A member with a blue tag is a defence professional and has met the criteria to be labelled as such. They have to provide proof of their qualifications and those are checked.
New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
To become a NZ Army Sniper very appropriate exactly the same as becoming a badged member of NZSAS, Army has deliberately set the bar high no exceptions and no lowering of standards.
I cant answer for Australia course syllabus to prepare soldier’s to enter your countries Army, how long is basic training in Australian Army is it 16 weeks like here in NZ or shorter is Infantry Corp trg an extra 12 weeks on top of that?
No new soldier in our Army comes off Corp trg and goes direct to the Sniper Course conducted by our School of Infantry, you spend at least 18 months – 3 years gaining time & experience in a Rfl Coy, your amplitude & skills are recognised during internal Infantry qualification trg ie (DFSW/R&S, Dog handlers, Signals) and a possible posting to Support Coy you are then nominated to conduct the unit sniper course under the R&S platoon where you are given further trg to increase your soldier skills to assist you conducting the Unit snipers if you pass that you then have to maintain marksman qualification during the AWQ (Annual Weapons Qualification) and await a vacancy on the NZ Army Sniper course, so again I don’t know what your Army does but I damn well know how much effort, time & sweat goes into achieving a place on the Sniper course so how much more training & instructing does a Infantry soldier need?
Civilians can voluteer straight off civi street to enter NZSAS and those who do pass selection are TOD to our two RF Infantry Battalions to up skill they don’t become blades overnight after selection the hardest part is not selection in NZ it is the 9 month cycle so whatever SASR do in their backyard is there business and good on them.
No need to when you already have trained riflemen from the Unit & Army course who are already at a higher trained state than the rest of the Riflemen they may have failed a sniper course but they still have higher skill sets than the rest and they can always apply again once they have corrected their deficiencies.
Ocean1Curse
Member
Just quietly when I came into this defence community I use to think tactics and kit was the major malfunction as well - Rookie mistake.
If you take NZDF for granted then you are in-titled to be here and get a free ride. The tax payer pays for the benefit of top elite personal who act on the advice of parliament with the gear they are given. But Cadets is a bit different today. Students go there because there parents can afford it. And the day you go to that school they coop you and your family to be loyal to the school and donate to the school. And when you graduate you know that your credentials and years in that school will increase or decrease the chances of becoming an officer in one of NZDF's branches. That is the current system all recruits should go to and it's very difficult as is fundraising events will show you.
CadreDave, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.
I believe that the military is first and foremost a fighting organisation, but a very close second a training organisation. How many school kids or uni students step into the military able to shoot artillery, drive tanks, submarines or fighter jets, or put a bullet through a bad guy from 1000m? That training has to be conducted before anyone can fight. Regardless of how much fighting people are doing, the bulk of their time is still spent training, such that when it comes to the fighting they can do it better...
I largely agree with you on many things; maintenance of standards for example, and please don't misconstrue what I am going to say as that standards should be lowered.
The point that I am going to make largely comes down to these two sentences
From the numbers that have been purported, it seems logical to me that whilst they may all be fine soldiers, a decent percentage of the lads walking through the door are extremely unlikely to pass, before they even get there. Hell their CO's probably know/suspect this when they recommend them. Probably most of the staff would be able to tell you within the first week the likely candidates.
This is why when I hear numbers like we are discussing an organisational issue - of the 90% who are chopped, that number could likely be significantly reduced prior with either more stringent selection criteria or some prior screening. Given the trouble that all militaries are facing at present with operational, equipment and training budgets and the like would it not make more sense to give these guys either a) additional training, mentoring and supervision to equip them with the skills to pass prior to commencing the course or b) not send them (i.e Screen them earlier)?
I guess only the NZ Army can answer that question - if they consider the additional skills gained by the 90% of course that fail is worth the cost / resources of sending them on a course they will not complete?
I believe that the military is first and foremost a fighting organisation, but a very close second a training organisation. How many school kids or uni students step into the military able to shoot artillery, drive tanks, submarines or fighter jets, or put a bullet through a bad guy from 1000m? That training has to be conducted before anyone can fight. Regardless of how much fighting people are doing, the bulk of their time is still spent training, such that when it comes to the fighting they can do it better...
I largely agree with you on many things; maintenance of standards for example, and please don't misconstrue what I am going to say as that standards should be lowered.
The point that I am going to make largely comes down to these two sentences
Firstly - I'm wagering they need at least some extra training and instruction - otherwise they wouldn't be on the sniper course in the first place! Secondly - if no amount of extra training will get them ready (and in a position to pass - which apparently 90% will not) then they have no purpose in being there.
From the numbers that have been purported, it seems logical to me that whilst they may all be fine soldiers, a decent percentage of the lads walking through the door are extremely unlikely to pass, before they even get there. Hell their CO's probably know/suspect this when they recommend them. Probably most of the staff would be able to tell you within the first week the likely candidates.
This is why when I hear numbers like we are discussing an organisational issue - of the 90% who are chopped, that number could likely be significantly reduced prior with either more stringent selection criteria or some prior screening. Given the trouble that all militaries are facing at present with operational, equipment and training budgets and the like would it not make more sense to give these guys either a) additional training, mentoring and supervision to equip them with the skills to pass prior to commencing the course or b) not send them (i.e Screen them earlier)?
I guess only the NZ Army can answer that question - if they consider the additional skills gained by the 90% of course that fail is worth the cost / resources of sending them on a course they will not complete?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One of the first thoughts which come to my mind is that a number of armed forces have similar programmes for their various special operations and special operators and I have been under the impression that most of these training programmes have high failure and/or withdrawal rates. If that is the case, then that would strongly suggest to me that passing such courses are not merely a matter of having the needed skills and physical attributes. It also suggests to me that the courses themselves are being used to screen the personnel being trained, almost certainly in a way that armed forces have been unable to come up with an alternate method of doing.
I would have to disagree with the above, since AFAIK the armed forces of several nations have various courses with similarly high failure rates. If the NZ Army was an outlier in this type of situation, that would be one thing. Since other special operator courses like the British SAS or SBS and USAF Pararescue courses have similar ~10% pass rates for candidates, that strongly suggests to me that the NZ Army pass rates are inline with other those of other nations.
Then there is also the question of how that pass percentage rate is even measured or calculated. The US Army Q course appears to have a 65% pass rate, but the first phase, the SF Assessment and Selection course has something like a 60% failure rate, before SF candidates are allowed further into the Q course. Combine the two, and it works out to only ~24% of those who apply making it through. Without knowing more about the programmes, as well as when/where candidates fail or drop from a programme and why, then IMO it is a bit problematic to suggest better candidate screening and/or additional training prior to the commencement of a particular course.
danonz
Member
The article does mention the main point that disqualifies a lot of the potential snipers.
Determining the range to the target.
If you get the wrong range you dial the wrong mil/moa on the scope then you miss the target, Not sure how many misses you get before RTU.
The article doesn't mention what is required in the exam phase but it sounds like no range finder and possibly not even a spotter to bring the missed rounds on to target.
Determining the range to the target.
If you get the wrong range you dial the wrong mil/moa on the scope then you miss the target, Not sure how many misses you get before RTU.
The article doesn't mention what is required in the exam phase but it sounds like no range finder and possibly not even a spotter to bring the missed rounds on to target.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Final configuration of British Army Land Ceptor unveiled - MBDA
NZ isn't in the market for a ground-based point defence system, but I image this would have the inside running if we were, based on commonality with the Navy.
Were they ever able to sell the Mistral system, or is it still mothballed in storage?
NZ isn't in the market for a ground-based point defence system, but I image this would have the inside running if we were, based on commonality with the Navy.
Were they ever able to sell the Mistral system, or is it still mothballed in storage?
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
New British Army Order For Bomb Disposal "Robots"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-contract-for-uk-bomb-disposal-robots-at-dsei
Pretty sure I saw that NZ was in the market for remotely-controlled bomb diaposal gear. Yep, here it is.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/uv-online/nz-seeks-replacement-eod-robots/
Likely that whoever got the UK contract will be a strong contender here.
Incidentally, lots of free-to-air content from the UK's DSEI exhibition on the Shephard Media site.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-contract-for-uk-bomb-disposal-robots-at-dsei
Pretty sure I saw that NZ was in the market for remotely-controlled bomb diaposal gear. Yep, here it is.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/uv-online/nz-seeks-replacement-eod-robots/
Likely that whoever got the UK contract will be a strong contender here.
Incidentally, lots of free-to-air content from the UK's DSEI exhibition on the Shephard Media site.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digital-battlespace/dsei-2017-unsheathing-broadsword/
Interesting end-note to an update on the BAE Broadsword, their take on wearable 'soldier of the future' kit.
Interesting end-note to an update on the BAE Broadsword, their take on wearable 'soldier of the future' kit.
I assume a few units have been bought for a Battlelab trial or similar.
danonz
Member
New sniper rifle
Any one no what rifles were tested ? And if they will make the selection public the blurred out the images from testing ..
http://army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/army-news/armynews-484-new-sniper-rifle.pdf
Any one no what rifles were tested ? And if they will make the selection public the blurred out the images from testing ..
http://army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/army-news/armynews-484-new-sniper-rifle.pdf
danonz
Member
Know*:coffee
Anti material rifle has been chosen Barrett M107A1 50cal, my mistake & Barrett MRAD .338 Lapua is the Sniper rifle replacement
Last edited:
News story with details and price: NZ Defence Force to buy 82 new high-tech rifles for $4 million - NZ Herald
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digital-battlespace/gatr-technologies-satcom-solutions-nzdf/
2.4 Meter Antenna System for C X and KU Bands from GATR Technologies Maker of Inflatable Mobile Satellite Systems
This is the chosen product.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByEPyJj7T1k
This is a fascinating time-lapse video - highly recommended.
This popped up a week ago on the Shephard Media site - I haven't noticed any media release from the NZ end. Looks like an ingenious piece of kit.
2.4 Meter Antenna System for C X and KU Bands from GATR Technologies Maker of Inflatable Mobile Satellite Systems
This is the chosen product.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByEPyJj7T1k
This is a fascinating time-lapse video - highly recommended.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
NZDF has put up a couple of rather fancy Facebook videos covering the two new acquisitions at Waiouru.
https://www.facebook.com/NZArmy/videos/1474965312540610/
Anti-materiel rifle here.
IEA - IEA Ballistic Computer
Comes with IEA BC01 ballistics computer from Germany.
https://www.facebook.com/NZArmy/videos/1475900622447079/
Sniper rifle here.
ATACR™ 5-25×56 F1 Riflescope | Riflescopes & Sport Optics | Nightforce Optics, Inc.
25x ATACR Nightforce scope (with cringeworthy acronym).
https://kestrelmeters.com/products/kestrel-elite-weather-meter-with-applied-ballistics
Kestrel ballistic calculator
https://www.nioa.com.au/
Interesting that the Down Under distributor for Barrett is the same company that supplied NZ with Glock pistols. Their sales team targeting NZ appear to be earning their pay! I guess there may be benefits to NZ in dealing with a single supplier for three weapon systems, rather than three different suppliers.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
40 former Defence Force Unimogs on the auction block | Stuff.co.nz
I wonder how long it will take them to dispose of the whole fleet? There has no recent mention of a new 'garrison duties' fleet for use within NZ, to keep wear and tear down on the MANs. From memory, that was intended for purchase about now, presumably to coincide with the retirement of the Unimogs.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
There has been a lot of speculation, some of it a little speculative (!) on what the new Minister will mean for aviation and naval procurement.
Perhaps we should think about what the impact of a formaer army NCO/officer will have on army procurement?
The proposed civvy-spec truck fleet mentioned in my previous post is one issue on the table. There is also:
- mid-life upgrade of some/all of the LAVIIIs
- disposal of some surplus LAVIIIs?
- additional protected vehicles?
- ongoing radio/comms upgrades?
Any other land forces procurement decisions due in the next three years?
Perhaps we should think about what the impact of a formaer army NCO/officer will have on army procurement?
The proposed civvy-spec truck fleet mentioned in my previous post is one issue on the table. There is also:
- mid-life upgrade of some/all of the LAVIIIs
- disposal of some surplus LAVIIIs?
- additional protected vehicles?
- ongoing radio/comms upgrades?
Any other land forces procurement decisions due in the next three years?
TheRedDwarf
New Member
Hello all.
According to a Shepherd media article covering Southern Katipo (As I cannot post links or photos, the title of the article is 'NZDF hones skills with overseas mates in Southern Katipo', should you wish to read it), the army is likely to purchase new helmets and additional body armour in late 2018 (I suspect that these will likely be of the FAST variety, a speculation that is supported by a photo posted on the New Zealand Sergeant major of the Army's Twitter account in late May earlier this year, detailing the events of a briefing of senior staff by capability branch. If you manage to find the image look at the background of the shot, and you should see some helmets of FAST design, aswell as new backpacks and plate carriers. Apologies, but I cannot post images so this will have to suffice).
Said article also mentions that, over the course of the exercise, elements of 2/1 battalion 1RNZIR trialed a new combat uniform cut (no mention as to how extensive the modifications are, but the retention of the current ineffectual MCU digital pattern would in my opinion constitute the likely course of action) and new webbing. Naturally there are no images and no further written elaboration upon the nature of the changes.
Although I suspect that you are referring to this project by stating " additional protected vehicles", the replacement of the Pinzgauer 6x6 fleet is an additional consideration. The aforementioned Shepherd article postulates that the Bushmaster will likely be, if not the go-to option, than most certainly a logical contender. The same article also mentions (and I have come across similar statements in some officially sanctioned defence force publication, likely Army news) that current thinking regarding the likely composition of the replacement fleet will that a number of vehicle types will be procured. This train of thought is also echoed in both the Defence capability plan and an earlier Shepard media article (Article name: 'NZ defence plan rectifies vague white paper').
As an aside, it is worth noting that the army is, in addition to the projects that both you and I have mentioned, also considering it's future force structure (under the abbreviation 'FLOC' ) and a number of very interesting possibilities have been put forth (Army news 485), but I shall not list them here.
Last edited: