New Zealand Army

[Markus40]

Re: More.

Yes more retainability is needed. There are too many soldiers and personell running off to higher paid jobs overseas with better opportunities. This was brought around by low moral due the Army being left without proper equipment in the past and the Army thinking they were into peacekeeping duties which seems to be the direction of this party. I hope due to changes in the military that this will change from here on.

They just need more of them.

 

[old faithful]

having worked closly with2/1 RNZIR , i can say they are the equal with any other infantry that i have worked with, and much better than most. (also very good beer drinkers!). Their bush skills and ability to adapt to conditions that are much different to what they are used to was impressive.

 

[Whiskyjack]

The Govt is currently engaged in a 10 year exercise to rebuild the strength of the NZDF. With a target of 2000 extra personnel, 1500 for the army. It is to cost an extra NZ$4.2b and increase the pay and conditions of personnel. Kicked off this year so it will be interesting to see how it goes.

 

[Mr Waka]

Could someone please answer my question. I had go at searching about the web and did not seem to find anything that helped me out.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Could someone please answer my question. I had go at searching about the web and did not seem to find anything that helped me out.

In this context section, platoon and company level. The basic stuff. Not surprising really - battalion sized exercises a rare. While we maintain a brigade framework in theory, in reality it is hardly ever tested and we lack many of the assets you would expect to find at brigade level.

 

[NZLAV]

New Zealand soldiers have always been considered some of the best in the world all the way back to WW1 where we first made our mark. NZ also have one of the most admired armies in the world because of the effort our guys make to get to know the people of the areas they get deployed to (eg look at how the people of East Timor have welcomed the soldiers from the NZ army). What lets us down is our lack of equipment and numbers.

Lack of equipment? I wouldn't say that 105 LAV's, 321 LOV's, 24 Javelins, 24 105mm artillary, 81mm mortars, 12 matra mistrals and direct fire support weapons are a lack. They are all brand new and have the latest technology. The 105 LAV's easily complement an army of 7000 regulars(when the extra 1500 have been recruited).

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Lack of equipment? I wouldn't say that 105 LAV's, 321 LOV's, 24 Javelins, 24 105mm artillary, 81mm mortars, 12 matra mistrals and direct fire support weapons are a lack. They are all brand new and have the latest technology. The 105 LAV's easily complement an army of 7000 regulars(when the extra 1500 have been recruited).

Mate in practice that kit doesn't represent a brigade capability. We might have 24 howitzers but the reality is that we have only two regular gun batteries. Both only have 4 guns instead of the standard 6, and they are very short on people. Things like firefinder radar are missing. There aren't enough MPs for a deployed brigade, or engineer, signals etc. All of that equipment isn't new either. The howitzers and mortars date from the mid-80s and the engineer equipment is worn out. Sure, progress has been made, but there is still a long way to go.

 

[Waylander]

Nearly every opponent who is able to direct a minimum of effective counterfire would wipe out the NZ artillery in minutes.

 

[Supe]

Nearly every opponent who is able to direct a minimum of effective counterfire would wipe out the NZ artillery in minutes.

With 155mm becoming the defacto standard choice for artillery, I'm wondering if the Kiwis are looking at upgrading their artillery to this standard. The Canadians have employed their M777's to Afghanistan - signifying that even in peace enforcement operations that heavy weapons can be of high utility.

 

[buschy]

While theres still an NZ in ANZAC 'll still love you blokes

 

[Aussie Digger]

Nearly every opponent who is able to direct a minimum of effective counterfire would wipe out the NZ artillery in minutes.

There's a bit more to it, than mere range or calibre statistics though mate. Terrain for instance. NZ's L119 105mm guns are light enough to be able to be manhandled into position, and only weigh about 2000kg's, meaning they can be used in terrain that you could NEVER take an SPG or M198 type heavy towed gun into.

There is also an available upgrade for them that makes the nearly as capable in range and lethality as some 155mm gun types. They are also capable of being airlifted by medium helo's (unlike most 155mm guns) and this will be a prime role for the NH-90 when it's introduced.

Some artillery is better than nothing and the Brits used their L118/9's to good efffect in the Falklands where no heavier gun could be taken. They also used them in GW2, despite the presence of AS-90 and other more capable guns and rocket systems and despite the fact that they were significantly outranged by Iraqi artillery.

If the M-777 were to be adopted or a similar "lightweight" 155mm gun (Singaporean Pegasus for instance) they might be too heavy for a medium helo or certain terrain despite being designed to be significantly lighter than previous 155mm towed guns...

A serious study needs to be conducted on any benefits of 155mm guns vs upgraded L118/9's before the decision is made, IMHO. There's a lot of difference in moving around 4 tons compared to 2... :rel

 

[Supe]

A serious study needs to be conducted on any benefits of 155mm guns vs upgraded L118/9's before the decision is made, IMHO. There's a lot of difference in moving around 4 tons compared to 2... :rel

I don't see it as a Vs argument. A number of 155's (a Battery's worth?) could be procured to compliment the existing 105's.

Did the ADF operate 155mm calibre Arty prior to the purchase of the M198's?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't see it as a Vs argument. A number of 155's (a Battery's worth?) could be procured to compliment the existing 105's.

Did the ADF operate 155mm calibre Arty prior to the purchase of the M198's?

Nope. It operated WW2 era 25 pounders...

I agree with the option to use either, however NZ's funding situation is even worse then Australia's. The budget may not stretch, hence the 105mm upgrade comments...

With the likelyhood of 1x single battalion being the maximum NZ could deploy and only 2x battalions being at "high readiness" 2x artillery batteries could be easily maintained with 1x 155mm and 1x 105mm, thus providing the option of deploying the most suitable capability.

Again however funding caps limits NZ's capability. As pointed out earlier, NZ operates no artillery/mortar locating radar capability and this necessarily limits their counter-battery fire capability as does the lack of a UAV or any other aerial recon asset for that matter.

The purchase of new 155mm guns will limit acquisitions in other areas and gain only a little over upgraded L118/9 guns. I'd rather an NZLAV mounted battalion group equipped with upgraded 105mm light guns but with Firefinder radars and Shadow 200 (or similar) TUAV's, than one without any of these capabilities but with 155mm arty pieces...

Of course there's no guarantee the costs involved will work out evenly as this scenario, but it highlights the point I'm trying to make. With limited funds they need to be smart about their acquisitions, they can't afford to ferg it up like we do on a regular basis...

IF the Government were to make the funds available, I'd opt for the wider variety of capability, rather than more capable specific assets...

 

[Waylander]

I didn't want to make the 105mm look bad. As I said the problem ist counterfire capabilities. There are much more options of counterfire than just another artillery gun.
If you are not able to reach them with 155mm howitzers (With increased range) or with rocket artillery you could try to get them with an airstrike or with attack helicopters. Also 120mm mortars are a real opponent. They are light enough to be operated in nearly every terrain and are mobile.
If you put them onto light combat vehicles like we do with our Wiesel you get a very fast, accurate and light artillery system which nearly negotates the positive aspects of the 105mm guns.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I don't see it as a Vs argument. A number of 155's (a Battery's worth?) could be procured to compliment the existing 105's.

The cost of the guns is negligable in the scheme of things. The most you would expect to pay for a towed piece is around $2M. The real issue is the cost of the staff to support them. During the 04/05 FY 64% of the cost of running 16 Field Regiment was spent on staff costs - and during the same period it was 1/3 under strength.

If you wanted to introduce a 155mm caliber you would be looking at an initial buy of only around 20 pieces (6 each for the batteries + another 8 for school of guns and reserve pool). Not exactly big money.

During FY06/07 Output Class 8.1 (Artillery) is budgeted at NZ$56.7M.

 

[blueorchid]

25 Pounders!

Prior to the issue of the M198 155mm the Australia Army operated the Medium 5.5 inch(140mm) in two regiments using a 80 pound shell. The 25 pounders where replaced in the early sixties by the M2A2 105mm and the L5 105mm pack howitzer in 1960.
I hope Aussie Digger was only taking the piss out of you with his reference of the 25 pounder,

 

[Supe]

The cost of the guns is negligable in the scheme of things. The most you would expect to pay for a towed piece is around $2M. The real issue is the cost of the staff to support them. During the 04/05 FY 64% of the cost of running 16 Field Regiment was spent on staff costs - and during the same period it was 1/3 under strength.

If you wanted to introduce a 155mm caliber you would be looking at an initial buy of only around 20 pieces (6 each for the batteries + another 8 for school of guns and reserve pool). Not exactly big money.

During FY06/07 Output Class 8.1 (Artillery) is budgeted at NZ$56.7M.

Nice post. Do you know if there are any moves within NZDF to buy 155's? I think having 155's in the inventory offer increased flexibility. That said, money might be better spent on the counter fire capability such as Firefire radars.

I know the Singaporeans have taken their 155's to NZ for firing exercises. Pehaps a deal could be sorted out between the two nations on aquisistion of the Pegasus...

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/Weapons/slwh/home.html

 

[Aussie Digger]

The cost of the guns is negligable in the scheme of things. The most you would expect to pay for a towed piece is around $2M. The real issue is the cost of the staff to support them. During the 04/05 FY 64% of the cost of running 16 Field Regiment was spent on staff costs - and during the same period it was 1/3 under strength.

If you wanted to introduce a 155mm caliber you would be looking at an initial buy of only around 20 pieces (6 each for the batteries + another 8 for school of guns and reserve pool). Not exactly big money.

During FY06/07 Output Class 8.1 (Artillery) is budgeted at NZ$56.7M.

And what are you going to fire from them? The actual gun itself may not cost TOO much (though I VERY much doubt you'll get a new 155mm towed gun for $2m a piece) you need a warstock of 155mm ammo.

Plus with a new acquisition of artillery there will be an inevitable push for new gen munitions including a "precision guided" round or 2, a new C4I system to integrate the system into your "networked land force" that NZ IS trying to develop, logistical support, training support and ancillary items such as gun tractors, ammunition tractors etc.

Even 2x batteries worth are likely cost in excess of $100m merely for the acquisition, IMHO.

Even IF the tubes only cost $2m a piece (and again I find that HIGHLY dubious) that's $40m JUST for 20 guns. Add the rest, it becomes a "major" acquisition in NZ terms...

Staff costs will be no different to now (apart from the yearly inflation that occurs anyway) given the same crew numbers will operate the new capability...

As to the 25 pounders comment, it wasn't a joke, I simply forgot about the 5.5inch guns... I actually saw one once at the former School of Artillery in Manly, Sydney too. Stupid of me to forget I suppose, at least it doesn't happen TOO often, I must be getting older...

 

[Rocco_NZ]

And what are you going to fire from them? The actual gun itself may not cost TOO much (though I VERY much doubt you'll get a new 155mm towed gun for $2m a piece) you need a warstock of 155mm ammo.

Plus with a new acquisition of artillery there will be an inevitable push for new gen munitions including a "precision guided" round or 2, a new C4I system to integrate the system into your "networked land force" that NZ IS trying to develop, logistical support, training support and ancillary items such as gun tractors, ammunition tractors etc.

Even 2x batteries worth are likely cost in excess of $100m merely for the acquisition, IMHO.

Just looked up the figures again. The M77 runs at a little over $NZ3M a unit, including digitial fire control. What I said stands though, the gun itself is a small part of the equation. Gun tractos themselves aren't an issue, the Unimog fleet will be replaced in the next year or so and any replacement will likley include enough vehicles for this. 16 Field Regt currently has 43 Unimogs on issue.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Given that the Govt intends to increase the Army by 1500 troops over the next ten years, lets assume it happens. I think that it should provide scope for the 3 formations, 1 x LAV, 1 X Infantry Battalions and the QAMR as a CAV/ISTAR formation that is made up of LAV and lighter elements.

And can also be used as a third deployable HQ with elements from either of the other Bats while its own squadrons could deploy with the other Bats.

The issue is for me with 6,000 troops what proportion can the army place into frontline units and what proportion need to be in support units such as engineers, artillery, logistics, etc.. and then there are base support that are not generally deployable. As this ratio will effect the make up of the units it will be interesting to see what others think

From what I can see from looking at other armies around 25% to 30% of troops can be located in front line units with 60% to 70% of the army deployable.

If say 65% of the army is deployable that would allow for three 1300 person groups in theory.

Does anyone have any thoughts?