New Zealand Army

[Cadredave]

"Some -of the roading in this area is so unstable and remote, the LAVs would not be useable," Commander Fogarty said. "We're better off with our Toyota Hilux utes. They're four-wheel-drive, can handle the terrain, and some of them have armoured chassis."

As a serving soldier I find this quote to be typical of the propaganda coming out of Wellington, armoured Hilux I know for a fact that the Humvees that travel between the PRT base & Kabul are armoured, lets put the IED attack into its true context.
1. IED goes off just far enough from the Hilux why, to see and to learn what our TTP and response times are,
2. To plan and then to destroy the local population belief in the security of Barmian by discrediting the NZPRT,
3. This is classic CRW, have we not learnt from our operations during the Malayan & Vietnam conflicts in how to deal with a Insurgency makes me wonder call me disgrunted if you like but much sooner than latter our luck is going to run out in a very bad way.

 

[recce.k1]

At face value, perhaps I would accept the Commander's arguement that "Armoured LAVs are not the profile we want to present" for NZ's humanitarian efforts etc.

However I would have thought, with signs of "trouble" possibly increasing in the province, and if "insurgents" are indeed testing NZDF's responsiveness, that perhaps having a few NZLAVIII's at base as back-up for any forward patrols or humanitarian convoys getting into trouble, might not be a bad thing.

The LAV's wouldn't neccessarily have to roam the countryside and thus possibly worry the locals (or draw major attention of any insurgents or spys) but at least give the crews some experience of operating in that environment. And more importantly, be there to rescue anyone in a Hilux (or armoured Humvee) under attack.

(I suppose NZ having it's own rotary assets would also be a nice thing for similar reasons but most likely not possible with our current inventory until the NH90 enters service. At least we can call upon helo assistance from the US but relying on our own assets and training/familiarisation with our own NZDF people would be the ideal situation). Just an opinion!

 

[recce.k1]

On another topic for those interested in day to day life in the NZDF, the local rag went along to watch the Army's communications squadron under going some training (the rag had several pictures but only one is online). The "munitions" area mentioned is the site of some secret-at-the-time WWII munitions storage bunkers partially built into the hillside of the Tararua ranges in case of a Japanese invasion but no longer used for those purposes anymore. Kudos though to the local rag for regularly reporting on events at Linton and Ohakea (now if only the NZ Herald reported more on positive Naval matters at Devonport and the RNZAF at Whenuapai)!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Getting in the movers Army style
By CHRISTIAN BONNEVIE - Manawatu Standard | Friday, 04 April 2008
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatustandard/4464581a6502.html

Only in the Army does an exercise in communication involve machine guns, smoke screens and wet-wipes.

For Linton's Signal Squadron, that's all part of the planning when tackling a proposed shift in location from rolling hillside pastures to the Woodville Racecourse as part of exercise Rapid Lightning.

The squadron set up camp on Monday off the Pahiatua Track - land formerly used to store munitions - to test their mobile communications facilities in the manner they would be used when deployed overseas.

The 65 soldiers involved in the training sleep in tents or on the floor of bunkers and crack open wet-wipes in the absence of a shower.

Major Matt Crow said the challenge was for the soldiers to establish the initial base with the equipment on hand, including satellites, and then uproot and re- deploy to a second location under threat of attack.

"When you're overseas in Afghanistan, Timor or the Solomons, this is the kind of set- up you will see, so it's good training to have to think carefully about the sites you choose and the lines required," he said.

"Then, obviously, there's the everyday soldiering where you have to think about what's happening around you and what could potentially happen, so there's a lot going on."

For Second Lieutenant Liz Pearson this includes filling the air with gun fire and red smoke when running vehicle ambush drills on her reconnaissance teams.

Her role is more often undertaken by a higher-ranking officer, so is a good challenge, she said.

"It's not really being thrown in the deep-end, but it's a big learning curve when protocol says this job is generally handled by a Captain - someone maybe four years my senior - so there's a lot to take in and it's great," 2Lt Pearson said.

"The combat side always keeps you on your toes because, as they say, you're a soldier first."

 

[recce.k1]

I was wondering what roles the extra 18 troops would have with the NZ PRT, the following article gives some answers. I now wonder whether there is any significance that these troops are mainly coming from 1 Battalion (LAV) or is it simply because 2/1 RNZIR have undertaken a lot of NZ's recent peace keeping efforts and at this point are too stretched etc? (There's probably nothing unusual or significant though I suspect). Also hadn't realised there had been a rocket attack in one of the near-by towns this year. That would have been the first such incident I suppose. Fortunately it was one-off (so far).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

More NZ troops to help Afghans
By CHRISTIAN BONNEIVE - Manawatu Standard | Saturday, 05 April 2008
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatustandard/4466079a6502.html

Mounting concern over the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan has led the Government to send more troops to the embattled nation.

The Defence Force requested and were granted 18 additional soldiers to lift the personnel numbers to a maximum of 140.

They are to serve at the Bagram airbase and with the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Bamiyan Province as part of the new rotation, primarily from Linton's 1st Battalion, due to depart this Wednesday.

Defence Force spokesman Captain Zac Prendergast said a security review had pinpointed the need for more soldiers based on increased Taliban activity in neighbouring provinces.

This year had already featured notable incidents of violence, including a rocket attack on a town near Bamiyan and an attack on a New Zealand patrol, as well as increased criminal activity.

"Obviously there will be people thinking this is just a knee-jerk reaction to the IED (improvised explosive device) from Sunday but it's been in the planning for a long time now," Capt Prendergast said.

"What this provides is for personnel to look after the security in the PRT, and to an extent at the airbase, in more of a single role where previously there was a bit of double- hatting.

"It's not a huge change but it gives us the numbers we need to address the situation as it stands."

Defence Minister Phil Goff said yesterday New Zealand was fortunate Bamiyan had remained so stable for so long but there had long been the prospect for conflict in the province.

"The people there appreciate what we are doing and we have established a strong relationship with them, but instability in neighbouring regions can spill over and when you're reacting you're already a step behind.

"It's always better to anticipate the problem and I rely on the advice from the Defence Force when it comes down to it."

Mr Goff said the security review was clear in that more soldiers were preferable to deploying Light Armoured Vehicles (LAVs).

"The PRT is seen as the model to follow, the Americans and Nato have both said it, and a big reason why is the manner in which we're seen."

Kiwi troops have worked to set up schools, hospitals and other essential services in Afghanistan since 2003.

 

[recce.k1]

Our Armoured Pinz would not stand the punishment of an IED, they were tested in the UK to take the punishment of two HE grenades under the body & to withstand 7.62mm it is LAV or nothing.

No doubt the options to deploy LAV's are there if and when some threshold is reached. Presumably if IED's start to become more common, then commonsense would suggest that would have to happen (if not beforehand if intelligence is saying things are starting to slide, presumably).

However the other essence of your two postings is that Defence and Government must safeguard our serving troops and provide the best equipment to do so. When/if NZ suffers its first casualty due to enemy fire or IED etc, Defence and Govt could come under some real pressure for the first time if that equipment or support has found to be lacking, presumably.

In terms of successful counter-insurgency, presumably in simplified terms then the key is to ensure that the local population is kept on your side or made to feel safe and that they can continue to trust the NZ PRT etc. Presumably this would mean to continue to operate/cooperate with the locals (and not withdraw back to base or roam around impassionately in LAV's) but on the other hand surely if it is managed well having LAV's in the background (to the Hilux's and Humvees) surely it would be reassuring to the locals if things hotted up then the NZ PRT would still be able to deploy to a trouble spot in their protected LAVs and safeguard the locals etc.

Trouble is, presumably for that to happen NZ would need to up its committment - presumably by throwing in a few LAVs with crew to supplement the 140 troops there would not necessarily be enough to ensure NZ could "fight back" in any quick or sustained manner (mind you we're probably not talking about hoardes of insurgents, may only be a handful etc). So maybe this is what the headache is for Defence planners and Govt (with the NZDF being stretched as it is)?

Perhaps then another easy/effective measure in the interim is to do what the Dutch did a couple of years ago and purchase some Australian Bushmaster IMV's to tackle any IED or AK47 wielding insurgents etc. No doubt they won't be totally protective against RPGs but then again if that type of weaponry starts being feilded in Bamyian then no doubt Nato would have to be called in anyway (i.e. the situation would have to have deteriorated badly for that to ever happen etc)?

 

[Norm]

Extended basic training

Little bit on TVNZ FYI, basic training going from 12 weeks to 24 weeks to cover the more diverse situations a NZ soldier can find themselves in.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1691597

Cheers Norm

 

[dave_kiwi]

This puzzles me some what:

"Some -of the roading in this area is so unstable and remote, the LAVs would not be useable," Commander Fogarty said. "We're better off with our Toyota Hilux utes. They're four-wheel-drive, can handle the terrain, and some of them have armoured chassis."

Surely a LAV or Pinzgauer has better off road performance than a Hilux (Crumpy not with standing - briliant ads by the way). Or is it more weight matter ?

 

[recce.k1]

Bomb set off by nearby cellphone, says Defence Force

Source: Radio New Zealand - Posted at 9:47pm on 07 Apr 2008 (NZST - GMT+12)
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200804072147/18bd13d8

An improvised explosive device that hit a patrol in Afghanistan was activated by someone nearby using cellphone, says the New Zealand Defence Force.

The four-vehicle patrol was travelling in Bamyan province last on 30 March when the device was set off. No one was hurt.

Major-General Rhys Jones says insurgents sometimes set off small explosions to gauge the convoy's reaction in preparation for planting bigger bombs.

He says it is unclear whether the device was intended specifically for the New Zealand convoy.

 

[recce.k1]

Surely a LAV or Pinzgauer has better off road performance than a Hilux (Crumpy not with standing - briliant ads by the way). Or is it more weight matter ?

Yeah weight, some roads would be no better than "tracks or trails" as we would call them, and a 20t LAV would be too big and heavy and probably fall of the side of a mountain trail etc.

Mind you, you wouldn't send a LAV on such a trail, but they would have their place where the roading or conditions are better. Perhaps though a tracked vehicle would be much better but since our M113's and Scorpions have been scrapped, perhaps this is another reason why LAVs ain't there. LAVs are great but a mix of LAVs and tracked IFV's/APC's would be the ideal for the NZ Army to cope with differing terrain. But we all know why the LAV was chosen - lets not go there again! (Although perhaps we could have some fun, what would be a good tracked IFV/APC or light/medium tank or reconaissance vehicle for the NZ Army to compliment the LAVIII)!

Agree, think I'd rather be in an armoured Pinz than a Hilux in the meantime. Especially as the NZDF have confirmed that the IED was cellphone activated. I did hear the NZDF spokesman on the 7am or 8am RNZ news this morning saying pretty much what another gentleman here has recently said, the insurgents would be gauging the NZ troops reaction and eg whether they got out of the vehicle and what side they would move to etc. This doesn't look good.

 

[recce.k1]

Hope you folks don't mind yet another posting on the following subject. But here's some more info this time from NZDF sources following up on yesterday's Radio NZ report.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Bomb a ploy for future attacks
By CHRISTIAN BONNEVIE - Manawatu Standard | Tuesday, 08 April 2008
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatustandard/4470093a6003.html

The roadside bomb that rocked a New Zealand convoy in Afghanistan was possibly an insurgent tactic aimed at identifying how the soldiers would react to an attack.

Speaking in Wellington yesterday, Major-General Rhys Jones said such a ploy was commonly used in the Middle East as a prelude to future assaults on a larger scale.

Using a small explosive - in this case probably an old artillery shell rigged to a detonating device - allowed the enemy to see what lines of retreat troops are trained in and how they position themselves when exiting vehicles, he said.

The device was likely set off by cellphone, with the offender stationed within 2km of the site.

Maj Gen Jones said intelligence gathered on the attack suggested the person or people responsible were not familiar with the area, but it was not yet known whether the New Zealand convoy was the intended target.

The road carried a lot of traffic and the bomb could have been aimed at an aid convoy.

"[At] this stage we're unsure of the motivation for the attack or who [it was]."

The bomb blasted a 30cm-deep crater when it was detonated 10m in front of one of four utes driving through a valley in Kahmard, north of the Provincial Reconstruction Team base in Bamyan, on March 30.

No one was hurt, with only minor damage to the front of the ute, including a "popped" windscreen.

Maj Gen Jones said a coalition team was inspecting the bomb and as yet the Army had no official information on the device's strength.

But had it exploded underneath a vehicle, there was an obvious potential for casualties and the troops involved could count themselves "very fortunate", he said.

Soldiers serving in Afghanistan are primarily from Linton's 1st Battalion.

Despite the incident, there remains no intention to deploy any light armoured vehicles (LAVs) as they are unsuitable for the operation.

Maj Gen Jones said the war in Iraq had already shown heavily armoured vehicles drew heavier fire and could still be destroyed by roadside bombs.

Many Toyota utes used on patrol had additional protection in their doors and floors and soldiers also had access to more heavily armoured Humvees leased off the United States, he said.

The latest rotation of 124 troops heading to Afghanistan are set to leave Ohakea tomorrow.

 

[Gibbo]

Hope you folks don't mind yet another posting on the following subject. But here's some more info this time from NZDF sources following up on yesterday's Radio NZ report.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Bomb a ploy for future attacks
By CHRISTIAN BONNEVIE - Manawatu Standard | Tuesday, 08 April 2008
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatustandard/4470093a6003.html

The roadside bomb that rocked a New Zealand convoy in Afghanistan was possibly an insurgent tactic aimed at identifying how the soldiers would react to an attack.

Speaking in Wellington yesterday, Major-General Rhys Jones said such a ploy was commonly used in the Middle East as a prelude to future assaults on a larger scale.

Using a small explosive - in this case probably an old artillery shell rigged to a detonating device - allowed the enemy to see what lines of retreat troops are trained in and how they position themselves when exiting vehicles, he said.

The device was likely set off by cellphone, with the offender stationed within 2km of the site.

Maj Gen Jones said intelligence gathered on the attack suggested the person or people responsible were not familiar with the area, but it was not yet known whether the New Zealand convoy was the intended target.

The road carried a lot of traffic and the bomb could have been aimed at an aid convoy.

"[At] this stage we're unsure of the motivation for the attack or who [it was]."

The bomb blasted a 30cm-deep crater when it was detonated 10m in front of one of four utes driving through a valley in Kahmard, north of the Provincial Reconstruction Team base in Bamyan, on March 30.

No one was hurt, with only minor damage to the front of the ute, including a "popped" windscreen.

Maj Gen Jones said a coalition team was inspecting the bomb and as yet the Army had no official information on the device's strength.

But had it exploded underneath a vehicle, there was an obvious potential for casualties and the troops involved could count themselves "very fortunate", he said.

Soldiers serving in Afghanistan are primarily from Linton's 1st Battalion.

Despite the incident, there remains no intention to deploy any light armoured vehicles (LAVs) as they are unsuitable for the operation.

Maj Gen Jones said the war in Iraq had already shown heavily armoured vehicles drew heavier fire and could still be destroyed by roadside bombs.

Many Toyota utes used on patrol had additional protection in their doors and floors and soldiers also had access to more heavily armoured Humvees leased off the United States, he said.

The latest rotation of 124 troops heading to Afghanistan are set to leave Ohakea tomorrow.

This whole episode worries the hell out of me. The fact is our PRT were targetted and it has highlighted the risks of using vehicles that offer little, if any, ballistic protection.:shudder And I'm sick of hearing nothing but damned wishy-washy excuses over, and over, and over again as to why we can't deploy suitable equipment!

We have armoured LAV's & LOV's at home gathering dust - just what scenario were they bought for in the first place!?! We continually hear the Govt harping on about they're doing so much to re-equip the NZDF - using these very vehicles as an example, yet here when surely they are needed most, they seem less than keen to deploy them!!!:unknown

Okay, assuming the LAV's are unsuitable - you could never say that about the armoured LOV's - the NZSAS deployed their SpecOps variants to the area!

Late last year the very same senior officers were hightlighting the increased risks and yet now they're saying all they need is an extra 18 troops!?!nfloorl:

Once again we hear this bizarre argument that if we drive more heavily armoured vehicles we may alienate the locals, or invite attack. Okay - just exactly where is the results of such research??? :unknown This may be the 'feeling on the ground' in Iraq - but there are a lot more complicated isseus at play here - like an enemy that's hell-bent on your destruction.

If the locals are as happy to see us then we ain't gonna scare them by driving armoured LOV's around are we! In fact the locals are much more likely to support a properly equipped PRT. If we're seen to be struggling to maintain the PRT's own safety, how can the local population have any confidence - they're more likely to hold our PRT in contempt! And imagine the international humiliation if we lost troops because they were using such obviously inferior vehicles!:shudder

Big nasty green vehicles might scare a few of those that are not so convinced about our presence, but then the sight of a properly equipped security team may well be the one thing that stops them escalating things. An easy target is more likely to invite attack!

As for those that are simply hostile, you need a show of force - end of story!!!:nutkick

An armoured LOV may not survive an IED, but at least it gives those inside some protection from the blast - Toyotas (& to a lesser degree Hummers) certainly don't!!! We can't gamble with our troops safety like we're doing!

It's actually similar to the argument we see here about arming the Police - that doing so would result in crims carrying more guns - like they don't already!!! nfloorl: (okay I'm not wanting to start a debate about arming the NZ Police okay!!!).

Having '...access to more heavily armoured Humvees leased off the United States...' is all very well but they're only any use if they're actually in use - I hope our PRT start using the damned things! The Hummers however haven't proven to be that great either! But anything's better than a Toyota Ute for heaven's sake - armoured (hah!) or otherwise!

Are the NZDF really this naive or has Aunty Helen's lot told them they can't have their best toys in the sandpit!?!

 

[Gibbo]

New systems and equipment planned for NZ Army during 2008 include:

small arms retaliatory range systems to replace DART systems at Papakura, Waiouru, Linton and Burnham
a weapons tactical simulator range in Waiouru
a range of combat service support systems including bulk fuel and water handling, LAV recovery trucks, cranes, container handling equipment and vehicle servicing facilities that will enable Army to support LAV on operations offshore
Engineer vehicles to enhance the battlefield mobility of the cavalry combat team.
Acquisition of a 40mm automatic grenade launcher and a programme to upgrade and replace the small arms inventory.


http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/publications/defence-update-newsletter/2008/default.htm

 

[Stuart Mackey]

The Canadian Leo's are there because they are actually conducting combat operations, unlike NZ and Australia who are conducting reconstruction tasks, local security operations and a bit of specwarops...

And if the Taliban attack them they will be conducting combat operations regardless of the intent of the NZ government or the equipment they have.

 

[Aussie Digger]

And if the Taliban attack them they will be conducting combat operations regardless of the intent of the NZ government or the equipment they have.

Of course they will. I never said that Aus or NZ forces don't have a self-protection capability.

Of course they do.

I said the forces deployed there by Aus and NZ are NOT intended to undertake conventional land warfare operations.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Of course they will. I never said that Aus or NZ forces don't have a self-protection capability.

Of course they do.

I said the forces deployed there by Aus and NZ are NOT intended to undertake conventional land warfare operations.

Yeah, as I said, context.

 

[Gibbo]

Of course they will. I never said that Aus or NZ forces don't have a self-protection capability.

Of course they do.

I said the forces deployed there by Aus and NZ are NOT intended to undertake conventional land warfare operations.

Armoured LOV's ultimately are little more than protected transports. They carry no more fire-power than currently used vehicles & provide what I consider to be a more robust protection should the PRT be attacked. Their presence would not alter the NZ intent, nor is it likely to convey a combative intent.

This has to be the sort of scenario we purchased them for, we have Hercs going up there & allied forces could assist with the logistics as was done with SAS variant LOV's...I don't get it!

 

[recce.k1]

Latest urban warfare training exercise

Under seige
By CHRISTIAN BONNEVIE - Manawatu Standard | Thursday, 15 May 2008
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatustandard/4549693a6003.html

Storming defended buildings and conducting vehicle checks in less time than a mortar can be set up are just some of the tasks that faced Linton soldiers this week.

About 100 troops set up camp at Marton's old hospital on Monday and will remain on site until tomorrow as part of Exercise Red Diamond.

With many of those involved new to the Army, a emphasis has been placed on getting the troops used to riding in the light armoured vehicles (LAVs).

"A lot of the guys in Whiskey Company have only been in coming on a year so they're yet to get the feel for the LAVs," 2nd Lieutenant Andy Palmer said.

"They get pretty dicey on windy roads with the motion sickness."

Travelling in convoy, the LAVs were used to set up check points on roads in the area, with the possibility of "enemy" vehicles being brought in to play.

The public was allowed to cruise through unmolested.

Sergeant Jeremy Smith said the idea was to set up check points quickly and move on before the enemy could react.

"You don't stick around much longer than 15-30 minutes - about the time it takes for a mortar to be brought in and set up," he said.

"You don't want to be around when the bombs start dropping."

Further training also took place at the old Longburn freezing works, where Victor Company troops and engineers took turns attacking the other's fortified position.

Each side was equipped with blank rounds, flashing thunder grenades and smoke bombs, with observers moving through knocking down anyone they deemed had been hit.

Urban warfare training had grown in importance for New Zealand, Lieutenant Sean McCulloch said.

"This is the type of thing we can expect to be involved in when we head overseas these days," he said, prior to leading his team in an assault.

"When you have grenades coming down and you don't know where your enemy could be hiding you don't want to be getting confused about where you should step next. It gets pretty chaotic and you need to know how someone reacts under pressure."

 

[recce.k1]

Have been browsing some recent NZ Parliament "questions for written answers". This one in relation to the costs of leasing the Hilux's in Afghanistan is interesting - US$1695 per vehicle per month - that's a hell of a cost compared to buying our own. I wonder then, is this attractive if the leasing company will take care of major maintenance or replacements meaning NZ doesn't need a large support/logistics system etc (let alone having to factor in the costs of getting them over there and back etc)?? Presumably also this may have been sensible if the NZPRT wasn't intended to be there for say a couple of years but with the operation being extended regularly one wonders now. Other issues raised are interesting too such as the level of protection put into the Hilux.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/D...-Dr-Wayne-Mapp-to-the-Minister-of-Defence.htm

2642 (2008). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Defence (02 Apr 2008): What vehicles, if any, does the New Zealand Army use on patrol or to transport personnel in Afghanistan?

Hon Phil Goff (Minister of Defence) replied: In Afghanistan, the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) is currently using 33 Toyota Hilux four wheel drive light trucks, four protected Land Cruisers, two standard Land Cruisers and six armoured M1114 HMMW vehicles on patrols and to transport personnel. The Hilux vehicles are leased from Daudzai Transport Company in Kabul for US$1,695 per month per vehicle. Where necessary, the NZDF fits the Hilux vehicles with floor protection (Kevlar mats), and personnel are required to wear body armour when vehicles are in motion.

 

[dave_kiwi]

Networking min UAVs NZ Style

It might not be a Predator Global Hawk type UAV, but at least NZ Army is making some progress to being "networked"

From NZ Army News:

The New Zealand Army took a big step towards becoming a network enabled force in the Waiouru training area this week

Entire article here:

http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/news/media-releases/media-release.htm@guid={3474b72b-6cdd-465d-a79a-2153fcca79a2}.htm

And I also found this - a dedicated UAV flight area - see here:

http://www.kahunet.co.nz/uav_airspace.htm

In the best tradition of "No. 8 fencing wire"

 

[mattyem]

Intergrated army

Its about time we decided to become more of a digitally enhanced army by means of UAV's, Especially since the DTA (defence technology agency) developed successful UAV's a number of years ago.