Out of interest did you serve in Bosnia? If so how did the actual realities "on the ground" for the Army, in a mobile operation, compare with the official rhetoric etc?
I'd support that after all NZ is (meant to be) a first world nation with important maritime interests to defend (most if not all Asia-Pacific nations operate them).
as that will increase costs in terms of size, features, capabilities etc).No I did not personally deploy to Bos but have spoken to a couple of grunts that did and we up until recently had an ex tankie at my current workplace. He said the brit warriors left our PCs for dust and one of their jobs was escorting convoys but because they had to slow down so much it was abit of an embarrassment. I got the impression he was a purist tracks guy as well and think he tapped out when the LAV showed up. They all just said the kit in general was well below standard and just the operation alone put it all into perspective. Guess using it in Waiouru and being successful against the determined but choreographed Musorians is alittle different to real life ops.
TBH I don't think anything we had back then was technically "modern" it was just expensive for its time. Sure we had some skyhawks, 4 frigates and some tanks even but I would argue it was a simpler time and our "tech" was relevant, not leading edge, but relevant. Agree, my issue kit was brand new, albeit from vietnam era...it was so bad individuals were sourcing their own kit to replace the issue stuff from day one as that was just the norm. Something had to change, and without freeing up a decent portion of funding or god forbid a major budget increase nothing would have.
I would very surprised too as she as reported to have said some anti ACF statements when the first report of the defence review came out, when asked to comment regarding the increased instability in the region. It sounds like all the rumours post WW2 on what the US was meant to have built in NZ and what was proposed, but turned down, fantasy, For those who have heard these stories, The US build nothing in NZ, everything built for them was done by the NZ MOW as reverse lease lend.
Thanks for your earlier reply and fully agree with the above. Despite greater investment levels back then the capabilities still had some shortcomings and I think that's the crux of the matter in relation to shaping your views on the ACF (which is fully understandble from previous lived experiences).
Exactly, I can't see her changing her stripes this late in the game and that would have been some kind of bombshell had that info made mainstream media.
Yes, when I left in 84 some of the stuff we had dated to WW2, however the equipment we had for front line units in general was reasonable or due update.
Truth being stranger than fiction at times, there are sometimes valid reasons for something like this happening with my father being an example of this. He served in the US Army as an enlisted man from ~1968-1970/71 and did a tour in Vietnam as part of an M110 SP artillery battery. Now keep in mind my dad was fresh out of college, wore glasses, was about 1.72m tall and soaking wet weighted perhaps 59kg. Naturally one of his first responsibilities was a loader for the M110 which meant he was responsible for carrying half the weight of a 90 kg shell + cradle. Perhaps more interesting and making a little bit more sense, was that he was also the M60 gunner for the section, despite him not having the 'typical' size and build for that role. Apparently he was the only one in the section who knew how to disassemble, clean/maintain and reassemble the M60, so he had that plus his issue M16. Funny story aside, things are not always done sensibly in the US military and I expect that is largely the same for other forces elsewhere.An amusing observation was that as they embarked at Ohakea a high percentage of the troops were big African/Americans, but all the heavy gear, machine guns, morters, etc was carried by the smallest white guy. Figured out how that was allocated.
Well, you do have to be built like Rambo to fire an M-60 from each hip
Somewhere there is a photo slide of him taken when he was in Vietnam, holding the M60 with belts of 7.62mm draped crossways over his chest whilst he was in US Army OD fatigues. To better appreciate this, picture with your mind's eye someone whose appearange resembled the character Lewis from the movie Revenge of the Nerds played by Robert Carradine, who is so dressed and armed.Well, you do have to be built like Rambo to fire an M-60 from each hip
I agree with Challenger. NZ is a maritime nation. Our first line of defence must be on the sea, in the sea, above the sea, and at sea.
While I think that submarines would be a good part of our deterrent, I would not place them before an ACF. This is for two reasons, the first is that they cannot cover the air domain and the second is that an AFC can get to the aggression point far quicker due to it's quicker coverage of the area. But submarines as a part of the defence system, most certainly add to it. In short what I think we need is a well balanced force.
I disagree. Whilst subs are potentially a very valuable ISR and naval asset, they are very much a specialist capability and an expensive one at that. Given that some of the 'normal' naval roles and capabilities cannot realistically be provided by subs, then I just do not see them having a place in the RNZN or wider NZDF as a whole unless/until there is a major war outbreak. Even then, I believe that NZ would be better off focusing on other capabilities that are either more broadly applicable, easier to acquire (and sustain) or more likely, both.
Eh, with a first hiatus 1915-1919 (both E class lost); second hiatus 1922-27 (6 J class decommissioned and scrapped); third hiatus 1932-43 (O class boats returned to UK); forth hiatus 1944-67 (ex-Dutch sub used for ASW training starts falling apart, retired from service). Tis only '67 on that there's a coherent and continuous RAN submarine capability.Just a small correction, the RAN has been operating submarines for 110 years.
Sorry for my lack of clarity, but I was specifically referring to how long Australia has been continuously operating subs. Given that the RAN had subs in service previously, but with extended breaks in that service, I was not going to include when AE1 & AE2 etc. had been in service.Just a small correction, the RAN has been operating submarines for 110 years.