The ANZACs in T2k

[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]

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

[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)