; an articulate, intelligent and friendly officer.  I liked him.

A few years ago the RSL proposed to enter into a MOU with their equivalent body in Vietnam.  This organisation was a subsidiary of the Vietnam Communist Party (VCP); thereby directly linked to the government's human rights abuses.

RSL members protested that before the RSL entered into an MOU (an advantage of which was to improve Vietnam's status in terms of trade agreements), agreement should be sought re the improvement in the treatment of former RVNAF members (our former Allies) and their families.  This was a bridge too far for the RSL and they withdrew their proposal.

Vietnam today is governed by the VCP.  Citizens of democratic countries argue that human rights abuses (as seen in our eyes) in Vietnam today are a violation of international law.  Governments of these countries impose trade restrictions to further their protest.

This is the way of the world.  It one country's right to accept a communist government; it is another country's right to impose trade restrictions.  Where does an instructor exchange between Australian and Vietnamese officer training academies fit within all this?

Obviously Australia wishes to achieve close diplomatic relations with as many countries in its region as possible.  This is in our national interests.  How does does this lie with compassion for those members of the South Vietnamese forces who we previously endeavoured to assist militarily?  Do we turn our back?  Do we ignore Vietnam today?  As one would answer no to the latter, it's to be hoped that neither do we turn our back.  Has Australia done so?  It will be interesting to see what level of representation is considered appropriate next August.

One response:

"To answer your broader question 'yes' I believe that we as a nation have forgotten the debt we owe to those Vietnamese that supported and fought for the South. Fifty years on such notions of support and comfort for former allies are seen as an anachronism as the populations of both countries move into a closer relationship with defence and trade issues being top of mind at present. Sadly such is life in a rapidly evolving world. 

Some would argue that the debt has been paid and continues to be paid as we support the opening up of the Vietnamese economy and continues to be so as for example we support the free flow of individuals, students, professionals and government officials between our two countries. I don't necessarily subscribe to that view. A debt is a debt that must be repaid openly and in full view of all. It is an interesting world we live in!"

------------------------------------------------------------

25 November 2015

The Defence White Paper and Self- Reliance 

Rather than being the 2015 DWP, according to Hugh White, Professor of Strategic Studies at ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, it is now to be the 2016 DWP as "Abbott's draft was a dud".

The following letter to the Canberra Times is self-explanatory (that doesn't mean that it will be printed):

Hugh White 'We can't rely on our allies' (Times 2, November 21, p1) suggests that defence self-reliance is a stand alone concept, i.e. a nation either has alliances with others OR is self-reliant.  It is, of course, a matter of degree.  Without it in some measure, no alliance would be possible. 

How does a nation determine the degree of self reliance it needs?  As always, the assessment of the threat and consequent warning times is the key element.  If this is wrong, so is all defence preparation (which, after all, is contingency planning).  The lead times to acquire equipment and munitions (and train personnel) are primary factors.  

Of course there are other requirements critical to a nation's existence, such as fuel supplies.  The risk of such imports being disrupted, leads to decisions regarding local production and stockpiling policies.  Disruption doesn't necessarily mean supply lines being cut, but also has to take account of the country of source withholding supply (possibly because of its own defence needs). 

In terms of defence materiel, not everything needs to be made locally.  What is essential is the ability to sustain operations from within a nation's own resources.  As with lead times to deploy standing forces and mobilise reserves, a responsive industrial capability is crucial.  Furthermore, the cost of maintaining war stocks in operational condition, must be accepted.  (Failure here led to the many 'dud' bombs dropped by the RAAF in Vietnam which provided the enemy with explosive to be used against Australian soldiers.)

--------------------------------------------------------------

26 November 2015

AWM Roll of Honour (ROH) Policy

Earlier this month, the name of Sapper David Wood a "young war veteran who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and took his own life" was added to the ROH.  He had completed two tours in Afghanistan and began treatment for PTSD and depression when he returned to Australia.  (ABC News; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-09/david-wood-soldier-australian-war-memorial/6924022)

On 2 Feb 15, the following article (in part) appeared in the Daily Telegraph:

Family fights to have Australian Army Sapper David Wood listed on war casualties at Australian War Memorial  

(http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/family-fights-to-have-australian-army-sapper-david-wood-listed-on-war-casualties-at-australian-war-memorial/story-fni0cx4q-1227204879448} 

The Northern Star reports Mr Wood said an Army officer’s report into his son’s death found he died from war-induced post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a direct result of active service.

Now his family have taken up the fight to have Spr Wood listed on a new war casualties section at the Australian War Memorial.  Federal Member for Page [at the time of Spr Wood's death, May 2013], Janelle Saffin has also joined the cause lobbying for victims of war induced PTSD to be recognised.

“I wrote a letter to then Defence Minister Stephen Smith explaining that David died while in service and as a result of service in the Australian Army,” she told the Northern Star.

An Australian War Memorial spokesman said there could be changes to the war casualties list in the near future.

“This matter is under active consideration,” the spokesman said.

“Once a decision has been made, the Council of the Australian War Memorial will be suitably advised.”

The last statement by the AWM spokesman is somewhat surprising … according to the AWM website "Questions of eligibility for the Roll of Honour are determined solely by the Memorial’s Council …".  How is it then that a decision will be made (by whom?) and the Council then informed?

There are other imponderables here.  The ABC News article (top) included the following quote: "A spokesman for the Australian War Memorial said the Roll of Honour recognised those who died both in the field and after they returned from service".  This is not completely true.  Those who die as a result of their wounds are only recognised on the Roll of Honour if they (i) die within the prescribed period of a conflict or (ii) within two years of returning from it.  The second provision has recently been added to the criteria by the AWM and presumably means that a person, who dies after the prescribed period of a conflict, but within two years of returning from it, will be added to the ROH.  This provision as stated on the AWM website is:

'have died during service as a member of the Australian armed forces or the Australian Defence Force, or as a result of that service'; and have died during or as a result of service in a conflict or [further definition]and ,'have died between the defined start and end dates of that conflict or operation; or as a result of service in that conflict or operation within two years of returning to Australia'.

This being the case … why was there any need for Sapper Wood's family to fight to have his name included on the ROH?  The Afghanistan conflict has not ended, therefore the prescribed period is still open; therefore Sapper Wood is automatically eligible to be included on the ROH as his death was a direct result of his active service.

Now to the real issue.  Why is it that those Australian service personnel who die as a direct result of active service on behalf of the nation are only recognised if they die during the prescribed period of a conflict or within two years of returning from it?  Surely all who die as a direct result of their service should be recognised.  The present system hides the true cost to the nation of wars we enter into.  Those, for example, who die after 30 June 1947 as a direct result of being a POW during the Second World War are neither regarded as casualty of that War, nor recognised by the AWM.

There have been two changes to AWM policy recently: death within two years of return has been added and those who serve as peacekeepers etc have been included.  Surely it is now time to recognise ALL those whose death is caused by their active service on behalf of their country.  A feasible way of doing this is to maintain a Commemorative Roll within the AWM, listing all casualties of war who do not meet the narrow criteria of the ROH.

There is, for example, no time limit in America for listing names on the Vietnam Memorial.  If someone dies as a direct result of wounds caused by enemy action, their name is added to the Wall; if they die from other causes associated with their Vietnam service, their name is included on a Roll within the Memorial.  This means that all casualties are recognised.  Australia, on the other hand, recognises only some of its war dead… isn't it time that this heartless bureaucratic system was changed?

---------------------------------------------------------

27 November 2o15

LAND 400

The Australian Defence Magazine (16 Nov 15) advises the good news that:

"LAND 400 Phase 3 Mounted Close Combat Capability RFI [Request for Information] was released on November 13.  The covering letter outlines the following:

price and availability of both the infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) and manoeuvre support vehicle (MSV)

ideally the Commonwealth is seeking a tracked and turreted IFV with protection levels similar to that of the Abrams tank while carrying an eight person section.

as an RFI all associated costs are borne by participants and not the Commonwealth.

all estimates are to be based upon 450 vehicles under the Basis of Provisioning numbers outlined for the array of variants and suitable subsystems.

the RFI is also looking for production rates for both home and Australian markets.

An industry briefing is scheduled for Nov 27 in Canberra with responses due on February 22."

The above is in accordance with the project schedule and indicates that there has been no delay associated with the slippage of the Defence White Paper.  

BUT  450 vehicles probably means three squadrons (one for each ACR) , plus School of Armour, RTC and repair pool numbers. Nothing for the RAAC ARES.  This is unsurprising, given recent statements that a vehicle to equip the ARES is still to be decided (which is itself unsurpring, given the role of the RAAC ARES is under review by Comd 2 Div.) 

Tomorrow: Defence's technical evaluation capability … are there gaps?  Will LAND 400 contenders receive the scrutiny they require?

--------------------------------------------------------

28 November 2015

Test and Evaluation of LAND 400 Contenders

According to the ASPI 'Strategist' ('The ANAO’s grim picture of Defence testing & evaluation'; Keith Joiner; 25 Nov 2015) "The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has just released a report into Defence Test and Evaluation (T&E) that makes a number of important findings.  Extracts from this article are copied below. 

Defence uses T&E to have representative users assess if capabilities deliver effective results when used in representative missions. [For example, risk mitigation activities such as the user trial for the LAND 400 MOTS contenders.] 

Good T&E gets done as early as possible; ideally T&E gets done as a real preview before full contract (off-the-shelf systems) … is contracted. 

ANAO last audited Defence’s T&E in 2001–2002. In the 13 years since, they’ve unfortunately found that there has been little or only late progress on most of their areas of concern. That’s despite the concerns being reiterated in a Defence T&E Roadmap in 2008 and in the Senate Inquiry into Defence Procurement (especially Chapters 2 and 12) in 2012. 

Each maritime project has to find the T&E expertise and resources itself.  In contrast, the Air Force has a dedicated developmental T&E agency. The Army also has one but theirs was in the now defunct DMO and it’s not clear yet if they’ll take this critical enabler back to the service for early insight into project T&E.

The ANAO report and the government’s response today in Parliament point to the First Principles Review and subsequent Defence reorganisation as the means to improve Defence T&E. Little is known of the new structures of this reorganisation other than it aims to reduce acquisition bureaucracy and create a strong strategic centre. 

Apart from the user trial for LAND 400 contenders, there also is the maintenance evaluation.  Both of these might be considered relatively straight-forward (though there is much more to both then might appear to be the case on the surface).  In addition, there is the engineering assessment of the equipment and its design.

How will LAND 400 fare?  One has to admire the professionalism shown by those involved in the project to date, will they (and the ADF and the Nation) be let down by forced Defence redundancies?

--------------------------------------------------------

29 November 2015

Closure of the 1 AR Assn Members' Forum

The email below, including following 'background' was sent to the President, 1AR Assn last week.  The president has responded to say that a C'tee Mtg will be held in the coming weeks and the matter will be discussed at that time.  There are two separate issues:

Action by the President and/or C'tee which negatively impacts members of the Assn, undertaken for a reason which is so secret that it cannot be shared with members of the Assn; and

The long term future of the Assn Members' Forum.

Unless resolved as below, Armouredadvocates will continue to advocate that the first issue is so serious a threat to proper (i.e., just and equitable) management processes, that it must be challenged at all levels and with all resources (after all, it was for this reason that Armouredadvocates was established).

Email to the President, 1 AR Assn:

"Following our recent discussion I asked readers of my blog if 'Armouredadvocates' should bow to pressure to stop seeking answers as to why the Forum was shut down.  (See below) 

Support was overwhelmingly in favour of continuing to get to the bottom of the reason behind the closure.  This prompts consideration of what a ‘negotiated’ outcome might look like.

For 'Armouredadvocates', a satisfactory result would be:

For the Cairns Armour and Artillery Museum to receive information regarding the history of ARN 169052, the Centurion tank in its collection (it would seem that this could be provided without revealing the owner of the logbook by communicating through the 1AR Assn President);

For the President, 1 AR Assn to give an undertaking that the C’tee will not initiate any action which negatively affects members of the Assn, when the basis of this is referred as being ‘secret’; and

For the 1AR Assn Members’ Forum, shut down on the basis of a secret complaint, to be re-established. 

I gather that the person who contacted you re the Forum, was known to you, if not a friend (why would you accept the opinion of what a complete stranger judged to be an 'inappropriate' tone against the views, if they were given the opportunity to express them, of long term members of the Assn?).  The above 'resolution' does not require you to name him/her, nor does it require an apology for taking action which adversely affects members of the Assn behind a veil of 'secrecy'.  (Was there a complaint made about the tone of a post or posts on the Forum, or was this just an excuse to close the Forum ... no-one will ever know because of the imposed secrecy.)

 Your response would be appreciated.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Reason the 1AR Assn Members’ Forum was Shut Down

The Cairns Artillery and Tank Museum acquired a Centurion (ARN 169052).  A former member of the Regiment posted a message on the Forum to say the Museum was keen to find out about the history of the tank.  After some investigation it was found that the only source of this was the log book.  The topic was discussed further on the Forum.

Where were the logbooks?  The person who had purchased the majority of Cents from the Army was contacted.  Tim Vibert said that he sold the log books as a single lot, on a confidential basis, to a private collector.  He was asked if he could pass a message to the purchaser to let him/her know about the Cairns Museum’s quest.  He said he would, but nothing was heard in response.

In the course of seeking information about the whereabouts of log books, it was revealed that the log books for the Centurions at Puckapunyal had ‘disappeared’ from the Tank Museum.  The Army History Unit were unable to investigate the loss because it had happened before the AHU assumed responsibility for the Museum

Suddenly the members’ Forum was closed down (in such a way that all posts were lost).  The original explanation was that it was costing the Assn too much to run.  When this was found to be untrue, members were informed that a “formal complaint” had been made.  No information as to the basis of the complaint or who it was made by, was able to be provided because it was made “on a confidential basis“.

The injustice of not being able to respond to the complaint was raised by members.  Further explanations were provided.  One was that the content of messages on the Forum was “offensive and was not representative to the standard and values that the Association abides to”.  Another was that a threat of litigation had been made and the C’tee has “a responsibility to the reputation of our Association and to protect us from litigation”.  The C’tee has now admitted that both these reasons were untrue.  There was no offensive content, but there was “some concern expressed about the “tone’ of some of the posts on the Forum”. 

Why continue to get to the bottom of why the Forum was shut down?

To achieve the natural justice that members of the Assn are entitled to.

1AR Assn members set out to help the Cairns Artillery and Tank Museum and add to the heritage of the RAAC.  This led to enquiries as to the whereabouts of the Centurion log books.  Some were found to have gone missing from official holdings.

A person whose identity is kept secret by the C’tee, complained about the ‘tone’ of posts on the Forum and it was immediately closed, without giving the Assn members any opportunity to respond to the complaint (or apologise if their ‘tone’ was inappropriate).  False reasons were given by the C’tee for closing the Forum.  The Founding President of the Assn commented that all procedures affecting members should be conducted in an open and transparent manner. 

Armouredadvocates was established as a direct result of the above, ie. to provide an open and transparent space to advance RAAC matters.  Should Armouredadvocates bow to pressure to stop seeking answers?

-----------------------------------------------------------

30 November 2015

Defence White Paper.

The 'Australian Financial Review', 24 November 2015, included the following article, extracts from which are copied below: 

'Delayed defence white paper key test for new minister' 

"Complex and fast-shifting strategic circumstances face Australia's new and first female defence minister as she makes final adjustments to Australia's much-delayed defence white paper. 

Marise Payne inherited the draft document from displaced Prime Minister Tony Abbott and defence minister Kevin Andrews when Malcolm Turnbull named her defence minister in late September. 

By then the three-part structure of the white paper was fixed: a 20-year outlook for defence strategy, force structure and acquisition; a 10-year investment plan for defence capability; and a new defence industry policy statement. 

It was (and remains) a familiar structure with the added promise that it would be Australia's first full-costed and externally cost-assured defence white paper.  Trying to get these financial aspects correct and credible is reportedly one reason for the delays (along with three ministerial changes)."

Is the 'reported' reason for the delay, from October 2015 to 2016 (sometime) given above really correct?  The above article went on to state:

"Of course the national defence landscape is littered with defence industry statements heavy-laden with declarations of noble vision and ambitious intent.  They arrive with a flourish of drums and trumpets while ethereal choirs sing their praises and promise a new Jerusalem for Defence industry. 

And then, just as quickly, they are gone, vanished, finished and forgotten. The sorry old order remains intact. Marise Payne will want to do better in what will be the first and defining test of her incumbency as defence minister when she releases the white paper. She has the skills and ability to succeed and it will not be long before we will have the measure of her worth. There are good grounds for optimism."

If it really is a matter of getting the "financial aspects" correct, one has to wonder to what extent re-prioritising the budget has occurred with the change in PM.

Leaving aside the political influences, Armouredadvocates has great confidence in the professionalism of all those involved in the preparation of the 'first' DWP.