New Zealand Army

[STURM]

Are the 4 ACV Mounted Infantry Companies grouped into a battalion or they separate entities directly under the administrative and operational control of regimental HQ? Also; given the number of assets in the Regiment would a single logistics and Engineering Company be sufficient?

Another question I have is would the ACV Mounted Infantry; SPH and Light Tank Companies be organised along existing structures [I have no idea how many IFVs are in a Troop; how many Troops there are in a Squadron and how many guns there are in an arty battery] or would you structure them differently?

 

[Redlands18]

Curiously in this video I noticed a couple of servicemen carrying Sterling SMG's, to those in the know, is this just ceremonial use or are they still in active service with the QAMR Regiment ?

Typical the Officers bring down the standard of drill, somethings never change

 

[OldTex]

Perhaps the combat regiment structure might benefit from a degree of aggregation on broad functional lines. What I would suggest under the Combat Regiment HQ would be:

- 2 ACV mounted infantry battalions (each consisting of reconnaissance company and 4 infantry companies)
- 1 Fires battalion (containing SPH company, Light Tank company, AD company, missile (MLRS/AShM) company plus a direct fires (mortar & ATGM) company)
- 1 Aviation battalion (comprising 4 aviation companies plus a light/attack aviation company)
- 1 Support battalion (containing Command Support company, logistic company, medical company, engineer company)
- Intelligence and EW company

It may be necessary for both the Fires and Support battalions to be expanded in order to facilitate splitting the Combat regiment into 2 independent Task groups if required.

 

[kato]

It may be necessary for both the Fires and Support battalions to be expanded in order to facilitate splitting the Combat regiment into 2 independent Task groups if required.

You may want to look at the structure of the Spanish Marines (BRIMAR) for that sort of split-and-combine. BRIMAR is about the same size as the NZ Army.

While their outwards structure is nominally a fairly standard-looking brigade (and is usable as such!), they managed to design all elements such that they can be reassigned evenly - in company- or platoon-sized elements - to the two light infantry battalions (BD1 and BD2) in the brigade, creating two regiment-sized battle groups of about 12 companies size-wise.

The reason for this is that as marines their amphibious transport is designed around deploying such a preconfigured battle group, with the second then available for reinforcement or a second wave.

Broadly these consist of

• Staff and Support Company
• 3 Light Infantry Companies
• Mechanized Infantry Company (Piranha III)
• Amphibious Transport Company (AAVs)
• Heavy Weapons Company (81mm mortars and ATGM)
• Light Artillery Battery (105mm)
• Anti-Air and Anti-Tank Platoons (ATGM and Mistral on HMMWV derivative)
• Recce and Engineer Platoons (on Piranha III)
• Forward Air Control, Command Support and Electronic Warfare Platoons
• Medical, Beachmaster and Logistics Platoons

The remaining brigade-level element after this distribution to a combat formation is done consists of the brigade HQ, a reduced logistics battalion and a single SPH battery.

Originally the brigade also included a single tank company with M60 MBT. These have been stored away without personnel assigned to the company though. In recent years BRIMAR instead tested deploying a light cavalry company from an Army Cavalry Regiment equipped with 105mm Centauro in its place.

P.S. official link, nowadays available en ingles:

Marine Corps Brigade-Tercio de Armada (BRIMAR-TEAR) - Armada - Ministerio de Defensa - Gobierno de España

01infanteria-marina-tercio-armada-tear ', ' Marine Corps Brigade-Tercio de Armada (BRIMAR-TEAR). Armada. Ministerio de Defensa. Gobierno de España

armada.defensa.gob.es

 

[RegR]

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.

Up-gunned dragoons and V hulled LAV6 are modified LAVIIIs not new builds so it is very much possible to upgrade our current fleet. The reason Canada did not up-gun the LAV6 was budget, something we need to consider just as much if not more than they did (if in fact it is even deemed a requirement to begin with). Even the MGS with its 105mm was built on a modified LAV hull. Modifying an existing capability is surely still cheaper than replacing an entire fleet wholesale.

I still think we have just as much chance of using our armoured fleets in Taiwan (or even further afield) than the islands TBH so still need the compromised best of both worlds application, which came down to the wheeled LAV, otherwise we would have just continued with tracks considering we had just come out of our arguably biggest deployment to the "islands" of East timor when they were replaced, ironically the last time we sent armour to an island environment. So either lessons learned where not taken on board (Aus deployed ASLAV with issues) or tracks where still deemed the lesser optioned option overall. I'm sure everyone in the military understands the ability of of track vs wheeled just as much as the limitations but still comes down to overall all round use as we literally cannot afford to keep switching between the 2 types every decade or so dependant on who's banging the war drum at the time. I seem to remember just not too long ago boxers were the flavour of the month (which imo are even less suited to the islands) point being obviously no one platform is suited to each and every scenario and I highly doubt we will field/fund/follow multiple types so need to tailor the options we do have to suit, now and in the future, limitations included.

Sure I would love fleets of tanks, tracks, guns, frigates, fighters, attack helicopters etc etc (the list is literally endless) but reality bites, now even more than ever, times are tough and this (these) govts are not famous for their forward thinking at the best of times militarily.

 

[Todjaeger]

I still think we have just as much chance of using our armoured fleets in Taiwan (or even further afield) than the islands TBH so still need the compromised best of both worlds application, which came down to the wheeled LAV, otherwise we would have just continued with tracks considering we had just come out of our arguably biggest deployment to the "islands" of East timor when they were replaced, ironically the last time we sent armour to an island environment. So either lessons learned where not taken on board (Aus deployed ASLAV with issues) or tracks where still deemed the lesser optioned option overall. I'm sure everyone in the military understands the ability of of track vs wheeled just as much as the limitations but still comes down to overall all round use as we literally cannot afford to keep switching between the 2 types every decade or so dependant on who's banging the war drum at the time. I seem to remember just not too long ago boxers were the flavour of the month (which imo are even less suited to the islands) point being obviously no one platform is suited to each and every scenario and I highly doubt we will field/fund/follow multiple types so need to tailor the options we do have to suit, now and in the future, limitations included.

IIRC the move to adopt wheeled armoured vehicles came about following a Kiwi deployment as part of UNPROFOR in the mid-90's with Kiwi M113 APC's from the Vietnam era. It is my understanding that Kiwi forces found their M113's to be mechanically unreliable which IMO would not be all that surprising since I would expect some of the troops to be younger than the vehicles they were riding in. The selection in favour of a wheeled armour vehicle I believe was done on the basis that a wheeled vehicle is faster and more efficient for road travel than a similar tracked vehicle, with certain assumptions being made about future Kiwi armoured deployments, namely that they would be done as part of peacekeeping missions and therefore there was less of a need for a cross-country capability.

 

[Gibbo]

IIRC the move to adopt wheeled armoured vehicles came about following a Kiwi deployment as part of UNPROFOR in the mid-90's with Kiwi M113 APC's from the Vietnam era. It is my understanding that Kiwi forces found their M113's to be mechanically unreliable which IMO would not be all that surprising since I would expect some of the troops to be younger than the vehicles they were riding in. The selection in favour of a wheeled armour vehicle I believe was done on the basis that a wheeled vehicle is faster and more efficient for road travel than a similar tracked vehicle, with certain assumptions being made about future Kiwi armoured deployments, namely that they would be done as part of peacekeeping missions and therefore there was less of a need for a cross-country capability.

IIRC the real catalyst for wheeled was the Bosnia UN deployment where the Brits were doing convoy escorts and our M113's couldn't keep up & we were close to being told to bugger off home with the M113's!?!

 

[Todjaeger]

IIRC the real catalyst for wheeled was the Bosnia UN deployment where the Brits were doing convoy escorts and our M113's couldn't keep up & we were close to being told to bugger off home with the M113's!?!

UNPROFOR was in Croatia and Bosnia, so it was most likely this UN deployment. I have been attempting to determine what kit and which British units would have been involved with one possibility being the Cheshire Regiment. Unfort despite having been armoured infantry, I have not been able to determine if they were kitted out with Warrior IFV's, FV432 APC's, or something else entirely.

 

[ngatimozart]

Are the 4 ACV Mounted Infantry Companies grouped into a battalion or they separate entities directly under the administrative and operational control of regimental HQ? Also; given the number of assets in the Regiment would a single logistics and Engineering Company be sufficient?

There would be no battalions under this concept because the make of the combat regiment would be flexible depending upon its opertaional requirements.

Another question I have is would the ACV Mounted Infantry; SPH and Light Tank Companies be organised along existing structures [I have no idea how many IFVs are in a Troop; how many Troops there are in a Squadron and how many guns there are in an arty battery] or would you structure them differently?

No not along existing structures. The only component that would remain the same size would be infantry sections at 11 bods.

Perhaps the combat regiment structure might benefit from a degree of aggregation on broad functional lines. What I would suggest under the Combat Regiment HQ would be:

- 2 ACV mounted infantry battalions (each consisting of reconnaissance company and 4 infantry companies)
- 1 Fires battalion (containing SPH company, Light Tank company, AD company, missile (MLRS/AShM) company plus a direct fires (mortar & ATGM) company)
- 1 Aviation battalion (comprising 4 aviation companies plus a light/attack aviation company)
- 1 Support battalion (containing Command Support company, logistic company, medical company, engineer company)
- Intelligence and EW company

It may be necessary for both the Fires and Support battalions to be expanded in order to facilitate splitting the Combat regiment into 2 independent Task groups if required.

As I have said in my answer to Sturm there would be no battalions under this concept because the structure is designed to be flexible. On some operations the Regiment may only consist of for example:

• Staff, HQ, & Support Company.
• Reconnaissance Company.
• 2 ACV Mounted Infantry Companies.
• Light Tank Company.
• Air Defence Company.
• Intelligence and EW Company.
• Aviation Company.
• Logistics Company.
• Medical Company.
• Engineering Company.

So that's one option, whereas another time the operational requirements may call for:

• Staff, HQ, & Support Company.
• Reconnaissance Company.
• 8 ACV Mounted Infantry Companies.
• 2 SPH Companies.
• 3 Light Tank Companies.
• 2 Air Defence Companies.
• Intelligence and EW Company.
• 3 Aviation Companies.
• Anti Ship Missile Company.
• 3 Logistics Companies.
• 3 Medical Companies.
• 3 Engineering Companies.

That's where the flexibility is. @kato has kindly posted a Spanish marines reference above which I shall have a read of too.

 

[RegR]

IIRC the move to adopt wheeled armoured vehicles came about following a Kiwi deployment as part of UNPROFOR in the mid-90's with Kiwi M113 APC's from the Vietnam era. It is my understanding that Kiwi forces found their M113's to be mechanically unreliable which IMO would not be all that surprising since I would expect some of the troops to be younger than the vehicles they were riding in. The selection in favour of a wheeled armour vehicle I believe was done on the basis that a wheeled vehicle is faster and more efficient for road travel than a similar tracked vehicle, with certain assumptions being made about future Kiwi armoured deployments, namely that they would be done as part of peacekeeping missions and therefore there was less of a need for a cross-country capability.

Yes and all those considerations/conditions/compromises were all well known right up until we finally did replace the M113s (in all honesty anything was faster). The Brits had warriors back then and talking to a tanky who had the opourtunity to exchange with them said that for their size and weight could honk along nicely leaving the M113s for dust. I also heard rumours we were even offered Bradley's for a song and still didn't take up the option so I think wheeled was always going to be the way forward and planned for us regardless. Less complex, easier to maintain, self transportable, speed (So much so army still plans other fleets around keeping pace with the armour not the other way around) etc etc. Like I said no one option is the best in any particular scenario but for us it's the most cost effective and practical type to use for the bulk of our considerations so in typical kiwi fashion we must make due and overcome any shortcomings, which there always will be.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes and all those considerations/conditions/compromises were all well known right up until we finally did replace the M113s (in all honesty anything was faster). The Brits had warriors back then and talking to a tanky who had the opourtunity to exchange with them said that for their size and weight could honk along nicely leaving the M113s for dust. I also heard rumours we were even offered Bradley's for a song and still didn't take up the option so I think wheeled was always going to be the way forward and planned for us regardless. Less complex, easier to maintain, self transportable, speed (So much so army still plans other fleets around keeping pace with the armour not the other way around) etc etc. Like I said no one option is the best in any particular scenario but for us it's the most cost effective and practical type to use for the bulk of our considerations so in typical kiwi fashion we must make due and overcome any shortcomings, which there always will be.

That would've been about the same time as the Herc replacement offer was made and Uncle Helen said no. She wasn't going to buy military gear off the US unless she really really had too.

 

[RegR]

That would've been about the same time as the Herc replacement offer was made and Uncle Helen said no. She wasn't going to buy military gear off the US unless she really really had too.

Just imagine what the NZDF could have looked like had she not got involved and just left it to the SMEs? Would be nice if politics (literally) could be left out of the military decision making other than footing the bill.

 

[ngatimozart]

Just imagine what the NZDF could have looked like had she not got involved and just left it to the SMEs? Would be nice if politics (literally) could be left out of the military decision making other than footing the bill.

Jeez Reg it would be so nice.

 

[Shanesworld]

Yes and all those considerations/conditions/compromises were all well known right up until we finally did replace the M113s (in all honesty anything was faster). The Brits had warriors back then and talking to a tanky who had the opourtunity to exchange with them said that for their size and weight could honk along nicely leaving the M113s for dust. I also heard rumours we were even offered Bradley's for a song and still didn't take up the option so I think wheeled was always going to be the way forward and planned for us regardless. Less complex, easier to maintain, self transportable, speed (So much so army still plans other fleets around keeping pace with the armour not the other way around) etc etc. Like I said no one option is the best in any particular scenario but for us it's the most cost effective and practical type to use for the bulk of our considerations so in typical kiwi fashion we must make due and overcome any shortcomings, which there always will be.

My recollection on the Bradleys story was 100 plus for $140 mil usd post gulf war but there was a undetermined cost for decomtamination, refit etc. But included spare, munitions, training and support aids.
If we had gone that way we might have had some for Bosnia. Another govt own goal.
But i also heard from someone clise was a nz qamr officer who was on secondment to the brits worked with the canadians and was really impressedby the lav's they had which considering the gear in the turret at that time would have been really impressive.

 

[Alberto32]

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?

Basically have a capability to shoot and scoot.

 

[ngatimozart]

Basically have a capability to shoot and scoot.

Would you care to elaborate somewhat? What does that mean? In what context are you talking about? One line posts are against the rules.

 

[Alberto32]

In terms of the self propelled howitzers that you were talking about. Is this OK, or is this not? There's a lot of rules here, that I'm having trouble with working out. I previously had a post of mine flagged by you, and yet it was more than 1 line. Can you please be more definitive on this?

 

[ngatimozart]

In terms of the self propelled howitzers that you were talking about. Is this OK, or is this not? There's a lot of rules here, that I'm having trouble with working out. I previously had a post of mine flagged by you, and yet it was more than 1 line. Can you please be more definitive on this?

First the rules. There are not many and they are fairly self explanatory. We require two lines of original material from the poster but as you will notice good posters over time attain some privileges and one is less adherence to the one line rule. It's an unofficial encouragement.

If you had written that it was about the SPH and added some more to the post it would've been fine. The shoot and scoot capability is precisely why I am supportive of the SPH. Getting the current Army and NZDF senior sirs as well as govt to agree, well that's a completely different story. Probably too much noise and bag out of the pointy end for their liking.

 

[ADMk2]

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)

The same way your gun-tractor towed 105mm guns would operate now. Except SPG’s have the ability to shoot and scoot as mentioned already, a degree of armour protection for the crew (depending on the system selected) lower crewing requirements, an on-board supply of their own ammunition, as well as greater rate of fire and effects.

The idea of air-mobility artillery ops using RNZAF assets which consist of 8x NH-90’s in total, is frankly ludicrous. In reality these scarce higher level resources will be unlikely to be available to assist in the heavy ammunition re-supply requirements the guns will have, even if they do occasionally become available to actually move the guns. At best there might be what, 4 helos of this fleet available at any one time? So the ability to do a full battery lift doesn’t exist anyway in reality…

SPG’s would not only vastly improve NZ artillery capability, they would free up higher level resources for other tasking and on the down-side (besides cost) only remove that air-mobility role, which at best is only notional anyway.

 

[V33A]

The same way your gun-tractor towed 105mm guns would operate now. Except SPG’s have the ability to shoot and scoot as mentioned already, a degree of armour protection for the crew (depending on the system selected) lower crewing requirements, an on-board supply of their own ammunition, as well as greater rate of fire and effects.

The idea of air-mobility artillery ops using RNZAF assets which consist of 8x NH-90’s in total, is frankly ludicrous. In reality these scarce higher level resources will be unlikely to be available to assist in the heavy ammunition re-supply requirements the guns will have, even if they do occasionally become available to actually move the guns. At best there might be what, 4 helos of this fleet available at any one time? So the ability to do a full battery lift doesn’t exist anyway in reality…

SPG’s would not only vastly improve NZ artillery capability, they would free up higher level resources for other tasking and on the down-side (besides cost) only remove that air-mobility role, which at best is only notional anyway.

Unfortunately I reckon SPG for the NZDF is a pipe dream along the lines of the ACF capability being restored.
To the general public an SPG cannot be distinguished from a tank. A tank is a weapon for war and nothing else, you cannot sell a tank to the general public of NZ and tell them it has a use in humanitarian or disaster relief operations.
I'd bet my houses that the current light guns will be the last arty the army ever fields and likely will be withdrawn from service without replacement.