Your numbers are accurate at least for the SS-18 (204 in Russia and 104 in Kazakhstan). SS-11 were being retired by 1986.

Replace the SS-11 by about 500 Topol (SS-25) that are mostly road mobile (MAZ-547) and regularly moving in Russia. These eventually located at fix bases are to be about 200. That makes them harder to hit and despite a slightly smaller range and single warhead they are much more threatening. SS-25 were designed to counter ABM systems. The ability to penetrate ABM systems should be true also of the R-36M2 (SS-18).

About the SS-18, they are to be R-36M2 (99) and R-36MU (209) as R-36M were retired by 1981. R-36M2 are the only one with enough range to hit any city in Australia (outside Alice Spring, Darwin, Norse West Cape and Perth) if they carry a single warhead of 20Mt. Out of the 99 (more or less) R-36M2 a question remain: how many are equipped with that 20Mt warhead? Don't expect to find this answer until 2020 as the missile will remain in service until at least 2014. Nevertheless they represent such a threat that the Start II treaty which didn't come into effect was specifically designed for them. One last thing about the R-36M2, IRL their number has possibly been reduced to about 2 dozens.

Here is a good site about missiles and the most reliable source on nukes today:
http://missile.index.ne.jp/en/
http://www.nti.org/b_aboutnti/b_index.html

Your research have been good but you should not rely on Globalsecurity (except as a starting point). As everyone I used them a lot until I got to the conlusion that they are among the worse source on the Web on military subjects.

Mo, you’re probably right about the limited missiles on a boomer tasked to hit Australia. It's impossible to say which boomer gets tasked with the launch, but since we can't say for certain an older boat isn't the launch boat it's safest to assume the boomer in question expends his ammunition.

Another potential launch site for Soviet ballistic missiles is Vietnam. According to the Soviet Vehicle Guide, the USSR has several formations in Vietnam during the Twilight War. I don’t know if the presence of Soviet troops automatically means the presence of Soviet nuclear missiles, but there’s at least a chance that there are Soviet missiles in Vietnam in 1997. Vietnam is less than 3000 miles from Darwin.

Webstral

Web you can expect the formations in Vietnam to have a few nuclear device at hand but these would be carried by SCUDs or SS-21 with a maximum range of 300-400km.

Vietnam allows for another option, however: a Tu-95 Bear-H carrying 4 AS-15 Kent nuclear long range cruise missile (3000km range for the Bear and 3000km range for the AS-15).

Actually, the AS-15 could as well be used from a SSN (Victor III, Akula or Sierra). 6 to 8 were carried by each subs and IMO a SSN stands a much better chance to get within range unoticed as the priority would be to destroy the SSBN. The AS-15 carries only a single 200kt warhead but that's enough to do the job.

Anyway during the Twilight War the minimum number of nuclear warheads of the Soviets would be 35.000 (1990). The peak was at 45.000 in 1986. Depending on the timeline and the corresponding tensions this number as a good chance to be around 45.000 again and may be more if i was to follow v1.0.

That also makes the Exchange in T2K very limited indeed.

That's RN7!

But the SS-11 wasn't completely retired until 1996, and the main reason I mentioned it was because of its proliferation in the Soviet Far East and Siberia which is the closest part of the USSR to Australia.

Maybe they were aimed at North America as it was harder for the Americans to locate them.


In 2000 I believe there were a total of 122 R-36M2 with 20Mt warheads in Russian service, and another 58 with 10x MIRVs, although some of these were located in Kazakhstan. Today there are less but in the Twilight War timeline the Soviet Union or at least the Russian part of it depending on the version is still heavily militarised and beligerent.


Here are a few more, and their Russian too!

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=265&c...ace-to-Surface


I have some books too, I've been collecting them since the 1980s.

Thanks for the two websites.

I'm already using warfare.ru even as I'm not convinced of its reliability (interesting nonetheless). Then, real thanks for the other one as I had used it in the past and lost it. This time I put it in my favorites (an extremely good website IMO).

The main problem with Russia are secrecy, rumors and confusing serial numbers: UR-100 is both the SS-11 and SS-19.

Where did you get you figures for the warheads carried? I couldn't find that.

I also have books from the 1980's and so on. However, they are now proving to be mostly nice pieces of Science Fiction. Still usefull but authors writing on military issues have more imagination than novelists. I have a nice book from 1991 that I'm using to make OOBs (from a well respected author and a well respected editor) stating that despite the fall of the Berlin Wall there is no doubt that Russia will remain fully comited to its engagement abroad and that the army will remain an influencial force within Russia. No more than a year after the publication of the book the russian army started to shrink from 2 million to less than 400.000 (nowadays it can be back to about 1.2 million). Six months after the publication date, Moscow cut all military and economical aid to Afghanistan resulting in what we know today. :p

Not even talking of Russia, depending on sources you can't know how many SSBN are currently in French service. If you look at informations on BA103 "Cambrai". All sources states that the base had converted to Mirage 2000 by 1992. I was there in 1994 and at least one squadron was still flying Mirage F1C (not entirely retired before 1996). However, all pilots at the base had been qualified on Mirage 2000 by 1992 (an entirely different matter). Our ICBM base on the Plateau d'Albion (BA-200) was officially closed by 1999, may be. That's only for France, what about Russia?

I think the UR-100N & UR-100NUTTkH models are SS-19s. The SS-17 was also called the MR-UR-100 as it was to be a replacement for the existing UR-100 missiles in service and designed to fit into existing UR-100 silos.


Its on warfare.ru under information about the SS-18.


Some books from the 80's and 90s are suprisingly accurate about force and equipment levels, orbats and technical information, and can also be better than online sources about the period than what is currently available online. Others have to be taken with a grain of salt as they were published before the end of the Cold War and their data on the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact was largely based on western estimates, conjecture and rumour.

I think the French were fairly notorious for upping their forces to confuse the Soviets and even the Americans during the Cold War. I would be fairly certain that France's IRBM force was retired in 1999, and I would be fairly certain that there are only 4 French Triomphant Class SSBN's at the moment. But France built 6 of the preceding Redoutable Class and it is possible that one or two were held in reserve for testing and training while the French Navy was switching over to the newer Triomphant Class which led to confusion during the transition period, and I'm sure the French where happy to go along with that. There were also rumours as late as the late 80s that Britain built 5 Resolution class SSBN's instead of the official 4 subs, which was never officially confirmed or denied during the Cold War by the British government.

Thanks I had overlooked that one. However, the Start 2 agreement is no longer into effect as US administration under Bush refused to comply with parts of the treaty (actually the ABM part). Nevertheless, Russia will comply as soon as US does and I suspect that this is at the heart of the current discussions.

I often find books from the 70's-80's more accurate than the ones from the 90's.

You right about the French Triomphant but I was only talking of the sources. However, one of the Redoutable remained in service until 2006 while another one was retired in 2004 (I think). About the IRBM force (sorry for writing ICBM), it is not retired but deactivated.

That would come from here:
http://www.geocities.com/jimandpetal...T2K-Index.html

I tend to agree that a couple of nukes may well have been used on Australian targets, but nowhere near the coverage the rest of the world received. As has been indicated, there are only limited numbers of missiles capable of even reaching Australia and the vast majority of these are likely to be targeted against Nato members (not just the US).

Yes, sub launched missiles are an option, but once again, any sub operating in the southern hemisphere is doing so without much in the way of support. They would also very quickly find themselves the target of a rather intensive search by the nations not directly involved in the European conflict. (Australia, New Zealand, perhaps a few others in Africa and South America - but I don't put a lot of stock in that). Would the Soviets be willing to loose a boomer just to strike at the non-involved and very distant Australia?

A long range air strike from Vietnam is possible, but Australia does have a decent air defence system. There is no guarantee the aircraft wouldreach their targets let alone manage to return.

So, yes a few nukes might fall, but it's not going to destroy the country.

When I mentioned the possibility of Spetnaz a few days ago, I was also thinking along the lines of spies, saboteurs, etc, not just military teams. It might also include rabid pacifists (contradition in terms, I know) who break in to places such as Pine Gap and go on a sledge hammer rampage in a misguided (and possibly Soviet supported) effort to keep Australia un-nuked. Just imagine how much trouble a few charismatic people could stir up given the right circumstances.

Getting back to the military units, it is HIGHLY unlikely any infiltration teams would be landed in the north of the country unless their primary, secondary and tertiary targets were all located in that area. It's far too remote to relocate and the military presence in the north WILL react very quickly, setting up road blocks, etc - it's what the annual Kangaroo exercises were all about (at least they were back in the 80's and early 90's).

A team may be dropped near Perth (I'm personally not too sure about what's over that way), Melbourne, Woolongong, Sydney, Newcastle and probably Brisbane. Adelaide, Townsville and Cairns may also attract attention while Tasmania is largely ignored (trust me, there's nearly nothing of military or industrial significance here).

These teams might be dropped at the opening stages of the war with China, or even be sleeper cells set up years in advance. If the weapons and equipment had been stockpiled previously, the actual personnel might even fly in on a regularly schedule airline flight! It's even conceivable unit members returned to the USSR (by rather long convoluted routes) for additional training, holidays, etc. What would it take? A couple of good quality false IDs, good English skills and the ability to act....

Well I once read the manual on Speitzis, and they often do infiltrate as civis and have personel there as sleepers. A good number of embassy staff and olympic and similiar touring atheletes are said to have been spetzis. So have a handful on scene before hostilities is not out of the realm of posibility.

These advance personel would be the ones setting up the caches. A storage unit filled with basic gear. A shed on some property in the boonies filled with supplies and equipment. A shipping container or two with other gear, weapons, demo, com gear.

Other members of the sleeper cell will be studying targets, police, military and other targets and threats and they will have been studied and planned routes, operations, deleiveries shift changes etc.

Now, the landing of a team would be landing the operational members of the team/assault force. Who will operate with the help of members of the sleeper cell. Of course the contact would or should be minimalized to protect the sleepers from detection should info or team members be captured.

As for the landing of the operational team. Since your Northern Coast is pretty isolated it would be PERFECT to land a team undetected. Especialy if they had access to vehicles to travel in. Again part of preplanning, or even just stolen. A team could go to an isolated farm/ranch or minning operation or station. They capture or even kill the few people there and use it as a base of operations, using the facility as shelter and a place to hide out in and of course using their vehicles, supplies and radio since many isolated stations do have a long range or Ham radio. <even just listening and monitoring the channnels is going to glean ALOT of intel.>

The team would set out to attack targets about 100km away. A good sabotuer knows that it is best to make the attack not look like an attack. An attack that looks like an attack is a last resort since it will result in an almost immediate mobilization of all forces which would make things very unplesant.

No, one must make the attack look like an accident or failure of equipment or even negligance. And idealy it should be timed to allow you to some escape time, so the charges would be set to explode say an hour after they are armed or planted. That is enough time to get out of the immediate area and a decent head start.

Good ideas for sabotauge targets would be ports and hardbors. Train tunnels and bridges. Mines would be another target. I mean sink a vessel or two in a harbor, or set a tanker on fire or blow up an ammunition ship and you have seriously affected the harbor and alot of its shipping ability. A rail tunnel or mine, blow the sucker or cause a rockslide and it is closed. A bridge well you've just closed that route and now force a detour of all traffic for who knows how far a distance.

Communications facilities, those are another storey. Those would be well guarded, and would need a direct attack . On the plus side. In the twilight world it is doubtful that such assets would be replaced soon if at all.

Also, the idea of the area being a vast area also works in the favor of the team. A force hunting them down would be searching for a needle in a haystack. And if your wilderness is like our deserts or our west it is alot of wide open in which you would be able to see them comming well in advance.

Now, if team members had good English ability then they could even assimilate into the community in a more populated area and just blend in.

Think it would be similiar to the movie "The Eagle Has Landed."

Again, a good idea for a campaign.

I'm firmly in the same camp as those who believe that Australia will receive a lighter load of nukes than, say, Canada. Issues like range, limited involvement, and limited capacity will be in turn limiting factors on what kind of megatonnage the USSR directs at Australia. My whole point is that the nuclear exchange will not simply bypass Australia and New Zealand, leaving two potentially important Western nations completely unscathed. I'm sure with a bit of research and analysis, we could come up with a list of ANZ targets that would involve perhaps five Mt--sufficient to knock out the site and support functions of civilian government, the principal military command-and-control center(s), a handful refineries, and a couple of important military bases in each country. The idea would not be annihilate Australia (or New Zealand), which would run the risk of an Allied nuclear response beyond the one already envisioned in canon. The idea would be to prevent Australia from projecting force beyond her own borders for a few years and to prevent the US from using Australia to pursue American aims in the South Pacific.

Webstral

Hi guys!

Was out of town for a few days and am just now getting back to the board.

First: Thanks for the responses, lots of good information and good conjecture as well.

I tend to agree with Webstral that Oz would suffer some kind of nuclear strike. T2K v1 (which is what I'm working off of) clearly shows that the Soviets were targeting neutral countries to deny those resources to NATO.

In my game Australia was a Western combatant activly fighting the Soviets in the Middleeast and in N. Korea, as well as in the Pacific ocean.

--------------

Here's the back story I developed based on a lot of the info I got here:

Austraila was involved in combat against the Soviets & their allies and had deployed troops and equipment to the Middle East and Korea. It also acted as a resupply base for Allied shipping in the South Pacific.

Australia was not hit in the initial nuclear exchanges or late '97. But there was some limited civil panic and disruptions in the immediate aftermath (mostly in the bigger cities.)

By early 1998 the USSR realized the growing logistics and support roll Austraila had become to US/NATO forces in the ME and Korea and dispatched one of it's few remaining Boomers to take Oz out of the war. The Boomer in question only had 6 SLBM's remaining on board.

The Soviet boomer made it into the Coral Sea and began launching it missles when it was attacked and destroyed by a US 688 class attack sub that had been tracking it for weeks.

Four of the six SLBMs were launched before the boomer was destroyed.

Melbourne, Canberra, and Brisbane were destroyed/badly damaged by 3 of the SLBM strikes. the fourth missle targeted for Sydney malfunctioned and failed to detonate but did contaminate a three kilometer area of downtown Sydney with radiation for a short time.

The missles targeted for Perth and Darwin went down with the Soviet sub.

Chaos reigned for a time in the aftermath of the strikes mostly in the cities, in the vast rural areas of the country people mostly hunkered down and waited to see if more strikes were on the way.

Vital services and supplies were disrupted for a time, but the central government having relocated from Canberra at the start of the Soviet nuke strikes on NATO in '97 had survived the attack largely intact.

More devastating to Australia was the pandemic of plagues which swept over the country in the fall & winter of 1998 and into 1999.

While the government maintains control in most coastal areas, much of the interior of the country has become a lawless land ruled by bandits & local warlords. Though it should be noted these groups are few and hold little power.

From mid 1999 into 2000 a running conflict was fought with Indonesia for control of New Guinea, the Australian Forces have been largely victorious but some limited fighting continues.

Currently Australia is a vital link in the tenuous supply chain between US forces in the Middle East and the continental United States. The Australian government does not recognize either of the two American governments; CivGov & MilGov, but is in limited communication with both though has more dealings with MilGov via it's forces in the Middle East.

Though heavily damaged by EMP, Australia with much of its industrial base intact is in the beginnings of a recovery both domestically and as a world power.

-------------

I think I'll run with that.

Thanks again for all the info.

<S>

Now you're getting it Jester! ;)

One point though, I don't think you understand just how isolated the north really is. Even in the more populated areas there's still vast stretches of beachfront without anyone around. There's no problem slipping ashore under cover of darkness, something the police can testify to in their struggle to intercept smugglers.

You go ashore up north and almost guarentee you're not going to survive. It only takes one mistake - the vehicle isn't where it's supposed to be, the landing was in the wrong spot, the weather is hotter than expected that day, and you're toast (litterally in some cases).

Dogger, I like what you've got there. Not sure I'd be nuking Brisbane in preference to Newcastle or Wollongong though (both MAJOR industrial centres).

Leg do you doubt the Spetzis as anything less than the super human beings nay the supermen that they are! Oh nooo!

Actualy, the idea and the local makes it even more alluring as a landing place. As well as the inhospitality of the land as well. As for landing in the wrong spot. That is why one communicates with their shore people and do not deploy until the landing zone is confirmed, ie, the ground liason is on scene with transportation, as well as it is clear to land with no unwanted observers.

Here is another plan that would be decent.

The team lands, moves over road or even up some river via zodiak type inflatible raft to their base. A base like I described earlier.

They study their target. Say a factory. They study it for a week or two learnng its routine. They then assemble the team, prep and brief. Set up rally points for their withdraw, actualy they come up with multiple withdrawl routes to cover successful operations as well as if it all goes to hell.

They then make their way to an isolated road artery in which delivery trucks transit and enter their factory. They hijack a chosen vehicle and ride within the vehicle with their equipment. Thus, they transit a regular road not leaving any tracks that can be followed. That is how they reach the target. They will have studied the security of the facility. They can either off load before they reach the plant. Or if security is lax they can enter the facility, or they can just take down the guards. They are now inside and they act doing their thing. They could seriously cripple most places in about 15 minutes or less. They then use the vehicle they hijacked to make it to an extraction point, blend in with traffic and other vehicles, or another location where they have other vehicles waiting and make their getaway going to a safe house in another location. They may even send out a decoy vehicle laying down a track for persuers to follow as they go on a wild goose chase in the end only finding an abandoned and most likely boobyrapped vehicle.

And yes, I love planning things and figuring out how they can be maid to work.

A few thoughts here.

Australia is a massive nation in size, in fact it's coastline is longer than the coastline of the USA even thought Australia is physically somewhat smaller. That coupled with a low population and for Twilight: 2000 timelines it would mean less than 20 million spread across the nation (probably closer to 18 million or less at that time).
Most of these people are found along the eastern coast as are many important industrial centres. In harsh reality, there's probably less than 25 important places to attack with nuclear weapons, some of these have already been mentioned.
So Australia could be significantly damaged with very little effort on behalf of the USSR including smuggling in teams and gear. As noted by Legbreaker, the vast expanse of the northern reaches are sparsely populated and some towns are as far apart as 200-800km from each other.

However, that decentralization has some benefits in that even with the complete destruction of one of those towns, it would not be sufficient to halt that State let alone the nation. The flip side of course is that that town is isolated from help should anything occur and in some cases, harbour towns being closed down would significantly affect trade etc. etc. for some time. For example, simply sinking a laden container or bulk carrier ship in the mouth of some ports up north would lock up that harbour for months simply because the heavy gear needed to clear it could take weeks to arrive (because of the distances involved).

As for sabotage teams wanting to get at least 100km clear of a target, in Australia it can be somewhat different. You would want to either stay close or get the hell out of Dodge by a good couple of hundred km's.
This is because in the country regions, the people are so isolated they tend to pay much more attention to things than city people expect. Any small town in the outback probably has a handful of people who are very aware of all the "newcomers" to town and all the 'comings & goings'.

If 'that nice young couple from Europe who'd been in town for the last few years' suddenly were absent after a local disaster/act of sabotage, somebody would likely notice and report it for fear that they had been injured etc. Obviously that could seriously compromise a special forces team trying to live in the area.
If leaving the area, you would want to get more than 100km away because in many of those towns, people regularly roam up to 100km+ away from town even in a day for various reasons (work, recreation or simply 'getting out of town for a while').
Again, these people pay attention to others in the area particularly because they may need assistance if anything goes wrong. Like any small community, people tend to recognize others from the town even if they don't actually know them so strangers will be spotted very quickly.
Any team wishing to hide out in the outback needs to be almost 100% self-sufficient because of these factors. And one other thing they absolutely must have - water, because if they want to camp out near any water source, they are going to be sharing it with all the other people in the area (again increasing their chance of detection).

You could travel for a thousand kilometres and not see another person in some places but then you would also be too far away from any normal source of food and water let alone tech/mechanical/medical assistance.

As for railways and roads, many areas of the outback are flat and road & rail can easily avoid having to go through tunnels or ravines etc. and bridges are few & far between so the chances of using these as chokepoints are much lessened. It's far easier to destroy the road/rail. Planting landmines on the road would be far more effective.
Or if it comes to that, it's easier (and probably safer) to contaminate a town's water storage.

I'm not sure you're understanding the MASSIVE distances involved Jester....

Ok, landings are likely to be held off until contact is made with any shore party (if there is one), but you land too far from civilisation and you've got problems with fuel as well as food, water and shelter. It's not uncommon to have to carry additional fuel in your vehicle to last the distance between fuel stops....

Basically, if you're in a vehicle up north, you're going to be noticed at some point. If you're on foot, you're already dead.

Unlikely. The only disease problems that Australia suffers from in modern times are the seasonal influenzas that arrive from other parts of the world each year. In other, more populous parts of the world there tend to be reservoirs of disease in the wild or in segments of populations which have poor socio economic conditions and health. Conjunctivitis and ear infections are endemic in many Aboriginal communities but not "plagues". By 1998 and 1999 Australia would not have very many overseas visitors arriving in its major population centres.

If there was a disease outbreak in Australia in 1998-99 it would probably be able to be confined by authorities to the area where it arrived. The great distances involved in moving around Australia and the lack of air travel would mean that disease outbreaks would be easily contained. Also, Australia has a pretty good healthcare system, it that wouldn't completely break down even during the Twilight War.

Australia also has excellent medical research facilities (private, university and public hospital-based) and organisations such as CSL and the CSIRO that even during the Twilight War would be capable of developing vaccines against new disease outbreaks. Of course, distributing vaccines could be a problem.

I thought this site may provide information that helps illustrate the conditions and size of the Australian bush

http://www.outback-australia-travel-...-stations.html

It's worth the read

Entirely agree. Moreover, unlike the rest of the world and despite whatever damages it suffers, Australia will probably still has access to medical supplies and it will have enough surviving medics. Unless, of course, the conflicts turn to a full nulcear exchange with at least 20.000 nukes sent by both sides.

USSR is only hit by 50-100 warheads out of 9000+ (USA). USA is hit by 80-150 warheads out 45000+ (USSR). You can estimate that the total of warheads used worldwide doesn't exceeds 1000 (more probably 500). The T2K exchange is very limited indeed.:D

Yep, that's my site.
It'll be gone at the end of the month, Geocities is closing down. I'll clean up the atrocious spelling, abysmal layout and general poor work before putting it up elsewhere. I've got a lot of new stuff that never made it up there because the formatting system for Geocities is very crude and difficult.

The Kangaroo 87 exercise worked out that an enemy coming in against any opposition at all could expect to lose 50% of their casualties due to the terrain, climate and fauna alone.

Think of the toughest, nastiest, most brutal terrain imaginable.

Now multiply that by a factor of ten.

Then expand it's size to encompass about half the continental US.

If you can wrap your head around that, you're halfway to a vague understanding...

The worse terrains I can think of being the Sahara (roughly the size of the entire US) and some of the deepest rain forests, I'll avoid multiplying this by ten. However, I may mix both and add some swamps areas.

Of course, if you count Australians in the middle of that, may be you must multiply this by ten.:D:p

We actually have those terrains, and they're all in the north too :)

Add to that gibber deserts, salt pans that span hundreds of kilometres, crocodile infested swamps, forests that catch fire every year and burn faster than you can run, and vast, vast distances with almost no one in it.

Nothing is safe to eat, it takes a life time living in the scrub to be able to discern what is edible and what is not, and any large area can only support a small amount of people once a year. The top 9 out of 10 poisonous snakes in the world live in the Top End, and even a kangaroo can kill you if you let it get too close. About half the year it is lethally dangerous to go into the ocean because huge swarms of deadly jellyfish carrying the world's most lethal poison drift about, all but invisible.

Then add people like Legbreaker and Targan shooting at you when you least expect it! :D

but..
 

If you were hell bent on getting a foot hold on Aussie soil ,those very same conditions would be as big a problem for a defender trying to evict you wouldnt it ?

I mean invasion -be it far fetched both strategically and logistically - could be done over decades of low or semi intensity " conflict" rather than in one fouls swoop like our military planners think .

1) invasion fleet with large contingent of support and camp followers arrive at suitable spot in Northern Australia - say a huge rag tag fleet of military and civillian followers of an ousted warlord /defeated side somewhere close or whatever with nowhere to go but where no one would consider it possible to attack..or back to the firing squads and re education camps of their homeland.

2) suitable land for settling and producing food and vegetable oils etc is conquered in a massive ,chaotic ,bloody landing operation .

3) rather than try to "secure lines of advance " etc they dig in and try to build up more or less like the KMT did when they ran to Taiwan/Formosa in the 1940s.Cottage industries and some more efficient ones are started as a part of the plan.

4)as years go by they will trade injury and insult with the righteous owners of the land and may or may not be able to expand said foothold a ways .

To all the incensed Aussies:D ( or everyone else for that matter )that fume at this laughable notion - I hope you get that I am thinking in game terms here - firstly that the situation COULD arise and then secondly that it DOES.

That means that T2K conditions would apply - and that leaves something to the individual to interpret imho .

I am thinking a sort of migrations type invasion /war on Australian soil due to the upheaval of T2K rather than a "operation whatsitsname" to coldly and planned conquer .

Tha Australian military would have to be sufficiently overwhelmed by the invasion that they cant repulse it , but withdraw to positions where they know it can be contained by the size and terrain of the continent.

The newcomers would have to have resources to maintain their enclaves and to keep up enough military pressure -either trough being reinforced or through local production and conscription .

history has examples of these kind of invasions a plenty -but not from Australia afaik - except for ypu Aussies that is .;)

That's basically why we are mostly called Indo-European. That's also how some of your ancestors, HQ, established kingdoms as far down as Sicily. Not to forget the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem.:)

On second thought, that is effectilvely a good idea. In my game, the most important threat to Australia is refugees coming by sea (from Japan, Korea and Taiwan). At last they finally get to be 5 millions but when they reach 3 million the Australian government doesn't welcome them anymore and orders the fleet to push them back. This results in massacres and bloody killings. It would be more than possible to have a military fleet with one of the last groups to try and force their landing.

agreed
 

Maybe something like that -yes- those countries ,especially Korea has the shipping and arms needed to pull off something like that ,even if it did go down as a terrible and bloody mess.

I dont mean a nefarious evil invasion plan - but maybe a desperate mass exodus of civillians,key personel and whatever military could be brought along as their homelands are nuclear cinders and cannibalism is the new national sport due to famine.

Mo- I do know about the states that some of our ancestors created that way . I would argue that history repeats itself .

I was sure you knew. That was some very impressive achievements nonetheless. The point behind it is that this rag tag fleet if it includes some fine military ships can also include inter-seas ferry and numerous junks. Such a fleet would progress (IMO) like the norsemen, stopping at various islands for trade, rest and raids. In fact, in my mind, it sounds as some sea marauders.

Could also be an interesting base for a campaign.

Australia, frankly, is a dump. The Dutch sailed right around it long before Captain Cook turned up and the Dutch intelligently decided the whole place wasn't worth looking into. The only reason that the British liked the place was that because the USA had stopped taking their penal refuse they needed somewhere very, very far away to send them.

Really, we're more likely to invade Indonesia. If the weather gets much hotter due to global warming much of Australia will be utterly uninhabitable.

The idea behind some of my post was other than a cool kick ass campaign. And not just the small scale actions with limited results they would accomplish, although a delay in production or shipping durring a critical phase could mean the difference between defeat and success to the nations troops in the field. I mean what happens when they do not get the fuel and supplies to continue their advance because a team of spetzis sunk a couplple of ships and closed a port bottling the supply ships up until the sunken wrecks could be removed?

Further, think of the fear and paranoia that would fill the population. Causing alot of distrust especialy of strangers.

Delays in passenger and employees due to new security protocols. The tying up of police forces. The curtailing of civil liberties, all of these adding to the stress to the population.

And the additional military forces in manpower and equipment to guard instalations and to hunt down the comandos thus robbing the commands at the front of men and material for defense at home.

I mean, water you say is an issue, so what happens if botulism is released into a water supply? I hear Ivan had a very nasty strain too. Or the teams set off some thermite bombs in those ready to burn tinder areas you mention? Add some of the above and you add more chaos and fear.

It is not so much the actual damage the small force does with a few kilos of explisives, it is the fear and panic and chaos that they create that is an even greater weapon.

An example, how effective was the Doolittle Raid on Japan? What effect did it have other than phsycological? The actual damage was very minor, but it did show the Japanese that they were not beyond the reach of an attack.

From logically trying to look at what a Soviet nuclear attack on Australia might look like, and what the Soviet command would be prepared to commit or spare from use elsewhere. From the location of Soviet missile silos it would seem that the SS-17, SS-19 and SS-18 (R-36MU) ICBM’s are largely arrayed against targets in North America and the Western Hemisphere. Therefore it is likely that the Soviets would use a combination of the SS-18 (R-36M2) and the SS-11 and mobile SS-25 missiles against Australian targets. From the Russian Far East the SS-11 & SS-25 with a range of at least 10,500km can hit any target in Australia north of the State of Victoria, while the SS-18 (R-36M2) with a single 20MT warhead can hit any location in Australia, including Tasmania. The SS-18 (R-36M2) is designed to obliterate major targets like large cities that are furthest away from the USSR, which happens to be all of Australia’s largest cities. However they are also unlikely to be targeting all that many against Australia as they are in a full scale war against the United States, NATO and China. Therefore to knock Australia out I would use no more than a half dozen SS-18s against Australia’s largest cities and perhaps another 7 SS-11 and SS-25s.


Primary Targets

SS-18
Adelaide, SA (State Capital, Major Population and Industrial Centre, Submarine Building, Military Vehicles, International Airport and Sea Port, Army Base)
Canberra, ACT (National Capital and International Air Port, NASA Deep Space Communications Station)
Geelong, VIC (Industrial Centre, Oil Refinery, Airport and Sea Port)
Melbourne, VIC (State Capital, Major Population and Industrial centre, Oil Refinery, Warship Building, Military Aircraft, International Air Port and Sea Port, Army and Airforce Base)
Sydney, NSW (State Capital, Major Population and Industrial Centre, Oil Refinery, Nuclear Reactor, International Air Port and Sea Port, Major Army Base, Garden Island Navy Base)
Woomera, SA (Air Force Air & Space Test Range)

SS-11 & SS-25
Brisbane, QLD (State Capital, Major Population and Industrial Centre, Oil Refinery, International Airport and Sea Port, Army Base)
Darwin, NT (Territorial Capital, International Airport and Sea Port, Army, Airforce and Navy Base, Radar Station, JORN Transponder)
Garden Island, WA (Major Navy Base)
Harold Holt Station (Joint Navy Communication Station)
Newcastle, NSW (Industrial Centre, Airport and Sea Port, Army Base)
Perth, WA (State Capital, and Major Population and Industrial Centre, Oil Refinery, Warship Building, International Airport, Army Base)
Pine Gap, NT (Joint Satellite Tracking Station)

To go the whole hog and wipe Australian civilisation out for the millennium I would also go for the following targets with a combination of SS-11, SS-25s and SLBMs from a boomer offshore.

Albury, NSW (Airport)
Alice Springs, NT (Airport, Radar Station)
Ajana, WA (JORN Radar Station)
Amberley, QLD (Major Airforce Base)
Avalon, VIC (Airport)
Barrow Island, WA (Oil and Natural Gas Field Support Facilities)
Benalla, VIC (Munitions Industry)
Bendigo, VIC (Military Vehicles, Military Uniforms)
Broome, WA (JORN Transponder)
Bullsbrook, WA (Airforce Base)
Cairns, QLD (Airport and Sea Port, Army and Navy Base)
Carnarvon, WA (JORN Radar Station)
Coffs Harbour, NSW (Airport)
Curtin, WA (Airforce Base, JORN Radar Station)
Dampier, WA (Sea Port, Army Base)
Derby, WA (Radar Station)
Devonport, TAS (Airport and Sea Port)
Edinburgh, SA (Airforce Base, JORN Radar Station)
East Sale, VIC (Airforce Base)
Elliot, NT (Radar Station)
Erina, NSW (Army Base)
Esperance, WA (Sea Port)
Exmouth, WA (Airforce Base, JORN Radar Station)
Fremantle, WA (Sea Port)
Geraldton, WA (Sea Port, Satellite Communication Monitoring Facility)
Gingin, WA (Airforce Base)
Gold Coast, QLD (Population Centre, International Airport)
Groote Eylandt, NT (JORN Radar Station)
Hamilton Island, QLD (Airport)
Hobart, TAS (State Capitol, International Airport and Sea Port, Army Base)
Jervis Bay, NSW (Navy Training Station)
Kalumburu, WA (JORN Transponder)
Kalkaringi, NT (JORN Radar Station)
Launceston, TAS (Airport, Army Base)
Laverton, WA (JORN Radar Station)
Lithgow, NSW (Small Arms and Ammunition)
Longreach, QLD (JORN Radar Station)
Lynd River, QLD (JORN Radar Station)
Mackay, QLD (Airport and Sea Port)
Moomba, SA (Natural Gas Pipeline Terminal and Processing Centre)
New Norcia Station, WA (European Space Agency Radio Antenna built in 2003)
Normanton, QLD (JORN Transponder)
Nowra, NSW (Navy Air Station)
Nhulunbuy, NT (JORN Transponder)
Oakey, QLD (Army Aviation Base)
Orange, NSW (Army Base)
Orchard Hill, NSW (Airforce Storage Facility)
Port Hedland, WA (Sea Port, JORN Radar Station)
Port Lincoln, SA (Sea Port)
Port Stanvac, SA (Oil Refinery and Sea Port)
Richmond, NSW (Major Airforce Base)
Rockhampton, QLD (Airport)
Scherger, QLD (Airforce Base, JORN Radar Station)
Shoal Bay, NT (Navy Intelligence Receiving Station)
Sunshine Coast, QLD (Population Centre, Airport)
Tamworth, NSW (Airport, Army Base)
Tindal, NT (Airforce Base)
Townsville, QLD (Airport and Sea Port, Major Army & Airforce Base)
Wagga Wagga, NSW (Airport, Airforce Base)
Williamstown, NSW (Major Airforce Base)
Woodside, SA (Army Base)
Wollongong, NSW (Industrial Centre and Sea Port)
Wyndham, WA (Radar Station)

I don't deny that that is a viable target list RN7 but just hitting the targets in the SS-18 and SS-11/SS-25 lists would wipe out probably 80% of Australia's population. After that you'd may as well recolonise Australia from Asia because Australia as a nation would cease to exist with no hope of recovery.

Well Targan unfortunately for Australia it would be very easy for the Soviets to do so. Despite the size of Australia most of the population, industry and military bases are clustered along the south-east corner in the states of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, along the south Queensland Coast and in Perth on the other side, with a few small remote towns and facilities elsewhere. Launching a dozen or so nuclear missiles against Australia is not much problem or a burden for the Soviets, and basically if they wanted they could make most of Australia uninhabitable for the next thousand years.

RN7

I understand your point and agree to some extend (in case of an all out nuclear war). However, that is not what happens in the twilight war. Why would the Soviets wipe out Australia and only lightly strike at the USA? I agree that a few SS-18 will do the job but simply what would be the point of doing it in such a context?

I just don't get the logic behind this except if you understand the Twilight War as an all out nuclear war. But in that case welcome to an entirely different game.

I definitely underestimated the importance of facilities such as Pine Gap (definitely not all in the South East) and finally blew them up but I don't see the point of sending that many SS-18 to Australia while according to the game not even one get to the US (probably because they are destroyed first hand by US). I reverted that in my game but in the original T2K the SS-18 bases are all gone (at least those the T2K original team could know of). Just because of that simple fact, it still can't be done. Of course, I'm not thinking IRL terms, If you do that is an entirely different matter again.

I love the target list. Thanks for taking the time to assemble this great resource, RN7. We now have a good idea, I think, of the list of potential targets in Australia and can assign some sort of order of precedence to them.

I don't think RN7 is arguing that the Soviets would render Australia a wasteland--just that they could (and here's how they'd do it...). The same logic that would apply to exercising restraint regarding any Western non-nuclear power would apply to Australia. Attacks on Australia invite counterattacks against Soviet allies. Severe attacks on Australia may invite retaliation against the USSR. Better to inflict just enough damage to put Australia out of the fight.

Webstral

Thanks Webstral, I had great fun doing that list.



Exactly.

Ok, thanks.:)

Its just a list of potential targets, and example of what the Soviets could do to Australia if they wanted to do it.


That list can be used for anyones game or interpretation of Twilight 2000.


The SS-18 is the only Soviet ICBM that can reach any target in Australia, particularly the highly developed and populated south east.


The reason why the SS-18 wasn't used against the US may be because it wasn't needed as other Soviet ICBMs can do the job. Also who attacked who first in the Twilight War, was it the US or the Soviets? If it was the US then how did the Soviets strike the US if the US had taken out all their silos before they could retaliate. If it was the Soviets then how come the US managed to take out the SS-18 silos before the Soviets used them.

Here you are forgetting about boomers and aircrafts. Then, in the game (always v2.2) the four Russian SS-18 bases were targeted and destroyed and there is no point to do that if the missiles are already launched (especially as no one hits any target anywere). That alone would explain why US wasn't hit by SS-18. Two things make me think that most of this comes from insufficient knowledge from the original T2K team (they didn't have internet and many informations were unavailable). Out of the 7 other bases destroyed in USSR, 3 are SS-26 (actual Iskander:D) and 1 is SS-27 (commissioned only after 1998:p). There is also no reason for them to have forgotten the 2 bases in Kazakhstan and especially/only these ones.

So to answer your question:
- All ICBM bases are not listed as destroyed but if two SS-18 bases remain why not use any of them (104) against US/Canada and their highly strategic targets?
- To retaliate the soviets still have boomers and aircrafts+mobile ICBM fire units (about 300 SS-25).
- If the soviets starts, it is possible that they don't send SS-18 in the first place. However, I would agree that it is highly unlikely. On the other hand, again, why leaving about 80 SS-18 in their Silos while they are the best suited weapons to take out NORAD, the US ICBM bases and even Washington DC?

In addition, according to the game text (again v2.2), both sides refrain from targetting the other side's ICBM land base for quite some times. At last, they do: All 4 US bases are taken out (Forks, Malmstrom, Minot & Warren +Vandenberg) and almost all Soviets bases in Russia with the base in others republics not accounted for (most likely forgotten). Then, they are two possibilities: All missiles are destroyed before being launched or they are launched before the bases are destroyed and, then, SS-18 should be accounted for all over (there are none/according to your own account most Satan were equipped with 20Mt warheads, they would have been used). I grant you that the Mt listed are highly questionable and can be open to debate (but that will become endless:))

For my parts (I mean in my game), I use several SS-18 but only on highly strategic targets. They are not used extensively because the first strike is successful in decapitating the US ICBM force. Then, in turn, the Soviets' ICBM force (silo only) is decapitated by strikes from SLBM.

Well there's been quite a lot of information generated about the nuclear weapon aspects of Australia but I think it's worth discussing some of the smaller points also. For example, the list of weapons available to PC groups, so I offer up the following. It's a small list of firearms available just from Australian sources (e.g. military, police) up to about 1996 and certainly not comprehensive.

.38 Smith & Wesson service revolver (don't know the type)
9mmP Browning HP
9mmP SIG P226 (limited numbers for trails with SASR and other special units)

9mmP F1 SMG
9mmP Owen Gun (very limited numbers)
9mmP MP5
9mmP MP5SD (limited numbers)
9mmP L34A1 (limited numbers)
various police/civilian pistols such as 9mm Glocks, CZ75 & CZ85, M1911 competition variants and up to .44 Desert Eagle and 9mmP Uzi Pistol

.303 SMLE
.303 Jungle Carbine (can't think of the proper designation)
5.56mm M16A1
5.56mm F88 (AUG) rifle
5.56mm F88 carbine
5.56mm M4 Carbine (used by Commando Regiment for amphibious tasks)
7.62mmN L1A1
7.62mmN L2A1 (automatic rifle)
various civilian versions of military rifles like the M16, G3, Chinese Type 63 (AKA type 68) and M14
various ex-military semi-autos such as the SKS, M1 Carbine
various ex-military bolt-action rifles such as Swedish Mauser types, Kar-98K etc.

5.56mm F89 Minimi
7.62mm L4A4 Bren Gun
.303 Vickers Gun (very limited number & used only in the training role, some were supposed to be converted to 7.62mmN)
7.62mm M60
7.62mm MAG58
.30-06 M1919A4 (can't recall the local designation)
12.7mm M2 BMG

Various pump-action and semi-auto shotguns from police & civilian sources.
There's also the potential for a very limited number of L85A1 and FN FNC rifles from Papua New Guinea as their Army bought small numbers for trails.