New Zealand Army

steve33 said:
Some good things have happened for the NZ army over the last few years with weapon purchases you guys have got some good kit now.

I wanted to get your opinion on something i was watching a doco on sky about the history of the Australian SAS and one of their guys was talking about their operations in Timor and he said they operated with the NZSAS and he said the NZSAS was slow and methodical then he said something like if they were any slower they wouldn't get moving at all but then he said they were good.

Would he have meant planning operations because our guys are very fit and are known for their tracking skills so they have no problems crossing terrain and being from NZ are experienced operating in mountains.
Click to expand...

TBH it's a doco & it's one opinion without knowing the RoE /TPP they were operating under I can't give you a opinion one way or the other I do know they are very thorough and don't leave any stone unturned

CD
 
Cadredave said:
TBH it's a doco & it's one opinion without knowing the RoE /TPP they were operating under I can't give you a opinion one way or the other I do know they are very thorough and don't leave any stone unturned

CD
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply i was thinking along those lines and being methodical leaving no stone unturned i would see as a good thing with the nature of the work they do.
 
My impression, (from talking to people who may or maynot know), is NZSAS is close to UK SAS.
UK SAS and Australian SASR have not had good rapport for sometime. Quite a bit of animosity.

NZ SAS and SASR relations are influenced by this, to the point that NZ SAS have considerable reservations about SASR, and the compliment is returned.
 
rjtjrt said:
My impression, (from talking to people who may or maynot know), is NZSAS is close to UK SAS.
UK SAS and Australian SASR have not had good rapport for sometime. Quite a bit of animosity.

NZ SAS and SASR relations are influenced by this, to the point that NZ SAS have considerable reservations about SASR, and the compliment is returned.
Click to expand...

The group has always been close to 22 but speaking to a few operators its more to do with TTP issues that are more aligned to 22 than SASR you will always have friction of some sort no different to RNZIR being attached to RAR, just another minor issue to be sorted.

CD
 
MARS-L weapons system

Fairfax reports that soldiers are now training with the new MARS-L rifle at the Waiouru Military Camp.

Lieutenant Colonel Aidan Shattock, commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment, said the first shipment of new rifles arrived in May.

They would be rolled out across all three defence services, but 1st Battalion was on its way to being the first unit to use them in service.

Shattock said each weapon could be personalised and adjusted to suit the individual, including becoming ambidextrous.

The Steyr rifles, purchased in 1985, were "at the end of their shelf life" and the new capabilities of the MARS-L, including a longer range and scope, made them better prepared for modern times.

"It links into what we are experiencing in Afghanistan, when we are trying to engage in those long ranges, being able to see is pretty important."

Shattock said soldiers were shooting targets from as far as 900 metres away, which would have almost been impossible with the Steyr.

"Before we knew the limits with the Steyr, so now it's understanding we can do a lot more with it.

"The Steyr has been really, really good and it's done us some really good service, but it's got old."
Click to expand...

Another soldier quoted appears to be impressed with the new rifle. Full article at New $59 million weapons package begins Defence Force rollout | Stuff.co.nz
 
recce.k1 said:
Fairfax reports that soldiers are now training with the new MARS-L rifle at the Waiouru Military Camp.



Another soldier quoted appears to be impressed with the new rifle. Full article at New $59 million weapons package begins Defence Force rollout | Stuff.co.nz
Click to expand...

A bit behind that story both Linton & Burnham based Battalions have been introducing the new rifle into service. 2/1 deployment from Iraq handed back all Steyr based accessories before flying home after some well deserved leave will go straight into reissue and training on the new weapon some very happy Infantry soldiers so far.
 
The Steyr rifles, purchased in 1985, were "at the end of their shelf life" and the new capabilities of the MARS-L, including a longer range and scope, made them better prepared for modern times.
Click to expand...

I must admit I'm at a loss as to how a weapon firing the same round out of a shorter barrel has a supposed longer range.
 
Raven22 said:
I must admit I'm at a loss as to how a weapon firing the same round out of a shorter barrel has a supposed longer range.
Click to expand...
The NZDF have purchased 5.56mm match ammo for the MARS-L rifle, so that is, I believe, better quality ammo than the standard NATO issue ammo that has been used with the Steyrs. Secondly, the NZDF Steyr has the 1.5 X optics which will have a reduced long range accuracy for the average shooter, compared to that of the 4 X optics of the ADF Steyr and the MARS-L. That's my halfpenny's worth.

TBH, I far prefer the L1Al SLR built by Lithgow to the Steyr and 5.56mm rifles. :)
 
ngatimozart said:
The NZDF have purchased 5.56mm match ammo for the MARS-L rifle, so that is, I believe, better quality ammo than the standard NATO issue ammo that has been used with the Steyrs. Secondly, the NZDF Steyr has the 1.5 X optics which will have a reduced long range accuracy for the average shooter, compared to that of the 4 X optics of the ADF Steyr and the MARS-L. That's my halfpenny's worth.

TBH, I far prefer the L1Al SLR built by Lithgow to the Steyr and 5.56mm rifles. :)
Click to expand...

I understand that, but you modify the gas plug of the Steyr to use the Mk262 round and stick the optic of your choice on top, and you have a weapon that has a longer effective range than the MARS-L.

The MARS-L has lots of advantages over the legacy Steyr, I just find it surprising that they have latched onto the range issue, where the advantage doesn't really exist.
 
ngatimozart said:
The NZDF have purchased 5.56mm match ammo for the MARS-L rifle, so that is, I believe, better quality ammo than the standard NATO issue ammo that has been used with the Steyrs. Secondly, the NZDF Steyr has the 1.5 X optics which will have a reduced long range accuracy for the average shooter, compared to that of the 4 X optics of the ADF Steyr and the MARS-L. That's my halfpenny's worth.

TBH, I far prefer the L1Al SLR built by Lithgow to the Steyr and 5.56mm rifles. :)
Click to expand...

Not completely correct NG we were using mk262 ammo in 2012-2013 deployments to Afghan only operational deployments were issued it during PDT and on ops all others used standard SS109 ammo. NZDF is looking for a 77 grain round for training purposes until then they will expend all SS109 and F1 5.56mm ammo. TBH the F1 ammo from Australia was of far better quality than the other ammo brought on the market.

And I don't miss the L1A1 in any shape or form it's day has been and gone the LMT 7.62 and MAR-L runs rings around it without even trying some things you just have to let go
 
Cadredave said:
Not completely correct NG we were using mk262 ammo in 2012-2013 deployments to Afghan only operational deployments were issued it during PDT and on ops all others used standard SS109 ammo. NZDF is looking for a 77 grain round for training purposes until then they will expend all SS109 and F1 5.56mm ammo. TBH the F1 ammo from Australia was of far better quality than the other ammo brought on the market.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I wasn't 100% sure.
And I don't miss the L1A1 in any shape or form it's day has been and gone the LMT 7.62 and MAR-L runs rings around it without even trying some things you just have to let go
Click to expand...
I have a couple of mates who hanker back to the days of the Bren gun and the No 4 Mk1* .303 rifle, liking them a lot - they weren't keen on the SLR. I did have a No 4 Mk1* which I bought off the RNZAF for $15.00 back in the 1970s. A nice weapon and I used it hunting pigs & deer. I didn't cut the wood back because I believed that doing so would ruin the character of the rifle. A couple of RNZN old salts liked the L2A1 but then they maybe squirt addled from their daily tots :D :drunk1
 
Raven22 said:
I understand that, but you modify the gas plug of the Steyr to use the Mk262 round and stick the optic of your choice on top, and you have a weapon that has a longer effective range than the MARS-L.

The MARS-L has lots of advantages over the legacy Steyr, I just find it surprising that they have latched onto the range issue, where the advantage doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall the original NZ preference was to refurbish the Steyrs and upgrade the optics. It went to tender and the only bidder was Lithgow, apparently at an eye-watering price. After a quick re-think, NZ opted to replace the whole lot as it was apparently cheaper. I'm still unclear why Thales didn't bid their upgraded Steyr while Steyr Austria did put in a bid?

I assume all the comments about extended range relate to the improved optics, not that you would know that from the media coverage.
 
ngatimozart said:
Thanks, I wasn't 100% sure.

I have a couple of mates who hanker back to the days of the Bren gun and the No 4 Mk1* .303 rifle, liking them a lot - they weren't keen on the SLR. I did have a No 4 Mk1* which I bought off the RNZAF for $15.00 back in the 1970s. A nice weapon and I used it hunting pigs & deer. I didn't cut the wood back because I believed that doing so would ruin the character of the rifle. A couple of RNZN old salts liked the L2A1 but then they maybe squirt addled from their daily tots :D :drunk1
Click to expand...
Used all of the above while I was in the airforce and can understand the feelings. the advantage of the SLR is the ammo striking power and this was shown in the Falklands war were reports following the conflict basically said that opposition hit by 7.62 went down, ( they may get back up if the wound was slight ) but that there were multiple incidences were the enemy was struck several times by 5.56 and continued to function. I personally liked the BREN and the SLR, But the number 4 gave me a sore shoulder after prolonged firing. We once did a full day on the range with them as part of our training. Everyone had had enough by the end of the day. Worst gun I used in the Airforce was the Smith and western 38 revolver. the only way to hit a barn with these was to stand inside of it .
 
Rob c said:
Used all of the above while I was in the airforce and can understand the feelings. the advantage of the SLR is the ammo striking power and this was shown in the Falklands war were reports following the conflict basically said that opposition hit by 7.62 went down, ( they may get back up if the wound was slight ) but that there were multiple incidences were the enemy was struck several times by 5.56 and continued to function. I personally liked the BREN and the SLR, But the number 4 gave me a sore shoulder after prolonged firing. We once did a full day on the range with them as part of our training. Everyone had had enough by the end of the day. Worst gun I used in the Airforce was the Smith and western 38 revolver. the only way to hit a barn with these was to stand inside of it .
Click to expand...
During my time in I used the SLR, Sterling SMG, Browning 9mm pistol and Browning 50 cal HB HMG. The 50 cal was my favourite but a bit heavy to hump around in the bush on your tod. Hard to fire from the hip too :D The only issue I had with the SLR was the length of the stock, because it was to short for me.
 
ngatimozart said:
During my time in I used the SLR, Sterling SMG, Browning 9mm pistol and Browning 50 cal HB HMG. The 50 cal was my favourite but a bit heavy to hump around in the bush on your tod. Hard to fire from the hip too :D The only issue I had with the SLR was the length of the stock, because it was to short for me.
Click to expand...
Yep used the sterling but did not have the pleasure of using the .50 cal. Once when using a well worn sterling down Wigram the rear cap locking lugs let go. Disconcerting to see the spring and breach block disappear over your shoulder in the middle of firing.:onfloorl:
 
Raven22 said:
I must admit I'm at a loss as to how a weapon firing the same round out of a shorter barrel has a supposed longer range.
Click to expand...

The Fairfax article now includes a video in which the CO states the Steyr was engaging targets out to 300m but the new rifle can engage out to 600m, so presumably Fairfax's original printed article that mentioned 900m (and still does) would be a typo then!

(From my online searches 600m or so is the range for 5.56mm and 800-1000m for 7.62mm NATO ammo. From your experience would that all be 'about right')?
 
recce.k1 said:
(From my online searches 600m or so is the range for 5.56mm and 800-1000m for 7.62mm NATO ammo. From your experience would that all be 'about right')?
Click to expand...

As with everything, it depends on your definition of range. The longest the distance the bullet will travel? The longest distance the bullet will retain enough energy to be lethal? The longest distance the weapon will hit a man size target? The longest distance the average rifleman can hit a man size target? Comparing the range of different weapons is very difficult due to the differences in definition.

Effectively, all modern weapons have a longer theoretical range than which the average soldier can see and hit a target under combat conditions. Hence, advancements with modern weapons is largely about better optics, better ergonomics, better ancillaries etc, not advancements in ballistics. Hence the claimed longer range for weapons with more or less identical ballistics to previous weapons.

For comparison, the upgraded Australian Steyr is now listed as having a range of 600m (point target) and 800m (area target) for the marksman version, and a 500m (point target) and 600m (area target) for the standard version. Of course, the only difference between the two versions is that the marksman version has a Harris bipod and LAIRD, while the standard version just has a grip pod, so the difference in range is largely down to the different skills of the user.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top