Read that. I also advocated for a three strong battalion TF force (under Billl before parliament soon to be Active Reserves). Cutting to 1200 is excessive and undermines the existing strength in some units like the Auckland Battalion. I wonder if they're modelling of the UK TF force. Some pages on the internet show a 450 strong force, with each company having its own weapons platoon. Anyway the Minister will be getting a blast over this one.
New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I wonder if, this is what Defence wants (TF reduction), in light of the current funding situation forced upon them (the need to make savings to reinvest etc) but also meaning that the (smaller) TF will actually be a much more capable and better trained and equipped group? That is, no longer the poorer cousin cf Regular Force bretheran etc?
I think some reduction in the TF is Inevitable given the reduced command structure and the proposal to scrap the TF bands. While the reduced size might be better trained that does not equate to better equipped in my view. In saying this I note the limited purchase numbers of advanced weapons and the security implications associated with the storage of these weapons.
Lucasnz
Your living in the long distant past TF have never been that strong fo a long time those 6 Battalions for the last 10 years have only managed to scrape a Coy (-) for those 10 years & that was including RITs (pers from basic in the section). 3 Bn are a interim the TF lost there political power along time ago. As a cadre NCO & TWO of one of those Battalions all I can say is that the TF senior command shot themselves in the foot & jumped ship knowing full well that someone else will have to pick up the pieces.
There are a new generation of TF soldiers & young Platoon Commanders with operational experience who have left the TF because there OC's' & CO's are still living in the past of Brigades & Divisions removed from the Comtempoary operating environment that we are in now it is those that I see leaving that make me angry because I know full well that if given the chance to train & be intergrated with there RF Infantry battalion they would be serving in Afghanistan right now.
Like I said before TF were very lucky to survive as the fiscal reality of spending a Light Infantry budget and producing no gain for that budget
was almost the death sentence of the TF Infantry hopefully the new DAR (Director of Army Reserves) has a more realistic concept to drag the TF into the 21st century.
CD
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I thought that was the intended rationale, to better train (fund) the TF's to be able to embed them seamlessly into the RF units for deployments (as had been happening in recent years eg Solomons deployments)? If that is so, then the future will be alot brighter for the TF (excuse the political pun). Or are "we not there yet" so to speak in terms of the DAR's roadmap possibilities etc?
No I'm not living in the past. I recognised that the TF structure was outdated when I made my submission to the Defence Review. What concerns me is not the drop to three battalions but the size of those battalions. Another 50 people in each would provide for specialist capabilities like a medical unit in Dunedin. As proposed the structure is as Mr C said to skinny.
Raising the issue with the press in my view doesn't hurt.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
It all sorta sounds like an ideology debate (1980's economic reforms) ... eg on one side the bean counters want the TF gone cause they don't add any value to the market place for their costs (eg no point having a home type guard just like no point having an ACF cos there is no enemy on the doostep etc) ... versus people that see community value (insurance) in case of catastrophe (war or civil emergency).
I can recall in one of Derek Quigley's books how he thought it ridiculous that the Army had x amount of Land rovers per person and they were cut back. Bit like the way many Army depots in the cities and towns closed down in the early 90's etc.
But reading between the lines then, the TF have been saved (somewhat) and NZDF are taking advantage to reshape them into an active reserve, well trained and fit for deployment (keeping them safe from the bean counters and giving them opportunities to deploy for combat and peace enforcement ie give them a realistic career path etc)?
I can recall in one of Derek Quigley's books how he thought it ridiculous that the Army had x amount of Land rovers per person and they were cut back. Bit like the way many Army depots in the cities and towns closed down in the early 90's etc.
But reading between the lines then, the TF have been saved (somewhat) and NZDF are taking advantage to reshape them into an active reserve, well trained and fit for deployment (keeping them safe from the bean counters and giving them opportunities to deploy for combat and peace enforcement ie give them a realistic career path etc)?
TF Infantry have a golden opportunity to build quality and not quantity the 3 Battalions will be Light Infantry only & not that mixed Corps rubbish we had in the recent past, Doctors/Nurses, Royal Signals, Gunners, Engineers belong to there parent regiments as of Dec 2011.
Fact the Medical Practitioners Act has killed off the TF medics, TF cant get the time away from work to qualify as a RNZAMC medic they want to be a medic then they have to leave and join RF. Same with the Royal Signals TF cant get a TSV or SV clearance to operate or fill TMCS [ANPRC 117 or 148].
This is the real hurt in RF,
1RNZIR current
2x Rifle Coy in NZ with 1 x Coy deployed
No Spt Coy & Log Coy
- Reroles back to light in June,
- Loses W Coy to QAMR complete to become B Sqn in June,
- A Coy changes role to HR,
- has to regenerate another V & W Coy and meet the CA direction of 2015 at the same time maintain riflemen to deploy to Afghan until 2014.
Total rebuild of the following Support Coy platoons
- DFSW Pl [HMG & GMG sections]
- Signals Pl
- HMG
- Anti Armoured Pl moves to QAMR to spt both units
All this with no Junior Commanders or Sgt/Pl Comdrs with Spt Coy corporate knowledge of Light Infantry Battalion Battle Proceedure.
We are hemorrhaging in the RF Infantry Battalions right now thats fact we cant use TF thanks to the current act, we dont have enough equipment to prepare the next contingent for Afghan let alone the next Coy earmarked for Afghan.
Im hard on TF [Not the soldiers or YO's] but the TF Head sheds who did more to kill off TF than anyone else and you can thank people like Ewing-Jarvie for that. One more deployment anywhere else (Papua) this year and the RF Battalions are gone burger thats not rhetoric.
As a RF WO I have been waiting along time for these changes an extra 1200 TF Riflemen of all ranks for us to call on thats a huge win for the Infantry only problem is it should of happened 5 years ago.
CD
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Is that because of being stretched to constantly support the continuous deployment tempos for the last 13-18years (with a limited personnel pool), and/or the previous re-rolling into a motorised cav batallion and/or with limited technically qualified staff to operate the new high tech kit that started rolling in 10 or so years ago and/or a combination of some or all or others (excluding external interferences etc)?
I'm also wondering whether NZDF needs an investment in a joint-forces electronic/signals tech unit, seeing it seems Army are getting into this hi-tech stuff once normally the domains of Navy and Air Force (noting the comments on the MOD site about the support issues for the ANPRC 117-148 TMCS systems etc). (Hopefully this may happen, if required, in the next few years with the C4ISR investments etc).
Seems also RNZAF have bled techies (thanks to Clark admin's ACF axing) and now these guys are in a lot of demand to support NZDF coalition deployments but there's sweet FA of them to spare (after being depleted).
Whilst avoiding a blame game previous "decisions" are coming home to roost.
http://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/2775/02_whole.pdf?sequence=1
The link above provides some interesting comment per the regionalisation of the TF beween 1999 and 2005. It also picks up on a number of the issues Dave was recalling in his post.
With an Army Reserve of 1200 funded slots loosely translates to 3 Rifle Companies per each 400 strong Battalion. It is the employment context on Civvy Street that concerns me - legislative protection of a Reserve soldiers own employment circumstances can only go so far - that is why I believed 1200 was too thin. If there was an additional rifle company funded for each of these new Reserve Batts then that's a bit of the pressure off.
I know that is easier said than done when we are struggling to get thousand rifleman in the current six Batt Grp set up - but funding lifted to 1500 slots by 2020 would at least be pragmatic. There will be private industry political pushback if Reservists gain too much employment "freedoms" in serving the Army Reserve. They will complain like hell to the Labour Relations Select Committee members.
Simon Ewing Jarvie's and Heather Roy's big dreams of a 5000+ strong Reserve three years ago were never realistic.
The link above provides some interesting comment per the regionalisation of the TF beween 1999 and 2005. It also picks up on a number of the issues Dave was recalling in his post.
With an Army Reserve of 1200 funded slots loosely translates to 3 Rifle Companies per each 400 strong Battalion. It is the employment context on Civvy Street that concerns me - legislative protection of a Reserve soldiers own employment circumstances can only go so far - that is why I believed 1200 was too thin. If there was an additional rifle company funded for each of these new Reserve Batts then that's a bit of the pressure off.
I know that is easier said than done when we are struggling to get thousand rifleman in the current six Batt Grp set up - but funding lifted to 1500 slots by 2020 would at least be pragmatic. There will be private industry political pushback if Reservists gain too much employment "freedoms" in serving the Army Reserve. They will complain like hell to the Labour Relations Select Committee members.
Simon Ewing Jarvie's and Heather Roy's big dreams of a 5000+ strong Reserve three years ago were never realistic.
Cheers for the info Cadredave and Mr C. I hadn't realised some of the issues that had been impacting on the TF and RF. I'm abit shocked at the wholesale slaughter of 1 RNZIR to up get QAMR up and running. It still doesn't get around the problem of burn out that the army must be facing with the ongoing deployments. I still think whats needed is an increase in overall numbers in the RF.
I agree Lucas. In my view our RF Army of 4500-5000 personnel in recent years was doing the job of a RF Army the size of 7000. Little do the public know of the commitment that this has taken by the vast majority of those serving. We have not cracked the 5000 level in the RF and though there has been the civilianisation process and the reshuffling into the frontline and all that, it is still my opinion the RF requires a minimum of a further 500 personnel to make the three manoeuvre groups concept work properly without the stresses and strains of recent years. A further 1500 funded Reservists on top of that would be helpful.
That is the intent now as of 2011, but was not the intent 5 years ago, again the intent got hijacked by pers who were training to be CO's of fictional Bn Battle groups when what was needed was competent Pl Comdr/Sgt, Sect Comdr/2ic thats what happens when you dont train to METLs you have free reign.
The Solomons were a successful deployment for TF, those Young Officers who deployed are gone (Left the service) once they came back partially they saw that the training was unrealistic and not focussed on the Operations the RF were conducting in Afghan & Timor,
Much brighter TF have to train to the same METLs as RF all TF CO are now ex RF either from here or ex UK have a good understanding of the Army Training system in fact two are deployed on UN missions now.
Only some TF have deployed to Afghan either as a specialist in there civi specialty eg, RNO, S9, or S5 no soldiers (TF Infantry) have gone with either Battalions and now LAV is there that door has shut for now.
Your welcome Lucas it still makes me angry when I left my TF Bn we were in a very healthy state (Engr/Infantry) but I watched it being wasted since 2005 by a lack of direction, internal TF politics and budget cuts, the sad thing is that the DWP and following papers took so long to release the hurt had become business as usual,
I know in my heart that if we could of had the ability to call on those TF riflemen say 3 years ago for Afghan then 1RNZIR could of stood down this year to regenerate without worring about providing soldiers to replace 2/1 in theater.
CD
Mr C
That why I believe the US Reserves act is the way to go, there just was no political will to go that far when labour were in power,
Is this also taking into account the 3 Reserve Rifle Coys posted to each of the RF manoeuver units as the fourth rifle company for 1 & 2/1 and thirld Sqn for QAMR?
Yep no argument there Mr C.
I know that this was Simons dream more that Heathers he was the worst TF CO I have ever had to work for he never ever showed 3CI if he disagreed with the Comdr 2LFG he would go direct to his old Lawyer Comdr in Taranaki to get it reversed. He was perfect for politics.
CD
Honestly Dave I did not even factor in the three rifle companies needed to round up the Manoeuvr groups. What's happening with WMR? They are moving back to QAMR aren't they - what I am trying to work out - who will be their paymaster? Is their funding from the RF budget output or from the Reserve output which will now be funded for 1200? That is still not clear to me.
A US style Act would be a good starting point - but you would find that the Employers sector would lobby like hell to soften it down and you'd never know with the Unions where they would jump. It would need a bit of legal and political force to get it through.
Wasn't the Crown Solicitor for Taranaki - also "charged" with looking into alliances with the local defence sector and employers? Nothing has really emerged (or have I missed it) and that was over 2 years ago. Or is the Brewer Report a bit confidential like the Butcher Report.
A US style Act would be a good starting point - but you would find that the Employers sector would lobby like hell to soften it down and you'd never know with the Unions where they would jump. It would need a bit of legal and political force to get it through.
Wasn't the Crown Solicitor for Taranaki - also "charged" with looking into alliances with the local defence sector and employers? Nothing has really emerged (or have I missed it) and that was over 2 years ago. Or is the Brewer Report a bit confidential like the Butcher Report.
WMR will move to QAMR, all funding for the three reserve coys is out of the RF units budget, these coy's will have full access to all equipment, exercises of there parent unit, if a deployment comes along they will be the thirld sub unit to go. (Give them time to build up to OLOC) these pers will be named ready reserves a hybrid reserve/regular soldier who are posted to 1, 2/1 or QA.
This is how the funding was explained to us.
HQ TRADOC who has command of the 3 TF BN will conduct all trg to BLOC (all Individual trg - basic/corps trg and courses)
1 Bde will conduct all collective trg to DLOC, 3 TF Bn will provide individuals or sub units to participate during the RF round of exercises Mar/Apr & Oct/ Nov periods, could form the Bde reserve (not a 100% sure if this is accurate still to much info being kept on a need to know basis).
HQ DJTF (Land) wil do all trg to OLOC by using its only sub unit NZCTC this funding is sepparate and out of OE16 controlled by JFNZ.
TF budgets have been split between TRADOC & 1 Bde, TRADOC will pay for wages & allowances for coursing as an instructor or student while 1 Bde will pick up ammo, rations, etc for exercises an interim policy until the new changes are fully up & running.
You are correct we lobbied hard for the provisions for a US style act, but it got watered down by the employers sector & the Unions as well Army wanted full protection of a TF soldier on deployment all we came away with is that the employer would not discriminate if they chose to leave, TF still have to resign to do a deployment.
He was charged with that so far we have not seen anything at all about the Brewer report either its not fininshed or he passed it onto someone else to complete before he retired from the service?.
You are going to have to be more specific than that with your questioning.
Also one line posts are against the forum rules. If you do it again the post will be deleted. Please read the rules and as you are a first time poster - make a post introducing yourself on the Intro's and off topic thread.