New Zealand Army Organisation

[Whiskyjack]

Hi Guys, before Christmas I saw a media report that suggested that the NZ army had conducted a review of how it was going to organise its battalions. This review was a result of manpower shortages and new equipment. This review was finished the same time as the Defence Sustainability Initiative released in May 2005, but has not been released.

I have seen nothing since, but I know the Australian army is looking at changing its Squad/Platoon organisation to introduce heavy weapons into a Platoon, the Royal Marines have done something similar, and am wondering if it is connected with this. Or (more likely) it is looking at how to organise the battalion around a smaller number of personnel.

Appreciate any info that anyone may have.

[Aussie Digger]

Hi Guys, before Christmas I saw a media report that suggested that the NZ army had conducted a review of how it was going to organise its battalions. This review was a result of manpower shortages and new equipment. This review was finished the same time as the Defence Sustainability Initiative released in May 2005, but has not been released.

I have seen nothing since, but I know the Australian army is looking at changing its Squad/Platoon organisation to introduce heavy weapons into a Platoon, the Royal Marines have done something similar, and am wondering if it is connected with this. Or (more likely) it is looking at how to organise the battalion around a smaller number of personnel.

Appreciate any info that anyone may have.

For the Australian Army I think the re-org is being conducted for several reasons. 1. The existing structure of 3x platoons per coy and 4x rifle companies per battalion has essentially existed since before WW1. The Army thinks this format is a bit inflexible and is therefore conducting a trial, starting this year based on 6 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, to trial the new structure along with additional weapons etc.

The Australian Army is finding it difficult to man 4x rifle coy's, plus support coy's and Battalion HQ's in each of it's battalions.

The new structure is therefore to include 3x rifle coy's and 3x platoon's per coy, but with platoon strength enhanced, though the addition of Maneurvre support (MS) teams per platoon. These will operate heavy weapons including 40mm Auto grenade launchers, 0.50cal HMG's, Carl Gustav 84mm anti-armour weapons, a "new" semi-automatic 7.62mm sniper rifle and 7.62mm MAG-58 GPMG's.

These weapons will be operated by the MS teams and used as required, depending on the tactical circumstances. Each MS team will be given additional vehicles for greater transport capability, due to the heavy weapons requirement (ie: quads, "supacats" etc).

The MS teams will also be used where, required to form MS platoon's comprising, basically an entire heavy weapons platoons to allow firepower to be concentrated on a target.

The remaining support capability, will supposedly remain the same, though perhaps with the existing direct fire support weapons platoon, reverting to an anti-armour platoon, equipped as it will be, with Javelin anti-armour weapons.

[Lucasnz]

I haven't heard anything other than the Queen Alexandra Mounted Rifles relocating to Burnham Military Camp, where they have been designated as a Regiment rather than a Squadron, using LAV. The army documents I've seen are talking of QAMR as it's 3rd Manoeuvre Force.

I would not be surprised to find the army moving to a regular force brigade structure.

[Aussie Digger]

I haven't heard anything other than the Queen Alexandra Mounted Rifles relocating to Burnham Military Camp, where they have been designated as a Regiment rather than a Squadron, using LAV. The army documents I've seen are talking of QAMR as it's 3rd Manoeuvre Force.

I would not be surprised to find the army moving to a regular force brigade structure.

NZ doesn't seem to have made up it's mind entirely WHO will get LAV's. 1 RNZIR is equipped with 52 LAV's, 2 RNZIR is equipped with 40 and the rest equipping your trade schools. Where are QAMR's LAV's coming from? You've only got 105.

The only thing they can be thinking is to re-designate 1 or 2 RNZIR as a light infantry force and for the LAV's to go to QAMR. Perhaps the acquisition of NH-90's is influencing this decision and NZ will gain a battalion lift capacity with the new choppers?

Whatever happens, it's going to be a pretty un-balanced "brigade", thought the whole acquisition seems strange to me. Surely it would be best practice to decide what you want to use your defence acquisitions FOR and how they'll be structured and who'll operate them before you buy them, but that's not the case in NZ...

[Lucasnz]

My understanding is that 2 RNZIR is to remain a light infantry force, with QAMR providing the LAV's on an as required basis. I wouldn't say any brigade would be unbalanced given that the Royal Marines only have 100 or so BV206. New Zealand has most of the elements for a regular brigade they just need to brought together under one command. The only real area NZ is short in is infantry and artillery.

[Whiskyjack]

My understanding is that 2 RNZIR is to remain a light infantry force, with QAMR providing the LAV's on an as required basis. I wouldn't say any brigade would be unbalanced given that the Royal Marines only have 100 or so BV206. New Zealand has most of the elements for a regular brigade they just need to brought together under one command. The only real area NZ is short in is infantry and artillery.

I like the mention of Royal Marines there, I would like to see something similar in the NZ Army. What I would really like to see is a mix of the 105 LAVs with 20-30 EFVs, to provide the manoeuvre and flexibility that I think the NZ Army needs. It is heavy but in the South Pacific/South East Asian Region it would be of great use.

When the force you can generate is small it must be more flexible, which I believe the NZDF has been over the years. As long as it can still operate along side its allies there is nothing wrong with being a bit different.

What ever the case it would seem that there is some thinking taking place on how to effectively use the army with the resources at hand.

[Stuart Mackey]

The only thing they can be thinking is to re-designate 1 or 2 RNZIR as a light infantry force and for the LAV's to go to QAMR.

That is exactly what has happned with 2 RNZIR being the light Btn. There was talk, iirc, of disbanding QAMR alltogether, given that all they are there for is to act as taxi drivers for the infantry, and letting 2 RNZIR have the LAV's. I think that internal army politics stopped that.


Perhaps the acquisition of NH-90's is influencing this decision and NZ will gain a battalion lift capacity with the new choppers?

The final numbers is in the hands of cabinet {read Finance ministry}, but I think they will operate as the Hueys did.


Whatever happens, it's going to be a pretty un-balanced "brigade", thought the whole acquisition seems strange to me. Surely it would be best practice to decide what you want to use your defence acquisitions FOR and how they'll be structured and who'll operate them before you buy them, but that's not the case in NZ...

NZ army operates essentially as seperate units within a brigade structure, there is no intention from army or Government that they will ever operate as a brigade. I think that is a mistake if we expect to do Timor like operation where we have to operate in a brigade.
Moreover an actual brigade formation is not policy.

[Lucasnz]

NZ army operates essentially as seperate units within a brigade structure, there is no intention from army or Government that they will ever operate as a brigade. I think that is a mistake if we expect to do Timor like operation where we have to operate in a brigade.
Moreover an actual brigade formation is not policy.

Yes a standing brigade structure is not policy but the army is expected to be able deploy a brigade if things turn to custard in a big way. I would the that the current policy is a flawed, for two key reasons.

1/ It fails to allow the army to exercise at the brigade level except on paper.

2/ The NZ army is of a size where it could develop a regular force brigade. As evidence of this the Stryker Brigade has a authorised stregth of 3614 (I think that has increased now). The new US Army Unit of Action Brigade structure as a strength of 2992. Failure to maximise the orgainisational structure into an operational force is a waste of resources (especially when you have them).

As a guide each battalion will have 812 people, including an ISTAR Coy, Logistics Co, 3 Infantry Companies, 1 Combat Support Companies. The structure seems at odds with whats going on overseas (Commando's, Stryker Brigade).

[Stuart Mackey]

Yes a standing brigade structure is not policy but the army is expected to be able deploy a brigade if things turn to custard in a big way.


Oh? there is no mention of this in current policy. There is an expectation to deploy a battalion group {a paper requirement, I think, as I doubt that even a Btn is doable at the moment}


I would the that the current policy is a flawed, for two key reasons.

1/ It fails to allow the army to exercise at the brigade level except on paper.


No, the policy is that army operates within a brigade structure not as a feild formation.


2/ The NZ army is of a size where it could develop a regular force brigade. As evidence of this the Stryker Brigade has a authorised stregth of 3614 (I think that has increased now). The new US Army Unit of Action Brigade structure as a strength of 2992. Failure to maximise the orgainisational structure into an operational force is a waste of resources (especially when you have them).

As a guide each battalion will have 812 people, including an ISTAR Coy, Logistics Co, 3 Infantry Companies, 1 Combat Support Companies. The structure seems at odds with whats going on overseas (Commando's, Stryker Brigade).

Oh, we could have a brigade formation if we wanted to, probably a binary brigade initialy. The trouble is, would the government want to pay for the increase in operating tempo that would require?. I think you could justify it within the bounds of policy if we have to be able to deploy a battalion to work within a brigade overseas, but politics would take a hand, as would finances.

[Lucasnz]

No, the policy is that army operates within a brigade structure not as a feild formation.

Yes they don't operate as a feild formation. My understanding is that the army trains within a brigade framework but if there is a requirement then 2 LFHQ provide the basis of a brigade HQ, with the Terrorital Force rounding out the regulars to form 3/1 RNZIR

Oh, we could have a brigade formation if we wanted to, probably a binary brigade initialy. The trouble is, would the government want to pay for the increase in operating tempo that would require?. I think you could justify it within the bounds of policy if we have to be able to deploy a battalion to work within a brigade overseas, but politics would take a hand, as would finances.

Yes, within the bounds of policy we could justify a brigade, in order to stop the Artillery Regiment being used as infantry, like in East Timor. We could then be assured of been able to sustain a force overseas indifently. I don't think cost is a huge issue, as the most of the units alreadly exist, within the Regular Army. I know a 40% increase in the army's bugdet was talked about in the Land Force Review, but I'm sure the army could found some cost savings, after all they do maintain two land force HQ's

[Stuart Mackey]

Yes they don't operate as a feild formation. My understanding is that the army trains within a brigade framework but if there is a requirement then 2 LFHQ provide the basis of a brigade HQ, with the Terrorital Force rounding out the regulars to form 3/1 RNZIR

There is nothing in current defence force structure or policy about any unit called 3/1 battalion. There are intentions for rampant ad-hocery such as happned in Timor based around RF subunits, territorials, and the artillery.



Yes, within the bounds of policy we could justify a brigade, in order to stop the Artillery Regiment being used as infantry, like in East Timor. We could then be assured of been able to sustain a force overseas indifently. I don't think cost is a huge issue, as the most of the units alreadly exist, within the Regular Army. I know a 40% increase in the army's bugdet was talked about in the Land Force Review, but I'm sure the army could found some cost savings, after all they do maintain two land force HQ's

There was talk about a third battalion, and I think its a good idea {QAMR?}, but it would have required more money than the government was prepared to come up with. My concern is that if NZ does not have its forces training as a brigade we will loose the ability to operate in any meaningfull way with the Australians and also the Brits/Canadians, or in other operations that have brigade sized formations or larger. We will have lost the skills, and once lost they take a lot of time to get back.

[seantheaussie]

My concern is that if NZ does not have its forces training as a brigade we will loose the ability to operate in any meaningfull way with the Australians and also the Brits/Canadians, or in other operations that have brigade sized formations or larger. We will have lost the skills, and once lost they take a lot of time to get back.If NZ is contributing a brigade Australia's fair share would be 1 1/2 divisions which won't happen short of WWIII. Best bet would be an ANZAC brigade HQ with AUS/NZ co & NZ/Aus deputy rotating & proportional staffing. Nato has sh1tloads of these multinational HQs.

[Stuart Mackey]

If NZ is contributing a brigade Australia's fair share would be 1 1/2 divisions which won't happen short of WWIII. Best bet would be an ANZAC brigade HQ with AUS/NZ co & NZ/Aus deputy rotating & proportional staffing. Nato has sh1tloads of these multinational HQs.

Sorry, I wasnt talking about deploying a brigade, only having a brigade formation in NZ for training purposes with the intent of being able to deploy battalion groups that can operate with other nations in formations.

[Lucasnz]

3/1 RNZIR


There is nothing in current defence force structure or policy about any unit called 3/1 battalion. There are intentions for rampant ad-hocery such as happned in Timor based around RF subunits, territorials, and the artillery.

Stuart, as a reference to 3/1 refer to the Armed Forces of New Zealand by James Rolfe: Chap 6.p.121 & p.124. Both are referenced to NZDF Annual Report 1996 and NZ Army CGS Directive 10/97.

I know its getting dated as reference and I'll be more than happy to have my thinking updated, if any one has a more recent reference.

[Whiskyjack]

Stuart, as a reference to 3/1 refer to the Armed Forces of New Zealand by James Rolfe: Chap 6.p.121 & p.124. Both are referenced to NZDF Annual Report 1996 and NZ Army CGS Directive 10/97.

I know its getting dated as reference and I'll be more than happy to have my thinking updated, if any one has a more recent reference.

My understanding from looking at recent policy docs (sorry do not have them to hand) is that 3/1 is a round out unit (some regular but mostly TF) and it was used during the ET deployment. Will try and dig up the info.

The Army does need a brigade HQ even if it does not have a brigade worth of units. The problem that the Army faces is that Wellington cannot conceive of a reason that the army would ever have to fight, only keep the peace. Therefore it does not need the support units necessary for a brigade to be active in the field

[Whiskyjack]

As a guide each battalion will have 812 people, including an ISTAR Coy, Logistics Co, 3 Infantry Companies, 1 Combat Support Companies. The structure seems at odds with whats going on overseas (Commando's, Stryker Brigade).

Hi Lucasnz, can you provide any more info on the organisation? I note you have 812, where did you get the figure from? Appreciater any help.

Thanks

[Stuart Mackey]

Stuart, as a reference to 3/1 refer to the Armed Forces of New Zealand by James Rolfe: Chap 6.p.121 & p.124. Both are referenced to NZDF Annual Report 1996 and NZ Army CGS Directive 10/97.

I know its getting dated as reference and I'll be more than happy to have my thinking updated, if any one has a more recent reference.

I am going from exisitng, public, defence force documents availible on the website. They do not mention any unit designated 3/1 RNZIR.

[Lucasnz]

Whisky Jack, Having trouble contacting you via the contact details. Could you send an email to me using the details in public profile.

Regards

Lucasnz

[Whiskyjack]

Whisky Jack, Having trouble contacting you via the contact details. Could you send an email to me using the details in public profile.

Regards

Lucasnz

Hi Lucasnz,

you may need to alter your profile to allow mail from other members.

Cheers

[Whiskyjack]

I am going from exisitng, public, defence force documents availible on the website. They do not mention any unit designated 3/1 RNZIR.

Hi Stuart, trying to rack my brains here where I saw this reference. It was in reference to the rotations to East Timor.

[Lucasnz]

Hi Whisky Jack

Have a go now, with the e-mail. Heres hoping.

[Whiskyjack]

Hi Whisky Jack

Have a go now, with the e-mail. Heres hoping.

No luck yet, may take a while to take effect, or may have to wait until you make 50 posts? I will try later on.

[Whiskyjack]

No luck yet, may take a while to take effect, or may have to wait until you make 50 posts? I will try later on.

I have sent you an e-mail Lucasnz

[Stuart Mackey]

Hi Stuart, trying to rack my brains here where I saw this reference. It was in reference to the rotations to East Timor.

I seem to recall seeing it myself, so your not the only one. I have a book here at home somwhere which might reference it, I try and find it.

[Whiskyjack]

I seem to recall seeing it myself, so your not the only one. I have a book here at home somwhere which might reference it, I try and find it.

As I recall it was in a diagramme of the NZ Army structure with a note attached.

[Stuart Mackey]

As I recall it was in a diagramme of the NZ Army structure with a note attached.

Book I have makes no mention of any 3/1 RNZIR, cetainly not at the time of Timor. I have no doubt that there may have been a 3/1, but it was off the lists by 2000 and it does not appear now. Probably dropped at the time of the Territorial reorganisation.

[Whiskyjack]

Book I have makes no mention of any 3/1 RNZIR, cetainly not at the time of Timor. I have no doubt that there may have been a 3/1, but it was off the lists by 2000 and it does not appear now. Probably dropped at the time of the Territorial reorganisation.

Found the reference on the wikpedia article on the New Zealand Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Army

Not the most reliable source!

[Stuart Mackey]

Found the reference on the wikpedia article on the New Zealand Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Army

Not the most reliable source!

Indeed it is not, esp when official sources make no mention of a 3/1 battalion. It is for this reason that anything from wiki should be taken witha large bucket of salt.

[Rocco_NZ]

Indeed it is not, esp when official sources make no mention of a 3/1 battalion. It is for this reason that anything from wiki should be taken witha large bucket of salt.

You mean apart from the NZDF Annual Report, the NZD Briefing to the Incoming Government and the Ministry of Defence Briefing to the Incoming Government?

3/1 is maintaned as a cadre, but it does exist.

[Whiskyjack]

You mean apart from the NZDF Annual Report, the NZD Briefing to the Incoming Government and the Ministry of Defence Briefing to the Incoming Government?

3/1 is maintaned as a cadre, but it does exist.


Thats where I think I saw it the briefing to the incoming Govt. I knew it was something more official! Thanks for that!

[Rocco_NZ]

Of course, given the manning problems of most units at the moment, 2/1 isn't far away from being a Cadre at the moment either!

[Stuart Mackey]

You mean apart from the NZDF Annual Report, the NZD Briefing to the Incoming Government and the Ministry of Defence Briefing to the Incoming Government?

3/1 is maintaned as a cadre, but it does exist.

Are you sure? I downloaded those reports and unless the Adobe PDF search function has somehow failed the words 3/1 and Cadre do not exist in those documents. Nor do they exist when veiwed in the listed army force structure or other relevant part of those documents.
Could you post the relevant page number or copy paste the relevant text where it is mentioned?

[Rocco_NZ]

I'll see if I can locate the document again. In the mean time, have you tried the Parliamentary Written Question Database? There is some very interesting information in there that hasn't found its way in to mainstream circulation.

[Stuart Mackey]

I'll see if I can locate the document again.

Defence force and the MOD websites have the ones you mentioned.


In the mean time, have you tried the Parliamentary Written Question Database? There is some very interesting information in there that hasn't found its way in to mainstream circulation.

No, I havent. I confess I didnt know there was one. I shall eagerly look it up and see what half truths our public servants have been foisting on each other;)

[NZLAV]

How well trained are the New Zealand soliders? I have heard they are one of the best in the world?

Thanks in advance

[gf0012-aust]

How well trained are the New Zealand soliders? I have heard they are one of the best in the world?

Thanks in advance

They're a very good outfit - and they've always had a very good and solid reputation as level 1 operators.

[Big-E]

They just need more of them.:rolleyes:

[Mr Waka]

What exactly do you mean by the term 'level 1 operators'

[stryker NZ]

New Zealand soldiers have always been considered some of the best in the world all the way back to WW1 where we first made our mark. NZ also have one of the most admired armies in the world because of the effort our guys make to get to know the people of the areas they get deployed to (eg look at how the people of East Timor have welcomed the soldiers from the NZ army). What lets us down is our lack of equipment and numbers. :cool:

[Markus40]

Yes our soldiers are very good, however we are in danger of letting the Doctrine of Peacekeeping prevail over our war fighting ability. If we keep training them to the level they are today and have them function on the same level as the Australians then they are very good.

Its a pity we cant get our LAV into action and deployed to ET to work it through its paces.




New Zealand soldiers have always been considered some of the best in the world all the way back to WW1 where we first made our mark. NZ also have one of the most admired armies in the world because of the effort our guys make to get to know the people of the areas they get deployed to (eg look at how the people of East Timor have welcomed the soldiers from the NZ army). What lets us down is our lack of equipment and numbers. :cool:

[Markus40]

Yes more retainability is needed. There are too many soldiers and personell running off to higher paid jobs overseas with better opportunities. This was brought around by low moral due the Army being left without proper equipment in the past and the Army thinking they were into peacekeeping duties which seems to be the direction of this party. I hope due to changes in the military that this will change from here on.



They just need more of them.:rolleyes:

[old faithful]

having worked closly with2/1 RNZIR , i can say they are the equal with any other infantry that i have worked with, and much better than most. (also very good beer drinkers!). Their bush skills and ability to adapt to conditions that are much different to what they are used to was impressive.;)

[Whiskyjack]

The Govt is currently engaged in a 10 year exercise to rebuild the strength of the NZDF. With a target of 2000 extra personnel, 1500 for the army. It is to cost an extra NZ$4.2b and increase the pay and conditions of personnel. Kicked off this year so it will be interesting to see how it goes.

[Mr Waka]

Could someone please answer my question. I had go at searching about the web and did not seem to find anything that helped me out.:confused:

[Rocco_NZ]

Could someone please answer my question. I had go at searching about the web and did not seem to find anything that helped me out.:confused:

In this context section, platoon and company level. The basic stuff. Not surprising really - battalion sized exercises a rare. While we maintain a brigade framework in theory, in reality it is hardly ever tested and we lack many of the assets you would expect to find at brigade level.

[NZLAV]

New Zealand soldiers have always been considered some of the best in the world all the way back to WW1 where we first made our mark. NZ also have one of the most admired armies in the world because of the effort our guys make to get to know the people of the areas they get deployed to (eg look at how the people of East Timor have welcomed the soldiers from the NZ army). What lets us down is our lack of equipment and numbers. :cool:

Lack of equipment? I wouldn't say that 105 LAV's, 321 LOV's, 24 Javelins, 24 105mm artillary, 81mm mortars, 12 matra mistrals and direct fire support weapons are a lack. They are all brand new and have the latest technology. The 105 LAV's easily complement an army of 7000 regulars(when the extra 1500 have been recruited).

[Rocco_NZ]

Lack of equipment? I wouldn't say that 105 LAV's, 321 LOV's, 24 Javelins, 24 105mm artillary, 81mm mortars, 12 matra mistrals and direct fire support weapons are a lack. They are all brand new and have the latest technology. The 105 LAV's easily complement an army of 7000 regulars(when the extra 1500 have been recruited).

Mate in practice that kit doesn't represent a brigade capability. We might have 24 howitzers but the reality is that we have only two regular gun batteries. Both only have 4 guns instead of the standard 6, and they are very short on people. Things like firefinder radar are missing. There aren't enough MPs for a deployed brigade, or engineer, signals etc. All of that equipment isn't new either. The howitzers and mortars date from the mid-80s and the engineer equipment is worn out. Sure, progress has been made, but there is still a long way to go.

[Waylander]

Nearly every opponent who is able to direct a minimum of effective counterfire would wipe out the NZ artillery in minutes.

[Supe]

Nearly every opponent who is able to direct a minimum of effective counterfire would wipe out the NZ artillery in minutes.

With 155mm becoming the defacto standard choice for artillery, I'm wondering if the Kiwis are looking at upgrading their artillery to this standard. The Canadians have employed their M777's to Afghanistan - signifying that even in peace enforcement operations that heavy weapons can be of high utility.

[buschy]

While theres still an NZ in ANZAC 'll still love you blokes

[Aussie Digger]

Nearly every opponent who is able to direct a minimum of effective counterfire would wipe out the NZ artillery in minutes.

There's a bit more to it, than mere range or calibre statistics though mate. Terrain for instance. NZ's L119 105mm guns are light enough to be able to be manhandled into position, and only weigh about 2000kg's, meaning they can be used in terrain that you could NEVER take an SPG or M198 type heavy towed gun into.

There is also an available upgrade for them that makes the nearly as capable in range and lethality as some 155mm gun types. They are also capable of being airlifted by medium helo's (unlike most 155mm guns) and this will be a prime role for the NH-90 when it's introduced.

Some artillery is better than nothing and the Brits used their L118/9's to good efffect in the Falklands where no heavier gun could be taken. They also used them in GW2, despite the presence of AS-90 and other more capable guns and rocket systems and despite the fact that they were significantly outranged by Iraqi artillery.

If the M-777 were to be adopted or a similar "lightweight" 155mm gun (Singaporean Pegasus for instance) they might be too heavy for a medium helo or certain terrain despite being designed to be significantly lighter than previous 155mm towed guns...

A serious study needs to be conducted on any benefits of 155mm guns vs upgraded L118/9's before the decision is made, IMHO. There's a lot of difference in moving around 4 tons compared to 2... :rel

[Supe]

A serious study needs to be conducted on any benefits of 155mm guns vs upgraded L118/9's before the decision is made, IMHO. There's a lot of difference in moving around 4 tons compared to 2... :rel

I don't see it as a Vs argument. A number of 155's (a Battery's worth?) could be procured to compliment the existing 105's.

Did the ADF operate 155mm calibre Arty prior to the purchase of the M198's?

[Aussie Digger]

I don't see it as a Vs argument. A number of 155's (a Battery's worth?) could be procured to compliment the existing 105's.

Did the ADF operate 155mm calibre Arty prior to the purchase of the M198's?

Nope. It operated WW2 era 25 pounders...

I agree with the option to use either, however NZ's funding situation is even worse then Australia's. The budget may not stretch, hence the 105mm upgrade comments...

With the likelyhood of 1x single battalion being the maximum NZ could deploy and only 2x battalions being at "high readiness" 2x artillery batteries could be easily maintained with 1x 155mm and 1x 105mm, thus providing the option of deploying the most suitable capability.

Again however funding caps limits NZ's capability. As pointed out earlier, NZ operates no artillery/mortar locating radar capability and this necessarily limits their counter-battery fire capability as does the lack of a UAV or any other aerial recon asset for that matter.

The purchase of new 155mm guns will limit acquisitions in other areas and gain only a little over upgraded L118/9 guns. I'd rather an NZLAV mounted battalion group equipped with upgraded 105mm light guns but with Firefinder radars and Shadow 200 (or similar) TUAV's, than one without any of these capabilities but with 155mm arty pieces...

Of course there's no guarantee the costs involved will work out evenly as this scenario, but it highlights the point I'm trying to make. With limited funds they need to be smart about their acquisitions, they can't afford to ferg it up like we do on a regular basis...

IF the Government were to make the funds available, I'd opt for the wider variety of capability, rather than more capable specific assets...

[Waylander]

I didn't want to make the 105mm look bad. As I said the problem ist counterfire capabilities. There are much more options of counterfire than just another artillery gun.
If you are not able to reach them with 155mm howitzers (With increased range) or with rocket artillery you could try to get them with an airstrike or with attack helicopters. Also 120mm mortars are a real opponent. They are light enough to be operated in nearly every terrain and are mobile.
If you put them onto light combat vehicles like we do with our Wiesel you get a very fast, accurate and light artillery system which nearly negotates the positive aspects of the 105mm guns.

[Rocco_NZ]

I don't see it as a Vs argument. A number of 155's (a Battery's worth?) could be procured to compliment the existing 105's.


The cost of the guns is negligable in the scheme of things. The most you would expect to pay for a towed piece is around $2M. The real issue is the cost of the staff to support them. During the 04/05 FY 64% of the cost of running 16 Field Regiment was spent on staff costs - and during the same period it was 1/3 under strength.

If you wanted to introduce a 155mm caliber you would be looking at an initial buy of only around 20 pieces (6 each for the batteries + another 8 for school of guns and reserve pool). Not exactly big money.

During FY06/07 Output Class 8.1 (Artillery) is budgeted at NZ$56.7M.

[blueorchid]

Prior to the issue of the M198 155mm the Australia Army operated the Medium 5.5 inch(140mm) in two regiments using a 80 pound shell. The 25 pounders where replaced in the early sixties by the M2A2 105mm and the L5 105mm pack howitzer in 1960.
I hope Aussie Digger was only taking the piss out of you with his reference of the 25 pounder,:D

[Supe]

The cost of the guns is negligable in the scheme of things. The most you would expect to pay for a towed piece is around $2M. The real issue is the cost of the staff to support them. During the 04/05 FY 64% of the cost of running 16 Field Regiment was spent on staff costs - and during the same period it was 1/3 under strength.

If you wanted to introduce a 155mm caliber you would be looking at an initial buy of only around 20 pieces (6 each for the batteries + another 8 for school of guns and reserve pool). Not exactly big money.

During FY06/07 Output Class 8.1 (Artillery) is budgeted at NZ$56.7M.

Nice post. Do you know if there are any moves within NZDF to buy 155's? I think having 155's in the inventory offer increased flexibility. That said, money might be better spent on the counter fire capability such as Firefire radars.

I know the Singaporeans have taken their 155's to NZ for firing exercises. Pehaps a deal could be sorted out between the two nations on aquisistion of the Pegasus...

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/Weapons/slwh/home.html

[Aussie Digger]

The cost of the guns is negligable in the scheme of things. The most you would expect to pay for a towed piece is around $2M. The real issue is the cost of the staff to support them. During the 04/05 FY 64% of the cost of running 16 Field Regiment was spent on staff costs - and during the same period it was 1/3 under strength.

If you wanted to introduce a 155mm caliber you would be looking at an initial buy of only around 20 pieces (6 each for the batteries + another 8 for school of guns and reserve pool). Not exactly big money.

During FY06/07 Output Class 8.1 (Artillery) is budgeted at NZ$56.7M.

And what are you going to fire from them? The actual gun itself may not cost TOO much (though I VERY much doubt you'll get a new 155mm towed gun for $2m a piece) you need a warstock of 155mm ammo.

Plus with a new acquisition of artillery there will be an inevitable push for new gen munitions including a "precision guided" round or 2, a new C4I system to integrate the system into your "networked land force" that NZ IS trying to develop, logistical support, training support and ancillary items such as gun tractors, ammunition tractors etc.

Even 2x batteries worth are likely cost in excess of $100m merely for the acquisition, IMHO.

Even IF the tubes only cost $2m a piece (and again I find that HIGHLY dubious) that's $40m JUST for 20 guns. Add the rest, it becomes a "major" acquisition in NZ terms...

Staff costs will be no different to now (apart from the yearly inflation that occurs anyway) given the same crew numbers will operate the new capability...

As to the 25 pounders comment, it wasn't a joke, I simply forgot about the 5.5inch guns... I actually saw one once at the former School of Artillery in Manly, Sydney too. Stupid of me to forget I suppose, at least it doesn't happen TOO often, I must be getting older...

[Rocco_NZ]

And what are you going to fire from them? The actual gun itself may not cost TOO much (though I VERY much doubt you'll get a new 155mm towed gun for $2m a piece) you need a warstock of 155mm ammo.

Plus with a new acquisition of artillery there will be an inevitable push for new gen munitions including a "precision guided" round or 2, a new C4I system to integrate the system into your "networked land force" that NZ IS trying to develop, logistical support, training support and ancillary items such as gun tractors, ammunition tractors etc.

Even 2x batteries worth are likely cost in excess of $100m merely for the acquisition, IMHO.



Just looked up the figures again. The M77 runs at a little over $NZ3M a unit, including digitial fire control. What I said stands though, the gun itself is a small part of the equation. Gun tractos themselves aren't an issue, the Unimog fleet will be replaced in the next year or so and any replacement will likley include enough vehicles for this. 16 Field Regt currently has 43 Unimogs on issue.

[Whiskyjack]

Given that the Govt intends to increase the Army by 1500 troops over the next ten years, lets assume it happens. I think that it should provide scope for the 3 formations, 1 x LAV, 1 X Infantry Battalions and the QAMR as a CAV/ISTAR formation that is made up of LAV and lighter elements.

And can also be used as a third deployable HQ with elements from either of the other Bats while its own squadrons could deploy with the other Bats.

The issue is for me with 6,000 troops what proportion can the army place into frontline units and what proportion need to be in support units such as engineers, artillery, logistics, etc.. and then there are base support that are not generally deployable. As this ratio will effect the make up of the units it will be interesting to see what others think

From what I can see from looking at other armies around 25% to 30% of troops can be located in front line units with 60% to 70% of the army deployable.

If say 65% of the army is deployable that would allow for three 1300 person groups in theory.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

[Lucasnz]

Given that the Govt intends to increase the Army by 1500 troops over the next ten years, lets assume it happens. I think that it should provide scope for the 3 formations, 1 x LAV, 1 X Infantry Battalions and the QAMR as a CAV/ISTAR formation that is made up of LAV and lighter elements.

And can also be used as a third deployable HQ with elements from either of the other Bats while its own squadrons could deploy with the other Bats.

The issue is for me with 6,000 troops what proportion can the army place into frontline units and what proportion need to be in support units such as engineers, artillery, logistics, etc.. and then there are base support that are not generally deployable. As this ratio will effect the make up of the units it will be interesting to see what others think

From what I can see from looking at other armies around 25% to 30% of troops can be located in front line units with 60% to 70% of the army deployable.

If say 65% of the army is deployable that would allow for three 1300 person groups in theory.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

If you have a total force of 6000 and allow for discharge rates of 10-20%, which is where they've been over the years upto 1200 could be undergoing basic training in any one year (Assuming recuirting is happening). A simple calculation full of flaws, but its a guide.

[Whiskyjack]

If you have a total force of 6000 and allow for discharge rates of 10-20%, which is where they've been over the years upto 1200 could be undergoing basic training in any one year (Assuming recuirting is happening). A simple calculation full of flaws, but its a guide.

Good point I had not even taken this into account. I guess if you have 900 going through basic and a large percentage in non deployable units it sorta cuts the options a bit.

[Sea Toby]

I found this picture of one of New Zealand's motorized battalions in the field with its new LAV IIIs, and Pinzgauers, plus their Unimogs in the background. Yes, the New Zealand Army has recently seen an evolution in equipment, but somehow, I wish there were much more teeth to its bite.

The link to the picture http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/NZarmy.jpg

[NZLAV]

Wow! Nice picture. It certainly shows alot. I think that may be in manuatu, during OP silver warrior.

[Mr Brown]

A few weeks ago the govt annouced plans to spend $80m to replace the armys Unimog fleet. What vehicle would be suitable for this and how far has the tendering process got? Does anyone have an opinion on this?

[NZLAV]

They need a replacement asap! Someone just died in one yesterday-very sad. Although I dnt think it was the Unimog's fault, but they are 30 odd years old.

[Whiskyjack]

They need a replacement asap! Someone just died in one yesterday-very sad. Although I dnt think it was the Unimog's fault, but they are 30 odd years old.

yeah I agree it's not the Unimogs, I think they are around 20 years old, coming into service in the early to mid '80s. Haven't heard regarding a project for replacement, anyone have a source?

Cheers

[Mr Brown]

There was an article about it about a month ago in the ODT. Said that $80m has been allocated to replace Unimogs.

[Whiskyjack]

There was an article about it about a month ago in the ODT. Said that $80m has been allocated to replace Unimogs.

Cool thanks, its not listed in the Projects Page at the MoD website, but I guess once it happens it will go fast as it is a no brainer IMO.

[NZLAV]

80million should buy 300 (I'm not sure at all) but comparing it to the cost of the LOV's they should be able to get the numbers. There is a new unimog in production, that could be an option.

[Whiskyjack]

80million should buy 300 (I'm not sure at all) but comparing it to the cost of the LOV's they should be able to get the numbers. There is a new unimog in production, that could be an option.

Given recent overseas operations do you think that armour protection should be considered? IMO it needs to be.

[robsta83]

Is there ever a case (finances not included) where armour protection is detrimental weight etc? Should it just be standard issue or on maybe 50/50 basis.

Off the top of my head the NZLav's only have about 30 percent with the extra armour, and again only about 1/3 of the LOVs are, I guess about the same i new trucks is advisable, recent events have shown armour add ons are not hard to do.

[Whiskyjack]

Does anyone have any further info on the NZ army structure?

The last I understood to be happening was that 1NZIR was to become the LAV battalion, the 2/1NZIR was to remain light infantry (which would seem to be track as the Solomon’s and ET deployments seem to have been based from this unit) and finally that the Queens Alexandria Mounted Rifles was to become a third unit.

Any comments, corrections or news appreciated.

Edit: After looking at the NZ Army Website and the org charts it had the 2nd Land forces group listing 1NZIR as a Cav unit, as part of the 3rd Land Forces Group 2/1NZIR is infantry and QAMR is attached as Cav.

My guess is that the QAMR will support the 2/1 with LAVs.

[Gibbo]

Does anyone have any further info on the NZ army structure?
.....

Edit: After looking at the NZ Army Website .....

Hey not really to-topic but I couldn't help myself! :)

When you stated you'd looked at the NZ Army website I laughed - what a useless website I thought!...but then the joke ended up om me! :p: At last they've revamped the damn thing - it was soooo stale with few updates & annoyingly no news!

They've done a good job - I like it! Glad to see they've added a news section - although I'd like to see the Army News available as PDF download - it's a really good publication which I recommend subscribing to - pity there's only excerpts on the website.

I've always argued the Army was doing itself a dis-service by having a crap website - it's the best tool IMHO for the Army to showcase what it does - essential to boosting public profile (& therefore support) and a good tool to assist with recruitment!

Just hope they keep it all updated regularly - something the RNZAF & RNZN websites could also benefit from (compare to the Aussie websites - they're excellently maintained).

[regstrup]

Hello everyone

I have been following the topics about NZDF for the last month and have now register as a forum member. So this is my first post.

It has been stated in this tread and others, that the NZ Army is to be increased with 1.500 men/women and that the Queen Alexandra's Mounted Rifles is going to be the third manoeuvreunit in the NZ Army.

Does anyone have an official link that confirmes the increasment of the Army and does anyone have an idea of, how the future structure, strength and task of the Queen Alexandra's Mounted Rifles is going to be ?

Regards
Regstrup

[Sea Toby]

The New Zealand ministry of defence has several links of previous reviews and current reviews. The rationale for the land forces and sealift can be read with this review at this link:
http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/nzdf-cap-rev/discussion.html

[regstrup]

I have read most of the reviews, but I was hoping for someting more conclusive about the decision to expand the NZ Army from government or news sources. But maybe it is just a rumour so far ? :D

If we say, that it is not a rumour, is there anyone, who has an clue, idea or opinion about, how the future structure, strength and task of the Queen Alexandra's Mounted Rifles is going to be ?

Regards
Regstrup

[Sea Toby]

I believe New Zealand's army is under review for the optimised structure. This information was found at their army website. Read this link:

http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/strategic-plan/default.htm

Currently the organization structure of the New Zealand Army is at this link:

http://www.answers.com/topic/new-zealand-army

Furthermore, the army is understaffed. Therefore the government is attempting to bring the personnel numbers up with more recruitment.

I would suggest until the NZ army is up to staff, there is no hurry to increase the size of their land forces.

[robsta83]

Furthermore, the army is understaffed. Therefore the government is attempting to bring the personnel numbers up with more recruitment.

I would suggest until the NZ army is up to staff, there is no hurry to increase the size of their land forces.

The best first step is to bring the private pay Scale up above 26,000 NZD, what a joke, it is barely above the minimum wage, start there and the NZ gov can look at increasing its ranks, even the allowance of women in combat roles has not done much to boost numbers despite them not upping the physical requirements of female recruits.

[kiwitrooper]

I was in the NZ army,as a NZLAV crewman and prior to that M113.

I was posted from QA sqn in 04 to 1RNZIR (QA was being disbanded in those days),once I realised the way NZLAV was to be used and being under command of an infantry battalion. I promptly handed in my release, as did quite a few other experianced operators.

It makes me laugh when I hear about 1RNZIR re roled as cav! As most crews are infantry converts.
Also there are around 25-30 NZLAVs parked up on blocks as there are no crews!
QA has had no live ammo this year for training! There was only enough ammo in the country to conduct a lav gunners course, I hope there was war reserves!
As for structure, well there is'nt any really, the worst thing the army did was post guys to 1RNZIR, if they had of just converted QASQN to lav they would still have close to two fully trained and experianced sqns.

I still keep in touch with a few guys who are still in QAMR and morale ain't high.:(

[Stuart Mackey]

I was in the NZ army,as a NZLAV crewman and prior to that M113.
snip.

I still keep in touch with a few guys who are still in QAMR and morale ain't high.:(

Nothing in this that surprises me. I heard that the ammo for the LAV costs a small fortune, which is why there is none issued for training. From what Heather Roy {The ACT party MP and now a TF soldier} says there is almost not enough ammuition for recruit training either. Ultimatly the current government is only interested in one for one replacement and refit, not serious capacity increases letalone new capablities.
But hey, there is a requiremnt for a recce and direct fire support capability so the QAMR might yet go back to being real armour of some sort. Yeah, Right!:rolleyes: .

[Waylander]

Why is the training ammo for the NZLAVs so expensive?

[regstrup]

As for structure, well there is'nt any really, the worst thing the army did was post guys to 1RNZIR, if they had of just converted QASQN to lav they would still have close to two fully trained and experianced sqns.(
Sorry to hear, that there is no structure right now. Do you know, what the future plans are for QASQN ?

[kiwitrooper]

Why is the training ammo for the NZLAVs so expensive?

I just don't think the budget caters for it! i.e not spent in the right place within the army.
NZ army mainly uses practice ammo as well.

[Gibbo]

I was in the NZ army,as a NZLAV crewman and prior to that M113.

I was posted from QA sqn in 04 to 1RNZIR (QA was being disbanded in those days),once I realised the way NZLAV was to be used and being under command of an infantry battalion. I promptly handed in my release, as did quite a few other experianced operators.

It makes me laugh when I hear about 1RNZIR re roled as cav! As most crews are infantry converts.
.:(

Okay - so rather than just move from M113 to a newer piece of kit they have 're-roled' as well!?! So the LAV's are no more than 'grunt buses' now eh? Any talk of dedicating any of the spare LAV's to a recce role with additional sensors etc? I guess LTDP project for Land-ISR could open up that possibility.

[blueorchid]

As money or lack of it seems to the problem for the kiwis, why not disband the RZAF as its not a Force any more.

The troop carrying helo's should be in the hands of the Army.

The C130's to the Army aswell.

The Orions transfer to the Navy.

The flight of aircraft for VIP's etc named NZ Defence Flight.

Or even take it further as Canada did and only have one service. There by saving money of duplication of servicemen and public servants.

[kiwitrooper]

Okay - so rather than just move from M113 to a newer piece of kit they have 're-roled' as well!?! So the LAV's are no more than 'grunt buses' now eh? Any talk of dedicating any of the spare LAV's to a recce role with additional sensors etc? I guess LTDP project for Land-ISR could open up that possibility.

Exactly!
QA SQN was ment to be disbanded and 2/1 RNZIR was supposed to become motor Inf the same as 1 RNZIR has (well if you could call them motorised).
So now QA has stayed on the orbat and the army has given them lav, they are roled as recce. But if you think about it they are really only there to provide an armoured taxi service for 2/1, (sad but true) as what is the point of having an armoured recce squadron in a camp that has only a light infantry battalion? The two just don't go together in that respect.
If QA was to have a proper recce role then they need to be working close with 1 RNZIR.As this is who they would be out infront of in real time. I don't suppose it matters much when the army is only geared toward peace keeping.
Most grunts when I was in 1RNZIR were not all that interested in lav and just wanted to be a man in the bush with a machine gun and flash webbing.

[Gibbo]

As money or lack of it seems to the problem for the kiwis, why not disband the RNZAF as its not a Force any more.

The troop carrying helo's should be in the hands of the Army.

The C130's to the Army aswell.

The Orions transfer to the Navy.

The flight of aircraft for VIP's etc named NZ Defence Flight.

Or even take it further as Canada did and only have one service. There by saving money of duplication of servicemen and public servants.

I'm in two minds about the concept of 'one service'. I'm certainly not against it, but I don't think it would actually save very much in the way of 'overhead' - particularly given that each service is currently so thinly resourced. You'd stilll need 3 'streams' (land; air; sea) regardless.

When the air combat wing was disbanded there was a court case that argued it couldn't be done without a referendum according to some law but it turned out the only thing the law stated was that any whole service could only be disbanded by act of parliament.

Frankly the size of our forces is tiny by international standards and we should perhaps look at creating a single force something along the lines of a 'Marines' which would not require any loss of current capability, and might in fact focus attention & resources to building a more focused NZDF. This has been mentioned before in other threads.

The NZDF's indivdual services are in such a state they can't afford to play petty politics so anyone with a 'silo' mentality perhaps should get out - especially as the NZDF is moving to a "three services - one force" philosophy. I'm all for that concept! I think the NZDF is starting to get traction in that area and joint operations seem to be working well in deployments currently.

Operation of the MRV Canterbury will be interesting - with all 3 services embarked on the vessel for sealift operations. Maybe it will help drive a move to a 'marine' force!?!

I think the RNZAF's consolidation at Ohakea (minus 6 Sqn who should stay in Auckland with the Navy) is a far more effective way for the RNZAF to gain efficiency. It is driving considerable facilities modernisation which wouldn't happen without the move.

At least then too it would start to look & feel like a real airbase again, with considerable air traffic. At present all we have is 2 delapidated, under-used airbases that hardly offer any inspiration. The combined base will be busy and noisy - full of energy - as an airbase should be!

Yeah I know common sense dictates we should retain Whenuapai (near population base and flexibility etc) but realistically the RNZAF is tiny and with limited resources needs to cut the cost of facilities management & duplication of base personnel whereever possible.

[Aussie Digger]

Exactly!
QA SQN was ment to be disbanded and 2/1 RNZIR was supposed to become motor Inf the same as 1 RNZIR has (well if you could call them motorised).
So now QA has stayed on the orbat and the army has given them lav, they are roled as recce. But if you think about it they are really only there to provide an armoured taxi service for 2/1, (sad but true) as what is the point of having an armoured recce squadron in a camp that has only a light infantry battalion? The two just don't go together in that respect.
If QA was to have a proper recce role then they need to be working close with 1 RNZIR.As this is who they would be out infront of in real time. I don't suppose it matters much when the army is only geared toward peace keeping.
Most grunts when I was in 1RNZIR were not all that interested in lav and just wanted to be a man in the bush with a machine gun and flash webbing.

Becaase of the need. Deployments these days focus on the formation of "combat teams" and the traditional defence organisation of Squadrons, Companies, battalions etc are rapidly becoming obsolete. I'd imagine NZ is intent on using QA in a similar manner to how Australia uses our 2nd Cav Regt and 2/14LHR. Both units have been amongst the most heavily deployed units within Australia in recent years with both units gaining regular gigs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Timor.

They still provide lift capacity when necessary (usually to "rapid reaction" type forces) but also operate in information gathering roles for the force in general and not just in support of infantry. They have also been used in Timor even when "only" light infantry is used. Their 25mm cannons often comprise the most powerful available fire support for these missions and this is a primary reason they are deployed...

In any case, "task orientated formations" are becoming the norm on operations. A unit which focuses on armoured recce / Cavalry ops is FAR more useful than one which simply provides a lift capacity for an infantry unit, IMHO.

NZ doesn't have enough LAVIII's to fully equip the 2nd battalion anyway, from what I understand?

If this is true, the motorised battalion role should be exchanged on a reasonably regular basis (say every 2-3 years) to ensure each battalion retains some competence in the motorised and helo mounted light infantry roles, which I presume is one of the roles for the "other" battalion?

[Stuart Mackey]

Becaase of the need. Deployments these days focus on the formation of "combat teams" and the traditional defence organisation of Squadrons, Companies, battalions etc are rapidly becoming obsolete.snip

I wouldnt go that far. If you look at the history of QAMR, they were originally raised, as their title suggests, 'Mounted Infantry' They rode to battle and fought on foot as normall infantry. Australian Mounteds actually charged in WW1 iirc. I dont see why that principle could not be applied to the NZ army of today; armour being included within the unit as a normall part of its TOE,to a greater or lesser degree depending on the context of use. The unit title would simply reflect the overall ratio of armour/infantry in the unit.

[Sea Toby]

I'm of the opinion New Zealand has already reformed its armed forces with the NZDF command. Operations are under the NZDF command, training and maintenance is under the separate branches.

Canada on the other hand went to far with its Defence command including uniforms. Air Force and Navy uniforms were forbidden for a long period of time until they reverted back. While their navy today is their maritime command, today they are wearing naval uniforms, which was a huge morale boost. Its my opinion sailors should look as sailors, not like grunts in the Army.

Air forces mechanics are trained to maintain aircraft, navy mechanics are trained to maintain ships, and army mechanics are trained to fix vehicles. They are different from one another as night and day. And its not just about maintenance. Their tactics are as different as night and day too.

Keep the services different. Combine operations with a multi-service command structure. New Zealand is on the right path.

As for tanks, warfare has changed significantly recently. Before the US Army and her allies crossed the border, most of the Iraqi tanks were already destroyed from the air. I wonder if we'll ever see tank battles of the past again.

[Waylander]

Maybe not when the US fight a war against a total inferior enemy but if the US are not involved or they face a big enemy than mabye yes.

[kiwitrooper]

Becaase of the need. Deployments these days focus on the formation of "combat teams" and the traditional defence organisation of Squadrons, Companies, battalions etc are rapidly becoming obsolete. I'd imagine NZ is intent on using QA in a similar manner to how Australia uses our 2nd Cav Regt and 2/14LHR. Both units have been amongst the most heavily deployed units within Australia in recent years with both units gaining regular gigs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Timor.

They still provide lift capacity when necessary (usually to "rapid reaction" type forces) but also operate in information gathering roles for the force in general and not just in support of infantry. They have also been used in Timor even when "only" light infantry is used. Their 25mm cannons often comprise the most powerful available fire support for these missions and this is a primary reason they are deployed...

In any case, "task orientated formations" are becoming the norm on operations. A unit which focuses on armoured recce / Cavalry ops is FAR more useful than one which simply provides a lift capacity for an infantry unit, IMHO.

NZ doesn't have enough LAVIII's to fully equip the 2nd battalion anyway, from what I understand?

If this is true, the motorised battalion role should be exchanged on a reasonably regular basis (say every 2-3 years) to ensure each battalion retains some competence in the motorised and helo mounted light infantry roles, which I presume is one of the roles for the "other" battalion?

NZ did buy enough to equip both battalions as that was the initial plan, but like all plans did not survive h hr.
I Don't think the motorised role should be rotated, 1 RNZIR need to build up armoured warfare skills and mindsets. It is easy to go back to the light role but far harder to convert to motorised/mech/cav. In three years I doubt they would have a good enough grasp of the TTPs and would have to start again in three years. I have worked with British mech infantry and they rotate roles and it ain't pretty.

I am now serving on the other side of the Tasmen.

[Waylander]

Rotating seems really strange if you just have two btls.
The quick and successfull change from mounted to dismounted warfare is neccessary for mech inf but is is also one of the most challenging things you can do.
Rotating the role could result in training problems.

[Aussie Digger]

I wouldnt go that far. If you look at the history of QAMR, they were originally raised, as their title suggests, 'Mounted Infantry' They rode to battle and fought on foot as normall infantry. Australian Mounteds actually charged in WW1 iirc. I dont see why that principle could not be applied to the NZ army of today; armour being included within the unit as a normall part of its TOE,to a greater or lesser degree depending on the context of use. The unit title would simply reflect the overall ratio of armour/infantry in the unit.

I suggest you read up on NZ's current deployments then and find out what "Battle Group ANZAC" refers to.

Armour IS included within an infantry battalion. 1RNZIR is equipped with 51x NZLAV's, IIRC. Unfortunately NZ only bought 105 NZLAV's. 2RNZIR could only be equipped with 40 odd vehicles, due to training establishments ALSO requiring vehicles.

Why they chose this particular number is unclear to me, but probably relates to a cost-capped project budget, rather than operational capability. IF the intention was to equip 2x battalions PLUS the training establishments, 120 odd vehicles would have been required.

If a fully equipped NZ motorised infantry battalion requires 51 NZLAV vehicles, then it makes perfect sense to me, to have the remaining vehicles equip a Regiment designed for Cavalry/Armoured recce operations, as there is (evidentally) in-sufficient vehicles to equip both battalions.

As Waylander pointed out (though not entirely correctly as NZ does not conduct Mechanised ops, but "Motorised infantry" operations) there IS some difference between mounted and dismounted infantry operations, however in the motorised infantry style of operation, the vehicle is used as transport and "standoff" fire support, rather than direct assault. The infantry operate as normal "light infantry" but with a far greater level of mobility, when compared to a traditional light infantry force.

Thus my suggestion and the apparent intention of the NZDF is that either battalion could utilise the motorise capability, with sufficient lead time. In my opinion 2-3 years is more than sufficient to conduct the courses and individual and collective training activities necessary to convert a light infantry battalion to a motorised battalion.

With the "leftover" vehicles, QAMR, could probably equip 2x Sqn's as Cavalry/Armoured recon units.

This would be sufficient to allow a Sqn sized formation to be deployed on ops for a reasonably lengthy period, with a force still available for immediate short duration operations or reinforcement/relief in place operations.

The utility of a light armoured Cavalry unit is amply displayed by Australia's 2nd Cavalry or 2/14LHR operations conducted over recent years and NZ seems keen to adopt a similar capability. I agree with this desire and believe it would provide more capability than simply "partially" equipping a 2nd infantry battalion with a motorised capability.

Cheers.

[Gibbo]

I suggest you read up on NZ's current deployments then and find out what "Battle Group ANZAC" refers to.

Armour IS included within an infantry battalion. 1RNZIR is equipped with 51x NZLAV's, IIRC. Unfortunately NZ only bought 105 NZLAV's. 2RNZIR could only be equipped with 40 odd vehicles, due to training establishments ALSO requiring vehicles.

Why they chose this particular number is unclear to me, but probably relates to a cost-capped project budget, rather than operational capability. IF the intention was to equip 2x battalions PLUS the training establishments, 120 odd vehicles would have been required.

If a fully equipped NZ motorised infantry battalion requires 51 NZLAV vehicles, then it makes perfect sense to me, to have the remaining vehicles equip a Regiment designed for Cavalry/Armoured recce operations, as there is (evidentally) in-sufficient vehicles to equip both battalions.

As Waylander pointed out (though not entirely correctly as NZ does not conduct Mechanised ops, but "Motorised infantry" operations) there IS some difference between mounted and dismounted infantry operations, however in the motorised infantry style of operation, the vehicle is used as transport and "standoff" fire support, rather than direct assault. The infantry operate as normal "light infantry" but with a far greater level of mobility, when compared to a traditional light infantry force.

Thus my suggestion and the apparent intention of the NZDF is that either battalion could utilise the motorise capability, with sufficient lead time. In my opinion 2-3 years is more than sufficient to conduct the courses and individual and collective training activities necessary to convert a light infantry battalion to a motorised battalion.

With the "leftover" vehicles, QAMR, could probably equip 2x Sqn's as Cavalry/Armoured recon units.

This would be sufficient to allow a Sqn sized formation to be deployed on ops for a reasonably lengthy period, with a force still available for immediate short duration operations or reinforcement/relief in place operations.

The utility of a light armoured Cavalry unit is amply displayed by Australia's 2nd Cavalry or 2/14LHR operations conducted over recent years and NZ seems keen to adopt a similar capability. I agree with this desire and believe it would provide more capability than simply "partially" equipping a 2nd infantry battalion with a motorised capability.

Cheers.

Another factor that is likely to influence the way NZ Army should be structured is deployment options. The MRV will dictate the number of vehicles that can (relatively) quickly be deployed with additional troops in B757 and/or C-130. The number will apparently be about 45 (15 LAVIII; 15 LOV (Pinny's); 15 various support (Mogs; tractors; ambo's etc).

Of course it depends on the nature of a deployment - but basically I think the NZ Army needs to come up with a structure that is based around a quick(ish!) reaction force of that size & mix - then take it from there. Recon unit of LAVIII's gets my vote!

Time to let some 'traditions' etc go!!!

p.s. Noticed this today on MOD website - another (tiny) step in sorting out the Army's woes!

http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/current-proposal-gap.html

[robsta83]

Army News
Heed the Need
14 November 2006

For the first time in nearly 50 years, shotguns will appear in the hands of New Zealand infantry soldiers.

The Army is purchasing a small number of Benelli M3 Tactical shotguns, which are expected to deploy with 1 RNZIR and 2/1 RNZIR soldiers on stability and security-type operations. This will be the first time since the Malayan Emergency that shotguns have been used in general service by infantry soldiers of the NZ Army.

Soldiers identified the need for shotguns during operations to the Solomon Islands and East Timor this year.

Shotguns loaded with “less-than-lethal” ammunition, including bean bag or CS gas rounds, can be used to deter rioters and other security threats.

“The problem we have in situations of civil disorder is that soldiers trying to keep the peace have got no response between voice control, ‘stop, don’t do that’, and lethal use of their Steyrs available to them; there’s nothing in the middle”, says Major Gordon Benfell, the NZDF Small Arms Replacement Project Officer.

Shotguns are also useful in operations in and around populated buildings. When loaded with smaller shot, shotgun fire will not penetrate walls as readily as bullets, making them safer for non-combatants.

MAJ Benfell explains that the shotguns enable soldiers to safely “breach” buildings without risking civilian casualties. “If we need to get immediate access to a building, we can take the door out without injuring people beyond the door who aren’t necessarily combatants. If we were to breach a door with other weapons, anyone in the proximity beyond is in mortal danger as well.”

Once a soldier enters the building, the shotgun’s semi-automatic facility limits the effect of the fire.

Colonel Roger McElwain, Assistant Chief of General Staff (development), says the direction for the purchase of shotguns has come from the Land Component Commander BRIG Phil Gibbons. “The LCC considers that a combat shotgun and a less-than-lethal capability is his number one priority, and we are meeting that priority requirement”, says COL McElwain.

The shotguns will arrive in New Zealand in the next 6 - 12 months.

MAJ Benfell says they envision that the shotguns would eventually appear as secondary weapons, at a ratio of one to two per section level.

Just some quick news about some additional weapons for the the Army :D

[Whiskyjack]

FYI I noticed a while ago that the Army website listed the Carl Gustaf was being replaced by the Jav, I wrote an e-mail asking if it was being retired.

I got no response, but I notice the page has been updated and no mention 'replacement' of the Carl Gustaf is mentioned now.

I am hoping that means that the CG will remain in service as a fire support weapon, where it should be IMO.

[mug]

The 'Mogs haven't had much luck with rivers recently, and now it seems the Pinzies are getting a little damp too. From NZ Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10412679):

Soldiers swim for it after truck stuck

5.00pm Monday November 27, 2006

An army truck on a training exercise in Canterbury became stuck in the Waimakariri River, forcing the occupants to swim for their lives, the army has confirmed.

New Zealand Defence Force Captain Paul Milner told NZPA the light army vehicle had sunk during a training exercise this afternoon in Canterbury.

The Pinzgauer truck was a general purpose vehicle and specialist crew and equipment were now being called in to try to retrieve it, he said.

Cpt Milner could not confirm how many people were on board but it was understood up to three army personnel were in the vehicle when it became stuck.

There were no reports of injuries and the personnel were now believed to be on there way back to Burnham military base, he said.

"Our first concern is for the personnel and everyone got out safely," he said.

An investigation into the incident would be carried out, he said.

- NZPA

[Whiskyjack]

Anyone have any news on the Army Organisation Report?

From memory there was review of how the Army is structured, looking at options such as the new Australian Army structure etc..

Be interested in any news.