NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
stryker NZ
New Member
here is an updated report into what happend
NZ soldier killed in ambush in Afghanistan - Yahoo!Xtra News
plus a statement from the Chief of the defence force
NZDF - NZ soldier killed in Bamyan province, Afghanistan - release 2
NZ soldier killed in ambush in Afghanistan - Yahoo!Xtra News
plus a statement from the Chief of the defence force
NZDF - NZ soldier killed in Bamyan province, Afghanistan - release 2
RIP and a speedy recovery for the fallen.
(i) Dead soldier dreamed of serving country
(ii) Body of soldier and injured comrades flying to NZ
(iii) NZ soldier killed in Bamyan province, Afghanistan - release 4
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I hope this isn't inappropriate to raise right now but (to me) it is pleasing that the PM has said "an independent court of inquiry into Lt O'Donnell's death would provide advice to the military on tactics, procedures and equipment". (From the 2nd OPSSG link).
I heard him interviewed on radio yesterday saying that he's not had any concerns from defence (HQ) previously about equipment but is open to any new recommendations.
I wonder how 14t Bushmasters would fair? Would they still be too heavy for the conditions there?
I heard him interviewed on radio yesterday saying that he's not had any concerns from defence (HQ) previously about equipment but is open to any new recommendations.
I wonder how 14t Bushmasters would fair? Would they still be too heavy for the conditions there?
Yes glad to hear there'll be an inquiry - vehicle type is my main concern. Hopefully it'll look at challenging some of the statements often peddled out about why we have little armour assigned to the PRT.
I'm not saying they're wrong statements, I just want to see frank & balanced discussion / evaluation about the issue. I'm a little worried that once you state things often enough, they then become the defacto truth if not challenged appropriately. A Govt & Defence Force that hasn't had widescale experience in 'aggressive' (combative) peace-keeping could may be making wrong assumptions.
Firstly we hear how the roads are unsuitable for LAVIII - who has made that call & on what basis? Surely there's plenty of places they could be used by the PRT, as part of a mixed vehicle type fleet & with sensible fleet management - couldn't they be used effectively in some areas?
The Pinzgauers have absolutely amazing agility - the 6x6 would easily out-do a Hiace or most likely even a Humvee on those roads. However I realise the Pinnies woudn't offer more protection unless the armoured variants were deployed - and I understand they may have issues with ineffective aircon (in that environment). Nor would they cope with an IED.
As for the 'hearts & minds' argument - would more armour & heavier guns actually 'alienate' the locals? Who has done any REAL research on this - or have we just heard it so often we believe it to be true? Has anyone asked the local Governor over there what she thinks?
For the 'local' jobs where the risks are known to be lower the Hilux / Humvee combo are fine - but the PRT operate in areas they know to be more dangerous - why not provide a different vehicle combo in these areas? Especially in areas where 'help' is further away.
Let's ask ourselves - would locals in the more remote and/or dangerous areas be scared off by more armour - or are they more likely to be scared off by seeing the units there to protect them struggling with an attacking force? I think the latter would make me more uneasy!
Remember it's deeds (not vehicle type) that will win 'hearts & minds' - once the PRT have got to know locals they'll trust them for who they are, espcially with the great 'kiwi' attitude!
Anyway - I don't think any of the above played a part in the attack the other day, so this isn't about scoring points. Those guys acted professionally & contained the situation well, I guess the reality is this was likely to happen at some point.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Fair points.
Also why does the RoE deny the NZ patrols pursuit of the Taliban outside of the provincial borders? So they can shoot and scoot to safety? We're not talking national borders - provincial.
Are there no other friendlies on the other side of the borders (if operating outside known terrortorial limits is an issue, operationally etc)?
In terms of vehicles, if venturing that far means more chance of encounters, would something offering better protection be necessary now? Especially if it won't be possible to take cover and return fire from nearby buildings isn't a luxury next time etc.
With the Dutch pulling out, could we buy or lease some vehicles off them?
Finally in this age of UAV's why can't we have a remote controlled (unmanned) Hilux type as the lead vehicle (to take the IED hit)? Fully controlled from an accompanying vehicle via day/night cameras, sensors, proximity radar etc (sweeping for IED's somewhat), the following convoy would also safely follow in its tracks down difficult and narrow uneven terrain etc.
How about a vehicle mounted rocket (tube) launcher that could fire off a few drum-bursting, extremely loud detonating charge ("booms"!), confusing the Taliban to think they may be under air-attack (as a counter measure)? Seeing low cloud prevented CAS (and medivac) i.e. when on your own one needs something extra to give an advantage (and on the cheap too)?
Also why does the RoE deny the NZ patrols pursuit of the Taliban outside of the provincial borders? So they can shoot and scoot to safety? We're not talking national borders - provincial.
Are there no other friendlies on the other side of the borders (if operating outside known terrortorial limits is an issue, operationally etc)?
In terms of vehicles, if venturing that far means more chance of encounters, would something offering better protection be necessary now? Especially if it won't be possible to take cover and return fire from nearby buildings isn't a luxury next time etc.
With the Dutch pulling out, could we buy or lease some vehicles off them?
Finally in this age of UAV's why can't we have a remote controlled (unmanned) Hilux type as the lead vehicle (to take the IED hit)? Fully controlled from an accompanying vehicle via day/night cameras, sensors, proximity radar etc (sweeping for IED's somewhat), the following convoy would also safely follow in its tracks down difficult and narrow uneven terrain etc.
How about a vehicle mounted rocket (tube) launcher that could fire off a few drum-bursting, extremely loud detonating charge ("booms"!), confusing the Taliban to think they may be under air-attack (as a counter measure)? Seeing low cloud prevented CAS (and medivac) i.e. when on your own one needs something extra to give an advantage (and on the cheap too)?
Where do I start,Yes glad to hear there'll be an inquiry - vehicle type is my main concern. Hopefully it'll look at challenging some of the statements often peddled out about why we have little armour assigned to the PRT.
I'm not saying they're wrong statements, I just want to see frank & balanced discussion / evaluation about the issue. I'm a little worried that once you state things often enough, they then become the defacto truth if not challenged appropriately. A Govt & Defence Force that hasn't had widescale experience in 'aggressive' (combative) peace-keeping could may be making wrong assumptions.
Firstly we hear how the roads are unsuitable for LAVIII - who has made that call & on what basis? Surely there's plenty of places they could be used by the PRT, as part of a mixed vehicle type fleet & with sensible fleet management - couldn't they be used effectively in some areas?
The Pinzgauers have absolutely amazing agility - the 6x6 would easily out-do a Hiace or most likely even a Humvee on those roads. However I realise the Pinnies woudn't offer more protection unless the armoured variants were deployed - and I understand they may have issues with ineffective aircon (in that environment). Nor would they cope with an IED.
As for the 'hearts & minds' argument - would more armour & heavier guns actually 'alienate' the locals? Who has done any REAL research on this - or have we just heard it so often we believe it to be true? Has anyone asked the local Governor over there what she thinks?
For the 'local' jobs where the risks are known to be lower the Hilux / Humvee combo are fine - but the PRT operate in areas they know to be more dangerous - why not provide a different vehicle combo in these areas? Especially in areas where 'help' is further away.
Let's ask ourselves - would locals in the more remote and/or dangerous areas be scared off by more armour - or are they more likely to be scared off by seeing the units there to protect them struggling with an attacking force? I think the latter would make me more uneasy!
Remember it's deeds (not vehicle type) that will win 'hearts & minds' - once the PRT have got to know locals they'll trust them for who they are, espcially with the great 'kiwi' attitude!
Anyway - I don't think any of the above played a part in the attack the other day, so this isn't about scoring points. Those guys acted professionally & contained the situation well, I guess the reality is this was likely to happen at some point.
The inquiry will be conducted by the Army, but what frank & balanced discussion / evaluation are you after, for eight years we have been in this province dont you think that the PRT would have a better grip on what the lay of the land is & more importantly the best vehicle to suit that land?, please explain to me who in NZ has beside those people that have served there can possibly offer & frank & balance argument why they are safely tucked away back in Gods own?.
The Army made the call on the NZLAV, have you ever seen photos of the area we operate in, this is not Helmend where its flat our TAO is the same as the Southern Alps but with no infrastructure at all, most MSR are dirt tracks or in some cases river beds. Where the contact occured is goat / thar country that you see on country calendar.
Ah the Pinz yes the GS version is an outstanding vehicle but lets take a gloser look at the armoured LOV or as we call it LOV(A) - 2.5 ltr turbo diesel carrying a 5.5 ton armoured shell unloaded, now lets fit it out for a 28 day patrol, we must add ammo, food, water, spare fuel, assorted batteries for the radios, spare vehicle parts, medical equipment, soldiers gear, soldiers ammo & body armour plus 4 x soldiers & our LOV(A) is in the vicinity of 7 - 8 tons now tell me how that 2.5 ltr motor is going to cope climbing a dirt track that equvilent to climbing up Arthurs pass?.
Heart & Minds or COIN as it called now, "Who has done any REAL research on this" now let me see lets try 1RNZIR & 40 years of Low intensity conflict while based in South East Asia, deployed Malayan emergency, deployed during Confrontation with Indonesia, Conducted Combat Operations during Vietnam but applying lessons learnt during the Emergency & Confrontation, jump ahead, Kosovo & Kiwi 1 Coy same application of lessons being applied, 1998 V Coy then NZBATT 1 in East Timor applyed the same lessons & also had to relearn some of those lessons again, Solomon Islands, Tonga now what research have you done? eight years we have been in Bamiyan do you think that all we do is sit in Kiwi base & play touch, lesson 101 include all local government resources to win an insugent conflict starting with the local Governor first.
What vehicle combo would you like to see?, where we were attacked only one force can clear on hold this terrain and thats Light Infantry so the vehicle traffic can safety transit through, Iraqi lesson now being applied in Afganistan by the insurgents the bigger the Vehicle the bigger the bomb, (note Canada were losing 1 x LAV a week).
Myth busting 101, its not the locals who are attacking the PRT, these people are from another Province, they are mainly criminal elements mixed up with Talibs, they are smuggling contraband from one province to another, usually they only attack from there side of the provincial border & they know that the PRT can not follow them up, they have learnt from 16 rotations, they know our ROE forbid us from clearing them out or crossing over. So what is holding us back our mandate as laid down by Government these then lay out the ROE that the PRT must abide by, Our mandate is Nation Building & force protection not offensive combat ops you want a change in vehicles then the mandate must change first now what government in this country is going to have the balls to do that.
Lastly dont you think that after eights years we have got to know the locals & have won there trust, your say things as if we were thick, we know every leader, every clan & what they want which is peace & the right to live, there children to be educated to have safe drinking water, hospital care the basics which we take for granted. Its a criminal element / talib that is causing trouble in our TAO & there not a thing we can do about it until we catch them on our side of the border or our mandate is altered until then we will carry on.
:bum Holy hell, I think I've upset you...sorry, I certainly wasn't slagging NZDF at all - far from it in fact! I'm well aware of the huge effort the PRT are putting in & have huge respect for the whole operation. I'm also very familiar with what the NZDF (all 3 services) have been doing for the last 50 years & how that relates to the current situation.
I think anyone who pays an interest in what the PRT are doing are well aware of the shocking state of infrastructure and it's clear that heavy-weight vehicles, be they LOV(A) or LAVIII would struggle - but the Hilux copes well enough! But are we to believe every mile of every road is so barely passable?
I'm also well aware the locals are generally cool with our guys, and that the shooting is coming from 'outsiders', who will just throw something bigger at a bigger vehicle! But that doesn't invalidate my concern.
Look here's the 2 key points I am mainly making - however they are NOT intended as any slight on the NZDF...please don't take them as such...
(1) A Hilux (armoured or not) is NOT my choice of vehicle if I think someone's going to target me! There must be something better - do any other coaltion units use the Hilux!?! I'd prefer we perhaps consider at least beg, steal, or borrow something like a BushMaster type (just as an example, I'm not trying to sell the BM specifically).
(2) I'm still unconvinced of the belief that driving something a little more 'military' like is going to alienate the locals - I seriously think this argue could be a little over-hyped. I'm not doubting the experiences of the last 50 years of operations, but we're talking Afghanistan in the 21st century, not Malaya in the 1950's - and anyway I'm not suggesting we use M1's. 'Hearts & Minds' / COIN can be done as successfully from a BushMaster type vehicle as it can from a Hilux or Humvee - it's the personnel that make or break the relationship with locals. The Hilux is sweet around Bamiyan & areas where the risk is lower - but not so in areas where the risk is known to be higher.
At the end of the day the tactics used the other day clearly show the NZDF knew how to deal with the situation regardless of vehicle type!
Gibbo our hiluxs are mainly used for the mail run from kiwi base to the airstrip & to areas we know that have been pacified, they have there place we talk to the local people day to day & there feed back to us is that smaller is better it comes down to trust, in the south, west, & east of our TAO life has returned back to pre Soviet life. Theres still a lot to do before we hand over to the ANP / ANA & local government but it is getting there slowly but surely.
Now the problem we are facing is in the Nth east where the ambushes have been occuring, thats where we withdrew the Hilux light, & replaced it with the Hilux heavy, and finally they were replaced with the Uparmoured Humvee thats the vehicle the patrol Lt O'Donnell was in when it got hit, Hiluxs have not been deployed to that area for the last 18 months and never will be.
Lessons from Malaya in the 50 still hold true to Afganistan in the 21st Century why because the Emergency has been one of a few COIN Ops that was successfully won by any nation so far, so the lessons learnt from Malaya are more applicable today than back in the 50's if you dont learn from history you are doomed to make the same mistakes, you build up a strong local government, police force, good intelligence & finally backed up by the Military. Now what have the US & NATO been doing for the last 9 years purely military Offensive Ops with the development of the local government coming a distant second, trying to kill every insurgent in sight sounds very similar to the body count concept used in Vietnam.
This is whats happening on the ground in Bamiyan now;
What you dont see in NZ is a steady stream of high ranking US & NATO Officers & staff come up to see why we are so successful they are appalled that we still drive around in Humvees but are astonished to find out that we suffer more injuries playing football with the locals than pure military action, why is that?
1. we get out of our vehicle & engage with the locals,
2. the tribal shura is the same as a tribal meeting on a marae,
3. we dont promise anything we cant deliver
4. we get local answers for local problems
5. we then back up the local solutions,
The way we operate comes naturally to us, & why because we have been conducting COIN Ops right from the start & where did we learn that from Malaya 1950. COIN is not new to us its inbedded deep in our ETHOS it why we have only suffered one fatality in nine years,
This is an example of how we operate;
question: Local elder asks why we dont drink the local water,
Ans: because our western stomachs are not strong enough
question: why do you wear sun glasses I cant see your eyes,
Ans: Because my eye sight at this altitude is not as strong as yours only in doors am I able to take them off.
People treat the Afganis like cavemen they can read you like a book they are down to earth people who like straight up down to earth answers no BS, what upsets me is that NZ have a bad habbit of over reacting when soldiers die & every one jumps on the band wagon the people that need to be listened to arent sitting in the safety of NZ but are operating on the ground having a debate in NZ means nothing to us on the ground, we have lost one person out of 16 rotations almost half the Army has deployed to Afganistan our Velvet fisted glove approach works here in Bamiyan I admit it would have to change if we deployed further down south but the way we operate would not & I go back to that proverb "tis people, tis people, tis people"
Absolutely agree - our PRT is showing the world how to operate, and it's the people on the ground making the difference. I'm also aware that the Afghanis are an intelligent people - they belong to a proud people with a long history, and by crikey yes they would read people well - they can tell the Kiwis are genuine people. There's many Western cultures have lost the art of truly reading body language in their fast-paced modern world.
So where can I find out more about the armoured Hilux? I'd like to see how they're altered and what they offer - does anyone know of anyhere to get this info?
I still think operating a BushMaster type (as an example) would in no way impact our relationship with the locals - the hard work has been done and the trust has been built (but yes must be maintained). The locals know we're not just all talk - they know we're reliable, honest, and actually care about them.
Something like the BM could be reserved for the more 'risky' areas where the issue isn't local trust but the dogged hatred of those outsiders who don't want our help - ever. Even if the LAVIII was deployed to the PRT I'd only suggest they were used where their fire-power was warranted - I agree they wouldn't be needed 'downtown'.
Hey anyway it's a wet miserable day here in Auckland & the RNZAF B757 is due in shortly with Tim, Matthew & Allister. As Maori will say, the rain is tears for Tim, may he rest in peace.
Why don't they just up-engine the armoured pinz, seems pointless having an armoured variant that can't carry anything other than your cut lunch. Might as well go the way of the excess LAV and get rid of them if they are no use for extended patrolling. Another failed govt purchase.
The news stated that the patrol was in a mix of humvees and hiluxs when it was attacked and if I was the enemy I would go for the weakest link to inflict the most damage and be more certain of kills. Why do we give the enemy that option and equip our soldiers with what is essentially a modified civilian ute instead of a purpose built vehicle. At least we are beginning the process by providing more up-armoured Humvees but I do like the idea of supplementing them with bushmasters to replace the hiluxs on the patrols.
Im pretty sure locals don't care what the PRT roll around in, if I was them Id feel more confident and secure if they were protecting me in proper armoured vehicles instead of looking like the local militia in hiluxs. hearts and minds has nothing to do with modes of transportation but levels of protection save lives.
If the patrol had adequate vehicles then they should have been able to fight from within them instead of having to debus and take shelter. Maybe some remote weapon systems could have been advantageous
The news stated that the patrol was in a mix of humvees and hiluxs when it was attacked and if I was the enemy I would go for the weakest link to inflict the most damage and be more certain of kills. Why do we give the enemy that option and equip our soldiers with what is essentially a modified civilian ute instead of a purpose built vehicle. At least we are beginning the process by providing more up-armoured Humvees but I do like the idea of supplementing them with bushmasters to replace the hiluxs on the patrols.
Im pretty sure locals don't care what the PRT roll around in, if I was them Id feel more confident and secure if they were protecting me in proper armoured vehicles instead of looking like the local militia in hiluxs. hearts and minds has nothing to do with modes of transportation but levels of protection save lives.
If the patrol had adequate vehicles then they should have been able to fight from within them instead of having to debus and take shelter. Maybe some remote weapon systems could have been advantageous
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the various detailed explanations there Cadredave - anyone here (me included) should now grasp the reality of the situation and why things are as they are etc.
Seeing both Defence and the media don't articulate these aspects very well, we here in the comfort of NZ make judgements or observations that reflect that lack of information etc. And I suppose we here forget sometimes, that Govt pretty much will give Defence what it wants when actually on a deployment, especially a deployment like Afghanistan where NZ is part of a bigger international effort etc.
Clearly then there will be many instances where even the much heavier Bushmaster will not be suitable for the terrain.
Subject to the Court of Inquiry findings, perhaps the current uparmoured Hilux/Humvee mix is about right? It seems the PRT need a workhorse eg Hilux or something similar/better to carry the supplies on patrols/to FOB's (and the Humvee is its protection)?
Perhaps then, if it isn't about right, further countermeasures (and ISR) might be of use. Perhaps the Humvees 50 cal's automated somewhat with electro-optical systems may also be beneficial in terms of ensuring accurate return of fire and thus ensure greater survivability etc? Still like the idea of a robotic vehicle in front to take the hit. Presumably at the slow speeds when traversing the mountain tracks maybe something small could be carried/deployed (rather than a real size unmanned vehicle)? Might need an additional hilux or pinz to carry it?
In terms of the RoE it seems to me the Govt (any Govt) needs to add in a SAS component (or additional light infantry?) to conduct some offensive operations across the border?
Good to hear it confirmed that the PRT is doing well with the locals - this has been noted elsewhere periodically but tends to get drowned out by generalisations about the situation in some of the unstable parts by the mass media and critics etc (& Pollies even).
So it seems to me, as the PRT winds down and hands more over to the civilians/NGO's etc, there will still be a need for RNZIR to maintain these patrols (and engage with the locals) and ideally some SAS/RNZIR teams to undertake some offensive crossborder ops to hunt down any criminal/taliban elements, for the sake of keeping the locals (and PRT/NGO's) safe? Further/expanded hearts and minds?
Noted the fact that the experience coming thru is that the bigger the NZDF vehicle eg LAVIII etc, the more likley the bigger the IED and the attention of additional Taliban elements looking to engage etc.
Noted also the locals are not Pashtun and thus not sympathetic to the Taliban (which has always been the case).
Seeing both Defence and the media don't articulate these aspects very well, we here in the comfort of NZ make judgements or observations that reflect that lack of information etc. And I suppose we here forget sometimes, that Govt pretty much will give Defence what it wants when actually on a deployment, especially a deployment like Afghanistan where NZ is part of a bigger international effort etc.
Clearly then there will be many instances where even the much heavier Bushmaster will not be suitable for the terrain.
Subject to the Court of Inquiry findings, perhaps the current uparmoured Hilux/Humvee mix is about right? It seems the PRT need a workhorse eg Hilux or something similar/better to carry the supplies on patrols/to FOB's (and the Humvee is its protection)?
Perhaps then, if it isn't about right, further countermeasures (and ISR) might be of use. Perhaps the Humvees 50 cal's automated somewhat with electro-optical systems may also be beneficial in terms of ensuring accurate return of fire and thus ensure greater survivability etc? Still like the idea of a robotic vehicle in front to take the hit. Presumably at the slow speeds when traversing the mountain tracks maybe something small could be carried/deployed (rather than a real size unmanned vehicle)? Might need an additional hilux or pinz to carry it?
In terms of the RoE it seems to me the Govt (any Govt) needs to add in a SAS component (or additional light infantry?) to conduct some offensive operations across the border?
Good to hear it confirmed that the PRT is doing well with the locals - this has been noted elsewhere periodically but tends to get drowned out by generalisations about the situation in some of the unstable parts by the mass media and critics etc (& Pollies even).
So it seems to me, as the PRT winds down and hands more over to the civilians/NGO's etc, there will still be a need for RNZIR to maintain these patrols (and engage with the locals) and ideally some SAS/RNZIR teams to undertake some offensive crossborder ops to hunt down any criminal/taliban elements, for the sake of keeping the locals (and PRT/NGO's) safe? Further/expanded hearts and minds?
Noted the fact that the experience coming thru is that the bigger the NZDF vehicle eg LAVIII etc, the more likley the bigger the IED and the attention of additional Taliban elements looking to engage etc.
Noted also the locals are not Pashtun and thus not sympathetic to the Taliban (which has always been the case).
"Perhaps then, if it isn't about right, further countermeasures (and ISR) might be of use. Perhaps the Humvees 50 cal's automated somewhat with electro-optical systems may also be beneficial in terms of ensuring accurate return of fire and thus ensure greater survivability etc? Still like the idea of a robotic vehicle in front to take the hit. Presumably at the slow speeds when traversing the mountain tracks maybe something small could be carried/deployed (rather than a real size unmanned vehicle)? Might need an additional hilux or pinz to carry it?"-
IEDs are usually remote detonated by cellphone etc so the insurgents will have eyes on and will probably select their target vehicle(as may have been the case recently as they happened to target the patrol commanders veh). Coalition vehicles have jammers to help stop this but are obviously not foolproof and the recent leaked documents stated only half of the NZ vehicles have these fitted. The sacrificial front vehicle would work if it was a landmine type device ie set and forget but since the Taliban are following up the initial IED with RPGs and gunfire then they are probably pre-planned attacks designed to split the patrol and create confusion.
IEDs are usually remote detonated by cellphone etc so the insurgents will have eyes on and will probably select their target vehicle(as may have been the case recently as they happened to target the patrol commanders veh). Coalition vehicles have jammers to help stop this but are obviously not foolproof and the recent leaked documents stated only half of the NZ vehicles have these fitted. The sacrificial front vehicle would work if it was a landmine type device ie set and forget but since the Taliban are following up the initial IED with RPGs and gunfire then they are probably pre-planned attacks designed to split the patrol and create confusion.
Hey Guys sorry for the out burst of raw emotion (Gibbo esp), having sat back & reevaluated my stance I had a very in depth discussion about what vehicle we could use in that North East TAO, It has become apparent that something like the Bushmaster or a bit smaller would suit us idealy. The NZLAV can operate in that area but only with very experienced drivers & Commanders at the Helm & thats where the crux of the problem lies at the moment, our drivers are to young & not experienced enought to handle the terrain in that area for now I will try & load some photos of the province so you can all see what I mean about the terrain, However that must still be ballanced up with the way we operate, bigger vehicle still attract bigger bombs, For us our first priority is to discover weather this attack was criminal or insurgent once that is discovered then we can go on from there. Having spoken to the lads that just returned from Crib especially from that province all the commanders once they heard what happened, there first reaction was that the ambush was carried out by the smugglers there reason was that it pay back for the ANP / PRT patrols being to effective in closing down the smugglers routes though our TAO (This is only hersay on what they believe), I know it sounds like a complete back flip but the person I spoke to about the vehicle is a WO1 with 30 yrs experience in Armoured TTP, & its him that we go to for his S.M.E. What must not be allowed to happen is those pers with hidden agendas to hijack something that we in the Army believe in dearly, or we will be back in this country again starting all over again from scratch just like Timor 2. Guys I apologize for my out burst I engaged my heart & not my mind.
Sad to her about the loss of Lt. Tim O`Donnell.
The Bushmaster weighs 12.4 tonnes empty! I dunno how to compare engines, but its got a Caterpillar 3126E engine.
Thats not a very good comparison for our Kiwi comrades.
I expect the Kiwis to have what we have in terms of land vehicles. Im sorry I am wrong.
The Bushmaster weighs 12.4 tonnes empty! I dunno how to compare engines, but its got a Caterpillar 3126E engine.
Thats not a very good comparison for our Kiwi comrades.
I expect the Kiwis to have what we have in terms of land vehicles. Im sorry I am wrong.
No need to apologise dave, thats why we are on here to discuss, compare, evaluate and learn. It is good having people on here with their finger on the pulse and expert advice, cuts out much of the speculation and saves on the guesswork.
I doubt anyone here is questioning how kiwis operate on the ground more about what they operate with to do their jobs safely and effectively, we have the training and commitment just need the right tools to work with. Our track record in all theatres speaks for itself about the professionalism, courtesy and can-do attitude of our defence force personnell.
So I guess you'll be the first to hear on any rumbleings ref outcomes, upgrades, changes etc following this latest incident and I look forward to hearing them. Hopefully lessons learned will help avoid any future deaths as even the attackers seem to be adjusting ie by ambushing in adverse weather conditions to void coalition air support, an ominous sign.
I doubt anyone here is questioning how kiwis operate on the ground more about what they operate with to do their jobs safely and effectively, we have the training and commitment just need the right tools to work with. Our track record in all theatres speaks for itself about the professionalism, courtesy and can-do attitude of our defence force personnell.
So I guess you'll be the first to hear on any rumbleings ref outcomes, upgrades, changes etc following this latest incident and I look forward to hearing them. Hopefully lessons learned will help avoid any future deaths as even the attackers seem to be adjusting ie by ambushing in adverse weather conditions to void coalition air support, an ominous sign.
Like all defence personel there are things im privy to due to my current job, alot of the grumblings coming out of all deployments are more focused on the pull out by Govt & another job not being fulfiled or finished, what we dont want is another Timor pull only to be sent back again to finish what we should done from the start. There is a saying in the Middle east I think best sums up what we feel & it goes like this, The west has all the watches but we have the time. Hopefully HQJFNZ will recommend a bigger vehicle for this one area only our resident armoured S.M.E best vehicle fit is the Bushmaster.
Mate, you do certainly not need to apologise - it was a good robust debate
I think we were all just so stunned & upset that something that's gone so well for so long and been so damned successful as our PRT has been, could be shaked by such a thing. But then we all know the reality of this operation!
Understood how frustrating it would be to leave the country 'job unfinished' as it would just be doomed to fail and spiral back into chaos if not kept in check and alot of innocent locals would suffer the repercussions and reprisals without support and protection.
Yes the bushmaster would be a great platform and for more than purely operational reasons. The added benefit of commonality with our closest ally, supporting regional enterprise, logistical support and filling a niche in our armoured capability is just a few bonuses as well as the proven survivability, mobility and safety a purchase of these vehicles would bring to the PRT and NZDF as a whole. Im sure our Australian cousins would allow us early access into their current production line due to the current climate in Afghanistan or failing that I think recce brought up a valid point about the Dutch pulling out therefore maybe their ones being procured as they are already in theatre and may not be further required.
Any measure that can make the insurgents attempts to disrupt our ops that much harder should be investigated seriously and applied with haste.
Yes the bushmaster would be a great platform and for more than purely operational reasons. The added benefit of commonality with our closest ally, supporting regional enterprise, logistical support and filling a niche in our armoured capability is just a few bonuses as well as the proven survivability, mobility and safety a purchase of these vehicles would bring to the PRT and NZDF as a whole. Im sure our Australian cousins would allow us early access into their current production line due to the current climate in Afghanistan or failing that I think recce brought up a valid point about the Dutch pulling out therefore maybe their ones being procured as they are already in theatre and may not be further required.
Any measure that can make the insurgents attempts to disrupt our ops that much harder should be investigated seriously and applied with haste.
There's a Kiwi essay on NZ PRT's role that was published in the New Zealand Herald on August 5, 2010 under the title “Death makes it clear Bamiyan not “soft” option.” by Paul Buchanan. This essay was extended has appeared in a longer blog post called "Circumstance, Context and Consequence of New Zealand’s first combat death in Afghanistan." I'm concerned with the author's characterization quoted below in bold below. Is his position accurate?
Paul Buchanan seems to have set up a 'cut and run' argument with sophistry that is essentially self-fulfilling and that in essence, he is saying that current ISAF plans won't work. But I ask, work to do what? IMO, the Afghans will need to continue to do their own nation building after ISAF troops start leave and we can only get them started on the process. In fact, most ASEAN states, as 3rd World nations, are still engaging in the act of nation building or even creating tools for national consensus building.
I know I am stating the obvious when I say that, there is almost no third world country without endemic corruption as one of their problems. Just because there is corruption does not mean that 3rd world nation will become a failed state. In fact, it is this 'motley assortment of tribal warlords' called the Northern Alliance, with support from US Special Forces, that overthrew the Taliban regime. And these warlords (as he calls them) have to fight to prevent the re-emergence of the Taliban.
Any thoughts? My initial thoughts are that the surge and other such action is a means to load the bases in favour of the Afghan Government, so that in the near future they can assume more responsibility. This is difficult but a necessary step and that the Afghans must take ownership on their local problems district by district and province by province, such as the case for Bamiyan. Pulling out the NZ PRT faster will not help but adaption to the Taliban's changing tactics is necessary, if the NZ Government is to stay their course and keep their promises to her allies.
"...The ISAF strategy in Afghanistan is a macrocosmic reflection of what the PRT mission is in Bamiyan. It conducts counter-insurgency operations against Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in order to physically secure the country and prevent the re-establishment of both Taliban rule and al-Qaeda safe havens... As with the Bamiyan PRT, success in the first task is deemed necessary for success with the latter two.
...ISAF has not succeeded in routing the Taliban even if it has denied them and their al-Qaeda allies much territory and space for maneuver. Its nation-building efforts have been thwarted by endemic corruption by the Karzai regime and a motley assortment of tribal warlords and drug barons. For all its rhetorical commitment to supporting the ISAF mission from its side of the border, Pakistan remains a suspect ally, if not a covert adversary in the conflict. Given the announced timetable for a US troop drawdown and ISAF withdrawal beginning in July 2011, the Taliban have increased their attacks in order to raise the costs to ISAF, undermine public support for the mission amongst coalition partners (such as the Dutch, who have just exited the theater), and thereby hasten the inevitable...
However, true to form, the Taliban have responded with a classic guerrilla tactic when confronted with superior military forces: they employ a “balloon” strategy whereby they retreat from areas in which they are being squeezed by superior ISAF forces and regroup in areas in which the ISAF presence is relatively thin on the ground...
One such area is Bamiyan, which means that there is nothing soft about the NZDF/PRT role there. The hazards are not just military. Given the Taliban resurgence and the inevitable withdrawal of ISAF forces, it is prudent and rational for the Hazaras (as much as all other tribal groups throughout the country) to begin to look the other way when it comes to Taliban movements in Bamiyan, if not cooperate with or simply accommodate the insurgents. After all, the Taliban will be a armed and political presence long after the ISAF forces are scaled back or gone. That makes the NZDF position in the Bamiyan PRT harder to maintain the closer it approaches to the announced ISAF withdrawal date. In plain terms, without reinforcement the NZDF/PRT position becomes more tenuous given the shift in local loyalties as the withdrawal deadline approaches, and tenuous in military terms means a high probability of increased casualties as the adversary grows in confidence and receives more support or acquiescence from the local population."
...ISAF has not succeeded in routing the Taliban even if it has denied them and their al-Qaeda allies much territory and space for maneuver. Its nation-building efforts have been thwarted by endemic corruption by the Karzai regime and a motley assortment of tribal warlords and drug barons. For all its rhetorical commitment to supporting the ISAF mission from its side of the border, Pakistan remains a suspect ally, if not a covert adversary in the conflict. Given the announced timetable for a US troop drawdown and ISAF withdrawal beginning in July 2011, the Taliban have increased their attacks in order to raise the costs to ISAF, undermine public support for the mission amongst coalition partners (such as the Dutch, who have just exited the theater), and thereby hasten the inevitable...
However, true to form, the Taliban have responded with a classic guerrilla tactic when confronted with superior military forces: they employ a “balloon” strategy whereby they retreat from areas in which they are being squeezed by superior ISAF forces and regroup in areas in which the ISAF presence is relatively thin on the ground...
One such area is Bamiyan, which means that there is nothing soft about the NZDF/PRT role there. The hazards are not just military. Given the Taliban resurgence and the inevitable withdrawal of ISAF forces, it is prudent and rational for the Hazaras (as much as all other tribal groups throughout the country) to begin to look the other way when it comes to Taliban movements in Bamiyan, if not cooperate with or simply accommodate the insurgents. After all, the Taliban will be a armed and political presence long after the ISAF forces are scaled back or gone. That makes the NZDF position in the Bamiyan PRT harder to maintain the closer it approaches to the announced ISAF withdrawal date. In plain terms, without reinforcement the NZDF/PRT position becomes more tenuous given the shift in local loyalties as the withdrawal deadline approaches, and tenuous in military terms means a high probability of increased casualties as the adversary grows in confidence and receives more support or acquiescence from the local population."
Paul Buchanan seems to have set up a 'cut and run' argument with sophistry that is essentially self-fulfilling and that in essence, he is saying that current ISAF plans won't work. But I ask, work to do what? IMO, the Afghans will need to continue to do their own nation building after ISAF troops start leave and we can only get them started on the process. In fact, most ASEAN states, as 3rd World nations, are still engaging in the act of nation building or even creating tools for national consensus building.
I know I am stating the obvious when I say that, there is almost no third world country without endemic corruption as one of their problems. Just because there is corruption does not mean that 3rd world nation will become a failed state. In fact, it is this 'motley assortment of tribal warlords' called the Northern Alliance, with support from US Special Forces, that overthrew the Taliban regime. And these warlords (as he calls them) have to fight to prevent the re-emergence of the Taliban.
Any thoughts? My initial thoughts are that the surge and other such action is a means to load the bases in favour of the Afghan Government, so that in the near future they can assume more responsibility. This is difficult but a necessary step and that the Afghans must take ownership on their local problems district by district and province by province, such as the case for Bamiyan. Pulling out the NZ PRT faster will not help but adaption to the Taliban's changing tactics is necessary, if the NZ Government is to stay their course and keep their promises to her allies.
Last edited: