This is a discussion on New Zealand Army Organisation within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Just an update on the Steyr upgrade,
The steyr A3 & optics have been tested and confirmed by the combat ...
Just an update on the Steyr upgrade,
The steyr A3 & optics have been tested and confirmed by the combat school they requested just minor alterations to the A3 one was the cocking handle being longer & having more of an angle on it so soldiers are not losing skin when cocking due to the picatinny rails being so close, ACOG was the clear winner as for the new night vision sight well that been approved already. As for the LSW replacement 7.62mm weapons are now ready for trials starting at the end of this month same as the marksman weapon also in 7.62mm (HK417,Mk16 SCAR) jus to name two.
Just an update on the Steyr upgrade,
The steyr A3 & optics have been tested and confirmed by the combat school they requested just minor alterations to the A3 one was the cocking handle being longer & having more of an angle on it so soldiers are not losing skin when cocking due to the picatinny rails being so close, ACOG was the clear winner as for the new night vision sight well that been approved already. As for the LSW replacement 7.62mm weapons are now ready for trials starting at the end of this month same as the marksman weapon also in 7.62mm (HK417,Mk16 SCAR) jus to name two.
Any time frame as to when the upgrade will commence/complete!
Any time frame as to when the upgrade will commence/complete!
First 900 wpns will arrive within the new year they are going to the 2 RF Infantry Bn, just waiting for a couple of minor alteration to the cocking handle & the top rail system.
Kiwi troops are in line for lighter and stronger helmets and body armour.
HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 19 November 2008
More than 40 domestic and overseas companies have shown an interest in tendering for the project, according to army contract manager Bruce Wooller.
The army is planning to shortlist the best on offer, buy a few samples and test them before placing orders for enough helmets and body armour vests to equip its two infantry battalions.
Though the army has fewer than 1000 troops - both battalions are under strength - it needs about 1300 sets to give a sufficient range of sizes for its male and female soldiers. Different designs may be needed for troops operating in vehicles.
The new kit was expected to be at least 10 per cent lighter, while providing more protection against bullets and bomb fragments, Mr Wooller said.
It would need to meet the latest United States standards and take account of recent military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, where troops were faced with a high threat of roadside bombs.
Good to see the Army's personal head & body armour kit are going to be upgraded. No doubt us kiwis would be interested if anyone can refer to some other designs in use or being tested by other armies to see what the possibilities are etc?
I've just be reading the following edition of NZ Army news. There is a bit on mortars and my reading lead me to the conclusion that 2/1 RNZIR has lost its mortar platoon. Be interested in hearing your views.
I've just be reading the following edition of NZ Army news. There is a bit on mortars and my reading lead me to the conclusion that 2/1 RNZIR has lost its mortar platoon. Be interested in hearing your views.
If its right it seems a loopy decision.
No you read right, both Inf Battalions mortar Platoons are in the process of being disbanded, they will form a Mortar Coy in Burnham as the thirld fire unit of 16 Fd regt in direct support of 2/1 RNZIR, there has been a massive debate between Infantry & Arty over the new Mortar Coy, no infantryman likes to lose there organic indirect fire spt.
No you read right, both Inf Battalions mortar Platoons are in the process of being disbanded, they will form a Mortar Coy in Burnham as the thirld fire unit of 16 Fd regt in direct support of 2/1 RNZIR, there has been a massive debate between Infantry & Arty over the new Mortar Coy, no infantryman likes to lose there organic indirect fire spt.
Are you able to provide the rational for this unusal move, when infantry forces are beefing are there stand off capability with additional Javelin etc. Frankly, even with the very little I know about land forces I'd support the infantry view.
Are you able to provide the rational for this unusal move, when infantry forces are beefing are there stand off capability with additional Javelin etc. Frankly, even with the very little I know about land forces I'd support the infantry view.
This is all part of whats called ATP 2015, Army transformation plan, more agile, net-worked centric etc army, you can read it all on the NZ Army web site,
From today's Manawatu Standard, more news on Army reorganisations, the "Linton and Burnham signal squadrons will now be controlled under single leadership from a Linton-based headquarters". Also "plans to combine the corps had been around for 10 years, but only started coming to fruition this year, he said".
Cadredave: With the new Mortar Coy being formed, would one advantage be that they get more opportunities to exercise with artillery etc?
On a cheeky note one disadvantage might be that the mortar coy might get to be deployed as a light infantry coy on peace keeping duties (like the gunners recently were) when the regular infantry forces are overloaded? Or maybe not, surely Infantry would spit the dummy at firstly losing their organic indirect fire support and then to not even have any indirect fire support at all surely wouldn't go down well?
From today's Manawatu Standard, more news on Army reorganisations, the "Linton and Burnham signal squadrons will now be controlled under single leadership from a Linton-based headquarters". Also "plans to combine the corps had been around for 10 years, but only started coming to fruition this year, he said".
Cadredave: With the new Mortar Coy being formed, would one advantage be that they get more opportunities to exercise with artillery etc?
On a cheeky note one disadvantage might be that the mortar coy might get to be deployed as a light infantry coy on peace keeping duties (like the gunners recently were) when the regular infantry forces are overloaded? Or maybe not, surely Infantry would spit the dummy at firstly losing their organic indirect fire support and then to not even have any indirect fire support at all surely wouldn't go down well?
At this stage its all still new how the Mortar Coy is going to work, At this point in time what is not happening is mortars are not even working with the Rifle Coys this is due to the op deployments so aybe being part of the gunners will be a good thing? I hope this is the out come
Just an update on the Steyr upgrade,
The steyr A3 & optics have been tested and confirmed by the combat school they requested just minor alterations to the A3 one was the cocking handle being longer & having more of an angle on it so soldiers are not losing skin when cocking due to the picatinny rails being so close, ACOG was the clear winner as for the new night vision sight well that been approved already. As for the LSW replacement 7.62mm weapons are now ready for trials starting at the end of this month same as the marksman weapon also in 7.62mm (HK417,Mk16 SCAR) jus to name two.
Dave does the infantry battalions have specific sniper platoons and what weapons do they use.?
Dave does the infantry battalions have specific sniper platoons and what weapons do they use.?
Snipers currently use the AW or Artic Warfare in 7.62mm or 308 cal, we dont have sniper Pl we have sniper teams (sniper + spotter) as part of the Recon Pl organisation the trial weapon for snipers will be the AW in .338 due early next year. Anti material rifle trial in 2011 - 12 time frame the GMG in 40mm has a higher priority so will be trialed first
Hey new to the thread world, good site, some interesting info and ideas.
Army looking at aqquireing CSS vehicles to support LAV, anyone have any ideas on what they looking at? Surely will have to be armoured wouldnt they? ADI just unveiled the copperhead ACSV (bushmaster derirative), would make good relations with our neighbours to buy a few, also already combat proven in Afghan and Iraq.
Could also look at Bushmaster for surveillance,armoured ambo(as we have no protected ambo and LAV with 25mm cannon abit Overkill), mortars etc as not as large as LAV but still under armour and by all accounts a very good veh. Maybe even replace 2/1 Bns lost NZLAVs and use as 'battlefeild taxis'. Also cover a few roles and keep logistical support simple.
Concurrently Mog needing replacement also so could be possibly tied in. Aus was until recently looking at buying 3000 FMTVs. could be a possibility for NZ as we already have 5 of the recovery type in the inventory for the past 7-10 years so should be well fammiliarized with them. They are widely used by the yanks so should also be easily supportable in places such as afghan, come in 4x4, 6x6 and 8x8 versions and can also have inter-changeble armoured cabs for those dodgier places (although we seem to have bought our armoured vehicles to stay in NZ anyway).
Last edited by RegR; December 17th, 2008 at 02:45 AM.
Reason: added to
The recent news of renaming the CTTAG NZ Commandos to better reflect their role in the future leaves a number of questions in my mind. First is, what exactly will be their role? The name suggests they will have a more conventional military role within the special forces akin to the Australian Commandos, the British Royal Marines, or the US Rangers. If this is the case, would one company be enough and are there plans to expand numbers? Is this the final emergence of the Ready Reaction Force planned for over the last (lets say) 15 years?
In the NZDF thread it was quoted that the current NZ minister/secretary of defence wish to expand the "Reserve" force from around 2,000 to 10,000 over the next decade. I noted they used the term Reserve rather than Territorial and wonder if that is significant. Do the pollies imagine a change in role of the non-Regulars from an emergency force only to be available in the event of a war of national survival to something like the US National Guard that can be called up for deployment, but at a less intense tempo than a Regular Army unit?
Such an expansion of the Reserve suggests an organic expansion of the Regular forces if only to provide the organisation and support to deployed Reserve Forces. Is there scope for an increase in the Regular forces in these plans?
From the top of my head (without the experience or the training of a Defpro) I wonder whether an increase in the Reserve would benefit from a dedicated full time Regular Army HQ and Support Company with a Rifle Company/Squadron acting as a cadre for the battalion group. It would speed up activation time in the event of elements being called up for deployment. If the Reserve element of the battalion group numbered 6-7 companies with a maximum of 2 companies being deployed at any time it would be highly sustainable for deployment and less of a burden on the Reserve soldier. The deployment capability would be limited by only the fatigue/training of the Regular element of the battalion group.
