NZ Soldier Killed in Afghanistan

[Dave Homewood]

This is very sad news, after all the time kiwi soldiers have served there and just before they are pulled out. Here is the NZDF Press Release:

www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/20100804-nzskibpa.htm

4 August 2010

The New Zealand Defence Force is presently informing next of kin that a soldier serving in Afghanistan has been killed in an attack on a New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team patrol in Bamyan province.

Two other Defence Force personnel taking part in the patrol have been wounded.

The Defence Force is currently consolidating information from the area.

There will be a media conference at Defence Force HQ at approx 7.10am.

When: 4 August to begin at approx 7.10am

Where: NZDF HQ Aitken St, off Molesworth St.

[skyhawkdon]

Tragic. He sounds like he was a top bloke.

I guess the lesson here is that the price of freedom isn't free. It is paid for with the blood of brave young men and woman almost every day in Afghanistan. My thoughts are with the NZDF and this young man's family. AKE AKE KIA KAHA.

[Dave Homewood]

04 August 2010

The New Zealand Defence Force has named the officer who was killed this morning as Lieutenant (LT) Timothy Andrew O’DONNELL from 2/1 Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment (2/1 RNZIR), based in Burnham.

“Let me again reiterate the deepest sympathies of the Defence Force to the family of LT O’DONNELL, who has made the ultimate sacrifice in service of his nation,” Chief of Defence Force, Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae said at a press conference this morning.

Biography – Lieutenant Timothy (Tim) Andrew O’DONNELL

Timothy was born on June 15 1982, and has been a member of the NZ Army for five years.

LT O’Donnell enlisted into the Army on the 5th of January 2005, where he attended Officer Cadet School, graduating in December 2005 and posting to 1st Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment (1 RNZIR).

On the 24th May 2008, he was posted to Burnham and on to 2/1 RNZIR with effect the 19th of August 2009.

In his time with the Army, Tim deployed to Timor Leste in November 2006 and Afghanistan in April 2010.

In Timor Leste, Tim was recognised for his actions leading a platoon conducting a security patrol. In the 2008 New Year Honours, he was presented with a Distinguished Service Decoration (DSD) by the Governor General, Sir Anand Satyanand.

The citation below describes the action for which he received his DSD:

“Lieutenant O’Donnell, in the rank of Second Lieutenant, served as Platoon Commander in Timor Leste from November 2006 to May 2007, as part of the NZDF contribution to the Australian-led International Stabilisation Force (ISF). His platoon was conducting a security patrol in April 2007 when it encountered a crowd of approximately 1000 Fretilin supporters returning from an election rally in Dili.

“The crowd, escorted by UN Police officers, halted on the outskirts of Manatuto, fearing attacks from opposition political supporters. While the platoon was endeavouring to secure a safe route, the UN Police began moving the Fretilin supporters across a bridge toward Manatuto.

“The crowd was then ambushed by some 600 opposition supporters throwing rocks and firing steel darts and arrows. Under the hail of projectiles, the Police escort was quickly overwhelmed and withdrew, leaving the Fretilin convoy stranded on the bridge. He made a quick decision to intervene in the melee, which meant that his platoon also came under attack.

“Eventually, his platoon managed to push back the attackers and secure a bypass route around Manatuto for the Fretilin convoy, which safely circumnavigated the town without loss of life or serious injury. Soon after ISF reinforcements arrived on the scene to assist in restoring law and order to the town. Without the decisive intervention of his platoon, it is likely that the situation could have deteriorated resulting in a number of fatalities between the rival political supporters.

LT O’Donnell was a highly competent and widely liked officer. He was awarded the following honour and awards:

The New Zealand Distinguished Service Decoration
New Zealand General Service Medal (Timor Leste)
New Zealand Operational Service Medal
Timor-Leste Solidarity Medal (Timorese Award)

LT O’Donnell was also due to be awarded the following two medals as a result of his deployment to Afghanistan:

NZ General Service Medal (Afghanistan) - Primary Op Area

NATO Medal for the Non-Article 5 ISAF Op in Afghanistan

Tim also served in the guard of honour for the funeral of Sir Edmund Hilary in January 2008.

ENDS

For more information please contact: NZDF Media Manager Chris Wright, 021 487 980.

www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/20100804-nskibpar4.htm

RIP

[kiwiscanfly]

From tvnz.co.nz/national-news/injured-kiwi-soldiers-named-3685210

Two New Zealand soldiers, injured in an ambush in Afghanistan which killed Lieutenant Timothy O'Donnell, are recovering.

ONE News has been told the soldiers are Matthew Ball and Allister Baker.

The men sufferered what's been described as "serious but not life-threatening injuries".

It's undersood they could only be treated after an arduous 11-hour journey by road as bad weather ruled out a medical airlift.

One soldier suffered burns to 10 percent of his body, the other has cuts, abrasions and a broken foot.

They are well enough to travel and will most likely be taken to Bagram Airforce Base and then evacuated from Afghanistan.

[flyjoe180]

Another thread here too rnzaf.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=11629

[30sqnatc]

Well our streak of luck in AFG finally ran out. Rest in peace.

Overall 2010 has been the worse year for serious incidents the NZDF has had for a long time.

[skyhawkdon]

I can't help wondering if using soft skinned vehicles is still appropriate for the PRT given the increased threat in this area? An armoured vehicle has got to provide better protection than a Toyota Hilux. I know there were good operational reasons for using them but given what has finally happened, maybe it is time to provide our guys with better protection?

[30sqnatc]

If you saw the TV reports that were recently screened on TV1 the PRT already operate a mix of armoured and unarmoured vehicles.

[skyhawkdon]

Yeah I saw that. But putting my Safety and Health hat on (which I now do for a living) if you know about a hazard then you must put appropriate controls in place to manage or mitigate that hazard. How that applies to the NZDF in a war zone is an interesting question but the principle can still be applied in terms of your risk assessment and risk management procedures.

For example I would have thought LAVs and armoured Humvee would provide better protection than soft skinned 4WDs given the (known) IED threat, the area they were going into, the terrain (made for this kind of ambush) and the weather (no air support or casivac available). On the surface the risk assessment and controls put in place don't appear to have been adequate?

We are very lucky were aren't dealing with more fatalities here (the whole patrol wiped out).

Just like an accident the NZDF needs to learn the lessons from this... the guys in the field need the right tools for the job (and the "tools" includes good risk assessment training).

Just my uninformed thoughts as I only know what has been reported in the media. I have huge respect for everyone over there and the job they are doing.

Time for a bit of SAS payback me thinks!

[Dave Homewood]

I don't mean to detract from the sadness of this thread by diverting the topic, but I just want to pick up on a point made here by Don. If our troops are patrolling in an area where there is no medivac and air support, do you think perhaps we should have a detachment of our own helicopter squadron there with the rest of the NZDF troops to cover for that, and do other work of course?

[skyhawkdon]

In this case I doubt it would have made any difference Dave as they couldn't get in because of the terrain and weather. I guess the cost of having our own helicopters there would be an issue as well, as would putting more personnel in harms way. Maybe we could send a few Skyhawks over as well to provide Close Air Support They would be perfect for that (still!).

I see in today's paper more detail of the attack has been released. Sounds like the first vehicle and the one that the IED went off under/beside was a Humvee. Sounds like the guys in that were very lucky. There is also going to be an independent inquiry which is going to look at all these things which is good.

[phil]

At the end of the day having LAVs would mean:

a. harder to promote the hearts and minds aspect of the deployment when all the locals see are 'tanks' rolling through their towns and damaging their roads (and we are there to improve infrastructure).

b. Insurgents would just use bigger bombs, and quite likely try even harder to attack them since destroying a coalition armoured vehicle gains far more prestige for their cause.

From an insurgent point of view, being able to boast your unit can destroy coalition 'tanks' has far more recruiting and fund raising benefit, as well as it's effect on the moral of friendly locals who see that the people representing their govt and providing security from the insurgents are still vulnerable. This has the effect of swinging support back towards the insurgents as Afghans are fairly pragmatic and will back the side that looks the most promising. Even those who are more loyal to the central govt will also be more hesitant to offer support to the coalition if the insurgents appear to be gaining any kind of control.

So sending in more heavily armoured vehicles is not necessarily the simple answer it at first appears to be.

[skyhawkdon]

Good points Phil. But I would hate to see another Kiwi patrol (in soft skinned vehicles) attacked in a similar manner. The fact that they have been successful this time round may also encorage them to try it again. Some tough decisions and choices for the guys to make in the field. Whatever happens they will always have my full support.

[the_flying_surfer]

Aug 6, 2010 8:00:52 GMT 12 skyhawkdon said:

Maybe we could send a few Skyhawks over as well to provide Close Air Support They would be perfect for that (still!).

Operating up there would be next on impossible without millions of dollars in modification to the onboard systems fitted to the A4K. Unless you have LANTIRN/SNIPER/LITENING you won't be very welcome dropping danger close!

[skyhawkdon]

Ex A-4 pilots who are now in the RAF and have flown fast jets there reckon the Kahu A-4 would have been a most welcome addition in the CAS role. True they could do with a night capability and a few other upgrades but they could have done the job. Remember the A-4 was dropping "danger up close" a long time before LGBs and GPS had even been invented! It excelled as a CAS platform.

If we had gotten the F-16s like we were supposed to we would have had all that kit on them by now... sigh

[yak2]

Aug 6, 2010 10:42:12 GMT 12 phil said:

At the end of the day having LAVs would mean:

a. harder to promote the hearts and minds aspect of the deployment when all the locals see are 'tanks' rolling through their towns and damaging their roads (and we are there to improve infrastructure).

b. Insurgents would just use bigger bombs, and quite likely try even harder to attack them since destroying a coalition armoured vehicle gains far more prestige for their cause.

From an insurgent point of view, being able to boast your unit can destroy coalition 'tanks' has far more recruiting and fund raising benefit, as well as it's effect on the moral of friendly locals who see that the people representing their govt and providing security from the insurgents are still vulnerable. This has the effect of swinging support back towards the insurgents as Afghans are fairly pragmatic and will back the side that looks the most promising. Even those who are more loyal to the central govt will also be more hesitant to offer support to the coalition if the insurgents appear to be gaining any kind of control.

So sending in more heavily armoured vehicles is not necessarily the simple answer it at first appears to be.

Have to disagree Phil. Isn't there an obligation to provide the safest possible working environment for your troops. By that I mean equipment appropriate to the theatre. If the exercise was to simply win hearts and minds, send them in driving "Mr Whippy Vans' and handing out ice creams It does not need to be tracked vehicles, but if the bad guys are using IED's, appropriately armoured vehicles should be provided. And I don't mean Humvees. Troop safety comes first. To me (as an armchair admiral), if you start worrying about prestige targets etc., and reacting accordingly, the bad guys are already winning.
That aside, a very sad time.

[ErrolC]

Aug 6, 2010 16:24:56 GMT 12 yak2 said:

Have to disagree Phil. Isn't there an obligation to provide the safest possible working environment for your troops. By that I mean equipment appropriate to the theatre. ...

This pretty much comes down to deciding what is the safest possible while still performing the mission (obviously you don't mean absolutely safest, because they wouldn't be there if that was the requirement). There is a clear tradeoff between safety and effectiveness.

[30sqnatc]

Aug 5, 2010 22:28:30 GMT 12 skyhawkdon said:

Yeah I saw that. But putting my Safety and Health hat on (which I now do for a living) if you know about a hazard then you must put appropriate controls in place to manage or mitigate that hazard. How that applies to the NZDF in a war zone is an interesting question but the principle can still be applied in terms of your risk assessment and risk management procedures.

Got to be careful with those hats as they can lead you off on unexpected tangents. The introduction of IEDs lead to MRAP style armoured vehicles. Response = IEDs with larger explosive content. Response MRAP with more armour.

More armour = bigger and heavier vehicles. When thesr larger MRAPs were moved from Iraq to Afghanstan the road infrastructure could not support the weight and casualities from roll overs and road/bridge collapses were higher. So provision of large MRAP just moved the main risk from IED related injury to non-battle traffic accidents.

[phil]

Aug 6, 2010 15:21:42 GMT 12 skyhawkdon said:

Ex A-4 pilots who are now in the RAF and have flown fast jets there reckon the Kahu A-4 would have been a most welcome addition in the CAS role. True they could do with a night capability and a few other upgrades but they could have done the job. Remember the A-4 was dropping "danger up close" a long time before LGBs and GPS had even been invented! It excelled as a CAS platform.

If we had gotten the F-16s like we were supposed to we would have had all that kit on them by now... sigh

Sorry Don, but even TIALD wasn't up to the job and the brits had to upgrade to SNIPER. Nothing at all would be unacceptable, and the A4 has nothing.

Also it has no relevant countermeasures system, survivability would be problematic. AN/ALE-39 with no form of MAWS leaves a lot to be desired.

Perhaps SNIPER could be incorporated into the A4 NAS, I'm not sure if it requires a 1553 data bus or something more recent like 1776 though. Assuming it can be fitted there goes one of your STNs. Assuming you'd need internals + 300s to give a suitable loiter time over a TIC, that only leaves the two outboard, or centreline and an outboard for ordnance. Hardly worth the effort.

[phil]

Aug 6, 2010 16:24:56 GMT 12 yak2 said:

Aug 6, 2010 10:42:12 GMT 12 phil said:

At the end of the day having LAVs would mean:

a. harder to promote the hearts and minds aspect of the deployment when all the locals see are 'tanks' rolling through their towns and damaging their roads (and we are there to improve infrastructure).

b. Insurgents would just use bigger bombs, and quite likely try even harder to attack them since destroying a coalition armoured vehicle gains far more prestige for their cause.

From an insurgent point of view, being able to boast your unit can destroy coalition 'tanks' has far more recruiting and fund raising benefit, as well as it's effect on the moral of friendly locals who see that the people representing their govt and providing security from the insurgents are still vulnerable. This has the effect of swinging support back towards the insurgents as Afghans are fairly pragmatic and will back the side that looks the most promising. Even those who are more loyal to the central govt will also be more hesitant to offer support to the coalition if the insurgents appear to be gaining any kind of control.

So sending in more heavily armoured vehicles is not necessarily the simple answer it at first appears to be.

Have to disagree Phil. Isn't there an obligation to provide the safest possible working environment for your troops. By that I mean equipment appropriate to the theatre. If the exercise was to simply win hearts and minds, send them in driving "Mr Whippy Vans' and handing out ice creams It does not need to be tracked vehicles, but if the bad guys are using IED's, appropriately armoured vehicles should be provided. And I don't mean Humvees. Troop safety comes first. To me (as an armchair admiral), if you start worrying about prestige targets etc., and reacting accordingly, the bad guys are already winning.
That aside, a very sad time.

Actually I'd have to say, if you are reacting to the bad guys by bringing in LAVs and reducing the effectiveness of your operations on the ground, then the bad guys are winning.