The notion of armour, as I believe in it, is encapsulated in the following statement which is often quoted in armour magazines: "Armour is a concept it is not a tank or a specific weapons system but rather a state of mind, an approach to combat that stresses firepower, mobility and shock effect."

I believe one could also add `versatility` to this definition, even if this were to supplant the traditional shock effect; our experience in deploying armoured cars has reinforced our belief in their practicality and versatility.

I believe in Clausewitz`s dictum that "war is the continuation of state policies by other means". Among other things, this places the armed forces of a nation safely in the hands of the politicians! If the political view or perception of the threat changes, so will the relative role and stature of the military. The army is part and parcel of the military, and the armoured corps is part of the army. We must be under no illusion that to be employed or not employed is above all else a political decision and that the defence budget in a democracy in peacetime is nearly always under pressure.

We now find ourselves in what is commonly described as a `post-Cold-War phase`, and this affects the RSA as well. For the first time this century there is a marked absence of `isms` nobody will admit to imperialism, nazism and fascism, and communism is dead or dying. Talks abound about the new world order "the world yells peace, but there is no peace"; the new world order appears to be the new world disorder.

The `peace dividend`, as it is called, translates into cuts in defence budgets on a worldwide scale, all clad in new phrases such as `downsizing`, `right-sizing` and `resizing`. Armament production has been affected; development has been affected. If one reads overseas magazines, one gains the impression that some armed forces are seeking new enemies or new roles, or are at least taking a serious new look at their priorities.

The main shift in this post-Cold-War phase is away from the bipolar confrontation towards operations called `peacekeeping`, `wider peacekeeping` and `peace enforcing`, to help keep the lid on the new world disorder. Whatever it is called, it remains military intervention but this type of intervention appears to be more acceptable at the international level.