Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New Zealand Pays To Remain The Best
SYSOP    11/24/2014 5:58:56 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Blacktail    The "best" at what?   11/24/2014 10:17:59 PM
There are many armed forces throughout the world that have overspent to weakness, but the NZDF has gone a step further --- they're self-destructing.
 
They effectively disbanded their Air Force in the early 2000s, leaving only a hollow shell of 5 C-130s (only 3 of which are operable) and a few helicopters that are now effectively an Army Aviation Corps. Fittingly, the NZDF's roundel depicts a Kiwi --- a bird with no wings. Their only surviving air defense is 12 Mistral MANPADS launchers, a weapon so tiny that it's normally fired from a soldier's shoulder.
 
The Army retired all of it's AFVs, without replacement. If you think their inventory of NZLAVs count as operational weapon systems, you're either stupid, ignorant, or both;
Their Coast Guard --- which is deceptively referred to in official channels as a "navy" --- has 11 ships, and only 2 of them are blue water combatants, and they have no Submarines. Their only coastal forces are 6 Patrol Boats (a smaller coastal fleet than Guatemala has!).
 
There are also some 800 officers in both the regular and reserve portions of the Army (out of 7000 personnel, which includes most of the NZDF's civilian employees), which is more than 1 officer for every 10 enlisted. The senior leaders of the NZDF alone include six flag officers, and there are more scattered throughout their staffs, and the various commands. To put this in context, US Army Divisions in World War 2 --- formations that *each* were larger than the entire current NZDF --- were commanded by Colonels, not Generals. That's too much Brass Creep, and too many hands on the steering wheel.
 
The listed number of personnel in the NZDF is misleading as well, because 1/3 of it is their reserve forces, at least 900 "military personnel" (10% of the force) are civilian employees, and most of the active personnel are support staff (not actual combat forces). This is comparable to the force structure of the Malian Armed Forces, who had more than 11 Generals, but only some 11000 personnel altogether (including all of the reserves) --- a military whose excessively-large "leadership" ended up consuming most of the budget via their paychecks, which was a key factor in their near-defeat by the Taureg rebels in 2012.
 
The article also fails to mention how the NZDF is getting a "boost", beyond the (chump) change of having a tiny sliver of it's excesses shaved-off. There's nothing about whether or not any money is being diverted into training, ammunition, fuel, or maintenance, which in collectively amount to the military's readiness; in battle, readiness is more important than anything else. There is nothing about whether or not the NZDF will finally re-acquire an Air Force, a Navy, or an Army with capabilities beyond what most nations in the Western Bloc would expect from a mere Gendarme.
 
That may all seem trivial for a nation that's more than 3000 miles from any potential military threat, but the point of having armed forces is to protect national interests with force --- and what you can't defend, you don't own.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       11/24/2014 11:46:15 PM
New Zealand has what it wants--> a military designed for humanitarian missions and peacekeeping in the SW Pacific. It has not done anything BT claimed at all.  
 
Quote    Reply

Batou    Why Emprises' fal   11/25/2014 5:02:50 AM
An Empire falls when:
 
The landed gentry and Upper middle class feel safe and secure;
The military and its attended equipment is consistently unfunded and undermined;
The best of the generation is sidetracked to amusement and games (dance and drugs);
The rest of the best in the military is held  to accountability to processes beyond the corporate sphere.
Behold.. the end of Western Civilization...
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    NZ shouldn't be spending a cent on defence   11/26/2014 7:23:52 PM
I don't think you're looking at this correctly.
If you're talking about NZ's defence, well, that's its treaties with US (major defence) and Australia (slightly less, but we're here and close and can prevent any shenanigans). Was with UK/Canada too at one stage, but the Commonwealth aint what it used to be...
NZ isolation, proximity to its Allies, coupled with their power defines the role of the NZ army. Not even sure why they bought Frigates when Australia did, other than giving them some influence when it comes to int. matters (piracy, S&R, etc..)
They will never need to storm anybody's beaches, hence the lack of any serious navy, they do have a patrol boat fleet, as BT stated, it's their coast guard. They could probably use more Air force assets, but they tend to lease from Aust. when it comes to any heavy moving needed in that regard. Aust. is fairly rich in logistical assets (a country as big as America with 1/10th the population needs it).
Otherwise as Keff says, most of their armed structure is to assist in asserting influence in needy pacific nations. As well as symbolically assisting other western nations in their conflicts by sending a few hundred infantry specialists.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Big Mo    The "best" at what   11/28/2014 5:42:53 AM
The US military with one officer per seven, more than 14% of forces, has a higher percentage of officers than New Zealand at 10%. One slight correction. US World War 2 divisions actually had three generals, same as now. A Division Commander, a Major General and two Assistant Commanders, including the Division Artillery Commander who held then and now, the rank of Brigadier General, for a total of 3 generals per division
 
The size of the NZ armed forces is around 2 per thousand population. In the US the figure is more than 4 per thousand population. My guess is that enlisting in the NZ military is somewhat competitive. Anyone from New Zealand have any comments.? 
 
Quote    Reply

RockChalk    What is the NZ def need?   11/28/2014 6:21:04 PM
So, a couple thoughts 1) New Zealand is spending roughly 1.0% of its GDP on defense. Same as modern peer countries such as Japan and Canada. 2) Based on New Zealand?s world geographic positioning, they see to have the Australians and Japanese as a buffer between them and strategic competitors. Considering that New Zealand has the geographic benefit of an Oz/Jp shield, and less population than the state of Louisiana, how much of an air force should we expect them to maintain? Isn?t reasonable for the kiwis to focus on unconventional and asymmetrical aspects of modern warfare such as peace keeping and SOF? Population of New Zealand: http://www.stats.govt.nz/tools_and_services/population_clock.aspx Defense Spending as % of GDP: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc Population of US MSAs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics