New Zealand Army

[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! .

 

[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]

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.

 

[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

 

[RubiconNZ]

Quick News

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

 

[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:

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.