Questions with an OZ flavour

stubby331 · Post by **stubby331** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 9:29 am

As you would know, during the war, the Australian army was split into men who had volunteered for overseas service (the AIF-Australian Imperial Force) and men who had volunteered to serve exclusively in Australia and her territories (the Militia).
Papua New Guinea was an Australian Territory, and as such "Militia" units were deployed to defend it.
As the New Guinea campaign developed, more & more militia units were deployed into the fighting, serving alongside the AIF units.

Question; Are the Non AIF units (ie militia) going to be able to be deployed into New Guinea?

With the realistic ship steaming ranges now being part of the equation.

Obviously, the cost of fuel & "downtime" steaming to and from ports with good repair/maintenance facilities will come into play.

With that in mind, Australian Ports such as Fremantle will become more of a juicy target for raiding forces. (Historically, Fremantle was a major Submarine base for allied subs).
I have read that coastal batteries will be part of gameplay. Quite a few ports around Australia had capable port defences in place when the pacific war started.

For example, Rottnest Island just off Fremantle had a main battery consisting of two turreted mkX, 9.2-inch breech loading guns emplaced in concrete with an underground magazine, engine room, plotting rooms and concrete observation posts.

A supporting battery on the southeastern tip of the Island was armed with two six-inch Mark XI guns.

Later in the war, this system was upgraded with radar.

Question; Will such defences feature in both Uncommon Valour & War in the Pacific.

eagerly looking forward to the impending release...

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 5:40 pm

Interesting question... I doubt that detail like the island you mentioned will be in the game, but I'd hope that those defenses would be listed under Fremantle (or whatever major city is nearest) in the game at least. It makes more sense now for the Japanese to attack these forward bases to cut off repair/supply ability from allied subs, etc... I have a feeling gameplay strategies will be completely different (and more realistic) than the ones used in Pacwar.

stubby331 · Post by **stubby331** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 6:44 pm

The importance of such forward bases is magnified when you consider it was the allied subs that gutted Japans merchant fleet (they sank more shipping tonnage than the carriers and land based combined). The effects of this cannot be underestimated.

It has always been my feeling that if the Japanese had've ever managed to get on top of the sub factor they might have lasted a bit longer before they went under.

With this said, I'm going to be doing everything I can in the area of ASW when I step up to the plate on the side of Nippon. That would include blowing the crap out of any major ports/infrastructure I could, and, after Pearl Harbour, Australia is it.

You deny effective forward bases, you decrease the amount of time on patrol. The Germans had that same problem before they started operating out of the Bay of Biscay.

Hence my question on Australia’s coastal defences…

msvknight · Post by **msvknight** » Fri Oct 26, 2001 4:11 pm

Darwin's defences were very similar. A pair of 9.2" in gun turrets which were designed to pop up to fire. Two 6" guns (off HMAS Melbourne) were mounted in open positions. The value of the 9.2" was questionable at least, in particular because the guns and ammunition were about 40 years old. Darwin also had an anti-submarine net across the harbour entrance; a fair achievement considering the distance between Lee Point and Mandorah as well as the racing tides. Two Japanese submarines were sunk off the harbour during World War II, one of which was going to have the lead from the batteries salvaged in the 1980s. The plan was scuttled when the Japanese government protested that it would be disturbing a war grave.

Anyway enough of my waffling. I'm just saying that impressive sounding defences may not have been all that effective, certainly not as efficient as those of Wake Island that caused the Japanese so much grief (if you did that much damage with so little in a movie, you'd get sneered at as being innaccurate). <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Reg · Post by **Reg** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 2:14 pm

Another thing you must remember is the dates of construction. IIRC, the majority of these installations weren't completed until mid 1944 when they were no longer required.

If you are interested in the subject here are a couple of good links.

BUNKERS, TUNNELS, FORTIFICATIONS IN AUSTRALIA DURING WORLD WAR 2* which is part of Peter Dunn's excellent Australia @ War Site.

(* Contains a map of all the fortifications in Australia circa October 1944).

Reg.

stubby331 · Post by **stubby331** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 2:26 pm

Reg,
Interesting site. Shame its incomplete. The map thumbnail was great.
In the context of this forum. I would like to see a map dated 7 Dec 41. Anyone got it, or know where to find it? CARO springs to mind.

As far as Rottnest goes, while the Guns themselves were 40 years old. The structures which held/ protected them were built to Army specifications in 1937 by civilian Army contractors, for the Commonwealth Department of the Interior.

As far as their performance goes, well, thankfully we never found out. One would like to think they wouldve given a good account of themselves.

I really only brought it up because I think it should be included as a feature of the new games.

Stub

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 7:03 pm

You gentlemen are certainly the experts compared to me, but something occured to me.. Wake Island's defenses were manned by front-line troops (Marines) who had been drilling extensively. Even with older weapons, I believe they can put up a good fight.. Would the defenses in Australia be manned by similar troops or some form of civil defense/reservists? I bet that they would miss a lot more than they'd hit, regardless of weapon quality... Any thoughts?

stubby331 · Post by **stubby331** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 10:35 am

Sorry for the delay in responding. been away.

yup, good point. the marines at wake were certainly top quality front line troops.

The Australian Coastal defences were composed of regular army
Royal Australian Artillery and Engineer fortress units, regulars, but not marines Im afraid.

Im very eager to see how Matrix will handle all of these little details that contribute so much to game play quality. Any thoughts on that score?

Blackhorse · Post by **Blackhorse** » Fri Nov 30, 2001 10:11 pm

The most likely effect of permanent coastal harbor defenses (in war and in game)is to deter, not defeat, an attack. If the Japanese know you have 9.2" guns encased in concrete, they won't bombard with out-gunned cruisers and destroyers.

If they send battleships, they can destroy the coastal batteries at little risk to themselves. But they can't send battleships to every harbor, and battleships themselves are vulnerable to other types of defense . . . coastal submarines, land-based air, and MTBs.

This is the effect I hope the game can capture.

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Mon Dec 10, 2001 4:36 pm

Better late than never.

Regarding the Australian coastal Defense batteries the best books to check out are:
R Kidd, R Neal, ‘The history of the ‘letter’ batteries in World War II’, Self Published, Sydney, Australia, 1998.

The above book looks at all the batteries raised during the war. Each of the letter batteries were armed with 6" guns and those committed to the front (ie New Guinea) often had a section of 3" mortars or some AA guns for accompaniment.

The following two books are excellent books for the batteries in Darwin and Fremantle (which is the name of the port attached to Perth in Western Australia)
McKenzie-Smith GR; ‘Australia’s Forgotten Army. Defending the Northern Gateways 1938 – 1945’

McKenzie-Smith GR, “Australia’s Forgotten Army. The Ebb and Flow of the Army in Western Australia”, Grimwade Publications, ACT, Australia, 1994.

Then there is this book. This one deals with the artillery in place, and goes into great detail about every single gun that began the war emplaced at the various points around Australia:

R K Fullford, ‘We Stood and Waited’, Royal Australian Artillery Historical Society press, Sydney, Australia, 1994

Finally one should not forget volume 5 of the army series of the Australian Official histories:
Dudley Macarthey: "South West Pacific - The first Year". He lists the manpower associated with each of these batteries.

Also don't forget the 2/1st fortress bttry that was sent to Koepang. It was armed with 2 x 6" guns... Can't remember which book, but one of them mentions that there were plans to install some batteries at Lae in March 42. Such plans were obviously skittled when the Japanese captured Lae just before completion.

As to the quality of the troops, they were regular army, Many on full time duty from '38. Very familiar with their equipment, which had been kept in excellent working order - most having been dragged out from storgae as war moved closer. The guns had been removed from ships in the early 1930's as a rewsult of the naval limitations treaties.

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Mon Dec 10, 2001 5:05 pm

As to the Militia and their deployment limits, the militia also included from December 41 conscripted soldiers and from October 1941 all AIF, as from this point in time they were not allowed to be transferred out of Australia as war with Japan seemed imminent.

There was one very good reason why soldiers volunteered to stay in Australia between 1939 - 1941. The pay was almost twice as high as their overseas companions! Nothing quite like self interest!

As to their deployment - in 1941 Papua (The South Eastern 'State' of greater New Guinea) was for all intents and purposes part of Australia. The Militia could freely deploy to this part of the country. With Japanese intervention in New Guinea, Militia units could also have been deployed to that region as well. In February 43 and again in June 1943 saw some changes as regards where the Militia could go. Firstly the Militia bill was passed. This allowed Militia units to be stationed anywhere on the south side of the Equator between Java and Bouganville. Secondly any unit that was made up of 65% AIF soldiers was regarded as being an AIF formation. Naturally soldiers that didn't volunteer to join the AIF were often transffered out to inactive units (such as coastal defense units) or were discharged altogether.

One must be also very careful in interpreting the quality of the militia troops. Some of the units (perhaps 5 -8), such as the 49th had been at full strength in Port Moresby for almost a year when the war broke out. The poor reputation is often based on the background of the 'famous' 39th battalion. This unit was made up of 18 year olds conscripted and sent to the front at Christmas 1941. Leadership and training was poor - and remained so for the first months of 42

Now when the AIF returned from Africa in March 1942, they had one HUGE advantage not shared by their American friends - battle experience. The American army grew very rapidly in the first year of the war (for them). Leadership was often untried and untested, and would remain so until each unit entered combat. On the other hand the Australian army returning released 35,000 soldiers from the experienced formations and seeded them into the militia formations. Thus by July 42 the inexperineced 39th battalion now had its numbers made up with 35% AIF personnel, who had served in the various campaigns in Africa, Greece, Crete and Syria. This proportion, and one that constantly grew for all the battalions - as any AIF person who was promoted above Sergeant level was transffered to a Militia unit, saw this experience and unit elan pass on quite rapidly.