Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 38559	2003-10-11 03:10:00	OT. NZ Army	Blue_face (1148)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
182203	2003-10-11 19:24:00	Thats a good idea just surrender Auckland and keep the rest like the French in WW2. tedheath	tedheath (537)
182204	2003-10-11 20:53:00	No-one will invade us if they`ve been following the claims made via the Waitangi Tribunal; How much will Maoris claim from the next lot? This is our best defence. And who needs allies to come in and scatter depleted uranium around our place?	brewer (4389)
182205	2003-10-11 21:24:00	Actually great opportunities were thrown away with various defence force reviews including the Quigley report. Many of NZ defence funding and equipment problems have arisen from the out of date situation of having competing Army, Navy, and Air Force, with vested interests with none of the services having updated capabilities, or capable of properly carrying out the roles assigned to them. The Airforce has no modern planes or modern helicopters, the Navy cant transport soldiers around, the frigates are not fully equipped with the defensive armaments that they could have been ( No Raytheon missile systems etc etc) basically only a 4" gun, (but I am prepared to be corrected on that). For a country of this size it would have made very much more sense to have scrapped separate Army, Navy, Airforce services and established a fully combined defence force. This force would have been sensibly equipped with jump jet Harriers, helicopters including a few heavy lift and a few attack types, "Commando" type transport ships with Harrier and helicopter platforms, the army could have been re-vamped into Marines. Two under-equipped frigates is not what this country needs, anyone who can remember or knows about the Atlantic "Cod War" when Icelandic gunboats out performed British frigates in the heavy seas of the Atlantic, and put a few dents into the frigates will know that. F16s and Skyhawks attack/fighters are certainly not what this country needs. We are shortly only going to have one military airfield and any enemy would knock that out in 5 minutes. Harriers can be landed anywhere, hidden in forest clearings etc, and easily transported with the army on peace keeping missions ( given the right ships). F16s need flight re-fuelling to get anywhere, and would need fuuly equipped airfields when or even if they got to where they were supposed to be going. OK that's my say, I could go on all day re-organising. the Defence Forces.	Terry Porritt (14)
182206	2003-10-11 22:04:00	I know what the Amry, Navy and Airforce are. but what the hell are the marines and what do they do?	James Busby (341)
182207	2003-10-11 23:11:00	You obviously haven't watched enough "old" John Wayne movies Jim, about how America won the war (WW2) single handedly, or you'd know what Marines are :)	Terry Porritt (14)
182208	2003-10-11 23:14:00	Never heard of John Wayne.	James Busby (341)
182209	2003-10-11 23:28:00	Oh dear, my age is showing :( Back in sailing ship days marines were seaborn soldiers . They were soldiers carried on ships to carry the fight onto the enemies shore . America used Marines to invade Japanese held islands in the Pacific during the WW2 . John Wayne acted in Westerns, and almost single handedly won the war as he appeared in films in every theatre of WW2 from the Pacific to Europe and in the air . More bullets were probably fired off in his westerns and war films than in the whole of WW2 in real life . Since we are an island nation, then it would make much more sense to have to have Marines who are trained to fight in all theatres than a traditional land based army .	Terry Porritt (14)
182210	2003-10-12 01:49:00	Canada has been accused of not "pulling its weight" in North American defence . (Apart from being the proposed atomic battleground when the US attacked the USSR) . A Canadian remarked something to the effect of "Since our only conceivable economic or military enemies are the USA and Europe, aren't you glad we haven't armed ourselves heavily?" . We've got a retaliatory force . We've got Air New Zealand, and GPS guided airliners . These are cheaper per unit than modern fighters, have better range, and can be used "productively" until they are needed . If we bought $100 million plus fighters (which have a design operational life of 4000 hours) how many would we need to protect our shores -- even against the imaginary invaders whio have got to get at least 2000 miles to reach us? If we bought missiles at $US ½ to 3 million each, how many can we afford . . . how many could we afford for the pilots to practise with? Even if they practise, what is the success rate of these missiles against real targets . The much touted Patriot anti-missile missiles killed exactly 0 Scuds in Gulf I . In Gulf II, the "revised model" zapped 2 "missiles" and one (US) F-18 . As for the US saving us . . . as always, the US will do whatever is seen as being in their own interests .	Graham L (2)
182211	2003-10-12 02:02:00	if you see a movie, i'm trying to get the name its right on the tip of my tongue ummmmmm.....ahhh pearl harbour... thats got marines... its like the army but its "sea" army...i think... btw if we ever needed ammo/machines etc..or anything the army musem has it, just needs some oil ;)	csinclair83 (200)
182212	2003-10-12 02:08:00	> You obviously haven't watched enough "old" John Wayne > movies Jim, about how America won the war (WW2) > single handedly, or you'd know what Marines are :) I have it on good authority that my grandfather single handidly won ww2.:D:D .......................HA silly ol bugger	metla (154)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7