Wouldn't ATGWs, shoulder fired weapons and IFV mounted direct fire weapons also enable this?
New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Yes that's absolutely true (and is largely the status quo), but also looking from the perspective of restoring a lost capability the NZ Army once had for many decades (M41's and Scorpions), also acknowledging the world/regional security situation is changing and presumably from an Army perspective to practice as an effective combined arms force perhaps it is time to increase capabilities where and when practical? The important logistical tail wouldn't be that demanding for such a capability (the issue may more be qualified personnel quantities). And if anything the 105mm rounds would be cheaper (and complement the more expensive ATGW's), and provides a capability that is presently comparable with the Army's 105mm towed light guns, which has a place, but perhaps not with a mobile force (unless perhaps protected SPH's were acquired)?
Add to that it is deployable, all I can see is "win-wins" for a small Army like ours! Admittedly such a capability may not be at the top of the priority order when Army has other needs, but just noting an opportunity has presented itself (one which disappeared with the US cancelling the M8 project in the '90's).
They can to a certain degree, but I think a light tank has capabilities that an IFV with a mounted direct fire weapons doesn't offer, and this one in particular certainly does.
I have been discussing this overnight with someone who has served in the army and takes an interest in these things. We have been looking at the army in context with the lessons coming out of the Russo Ukrainian War and these lessons are increasing the complexity of the conundrum of mounted in IFVs Vs unmounted troops. However they have also, in our opinion, ended the discussion of towed Vs SP artillery coming firmly down on the side of SP artillery. We would go for both the US light tank and the Hanwa K-9 155mm SPH in similar numbers, probably 24 of each. They both have different missions and that's why we have gone that way.
Our reasoning is that we would be facing an opponent in the PLA who has a similar love of artillery, in all its forms, to that of the Russians, but may not be as hide bound and stuck in the 1980s Soviet style of manoeuvring, and army structure. We do know that the PLA-GF have structured some of their units similar to that of US Army units. However they still have political officers at every level within their command structure and we assume that their officers, ncos and soldiers, won't have the same level of freedom as those in western militaries, to improvise and adapt on the spot without reference to higher authority.
Like us the PLA is watching the Russo Ukrainian war very closely and taking very careful note of all the lessons that it is teaching. They will definitely learn those lessons, but will we?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Very interesting points, also if we (Kiwis) step back and review force structures in recent times, the concept of fully motorised battalions is now long dead (with having a fleet of 100+ LAV's), so have we gone full circle eg in essence back to the 1990's force structure requiring protective APC/IFV's when required, backed up by armoured recce/FSV's (currently provided by the LAV3 for all these roles)?
So what is the best way forward (with what the NZ Army has learnt post-Bosnia, post-ET, post-Afghanistan M113/LAV3 deployments and now watching Russia/Ukraine, and factoring in the CCP operating in the "local" Asia/Pacific region)?
What we do know is what the Govt released for DCP19 (which is hopefully being re-reviewed as per DefMin recent comments at the recent select committee):
(The 7 year gap from tender to intro into service seems odd, presumably it is simply based on the LAV3 having a 30 year lifespan 2003-2033, and hopefully the new reviews planned will provide for more realistic timeframes).
Anyway that once in a generation replacement or upgrade project cycle is coming up again, which could be rather fortuitous if Army is interested in the MPF (or other capabilities) in order to have better tailored capabilities for the roles required.
I'm wondering if GDLS could sense an opportunity to provide a decent package deal (eager for foreign sales) eg upgrade or replace most LAV's with say the LAV6 and also provide some MPF's for the recce/FSV role? For Defence it could have some attractions in dealing with one supplier for both types of hardware and on-going support, and taking advantage of incremental upgrades as per US Army needs and developments ...
Events in the Ukraine are showing that the whole army CONOPS have to be revamped from completely. The UAV use there has changed ground warfare significantly and they're not just big UAVs but quite small ones, commercial ones as well as dedicated military ones. The Russians haven't been able to pacify the threat and neither have the Ukrainians. Both sides are losing valuable assets because of targeting by UAV. Of the two sides the Ukrainians have utilised UAVs better and have been far more adept at incorporating civilian UAVs into their surveillance and kill chains. That's one of the reasons why the army has to seriously re=evaluate and change its CONOPS.
Next the lesson that artillery is still king of the battlefield is reinforced by both sides and it's not just tube artillery but also rocket and missile as well. We don't have any rocket or missile artillery and that's sorely required. For gawds sake if Arab civilians can #8 wire rocket artillery from Zuni rocket launchers and mount them on the back of Toyota utes then I am sure that the army can put a really good business case forward for rocket artillery. We aren't fighting the Korean or Vietnam Wars anymore. That's also why I now am of the opinion that we have to have the 155mm SPH and ditch the 105mm towed guns.
WRT the LAV6 we are going to be fighting in the Pacific so its going to be an amphibious maritime war. In that case we'd be far better off following the USMC and acquiring the BAE AAV that the USMC have just started to introduce. It can swim 20nm at 6 knots and the does 500 km on the road at 100 kmh. It's an 8x8 able to take 13 fully equipped dismounts and 3 crew. Our infantry sections are 11 bods so is ideal because leaves space for extra weapons, rations, water etc.
Ultimately what type of conflict does the army foresee itself being involved in?
I question whether that's still true. It was certainly true for the first few weeks but we are increasingly seeing more footage of successful Russian UAS strikes. We also shouldn't forget that in the 2014/15 period the Russians were probably the leading UAS operator at a tactical level. They created a very effective strike/recce capability.
I fully agree with you on most of your points but the problem still lies with this current Govt and future Govts this includes both major parties and most of the minor ones Greens etc they just don't have the will to actually man and equip the defence force as it needs to be done!
They will always have the excuse of "it cost's too much" and treasury has too much of a say in this regarding equipment purchased!
In regards to Arty we need both towed and SP as well as anti air systems including radar etc and the Tankies need new light armour which includes amphibious plus light tanks as well as other purchases and not the budget versions! but with all major military purchases New Zealand govts favour the cheap budget version which usually cost more in the long term!! and don't do what we actually require!
Text deleted. Political comments are against the rules and you have been on here long enough to know that. The fact that yours was a rant makes the matter worse. 6 demerit points for 6 months have been awarded against you.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree about the towed arty because it's now a liability. It takes far to long to break down and move after the shoot, and will be hit by counter battery fire.
We would have to assume that it's a conflict against an opponent such as the PLA. As I said in my post above "... we are going to be fighting in the Pacific so its going to be an amphibious maritime war." As such that is what we have to plan for. It's going to be an island hopping blue / green / brown water war, much like the Pacific War was during WW2.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Eerily like the technological changes that were occurring during WW1, and forshadowed in the Russo-Japan war 04-05. The question I ask myself is how do we deal with this at an intellectual level, the technology will take care of itself, but how will it be used?
Quite right about us not fighting Korea or Vietnam, those wars really should be regarded now as the Crimean war, or the Waterloo campaign, would have been in 1914.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Excuse my ignorance, but how do SPGs work effectively in a Pacific amphibious war? (Not that I don't think we should have them mind)
I personally cannot see us getting these, not in a tracked version anyway for the same reasons they went away from tracks in the first place (logistics, speed, cost etc etc) never mind introducing another fleet, if anything the beans would just up-gun the LAVs to 35mm for "more firepower" or include it in its successor dedicating a few hulls to recce role as they do now. Remember a lot of pollies and Joe publicans think NZLAV already is a tank and do not know the difference 25mm and 105mm as it is.Nicked this from the US Army thread.
If this project goes through (noting previous disappointments) does anyone think NZ Army could be taking an interest? Perhaps as (small) part of the LAV3 replacement programme eg perhaps 20-odd vehicles (or if the unbelievable happens, as a seperate project if a future NZG decided to better equip the Army in these worsening times)? Noting that Cadredave previously discussed the M8 Light Tank as being an option to replace the Scorpion FSV's ... pre-LAV3 selection of course).
Appears to be tailored to support light infantry (which also fits the NZ Army approach) by providing them with direct fire support (not obviously for an anti-tank role a la M1A1 Abrams etc), provides deployable lightweight firepower for our Asia-Pacific region (via sealift or allied C-17 - which can apparently fit two), the 105mm gun would give the NZ Army the firepower to destroy fortifications and so on, and according to some of the article comments the 105mm could potentially fire LAHAT semi-active laser homing guided anti-tank guided missiles, and the turret have space for gun launched missiles.
Reg & co any thoughts? Noting previous discussions of having trained crews available being another issue (which could also impact LAV3 crewing).
I would hope we aqquire wheeled artillery before a tracked FSV as has been proven as a game changer in modern conflict. I still like the archer system especially now there is a proven MAN HX platform in production. Towed artillery is too slow for us now with the 119 outgunned (pun intended) and a liability in these days of effective counter battery for its users, sitting ducks, as Ukranian and Russian gunlines have shown. Even the quickest gun team is open and exposed in the time it takes to return fire. Shoot and scoot is the way forward not set up and shoot with speed literally being the lifesaver. Another game changer I believe is HIMARS and although the system could be out of our price range I believe the capability afforded would outweigh the cost(s).
Overall our entire artillery org needs a refresh with SPGs, AD, drones, counter battery, radars etc which imho is more beneficial and achievable than a new light tank fleet.
Both those wars still high intensity and protracted requiring solid logistics and the need to regenerate units. In the case of Vietnam it went from being an unconventional one to a fully conventional one; the 1972 Easter Offensive and the 1975 Offensive saw the NVA deploy corps size formations supported by heavy armour and arty. By 1968 after Tet the conflict was hardly unconventional anymore.
In the case of New Zealand there is no doubt an acute need to improved various of the army as well as CONOPS but in the event of a war with China the NZADF would be operating alongside the likes of the U.S. and Australia and would not be expected to punch above its weight level/category. Whether a future war with China involves much fighting on land also remains to be seen. My personal view it's the RNZAF and RNZN which should receive priority in funding.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
That's a good question, would like to see some further discussion (to better learn from our defpros).
Eg perhaps ideally one would have both eg SPG's mainly for land ops deployments, and also light guns that could be airlifted by NH90 (or better) from sealift vessels if needing to island hop in the Pacific (or for SOF support etc). But I also recall similar discussions on the Australian Army forum a few months ago highlighting the impracticalities of having different systems for their Army, let alone a much smaller Army such as ours.
(Unless perhaps we have a hybrid model a la the Royal Marines, mainly utlising air/sea deployable light guns for amphibious ops, which are also supported by the Royal Artillery. Would that work for us and also allow for NZ Army to also go down the SPG or other route)?
However I think Reg's suggestion of something like the Archer might also be a good practical solution to replace the light guns. Based on the MAN HX these could deploy on land ops with the LAV's etc ... but also deploy on sealift vessels (ours and allied) to support amphibious ops. And a truck based solution also potentially opens the door to potentially also acquiring the likes of HIMARS down the road if there was a need?
Presumably though something like Archer would follow behind any advancing elements, if so, we may still need something like a heavier armed IFV type (or a "light" tank or SPG?) deploying ahead in an island hoping scenario? (Noting that other allied force elements would be on hand to soften up targets first of course).
I'll take that on the chin no worries...
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
All true, but it was a war with the technology of the era, and whilst there are lessons to be had I'm sure, I think that time and technology eventually places limits on that
Agreed.
Yes they still do because they shoot and scoot once they are ashore. Shoot and scoot means that they fire 5 or six rounds in quick succession then upstakes and move very quickly to another firing point some distance from the previous one and repeat. This is to avoid enemy counterbattery fire which is very quick to respond. On today's battlefield radars are used to detect and determine the originating location of incoming fire and UAVs to spot the counterbattery fire.
Times have changed significantly Reg and the reasoning that they went away from tracks will have to be set aside. That was in the 1990s with Jim Bolger's govt and Ruth Richardson's Mother of all budgets which lead to a 26% decrease in defence funding. We are facing an island campaign much the same as WW2 and wheeled SPGs won't cut it in that setting. That's why tracks will have to be used for SPHs and the light tank. The wheeled SPGs go great in Ukraine, western Russia and eastern Europe because the terrain there generally suits them. Bush bashing in Pacific Islands isn't what they're designed to do, especially during the wet season.
The current LAV III guns apparently cannot be upgraded without replacing the turret. It has to do with the gun housing within the turret itself. So the whole vehicle would have to be replaced because it doesn't have the V shaped hull bottom either. Next the army focus has to be amphibious because that's what it will be doing; it's going to be an amphibious force for the foreseeable future. Amphibious doesn't always means over the beach either; it can mean dropped in behind the enemy, sometimes way behind the enemy to cause a distraction by the use of creating mayhem and havoc in their rear or hinterland. The reason why I like that GDLS MPF system is that it's air transportable in the C-130J Hercules so it can be flown in with the troops landing behind enemy lines. It can also operate in the islands quite effectively dealing with stuff that the SPH is unable to, and ATGM can deal with any PLA-GF modern heavy tanks. We actually need the who gamut of SPHs, AD, UAVs, counter battery radars etc., that you said plus the MPF / light tank, BAE AAV, shore based anti ship missiles, ARH, and 2 - 3 small amphib ships of ~ 1,500 - 2,000 tonnes standard displacement capable of operating in blue / green / brown water environments to support the army.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Presume you don't think there will be weight issues in the islands once ahsore? Particularly in the immediate phase of a landing?
The advantages of a track is that it spreads the weight so has low ground pressure, much lower than a wheel. During WW2 tracked vehicles worked quite well moving ashore either from landing craft or swimming ashore. Their tracks were generally narrower than today's vehicles.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Yep, all good points, thanks.
One thing that I have been think about is as part of the restructure of the arm is moving away from the current battalion formation and to a regiment structure comprised of companies that give it more flexibility. I got the idea from a post @kato made a few months ago on another thread (I can't remember which one) about the German Bundeswehr Fallschirmjaeger (Paratroops) and their regimental structure.
This structure is based on the German Bundeswehr 26th and 31st Fallschirmjaeger Regiments and might suit our purposes better. In this iteration there would be two combat regiments in the NZ Army. In the Bundswehr each Regiment comprises approximately 1,800 personnel in 11 companies. This suggested structure has companies comprised of approximately 200 personnel formed into Regiments based on the Bundeswehr Paratroop model, but with the flexibility of adding or reducing companies at will, as long as the core support companies are retained.
The structure of a NZ Army Amphibious Combat Regiment could be as follows:
It's something to think about and worth discussing.
This structure is based on the German Bundeswehr 26th and 31st Fallschirmjaeger Regiments and might suit our purposes better. In this iteration there would be two combat regiments in the NZ Army. In the Bundswehr each Regiment comprises approximately 1,800 personnel in 11 companies. This suggested structure has companies comprised of approximately 200 personnel formed into Regiments based on the Bundeswehr Paratroop model, but with the flexibility of adding or reducing companies at will, as long as the core support companies are retained.
The structure of a NZ Army Amphibious Combat Regiment could be as follows:
- Staff, HQ, & Support Company.
- Reconnaissance Company.
- ACV Mounted Infantry Company.
- ACV Mounted Infantry Company.
- ACV Mounted Infantry Company.
- ACV Mounted Infantry Company.
- SPH Company.
- Light Tank Company.
- Air Defence Company.
- Intelligence and EW Company.
- Aviation Company.
- Aviation Company.
- Anti Ship Missile Company.
- Logistics Company.
- Medical Company.
- Engineering Company.
It's something to think about and worth discussing.