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; The New Zealand ministry of defence has several links of previous reviews and current reviews. The rationale for the land ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 4.75 average.
Old September 3rd, 2006   #76
Defense Aficionado
Major General
Sea Toby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,473
Threads:
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-p...iscussion.html
Sea Toby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2006   #77
Junior Member
Private First Class
regstrup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Zealand
Posts: 96
Threads:
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 ?

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
regstrup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2006   #78
Defense Aficionado
Major General
Sea Toby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,473
Threads:
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/s...an/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.
Sea Toby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2006   #79
The Wanderer
Major
robsta83's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 932
Threads:
Where to begin..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Toby
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.
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
robsta83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006   #80
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10
Threads:
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.
kiwitrooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006   #81
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 346
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitrooper View Post
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! .
Stuart Mackey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006   #82
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,940
Threads:
Why is the training ammo for the NZLAVs so expensive?
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006   #83
Junior Member
Private First Class
regstrup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Zealand
Posts: 96
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitrooper View Post
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 ?
regstrup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006   #84
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
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.
kiwitrooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2006   #85
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 629
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitrooper View Post
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.
Gibbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2006   #86
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 48
Threads:
Why not restructure of the whole NZ defence force?

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.
blueorchid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2006   #87
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibbo View Post
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.
kiwitrooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2006   #88
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 629
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueorchid View Post
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.
Gibbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2006   #89
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitrooper View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2006   #90
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 346
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
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.
Stuart Mackey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 AM.