I am going to disagree with you on this. The NZ concept of the Army has always been a historical one that is a hangover from the British. Even though Britain is an island nation their army has always been a continental army because it's always fought the French, Spanish, Germans, Dutch and Russians on the European continent. It fought the US in two wars in North America and lost both. NZ’s big wars were the NZ Land Wars, Boer War, WW1, WW2, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. For five of those wars the army was an expeditionary force. In never undertook an amphibious landing using solely NZ resources - we had none. The army has little to offer in the maritime defence of NZ until either there is an imminent physical invasion or landings are to be made on hostile shores. The rest of it is actually RNZN and RNZAF because it's there capabilities that will be required to surveil and if necessary conduct strike missions at a distance. The army cannot do that, and that is why it does not make sense expanding the army.
That is why the army has to be completely restructured from the top to the bottom. It has to to be given a completely new focus and get away from the continental system mindset that it is in. It's still fighting the last war it was in and not the next. Sometimes I think that it still believes that it's still the 2nd NZ Armoured Division. Currently it is built around a Light Infantry Force. I don't have a problem with that, but why does it hang on to towed artillery which are the opposite to the mobility of light infantry. Towed artillery require time to set up before they can fire, are highly vulnerable to counter battery fire, and have a high field support dependency.
The army should be amphibious orientated with its people , structure and equipment being far less siloed than what it currently is. I believe that its units should be all arms units without the siloing of corps. Much like a ships crew or an air force sqn. For example everyone in a battalion regardless of trade belongs to that battalion. It needs to change its basic unit structure from being a single trade / branch unit to being a multitrade unit that has all of the required trades fully integrated into it. It needs to be leaner and meaner.
1NZSFR doesn't require modifications, however it does require better rotary wing assets for support.
The rest of the army, the pointy end is the hard bit. IF I was running things I would convert it more towards a marine type force with its LAV III replaced with the USMC ACV fitted with the turret from the Aussie CRV complete with the 30 mm and Spike LR missile. Why that combination? Because the turret and weapons systems are amongst the best on the market and the Aussies will be license building the gun ammo and the Spike missiles. So we don't have to go far for resupply. The turrets will also be fully supported within Australia. Again we don't have to go halfway across the world for the finicky stuff. Put a 105 mm gun turret on some of the top ACV and there's your artillery. Put an AAA and MANPAD launch system turret on some of the vehicles and you have a mobile VSHORAD. All of this plus the combat support services are organic to the combat group. They belong to it completely. Like the marines every soldier is a combat soldier first before anything else. So they can do basic infantry taskings. Doesn't matter if they're gunners, medics, stores, intelligence, comms, cooks etc.
The real question is how big does it need to be? I don't believe that the army requires to be as large as it is now. It could be reduced especially when modern technologies are taken into account and utilised. We definitely don't require MBT capabilities because that day has long gone. But we do have to be adventurous yet cautious in what and how we do things. In my mind three battalions oof infantry is overkill and even two battalions is pushing it. I believe that we can better use the resources we have than recruiting more infantry, especially when infantry aren't able to swim or fly for long distances.
Interesting ... I'll mull it over for a bit ... good discussions and thanks for the time and effort you put into your thoughts.
So a quickie for now, from my understanding the modern NZ Army (that we have today) came about in the mid 1950's when they became a Regular Force (e.g. professional, full-time, trained etc ... as opposed to previous times and wars when citizens were enlisted when greater numbers were required etc). The genesis being the Manila Pact, which created SEATO, for the defence of South-East Asia, of which NZ contributed an Air Force ground-attack then bomber squadron, a Frigate and the SAS, whom were replaced by the Army Regular Force (Light Infantry). NZ's defence strategy was that of Forward Defence, in Asia, and based in Malaysia, Singapore and Borneo (i.e. the "Malayan Emergency" and "Confrontation"), alongside the Australians and UK etc (then later in the "Vietnam war" with Australia, the USA and other regional countries).
So I think what you are referring to, in terms of Light Infantry, towed artillery (and even the NZ Army's medium tanks and APC's, although never deployed into SE Asia etc), harks back to that, in terms of the structure, that we still have today.
(Which say, Australia still appears to be structured similarly except that it has greater personnel numbers and other, vastly greater and more deadly capabilities ... and they are now moving into amphibious operations too - lessons learnt from East Timor etc).
Perhaps then, when the RNZIR Infantry Regiment departed Singapore (after 20-odd years based there) in 1989 (and the NZ Army became entirely NZ based) that it could have been time for a rethink in terms of structure?
But maybe not, due to global changes. IIRC(?) the NZ govt's view at the time in 1989 was that it could send back the NZ Army into SE Asia if required, hence retaining the same structure (although has not been required ... and as the likes of Singapore and Malaysia are now highly capable in their own right). Then the Cold War ended (so how to define change ... because who is/was now the "enemy", at the time etc)?
I think two other significant events have put paid to any potential restructuring of the Army (in the near past).
1. NZ being suspended from ANZUS. Perhaps if the US took a more considered approach and kept the NZDF in the fold, even with the end of the Cold War (and the lack of perceived need to base ANZUS troops in SE Asia), that "peacetime" training and doctrine in the 1990's could have evolved to a more maritime (Marines) type focus? That is, having agile forces that could be deployed by sea and air? Seeing there was no real need for "boots on the ground" in the wider Asia or Indo-Pacific, at that time.
2. 9/11. Which saw NZ come back into the fold with the US (as Friends, not Allies), which saw the NZ Army deploy to Afghanistan as "boots on the ground" as part of a hearts and minds campaign (the Provincial Reconstruction Teams etc) and Special Forces etc.
TBC (oops hit a 1000 word limit)!
