Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


New Zealand Army Organisation

This is a discussion on New Zealand Army Organisation within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Whiskyjack Given that the Govt intends to increase the Army by 1500 troops over the next ten ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 4.75 average.
Old August 2nd, 2006   #61
Super Moderator
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 727
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
Lucasnz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2006   #62
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucasnz
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.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2006   #63
Defense Aficionado
Major General
Sea Toby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,473
Threads:
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
Sea Toby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2006   #64
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 93
Threads:
Wow! Nice picture. It certainly shows alot. I think that may be in manuatu, during OP silver warrior.
NZLAV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2006   #65
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26
Threads:
Unimog replacement

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?
Mr Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2006   #66
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 93
Threads:
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.
NZLAV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2006   #67
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19th, 2006   #68
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26
Threads:
There was an article about it about a month ago in the ODT. Said that $80m has been allocated to replace Unimogs.
Mr Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19th, 2006   #69
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Brown
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.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2006   #70
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 93
Threads:
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.
NZLAV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2006   #71
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Given recent overseas operations do you think that armour protection should be considered? IMO it needs to be.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2006   #72
The Wanderer
Major
robsta83's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 932
Threads:
Armour Protection

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.
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
robsta83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2006   #73
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
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.

Last edited by Whiskyjack; August 27th, 2006 at 09:22 PM.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2006   #74
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 629
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
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! 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).
Gibbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006   #75
Junior Member
Private First Class
regstrup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Zealand
Posts: 96
Threads:
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
regstrup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:35 AM.