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]

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/business%2Fmining%2Ffire-rips-through-plant-at-rio-tintos-cape-lambert-port-facility-in-pilbara-ng-b881070465z&fbclid=IwAR0Bc3b5gKQ4AIC9siL8YisBjBAgzLIlAMY_xQ5dkQNdUYxMgygrD2UfLjU

[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]

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!