Australia has five times the population. And over ten times the military budget. But New Zealand is behind a thousand miles
of Ocean. Australia does have a decisive edge in combat
planes and naval assets. And its ground troops are almost ten times
more numerous. If Kiwis don’t stop an invasion on the beaches,
do they even have a chance? Would New Zealand be doomed against Australia? Watch to find out! Let's get back to the fight down under. As with any overseas invasion, the navy and
the air force would be sent out first. New Zealand is far enough from Australia that
most of Australian planes can’t reach it, without in-air refuelling. But Australia does have quite a few tankers,
for the size of its air force. Each one could fly to New zealand and provide
enough fuel for over half a dozen Hornets, two times. While commercial airliner based planes have
better availability rates, it’s still likely one or two would not be available at any one
time. 5 tankers might provide enough fuel for 30
plus hornets to patrol 2 hours over New Zealand Or enough fuel for some 50 hornets performing
strike missions. That’s roughly a third of the entire royal
australian air force combat fleet. Some of the newest F-35s are still in the
US, as more crews undergo training. Would those planes meet any resistance? No. Because New Zealand does not have a combat
air force. All of their planes are for various support
roles, maritime patrol and such. Their helicopter fleet is equally utilitarian. With their Seasprite helicopters being closest
to combat aircraft, as they’re meant both for anti ship and anti submarine missions. New Zealand used to operate A-4 combat planes,
but those lost their combat capabilities nearly 20 years ago and were subsequently retired,
with their replacements cancelled. Does New Zealand have high altitude air defenses? The answer is again no. They do have 12 Mistral launch units. But it’s basically a shoulder launched class
missile system. To make matters worse, the New Zealand army
did not really train with it, as it has been stored for a long time. Somehow, when purchased, the Army did not
purchase the identify friend or foe equipment with it, so it never was put into proper service. In this case, they probably would get used,
as they’re the only thing New Zealand would have. But results would be miniscule. Perhaps some helicopter or a low flying transport
plane could be hit with them. More potent air defenses could be found on
two of New Zealand’s combat ships. The sea sparrow SAM could reach close to 10
miles in altitude and almost 15 miles in range. Compared to the australian navy, that force
would, however, be very inadequate. While Australia has the same general class
of ships, their vessels have been modernized and carry both better sensors and more weaponry. Australia also operates some diesel electric
submarines. While they had their share of problems, they
still are ocean going, fairly modern subs, and even if just half of them are around New
Zealand, the local forces would have to be very careful. Using planes and helicopters to try and hunt
those subs would likely end badly for New zealand, with constant australian fighter
cover over the islands. Australia does have quite a large aerial radar
fleet for early warning, which would help with spotting the enemy. Maritime patrol aircraft would do the monitoring
over the sea. Basically, New Zealand would likely get blocked. With no planes or ships being able to reach
it, without Australia first knowing about it and attempting to intercept them. If international politics allow it, of course. But these kinds of scenarios tend to disregard
such politics. Usually such blockades would not be advisable,
as they disperse one’s forces, but in this case there’d be no threat to australian
ships, once New Zealand’s anti ship threats are neutralized or pinned down. Of course, that in itself might take some
weeks. New Zealand ships don’t carry anti ship
missiles. That role is relegated to the Seasprite helicopter
fleet, with their penguin missiles. Which can at least operate from more ships. Though in reality they’re most likely to
operate from ground bases, to be safe. And not venture far, performing hit and run
strikes before disappearing back into improvised bases. Australian air force would likely have to
conduct many recon and strike missions until they find and neutralize those helicopters. While air tankers would help, getting some
air bases closer would be even more important. Luckily for Australia, they already have one
island fairly close to New zealand. It’d get populated by the military quickly
and its airport would see rapid expansion into an airbase, probably taking days to weeks. Also, turning commercial airports in Tasmania
into air force bases would help reaching the southern tip of New zealand as well. Using the three large amphibious assault ships,
Australia would slowly take away the outlying islands. Like the Chatham archipelago in the east. Auckland island in the south and so on. Some islands like the Cook islands way up
northeast do have some degree of independence and are not always considered part of New
Zealand proper. If the rules of the scenario allow, those
would get taken too. The Canberra class ships may look like aircraft
carriers, with their ski jump ramps, but that feature is a vestige of the original Spanish
design. It was deemed too expensive to modify the
design, when Australia licensed to build their ships. Australia has no planes capable of operating
from those ships. Though they would get used as helicopter carriers
and perform air assaults on islands. All 3 mentioned amphibious assault ships combined
could carry some three dozen helicopters. And could disembark at least 24 hundred troops,
though given the manageable distances to New zealand, even overloads of up to nearly 4000
troops might be possible. New Zealand military forces, of all three
branches in total number some three times that figure. With more troops available as reservists. If one looks at just the army, which would
certainly be better equipped to deal with the invasion than some supporting air force
or navy technicians, the figures look more dire for New Zealand. Australia has several hundred troops in their
amphibious battalion, but the army troops, even if inexperienced in such assaults, would
be used to increase those numbers. The active reserve in australian army is somewhat
akin to the US national guard, serving some weeks per year. Australia would likely try to avoid landing
on contested areas. Which wouldn’t be that hard. New zealand lacks the hardware to monitor
the approaches to their islands. Their aircraft that could otherwise monitor
the seas would for the most part be either destroyed or in hiding. And there’s SO much coastline to be covered. Each of the two islands is little over 500
miles across. Given the numbers of the New Zealand military,
it’s most likely Australia would be able to pick and choose an area without too much
resistance and make a beachhead there. Actually, first landings may not be on the
two of the biggest new zealand islands. But on the smaller islands very close by. The Steward island to the south would, in
particular, make a very good springboard, where masses of australian soldiers could
be brought in, and from which various helicopters could operate. Even if New Zealand tried to preempt those
with stationing a few thousand troops on those islands - ultimately they couldn’t do much. Australian navy would keep them cut off and
australian air forces would make sure even most of the supplies by air would not reach
them. Those islands don’t really have the infrastructure
to support many troops, so without outside supplies any troops there would be doomed,
given enough months. Using smaller landing craft from the islands,
coupled with the larger assault ship and all the added army helicopters operating from
the islands, the australian forces would start landing left and right. Cutting out little pieces of new zealand. Each of the smaller landing craft could carry
an abrams tank or upward of 100 troops Then, adjusting for the actual resistance
on each of those landing points, a few would be chosen as the most prospective ones and
masses of Australian troops would disembark. Attack helicopters could aid in the landings,
where opposition is met. Australia operates european tiger attack helicopters. Once some airports get captured, additional
supplies and hardware might come by airlift. Australia has a decent transport plane fleet. Armor wise, Australia is far ahead of New
Zealand. Even when just ten percent of australian armored
vehicles disemark, they’d likely outnumber the new zealand’s vehicles. As it’s unlikely New zealanders could get
their vehicles to all the places needed at once. Australia also uses various armored cars extensively,
while new zealand has but a few similar platforms. New Zealand could possibly even have fewer
anti armor weapons than Australia has armored vehicles. Talking about guided ones, there’s just
a token number of Javelins. While there’s likely hundreds of the short
range, unguided rockets such as M72 and carl gustav recoilless guns - it’s questionable
if those would make a serious dent. Given that Australian troops would likely
be outnumbering the new zealanders and suppressing those rocket systems. Not surprisingly, artillery and unmanned recon
aircraft is another area where Australia is ahead. To sum everything up - New zealand doesn’t
stand much of a chance. Of course, various guerrilla uprising is always
likely, and given the five million souls living in New zealand, as well as anywhere between
700 thousand and 1.7 million civilian firearms - long term occupation casualties for australia
might be quite grave. But there isn’t much of a question of who’d
be the winner. Ever since the end of the cold war, New zealand
has simply decided a military force is more of a burden and has kept shrinking its armed
forces. The actual disparity in gross domestic product,
while almost 7 times higher for australia, doesn’t tell the whole story. When it comes to the defense budget, Australia
spends roughly 11 times more. New Zealand is simply refusing to invest heavily
in the military. Had it somehow kept its defense spending at
double the actual rate, this whole scenario would probably be much harder for Australia
to win. But, in reality, New zealand doesn’t expect
any real hostility from its neighbor. Hence such unpreparedness and lopsided result.
