NZDF General discussion thread

[Challenger]

G'Day Guys, had a couple of questions I've always wondered about regarding the NZ Army,

1) How many Battalions have did in the various stages of the Cold War?
2) Why didn't we replace the Centurion tanks?
3) Have we every had a Parachute or Commando, Company/Battalion, Excluding NZSAS?
4) What were manpower levels through out the last 50 years, Have they decreased from x to x or been in a stat of flux?
5) What would be an acceptable level of Men and Women in our current peacetime Army? 3 Light Battalions, 2 Armoured, 1 Commando(Guards), 1 Para, 1 Marine (RNZM)? Just my thoughts,

Thanks for your time,

 

[MrConservative]

G'Day Guys, had a couple of questions I've always wondered about regarding the NZ Army,

1) How many Battalions have did in the various stages of the Cold War?
2) Why didn't we replace the Centurion tanks?
3) Have we every had a Parachute or Commando, Company/Battalion, Excluding NZSAS?
4) What were manpower levels through out the last 50 years, Have they decreased from x to x or been in a stat of flux?
5) What would be an acceptable level of Men and Women in our current peacetime Army? 3 Light Battalions, 2 Armoured, 1 Commando(Guards), 1 Para, 1 Marine (RNZM)? Just my thoughts,

Thanks for your time,

This website will be of help. http://premierstrategics.com/rnzir/unithistory.html

But you must get a copy of the excellent book by D.M Fenton A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY: The Force Structure of the New Zealand Army 1946-1978
ISBN 0-475-20103-5 (1998)

You can get it for $20 by writing to the Centre For Strategic Studies at Victoria University.

It will answer most of your questions.

An NZ Army of 5400 RF and 3600 TF would be ideal. Possible then to sustain a Batt of 600 as well as leave a company group of 120 available for emergency deployment.

 

[Lucasnz]

But you must get a copy of the excellent book by D.M Fenton A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY: The Force Structure of the New Zealand Army 1946-1978ISBN 0-475-20103-5 (1998)

I agree - I highly recommend this book.

An NZ Army of 5400 RF and 3600 TF would be ideal. Possible then to sustain a Batt of 600 as well as leave a company group of 120 available for emergency deployment.

I think the key issue is that NZ must be able to sustain on a continous basis a battalion of around 700-900, without using Artillery personnel as infantry - as to final numbers I think that depends on whether you want to look at something like a US Marine Corp Expeditionary Unit or a standing brigade which reinforces a infantry battalion as required. I suspect the standing brigade would be more cost effective. At 5,400 I don't think the army could develop the 3 infantry battalions it needs in order to sustain current operations overseas.

Personally I think the TF needs a big shake up and re-equipment: Cut the 6 Battalion groups down to two 1200 strong operationally focused Battalion groups equipped to the same standard as the RF.

 

[shanes_world_05]

Hi LucasNZ

Hey mate I'm fresh to this..
But when you say a TF force equiped to the samew standard as the RF are you talking motorised? and a redistribution of LAV's or would it require a follow on order?
And anti armour that I imagine would require additional Javelins and charlie G's?
With mog and merc replacement coming up I suppose those acquisitions could be tied in or orientated to such a structure. Would I be right there?

Rather different tack is there currently on offer or is it feasible to develop a hard kill CIWS type system for transport aircraft sized airframes that is slaved to a defensive radar and IR sensor suite? But the airframe still retains its primary role of transport (perhaps more utility type aircraft) the reason I ask is that this maybe a useful option for a country that cannot politically justify dedicated combat aircraft but may provide a tie in air support gunship (inefficient I know but perhaps better than nothing? and easier to justify to the electorate?) option for ground forces in immediate contact. Once there I suppose it offers bombrack options for a herc maybe? If we really wanted to be risk takers (there have been precedents set in risk taking in acquisitions....) we could investigate a rapid fit A2A missile option if the threat environment were to rise exponentially? fantasy perhaps? I know but as we have no current option to provide aircover for deployed forces or LOC (I think our chances of a homeland threat are so minimal that CTTAG are more than capable. Overseas though I look at the heavy british Dutch canadian and US utilisation of rolling on call air and arty support is what has saved alot in the blood exchange - of course bamiyan isnt helmand.)
Anyway sorry for the length of this first post. New and this has been bubbling away for sometime. Really look forward to your assessment though.

Cheers

Shane

 

[Lucasnz]

Hey mate I'm fresh to this..
But when you say a TF force equiped to the samew standard as the RF are you talking motorised? and a redistribution of LAV's or would it require a follow on order?

No not motorised (i.e. LAV's), but more light infantry (like 2/1) / mounted (i.e in something like the bushmaster)

And anti armour that I imagine would require additional Javelins and charlie G's?

We never purchased enough in the way of Javelin anyway. We've been purchasing items like this in blocks of 24, which are only enough to provide for training and 2 Battalions.

With mog and merc replacement coming up I suppose those acquisitions could be tied in or orientated to such a structure. Would I be right there?

Yes you're correct. Ideally I'd like to see the Bushmaster or something purchased to mount 2/1, the rest of QAMR (if its still being reroled as calvary) and at least 1 TF. The whole issue revolves around developing an army capable of mounting and sustaining battalion group expeditionary operations (which is what the NZ army does and is part of NZDF doctrine). As part of that given the limited lift capability of the NZDF I'm debating whether the following structure would be better for each NZ infantry battalion - 1 LAV Co, 2 Mounted Co, Logistics Co, Command Group. The issue I have is whether in today's environment (i.e Afgan etc) having a separate weapons co is the way to go, at the moment I'm leaning towards a combined arms company, with the exception of mortars, though I note the US includes mortars upto 120mm at company level.

 

[MrConservative]

I agree - I highly recommend this book.



I think the key issue is that NZ must be able to sustain on a continous basis a battalion of around 700-900, without using Artillery personnel as infantry - as to final numbers I think that depends on whether you want to look at something like a US Marine Corp Expeditionary Unit or a standing brigade which reinforces a infantry battalion as required. I suspect the standing brigade would be more cost effective. At 5,400 I don't think the army could develop the 3 infantry battalions it needs in order to sustain current operations overseas.

Personally I think the TF needs a big shake up and re-equipment: Cut the 6 Battalion groups down to two 1200 strong operationally focused Battalion groups equipped to the same standard as the RF.

It depends generally on how you slice and dice the RF / TF ratio. The Land Forces review said a RF of 7000 was required to sustain a battalion group rotation at Chp VII. But with a composite force of 9000 of TF and RF the building blocks are there and are achievable in the short term for at least smaller and more likely rotations at Chp VI. It is a question of utilising and developing the TF. I agree on the rationalisation of the six TF battalions. For geographic reasons I would plumb for three TF Battalion Groups (1200 personnel) based on the old military districts Nth, Cent and Sth. I still think we can recover the manpower numbers and the enthusiasm towards the TF if there are enough enticements and rewards.

 

[Wraith]

There better be haha, I'm joining the TF at the moment. Where is the TF base for the Auckland area, I'm curious as to how far from home I'll be posted, and where I'll go for training.

Also, what's the general consensus on the Steyr and various other equipment?

 

[MrConservative]

There better be haha, I'm joining the TF at the moment. Where is the TF base for the Auckland area, I'm curious as to how far from home I'll be posted, and where I'll go for training.

Also, what's the general consensus on the Steyr and various other equipment?

Good to hear your doing your bit for Queen and Country. 3 Batt HQ is in Great North Road in Grey Lynn. But if you live closer to Whangarei then its near the Rugby Stadium.
Steyr L1A1

 

[Wraith]

I mean where's the base? or is that in grey lynn too?

Pah, having to train with the L1A1 will be a bitch. Still, means once we get into the forces and get to use the Steyr's life will be much easier

 

[MrConservative]

I mean where's the base? or is that in grey lynn too?

Pah, having to train with the L1A1 will be a bitch. Still, means once we get into the forces and get to use the Steyr's life will be much easier

I'm 20 plus years out of date and was not in Auckland then. The L1A1 is the same. Long gone. Would it be easier to just ring them up and ask? I take it that you have not joined yet and just seeing if it can fit into your work schedule. Good luck and get fit because it helps.

 

[Wraith]

Last I heard they are still using them in training, for the weight. Oh, Work schedule, what work schedule haha. And thanks to sport, I'm already reasonably fit. I was more concerned with the equipment, because I prefer MOLLE plate carriers, but im fairly sure the NZ army doesn't use those haha. well, not often.

 

[bruceedwards]

Hey Wraith: Have they told you what your options/dates are yet for RIT training?

I called a few weeks ago to find out (because I need to pre-plan for work purposes) but they didn't have the intake dates planned yet.

 

[Wraith]

No I don't sorry. I'm awaiting the letter telling me when the aptitude test is and the personal details form.

 

[TonyRyan]

Perhaps another way to analyse NZ military needs is to first consider the conceivable functions of a 21st century defence force in the first place.

Obviously, natural disasters are a priority, and these will be most likely earthquakes and volcanic explosions... and don't laugh... Auckland is built on over-due emergences.

Second, who could invade? China, Indonesia and India. The most aggressive of these currently and in the near future is India. There is already internal pressure in India to intervene in Fiji, to "protect Indian nationals". How would NZ deal with this? With two ANZACS?

Anyway, guys, you get my drift. The truth is, no one wants to specifically invade NZ. China has economically achieved this already, and is currently moving on Oz. The military requirement outside of domestic emergency service is either non-existent or of a regional nature.

If Kiwis don't want to waste money, there is no alternative but to encourgae a regional force... Australia/NZ/Oceania.

If our politicians were a little more comprehending, Malaysia would jump at the chance of such conjoint protection. Others would follow... Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, and eventually, Indonesia. Why? Because they are already worried about India, especially Malaysia with a significant Indian population.

You may ask "this is economics and politics we are venturing into". True, But the US military is doing exactly this as we speak. Not very well either. We can do much better.

 

[IPA35]

The only thing NZ needs are a number of fighters.
That's the big gap in there military.

 

[KiwiRob]

The only thing NZ needs are a number of fighters.
That's the big gap in there military.

How many is a number.... 1-2 10 20, it's never going to happen, we really don't need em

 

[Wraith]

Quick update, I have the first part of my soldier testing on monday

Question, I never see NZ soldiers wearing plate carrier vests? and if they are, they never use the MOLLE attachments. What's the point in putting the webbing over the plate carriers?

 

[Sea Toby]

The only thing NZ needs are a number of fighters.
That's the big gap in there military.

During the Cold War New Zealand may have bought some A-4s, but after the Cold War there is no threat. Without air refueling, fighter jets can't reach New Zealand, nor can New Zealand fighters reach them. None of the neighboring island states have fighters anyway.

Having said that there is still a need for an air force, a refocused air force, concentrating on transport and patrol.

While I would prefer a third frigate for the navy, so that one would always be available for forward deployment to join an Aussie battle group, there are also local missions that needed to be addressed: EEZ patrols and sea lift. If the funding became available along with sailor recruitment I would still prefer adding another frigate.

I would also prefer another brigade added to the army. Unfortunately the funding isn't available. At the moment the army can sustain only an enlarged company group abroad for more than half a year. I would prefer increasing the size of New Zealand's sustainment to a battalion group. Fortunately larger sizes can be deployed for short term operations. Again more funding would be required to expand the size of the army.

Adding a third frigate for the navy, and expanding the army another regiment, along with replacing transport and patrol aircraft during the next ten years would most likely double what New Zealand is prepared to pay for defence today. One does not get there from here without the funding.

I would admit even I thought some of the above goals could have been achieved during the last ten years considering the surpluses the goverment ran. However, this past year when the economy went south I have seen my error. During this recession New Zealand will be barely able to keep what forces they have.

 

[IPA35]

I think fighter are more important than a navy.

The USA offered 15 F-16 for the price of 1.
They should have accepted that, there navy is useless.

IF anyone would attack new-zealand then they are doomed, because the have no air support.
Or the new Gripen NG, that plane is alot cheaper to maintain.
More important than a P-3 replacement.

 

[Sea Toby]

What you think is more important isn't what the government thinks. The government does not see any fighter threat to New Zealand proper, but does see illegal fishing, drug smuggling, smuggling in general, and possibly illegal entry. Many lives have been saved with patrol ships and aircraft.

There are other means to provide troops fire support. While the NZ LAVs don't have the biggest gun around, they are providing more fire support than the Skyhawks ever did. The LAVs are more likely to be forwardly deployed than the Skyhawks too.

And while the Canterbury isn't a warship, a true LPD, she does provide more sealift than New Zealand's Defence Force ever had. Not to mention better than the old Monowai. More troops, more vehicles, and more helicopters. Plus the capability to do so over a beach.

Any air threat would most likely develop from any invasion force, which would be fought as far away as Singapore. Even if New Zealand acquired fighters the government wouldn't necessarily risk whatever few they bought protecting SE Asia air space.

I'm also sure that if New Zealand found itself in a situation completely surrounded by enemies much like Israel, New Zealand would ramp up defence spending considerably, from one percent GDP to 20 percent GDP. New Zealand would draft everyone under the age of 45 and provide training for both sexes. The budget would be tossed out.