1 October 2015

Why Celebrate Cambrai Day?

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.

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

2 October 2015

Vale Nev Calliss (Born 29 January 1945)

A Report on Nev's Funeral from Gerry McCormack:

Gentlemen,

Nev Calliss drove off the parade ground yesterday in Adelaide attended by his half squadron of immediate family, RAAC fellow cremen and friends from his post RSM 12/16th HRL life.

The funeral service, at Enfield memorial Park, was filled with his family of  Ann and their children, 9 grandchildren and 7 great grand children with two more due any day soon!

David Watts was also there, now fully ensconced in Adelaide.

Bill Burton, Scotty Harris, and of course Bob Ambrose were there, Bob had been over to see Nev many times recently. Chris Bavistock and Ruth, Barry Clugston and Mick Ingram Plus Nev!!) made it 6 of us from 1 Troop.

Bill Burton spoke and reflected on his being with Nev 53 years ago with Scotty Harris when they marched into the Armd Centre. He commented on the impact of military service with its army life and our private family lives. He outlined Nev’s service in a firm and friendly manner. The last speaker, and an unplanned one at that, was a little old lady (she was shorter than the lectern) who only met Nev at Weight Watchers but wanted to tell all of us what a gentleman he was. She commented that she told told him he looked fit enough but then it was good to carry a few extra pounds because “it gave the worms something to eat when we are buried!! which stunned us all. She was not known by the family who were as amazed as we were.

After the service, we buried him, turret down nearby and then had a cuppa in the hall at the back of the chapel. His family certainly turned out in force, they were all very warm and friendly towards us, his grand daughters in particular wanted to know more about his time with us as they were probably born after he left the Green Machine.

Ann was stalwart but the last few months of Nev’s illness have taken a toll on her. The family, who all live in Adelaide and not far away will be her comfort, especially with two new ones due soon.

A sad day but one on which we could reflect on time’s past and a man who impacted on us all.

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

Extracts from 'Canister! On! FIRE! : Australian Tank Operations in Vietnam'.

24 February 1968,

The first tank to come ashore was ARN (Army Registered Number) 169099, driven by Sergeant Nev Calliss and commanded by Captain Sullivan.

6 April 1968.

Trooper Barry Munari, 31Alpha’s operator, recalls ‘a spray of machine gun bullets striking my side [the left] of the turret’. Although Munari was down inside the tank at the time (ready to ‘serve’ the guns), the head and shoulders of his crew commander, Sergeant Nev Calliss, would have been visible to the enemy. Bullets struck around the commander’s cupola, leaving holes in the ‘flak jacket’ draped over the lid.  Just as he was thinking himself lucky, Calliss received a dire radio message from his troop leader: ‘31Alpha, you’re on fire!’.

There was only one thing to do in the circumstances. All crews practise ‘bail out’ drills as part of their training. Some might have actually done so for real on the Puckapunyal Range; nobody, however, had ever bailed out while under enemy fire in a minefield. Calliss directed his crew to exit to the right of the tank, the opposite side to that from which they had been engaged.

29 May 1968

Hammett elected to set off with 10 and 11 Platoons forward on the left and right respectively, then Company HQ, 1 Troop and finally 12 Platoon. The time was 5.30am. McCormack, for his part, decided on moving with three tanks line abreast, 31Bravo (Corporal Bill Burton), 31 (himself), and 3ZeroDelta (Corporal Phil Reeves),117 followed by a second line, comprising 31Alpha (Sergeant Nev Calliss), 38Alpha (fitters ‘track’, Sergeant Kevin Craig, RAEME) and 38Bravo (ARV, Sergeant Peter De Jong, RAEME). At about 12.30pm, an infantryman from Second Lieutenant

John Salter’s 10 Platoon fired on a party of enemy coming along a track towards them.  One was carrying an RPG.

On arrival back at Coral, the Troop Leader checked his tanks: ‘All of the them had some damage, searchlights, bins, track guards and roadwheels had been penetrated by anti-tank [RPG] and small arms fire, but none had been immobilised.’… The willingness to make it work, displayed by the combined arms team, led to a very successful outcome. No Australian casualties were suffered, while fourteen bunkers and their occupants were overrun. The combat power of the tanks had been witnessed and it would be fair to say that it had been a major morale booster.

3 August 1968

During a reconnaissance-in-force the following day, 31Alpha (Calliss) detonated the largest mine encountered by the squadron so far, about 12.5kg of explosive. The blast lifted the back of the vehicle well into the air, leaving a crater 2.5m wide and 1.5m deep. Although no serious wounds were apparent at the time, quite a lot of damage was done to the vehicle.

3 February 1971

A few minutes later, an explosion shook 1Alpha. Sergeant Nev Calliss’s first thought was that he had hit a mine.  He was wrong. …  The Land Rover was totally destroyed. The engine was blown ‘right out of the vehicle’,and when trip flares in the back ignited, the wreckage was engulfed by fire.

15 March 1971.

1Alpha (Sergeant Nev Calliss) was successful in helping to extract a dozer on one such occasion, but there was little warning of what was to happen next. The dozer blade clipped a dead tree, causing a number of upper branches to drop off.  While the dozer operator was protected by his cabin, the tank crew were vulnerable.  Calliss spent the next few days in hospital.

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

3 October 2015

RAAC Corporation Position re the AWM Roll of Honour

On 14 August the RAAC Corporation's position was:

"I appreciate and accept the Advisory Board's view on this matter and having regard to your comments [those of Maj Gen Krause] expressed on behalf of the [Advisory] Board that the matter in respect of pursuing it thought (sic) the AWM, is now taken off the table." 

As a consequence of the above (ie the RAAC Corporation not pursuing the matter), Armouredadvocates made representations to the AWM.  The correspondence is shown at the 26 September post … the conclusion being that more thought needs to be given to the matter, ie. work in progress .

On 2 October, a post on the 3 Cav (Vietnam) website stated that:

"Noel [RAAC Corpration] has scheduled at the request of Colin Toll a Vietnam vet and former CO 1 Armoured and good friend of Bob Hagerty for this matter to be addressed at the AGM at which the Head of the RAAC and the Corps RSM will be present.  Noel Is not giving up."

Armouredadvocates wonders if there's a connection between its recent correspondence with the AWM and the RAAC Corporation's revised position.  (AA is more than happy for this to be the case.)

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

Defence White Paper (DWP) : Land 400 

As reported on 29 September, there have been suggestions that the 'fully costed' DWP will be balanced by reducing numbers of vehicles and/or delaying LAND 400 Ph3 (the replacement of the M113AS4).

It wasn't so long ago that Armouredadvocates noticed what transpired to be an error in Defence's public info re the life of type of the M113AS4.  Not getting anywhere with the usual channels, and concerned that such a public position might be used against Defence re LAND 400, AA wrote to the then Chief of Army.  An immediate response was received and the public info amended.  (See below.)

On 28 September, AA suggested the three main challenges facing the RAAC.  Number 2 was:

"Inability to Fulfil Armoured Mobility Role.  If LAND 400 Ph3 is delayed (DWP outcome), a capability gap will result.  The consequences of this must be made known to decision makers, stakeholders and the public." 

The significance of the capability gap is reflected in the Aufdit Office report on LAND 106 (the upgrade of the M113A1, below).

AA previously tried to engage the RAAC Corporation in advocating the consequence of delay to LAND 400 Ph 2 (ASLAV replacement).  See open letter below.  The Corporation declined to act on that occasion, will it do so now?

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

Mistake in Defence's Public Info re the M113AS4

In Audit Report No 34 2011-12 Performance Audit the ANAO stated that, following it's upgrade under LAND 106, "M113AS4 are to commence being withdrawn by 2025-26".

Defence, however, presently state that a "comprehensive upgrade is currently underway to enhance the capability and extend the service life of the M113 [M113AS4] fleet through to 2050."  (http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Equipment-and-clothing/Vehicles/M113AS4)

This 25 year difference is a major variation, given that the above ANAO report states that "the upgraded M113 does represent an improvement on the older, un‐extended vehicle. However, a vehicle that was considered fit‐for‐purpose when the minor upgrade was first proposed 20 years ago now lags behind armoured infantry vehicles in use with other armed forces, and is vulnerable in many current threat environments, leaving Defence with an acknowledged capability gap".

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

An open letter to the Directors and members of the RAAC Corporation Council published on 10 April 2015:

The Need for the RAAC Corporation Advisory Board to Advocate re the ASLAV Replacement

The RAAC Corporation was created, in part, to "provide a greater and more co-ordinated voice for all RAAC units on the ORBAT".  One of its objectives is to "foster and protect the interests of the RAAC".  The Corporation has appointed an Advisory Board with responsibility "for prosecuting and lobbying on issues at the highest levels of Government and the Army leadership".  Such advocacy can only be undertaken, however, when requested by the RAAC Corporation's Council. 

The Corporation stated recently that its "external advocacy, as represented by the Advisory Board, is well situated to go into action as and when required."

At the Corporation's AGM in November 2014, the Head of Corps stated that LAND 400 [the program to replace the ASLAV, PMV and APC fleets] "needs advocacy from outside to keep it on the table in the immediate future."  How important is this advocacy?

Army has stated (http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Projects/Project-LAND-400) that the top priority within LAND 400 is to replace the ASLAV.  The vehicle cannot continue to meet operational requirements unless it starts to be replaced with a new Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV) in 2020.  No form of modification or upgrade to the ASLAV will allow this date to be extended.  Because of mandatory steps in the procurement process, the 2020 date can only be achieved if the Government's 1st pass approval is given before the Defence White Paper is delivered

in April 2015.  Any delay beyond that timing will result in a gap in operational capability.  What does this mean?  See one assessment below.

The Government's 1st pass approval was to take place in early January 2015.  The Defence Materiel Organisation has now advised the recent cabinet reshuffle has caused a delay and they "await the Minister's guidance" regarding new timing.  There is a very high probability that the Minister is being advised by the Department of Finance to defer any capital equipment decision until after the Defence White paper.

Is this not the time for the RAAC Corporation to put into effect the "advocacy from outside" called for by the Head of Corps?  Is this not the very purpose for which the Advisory Board exists, ie. for prosecuting and lobbying on issues at the highest levels of Government and the Army leadership?

Directors and members of the Council of the RAAC Corporation … you've stated that the Advisory Board is ready and willing to embark on external advocacy, as and when required.  For the good of the RAAC in particular and Army in general, please request it to do so now.  What could be a more important matter to advocate at the highest levels of Government and Army leadership.  Failure to do so, could adversely affect the RAAC for many years to come.

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

4 October 2015

RAAC Corporation 'Happenings'

As regular readers of Armouredadvocates will know, we've been advocating for the RAAC Corporation to communicate with the RAAC family.  Without any means of doing so via its own website, the Corporation has generally resorted to the use of other Forums (sometimes via third parties).  The following is a post on the 3 Cav Assn website by someone who refers to a conversation he's had with the Corporation Chairman:

"I also know about [the Chairman's] attempts on behalf of the Corporation since January this year, to join the 3 Cav vets who were at Coral/Balmoral and also Hammersley to the 1 Armoured association’s submission for a unit award for those two actions.

He’s been in contact with Red Webb about Hammersley and tells me red has “opened a file.”  [whatever this means?]

Once the 1 Armoured  association has got its stuff ready to go, [the Chairman] will commence action and facilitate (his word) communications between the tankies and the Cav blokes. 

Now you blokes, here’s the thing.  [The Chairman] and the Corporation he leads is UNDER NO OBLIGATION AT ALL to go out and bat for a mob that is not a member of the Corporation. 

However he did, as he said to me “exercise my discretion as Chairman and act as a facilitator” in these issues."

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

There are some matters of fact in the above which need consideration.  (Draft submissions referred to or copied below can also be found on the AA site under 'Articles'.)

1. "the Chairman's] attempts on behalf of the Corporation since January this year, to join the 3 Cav vets who were at Coral/Balmoral to 1 Armoured association’s submission for a unit award for[this] action".

It is incorrect to say that the 1 Armd Regt Assn is making a submission for an award for those involved in Coral/Balmoral.  A submission has been drafted by Armouredadvocates for 1st Armd Regt to be allowed to have their Standard emblazoned with the Coral-Balmoral Battle Honour. (See Submission 'Coral-Balmoral' under 'Articles re 3 Cav aspects).  The RA Infantry, however, have prepared a completely separate submission for a Unit Citation to be awarded to those units at Coral-Balmoral.

2. "the Chairman's] attempts on behalf of the Corporation since January this year, to join the 3 Cav vets who were at Hammersley to the 1 Armoured association’s submission for a unit award for [this] action.

This is also incorrect.  A draft submission was prepared by AA (see Articles, '8RAR Final Submission').  It was hoped that the RAAC Corporation would endorse it, but the following transpired (AA post, 7 July 2015) :

Extension of Eligibility of the CGWP Awarded to 8RAR for Operation Hammersley

The RAAC Corporation’s Position and the Consequences.  As it is understood, President 1 AR Assn supports the RAAC Corporation Chairman’s view that the Corporation cannot take the lead re the CGWP Submission, because the 3 Cav (Vietnam) Association is not a member of the Corporation (the Submission seeks to have those who provided support from 1AR, 3 Cav and RAE, acknowledged).  The 1AR Assn, therefore, has to advocate the award alone.  If unsuccessful, the RAAC Corporation might then offer support.

What’s this mean in terms of the Submission? The Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal (DHAT), where the real power lies in terms of approving the Submission, can only consider it after Defence Honours and Awards (DHA) have ‘knocked it back’.  So, 1 AR Assn submits to DHA, it is knocked back (as expected) and is

resubmitted to DHAT.  If it is knocked back, the new submission, supported by the RAAC Corporation, is submitted to DHA and then, finally, DHAT.  The whole process has been made twice as complicated as it need be, with consequential lessening of its chances of approval (compared with a Submission which is supported by the RAAC Corporation right from the start).

The Lack of Moral Justification for This Position. Part of the RAAC Corporation’s Constitution refers to fostering the interests of the RAAC.  The members of 3 Cav Regt who served in Vietnam did so as part of the RAAC.  Some are members of the 3 and 4 Cav Regt Association (a member of the RAAC Corporation), some are members of the 3 Cav Regt (Vietnam) Association (not a member of the RAAC Corporation), while others are not members of either Association.  How petty can we be as former members of the RAAC, to deny to those who fought with 3 Cav Regt during Operation Hammersley, the best opportunity to achieve the recognition that is due to them?  Apart from anything else, recognition for them, is recognition for the RAAC.  Isn’t this what the RAAC Corporation stands for??.

Reason for 1 AR Assn’s Acceptance of the Position.  Whenever a Director of a Corporation is also the President of one of the Corporation’s own member Associations, there is likely to be a conflict of interest. By simply agreeing to the position of the Corporation Chairman, 1 AR Assn is not only a party to denying due recognition of those who served with 3 Cav Regt, but also denying its own members the best chance of due recognition of their gallant efforts.

What Should be Done. The President of the 1AR Assn should step down from his Directorship of the RAAC Corporation and strongly advocate the justification for the RAAC Corporation to support the Submission (noting in doing so that there is minimal work involved … the Submission is complete, it only needs to be submitted.)

I’m reminded that a number of people sign off emails with the words “Yours in Armour”,how hollow this sounds in light of the above

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

Present Situation (Oct 15): 

1. The 1 Armd Regt Association has appointed a member to represent the Association in RAAC Corporation forums, leaving the President to separately fill the appointment of Director. (This seems unlikely to resolve the conflict of interest situation.

2. Armouredadvocateslobbied members of the RAAC Corporation Advisory Board re the Hammersley submission. It is understood that the Corporation will now give its support to it.

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

5 October 2015

STOP PRESS!

The article in today's Canberra Times is wrong.  The announcement by the PM and Minister for Defence has nothing to do with LAND 400 Ph 2 (the ASLAV replacement).  It actually relates to LAND 121 Ph 4, the replacement of a large part of the Landrover fleet with the Hawkei, the so called 'protected mobility vehicle - light'.  The contract has been awarded to Thales Bendigo.  Lookout for a correction in tomorrow's paper.

COMMUNICATION … Communication … communication!!

Bobby Darren said that Multiplication was the name of the game; Armouredadvocates disagrees … it's definitely Communication.

Yesterday's post stated that"As regular readers of Armouredadvocates will know, we’ve been advocating for the RAAC Corporation to communicate with the RAAC family.  Without any means of doing so via its own website, the Corporation has generally resorted to the use of other Forums". 

Recently the RAAC Corporation Chairman posted on the 3 Cav Assn website that, in a matter "of importance to the 3 Cav side of the equation, seeing you have no representation through your own Assn on this matter, I committed to  facilitating comms between 3 Cav vets of both  actions [Coral-Balmoral and Hammerserley] - this was done as the 1AR President was more than happy to  have them join this initiative, and  come on board to get their just recognition …".

What's going on here??  A submission to have a unit citation awarded to those units involved in Coral Balmoral has been raised by the RAInf.  A request was made by them to the 1AR Assn to provide names of those personnel who would qualify.  The 1AR Assn asked Armouredadvocates to assist and AA asked two of those involved, Bill Burton and Rusty Dyson, if they could help in compiling names.  They both did a lot of work to ensure that the nominal roll was accurate.  What about the 3 Cav crews involved at C-B?  All that had to happen was that the 3 Cav (Vietnam) Association be asked to advise names to the inf guys.  There was never any requirement to "facilitate comms between the 3 Cav vets and the 1AR Assn".

Re the Hammersley submission that Armouredadvocates prepared … " Given that the 3 Cav Assn is not a Member of the Corporation for very obvious reasons, [the Chairman] suggested to [an idividual] that he may like to linkup with the 1AR Assn to endeavour to put some of the 3 Cav Hamersley stuff forward as part of a joint operation.".  This is a welcome turnaround from the position referred to in yesterday's post, HOWEVER, why does the RAAC Corporation appoint a particular person to represent 3 Cav's interests, rather than asking the 3 Cav (Vietnam) Association to do so? 

Armouredadvocates drew attention some time ago to the fact the Chairman, RAAC Corporation, was sending personal emails from the email address 'RAAC Corporation'.  This has since ceased; however, now the reverse applies, ie. the RAAC Corporation Chairman sends emails on a personal basis when they supposedly represent the views of twelve council members (and all the members of their associations), four directors and an advisory board. 

Armouredadvocates suggests that the RAAC Corporation appoint a Secretary, to communicate with all stakeholders on behalf of the Corporation. 

RAAC Corporation : Membership Criteria

The Chairman's spokesman recently stated on the 3 Cav (Vietnam) Assn forum that

"3 Cav as a unit does not exist:

It is not on the ORBAT.

Therefore the 3 Cav association cannot be admitted to full membership as it does no support a unit that was on the ORBAT as of Cambria Day 2010.

It can only be admitted as an AFFLIATE member with no place at the table and no entitlement to vote.

That is why the Association [cannot] be a member [of the RAAC Corporation]"

How then can RAACA (NT), RAACA (Vic), RAAC NSW and RAACA WA be members?

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

6 October 2015

The RAAC ARES 'Crisis' 

(More to follow on this topic  tomorrow.)

On 30 September, Armouredadvocates suggested the three most important issues facing the RAAC.  Number one was:

RAAC ARES Crisis. The need to clearly define the role of the RAAC Ares in terms of conducting mounted operations (ie not quasi infantry, aka dismounted light cavalry). Following from this is the crucial requirement to ensure the ARES have adequate vehicles and resources (cadre equipment and training pools) to enable Plan Beersheba readiness states to be met.  The Defence White Paper (DWP) will have an influence (good or bad). 

A letter from me in the Canberra Times a few days ago, stated (in part) that:

"Australia’s military deterrent comprises a resourced standing component and a partially resourced reserve capability. Its effectiveness depends on the accuracy of the threat assessment and associated warning times. Linked to this is the accuracy of the lead times required to train forces, acquire equipment and build up stock levels. The complexity of modern arms means such lead times are increasing (although partially offset with training simulators and a responsive defence industry).

Stuart [author of an article on the DWP] suggests that the draft DWP lacks “insight”, while White [the same]recommends that Marise “bin it”. Rather than allowing the process to be politicised, it is hoped that the Minister will accede to the professionalism of our Defence personnel".

The last point is particularly relevant.  In evidence of this, an extract from an address to the recent Defence Reserves Conference is copied below:

"I know there are frustrations with the length of time it is taking to finalise the roles the Reserve will fill beyond the reinforcing Battle Group but it is not possible for us to resolve Reserve tasks in isolation of the Regular force design. The total force requirement will be clear after the release of the White Paper.

I have recently written to the Forces Commander asking him to keep alive the RAAC trade structure within the Reserve to allow us time to consider whether elements of the APC role may return to the Reserve. I will be honest now and tell you that this does not mean an automatic default back to the previous disposition of the M113 in the Reserve. I will need to design an AFV disposition that can be effective and efficient, falling into centralised maintenance contracts in or close to our regular ACR for example. I will be seeking Reserve help to design the best approach."

MAJGEN Gus McLachanHead of Modernisation and Strategic Planning – Army

22 August 2015

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

7 October 2015

The RAAC ARES Crisis 

What is it?  The need to clearly define the role of the RAAC Ares in terms of conducting mounted operations (ie not quasi infantry, aka dismounted light cavalry). Following from this is the crucial requirement to ensure the ARES have adequate vehicles and resources (cadre equipment and training pools) to enable Plan Beersheba readiness states to be met.  The Defence White Paper (DWP) will have an influence (good or bad). 

In June 2013, the RAAC Corporation asked member associations to suggest the main issues that should be taken up by the Corporation.  The submission prepared by the

1/15 RNSWL Assn is able to be read in full under 'Articles'.  An extract is copied below:

"It is essential that our reserve units are equipped in order to be able to operate with protected mobility. The recent withdrawal of armoured vehicles has seen the Reserve Armoured Units able to train for mobile warfare, and work in a peace keeping role, but quite unable to be deployed in a mobile capacity where the enemy may use an IED, or even fire at vehicles with small arms. Roll out of PMVs to Reserve Armoured Corps units must proceed apace. At the moment we are getting PMV crews trained, but it is essential crewmen get experience in vehicle husbandry on an ongoing basis. An open mind should also be kept on other equipment. With the infantry unable to cope with the M113 vehicle family, there may be scope for these to be deployed to the Reserve. In the past the Reserve units were able to maintain a high standard of vehicle husbandry with their M113s. A viable supply of live ammunition for training and skills retention must also be considered."

At the Corporation's 2014 AGM, it was concluded that the RAAC ARES had to accept a role as dismounted light cavalry.  This resulted, in part, because the Bushmaster PMV had been designated a 'truck' to be operated by the RACT (despite the Plan Beersheba recommendation that it be allocated to RAAC ARES units).

Armouredadvocates 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.

The 2015 RAAC Corporation AGM is to be held soon.  Will the outcome continue to consign the RAAC ARES to a dismounted light cavalry role?  Should it do so, the ARA 'Ready' brigade will continue to be under resourced and the RAAC ARES will cease to exist in terms of contributing to the RAAC's role of conducting mounted operations.

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

8 October 2015

The RAAC ARES Crisis (Cont). 

There is an interesting theme being introduced into conversations about the ARES, ie. the primary function of reservists is to help provide the skills that are expensive

for the Army to provide within the ARA, eg. doctors, lawyers etc.  The more reservists are able fulfill these roles, the greater amount of its budget the Army can allocate to more 'mundane' employment categories.

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."

General Porter refers to Cavalry Scouts being employed "in addition to the Reserve Battle Group".  What does this mean?

The 2014 RAAC AGM concluded that RAAC ARES units have to be content with being employed in the dismounted light cavalry role and need to "concentrate on the trade and skills for which they can be paid – Cavalry Scout, which is not vehicle-dependent".

The cavalry scout has its origins in the US Army.  Their present day job description is provided below. It will be seen that it is, indeed, vehicle dependent.

How is a cavalry scout to be employed in a dismounted role?  Answer: As infantry.

The role of the RAAC is to conduct mounted operations.  How can RAAC ARES units be employed as dismounted cavalry scouts?  Answer: Very easily …  if the heritage, morale and operational potential of these units is regarded as worthless in comparison with achieving a 'fully costed' Defence White Paper.

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

Cavalry Scout : Basic Job Description (US Army)

The Cavalry Scout is the commander's eyes and ears on the battlefield. When information about the enemy is needed, they call on the Scouts. Cavalry Scouts engage the enemy with anti-armour weapons and scout vehicles in the field, track and report enemy movement and activities, and will direct the employment of various weapon systems onto the enemy.

Duties performed by Soldiers in this MOS include:Ads

Performs duties as crewmember, operates, and performs operator maintenance on scout vehicles. Armoured Airborne Reconnaissance Vehicle, and Cavalry Fighting Vehicle, crew-served weapons, and communications equipment. Loads, clears, and fires individual and crew-served weapons. Operates and performs operator maintenance on wheeled vehicles. Assists in the recovery of wheeled and tracked vehicles. Secures, prepares, and stows ammunition on scout vehicles. Performs

mounted and dismounted navigation. Serves as member of observation and listening post. Gathers and reports information on terrain features and enemy strength, disposition and equipment. Applies principles of except and evasion. Collects data for the classification of routes, fords, tunnels, and bridges. Performs dismounted patrols Employs principles of cover and concealment and camouflage. Assists with construction of light field fortifications, laying and removal of mines, and emplacing demolitions. Performs dismounted patrols.

Requests and adjusts indirect fire.

Supervises scout vehicle crew, cavalry fighting vehicle crew, and M551A1 crew. Supervises operator maintenance of tracked and wheeled scout vehicles and individual and crew-served weapons. Selects, organizes, and supervises scout vehicle recovery operations. Trains scout vehicle crew. Supervises request, receipt, storage, and issue of ammunition. Leads scout vehicle crew and assists in leading scout squad. Serves as gunner, on CFV, ITV, TOW jeep, HMMWV, and M551A1.

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

9 October 2015

RAAC Corporation 2015 Report 

This is able to be accessed under 'Articles'.  It was copied from the 3/4 Cav Regt Associations website http://www.3-4cav.asn.au/webdb/forum/49 .  The format on that site means that a few words are missing (as are the Attachments).  These will be added as they become available.  Headings have been bolded and para spacing added to improve readability.

Comments will be offered on tomorrow's post (apart from that below)

ACT Chapter of RAAC Corporation Formed!

"Following a series of meetings with Maj Gen Roger Powell, Maj Gen Mike Krause and the now RSM-A Don Spinks OAM,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 proposal for a sub-branch is to enable serving RAAC members and former ACT-based members to have a more formalised grouping for social and commemorative events. This is something that has sadly been lacking in the ACT for a long time. The 1AR Association’s newly-elected ACT Representative WO1(Ret’d) Ian “Gooch” Cummings, has taken this matter up. It now appears Ian has been successful and has received an agreement with the Dock at Kingston to become the ACT Back Hat RV for get-togethers." (RAAC Corporation 2015 Annual Report)

One has to wonder if 1AR Assn State Branches will become the nucleus for similar Chapters in other cities and if B Sqn 1/15 RSWL at HMAS Harman will be invited to

join.  Speaking to Ian Cummings, he intends to conduct activities under the umbrella of the 1AR Assn (rather than RAAC Corporation).

RAAC ARES 'Crisis'

Time to leave the RAAC ARES 'Crisis' for a bit, hopefully the RAAC Corporation will come up with a suitable plan of action after its coming AGM.  STOP PRESS.  After reading the Corporation's 2015 Report this is no longer to be expected … the RAAC Corporation doesn't do such 'big ticket' items. 

LAND 400

The October issue of the Defence Technology Review (DTR) has much to commend it in terms LAND 400 updates.  See http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com

Recent posts re the RAAC ARES have pondered the question of the RAAC ARES vs ARA roles and equipment.  The possibility of the RAAC ARES providing a ACR(-), comprising an APC sqn (Bushmasters) and cav sqn (Hawkei), to the ready brigade ARES battle group was considered in yesterday's post.

Trying to pre-empt something like the Defence White paper is a dangerous thing.  As an insider, however, Maj Gen 'Gus' McLachlan, AM, Head Modernisation and Strategic Planning, has a somewhat unique perspective.  The following quote is from an interview published in DTR:

"The Australian Army will emerge from the period of modernisation with the best selection of mobility options in our history.  PMV and PMV-L [Hawkei] will form the spine of Army's protected mobility.  LAND 400 vehicles will be verstatile across the conflict spectrum and we will retain the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank …". 

General McLachlan put this into context by mentioning that "the enemy no longer respects 'fronts and flanks' so protection will be needed for vehicles in all echelons".

The only question mark that has to be raised when General McLachlan refers to 'LAND 400 vehicles' is whether, after the DWP is tabled, these include the timely replacement of the M113AS4.

The latest DTR issue includes a good article by James Walsh looking at the mobility aspects of the potential CRV contenders.  He states that many observers were surprised that the CRV was described as an ASLAV replacement.  This surprise resulted from the fact that the op requirements for CRV resulted in very different characteristics for contenders, compared with those of the ASLAV.

The fact is that the LAND 400 Phase 2 is replacing the ASLAV so as to enable Australia's cavalry regiment to provide an effective operational capability into the future.  It should come as no surprise that the AFVs selected to fulfill this role, will be different to those which equipped the regiment in the past.

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

10 October 2015

The 2015 RAAC Corporation Chairman's Report 

Further comments (from yesterday) as below: 

1. "1 Tp A Sqn 4/19 PWLH, Vietnam 1965-66. Successful representations were made to the Corps on behalf of 4/19 PWLH Assn following a request for assistancereceived from the 4/19PWLH Assn in respect of having an inequity redressed in the award of the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation (CGWP) to members of 1Tp 4/19 PWLH for their distinguished service in Vietnam 1965-66 and also a proposed change to the Troop’s naming convention. The Corporation took a leadership position on this issue and with the excellent cooperation and support of the Corps RSM, the 4/19 PWLH Assn and former members of the Troop, sufficient evidence was gathered to ensure all former members of that iconic troop retained their eligibility for the award and to also ensure the Troop’s name, 1Tp A Sqn 4/19 PWLH was permanently retained as part of the RAAC’s rich and illustrious history."

Another perspective on this issue was published in 'Plumes', the journal of 4/19 PWLH Assn.  The article can be viewed via 'Articles' ("Plumes September 2015") below.

2. "Australian War Memorial. Representations were made on 12/5/2015 to have a factual error rectified on the Roll of Honour which does not have the unit which lost two of its members in Vietnam, namely Cpl Peter Clements and Tpr Tony Holland. The brass panel does not list the unit name – 1 APC Sqn - as it does for the names of all other members of 3 Cav Regt and 1AR, killed in Vietnam and those whose deaths were added as part of the End of war List. A formal submission to have this matter rectified before the 50th anniversary of the Sqn’s arrival in Vietnam on 6 June 1966 commemorated, was forwarded to the Director, Dr Brendan Nelson.  The War Memorial’s response dated 18/8/15, is that the status quo will remain. This matter is now an agenda item for the AGM."[The matter was initially "taken off the table' by the Chairman on the advice of a member of the Advisory Board, but then put back on at the request of another.]

One hopes that the RAAC Corporation AGM will find a way to resolve this issue.  If they are to do so, one would think that they would need to revise their position that the AWM has made a 'factual error' on its Roll of Honour.  Peter Clements and Tony Holland are listed under Royal Australian Armoured Corps.  This is not an 'error' as they were, in fact,  members of the RAAC.  The issue is that the unit with which they served is not shown.  Rather than being an error, this is a matter of AWM policy, ie to only list units of regimental/battalion level and above…; it's this policy (and its application in all circumstances), rather than the correction of an 'error', that has to

be addressed.  One might hope that while the policy might stay, the AWM could exercise some discretion in its application.

Armouredadvocates blog of 26 September quoted a response it made to the AWM, part of which is:

" … had thought that 1 APC Sqn was a unique entity, but of course the engineer field squadrons are in the same position, ie. not having a higher regimental identity, so being listed as RAE.  There is still a difference, however, as all engineer units are in the same category and therefore there is no differentiation between casualties.

What sets 1 APC Sqn apart is that all the other 21 RAAC casualties are listed according to their regiment (either 3 Cav or 1st Armd).  This immediately draws attention to the two names which are not listed in terms of the unit with which they served.  

Unit identity is paramount within the RAAC, no more so than when a new unit (1 APC Sqn) is raised for deployment on active service … one which subsequently played a major role in one of the Australian Army’s most significant battles (Long Tan).  The rationale the AWM is following is clear, however,  you’ll be able to appreciate the feelings of veterans who believe that ‘one size doesn’t (always) fit all’.

3. Welcome Home to all who participated in Operation SLIPPER.I [the RAAC Corporation Chairman] was privileged to man a sausage sizzle stand behind the AWM on 21 March and to see the expressions of pride and unalloyed joy on the faces of all march participants.

An alternative inclusion in the Report could have been: 'I had hoped that the 1AR Assn (ACT Branch) might have taken the lead to organise an RAAC presence at the Welcome Home Parade, as the 1AR Assn WA Branch did …displaying the 1AR banner near the saluting dias as a very visible acknowledgement of, and appreciation for, those who served on our behalf'.

Armouredadvocates had suggested the above to the 1AR Assn C'tee and the RAAC Corporation, however, nothing eventuated, apart from the RAAC Corporation Chairman manning a sausage sizzle and individuals expressing their appreciation.

(More to follow)

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

11 October 2015

RAAC Corporation Chairman's 2015 Report (Cont)

Corporation Website:  "The site creates an awareness of the purposes of the Corporation and provides links to all Member Associations. The home page address is http://www.raaccorpltd.org.au/index.htm".

As far as Armouredadvocates can see there are no links to member associations.  One of the shortcomings previously highlighted was the fact that there is no means by which the RAAC Corporation can be contacted.  No postal address, no email address, no telephone number.  This has not changed.  This obviously prevents DVA officers, community groups, non RAAC Assns etc contacting the RAAC Corporation directly.  It has to be presumed that this is a deliberate policy.  (See also 'Communication' below.)

Communication.  The Chairman advises that he "will continue to email all Member Associations with information that [he] believes requires retrans. The responsibility to disseminate the information sent out to all addressees rests absolutely with all Member Associations as they deem fit, to their membership bases. That method, plus posting on Unit Assn Facebook pages has proven to be highly effective in the dissemination of information by the Corporation".

This writer, as a member of two Member Associations, has received no information regarding RAAC Corporation activities (it goes without saying that he has not been invited to offer any opinion … not that individual members should consider themselves worthy of consultation).

The three 'Cs' (consideration, consultation, and communication) seem to have lapsed here (despite being an Army mantra).  Take the formation of the ACT Chapter of the RAAC Corporation, for example … should this not have been a subject for consideration by those potentially involved?

Due process may not have changed anything as a result of Ian Cumming's commendable efforts on everyone's behalf; but ... "Following a series of meetings with Maj Gen Roger Powell, Maj Gen Mike Krause and the now RSM-A Don Spinks OAM, 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 proposal for a sub-branch is to enable serving RAAC members and former ACT-based members to have a more formalised grouping for social and commemorative events. This is something that has sadly been lacking in the ACT for a long time." 

Should the RAAC Corporation not have considered the views of RAAC members/formers members in the ACT; consulted them and communicated the findings … rather than just publishing a decision of its annual report?

What, for example, was the outcome of the RAAC Corporation's study "of the viability or otherwise of establishing a  Sub-branch or Chapter for ACT-based serving RAAC members and former members living in the area".  Is it not right to share this with those involved … or aren't they worthy of this?

Should the RAAC Corporation not communicate … even with respect to the formation of its own sub-Branch/Chapter involving RAAC personnel who are not members of the Corporation's member associations?

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

12 October 2015

The RAAC Corporation Chairman's 2015 Annual Report (Cont) 

Op Hammersley Recognition/ 3 Cav Regt (Vietnam) Assn.

"As the 3 Cav Regt (Vietnam) Assn is not a Member Assn of the Corporation and is not prepared to assist its own members, the Corporation exercised its discretion and acted as a facilitator for both groups of 3 Cav veterans through making representations to various ESOs and for veterans including a former D-ARMD, to help their cause. This included facilitating a line of communication between the 1AR Assn and a representative of the 3 Cav Hammersley veterans." 

Armouredadvocates commented on the above recognition issue on 4 and 5 October. Another matter now arises, however.  The '3 Cav Regt (Vietnam) Assn … is not prepared to assist its own members".  Is this a true representation of the situation, or does it actually represent a breakdown in relations between the 3 Cav Assn President and/or Committee and the RAAC Corporation Chairman?  If it was a true statement, one would expect the 3 Cav Assn to have very few members and those that remained would be very disgruntled.  There are no such feelings aired on the Assn forum (which is very well utilised).

Advocacy by the RAAC Corporation 

"… the Corporation’s policy is, any submissions not tendered by the relevant authorised Delegates to the Corporation for consideration and voting, do not have standing and will not be [considered].  Additionally, the Corporation Executive does not and will not, respond to external comment directed at how it should operate and what it should focus on.  If individuals have concerns about the Corporation Executive’s operations they should in the first instance take up the issue via their own Corporation Council." 

Previous comment on the Report noted that there is no public means by which individuals can communicate with the RAAC Corporation.  It is hard to understand therefore, how, individuals can tender submissions or make enquiries.  The above policy means that, should the Corporation become aware of a suggestion … it will ignore it, irrespective of how 'good' it might be, unless it comes to the RAAC Corporation from a member assn.  Is this not a case of cutting off your nose to …

Say, for example, the AWM wanted to consult with ex-service personnel about a proposal to establish an 'AFV Hall'.  Unlike the RAACA before it, there is no means of contacting the RAAC's national representative body.  Say, for example, that a non-member of a RAAC Corporation member assn wanted to suggest that the RAAC be represented at the Op Slipper Welcome Home Parade and posted this idea on the 3 Cav Vietnam Assn website or had a letter published in a newspaper.  The RAAC

Corporation will ignore the proposal as it was not made via a member assn.  The good of the Corps is not served by such a policy.

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

13 October 2015

RAAC Corporation Chairman's 2015 Report (Cont) 

"Major Defence Initiatives 

The Corporation’s stated position is, consistent with a commonsense approach, that the RAAC is on any level, the subject knowledge expert in respect of all major defence purchases and how it goes about achieving its Mission.

I acknowledge also that major matters such as LAND 400, force structure, modernisation, unit reorganisations or, for example, capability gaps, Cavalry Scout/Assault Trooper ECNs, PMV and M113 crewing issues vis a vis the Reserves,are very important to stakeholders, including individuals within their own Units and Unit Associations but, are considered to be matters that are long-range with a significant timeline until they come to fruition. 

It is common ground that matters outside the control of the ADF – change of Prime Minister, Cabinet reshuffles and cancellation or delays in equipment procurement or signing contracts, can impact on organisational timelines. These matters quite properly and relevantly remain within the purview of Defence and in this instance, the Royal Australian Armoured Corps, to work through.

Should the Corps require the Corporation’s external advocacy, the Corporation stands ready as always, to provide that advocacy. It is not the place of the Corporation to demand things from the Corps. A fine line exists between credibility and acceptance of the Corporation by our key stakeholder and their cooperation. That line must never be crossed or impinged – demanding action on issues that remain clearly and unambiguously within the purview of RAAC policy, iscompletely inappropriate. It remains incumbent on all to have regard to that fact. 

It is not up to the Corporation to dictate to HOC what we believe we should lobby about on the RAAC’s behalf. It is crucial to our success and credibility as a RAAC-supportive entity that we wait until a request on Corps-specific matters from HOC is received or alternately, from a Member Association in respect of an issue that the Unit they support, is seeking assistance with, and then act on those instructions."

1. The fact that matters might be "long-range with a significant timeline until they come to fruition"is not a valid basis for the RAAC Corporation not to advocate in respect of them. 

2. 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.

3. If a member assn requests the RAAC Corporation to advocate on its behalf, eg in relation to the role of RAAC ARES units, the Corporation will only do so if the member assn's position is supported by the HOC. (The HOC might not support a policy but might well be bound by executive solidarity and not be able to give a personal opinion.). The Corporation is not, therefore, acting on behalf of its members, but on behalf of the HOC.  The advantage of the Corporation being outside the 'tent' is totally nullified.

Branch/Chapter for ACT Based Black Hats. 

"Following a series of meetings with Maj Gen Roger Powell, Maj Gen Mike Krause and the now RSM-A Don Spinks OAM, 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 proposal for a sub-branch is to enable serving RAAC members and former ACT-based members to have a more formalised grouping for social and commemorative events."

It's been suggested that the sub-branch be formed as the RAAC Association (ACT), thereby gaining membership of the RAAC Corporation along with RAACA (NSW), RAACA (Vic) and RAACA (WA).

Corps Capability Conference and Dinner.

"The valedictory speech by retiring Maj Gen Craig Orme AM CSC was definitely from the heart. The message to take away from his speech is one that will resonate with us all, namely you can take the soldier out of the Corps but you can’t take the Corps out of the soldier. Membership of the Corps family is for life …". 

Would it not, therefore, be a worthy idea to post the speech on the Corporation's website (possibly it has been circulated to member assns, but as previously noted … this doesn't mean that rank and file members will see it.)

Access to Med Records 

"Representations were made to DSCM-A in relation to unreasonable and unnecessary delays in current and former serving members obtaining medical records to support their claims or appeals. This is particularly concerning where instances arise where a claimant/appellant has a life-threatening illness."

What was the outcome?

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

14 October 2015

Ethics

Armouredadvocates received a request yesterday from someone who asked not to be quoted on the blog.  It's relevant here to repeat the header above: "This site seeks to provide an open and independent forum to discuss RAAC matters …".  If someone in an elected public position makes a statement in the course of his/her duties in that position, then they will continue to be quoted.  Not to do so would be a breach of the purpose for which Armouredadvocates was established.  Openness, honesty, and transparency are the fundamental principles on which this blog is based.  Behind the scenes deals and secret agreements have no place.  Legal action has previously been threatened, but Armouredadvocates has no intention of changing its ethical position.

RAAC Corporation Chairman's 2015 report (Cont) 

"I will continue to email all Member Associations with information that I believe requires retrans. The responsibility to disseminate the information sent out to all addressees rests absolutely with all Member Associations as they deem fit, to their membership bases. That method, plus posting on Unit Assn Facebook pages has proven to be highly effective in the dissemination of information by the Corporation." 

The ineffectiveness of communications by the RAAC Corporation has been addressed in previous posts.  The Chairman was quoted on the 3 Cav (Vietnam) website as saying that "He refuses to go on forums any more due to the continued slagging and bagging he endures. No matter what he says its turned around and used against him".  One assumes that Facebook is not regarded as a 'forum', but is it appropriate?  If the Corporation passes information to member assns, committees of those assns then decide whether or not to pass to members and if they do, whether or not they add their own advice regarding the matter.  If the Corporation posts the information on an Assn's Facebook, it is bypassing the assn's committee.  The reference to "as they deem fit"(above) no longer applies.

RAAC ARES 'Crisis'. 

From a speech by the President of the Association of the USA Army on 11 October 2015:.

" We must believe—not just say—that active, National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers are equal partners on the One Army team. With the current force, the Army and our nation need everyone fully resourced so they are staffed, trained and equipped to pull their share of the load. Budgetary stability will help in this regard, because fear of reduced funding has fueled distrust, especially between the active Army and the National Guard."

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/10/seven-things-our-army-needs-right-now/122664/?oref=d-river

On 30 Sep 15, Armouredadvocates suggested the top three issues facing the RAAC at present.  Number one was: 

RAAC ARES Crisis.  The need to clearly define the role of the RAAC Ares in terms of conducting mounted operations (ie not quasi infantry, aka dismounted light cavalry). Following from this is the crucial requirement to ensure the ARES have adequate vehicles and resources (cadre equipment and training pools) to enable Plan Beersheba readiness states to be met.  The Defence White Paper (DWP) will hav an influence (good or bad).

With respect to the comment about growing mistrust between the US regular army and reserves ... there has already been a comment made that the RAAC Corporation only gives real consideration to ARA issues and pays lip service to the needs of the ARES.

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

15 October 2015

Armouredadvocates, Apropos the RAAC Corporation

The RAAC Corporation Chairman has said:

"The Corporation’s stated position is, consistent with a commonsense approach, that the RAAC is on any level, the subject knowledge expert in respect of all major defence purchases and how it goes about achieving its Mission. I acknowledge also that major matters such as LAND 400, force structure, modernisation, unit reorganisations or, for example, capability gaps, Cavalry Scout/Assault Trooper ECNs, PMV and M113 crewing issues vis a vis the Reserves, are very important to stakeholders, including individuals within their own Units and Unit Associations but, are considered to be matters that are long-range with a significant timeline until they come to fruition."  (2015 Report, see under 'Articles' below)

It is clear where Armouredadvocates focus lies (not that there has ever been any doubt).  Indeed, one might well argue that the matters that are 'long-range and with a significant timeline' are the very ones which should be considered.  Once matters are close to finalisation, it very often too late to have any influence.

LAND 400 

Speaking of which … it was nice to have a link to an Armouredadvocates' article LAND 400: it’s about survivability quoted in ASPI's Strategist recently (ANZACs under armour: the future Australian IFV): 

"The downside is that its weight means that it can’t be airlifted in significant numbers (or by a C-130) and its use will be restricted in regions where the infrastructure can’t support it. But, as Bruce Cameron pointed out, ‘AFV survivability is the factor which will win battles and save lives’."

The above, of course, relates to LAND 400 Phase 3 (the replacement of the M113AS4).  It must be getting close re the release of the Defence White Paper 2015. 

RAAC Corporation AGM 

With the AGM very close, two pertinent questions: What difference has the RAAC Corporation made to the RAAC Community in its first two years and what potential difference will it make in the future?  In asking this, one has to try and identify the things achieved by the RAAC Corporation, that could not have been achieved by member assns and other ESOs.  What unique benefit does the RAAC Corporation bring to the RAAC community and how is this best able to be capitalised upon?

Armouredadvocates (a supporter of the RAAC Corporation concept) could offer a view but feels it is best for the Corporation itself to reflect on this.

_____________________________________________________________________

16 October 2015

RAAC Corporation Chairman's 2015 Report

Senate Standing Committee into Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence Inquiry into Mental Health of ADF Personnel. 

"The inquiry sought submissions from interested parties. A submission by theCorporation was prepared and tendered to ADSO to form part of a consolidated ADSO response. The submission can be seen on the Corporation’s website by clicking on the Info tab. The ADSO submission was tendered on 26/6/15. Due to a technical issue with that submission, representations including a copy of our submission, were made by me to the Senate Standing Committee which acknowledged, “The committee is now aware of the RAAC Corporation’s significant contribution to the ADSO’s [submission].  The submission was accepted as a stand-alone document. An invitation for the Corporation to attend the Inquiry on 31/89/15 and give evidence, was accepted."

Armouredadvocates initially missed the significance of the statements above.  Instead, it was thought to be a useful thing to do (given that both the RAAC and ADSO Corporation submissions have been posted on-line) to see what use ADSO made of the RAAC input.  Surprise, surprise … the ADSO submission is virtually a carbon copy of the RAAC Corporations' submission to them.  See one of the topics copied below.  Apart from replacing RAAC Corporation with ADSO, the entire content is the same (including the 'achieves' omission).  It would appear that ADSO simply acted as a post box for the RAAC Corporation input (which was surprisingly good, given that it seemed to have been prepared without consultation with the RAAC Corporation m'ship).

The above reference in the RAAC Corporation Chairman's report now makes more sense.  The Chairman became aware of ADSO's action and protested to the Senate

C'tee.  Both the RAAC Corporation submission and that of ADSO are posted on the Inquiry's website.  This must be quite inflammatory as far as ADSO is concerned … a word which has not been used for the first time in relation to the RAAC Corporation. One has to wonder what the relationship is now between ADSO and the Corporation.

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

Extract from the ADSO/RAAC Corporations' Submission to the Senate Inquiry:

"Children of Contemporary Veterans.   

An important issue related to this Term of Reference is the forgotten victims, namely the children of contemporary veterans. It is noted that in previous studies, the risk of suicide of children of Vietnam Veterans was found to be greater than that of their ordinary cohort in the general community. In terms of the children of contemporary veterans, pre-emptive action needs to be taken to ensure their children do not become a statistic. Children are the future. 

There appears to be a lacuna in the provision of support to the children of contemporary veterans that was addressed in the 1990s with the children of Vietnam Veterans, and that relates to the matter of Outreach programmes for children of contemporary veterans. A programme of Outreach weekends for children of contemporary veterans is considered to be an essential part of the family support continuum and should as a matter of priority, be considered by the Standing Committee in relation to this Term of Reference. 

Outreach programs for children of contemporary veterans will empower them and enable them to regain/retain control of their lives.  Capturing veterans children in their formative and teen years and enabling them to mix with their own age group [omission ... 'achieves'] a number of critical purposes; viz 

It allows then to appreciate the fact they are not the only ones who find themselves in the situation of having a parent traumatised by war;

It enables them to vent; It enables them to form bonds and new networking contacts with their peers

and discuss their individual issues in a trusting, understanding, supportive and confidential environment, away from parental involvement;

It enables them to develop, through group and individual sessions, strategies to cope with living with a parent who has PTSD;

It enables the to develop an appreciation through session with adult presenters (veterans and others), of what their parent or parents went through; and

Most critically, what is happening to their parent or parents is not the fault of the child. Mental health of ADF serving personnel

 Whilst it is appreciated that numerous online tools and telephone apps are developed in the main for adult veterans and families by DVA and other relevant organisations, the need for one-to-one or group interaction cannot be emphasised

enough. The spouse/partner of a veteran and any children are often referred to as secondary victims – the primary victim being the veteran him/herself.  The damage this does to the family unit is incalculable; often fracturing relationships and in particular, destroying any loving relationship between a veteran and souse/partner an in particular developing a long-lasting and very fractious relationship with any children. 

ADSO [The RAAC Corporation] contends in the strongest possible terms, that a joint venture initiative between the relevant ESOs and DVA be considered with a view to developing Outreach camps for (of weekend or longer duration), children of contemporary veterans."

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

17 October 2015

RAAC Corporation 2015 Chairman's Report 

"Border Protection. The former HOC advised the 2014 AGM that external advocacy by the Corporation may be required to take up the issue of border protection recognition for RAAC members. 

This matter was reviewed by me in February 2015 and a discussion paper issued to the Corps and Directors. The source documents subsequently provided, confirmed the matter of border protection entitlements is complex due to a range of factors, in particular a lack of documentary evidence of members who participated in border protection deployments. Consequently, the size of the task clearly supported the assessment that this matter was a whole-of-Army issue and not confined to the RAAC. As such, this placed it outside the Corporation’s jurisdiction … ".

As discussed yesterday, the RAAC Corporation devoted enormous effort to the Senate Committee's Inquiry into the Mental Health of ADF Veterans.  Armouredadvocates is in no doubt that this is a most worthy undertaking, but … how is it that one issue is placed outside the Corporation's jurisdiction because it is a whole-of-Army issue (even though advocacy is specifically requested by the HOC) and another is not?

White Paper Release? 

Prior to the change of Defence Minister, it was widely reported that the DWP would be released in mid-October.  The only info the AA can find, indicates that 'the Government has stated that the DWP will be released in 2015'.  It would seem that the amount of time needed for Senator Payne to be confident in agreeing to the Paper is as yet unknown.  Maybe November? 

'Defence of Australia in the 21st Century.' 

An interesting article in the current DFJ: 

http://www.adfjournal.adc.edu.au/UserFiles/issues/197%202015%20Jul_Aug.pdf

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

18 October 2015

A couple of 'Light Horse' related items ….

Major General W B Digger James AC, AO(Mil), MBE, MC, MBBS, DTM&H,DPH, DIH,FRACS.

Patron, The Australian Light Horse Association

 Born:  14 May 1930 Shepparton Victoria, Son of Thomas C James Orchardist.  Education: Grahamvale State School, Shepparton High School, Royal Military College Duntroon 1948-1951, University of Sydney MBBS 1963, RAMC Millbank UK  London DTM&H, DPH, London University DIH.1969/71. Elected FRACS 1981.

 Military Service: 

Graduate Royal Military College Duntroon 1951,

Platoon Commander 1 RAR in the Korean War 1952 (seriously wounded in action, Immediate Award of Military Cross),

1954-6 Royal Australia armoured Corps,

Adjutant Armoured School, then Adjutant 12th/16th Hunter River Lancers (in 1957 Resigned to undertake medical studies Sydney University. Graduated 1964) Commissioned  Captain Medical Officer Army,

2 Camp Hospital 1964-1966 Medical Officer,

Duntroon Hospital 1966-68,

Officer Commanding  8th Field Ambulance,& Senior Medical Officer 1st Australian Task force Vietnam War 1968/69 (Awarded MBE) Medical Officer,

St John Ambulance in the Biafran War, NIGERIA 1971 (Awarded O StJ).

Director of Medical Services Qld 1971-75,

Director of Army Medical Services1975-81.

Provided Field Hospital and medical support for Professor Fred Hallows Aboriginal Trachoma Programmes in Cental Australia 1976-7.

Promoted Major General ,

Director General of Army Health Services 1981-85.(Awarded AO)

The COs and RSMs of 'Digger' James' time as Adjutant Armour School and 12/16 would have passed on.  is there anyone else who has knowledge of his time in these appointments?  Please let Armouredadvocates know.

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

The Light Horse Memorial Park, Seymour : An Army Camp Becomes a Park

By 1978, the old Seymour Army Camp, which had gradually fallen into decline and eventually to complete disuse, was sold by the Commonwealth Government to the Seymour Shire Council to be used for community purposes.  For a number of years, it remained a neglected area of rubbish strewn wasteland on the fringe of the Seymour township. In 1979 following grass-roots community pressure, 62 hectares of the purchased land was declared as the Seymour Bushland Reserve and a local committee began its rehabilitation and upgrading. Part of the land was also sold as a golf course and another area was retained by Council as a motor sports track.In 1995, the idea of developing the area south of the Goulburn Valley Highway as a memorial park that would recognise the contribution made particularly by the Australian Light Horse Regiments, but also the part played by all those men and women who trained and served was mooted, and in 1998 the  new Mitchell Shire Council established the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park. The Council appointed a Committee of Management for the park with Mr Murray Smith as inaugural President His role was particularly significant as Murray a highly respected Seymour citizen, had served in the Second AIF and was a ‘Rat of Tobruk’.The Management Committee began the mammoth task of cleaning up the 140 hectares of land and welcomed the willing cooperation that they received from the Army. Colonel Gordon Jones, then Area Commander of Puckapunyal Military Area, recognised the importance of the park to Australia’s military heritage and provided practical assistance in removing much of the unwanted material left behind by the Army, while leaving important relics and ruins in place.

In 2001, to coincide with the centenary of the Australian Army, the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park was officially opened by the Hon. Brendan Nelson, MP, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence. The occasion was marked with a grand parade of Light Horse Living History groups and Armour, Artillery and Infantry units from the modern Australian Army. In recent years, the Management Committee, together with hundreds of volunteers and supporters, have continued to improve and develop the park.

Today the Australian Light Horse Memorial park attracts a wide range of visitors from all walks of life making a pilgrimage to one of Australia’s most important military heritage sites or simply to enjoy a stroll or a picnic in the tranquil bushland setting with its wide range of flora and fauna where once, a lifetime ago, soldiers gathered to prepare for war.

http://www.lighthorsepark.org.au/

More recently, September 2015, saw SOA Commanding Officer, LTCOL Abbott, with former Victorian Premier the Hon Ted Baillieu, the member for the Victorian seat of Euroa, Steph Ryan, MP, Mitchell Shire Mayor Rodney Parker and the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park committee, at the opening of the ANZAC hill re-development in the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park, Seymour.  ANZAC hill is the highest point in the Park.

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

19 October 2015

Associations of Australian Defence Personnel

I've had occasion recently to consider the nature of associations comprising Australian defence personnel.  Seems to me that there are some elements within the make-up of these which don't coalesce.

One reason for this is that the membership is characterised by a range of intense personal experiences, eg WWII Veterans, SVN Veterans, national servicemen, special forces etc

If you take members of a particular service background; a single association which tries to bring everyone together irrespective of their different experiences (say, peace and war) is unlikely to be as readily successful as two distinct associations, one for each different group.

Obviously, a hundred different associations will not succeed in advancing common concerns, to the same extent as a single organisation which represents them all.

My point is ... how do you bring together different groups of service personnel whose basis of association is their mutual experience; ie. how do you unite different 'clans' in a way which promotes the strength of an umbrella organisation as a whole?  It seems to me that the RSL, for example, has failed to achieve this.   The Defence Force Welfare Association (DFWA), however, can be regarded as being successful.  Why?  It was a specific purpose … the welfare of ex-service and serving ADF members.

The answer is to clearly define the goals of the association.  This is the hard part, if we're looking for unifying themes ... some will say 'commemoration', some will say 'veterans' benefits', some will say 'service conditions', some will say 'defence spending'; others will say 'catching up with mates'.   All of these provide potential to 'splinter' associations.

A possible answer is to have an association which exists in two parts ... social and policy.  Each of these parts, however, is multi-facetted.  One social cap won't fit all factions, nor will one policy agenda advance the causes of all.

The type of association which will best represent defence personnel (ex-service and serving) into the future will be very different to, say, the RSL of today.  It will be a diverse organisation which will openly attract members for different reasons.  The problem to-date has been trying to blend the different needs of members into one supposedly 'common' basis of association.

Conclusion.  An association must identify its reason for existing.  Unless it's a body with a single defined purpose, eg. DFWA, there will be a number of reasons potential members will have in joining.  Specify these as goals of the association and allocate priority accordingly.  Sub-committees representing the needs of different groups may be one way creating an effective structure.

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

20 October 2015

VALE: Major General William Brian ‘Digger’ James AC, AO (Mil), MBE, MC, Order of St John 

One of the RAAC's 'own' who has made an enormous contribution to the Nation, the ADF and our Society....

From the Australian Light Horse Association President (Phil Chalker)

"It is with deep sadness and regret that we notify our members and friends of the passing of our Patron Major General ‘Digger’ James on Friday evening of 16 October 2015. 

Major General James was the Association's valued Patron for the past 10 years and his knowledge and guidance during this time cannot be understated. He was involved in a number of Association projects the most notable being 'The Waler Memorial' in Tamworth and of course the Australian Light Horse Memorial and 'the Park of the Australian Soldier' in Beersheba, Israel. 

We send our sincere condolences to his wife Barbara and their family.

He will be greatly missed by not only those who knew him but those his life impacted on.

Rest in peace Sir."

... thinking of those who have walked in his footsteps as Adjutant SOA and 12/16 HRL.  Some might think that they broke the mould when he and the late 'Sandy' Pearson were produced; others, however, will be comforted in the knowledge that there are a good number among those serving today who fit their boots and will become leaders of the same calibre.

At Beersheba in 2009

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

21 October 2015

LAND 400 Phase: Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (ASLAV Replacement)

1. Next Public Announcement:

An announcement of the initial short list of tenderers selected to participate in risk mitigation activities (RMA) is currently planned for March 2016. - 

2. Amphibious Capability … Will it Have an Influence on LAND 400? 

The operational requirement for the CRV does not include amphibious capability.  This is not surprising, given the high levels of protection specified.

One of the contenders, however, is amphibious.  Armouredadvocates previously reported that: “Elbit Systems of Australia (ELBA) have teamed with Singapore Technologies Kinetics (STK) to offer the Terrex 2 ( 8 x 8).  Elbit have a corporation relationship with Israel and have been involved with a number of IDF projects.  Presently the Terrex 2 is undergoing evaluation as part of the US Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle Project.

The apparent shortcoming of the Terrex 2 would seem to be its power to weight ratio.  Is it possible that its amphibious capability could somehow compensate for this?  The latest issue of Defence Technology Review reports that the vehicle has the ability to negotiate Sea State 4 and come ashore and exit the beach through the surf zone.

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

Recent quotations re the ADF amphibious capability and LAND 400 copied below:

"The development of ADF’s amphibious capability is illustrative of the intrinsic link between international engagement, force generation and operational effect. From inception, the development of strategy, policy and doctrine has been informed and enabled through engagement with international partners. As the Amphibious capability comes on-line, it will provide unprecedented capability for the conduct of regional engagement, capacity building and disaster relief. 

But these exciting developments in Army and Joint capability will also require us to focus expectations in terms of readiness, responsiveness and delivery." 

Major General Rick Burr, DSC, AM, MVO, address to Australian Strategic Policy Institute Army’s future force structure options conference, Canberra, Thursday 25 June 2015. 

"My greatest concern isn’t our ability to generate a constructive, broad-spectrum amphibious capability, beneficial to Australia and our region.  I am certain this will be achieved.

Rather, my concern is for mastering the ability to successful undertake a range of amphibious activities consistently, but not exclusively of those other tasks the ADF must maintain (such as conventional combat and stabilisation in the case of land forces), without periodically relearning very hard lessons.  

Be assured, Army is committed to the ADF’s future amphibious capability, and more generally, to contributing to our national maritime strategy and the joint force it requires.  The future is challenging but who would want it any other way."

Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, DSC, AM, address to the Royal Australian Navy’s Seapower conference, Sydney, Tuesday, 6 October 2015. 

"It is for this reason we do not apologise for seeking a combat reconnaissance vehicle to replace the ASLAV that has significantly enhanced levels of protection when compared with its predecessor. Will the multi-purpose vehicle we choose fit in a C130? No. Will its weight cause some difficulty crossing small bridges in the littoral environment? Probably. Will it be versatile enough to survive and win in lethal hot spots on a modern battlefield, but also move easily through lower threat areas without disruption to the population? Yes it will. Can it be rapidly deployed on a C17 or landed by a Canberra class LHD? Yes, absolutely. Will it have the sensors and communication systems to enable it to be a node for information to enhance mission command? Yes."

Major General Fergus (Gus) McLachlan, AM, address to Australian Strategic Policy Institute Army’s future force structure options conference, Canberra, Thursday 25 June 2015.

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

22 October 2015

Sponsorship of the RAAC Corporation

The 2015 RAAC Corporation AGM is now over.  What progress has been made in terms of sponsorship?  Some of the Corporation's previous references to this are copied below.  The following example of how the Corporation will use potential sponsorship funds is unfortunate in terms of more recent events: “Widget Corporation Award to the B Sqn 3/4 Cav Regt Bushmaster Driver Student of Merit.”

An example of another Defence association's efforts in terms of sponsorship can be found at: http://www.australiansas.com/Sponsors.html.

The SAS Historical Foundation has enlisted sponsorships from almost 50 organisations, including a grant from DVA.

It will be interesting to read the RAAC Corporation's AGM Minutes (presuming that they will be made available).

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

The RAAC Corporation on Sponsorship:

"Financial support through sponsorships is one of the challenges facing it in this era of cutbacks in the private sector as well as across the whole of Government.

I spoke to Lt Col John Harriott (RAAC Ret’d), now with General Dynamics regarding sponsorship.  Money is tight and John has very kindly offered to forward to me a list of similar organisation to his, who may be in a position to consider sponsoring the Corporation. I thank John for his assistance and his candour.  Once I receive this info, I will endeavour to  link up with the Rep Honorary Colonel and discuss with Roger, how best to approach the relevant organisations.  It is my view that this will need to be addressed by someone at Roger’s level and with his corporate and business acumen. 

HOW DO WE ENVISAGE USING SPONSORSHIP?We discussed what the 1AR Assn does in its support to 1AR by presenting prizes/trophies to soldiers of merit etc., on the Assn’s behalf – they have really taken the Regiment under the wing.  We envisage something along the lines of for example, the “Wingnut Industries Award to the 2 Cav Regt ASLAV Gunnery Student of Merit”  or the “Widget Corporation Award to the B Sqn 3/4 Cav Regt Bushmaster Driver Student of Merit.” 

We believe that this would be an excellent way to demonstrate serious unit support and attract corporate sponsorship, for starters. 

SPONSORSHIP. The Chairman has raised this subject with Chris Fenton, who has offered to assist, and in addition Julian Heath, a potential member of the advisory committee, has also volunteered to look into the question of potential sponsors. Peter Still has also had some positive reaction to a couple of approaches to potential sponsors. He will discuss this with John Haynes."

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

23 October 1025

RAAC Corporation 2015 AGM

Now that the AGM has been concluded, it is interesting to reflect on 1/15 RNSWL's comment (Plumes newsletter http://www.lancers.org.au/site/Lancers_Despatch_Feb_2015.asp) on the 2014 AGM:

"The reserve units are now mostly equipped with PMVs alongside their Landrovers. In spite of the success of trained A vehicle crewmen manning PMVs in Afghanistan, the management of the vehicles has been handed over to the Corps of Transport. Drivers get not much more than a soldier’s 5 to make the transition from a qualified truck driver; there is no separate ECN. There is no such thing as a PMV crew commander, simply a co-driver with no special training. The only ECN a reservist can gain that will provide a worthy pay rate is that of cavalry scout or assault trooper.

The saddest point made by the regulars at the conference, was that this is what they want, trained cavalry scouts.

The problem is that supplying lowest common denominator trained soldiers to round-out regular units is a waste of the resource. The reserve is a pool of military trained citizens with intellect and business experience. It should be used as such. There was a decision to hold the AGM next year in Sydney. If this happens, our Association will be involved in hosting the event, there will also be an opportunity for observers. It may not occur. Messages circulated after the event indicate Hanrahan is alive and well in the RAAC Corp executive. There is a concern that few would survive Sydney with the muggings and murders. Watch this space. (John Howells RFD, Sec 1/15 RNSWL Assoc) 

Will 'Hanrahan' appear in the minutes of the 2015 AGM?

B Sqn 3/4 Cav Regt

Included in the above notes from the 2014 AGM was the fact that: "Sadly the transition of B Sqn 3/4 Cav to a reserve sub-unit has been delayed until 2017…".

This seems to have been missed by the RAAC Corporation according to a 22 October 2015 email to the 3rd and 4th Cav Regts Assn:

"At present the Squadron will be stood up again in 2017 possibly in SE Qld.  That information came from the Honorary Colonel 1/15 RNSWL who is an Advisory Board member of the Corporation.  At my request and on your behalf, he made enquiries through the 2 Div Commander’s Chief of Staff himself a former CO of the School of Armour, earlier this year". 

Senate Standing Committee Inquiry Into ADF Health Issues.

Nice to see credit being given where it's due

The Alliance of Defence Service Organisations (which the Fleet Air Arm Assn of Aust has recently joined) subsequently made a submission that addressed each of the items above.  A copy of this submission can be found here.   The lead for the work

was Colonel Noel McLaughlin from the Royal Australian Armoured Corps Corporation (RAAC).

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

24 October 2015

The Genesis of Armouredadvocates

Email to the President, 1AR Assn on 20 October 2015:

"Hi Tony, 

I receive an enormous number of enquiries asking why it was that the 1 AR Assn Members' Forum was shut down. I reply to say that the reasons below are those that have been given to me (sequentially). 

Many people come back and ask what the 'real' reason was, and, furthermore, why the 1AR Assn would try so hard to cover 'something' up.   I reply to say that I can only pass on info that I'm aware of. 

Can you please advise which one of the eight reasons that have given below ... was correct and why it was necessary to generate such a litany of lies and deceit on behalf of the Assn. 

Many thanks,  Bruce"

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

1. 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);

2. 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);

3. 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”;

4. 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;

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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”.

8. 1AR Assn C'tee (at 2015 AGM): "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."

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

25 October 2015

RAAC Corporation Membership 

Members of the RAAC Corporation comprise associations of RAAC units on the Orbat and State branches of the RAACA.

The RAAC Corporation website (http://www.raaccorpltd.org.au/index.htm) displays badges representing nine units on the Orbat and that representing the three RAACA branches.  Representatives of these associations comprise the twelve delegates of the Executive Council.

Surprisingly, however, the School of Armour 'badge' is shown with the others on the RAAC Corporation website.  Why?

The Corporation states that:

"The  RAAC  Corporation  Ltd was  created  to  provide  a greater  and  more co-ordinated  voice  for  all  RAAC  units on the ORBAT together with their respective Regimental Associations." 

Serving members can be members of unit associations, so it can be claimed that they are given a voice in RAAC Corporation deliberations.  There is no SOA representation on the Corporation Council and members of that unit have no means of giving voice to any concerns they may have, other than to become members of an RAACA branch.  The presence of the SOA 'badge' on the Corporation header gives the impression that the unit's members are directly represented in that forum.  Unless an SOA representative is to be included on the RAAC Corporation Council, the 'badge' should be removed.

Email  to the ACT 1AR Assn rep on 23 October 2015:

Hi Ian,

The RAAC Corporation Chairman in his 2015 Report advises that:

"If individuals have concerns about the Corporation Executive’s operations they should in the first instance take up the issue via their own Corporation Council".

This edict comes about because the Corporation declines, despite numerous requests, to provide any means by which it can be contacted and questioned directly.

Given the above .... can you please answer (or refer to the 1AR Assn C'tee) the following question:

'The RAAC Corporation website displays eleven badges/logos ... giving the impression that these represent the groups which comprise the Corporation itself.

Ten of these represent units/organisations which are represented on the Executive Council of the Corporation.  The odd one out is the School of Armour.

Why is it that the SOA is not represented on the Executive Council when the RAAC Corporation creates the impression that its decisions are made with its support?' 

Note.  RAAC Corporation Website: Links to members' Websites. 

Some days ago Armouredadvocates commented on the RAAC Corporation Chairman's 2015 Annual Report in which it was stated that the Corporation website provided links to all member associations …  Armouredadvocates queried this on the basis of not being able to establish any links.  Today it has been found that if you click on the association 'badge' (rather than names) then links are made (except for 10LH, 4/19 PWLH and RAACA NT).  Whether this was the case previously, or is something that just been 'fixed', is uncertain.

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

26 October 2015

Copyright 

A couple of related issues ….

1. 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)  When I was on my third posting 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)  A design catalogue exists of unit colour patches.  One of them is for a 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.

(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.

2. Use of Army Insignia to promote Alcohol.

The following is an edited version of a recent post on the 3 Cav (Vietnam) Assn website

"Saving the 3 Cav Association’s arse:  Not only that, [the Chairman of the RAAC Corporation] found out that the Association … was selling reunion merchandise at Tongala this month which had the Rising Sun badge on it as well.  The Rising Sun is protected by law [but] the 3 Cav association had not been given formal permission by the Army’s brand manager which could have resulted in  a Court Order to  not sell the merchandise … leaving the blokes who invested in making  a profit from this  venture, severely out of pocket…  if not broke. 

The [Corporation Chairman] secured the brand manger’s contact details shot them off ….. approval was obtained and  all is now on  track for Tongala sales wise. 

Just remember this…[the RAAC Corporation Chairman] didn’t have to do squat for the 3 Cav association.  Yet he took this action out of the goodness of his heart to try and save people taking a financial bath." 

The RAAC Corporation website (http://www.raaccorpltd.org.au/info.htm) includes a copy of the authorisation provided for the Corporation to use RAAC unit badges in its marketing.  This indicates that the Army brand is not to be used for the promotion or sale of alcoholic beverages.

The President of the 1 AR Assn is a director of the RAAC Corporation.  It is surprising, therefore, that the 1AR Assn website (http://paratus.org.au/regiwine.jpg) promotes the sale of Regimental wine packs.

Postscript to the RAAC Corporation membership issue described yesterday ….

In the RAAC Corporation 2014 Annual Report, the Chairman stated that:

"For this first time in over 60 years RAAC units have been involved in a consultative process in a matter of some importance in that all soldiers regardless of rank, have their say through their member associations."

The President 1 AR Assn responded to my email earlier today to say SOA members were represented  by the RAAC (Vic) and that this was set out in the RAAC Corporation's Consititution. Members of 1AR are automatically members of the 1AR Assn while posted (though not financial members), the same arrangements applied to members of the SOA and RAACA (VIC).

I replied to say 'thank you', but explained that "Armouredadvocates' concern was that if you look at the RAAC Corporation website (without reading through the Constitution) it's not clear how SOA soldiers are able to "have their say". It would correct this, if, for the Executive Council, John Patterson was listed as 'RAAC-Vic & SOA', in the same way that Chris Cohen is listed as '2/6 Cav Regt Assn & 2 Cav Regt Association'.  I guess that both the 1AR Assn  and RAAC (Vic) have contact people within 1 AR and SOA, so as to be able to seek views on issues to be proposed or being debated (?)."

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

27 October 2015

The RAAC ARES 'Crisis'

A bit more  ... from the 1/15 RNSWL 'Lancers' Dispatch' newsletter of August 2015:

"No official report from the Regiment this time. There has been too much going on. A bit of a problem with the Protected Mobility Vehicles.  The Army has chosen to designate them transport rather than armoured vehicles.  Meaning the crew commander becomes a co-driver, not being required to develop and exercise vehicle command skills, vehicles do not carry an effective assault/protection weapon and are only expected to travel in convoy not using vehicle fire and manoeuvre tactics (bit hard without a weapon anyway).  Proper vehicle husbandry is not mandatory with a transport vehicle.  The PMVs are still allocated to the Regiment for training and provision of lift for reserve units on exercise; but troopers have to train as a Cavalry Scout in order to gain a recognised ECN." 

The RAAC Corporation Chairman has stated in his 2015 Report that this is not a matter for the Corporation.

Will the ARES delegates at the AGM be able to change this position or will the ARA position triumph, despite six of the ten RAAC units being ARES?  (The issue with voting, of course, is that the Executive Council comprises sixteen members in total.)

Commemoration.

The RAAC Corporation has previously stated "A minutes silence was observed to remember fallen comrades, in particular ….". 

Armouredadvocates would like to suggest that it would be more fitting to name all fallen comrades.  (In death all are equal.)

Given that the Corporation is not likely to be aware of all those who have died in the intervening period, however, it would be much better to state: "A minutes silence was observed to remember fallen comrades, including …".

Postscript re the RAAC Corporation Membership Issue. 

The RAAC (Vic) rep on the Executive Council might now be shown on the RAAC Corporation website with his 'two hatted' responsibilities for both RAACA (Vic) and SOA.  This raises another question, however …

Email to RAAC (Vic) rep on the RAAC Corporation Council:

'Recently I noticed that the RAAC Corporation claimed that: "For this first time in over 60 years RAAC units have been involved in a consultative process in a matter of some importance in that all soldiers regardless of rank, have their say through their member associations.” 

I asked how those at the School of Armour were able to have their say and was informed by a Director of the RAAC Corporation (Tony Crook) that this occurred vide the RAACA (Vic) Association [See Armouredadvocates post yesterday]

I've suggested to the Corporation that as the RAACA (Vic) represtents all those at the SOA, then this should be shown on the listing of the RAAC Executive Council (http://www.raaccorpltd.org.au/council.htm) ... as done for 2 Cav and 2/6 Cav Assn. 

Given that all those posted to the SOA are members (albeit not financial members) of RAACA (Vic), my question is ... does RAACA (Vic) have a point of contact at SOA to seek input re matters under discussion and proposals; ie. how is it that RAACA (Vic) gauges the views of all its members at the SOA?'

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

28 October 2015

2015 Defence White Paper

The Canberra Times ran a defence supplement yesterday.  They did so, I suspect, as this was to be time when the Defence White paper was to be released.  The Defence Minister, however, describes the DWP as being "under review"

In line with recent views of other commentators, the supplement focused on what authors believed would be limitations in the content of the DWP.  The following letter was forwarded to the Editor:

"Dear Sir,  

Nicholas Stuart's article 'New perspective on defence' (Times 2, October 27, p4) suggests apparent shortcomings in the process of preparing the 2015 Defence White Paper.  It is difficult to agree with this conclusion, when its justification is flawed. 

Stuart argues that our ADF force structure hasn't evolved to reflect obvious changes in warfare from the First World War through to Vietnam and today.  

This is not at all obvious.  Australian tanks were employed in Vietnam to support infantry in attacks against entrenched enemy positions, exactly the same role that tanks were designed for and used in WWI.  Australian tanks were employed against the enemy in Vietnam in exactly the same way that they were employed in New Guinea during WWII.  The enemy used mines to stop Australian armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) during WWII; improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were used to stop Australian AFVs in Vietnam; and advanced forms of IEDs were used to stop Australian AFVs in Afghanistan.  AFV designs, and the tactics for their employment, have evolved progressively as a result of lessons learnt in battle.  This is but one example. 

Australia's national interests will be endangered when our Government fails to listen to the advice of the ADF.  Our defence personnel are very much aware of the legacy of history and the lessons which must not be 'airbrushed' from its pages." 

It will be interesting to see if it sparks any debate.

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

29 October 2015

Associations of Defence Personnel 2

The 3 & 4 Cav Regts Association is going through difficult times with 3/4 Cav Sqn not to be re-raised as an ARES unit unti 2017.  The President has said, in part, that

"Our Association must not be allowed to founder through lack of interest or involvement of the general membership.  If we go to a Management Committee of a few then those few must act for the benefits of the Association and its members and not see it as a personal fiefdom as has happened with other Associations in the past. It would be an enormous responsibility of trust and so must be carefully considered.  I would welcome any suggestions to solve the problem of representation of our Association." (Interesting observation re "personal fiefdom".)

Following an earlier more generic post on this site re 'Associations of Defence personnel', Armouredadvocates has suggested to the 3 & 4 Cav Regts Assn C'tee:

"… 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 3 Cav, 4 Cav and 3/4 Cav 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.

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

Earlier suggestions from Armouredadvocates re the issue were:

"Come to the AGM and sort it out."  This is not really practicable for many members. The topic of this thread is a Thank You to Mick Kuilboer, in part for the magnificent way in which the Assn's website has been managed.

Why not use this, ie. the website, to call for comments on specific ideas and to seek other suggestions, as if contributors were actually present at an AGM.  If open and free discussion was encouraged, I'm sure there'd be much more input.  (A moderator can always delete inappropriate posts.)

In my earlier input, 'Associations of Defence Personnel', I suggested the need to identify the different reasons that members had for joining.  Possibly a question along these lines could be asked prior to the AGM and decisions at the meeting made accordingly.

(Some members might be interested in the role and equipment that a reborn ARES 3/4 Cav Regt might end up with ... can we not do better than to consign the RAAC ARES to the sole role of dismounted cavalry scout, aka assault troopers, aka infantry?)

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

"Inter-generation communication" ... I think that this is a large part of the 'issue' (I won't say 'problem' because I think that's the wrong word).  But there is something

else.  If you meet the guys serving today, they are real professionals and proud of it (and they make you proud as a result).  So you would think that there would be real empathy across the generations, but ...

I tried to promote the idea of a strong RAAC presence here in Canberra at the Afghanistan 'Welcome Home' parade, but the suggestion fell on deaf ears (as far as the local branch of an RAAC association was concerned). Yet in WA, the guys got together and organised to have their banner in a very prominent position just before the saluting dias.  I'm sure that the inter-generation barrier was crossed (to the benefit of both generations).

Seems to me that it's a little hard with 3/4 Cav Sqn in limbo ... but on the other hand, this provides an opportunity to plan and work with those responsible for setting up the new ARES unit.  Presumably there will be a lot of recruiting to be done ... what better way to cross the inter-generational divide than than to give everyone the opportunity be a part of these things.  (Then again, it might be something which is intangible ... like the difference between Canberra and Perth as far as the Afghanistan Welcome home was concerned.)

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

30 October 2015

2015 RAAC Corporation AGM.

The minutes of the 2015 RAAC Corporation (now abbreviated to RAACC) can be found below under 'Articles' (see RAACCAGM2015).

Coral/Balmoral and Operation Hammersley.   Blog comment will be made progressively re the AGM outcomes, but the following reference is of concern "They [1 AR Assn] are in the process of working with the unit [1AR] to get recognition of a battle honour for Coral/Balmoral and Operation Hammersley".

A battle honour for Coral-Balmoral has already been awarded.  The submission drafted by Armouredadvocates was to allow the battle honour to be emblazoned on the Standard.  Similarly the submission drafted by Armouredadvocates in relation to Operation Hammersley had nothing at all to do with the award of a battle honour.  The submission was to have the award of the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry Unit Citation made to 8RAR for Operation Hammersley, extended to supporting units (including 3 Cav and field engineers, as well as 1AR).  Members of the RAAC Corporation Advisory Board have been asked what's going on.

LAND 400: Turret Configuration

According to the source below, "General Dynamics Land Systems will mount a 30mm gun and new turret on U.S. Army Stryker vehicles in Europe.  The upgrade will involve 81 vehicles and is to deal with concerns the vehicles are lacking weaponry in the face of a potential Russian threat in the region. The work is expected to be

finished by 2018. It is expected that up to eventually 1,000 Stryker vehicles will be upgraded." (http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/strykers-will-receive-new-guns-but-unclear-whether-gd-land-systems-canada-will-do-the-work)

The upgunning is confirmed by a second source (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/ausa/2015/10/14/firepower-upgrade-planned-strykers/73943576/) which states that

“What the Army wants is a weapon with a longer range, greater accuracy and more punch than the .50-caliber machine gun, and a 30mm will give you a lot more in all three of those areas,” General Dynamics Land Systems business development manager, Timothy Reese, said.

The Army plans to field the larger gun in Europe by 2018. Because the GDLS-led procurement is evaluating existing cannons and involves replacing the vehicle’s suspension with suspensions already in the Army’s inventory, the process is expected to move quickly, Reese said."

It's not hard to understand why the CRV (ASLAV replacement) turret has called for an equivalent armament. 

Third Annual Northern Australia Defence Summit

The above summit finished in Darwin yesterday.  There has been some debate recently as far as the location of ADF units is concerned.  It will be interesting see what the Summit (and the Defence White paper) have to say about this.

________________________________________________________________________

31 October 2015

Beersheba Day ... what a great example of shock action and 'joint' operations (Chauvel had received aerial photos which showed the absence of significant barbed wire defences).

ADF and Joint Warfare

For those interested in Australia's defence construct, the following two articles are likely to be of interest.  The first by an analyst from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and the second, a response from the CA:

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/too-much-of-a-good-thing/

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/joint-warfighting-an-australian-imperative/ 

RAAC Corporation Chairman's View (Parental Guidance) 

Armouredadvocates has had a short email from the Chairman, RAACC.  He uses one word to describe the author.  In a previous description, he used two.  Does this suggest an improvement in terms of the material published in Armouredadvocates or the reverse (it's hard to know)?  There is a temptation to respond in kind, but most people realise this only serves to belittle the sender rather than the recipient.

Armouredadvocates won't divulge the content of the Chairman's email (short as it was).  It followed a request made through the ACT 1AR Assn Rep to ask why the School of Armour was represented on the RAAC Corporation letterhead, but had no representation on the Executive Committee.  The response from the President of the 1AR Assn was that, although it wasn't shown on the Executive Council listing, the SOA was represented by the RAACA (Vic).  A subsequent request to the RAACA (Vic) to ask how they ascertain the views of SOA members on issues being voted on … has gone unanswered. 

1st Armoured Regiment Association 

A c'tee is to be held on 8 November.  Ordinary members may or may not be asked for input re the Agenda.  (There include the members of 1st Armd Regt itself, will they have the opportunity to nominate matters that they might wish their Association to consider?)

It is hoped that the following might be among the things discussed:

*  Progress re the submission (drafted by Armouredadvocates) to emblazon the Coral-Balmoral Battlehonour on the Standard;

*  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.

*  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;

*  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?

*  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.

*  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."      

AWM Link for Correcting Photo Captions 

The AWM have advised that they have recently set up the following link to suggest amendments to photo captions:

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/photograph-caption-amendment/

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