New Zealand invasion

Status
Not open for further replies.

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
When these two large container ships and RO/RO ship leave Burma, they would have to go around Australia to get to NZ. Would they traverse northern or southern Australia? The Aussies would no doubt be watching these vessels via their radars and P-3's etc. Or would these vessels then track due south from Burma and into the Southern Ocean to evade the Aussie continent? But bad news for these rebels, RNZAF P-3's conduct Southern Ocean EEZ patrols and do land/refuel in Antarctica, so there's a good chance they will be watched. Assuming the RNZN ANZAC's are out of the area for some reason, I'm sure the RAN Collins' will be shadowing these vessels and would be itching to let loose some of their torps or harpoons if these vessels entered NZ's coastal waters ;) Remember these vessels won't have their own survellience systems or any decent self-protection.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
This is exactly the scenario I had in mind, but everyone in this forum (except Bozoo?) thinks that NZ Defence is strong enough to stop such an invasion, and that NZ Intelligence would prevent it from occurring in the first place.
Indeed I do think that the NZDF is strong enough to 'win' ultimately... Aside from the questions I would have about the viability of a modified container ship supporting fixed wing aircraft...

One must ask if 3,000 personnel and the equipment that they could bring with them would be sufficient to gain control of NZ, it's ~269,000 square km/100,000 square mile land area, the ~4.25 mil inhabitants and one of the largest EEZs in the world? To my mind, they could not, unless both the NZDF and average Kiwi did not have the will to fight and/or resist. Otherwise, the 3,000 personnel could certainly inflict damage if successfully landed, but IMO it is insufficient to take and maintain control.

This also ignores the changes and improvements in ISR resources available to NZ and various friendly and allied governments. These improvements would likely detect something odd about the proposed vessel, possibly before the ship even departs the embarking port.

Another thing which I did not address before is, why NZ? NZ itself is a moderately developed country, with advanced technology. However, due to the comparatively low population, recent founding of NZ, and moderate mineral wealth, NZ does not possess a great deal of industrial capacity. What it has is land, a good deal of which is arable. If there is a country or group with sufficient resources to carry out the proposed invasion of NZ, there are other locations which likely would be better if compared in a risk vs. reward probability matrix. If NZ was bordered by another country, particularly a sometimes unfriendly one, the situation would be different. At present though, the closest significant country is Australia, some ~1,900km/1,200 miles away. And aside from rugby or cricket, the two nations are closely tied together.

-Cheers
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The trouble with relying on US, UK or Aussies to fight any enemy the NZ might encounter when discussing what you need is that these scenarios envisage an isolated incident where NZ by herself is the victim of an invasion, a very unlightly scenario indeed.

As far as I can see, the most likely risk of an invasion of NZ is as a secondary development following a major realignement of the world as we know it, something that is not as unlikely as one may think.

Imagine a situation where the Iranians finally manage to put together a viable nuke and a long range delivery system and, in accordance with the present leaderships declared goal actually launch against Israel.

Even if only one or two nukes hit Israel, the resulting carnage would swamp Israely disaster releif capabilities and significally reduce defence forces military ability as parts of the military and political command structure would be taken out while large parts of the military rescources would be busy handling the many effects of the nukes.

Imagine then that the Palestinians and Syrians see fit to take advantage of this unprecedented low in Israely defence capability and decide to liberate the occupied areas, igniting a widespread rekindlement of muslem holy war
fanatics throughout the muslem world, parried with some sekular, arab countries grabbing the possibility of vindicating their previous military losses against Israel and at the same time gaining popularity with the often fairly large zealous religious elements of their population, plunging the entire middel east region into turmoil.

After a very short time the Suez would be closed and oil output from the middle east be seriuosly curtailed.

The US would be fased with the quanondrom of necessary nuclear response to Irans attack, the overriding need to immidiately come to Israels aid as well as the nearly impossible task of shoring up threatened and faltering middle east governments, all at once and all within the time span of merely days.

With the US thus preoccupied the Ukraine and Russia crash in a renewed conflict about gas, which, although not erupting into war, disrupts the gas deliveries to Europe. Togehter with the reduced oil output, this threatens the world with immidiate oil shortages of unprecedented proportions, sparking civil unrest in many third tier nations as rich european countries buy up all availiable oil on the market.

EU's leadership react strongly to what they perceive as a poorly veiled blackmail to make the EU pay for the gas delivieries that the Ukraine cannot pay. Russia on her side, react with alacricity to what they on their side see as unfair accusations from the EU and tensions rise. Russia deploys some military forces to preassure Ukraine, a move that sets off visceral reactions in Polands population and government, resulting in a full scale mobalisation in a country already experiencing major gas and oil shortages due to its low strategic oil reserves at the outbreak of the crisis.

In this volatile situation the Russians, through a fluke of fate resume Bear Delta flights all along the Norwegian coast for the first time since the cold war. Although this was planned a long time ago the Norwegians and Brits are not convinced that this move, overflying the oil installations of the North Sea, rescources that are just barely feeding Europe with the bare necessaties of oil, has nothing to do with the present tension. The fact that the Bear D recon planes are more or less indestinguisable from the similar long range bombers does not exactly alleviate European worries.

Following intense requests from the European governements the US redirect one of the three carrier battle groups on route to the Mediteranian to rptoect the installations in the north sea, a move perceived as profoundly threatening by the russians.

The escalating tensions in Europe, the nuclear disaster and ongoing war in Israel, threatening Israels very existence, Irans unprovoked nuclear attack, the continuing free for all in the middle east as well as the impending world wide all threaten to undermine US influence world wide.

A resurgence in world wide terrorism by relegious zealots is inspired by the muslem incursions in the middle east, resulting in, amongst other things, a chemical attack on Disney world, killing nearly 1000 children, a new, allegedly Iranian inspired terrorist organisation, tips the scales in the White House situation room and the US succumbs to popular preassure, launching a major nuclear attack on Iran.

This attack is met by outrage over most of the world, sparking further civil unrest, and international relations deteriorate significantly.

Russia percieves the US nuke attack on Iran as proof that the US is out of control and mobilizes. A totally unnecassary incident on the russian- polish border results in fighting, that is only contained by a diligent negotiation campaign by the Finnish president.

Feeling that the US by its attack on Iran has lost its moral superiority, China decides to finally unify with Taiwan, a move Taiwanese authorities and people strongly oppose, resulting in all out war between the parties, a war that is not won as easily as the Chinese Peoples army thought, thus the brutal fighting contiunuing and the US honoring their previous guaranties for Taiwans safety.

By this time the US military is overwhelmed by the multi tiered crisis with battle groups engaged or on their way to the Med, the North Sea and Taiwan. The EU are more than busy bolstering their borders to the east as well as protecting their last remaining oil reserves and the Australians already deploying forces in aid of the US.

In this situation an unholy alliance of Somalian rebel forces, Golden Triangle drug lords and surreptious involvement by the Burmese military decide they would like to relocate to New Zealand.

Equipped with two large container ships, remodelled to accomodate Frogfoot VSTOL fighters hidden under tarpulines as well as a RoRo ship with vehicles and on board fast patrol boats their 3000 strong rebel outfit head out towards New Zealand.

Would you like something to shoot with?
Well, all NZ needs to do to deal with such a situation is to build a Death Star and use the giant laser to deal with the planet as a whole...

If you are going to dream up such ridiculously fanciful situations, why bother posting here? You would be better off on a fiction based site...
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
This is exactly the scenario I had in mind, but everyone in this forum (except Bozoo?) thinks that NZ Defence is strong enough to stop such an invasion, and that NZ Intelligence would prevent it from occurring in the first place.
The problems with this are:

1. There is no such thing as a VSTOL Frogfoot aircraft. The Frogfoot is a conventional take off and landing aircraft, designed as a close air support aircraft. It is NOT a fighter nor even much of a strike aircraft.

2. Container ships carrying fighter aircraft through Australian waters are not going to MAKE NZ and will most likely be sunk if they resist Australian Authorities, especially as Australian military forces would be on a very high alert, given world events in this ridiculous instance.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well, all NZ needs to do to deal with such a situation is to build a Death Star and use the giant laser to deal with the planet as a whole...
:D That is why we have the Singapore Garrison of the 501st Legion (mainly comprising of Storm Troopers), who come out on parades to deter anyone from invading Singapore. As you can tell, we have crossed over to the dark side. :rolleyes:

Now, back to more serious posts...
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
The other thing making this scenario unrealistic is, even assuming a proper VTOL aircraft were somehow obtained, where would the rebels get experienced pilots trained to land/take off such aircraft at sea? Ex-USMC or ex-RN or ex-Spanish or Indian "mercenaries"???

Rebel helicopters would be more realistic. But they have disadvantages eg slow speed, minimal weaponry (guys with RPG's hanging out the doors)??

As stated by AD, the Aussie Govt would be taking a keen interest in these vessels first themselves - and "allied" subs lurking in the Indian Ocean near Australia would be converging on these vessels.

So maybe instead of heading south to/around the aussie continent the rebels might try and blend into the dense shipping lanes and go via the straights of malacca? But that runs the risk of the Singaporians taking a close interest (of which NZ has a close defence relationship with and would share intelligence etc) nevermind ADF and USN interest.

Maybe they could go west instead around Africa and South America (of which NZ does not have any formal defence relationships with) but avoiding any Falkland Islands based surveillence aircraft and patrol ships?? (Plus I wonder how many refueling stops would be needed to go this way)? But NZ might strike it lucky with a local French Polynesian based surveillance plane or RNZAF P-3 conducting EEZ around the Cooks Islands detecting these vessels? Maybe the rebels venture further south towards the Antarctic continent to avoid these search aircraft. I hope they are experienced in navigating these much rougher southern latitudes and well packed down the ro/ro vessel!
 

Sea Toby

New Member
A whole division of Marines and or American soldiers were able to eventually capture the island of Guadalcanal during WWII. New Zealand is several times larger. Rest assured, New Zealand won't be invaded soon, its too far away and isolated to anyone but Australia.

On the other hand, a battalion of crack soldiers, commandos, could probably capture the Beehive in session. That is why there is a defence force, they will have to retake the Beehive and preserve our government. Keep in mind the Beehive is just a few short blocks from the port and wharfs of Wellington. Most likely they wouldn't even need the usage of any armoured vehicles either.

That is why the Beehive has security, to at least evacuate the highest government officials to safety. While the police will act fast, it could take days for the army to eradicate this foreign force from the Beehive. Notice the carnage recently in Bumbai, India, with key hotel guests.

Which scenario do you find most threatening? A several division invasion involving a fleet of ships, or a battalion of commandos capturing our government in session from one cargo/transport ship? To be honest, I would build a new capitol building several miles from the sea, no where near a sea port.
 
Last edited:

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
A whole division of Marines and or American soldiers were able to eventually capture the island of Guadalcanal during WWII. New Zealand is several times larger. Rest assured, New Zealand won't be invaded soon, its too far away and isolated to anyone but Australia.

On the other hand, a battalion of crack soldiers, commandos, could probably capture the Beehive in session. That is why there is a defence force, they will have to retake the Beehive and preserve our government. Keep in mind the Beehive is just a few short blocks from the port and wharfs of Wellington. Most likely they wouldn't even need the usage of any armoured vehicles either.

That is why the Beehive has security, to at least evacuate the highest government officials to safety. While the police will act fast, it could take days for the army to eradicate this foreign force from the Beehive. Notice the carnage recently in Bumbai, India, with key hotel guests.

Which scenario do you find most threatening? A several division invasion involving a fleet of ships, or a battalion of commandos capturing our government in session from one cargo/transport ship? To be honest, I would build a new capitol building several miles from the sea, no where near a sea port.
That's a more realistic situation, probably wouldn't even need a battalion sized group, probably a lot less commandos could pull it off.

But once they are in the Beehive they wouldn't have a lot of options as they would be surrounded. The Police and their Special Tactics Group could counter-assault with their M4 Carbines and have the advantage of knowing the area well, the Trentham Army base is about 15-20 minutes away at high speed (they also have a few LAVIII's for trades training there). Although the SAS are too far away in Auckland, I don't know where their "second tier" (hopefully that's not an insult!) Counter Terrorism Tactical Assault Group (CTTAG) is based but presumably it would be sensible to have some already based in Wellington, being the capital city etc.

IMO one "problem" with the Mumbai attack (which could be replicated anywhere) was the typical live newsfeeds being monitored by the terrorists handlers to avoid local security. Fortunately we don't have a BBC or CNN etc presence here and hopefully the Police or Army would censor any live TVNZ broadcasts (or the broadcasters would self-censor due to national security) being watched on the mother ship etc.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
So how many soldiers is neccessary for the invasion and control of the whole NZ?
There is no simple answer to this question, as there are a number of variables which play a role in determining the answer. Having said that, I will start with the example given of 3,000 troops conducting an invasion. Assuming the troops are properly kitted out, a ~3,000 troop attacking for should be sufficient to defeat a comparably equipped defending force of ~1,000 assuming both sides engage in conventional operations. Given that the attackers would be seeking to gain control of NZ, as I mentioned before they would not have the option of prolonged irregular operations as these as insufficient to take control. Having looked at the NZDF site, there are over 9,000 regular personnel spread across the three NZDF services. This suggests to me that aside from perhaps being able to establish local control of a small area, the attacking force is insufficient in size. In point of fact, something along the lines of a two division force ~36,000 troops properly supported would likely be needed to establish control.

Once control is established, then local Kiwi groups could, if they so choose, use irregular tactics/guerilla warfare to contest the control established by the invaders. The numbers I have heard bandied about to maintain control in the face of well lead and organized partisan resistance is between a 1:7 to a 1:10 ratio of resistance members to occupying troops. Depending on circumstances, the ratio could be even worse (for the occupiers). What this works out to then, is if the 3,000 troops were able to occupy NZ without suffering any casualties and establish control, they would likely lose control if any resistance was offered by groups that in total numbered over 300 people.

If one looks at the various resistance and irregular groups which sprung into existance during WWII to fight against German occupation of various European countries, or against Japanese occupation in the Pacific basin, one can get a feel for what resistance groups can accomplish.

-Cheers
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Also to add to Todjaegers thoughts, NZ's population is just over 4M but apparently Police estimate there are some 1M guns in private hands!

The funny thing about NZ is that there is a perception we're a bunch of tree hugging hippies (but that's just a lazy media imbalance where whenever a protestor saves an endangered snail it becomes national news etc) but the reality is, many NZ'ers quietly go about their business but, like our aussie cousins, believe in a "fair go".

If NZ was invaded etc you can be sure in some cases that fair go attitude would change and there would be resistance, quite a lot of resistance IMO. Eg the rural population, nicely dispersed around the country in small communities, well armed, know how to live off the land, have a great tradition of hunting in the bush, could easily take to the bush and undertake guerilla warfare etc. Some city slickers love their hunting too.

Alot of the Maori population wouldn't want to see their post-colonial gains (treaty settlements & economic development) lost. They wouldn't stand for an invasion. They too have many rural communities and know the land well and can live off it.

They say kiwis make good fighters, they love to fight when the going gets tough. Any invading force would have to factor in being picked off.

The interesting thing would be what the namby pamby anti-western activists do. Sell out or join the struggle. Almost be worth having an invasion to see them finally join with the other 99% of the population! :D
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A 25% ratio is pretty damn low btw... (The EU is at about 40% average).
 

Bozoo

New Member
Well, all NZ needs to do to deal with such a situation is to build a Death Star and use the giant laser to deal with the planet as a whole...

If you are going to dream up such ridiculously fanciful situations, why bother posting here? You would be better off on a fiction based site...
How nice of you Mr Digger. Tell me, exactly which part of my scenario is ridiculously fanciful? As far as I can see, the risk of all these actions taking place is well founded in existing threat "hot spots" around the world, or recent historical events. The fanciful part is the notion that all may be happening at once or in the sequence proposed. My point is, it is a good idea to think defence through using long term perspective and not just take account of established truths. I was just trying to envisage a situation that would present NZ with a threat where the usual alliance would not be of help, as my impression is that this was not easy to contemplate for some. If this offends you, I am truly sorry, beeing the rank amateur that I obviously am. If my prescence on this forum annoys you, please give the word and I will be gone.

I cant find the particulars on the Frogfoot. I might be mistanken, but I do remember the USSR had a VSTOL craft, something akin to the Harrier, although not as capable and not a true VTOL machine. In my mind I remember this as a Frogfoot, I seem to remember it beeing a Yak. Anyone got the correct designation. They where origianally meant to deploy on the USSR carriers until proper carrier aircraft where developed.

Anyway, these are the machines I'm talking about. It is no problem what so ever to operate VTOL from a large container ship. It was done by the brits during the Falklands.

You can camouflage this by installing a lift underneath what would look like a set of containers, but in reality functions as a hangar with an enclosed lift giving access to hangar on the lower decks for storage.

In the scenario the NZ does not have a fighter wing, and fighters are therefore not needed. What the rebel force would need is combat support, where the VSTOLs would be more than sufficient, as well as providing a strike capability against reenforcements arriving in ships. I am not talking about really operating these machines from the container ship, but just launching them when landing the rebel forces and establishing a base on land.

The ships would not necessaraly embark from Burma, but could be seiled from innocous embarkations. No problem with camouflaging these as civilian vessels with perfectly legal busyness in NZ. Be advised, this was actually done by the Germans when they invaded Norway in 1945. There were a number of innocent looking merchant ships in different Norwegian ports awaiting the strike force, carrying both soldiers, supplies, weapons and in one instance, even horses, without this arousing any suspicion. Some of these ships had been there for weeks.

Even when one such merchant ship was sunk by a british sub outside Arendal and dead soldiers started drifting ashore, no one raised the alarm. I wager the scenario is not at all as fanciful as you seem to think.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
If my presence on this forum annoys you, please give the word and I will be gone.
@Bozoo,

While I appreciate your presence, your last post that prompted the out-burst by AD was not realistic (to put it mildly). The problem is the way the scenario was set up and given it's length, a number of conceptual and factual errors were introduced. These sort of errors are very difficult to explain and there is limited patience to deal with them. And if you remember, how long was my post on the employment of 106MM guns? You will notice, I have stopped responding in my normal manner (and just kid around).

I recognize that group think is always possible. You will also note that my position does not differ much from AD's position. Why is that so? There is some disconnect between what AD and I are saying compared to what you are proposing.

In this forum, I have had some discussion with others whose posts clearly defy logic. And you will find that I clearly state my displeasure. I have not done so with you.

The ships would not necessarily embark from Burma, but could be sailed from innocuous embarkations. No problem with camouflaging these as civilian vessels with perfectly legal busyness in NZ. Be advised, this was actually done by the Germans when they invaded Norway in 1945. There were a number of innocent looking merchant ships in different Norwegian ports awaiting the strike force, carrying both soldiers, supplies, weapons and in one instance, even horses, without this arousing any suspicion. Some of these ships had been there for weeks.

Even when one such merchant ship was sunk by a british sub outside Arendal and dead soldiers started drifting ashore, no one raised the alarm. I wager the scenario is not at all as fanciful as you seem to think.
Have a read on the Taiwan, Falkland Islands and Singapore invasion debates. The thing to remember is that history never exactly repeats itself once the lesson is learnt (thanks to AARs). The scenario mutates, if the plan is to succeed.

Notice that I refuse to comment on how the actual defence of Singapore can be conducted. I stick to only conceptual issues. I certainly don't want to give anyone a clear idea of how I think it can be actually defended.
 
Last edited:

Jecito

New Member
French Invasion of New Zealand

The only country I can see that could realistically invade New Zealand would be France. Which has had problems with New Zealand in the past and has a lot of territories nearby, where it could base forces. France has already shown its disregard for New Zealand when it sent DGSE to blow up the rainbow warrior. Although now there is no reason to attack let alone invade New Zealand it would be the most plausible candidate. Maybe if NZ started threatening French colonies, fisheries, or if France restarted nuclear testing. They have the bases, carrier aviation, the Navy and the troops to pull it off. The US also pulled out of the ANZUS treaty when they established their nuclear free zone, so US help would be minimal, especially against a friendly NATO power. Australia would be the wildcard, but the events that would precipitate a French response would probably mean that Australia would not like to get involved, New Zealand would have to have gone way too far in order for the French to have responded.
New Zealand by itself could to very little to defend itself. The French navy would make short work of the few NZ ships. And it has no way to defend against French Rafales. From then on New Zealand would be pretty much helpless with France seizing Auckland with Legionnaires and airlifting prepositioned troops and supplies from New Caledonia, French Polynesia. Then proceeding to capture the rest of the country.
 

proletarian

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #56
(...) this was actually done by the Germans when they invaded Norway in 1945. There were a number of innocent looking merchant ships in different Norwegian ports awaiting the strike force, carrying both soldiers, supplies, weapons and in one instance, even horses, without this arousing any suspicion. Some of these ships had been there for weeks.
I think Bozoo has a point here.

I do realise that the vast majority of this forum's members are very analytic and logical, and that Bozoo's theories may be perceived as mad science fiction.

The issue is that many (most?) wars are the result of madness, not reason.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
A 25% ratio is pretty damn low btw... (The EU is at about 40% average).
Very true - 25% is low compared to most other countries!

But I meant 1M guns v a few hundred or maybe a few thousand guns or whatever the figure is of the invading force, could mean the kiwis are well stock piled up for quite a while!

Add to that presumably the Army and Territorials (Reservists) would take to the bush too with much higher power weapons, motars & anti-tank weaponry etc.

Hopefully the Singaporians won't mind if we borrow their 155mm tracked howitzers being stored in NZ (in central highland NZ - well away from any port invasion), ahem, we could be moving them out of harms way for them!
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
France has a hot swap maritime agreement with Australia - and France knows that Australia and New Zealand have historical ties that are like titanium....

but, the french presence in new caldedonia has no capacity to wage anything expeditionary - she has no capacity to seize and hold, and she must be able to sustain a presence if she is able to land.

unless any country can commit rolling forces for a sustained period into NZ then they will fail as the defenders have too many advantages.

quite frankly, the only country that can mount a sustained expeditionary event - because they can stand off and degrade the landing zone for months on end - are the americans. the response time for anyone else trying to do it means that NZ allies will step in within a very short timeframe.

the french are not even remotely able to conduct this kind of long range sustained warfare. as good as the french ground troops are (and they are not to be dismissed) - they would get mauled on the ground.
 

Bozoo

New Member
@Bozoo,

While I appreciate your presence, your last post that prompted the out-burst by AD was not realistic (to put it mildly). The problem is the way the scenario was set up and given it's length, a number of conceptual and factual errors were introduced. These sort of errors are very difficult to explain and there is limited patience to deal with them. And if you remember, how long was my post on the employment of 106MM guns? You will notice, I have stopped responding in my normal manner (and just kid around).
Thanks. Sorry about the sour grapes. I'll take your comments under consideration for the future. :)
 

Bozoo

New Member
The problems with this are:

1. There is no such thing as a VSTOL Frogfoot aircraft. The Frogfoot is a conventional take off and landing aircraft, designed as a close air support aircraft. It is NOT a fighter nor even much of a strike aircraft.
I'm sorry about my lapse of memory. The correct aircraft is the Yak 38 Forger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top