New Zealand Army

M

mike46nzl

New Member
STURM said:
Up to the late 1980's, the NZ army still had officers attached to the Malaysian Army's Jungle Warfare School - I met one. Not sure if any are still there.There is a RNZAF Major currently attending a 2 years course at the Malaysian Army Staff College, though.
Click to expand...
RNZAF don't have Majors,,,,,just being pedantic lol
 
Cadredave

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Should NZ form a regular infantry brigade of three battalions plus all the service/log add ons and deploys its brigade HQ in NZ,
Click to expand...
We have that now in NZ, 2 x light infantry, 1 x LAV Bn with all supporting elements under command HQ 1BDE.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
mike46nzl said:
RNZAF don't have Majors,,,,,just being pedantic lol
Click to expand...
Could have been a Squadron Leader then :). The 2 times I saw him, with his wife and kids, he was wearing Kiwi DPM rather than a RNZAF uniform and I didn't look at his rank slides. As the Staff College here does courses for Majors, I assumed he was a Major.
 
S

steve33

Member
t68 said:
My sincere condolences RIP.
Click to expand...
I said when we had the two killed two weeks ago send in the SAS and ramp things up.

Well now i hope it is going to happen get the SAS over their take the fight to these bastards hunt them down and kill them.

If we are going to stay in the country till the end of next year we need to ramp up the tempo and go after these guys.
 
Kiwigov

Kiwigov

Member
Rationale for Mistral

ADMk2 said:
I thought that issue was the rationale behind the acquisition of the Mistral SAM system in the first place?

Supposedly reliable allies didn't have the capability to provide deployed NZ elements with air defence capability when they actually needed it (ie: in Bosnia)?
Click to expand...
If memory serves, I recall that the key rationale for the 1990s National government purchasing the Mistral was the Bosnia experience, where the NZ coy attached to the UN had no modern anti-armour or anti-aircraft weapons - and so had to be based in a 'quieter' area. Bearing in mind that one faction in that civil war used T-series tanks, combat helos and strike jets.

The comments about Coalition airpower are well taken, but (prior to 2001) almost all NZ's deployments had been in the context of UN missions, with no organic air assets. Must be a significant likelihood that another 'UN' mission to a Middle East civil war is on the cards (given that the USA appears less interested in intervening), and so a request to NZ would duly follow - for posting in a region where one faction has T-series tanks, combat helos, and strike jets...
 
R

RegR

Well-Known Member
Stand down fallen stand down and to those still on duty trust your training, your mates and your commitment, make safe as best you can. Another dark period in New Zealands history and hopefully not a long one.
 
S

steve33

Member
The Humvee on a modern battlefield is finished they are nothing but steel coffins now they were good when they first came out but have seen their day.

It is a shame that our government didn't buy some vehicles with V shaped hulls when they decided to buy 105 Lavs and the Pinzi vehicles which are also flat bottomed death traps.
 
L

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
steve33 said:
The Humvee on a modern battlefield is finished they are nothing but steel coffins now they were good when they first came out but have seen their day.

It is a shame that our government didn't buy some vehicles with V shaped hulls when they decided to buy 105 Lavs and the Pinzi vehicles which are also flat bottomed death traps.
Click to expand...
If you look at stuff etc we did try to borrow some MRAP, but none were available because everyone else needed then. I've said my bit on Mistral, this reinforces the issue.

While I agree with the need for MRAP, I think CDF has made some valid points re the terrain, size of the explosion and the fact even an armoured LAV would not
have survived.

My condolences to the families and children of those who died.
 
S

steve33

Member
Lucasnz said:
If you look at stuff etc we did try to borrow some MRAP, but none were available because everyone else needed then. I've said my bit on Mistral, this reinforces the issue.

While I agree with the need for MRAP, I think CDF has made some valid points re the terrain, size of the explosion and the fact even an armoured LAV would not
have survived.

My condolences to the families and children of those who died.
Click to expand...
Do you know much abut the Australian bushmaster mine protected vehicles i was reading about them on the net and they seemed to be able to take some punishment.
 
L

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
steve33 said:
Do you know much abut the Australian bushmaster mine protected vehicles i was reading about them on the net and they seemed to be able to take some punishment.
Click to expand...
I like the bush master, but other than what on the net thats all I know about it. If what I hear via a person, who has a close relative serving at Burnham military camp, is true even that would not have saved the three lost this week.

Given the Bushmaster is based on the Unimog chassis we would already be aware of some its limitations. The government just needs to front up with the cash - and we could ditch some of the Light Operational Vehicles. I must snap out of the dreaming :D
 
S

steve33

Member
Raven22 said:
Er, no it isn't. The Bushmaster has no chassis, its got a a monocoque hull.
Click to expand...
I read that the bomb used was 20Kg do you think a V shaped Hull vehicle like an
Rg32 or a bushmaster would give people a chance of survival.

And how do you think a LAV would go against a blast that big.

I know our top military brass and our politcal leaders are saying they would have died no matter what they are in but i take that with caution because they will be covering their arses the heat is really going on them.
 
recce.k1

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
The IED was described as larger than 20kg (but presumably Defence don't want to get into specifics such as what a LAV could withstand - it's not like Taliban sympathisers don't know how to read the MSM reports on the net etc).
 
L

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Raven22 said:
Er, no it isn't. The Bushmaster has no chassis, its got a a monocoque hull.
Click to expand...
Mmm you're right now that I've had a second look, though I'm sure a saw a reference to Unimog on an Australian product.
 
K

kiwi in exile

Active Member
One of the selling points of the bushmaster is that no aussie soldiers have died in a bushmaster even though they have been hit by IEDs several times. Although I think there have been injuries. I think the vehicles height off the ground make a difference too, although the trade off here is balance. Not sure how their off road performance is but probably better than a LAV. There are trade offs which ever way you go. Either way 20kgs...

In another direction: given that we are aiming to have an amphibious force by 2015 wouldn't be good to have some amphibious vehicles. From what I have seen online our LAVs are not. Are there amphib members of the LAV family out there? can they be converted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top