Brian Hartigan
He’s the one in charge … so, why not? If he wants a unit to undertake a new role managing emerging technology, what’s wrong with him simply stripping tanks from 1st Armoured Regiment and making it a non-combatant?
What’s wrong … is that a unit is much more than just the numbers of those serving in it at a particular time. A unit is what esprit-de-corps, heritage and tradition, makes it. This is accrued during the service of former members; and maintained and built upon, by those currently serving.
An Army unit has stakeholders in the same way that a business does. These are people who have an interest in it and who are impacted by decisions affecting it, i.e. former and serving members.
1 Armd Regt has crewed tanks for 75 years. Stripping it of its tanks is obviously a decision of major significance for stakeholders. One would anticipate widespread consultation. There was none.
Nor were options involving other contender units, seriously entertained. Serving members were given a choice: either stay with the unit in Adelaide and become a Combat Experimentation Group (CXG); or transfer to 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Townville, for those who wished to continue crewing tanks. Former members were not consulted; nor were they given any warning about what was to happen.
The announcement on 28 Sep 2023, was a complete surprise: “The 1st Armoured Regiment will be re-roled as an experimental unit to deliver and integrate emerging technologies. This will remain in Adelaide.”
No comments:
Post a Comment