New Zealand Army

riksavage

Banned Member
NZ regs will eventually change....

NZSAS already have been
Makes perfect sense, removes the need for two uniforms as multicam is basically suitable for both Afghanistan and NZ home environment. The military can also leverage off the increasing number of multicam add-ons (bodyarmour covers, webbing, ammo pouches etc.) which are flooding the market.

Some PC Brigade numpties are against aopting a standard pattern for western nations becasue they don't want thier footsoldiers to be mistaken for US troops. Reason being they are more likely to get shot at, utter crap!!!
 

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A "controversial" photo published earlier this year revealed the NZSAS appearing to wear multicam uniforms. (Controversial as in another media outlet that first published the pics didn't pixel out both troopers faces).

Photos emerge of SAS in action - national | Stuff.co.nz

Cadredave commented here at the time saying the Regular Forces will receive them in time.

CD - any update on timelines and will the PRT be wearing them?
Hey Recce,
This is the current update reference the multi cams;

NZSAS have come back with a few recomendations with the multi cams (colour fade, the cut) etc, Capability Branch of NZDF have now joined the new uniform with the Soldier system so it is no longer separate as it was before, yes we are getting them when is the question. Coming into the system soon is the IW Steyr/C9 upgraded weapons with in line sights (late 2011 - 2012), general issue to the Cbt units of BAE RBAV(SF) body armour as seen by the PRT. Its going to be a exciting couple of years for the cbt units cant wait.

PS - dont ask me what sights etc we are getting as Im not going to say until its released by NZDF.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A NATO standard Cam is a interesting thought has it been done before?
Sure, around 1960 every NATO uniform and every vehicle was the same color, yellow olive (RAL 6014). ;)

As for multicam... the only NATO users are the USA and the UK. And the Netherlands for SOF. That's not even 30% of NATO forces as far as number of soldiers go. Even US-pattern Woodland is probably more widespread.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
By 'standard cam' are you proposeing we all wear the same multi-cam or different versions of it dependant on country. I do like the idea of one cam to cover all theatres(or majority of) however I do like a bit of national identity and not become a unit of the US/UK/AUS war machine. Some have mentioned not wanting to be mistaken as other contingents on ops, it is not purely to avoid being targetted by a single faction but also recognition by the local populace, others etc as lets be honest, some countries have a better reputation than others and therefore are more trusted and approachable, mainly due to how we act, react and operate.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Last edited:

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Hey Gibbo,

The latest Army News #417 has a feature on the JCB HMEES (see below) and also answers your second question on the Gap Crossing Capability project, by saying that it has been approved and it is the General Dynamics European Land Systems REB - Rapidly Emplaced Bridge and MAN HX 77 host vehicle.

First, here's some other links to these various products/systems:

http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/hmee-armoured-vehicles-join-new-zealand-army.html

http://www.gdels.de/index.php?id=12&L=1
http://www.gdels.de/fileadmin/pdf/prospekt_rebs.pdf (note what one could also do if the engineers acquired and modified some of those spare NZLAV's)!

HX 77 / HX 32.440, HX 81
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2202.html
MAN Military Australia

Looks like the engineers are getting some serious combat deployable kit (and HMNZS Canterbury will need to accomodate a few more vehicles)! Here's the Army News feature (but sorry can't scan the various pics but maybe when Army News #417 appears online it might show them).

Army Introduces New Engineer Capability

The NZ Army has just acquired six new JCB high mobility engineer excavators (HMEES)


The Army's engineers now have significantly more capability following the purchase of six new JCB High Mobility Engineer Excavators (HMEES) as part of the Engineer Omnibus project.

The HMEEs - commonly known as combat tractors - are at Trentham Camp while some engineering changes are completed and the initial training of trainers is conducted. The HMEE will be fully introduced into service in mid 2011 with the end-state of having the capability at DLOC.

"The HMEE will provide a significant increase in engineer capability for the NZ Army. Until now, we did not have an earthmoving capability with increased mobility and survivability that could support NZLAV operations effectively," says Lieutenant Colonel Don Jones, Commanding Officer 2 Engineer Regiment.

"The regiment is looking forward to receiving the excavators and using them for training, on exercise, and bringing the capability to DLOC."

The capability of the Army's Light Armoured Vehicles (NZLAV) will be enhanced by the HMEEs' ability to undertake route clearance, survivability, construction and other earthmoving tasks using a system that has comparable protection and mobility to NZLAV.

The excavators have been proven operationally by the US and UK armies to be combat viable and have been effective working alongside other armoured vehicles in high threat environments. Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that the vehicle's armour has allowed US operators to survive mine and improvised explosive device strikes which would otherwise have caused fatal consequences if less protected vehicles had been attacked.

Engineer support to civil aid, route maintenance or general tasks will also be enhanced due to the increased technical capability of the HMEE and the protection it provides operators while working across the battle-space. The provision of horizontal construction is also made safer for plant operators in any environment.

The HMEE was developed by JCB in response to a requirement for high mobility earthmoving plant that could survive on the modern battlefield. As such the technology is cutting edge and at the early stages of its service life. With a top speed on the open road of 90 km/hr and great cross country capability the excavators can operate as part of a cavalry formation and self-deploy without needing to be transported via trailer to a task site.

The HMEE can be deployed on HMNZS Canterbury and will complement the recently approved Gap Crossing System (GCS) the GDELS Rapidly Emplaced Bridge with MAN HX 77 host vehicle. With HMEE, the GCS and NZLAV (E), engineers can now fully utilise the Army's Cavalry capability.

The vehicles, parts, training and other support has cost in total $4.7m. The HMEEs will be operated by plant operators from within Linton-based 2 Engineer Regiment.

HMEE Fact Sheet: Core dimensions and performance.

*Weight (combat loaded with armour etc) 16,180kg
*Length 9.2m
*Width 2.4m
*Height 3.9m
*Top speed 90 km/hr
*Maximum vertical step 480mm
*Side slope limit 30%
*Climb/descent limit 60%

Core features.

*Armoured cab for crew (2) protection
*Blackout facility for night driving
*Selectable two wheel/four wheel/crab steer
*ROPS/FOPS (Roll over protection system)
*Run flat tyres
*Multi fuel (Diesel or JP8)
*Side shift fork carriage operated from cab
*Wide range of attachments and hydraulic tools including augurs
*Air conditioned cab
*ABS brakes
Nevermind having one of these to help the missus with your gardening, heck, you could bulldoze the neighbours gardens to give the missus a decent 5 acre country garden and no-one will be able to stop you. :D
 
Last edited:

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Hey Gibbo,

The latest Army News #417 has a feature on the JCB HMEES (see below) and also answers your second question on the Gap Crossing Capability project, by saying that it has been approved and it is the General Dynamics European Land Systems REB - Rapidly Emplaced Bridge and MAN HX 77 host vehicle.

First, here's some other links to these various products/systems:

HMEEs Join New Zealand Army: Armed Forces Int. News

REBS Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System : GENERAL DYNAMICS European Land Systems-Germany GmbH
http://www.gdels.de/fileadmin/pdf/prospekt_rebs.pdf (note what one could also do if the engineers acquired and modified some of those spare NZLAV's)!

HX 77 / HX 32.440, HX 81
Army Guide - HX 77, Truck
MAN Military Australia

Looks like the engineers are getting some serious combat deployable kit (and HMNZS Canterbury will need to accomodate a few more vehicles)! Here's the Army News feature (but sorry can't scan the various pics but maybe when Army News #417 appears online it might show them).



Nevermind having one of these to help the missus with your gardening, heck, you could bulldoze the neighbours gardens to give the missus a decent 5 acre country garden and no-one will be able to stop you. :D
Excellent spotting - thanks for that! Wonder how many units they've got the 'go' for!?!

See Army's new de-salination kit is hard at work in Chch.

Crikey if I give the missus 5 acres I'd need a fulltime gardening staff; a AW109LUH to get around it; and a couple of LAVIII's to 'placate' the neighbours! :smash

Nah - she can stick with what she's got - so long as I get my JCB HMEES. :dance
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Actros 3248s for transport, MAN HX 77s for engineers, surely the unimog/2228 replacements will make an appearance soon, interesting to see what NZDF will go for in the end.

Would kind of make sense to convert some of the excess LAV for bridgeing especally if there is already a proven version.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Would kind of make sense to convert some of the excess LAV for bridgeing especally if there is already a proven version.
I was wondering about that, there are a few low cost versions that could be modified, a LAV ambulance, a bridging version would be great, perhaps a mortar carrier, heck a Mistral anti-air would be nice but probably deviates off the low cost path.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I was wondering about that, there are a few low cost versions that could be modified, a LAV ambulance, a bridging version would be great, perhaps a mortar carrier, heck a Mistral anti-air would be nice but probably deviates off the low cost path.
Totally agree, would rather see them put to use in other outputs rather then sold off and lost especially when we are lacking armour in certain areas. I think there was talk of converting a few to specialized ambulances, HQs etc so maybe a couple of bridges could be useful for support.
 

steve33

Member
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.
I'm not an expert but taking the mortars from the infantry battalions and putting them with the artillary doesn't seem a good idea to me.

You would think with the mortars right up at the sharp end with the battalion in a battle the mortar crews could see for themselves what the situation was and take immediate action rather than having to radio back to someone based with the artillary by my way of thinking there would be a quicker reaction time.

And what if by chance radio communication was lost between the artillary units and the infantry battalion not only would they be unable to call in artillary support but they wouldn't have mortars available either.

I don't claim to be an expert just my take on things.
 

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'm not an expert but taking the mortars from the infantry battalions and putting them with the artillary doesn't seem a good idea to me.

You would think with the mortars right up at the sharp end with the battalion in a battle the mortar crews could see for themselves what the situation was and take immediate action rather than having to radio back to someone based with the artillary by my way of thinking there would be a quicker reaction time.

And what if by chance radio communication was lost between the artillary units and the infantry battalion not only would they be unable to call in artillary support but they wouldn't have mortars available either.

I don't claim to be an expert just my take on things.
First off if mortars are close enough to see a Company attack then someone plan for battle has gone horribly wrong:rotfl, the point is if a Infantry CO lost comms with Arty he still had his own organic indirect as a last resort now with guns having mortars if a CO or his HQ requests indirect and say 16 Fd are not in Direct Support then his request goes to the back of the line which has happened to the Canadians in Afghanistan.

CD
 

lima25218

New Member
Totally agree, would rather see them put to use in other outputs rather then sold off and lost especially when we are lacking armour in certain areas. I think there was talk of converting a few to specialized ambulances, HQs etc so maybe a couple of bridges could be useful for support.
I think the Ambulances and the HQ's are a go, think it was in an Army News. Mortar carriers and Mistral SPAA would be a great addition as would more Engineer/Bridging. Would love to see MGS, but unsure if it would be feasible budget wise. What about some with turret conversion, a larger mid calibre gun and ATGW? Would that be possible?
 

steve33

Member
First off if mortars are close enough to see a Company attack then someone plan for battle has gone horribly wrong:rotfl, the point is if a Infantry CO lost comms with Arty he still had his own organic indirect as a last resort now with guns having mortars if a CO or his HQ requests indirect and say 16 Fd are not in Direct Support then his request goes to the back of the line which has happened to the Canadians in Afghanistan.

CD
How far bck are the mortars positioned from the rifles companies when they are fighting.?
 

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
How far bck are the mortars positioned from the rifles companies when they are fighting.?
81mm mortars could be as far back as 2 km from a company attack only the MFC (Mortar fire controllers) are up with the lead company directing there fire to asist the OC.
 

steve33

Member
81mm mortars could be as far back as 2 km from a company attack only the MFC (Mortar fire controllers) are up with the lead company directing there fire to asist the OC.

Thanks for the reply cadre i take it from the other post you are not to keen on the mortars being taken from the battalions for the reason i talked about communication going down from the Infantry battalion to the Artillary and you have no artillary or mortar support.

Who came up with the idea to put the mortars with the artillary.

It would be great if they left the 81mm with the infantry and got some 120mm mortar to put with the artillary.
 

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks for the reply cadre i take it from the other post you are not to keen on the mortars being taken from the battalions for the reason i talked about communication going down from the Infantry battalion to the Artillary and you have no artillary or mortar support.

Who came up with the idea to put the mortars with the artillary.

It would be great if they left the 81mm with the infantry and got some 120mm mortar to put with the artillary.
A Canadian Col now serving with the NZ Army, he left Canada before Afghanistan plus I guns were scared that they would go the same way as the RNZAF ACF
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
A Canadian Col now serving with the NZ Army, he left Canada before Afghanistan plus I guns were scared that they would go the same way as the RNZAF ACF
No offence meant, but it seems to me that with all the continual restructuring that seems to go on in the NZ Army that the Army lacks a coherent vision for its future. The best example I can think of is the having a LAV Battalion and a Light infantry battalion. The logistics would be simpler having one type of infantry battalion (say with 2 light and one LAV infantry coys) and would better suited to the expeditionary nature of the Army, given our geographical location.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
I guess continual restructuring is an going reality (like in any organisation) and if elements within the organisation can take advantage of these situations, like in the case of the 16 Fd, they firstly ensure survival and then ensure greater capabilities (plus more likelyhood of deploying etc).

I guess also the current LAV and Light Inf batt's allow sustained deployment of a company within that battalion, the Combined Arms Task Group's, if understand this correctly etc?

No doubt there's pro's and con's but NZ Army seems to placed to experiment (ie supported somewhat by the Govt's) - presumably following evolving trends as per Coalition experiences in theatre etc.

Just IMO - happy to hear the truth from the experts!
 
Top