RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 03-26-2016, 01:13 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT View Post
If I am reading it correctly the original posting had the Australia military that today is 12+ (counting the reserves) brigades at least on paper, and making it in to 11+ Divisions.
Completely wrong. We have 2 Divisions. EXTREMELY unlikely we could make a third even if we really, REALLY HAD to.

Name:  Australia_Land_Forces_2016.jpg
Views: 198
Size:  41.0 KB

Edit: The first post is exceptionally unrealistic and totally unachievable.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-26-2016, 09:28 AM
mpipes mpipes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 155
Default

You are VASTLY underestimating what can be done by nations when they put their efforts toward raising an army.

Some quick historical parallels......

Confederate States of America

Population: ~5,500,000 (Caucasian)

Army Size: 1/1861 = 0
12/1861 = ~500,000


England WWII

Population: 46,000,000

Army Size: 1/1939 = Regulars 227,000/TA 204,000
5/1940 = 1,650,000
April 1940 BEF strength 400,000


Australia WWII

Population: 7,039,000

Army Size: 9/1939 = 80,000
8/1942 = 479,000 11 Divisions

Russia: 6/41 303 Divisions
8/41 401 Division (with 41 destroyed)
Russia was in effect shitting divisions in the first months of the war; about 5,000,000 men by December if memory serves me correct.

What you can see from these quick examples is that manpower is hardly ever the issue in effect for rapidly raising a force. A rough rule of thumb; you can effectively double the size of your military within six months from the decision to mobilize. Now that does not mean that you will have units every bit as good as those that existed pre-mobilization, but it does mean you can get an adequately trained and effective combat force into service within 6 months. US Cold War planning assumed about six months to fully mobilize from about 15 divisions to 35 divisions within six months. Desert Storm was the first real test, as it tried to mobilize three National Guard brigades within 60 days. That attempt did not work out as planned, as these units still required considerable training to get them up to active duty standards. However, it was conceded in post-war studies that the three brigades could have deployed and been effective at the 60 day point; just not fully trained to active duty standards. It was also conceded that at least one of the units was indeed fully qualified, but somewhat arbitrary training rule said it was not, and that if the decision had been to go ahead and deploy, training deficiencies could have been addressed in country after deployment and the units rated as fully ready by the start of the war.

In any event, your main limitation is equipment. BUT that is not really an issue for small arms, as doubling production for say the M-16 or the AUG can be accomplished in a few weeks. Australia in 1995 had thousands of L1A1s, Sterlings, Stens, and Brens in storage. And then there are wartime production plans. Normal production for most arms manufacturers are basically one 7-5/M-F shifts. Wartime, it goes to 3-shifts 24/7/365. Just look at WWII production in the US and UK at what can be accomplished. You had workers all but being dragged off the streets and stuck on a production line. In Russia, that was literally happening. Its also interesting to note that in 1990, the US expected to reactivate B-1B production within six months of a decision to do so. Wartime production plans for F-16s hit over 600/yr within one year. M-1 production was to be doubled as well.

The hallmark of mobilization for war is to not start off thinking about what you can't do and concentrate on doing what you must do. The US built the atomic bomb in three years. It built an army of 8,000,000 in less than four years. Australia itself went from an army of 80,000 in 1939 to 479,000 in three years. Its all a matter of national will.

For the record, I was a logistic officer in the Air Force.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-26-2016, 10:06 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Manpower can possibly be scraped together. The problems are equipment, politics, and finance.

The best Australia could do by itself is 1950-60's vehicles and heavy weapons, except on a small scale. What's the point in having half a million troops if virtually ANY opponent is using far superior equipment?

Politics is another matter. Australians simply will not stand for wide scale conscription any more. It was tough enough in WWI and WWII - by Vietnam the tide had well and truly turned against forced military service, so any recruits would have to be volunteers. To conscript civilians would almost certainly result in the downfall of the government which tried to implement it.

Then there's finance. Volunteers don't come cheaply - patriotism only goes so far. Equipment (what little of it which may be available) will fetch premium prices, prices Australia simply cannot afford. Even raw materials will go up in price putting them out of the reach of many smaller nations.

Australia is not America. We only have about 20 million people in total and not enough heavy industry to cover all our domestic needs. Most of our cars, trucks, heavy equipment is imported. We do not have the industrial base to enable us to ramp up production to cover wartime requirements. We do not have large scale heavy industries to switch from making consumer goods to tanks and aircraft. We DO have the capability to upgrade, modify and maintain what we have, and some limited small scale production.

WWII is commonly pointed at as an example of what can be done to rapidly build up forces, but that's a very misleading example to use for modern warfare. The technology of today, or even 20 years ago (the time of T2K) is much more advanced than the 1940's. It required much lower technical skills and specialised equipment to produce.

Australia did have a large military, but it was so large we simply could not support it. Australia was the only nation (to my knowledge) to actually reduce the size of it's forces while the war still raged - we had no choice if we wanted to eat and have enough manpower to produce and transport the materials our soldiers needed.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-26-2016, 11:26 AM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 1,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes View Post
A mobilization and draft to provide say 250,000 recruits to raise 15-20 divisions would hardly make a dent in the overall population.
Have you given any thought as to who would a) train and b) provide a leadership cadre (primarily junior officers / NCO's) for these quarter of a million conscripts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes View Post
Same for the US, England, and the rest of Europe.
You mean the United Kingdom, of which England is just one constituent part, not the only constituent part. It is a source of annoyance to some of us who live in parts of the UK other than England when England is used to refer to the whole country.

In case my view isn't clear, I think the Australian orbat in the opening past is far too big. I seem to recall a similar conversation taking place about the British Army some years ago and the same arguments applied.
__________________
A collection of articles written for the Twilight 2000 Role Playing Game

http://www.twilight2000files.com
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-26-2016, 12:27 PM
RN7 RN7 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Australia is not America.
This is the key statement here.

On closer inspection Australia has six military factories (army related only)

Bandiana VIC (Military Vehicle Maintenance)
Benalla VIC (Munitions)
Bendigo VIC (Military Vehicle Production)
Lithgow NSW (Small Arms: Steyr AUG rifle and FN Minimi SAW only)
Mulwala NSW (Munitions)
Wingfield SA (Military Vehicle Production)

They are all foreign owned by Thales Group (France) and BAE Systems (Britain)

In regards to automobile production there are seven auto and two engine plants in Australia.

Automobile Plants
Elizabeth SA (GM-Holden)
Geelong VIC (Ford)
Melbourne VIC (Ford)
Melbourne VIC (Iveco)
Melbourne VIC (Paccar-Kenworth)
Melbourne VIC (Toyota)
Waco QLD (Volvo-Mack)
Engine Plants
Melbourne VIC (GM-Holden)
Melbourne VIC (Toyota)

Incidentally they are also foreign owned (American, Italian, Japanese and Swedish) and the Ford, GM-Holden and Toyota plants are all due to close 2016/17. This will leave Australia with just three truck factories after 2017.

Last edited by RN7; 03-26-2016 at 12:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-26-2016, 02:53 PM
mpipes mpipes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six View Post
Have you given any thought as to who would a) train and b) provide a leadership cadre (primarily junior officers / NCO's) for these quarter of a million conscripts?


You mean the United Kingdom, of which England is just one constituent part, not the only constituent part. It is a source of annoyance to some of us who live in parts of the UK other than England when England is used to refer to the whole country.

In case my view isn't clear, I think the Australian orbat in the opening past is far too big. I seem to recall a similar conversation taking place about the British Army some years ago and the same arguments applied.
Same as in WWII, the top 5% and oldest of the graduating group stays behind to train the next. Most of the US pilot trainers in WWII were the top students from the previous batch. In Russia, for example, new trainee tank drivers were mated up with an experienced ones. After a week, you had a new trained tank driver going into battle.

You don't worry about the small stuff; you churn out guys with basic skills and that is good enough. As I said, Germany found it could churn out an infantry division in about 8 weeks in 1944. That division was not as well trained as a 1940 division, but they could man defensive position and effectively engage a veteran Allied division.

You are fundamentally missing the point. When a nation has to churn out an army, generally it rises to the occasion and does so. They don't care if he can fold his underwear the army way, they care if he can shoot his gun and keep it functioning. Why do you think the Russian's came up with the idiot-proof AK-47? So they did not have to spend two weeks training him how to shoot it and maintain it. True, todays armies are more technical, but in the end, all they really need to know is how to shoot. Its not a particularly elegant way to run a war, but the reality in a T2k world is to churn out replacements. You eliminate as much of the training syllabus as you can and get that warm body into the replacement pool.

Australia would be no different in 1990. Want oil? You damn well better get troops to the middle East to keep it flowing. China and Russia going at it, you better get troops to Korea and Hong Kong to hopefully keep the war contained.

Australia's war plans had troops deploying for a Pacific war involving China or the USSR in 1990. That is simply reality (I know cause I was in on some of the transportation plans for USAF C-141s). You can find unclassified info if you look hard enough, but I can tell you that a 10 division contribution from ANZAC was not an unrealistic expectation. The UK mobilization plans were actually larger than what was listed in the game as were Germany's. Germany expected to have well over 20 divisions at the six month point and I do know that the UK was expected to double the size of the army as well. Remember, for all of NATO, everyone discharged/retired within the previous seven years was being recalled to active duty. That generally gives you a 50% increase in the size of your military right there....fully trained too. Or more accurately in many cases, your training contingent.

Last edited by mpipes; 03-26-2016 at 03:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-26-2016, 03:13 PM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 1,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes View Post
You are fundamentally missing the point.
Thanks for that, but I think I'll decide whether I'm missing the point or not.

I'm done with this thread - I can think of better ways to spend a Saturday night than being lectured to.
__________________
A collection of articles written for the Twilight 2000 Role Playing Game

http://www.twilight2000files.com
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-26-2016, 04:07 PM
RN7 RN7 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes View Post
You are fundamentally missing the point. When a nation has to churn out an army, generally it rises to the occasion and does so.
And what will Australia be arming its army with? Boomerangs!

I think you have missed the point. Australia will have to introduce conscription to raise an army of the size you are proposing. And as difficult as it would be for Australia to raise, train, staff, officer and support and army of that size, the main issue is not raising the manpower but arming it.

Australia has one small arms factory and two munitions factories (one for bullets and one for munitions). This is enough for sustaining the current regular army and maybe equipping another division, but it is way to limited to arm an army of 10 or more divisions. And that is just bullets and rifles, what about machine guns, grenades, mortars, anti-tank weapons etc .

Also what about armoured vehicles and artillery. Australia has two factories that build light armoured vehicles at a very low production level. It could maybe build some trucks and jeeps/Landrovers as well, but no mass production of armoured vehicles and certainly no artillery or tanks or heavy munitions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes View Post
Australia's war plans had troops deploying for a Pacific war involving China or the USSR in 1990. That is simply reality (I know cause I was in on some of the transportation plans for USAF C-141s). You can find unclassified info if you look hard enough, but I can tell you that a 10 division contribution from ANZAC was not an unrealistic expectation. The UK mobilization plans were actually larger than what was listed in the game as were Germany's. Germany expected to have well over 20 divisions at the six month point and I do know that the UK was expected to double the size of the army as well. Remember, for all of NATO, everyone discharged/retired within the previous seven years was being recalled to active duty. That generally gives you a 50%increase in the size of your military right there....fully trained too.
Just where did you get your figures from? According to you Australia had plans to raise 10 divisions (with New Zealand). Yet Germany which has about four times the population and a vastly larger heavy industrial and engineering base was expected to only have just over 20 divisions. On the basis of your figures Germany should be knocking out 40 divisions.

Incidentally in T2K the German Army has more than 20 divisions after German Reunification in 1996

12 West German (6x Armour, 4x Mechanised, 1x Airborne, 1x Mountain). 6 East German (2x Armour, 4x Mechanised). After mobilisation add another 1 mechanised division in 1996. Another 2 mechanised division and 1 infantry division in 1997, and 6 infantry divisions by 2000 plus possibly 2 Austrian mountain divisions. And there would be other independent regiments and battalions as well

In T2K the UK did practically double the size of its army including independent brigades and regiments, and its still smaller than your ANZAC army.

Also what about Australian logistics. Could you tell me how Australia could transport and supply multiple divisions overseas with its current logistical resources?

Last edited by RN7; 03-26-2016 at 04:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-27-2016, 08:10 AM
Louied Louied is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 84
Default

mpipes
I am very interested in those unclassified war plans you mentioned, can you PM me.

I think we may all be missing something here.......
While I agree that the size of the Army in the first post is completely unrealistic based upon my research (check Library Thing under my user name Louied, I have tagged all the books "Australian Army" or "New Zealand Army". Plus I urge anyone interested in the manpower subject to read this book, The Commonwealth Armies: Manpower and Organisation in Two World Wars (War, Armed Forces and Society).
It's a bit pricey but well worth it !

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0719...es+and+Society

Getting back, we have a Major Theatre War starting in August 1995 (practically in Australia's backyard). Besides the Soviet Union, I would bet that Mongolia (practically an SSR at the time), Vietnam (China's nemesis), and possibly India (free Tibet anyone) would be actively supporting the Soviets. On the other hand we have the U.S. supplying arms to keep China in the war (with ramped up production, ditto most of NATO looking to get a hold of Chinese cash/credit). Add that Indonesian (even tacit) support for the Soviets is making everyone (Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, PNG, etc.....i.e. All countries with mutual Defence treaties with Australia) very concerned.
Now given all that I took a gamble that Australia would start peacetime National Service in this climate (strictly into the Reserves and limited to a specific geographic area). I agree with Leg, universal conscription would probably be a non starter, but maybe just maybe if it was presented as a "Defence of Australia Act", I believe there is a chance.

As for equipment, I believe Australia flogged away all its Centurions by the late 1980's, however we are looking at convoys from the U.S. Bringing war material (tanks, trucks, munitions, etc) to China from late 1995 to late 1996. I believe there is no reason why some of this equipment couldn't go to Australia, even just enough to establish a training base.

And yes I know the controversies involved in the sending of the 2nd AIF to the ME in WW2 and then the mad scramble to bring them back after Japan enters the war. But history has a strange way of repeating itself...... IIRC Indonesia didn't make a move until 1997. I structured the 3rd AIF/10th Div going to the ME late 1996/early 1997, well before Indonesia enters the conflict. Could a U.S. Promise to "bomb Jakarta back to the Stone Age" if they make a move influenced Australian policy ?!?

So having Australia having four Divs/twelve Bdes (with one Div & one Bde equipped with U.S. Material. While the others make do with Leo 1, M113s, etc)
IMHO is very doable.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-27-2016, 08:41 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louied View Post
So having Australia having four Divs/twelve Bdes (with one Div & one Bde equipped with U.S. Material. While the others make do with Leo 1, M113s, etc)
IMHO is very doable.
Still cannot buy that. The US as we know rapidly increases it's own military in T2K with units created from 1997 no more than light infantry. Yes they were sending equipment to China early on, but come their own entry into the European, Middle Eastern AND Korean fronts in late 1996, they're hard pressed to supply their own existing units with replacement vehicles and weapon systems, despite their much greater industrial base. There's further evidence of this in the various books where we see non-standard vehicles being requisitioned and assigned to US units - the Cadillac Gage tanks for example.

In that situation they're not about to send anything anywhere, nor are they going to risk starting yet another front in South East Asia by making threats against Indonesia.

No, Australia (and New Zealand) must stand alone. There is nobody available to help, and no supplies coming from elsewhere. Sure Australia has treaties with various nations, but just how much stock can you put in them when those allies are already stretched to breaking point?
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-27-2016, 02:10 PM
CDAT CDAT is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louied View Post
mpipes
I am very interested in those unclassified war plans you mentioned, can you PM me.

I think we may all be missing something here.......
While I agree that the size of the Army in the first post is completely unrealistic based upon my research (check Library Thing under my user name Louied, I have tagged all the books "Australian Army" or "New Zealand Army". Plus I urge anyone interested in the manpower subject to read this book, The Commonwealth Armies: Manpower and Organisation in Two World Wars (War, Armed Forces and Society).
It's a bit pricey but well worth it !

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0719...es+and+Society

Getting back, we have a Major Theatre War starting in August 1995 (practically in Australia's backyard). Besides the Soviet Union, I would bet that Mongolia (practically an SSR at the time), Vietnam (China's nemesis), and possibly India (free Tibet anyone) would be actively supporting the Soviets. On the other hand we have the U.S. supplying arms to keep China in the war (with ramped up production, ditto most of NATO looking to get a hold of Chinese cash/credit). Add that Indonesian (even tacit) support for the Soviets is making everyone (Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, PNG, etc.....i.e. All countries with mutual Defence treaties with Australia) very concerned.
Now given all that I took a gamble that Australia would start peacetime National Service in this climate (strictly into the Reserves and limited to a specific geographic area). I agree with Leg, universal conscription would probably be a non starter, but maybe just maybe if it was presented as a "Defence of Australia Act", I believe there is a chance.

As for equipment, I believe Australia flogged away all its Centurions by the late 1980's, however we are looking at convoys from the U.S. Bringing war material (tanks, trucks, munitions, etc) to China from late 1995 to late 1996. I believe there is no reason why some of this equipment couldn't go to Australia, even just enough to establish a training base.

And yes I know the controversies involved in the sending of the 2nd AIF to the ME in WW2 and then the mad scramble to bring them back after Japan enters the war. But history has a strange way of repeating itself...... IIRC Indonesia didn't make a move until 1997. I structured the 3rd AIF/10th Div going to the ME late 1996/early 1997, well before Indonesia enters the conflict. Could a U.S. Promise to "bomb Jakarta back to the Stone Age" if they make a move influenced Australian policy ?!?

So having Australia having four Divs/twelve Bdes (with one Div & one Bde equipped with U.S. Material. While the others make do with Leo 1, M113s, etc)
IMHO is very doable.
Not sure what happened to my post, but I have to echo Legbreaker. How is the US going to outfit an entire Australian division when they can not outfit there own troops? They may want to help out one of their allies, but if you can not make enough you can not send what you do not have.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-27-2016, 05:03 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,559
Default

U.S. war production in the Twilight War is not going to be anywhere near where it was in 1943-'45. Too much of its industrial base had gone to seed in the 1970s and '80s as the U.S. looked to East Asia to produce relatively low-cost manufactured goods.

It the v1.0 timeline, the U.S. was struggling just to equip its own rapidly expanding military. I suspect this would be even more the case in the v2 timeline. I just don't see the U.S. being able to supply its allies with significant quantities of heavy weapons after its own entry, and supplying China would be the priority up until that point.

That's my take on things, but there's nothing wrong with customizing the T2KU to suit your own sensibilities.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus

Last edited by Raellus; 03-27-2016 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-27-2016, 08:35 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes View Post
You can find unclassified info if you look hard enough, but I can tell you that a 10 division contribution from ANZAC was not an unrealistic expectation.
Sorry man, but at the risk of causing offence, you're talking complete rubbish. I'm the kind of guy that is happy to learn new things though. Show me some of this unclassified info and prove me wrong and honestly, I'll give you a sincere apology and be happy to have been schooled on it. Until then, a 10 division contribution in the space of a year or two during the 1990s? I say again, utter fantasy.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-27-2016, 10:19 PM
RN7 RN7 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,144
Default

Turning back the clock about 25 years to about 1990 and the Australian Army actually had plans to raise 3 divisions on mobilisation: one regular army and two reserve. But they were organisational divisions and not real divisions. The Australian Army was pretty much the same size then as it is now excluding the odd regiments or so. Today it is better armed, with a better airmobile and special forces capability.

Australian Army 1990

Regular
One divisional HQ
One mechanised brigade (one armoured battalion, one mechanised battalion, one para-infantry battalion)
One infantry brigade (two infantry battalions)
One infantry brigade (two infantry battalions)
One reconnaissance regiment
One APC regiment
One special forces regiment
Three artillery regiments (one medium, two light)
One air defence regiment
One engineer regiment
Two aviation regiments

Reserve
Two divisional HQ
Seven brigade HQ
Two reconnaissance regiments
One APC regiment
Two APC squadrons
Fifteen infantry battalions
One Commando battalion
Five artillery regiments (one medium, four light)
One artillery battery (light)
Four engineer regiments
Three regional surveillance units

New Zealand Army 1990

Regular
Two infantry battalions (one ranger company)
One light armoured squadron
One artillery battery (light)
One special forces squadron

Reserve
Six infantry battalions
Five artillery battery (one medium, four light)
Two armoured squadrons (one APC, one light reconnaissance)

So organisationally we have roughly four ANZAC divisions, but three will be basically light infantry and nothing really more. Could Australia's allies supply some heavy weapons and vehicles to pad this force out? Yes in small quantities, but only from the US as with the war raging in Europe and the Middle East the UK and Germany etc will be in no shape to supply Australia. Between 1996 and the nuclear war from the end of 1997 the US could supply equipment if Australia is willing to pay for it in dollars. A couple of light artillery battalions, APC's and a battalion worth of tanks plus infantry support weapons. But that would be it. So maybe we could see an ANZAC Corps organised into four divisions, but in reality just a bunch of brigades spread across Australia and New Zealand. Maybe it would include a mechanised brigade size expeditionary force for Korea or the Middle East, and another light infantry brigade for New Guinea and the Pacific etc. But ten fully armed divisions? Nope
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-22-2018, 02:31 PM
Louied Louied is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 84
Default

Sorry for this two year old thread resurrection but just read this book.....
Anzac Cove to Afghanistan: The History of the 3rd Brigade

Apparently there was an ORBAT Review in 1979 that stated that the Australian Army needed to maintain a mobilization base to raise the following for the defense of Australia:

Two Corps
One Armoured Div
One Mechanized Div
Three Infantry Div

Just food for thought as I donít know how long this was carried on in the 1980ís
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-22-2018, 03:23 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,559
Default

I put a reconstituted 28th ANZUK brigade in my Korean Peninsula Sourcebook, as a shout-out to the board's Aussie contingent.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-22-2018, 07:18 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,583
Default

I know this is a relatively minor issue but I think it's worth pointing out that whoever created the orbat in the original post was not using proper information.
Regardless of the right or wrong of the orbat, some units in it are labelled differently to what they are in real life and some are obvious extrapolations of the real world army.

For example, 2nd Cav is listed as a reconnaissance unit in the orbat. In real life it is a mech infantry transport unit - a vastly different role.
The major reconnaissance unit of that time on the east coast (where 2nd Cav is located) is not even mentioned, the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers (my original unit) and neither is the associated Armoured Recce Troop, the Hunter River Lancers.

At that time, 1st/15th was a regimental sized unit with two Squadrons of Medium and Light Reconnaissance Vehicles. 1st/15th also had its own M106 mortar vehicles plus a medium truck transport section and a RAEME support section (with M113 Fitter's vehicles). The 1st/15th ommission is significant because it was the single largest recce unit (armoured or unarmoured) on the east coast during that time period.

Another example: we have never had any self-propelled artillery in that time period and despite discussions about it, there was never any decision on what SPG to purchase. The favourite for some time was the M109 in one of its later versions but as mentioned, nothing was ever finalized.

The author has decoupled some units to make individual regiments, for example in the 13th Brigade there are the 11th Battalion and the 28th Battalion, which Targan pointed out somewhere earlier are one unit, the 11/28 Battalion.
-- In Australian practice, the nomenclature 11/28 indicates the 11th and the 28th, not the 11th unit of the 28th as in US practice. Units tend to be coupled together to preserve the history of both units, so rather than decommission one or the other, the two are amalgamated --

Now it is certainly the case that should that Battalion ever get large enough then the two would be separated to form their respective units so that in itself is not a fault of the orbat. However, making all those units mechanized is, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread by my fellow Australians, incredibly unlikely given the lack of funds to actually buy all the vehicles that would be necessary to make an Infantry Brigade into a Mechanized Infantry Brigade, let alone the dozen or so listed in the orbat.

As an aside, Australia had experimented with mounting M40 106mm Recoilless Rifles on M113 APCs to be used for support of the infantry once deployed. This was during the time of the Vietnam War but the information was still floating around in the 1980s when I was in the 1st/15th.

1st/15th also had the only fully operational Centurion tank in Australia (still does as far as I am aware, it's still used in parades) as part of its historic vehicle collection - the unit had operated the Centurion Mk3 during the 1960s before its role was changed to a Cavalry Regiment in the 1970s.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.