The ANZACs in T2k

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And as long as you're not being a dickhead with your firearms, there's plenty of people in the WA countryside who wouldn't bother checking if your restricted category firearm is licenced or not. In some areas it's pretty much "don't ask, don't tell" if you behave yourself.

[Targan]

WA Police crackdown on firearm theft sees gun owners charged with failing to secure weapons

A week ago.

[Legbreaker]

If you're going to have something you shouldn't have, it's easy enough to conceal - two safes, one for the police with the stuff you're allowed, and the second tucked away out of sight with everything else.
NEVER leave anything laying about unsecured.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

If you're going to have something you shouldn't have, it's easy enough to conceal - two safes, one for the police with the stuff you're allowed, and the second tucked away out of sight with everything else.
NEVER leave anything laying about unsecured.

Been there have the tshirt - or more properly my grandfather was the one with the tshirt and with several weapons that he wasnt supposed to have that were safely hidden away from any prying eyes and continue to remain being that way after he died.

[Legbreaker]

A few more instances like this and we're getting close to the level of damage needed....
https://www.pilbaranews.com.au/?busi...YxMgygrD2UfLjU

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hmm, an example of synchronicity perhaps?

Today I was reading some newspaper archives from the 1940s & 1950s regarding the HMAS Sydney II (1930s light cruiser) and Sydney III (1940s light aircraft carrier).
Sydney III was the victim of sabotage on at least two occasions and I think a third as well (although I'm trying to find more details).

One act was during servicing at Garden Island (ironically Fleet Base East, which is in the city of... Sydney) in which the cables to a surface to air radar were cut. It was believed to be an attempt to delay Sydney getting back to the Korean War (the sabotage didn't delay her by even a modest amount).
At the time (and during WW2) civilian dockworkers were employed in large numbers to maintain and service naval vessels. You all know the "warm & fuzzy" feelings I have for Australian dock workers but it could have easily been a member of the RAN. Regardless of military or civilian background, the investigation pointed out that it was someone with legitimate access to the naval docks and believed it was someone with knowedge of radar systems.

The other act was during sea trails in England in 1948 after Sydney III had been completed to Australia requirements. Four large bolts were found in a crankcase. The bolts caused all the cogs in the crank housing to shear off their teeth. The subsequent investigation concluded that it was a deliberate act as the bolts could not have come loose from within the crankcase.

So... what we have is two examples of sabotage on a naval vessel during the Cold War period when security against Communism was quite high and in one instance during a period of war against Communist foes when I'm assuming security would have been even higher.
Basically I'm throwing this up here to illustrate how sabotage of the kind Leg is talking about can be effectively carried out (in the case of Sydney III the sabotage wasn't effective enough to prevent her rapid return to service but the fact that it was able to be done at all is the important point here).

[Legbreaker]

With the much different racial mix in Australia now, it's even easier for potential hostiles to get themselves into sensitive positions and wreak havoc. In some places, the number of people who's families came from SE Asia exceeds those from the rest of the world. Given Australia is fighting Indonesia in T2K....
Saboteurs don't need to be members of an enemy military either as history has already shown. In WWII, the Communists in Australia still actively worked against Australia and the US through sabotage, theft and simply refusing to work or "go slow" campaigns, even though the USSR were allies. There is evidence that they preferred to lose to the Japanese if it would trigger a workers revolution!
As we've seen in recent years there's still a strong, if small, communist/socialist movement in the country. It would only take a few of them in key positions to cause similar havoc as occurred in the 40's.

[Olefin]

Question - one thing that has been discussed on the Facebook board is the possibility of any conflict in Papua New Guinea having logistics issues as to ammo

However Australia was producing small arms ammo and gunpowder and explosives and should be able to continue supporting their forces to some extent. There is the Mulwala Explosives Factory in New South Wales that made explosives and powder as well as munitions manufacturing factories and explosives factories at Maribyrnong (which closed in 1989 in our timeline due to restructuring), Footscray (which was closed in 1994), and Benalla, Victoria.

With those resources how long could Australia supply itself and possibly NZ given the worldwide cutoff of shipping that happened starting in late 1997 to early 1998 during the war?

[Legbreaker]

Short answer - Not very long at all.
Longer answer - there will be major shortages after only a few months as international trade dries up. Given a few years and the re-establishment of some trade, as well as internal adjustments to industrial production, and Australia could well be on a path to self sufficiency in most regards compared to the rest of the world. It's those middle few years (upwards of a decade) which will REALLY HURT.

I don't know too much as yet about the New Zealand position, but given it's lower population and generally less industrialised economy, my guess is that although they're likely able to feed the people, they're not going to be able to support any troops outside their immediate borders.

I'm currently reading through a number of Australian government and army reports from the 1990s detailing the problems for the military should military logistic support not be available during extended operations (they mean more than about 6-8 weeks) and formations of even just a single brigade in size. The forecast at the time was bleak to say the least. Budget cuts over preceding decades had left the logistic units a mere shell, barely able to meet peacetime requirements. Also didn't help that the Australian military has since federation in 1901 been very much focused on the combat arms (primarily infantry) with logistics left up to initially the British, and later the US.

In more modern times it was expected civilian workers and equipment would be utilised at both the Australian end right up to just behind the actual fighting. As I've mentioned previously in this thread, this didn't work very well especially during WWII due to industrial action and outright sabotage by unions. In East Timor, 1999, the expected facilities and workers in Dili simply didn't exist so logistics units throughout not just the army, but the entire ADF were stripped of personnel and equipment just to get the supply ships unloaded.

It's almost as if politicians and senior military officers had completely ignored the most basic rules of warfare for over a century!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It's almost as if politicians and senior military officers had completely ignored the most basic rules of warfare for over a century!

Yeah It always brings to mind the saying "Amateurs talk strategy & tactics, professionals talk logistics". We've had plenty of politicians talk strategy & tactics however I don't believe a single one of them understood the simplest thing about logistics.
Which is a big part of the reason why I believe the Abrams was not the best choice of tank for Australia - it guzzles fuel like a man in the desert drinks water. To be clearer, the Abrams suited the strategy of the time but chosing it required that we ignore the logistics aspect - something the politicians (and the political animals in the military hierarchy) found quite easy to achieve!

[Olefin]

Well the ammo and explosives factories should keep them supplied with more than one clip per man- you can carry a hell of a lot of bullets and grenades and mortar shells on relatively small ships. However that doesnt keep them supplied with such non-essentials (sarcasm intended) as boots, medicine, uniforms, tents, food, etc.

So they would have stuff to shoot - but they might be going around pretty badly clothed and fed after a while.

Sorry Leg and Stainless - but Australia makes a lot of nitric acid and has lead available in abundance. Thus they can make smokeless powder easily and also lead for bullets. The soldiers would need to collect brass for reloads but that should be relatively easy. So bullets wont be a problem.

However once the transport network starts to break down getting those bullets to the North so they can be shipped to Papua would be the real issue - but making the bullets themselves and getting powder for them wont be a real problem for quite a while.

[Legbreaker]

As I've mentioned here and elsewhere, it's not so much the production of ammo in Australia, but getting it to the troops in PNG. It's not as simple either as throwing it on a small boat or two either - there's a shooting war going on, and those little boats will find themselves in a LOT of trouble very quickly if everything doesn't go absolutely right...

I'm not going to say too much more on this except this will be a factor in the book and possibly a huge adventure hook.

[Olefin]

Oh I agree with you that it will be a pain in the butt to get it there - and it would make a great adventure hook for sure. And its not just getting over the ocean between Australia and PNG. There is the little issue of getting it from where the factories are to where the harbors are in the north.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I don't see significant problems with producing ammunition simply because we do have significant amounts of primary resources and the industry to exploit them. Even producing such items as boots, clothes, food etc. etc. wouldn't be too much of a problem.
We have enough industries (and the skills) in place to produce many of the items needed to supply the military but there will always be one factor that will cause problems - transport.

Again the problem of logistics.
Without the vessels or vehicles to move it, it doesn't matter how much ammo we can make. This wouldn't be insurmountable within Australia but as soon as it comes to supplying any force outside Australia we have to use either ships or aircraft. We might even have enough surviving ships/aircraft in good working order but if there aren't problems with obtaining enough fuel for them, there's still the problem of protecting them while they make their deliveries.

It's always going to be a problem for logistics to solve, not a problem of whether we can produce the needed supplies.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, transportation is the BIG killer here. Both the RAAF and RAN aren't exactly huge and if Indonesia managed to take out even just half of the aircraft and ships, it wouldn't matter how many cargo ships and planes were available - without escorts they're as good as dead.

Got my hands on some early 1990's Strategic Reviews today. Skimming through them one thing is obvious - defence planners were expecting to be able to lean VERY heavily on the US in the area of warships, aircraft and logistic support in the event Australia or PNG was directly threatened. Given T2K has the US already completely tied up elsewhere, the situation for Australia, New Zealand and the small Pacific island nations looks bleak. Very, very bleak.

My big concern now is ensuring Indonesia isn't able to simply roll right over the top of the defenders in PNG, but I've already got a few ideas to hamstring their offensive, some of which tie into the very reasons they're attacking in the first place!

[Legbreaker]

....and the logistical situation for Australia in T2k just got a lot worse.
During the 1990's the RAN had just two, woefully inadequate minesweepers which weren't even capable of handling rough seas. The first of their replacements was made by Italy and didn't launch until AFTER Italy declared war on NATO, therefore it seems fairly certain it was pressed into Italian service rather than delivered half way around the world. The second vessel of the class (and IRL four more after it) were to be built in Australia, but it didn't even hit the water until mid 98 and wasn't commissioned until early 2000. Even with accelerated production it's very unlikely it would have been completed at all, at least not as a mine hunter....

Why is this important? Well, a 1986 report identified the vulnerability of Australian ports and shipping to mines. With just two inadequate vessels to cover five identified ports in the north alone (not to mention another eight major and uncounted numbers of minor ports in the south), well, I think you can all see the problem...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

With those resources how long could Australia supply itself and possibly NZ given the worldwide cutoff of shipping that happened starting in late 1997 to early 1998 during the war?

Found a sort of answer in the 1986 review of Australia's defence capabilities.

In any prolonged conflict our access to overseas supplies would be affected. Australia could survive at an adequate, if reduced, standard of living because basic requirements for community survival, such as food and fuel, could be supplied from local sources with the introduction of appropriate measures for conservation and rationing. But the United States and its European allies would give first priority to their own military needs. We could not assume that they would give any priority to our military requirements, except in so far as this made a direct contribution to their effort against the Soviet Union. The only military supplies of which Australia could be assured would be those in which we were self-reliant or those we had been able to stockpile before the start of conflict.

[Olefin]

Are you looking at possible involvement by the Solomon Islands in what is goin on in the PNG during the war or possibly having parts of it try to break off - for instance there was an uprising on Bougainville that started in 1988 and claimed 20,000 lives until it was resolved in 1997.

They are a major part of the mining economy for Papua - you could see that revolt getting out of hand if the Soviets assisted them.

And you have what Indonesia is doing in West Papua as well - possibly a major uprising there is what screws over their logistics

[Olefin]

Keep in mind that there would be four very unique ships that would definitely be used with oil running low in T2K in Australia - i.e. the four coal fired freighters that were built to take bauxite from Weipa to Gladstone and did so for over 25 years starting in the 1980's for Australia - the River Boyne, the River Embley and their two sisters Fitzroy River and Endeavour River.

They were 60,000 ton ships and went on trips as far as Indonesia

Even if one of them survived it would help with logistics with how low fuel oil would be in Australia.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And those four ships were built in the very early 80s so it's not as though they're some decrepit WW2 veterans that sat in reserve for decades. They were still operating into the 2000s.
River Embly was scrapped in 2012 and River Boyne followed in 2014.
I believe the other two went to Singapore sometime between 2012 and 2015 to await disposal.

I'm inclined to believe the Australian government would use these four, if they were still usable, for cargo runs around the Australian coast. I don't think they would be willing to risk losing them for resupply of overseas forces unless they could provide them with sufficient protection - they're just too valuable for helping re-establish transport within Australia.

Edit:
DOH!
Meant to add the following information for River Embly & River Boyne - taken from https://flotilla-australia.com/3anl.htm : -
Specs - 51,035 gross tons, 76293 dwt. Lb: 255 x 35.4 metres. 16 knots. Single screw, turbine powered, twin boiler design using coal as fuel, fully automatic with UMS certificate. Speed 16 knots. Crew 38.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Meant to add the following information for River Embly & River Boyne - taken from https://flotilla-australia.com/3anl.htm : -
Specs - 51,035 gross tons, 76293 dwt. Lb: 255 x 35.4 metres. 16 knots. Single screw, turbine powered, twin boiler design using coal as fuel, fully automatic with UMS certificate. Speed 16 knots. Crew 38.

I had a look at that earlier today in an effort to find some information on range and fuel consumption. No luck but did see reference to them not having enough range to be useful for more than relatively short runs (whatever that's supposed to mean exactly). We do know at least one reached Singapore, but that was a one way trip and they could have refuelled along the way.
It's quite probable they routinely refuelled in Newcastle, but that doesn't mean it had the range to make it all the way to Weipa and back on one load - there's four coal export ports between each end of that run, and possibly additional refuelling points as well (although I'm doubtful).

That's a good point about their value as local freighters. Add to that their vulnerability to even small surface raiders if travelling without an escort, and...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Long-winded reply follows (written at the same time as I searched the net for the answers).
Quick answer about fuel load and range - scroll to the bottom.

I haven't found enough hard data yet to confirm or deny this but it was said on one site that the two "Rivers" were also employed taking iron ore from West Australian ports serving the iron ore industry (which means mostly north-west WA) to Newcastle. That's a fair distance to travel without many coal loading ports inbetween if you travel through the Bight.
I think it would be easier to go via the top end and hit the coal ports in Qld but what the hell do I know about maritime trade!

Just found a PDF of an investigation into an incident where the patrol boat HMAS Fremantle and MV River Embly had a bit of a blue in 1997. The last page has a little more info on the Embly but still nothing indicating what sort of range she had. The PDF indicates that the Embly was a regular in Queensland waters but that's no surprise if she was carrying ore from Weipa to Gladstone.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1508366/mair112_001.pdf

The distance between Weipa and Gladstone is pretty short in terms of maritime travel, however...
The coal bunker for both ships appears to be substantial... but then how much coal would she burn in a day? In the picture on the following two links, the coal bunker is said to be the large grey structure behind the bridge.
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/...hp?lid=1183929
https://www.issystems.com.au/product...gineering.html

While the coal bunker looks quite large, I'm inclined to think that if it's true that the "Rivers" travelled between WA ports and Newcastle, the trip via Qld would be better suited for refuelling purposes.
The distance from WA to Newcastle is in my poor estimation, longer via the top end but much calmer sailing than through the Southern Ocean.
Fascinating... but none of which doesn't get me any closer to figuring the range Embly would have

Note that MV Fitzroy River was originally named TNT Capricornia and MV Endeavour River was originally named TNT Carpentaria. Both ships were built in Italy (whereas the two "Rivers" were built in Japan)
I've just found an archived newspaper report from 1991 that mentions Capricornia being robbed by pirates two days out from Singapore (the ship was unloaded and heading to Singapore to be put into drydock)
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...&searchLimits=
And a second report that actually mentions that Capricornia was "... 350 miles south of Singapore, or 24 hours travelling time..."
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...12-31|||sortby
But but but... then there's this post on a forum devoted to ships stating that the "TNTs" had auxillary diesel engines.
https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=3193

I'm starting to think that this is a job for the Jane's Maritime yearbooks

EUREKA!
Found something in the newspaper archives about the capacity of the "Rivers" with the implication that the "TNTs" are similar.
3000 tonnes (note the use of metric tonnes) of coal for 4500 nautical miles.
Plus it mentions that coal has only two-thirds the heating capacity of oil so three times as much coal in weight is needed for the same power output.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...eTo=2001-12-31

[Olefin]

Have a feeling they would be getting armed by 2000 for sure - maybe even earlier - heck look at the what they did to the Constitution replica - those movie cannons got replaced by 50 cals - could easily see the Australians adding some nice weaponry to defend themselves so you would get this kind of scenario

"hey its just a freighter she is easy pickings!" - and then find out the hard way that she has been modified and can defend herself very well thank you

Frankly I dont see any ship of any kind by 1999 or so going anywhere on the high seas without at least some 50 cal's added for self defense

I will see what I can find on range and what it was on coal alone (I know they also had auxiliary engines as well that ran on diesel to supplement if needed the coal fired ones for longer trips)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Amusingly, we posted answers at the same time, my post just above yours has some info on the coal capacity and range of the Boyne and Embly.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Have a feeling they would be getting armed by 2000 for sure - maybe even earlier - heck look at the what they did to the Constitution replica - those movie cannons got replaced by 50 cals - could easily see the Australians adding some nice weaponry to defend themselves so you would get this kind of scenario

"hey its just a freighter she is easy pickings!" - and then find out the hard way that she has been modified and can defend herself very well thank you

Frankly I dont see any ship of any kind by 1999 or so going anywhere on the high seas without at least some 50 cal's added for self defense

I will see what I can find on range and what it was on coal alone (I know they also had auxiliary engines as well that ran on diesel to supplement if needed the coal fired ones for longer trips)

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Long-winded reply follows (written at the same time as I searched the net for the answers).
Quick answer about fuel load and range - scroll to the bottom.

I haven't found enough hard data yet to confirm or deny this but it was said on one site that the two "Rivers" were also employed taking iron ore from West Australian ports serving the iron ore industry (which means mostly north-west WA) to Newcastle. That's a fair distance to travel without many coal loading ports inbetween if you travel through the Bight.
I think it would be easier to go via the top end and hit the coal ports in Qld but what the hell do I know about maritime trade!

Just found a PDF of an investigation into an incident where the patrol boat HMAS Fremantle and MV River Embly had a bit of a blue in 1997. The last page has a little more info on the Embly but still nothing indicating what sort of range she had. The PDF indicates that the Embly was a regular in Queensland waters but that's no surprise if she was carrying ore from Weipa to Gladstone.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1508366/mair112_001.pdf

The distance between Weipa and Gladstone is pretty short in terms of maritime travel, however...
The coal bunker for both ships appears to be substantial... but then how much coal would she burn in a day? In the picture on the following two links, the coal bunker is said to be the large grey structure behind the bridge.
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/...hp?lid=1183929
https://www.issystems.com.au/product...gineering.html

While the coal bunker looks quite large, I'm inclined to think that if it's true that the "Rivers" travelled between WA ports and Newcastle, the trip via Qld would be better suited for refuelling purposes.
The distance from WA to Newcastle is in my poor estimation, longer via the top end but much calmer sailing than through the Southern Ocean.
Fascinating... but none of which doesn't get me any closer to figuring the range Embly would have

Note that MV Fitzroy River was originally named TNT Capricornia and MV Endeavour River was originally named TNT Carpentaria. Both ships were built in Italy (whereas the two "Rivers" were built in Japan)
I've just found an archived newspaper report from 1991 that mentions Capricornia being robbed by pirates two days out from Singapore (the ship was unloaded and heading to Singapore to be put into drydock)
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...&searchLimits=
And a second report that actually mentions that Capricornia was "... 350 miles south of Singapore, or 24 hours travelling time..."
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...12-31|||sortby
But but but... then there's this post on a forum devoted to ships stating that the "TNTs" had auxillary diesel engines.
https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=3193

I'm starting to think that this is a job for the Jane's Maritime yearbooks

EUREKA!
Found something in the newspaper archives about the capacity of the "Rivers" with the implication that the "TNTs" are similar.
3000 tonnes (note the use of metric tonnes) of coal for 4500 nautical miles.
Plus it mentions that coal has only two-thirds the heating capacity of oil so three times as much coal in weight is needed for the same power output.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...eTo=2001-12-31

and then I see this post - very nice indeed!!! Not only lots of info about range but even suggestions for a very nice T2K scenario (i.e. the robbed by pirates that actually happened in real life)

This is one reason I love this site - you can find all kinds of fascinating information here

[Targan]

Plenty of coal in Australia. East and West coasts.

[Raellus]

This little beaut might come in handy. It's scheduled for a June 18th release.

https://ospreypublishing.com/store/m...-war-1976-2016

And in a geographically-related vein, out 30 May:

https://ospreypublishing.com/store/m...gers-1788-1880

Come to think of it, the latter may be inspirational re Aussie marauders (maybe even better- and it pains me to say this- than the Mad Max films).

-

[Legbreaker]

Question for the New Zealanders. How likely, or possible is it that the Maori might rebel, or seek independence, etc?
Assume almost all international trade has ceased, and 90% of the military (including a significant number of conscripts and/or volunteers) are out of the country, with little chance of a speedy return.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Question for the New Zealanders. How likely, or possible is it that the Maori might rebel, or seek independence, etc?

It's a game setting so anything's possible, but I don't think it's likely. The Maori have political clout, they have land, they were full citizens of the British Empire from the moment the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. New Zealanders tend to pull together during difficult times, rather than try to tear the country apart.


They'd no doubt insist on being heard, but as a group I doubt the Maori would want to secede. The Maori bikie gangs are pretty scary though. In areas where government control started to weaken, they'd probably flex their muscles a bit.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

The Maori bikie gangs are pretty scary though. In areas where government control started to weaken, they'd probably flex their muscles a bit.

How would they cope or adjust with a lack of fuel for their bikes?