WI more ANZACs?

WI ANZAC-ing Australian the New Zealand forces was standard whenever they fought together, post WW1? Would this have much if any impact on the wars since then?
 
You mean having a permanent united military force between Australia and NZ with common purchasing, command and integration at most levels?
 
Or a formal agreement to work together operationally on any deployments where they are both present?

I think in practice, where they have been deployed together, say Vietnam, Timor or the like, they tend to operate really closely. How far that goes I do not know, but I would suspect that usually the Australian deployment would be much bigger and as such, they would be in charge (to some degree).

Those of my friends who've served in the airforce or army seem to have regularly spent time in Australia for various training courses (I think we use Duntroon as well). I think there are also deployments/secondments from both countries in each other's HQs, civilian, intelligence or military

Then lastly there is the Closer Deference Relations series of formal agreements, which started in the early 1980s and are regularly reviewed
 
julius, the Kiwis have been entitled to 12 spots at Duntroon since the beginning (1912). We have effectively been "Anzaced" most conflicts where we are next to each other ( there was an Anzac battalion in Vietnam).
Of course, other times the Brits have kept the"Colonials" apart so we do'nt get together and wreck the joint!:eek:
 
julius, the Kiwis have been entitled to 12 spots at Duntroon since the beginning (1912). We have effectively been "Anzaced" most conflicts where we are next to each other ( there was an Anzac battalion in Vietnam).
Of course, other times the Brits have kept the"Colonials" apart so we do'nt get together and wreck the joint!:eek:


Duntroon is that old? That makes some sense I guess, as it would probably been as a consequence of the reviews that were undertaken just before that time and I guess it took time to fund then set it up.

I've often wondered what would have happened if there had been formal defence reviews prior to federation, when the various Australian colonies and NZ would have worked together on a more equal basis. So perhaps a POD that allows for an ATL Duntroon or a Pacific/Indian squadron of the RN before 1900,.

Probably hard to make that work without the Second South African War though, although the Russian scares could be used.
 
In WW2 the only ANZAC formation was during the Greek campaign for about a month, but the Australians and New Zealanders were in the same theatre until the AIF 9th Division left in December 1942. There was a suggestion of an ANZAC Brigade in Korea, and perhaps an opportunity for ANZAC units in Malaya and the Konfrontasi.

ANZAC-ing of battalions happened a couple of times in Vietnam, and with the SAS too but I don`t think they were called ANZAC, and of course the long running ANZAC Battlegroup in Timor since 2006.

Would this achieve anything? Perhaps if ANZAC Corps was standard for the early part of WW2 the Kiwis would have returned to the Pacific instead of staying in Italy. Perhaps Australia would have developed independent command arrangements sooner because of the need to command NZ units regularly. Perhaps NZ would not have let their air force decline because it got used regularly to support ANZAC deployments.
 
One of the problems with marketing "ANZAC" (or perhaps given the role of the state in the eras primarily under discussion, propagandising is a better verb) is that WWII changed the desirability of ANZACness.

ANZACness has been contested. From the Rape of Cairo description, to the reconfiguration of ANZAC as something admirable and nation forming, to the post-war returnee riots, to the structuring of soldier identity in line with the state (Monash's secret army, soldier-settler, the RSL hegemony fights).

ANZAC has been a contested process, at least in Australia,—and so by WWII ANZACness was in decline in contrast with more important war myths: PNG, Chockos, the road to Darwin, Yanks, etc.

After the War, you can tell from the structure of memorials that ANZACness was not important. If you compare the Newcastle WWI memorial(s), mostly 3/4 height white marble statutes knocked off in their hundreds, in Newcastle 2300's case outside the former post-office; with Newcastle's WWII memorial: a public library, you can see a change in social tone and timbre in relation to war remembrance.

The Decline of ANZAC day in the post-war era, and its subsequent revival are well known.

Changing the propaganda name of having Kiwi spotters in Australian companies in the Republic of Vietnam isn't significant, and given the decline in ANZACness not important.

If contributors with to follow this up, I'd recommend Bruce Scates on ANZAC commemorations.

yours,
Sam R.
 

Cook

Banned
ANZAC-ing of battalions happened a couple of times in Vietnam, and with the SAS too but I don`t think they were called ANZAC, and of course the long running ANZAC Battlegroup in Timor since 2006.
I’m trying to check but I think it was standard from ’67 onwards for one of the Btns of the task force to be an Anzac Btn with an attached NZ company. The task force also had the NZ artillery attached.

The difficulty encountered in Timor was equipment interoperability, the NZ govt has let the NZDF run down to such a degree that most of their equipment is no longer compatible; the NZ forces had to be provided with Australian signals equipment and NVGs.
 
Digression:

What if there were other types of ANZAC-type forces in the Empire/Commonwealth? Such as a Canadian-Newfoundlander joint force? Or South African-Rhodesian? Those are the only two I can think of.
 
One of the problems with marketing "ANZAC" (or perhaps given the role of the state in the eras primarily under discussion, propagandising is a better verb) is that WWII changed the desirability of ANZACness.

ANZACness has been contested. From the Rape of Cairo description, to the reconfiguration of ANZAC as something admirable and nation forming, to the post-war returnee riots, to the structuring of soldier identity in line with the state (Monash's secret army, soldier-settler, the RSL hegemony fights).

ANZAC has been a contested process, at least in Australia,—and so by WWII ANZACness was in decline in contrast with more important war myths: PNG, Chockos, the road to Darwin, Yanks, etc.

After the War, you can tell from the structure of memorials that ANZACness was not important. If you compare the Newcastle WWI memorial(s), mostly 3/4 height white marble statutes knocked off in their hundreds, in Newcastle 2300's case outside the former post-office; with Newcastle's WWII memorial: a public library, you can see a change in social tone and timbre in relation to war remembrance.

The Decline of ANZAC day in the post-war era, and its subsequent revival are well known.

Changing the propaganda name of having Kiwi spotters in Australian companies in the Republic of Vietnam isn't significant, and given the decline in ANZACness not important.

If contributors with to follow this up, I'd recommend Bruce Scates on ANZAC commemorations.

yours,
Sam R.

ANZAC units in WW1 were formed from military convenience; that the forces from Australian and NZ were coming from the same direction and the same time to the same destination, thus they were plunked into ANZAC units. Leaving aside all the interwar myth forming etc, I`d suggest that similar circumstances arose again the in Western Desert in WW2, as well as converging strategic circumstances with the rise of Japan.

Perhaps Australia`s (and probably Canada and South Africa) nascent independence (demanding all divisions be gathered into Corps, questioning the Greek plan) played against the formation of ANZAC units. Perhaps encouraging the formation of ANZAC units would have further reduced British freedom of action with Dominion units.
 
The difficulty encountered in Timor was equipment interoperability, the NZ govt has let the NZDF run down to such a degree that most of their equipment is no longer compatible; the NZ forces had to be provided with Australian signals equipment and NVGs.

Oh, that's quite incorrect.

Ranger M995 Night Vision Sight for C9 LSW's and M983 Night Vision Goggles (NVGs) were introduced into NZDF service in Jan 99 and fully equipped the deployed battalion groups that deployed to Timor Leste from Oct 99 onwards. Each rifleman also had an Infra Red Aiming Device attached to their rifle for night operations. They were also equipped with N/CROS MK III, hand held night vision binocular with a laser pointer and electronic compass, down to platoon level as well as handheld thermal imagers at Coy level.

These were all GEN III standard.

Although AN/PRC-148 and PRR radios had entered service, they weren't deployed till 2002.

At no time were NVG's or coms equipment from the ADF used by the NZDF in Timoe Leste.

Ironically, Australian forces deployed to RAMSI can only deploy off Guadalcanal if equipped with NZDF AN/PRC-150(C) Harris HF sets. They don't have a comparable long range comms capability. :eek:

Don't beleive me? Ask the ADF.

New Zealand and Australia are going in different directions. There will always be common interests but there will never be a standing ANZAC formation.
 
Top