Talk:New Zealand Army

Delete M113 section
I propose to delete the M113 section. There isn't a commentary on any other equipment purchases and it is no longer topical. 203.97.94.1 21:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree.Ross.browne 06:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree I have removed it after reaching consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 09:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Major Equipment Section
Major equipment section needs work. The listing is inconsistent (quantities of some major items and not others) and incomplete (missing several vehicle fleets and suites of equipment).

I have seen an article in an Australian defence magazine saying that the NZDF has adopted the Heckler & Koch 40mm GMG & have also seen a photo of it as well. I have articles from the NZ Army News with the army's sniper rifle being the Accuracy International AW & according to the April 2009 issue, the SR25 is used by the NZSAS as a Marksman's Rifle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.8.133 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is quantifying each item necessary? Some quantities reflect the number of items purchased originally, not current quantity. 203.97.94.1 22:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree Ross.browne 06:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Lists or tables of major equipment holdings are standard in articles on armed forces (see, for instance, Australian Army, British Army and Russian Ground Forces), so the section should be updated rather than removed. The alternate approach, as used in the United States Army and United States Marine Corps articles, is to convert this to text. --Nick Dowling 07:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest a conversion to text would work best. This avoides the problem with inaccurate quantities.Ross.browne 09:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions: RNZEME, Red Sashes, Slouch hats
Does the RNZEME still exist? No mention is made here of it. When the red sash for sergeants was dropped in favour of a NZ version did some corps or regiments retain it? Mention is made of a version of the slouch hat replacing khaki peak caps. Does this mean all corps now wear a slouch hat? Ozdaren 13:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the RNZEME was one of the founding Corps of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) in 1996. In other words it was amalgamated with the RNZCT and RNZAOC to form the RNZALR. Strangways (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC) 'Lemon Squeezers' Hats Are worn by all Regiments in the New Zealand Army as part of the SDAR (Standard Dress All Ranks) uniform, it is also exceptable to wear it with Working dress all ranks, although uncommon Mounted Rifles slouch hats are still around although rarely worn, only on special occasions No corps retained the Red Sash but variations are still worn (Mokowaewae) http://www.army.mil.nz/our-army/structure/uniforms/ceremonial-service-dress.htm 125.236.161.64 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The MR Hat is still issued and is used with Service Dress and on occasion with working dress, especially by members of the RNZAC (Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps). The Lemon Squeezer is also issued to all personnel and is worn as part of the most formal order of dress "Service Dress 1A Ceremonial" which is service dress jacket, Sam Browne (for officers) medals, gloves and Lemon Squeezer on the most formal of occasions such as ANZAC Day. The MR hat is seen as less formal and is used on less ceremonial occasions, as the lemon squeezer is saved for most ceremonial activities, as it needs a perfectly straight brim and is hence difficult to maintain in perfect condition whereas the MR hat looks good with a bent-down brim. Strangways (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As from 2012 the Lemon Squeezer has been withdrawn from general issue and is now worn only by such limited categories as colour guards. According to media reporting the retention of two traditional headdresses (Mounted Rifles slouch hat and Lemon Squeezer) was leading to confusion with both being brought to particular parades or ceremonies. Buistr (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nzarmy.gif
Image:Nzarmy.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pinzgauers
The NZ Army's website states that most of the LOVs are unarmoured support vehicles, but small numbers are armoured and/or special operations variants http://www.army.mil.nz/our-army/equipment/lov/default.htm I think that they belong under support vehicles, but failing that sticking them in the own category is probably the best solution. They're certainly not armoured vehicles. --Nick Dowling 06:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

HMMWV?
I found this on the New Zealand MoD site. 

Does New Zealand now use them, or did they borrow some from the Americans whilst in A’stan? Any one know? Chwyatt 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They're not part of the NZ Army's usual equipment, so I assume that they've been borrowed/leased/purchased for use in Afghanistan. The NZ Army uses the Pinzgauer LOV in the roles the US Army uses the HMMWV for. --Nick Dowling 23:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thought that might be the case, cheers. Chwyatt 11:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NZ Javelin wn06031149tn.JPG
Image:NZ Javelin wn06031149tn.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal New Zealand Army NOT
Anybody who could write a little (2-3 lines would do) etymology section explaining why its the only arm not prefaced by "Royal New Zealand"? Would best go directly under the lede. Ingolfson (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Same reason as for the British Army, I believe. Orpheus (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Corps have the 'Royal' distinction (except New Zealand Intelligence Corps (NZIC) for some reason) so the Army as a whole does not - as for British Army as mentioned above. Strangways (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

They need to also put her majesty as Commander in Chief and then the govonor general Godsavethequeen001 (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Statistics
Are there any statistics like total strength, total active/inactive, etc for this article? New Zealand Defence Force has its statistics... 118.90.44.104 (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Complete overhaul required
After noticing this article was marked for clean up i have attempted to fix the issues. I have removed significant pro-nz bias from the article. I have also made numerous copyedits, but suspect i have not found everything.

There is also a largeamount of unreferenced material in the article.Retrolord (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A number of the changes that you have made appear contentious. The issue has accordingly been referred to the discussion page of WikiProject Military history for comment. Buistr (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Regiment/battalion group
The rambling and colloquial speculation about the terms regiment and battalion group being used interchangeably is simply wrong. Reserve units are battalion groups, now of multiple corps. Regiments are the arms formations, the term being used in accordance with army tradition. There is no ambiguity or inconsistency.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on New Zealand Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/554440/662504
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68ghljQ2t?url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/4094986/Officers-flown-in-to-protect-Christchurch to http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/4094986/Officers-flown-in-to-protect-Christchurch
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.army.mil.nz/our-army/operations/operation-christchurch-quake-2011/default.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226232108/http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/new_zealand_army_takes_delivery_of_first_40_trucks_from_rheinmetall_man_military_vehicles_australia_.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/new_zealand_army_takes_delivery_of_first_40_trucks_from_rheinmetall_man_military_vehicles_australia_.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150818184248/http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/current-acquisition-projects/individual-weapon-replacement.html to http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/current-acquisition-projects/individual-weapon-replacement.html
 * Added tag to http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/28/confirmed-lmt-to-supply-nzdf-with-cqb16.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Her Majesty
Her majesty should be on there as Commander in Chief and then the govonor general Godsavethequeen001 (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Governor General of NZ is the Commander in Chief of the NZDF, not the Queen:, (section 6) and . Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nick, those references seem conclusive to me. This should not be changed, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Royal designation
Please provide a reliable source that supports the assertion that it is the "Royal New Zealand Army" rather than continuing to add it back in. I have reverted your addition per WP:BRD, so please provide a reference. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely not. Like the British, Australian and other Commonwealth armies the designation "Royal" is restricted to specific regiments or corps within the New Zealand Army. Buistr (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced sentence
The following sentence was in the first paragraph of the "21st century" section, but most of the deployments listed are in the previous century. I couldn't see an obvious place in the article to move the sentence to, so I've placed it here in case it can be reused.- gadfium 18:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * New Zealand personnel have served in a large number of UN and other peacekeeping deployments, including the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in the Middle East, Operation Agila in Rhodesia, the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Sinai, Cambodia, Somalia, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Angola, Bosnia, Bougainville, with the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, and the Sudan.
 * G'day, I made an attempt to rectify this with this edit: . Please feel free to adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)