Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: ANZAC force structure
brizzydude    8/19/2009 10:52:50 PM
Interesting so see in the paper today that Krudd and his NZ counterpart Key discussing more combined ops and training - reforming the ANZAC model. I'm no expert and I'd love to hear what everyone has to say about viability, structure, roles, etc. Discuss.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4
StevoJH       8/22/2009 9:20:07 PM

GUYON Okay let's look at another area where the countries have been getting closer and that is Defence and Security.  We've talked about a common ANZAC defence force, or at least a contingent rather than a wholesale merger.  Now you've said that we won't lose our independence under this scenario, but what say we get into an Iraq sort of situation where they want to send troops and we don't, I mean who would decide on the deployment?

JOHN KEY Well in that case an ANZAC contingent wouldn't be deployed.  Now we haven't worked through with the Chief of Defence Forces, you know the personnel, how this would be structured, how long it will last.  My view is if you're gonna set it up it should be a long term commitment, not about one deployment to one particular location.  In some part it is largely symbolic.  I don't think there's any getting away from that, we have relatively speaking a large defence capability and Australia has an even much larger one, no one's arguing that this ANZAC contingent's gonna get anywhere near threatening in you know the size of those specific operations.

GUYON But do you worry that we will lose our independence?  I mean you said that we would maintain our foreign policy independence, and I know you're not talking about a wholesale merger, but isn't there a risk that the world will see it that way.  The world sees New Zealand very differently from it sees Australia, it sees us as independent and nuclear free.  There are advantages to that surely.  Don't you risk putting that at risk?

JOHN KEY Well I think there are advantages and we're absolutely maintaining the anti nuclear legislation, and we're maintaining an independent foreign policy, but we happen to work very collaboratively with Australia at the moment.  When I was in Canberra this week, you know just to lay a wreath at the New Zealand memorial there, 80 odd New Zealand military personnel who are operating here in Canberra at the moment, turned up to that particular display, and there were many many others working there, but the question is can we have a better relationship and a more effective relationship if you like, working together potentially and using an ANZAC contingent if you like, just to tie in that relationship even tighter.  Now let's take the Solomon Islands, we're both intimately involved with the Ramsay operation, East Timor the same thing, Tonga when we saw the Princess Ashika's sinking very recently, isn't there an argument there that we're playing a leadership roll together in the Pacific, again looking and saying where one has a strength and maybe another one can have a priority, using those combined strengths makes sense, I think it does.
link
 
Large Defense Capability?
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Steve   8/23/2009 6:27:24 AM


Large Defense Capability?

Its large if you only intend to scare into submission a bunch of machete wielding, betal nut chewing, kava drinking Pacific Island teenage boy's who are terrorising another tribe over who gets the biggest slice of foriegn aid incomes.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Steve   8/23/2009 6:30:29 AM

What makes you think that New Zealand soldiers are going to want to spend the majority of their service based in Australia? Not so good for recruitment and retention me thinks.

 

Not my thinking at all but rather like are brigaded with like, exercise together, relieve each other on deployments, and exchange a significant number of personnel to re-enforce links between units. They do not need to be co-located but rather work and train together when possible. Think 1 Bde with 5 RAR, 2 CAV and 1 Armd in Dawin while 7 RAR will live in Adelaide.

 

Long term they would look for synergies in equipment, logistics and training. Moving ANZAC elements around for exercises would give our Amphibs a good workout as well.

 

NZ's single Wheeled Mech Btn and their single LI Btn would flesh out or Motorised Brigade (that hopefully would become a Wheeled Mech Bde) and our LI Bde to 3 Inf Btn's each.

 

This in hand we could then either keep 3 RAR as Para, or convert them to mech as originally planned under HNA, but which ever post them to 1 Bde as their 3rd Inf Btn.


I don't see the point in going to the expense and the effort. We work together well enough on peace keeping and peace enforcement ops now and as AD say's, the Kiwi's can't make a worthwhile contribution to a proper war. Its just another airy fairy Krudd internationalist idea AFAIC.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       8/23/2009 7:28:39 AM
I don't see the point in going to the expense and the effort. We work together well enough on peace keeping and peace enforcement ops now and as AD say's, the Kiwi's can't make a worthwhile contribution to a proper war. Its just another airy fairy Krudd internationalist idea AFAIC.
 
The Kiwi's I met at AASAM were very professional and quite impressive, and the ex-service Kiwi's I work with now leave many of the ex-service Australians there for dead in their skill and professionalism. The impression I have consistently had of the NZ military is that they border on elite, not in the Special Forces way but in that they are above average in most of what they do. The NZ government has done the outstanding personnel of the NZ defense forces a great injustice through retiring capabilities and failing to provide them with the equipment, numbers and budget they deserve.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       8/23/2009 8:39:00 AM
And I've got no problem with the Kiwi troops themselves, but there is no getting away from the fact that they ARE a lightly armed force with little in the way of force protection or offensive fire support capability.
 
They are a force that has very limited indigenous deployment capabilities and their logistical support is even worse than Australia's, which itself has definite limitations and very little spare capability to support others who won't for political reasons invest in their own capability.
 
Any brigade level force is going to have to be predominantly Australian manned, funded and supported, with the Kiwi's, realistically making no greater contribution than they already do on operations. 
 
In reality, a "new" idea that seemingly will achieve little more than is already being done, as far as I can see.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/23/2009 10:07:38 AM

And I've got no problem with the Kiwi troops themselves, but there is no getting away from the fact that they ARE a lightly armed force with little in the way of force protection or offensive fire support capability.

 They are a force that has very limited indigenous deployment capabilities and their logistical support is even worse than Australia's, which itself has definite limitations and very little spare capability to support others who won't for political reasons invest in their own capability.

 Any brigade level force is going to have to be predominantly Australian manned, funded and supported, with the Kiwi's, realistically making no greater contribution than they already do on operations. 

 In reality, a "new" idea that seemingly will achieve little more than is already being done, as far as I can see. 


That pretty much sum's it up for me too and I would note that most Kiwi's care and who know anything about their military would tell you exactly the same thing. They aren't happy at all with where successive governments have taken them.
 
Quote    Reply

albywan       8/23/2009 6:21:12 PM
AD, as a kiwi i could take a lot of offense at what you've said about NZ's defense forces.
 
But the blame for this would be the narrow geo-political view that has been presnet in the NZ Govt for the last decade (and longer.)
 
We have failed to keep our resourcing to a level where we can contribute on a worthwhile basis.
 
BUT, these KRudd/Key discussions are a stepping stone. Any combined ANZAC force is going to be a political lever to get get the NZ defense capabilities aligned with the potential deployments.
 
You say our Hercs are old, guess what saying just that isn't going to get them upgraded... But if the combined ANZAC force can highlight their defieciencies and the impact this has on the NZ defense working alongside your troops, then the leverage can be applied at the political level.
 
NZ needs this way more than Australia does...
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy