RPG Forums

RPG Forums (http://forum.juhlin.com/index.php)
-   Twilight 2000 Forum (http://forum.juhlin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   The ANZACs in T2k (http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=5759)

Legbreaker 07-02-2019 10:23 AM

Not likely. Australia's barely got enough to equip even a peacetime army with AA weaponry, and no suitable industry to quickly make more.

Olefin 07-02-2019 01:57 PM

Its been done before as to countries selling equipment that they later turned out they needed. All comes down to who was in power and how confident they were that they wouldnt get dragged in.

Examples abound - US shipments to Britain pre-Pearl Harbor, Italian shipments to Spain of equipment they needed when they jumped into WWII, etc..

Wouldnt be the first time for sure that something like that stung them in the butt - i.e. hey lets ship oil to the Nazi's after all they arent shooting at us - which the Soviets did right up to the morning the Germans invaded - in this case the Australians might have thought we can use the money to buy newer equipment and then uh oh maybe we shouldnt have done that

Olefin 07-02-2019 02:19 PM

So the question is:

What happened to the Redeye's - were they scrapped, sold, stored? If stored were they still in useable condition?

Did the army dismount the RBS-70 and the Bofors from the ships once they were either damaged or out of fuel and use them in the anti-air role?

StainlessSteelCynic 07-02-2019 07:33 PM

The RBS-70s were only a supplement for the RAN ships for a specific task, once the deployment was over, they were removed from the ships and resumed their army defence role.

As for the Bofors, being a naval version, the RAN would probably want to hold onto them for as long as possible. Adding to the difficulty of the Army obtaining them would be the need to construct a land-mount for them. They were never supplied with the trailer-mount that land-based versions were. If the Army wanted to use them in the land defence role, they would have to build new mounts plus also build AA sights & fire control for them.

All in all, I'd say that the Army would consider it too much trouble for too little return.

Legbreaker 07-02-2019 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic (Post 81934)
All in all, I'd say that the Army would consider it too much trouble for too little return.

And that's assuming the RAN would be willing to give any up in the first place - highly unlikely given they're also gearing up for potential war at the same time.
It's also worth noting currently Australia only has 30 of the RBS-70 launcher/sight units. This is after a second purchase was made in 2003-05 in order to replace the older Rapiers. Hardly enough to meet current needs, and certainly not enough to consider selling and leaving the army essentially defenceless.
So, subtracting a couple of units for training and replacement purposes, you're left with about a dozen RBS-70 and the same number of Rapiers to protect three Divisions. (Yes, I'm keeping 3rd Div in the book even though IRL they were disbanded in 1991 and barely a shell for the previous few decades).

Now a question for those who were in the ARes during the 90's. How much additional training do you think your unit(s) would have required to be combat effective?
What was your units IRL strength like at the time as a percentage of fully manned?
Was there sufficient "talent" within the unit to be promoted into the necessary NCO and Officer positions if the unit had received enough new recruits (with IET completed) to bring it up to strength?

StainlessSteelCynic 07-02-2019 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 81935)
<snip>

Now a question for those who were in the ARes during the 90's. How much additional training do you think your unit(s) would have required to be combat effective?
What was your units IRL strength like at the time as a percentage of fully manned?
Was there sufficient "talent" within the unit to be promoted into the necessary NCO and Officer positions if the unit had received enough new recruits (with IET completed) to bring it up to strength?

This is the hard part... it's got a lot to do with where the unit was located and obviously anything I say is limited by my own personal experience.

Many country depots in Western Australia tended to have less personnel but more effectives than city units, (for those outside Australia - "effectives" was lingo for those Reservists who attended all the needed parades, training etc. etc. and were deemed qualified in their role). Country units also tended to have more personnel qualified for higher rank (but obviously they couldn't be promoted to higher rank as there were limited positions in small units).
If it came to bringing them up to strength I would hazard a guess that they had plenty of talent for promotion among the senior soldiers (some of them already qualified in a number of cases).
The overall impression was that country depot personnel were more dedicated, more prepared to go out of their way to fulfil their obligations and so on, more interested in taking the training seriously.

City units tended to have far greater access to personnel but a greater percentage of ineffectives (or marginally effectives) but when you're talking say 20% of 300 troops, it wasn't seen as so much of a problem, whereas 20% of 120 at a country depot was a big issue.
This is probably my own perception, but it seemed to me that the highest percentage of ineffectives seemed to come from the University Regiments. To be fair, I only met a handful of Uni Regt officers but I was generally left underwhelmed by their abilities. Marginally effective soldiers and marginally effective officers at best, complete wastes of oxygen at worst. Some of them seemed to treat the Reserves as a side hobby.

I would think that simply by virtue of having a greater recruiting pool within the cities, that city depots would be able to meet their needs for NCOs & officers and, obviously, would also be far more likely to be able to build up to full strength.

By way of example, my last unit was initially an Infantry Company (C Coy, 16 RWAR) that was probably 2/3 full when I transferred in 1988. In 1990 we probably could have filled out to full strength without much trouble.
By 1992 there had been a severe drop in numbers and we were an overstrength Platoon (we would have mustered one full Platoon and a second that was about 2/3 strength). At that time IRL the government was trying to cut costs and had decreed that any Reserve units below a certain strength would be cut.

My unit survived by being redesignated as the Battalion's reconnaissance platoon. We got help with training from SASR who had been using the depot for decades as a base during their desert, demo & car commander training courses. We also had training from the WA based RFSUs so overall we were getting assistance from the local experts in the trade!
Some of our officers & senior NCOs got unofficial criticism from officers in battalion HQ for our "overly" friendly relationship with SAS.

From memory, the main unit (HQ etc. etc. + B Coy located in Perth) had more personnel on the books than needed but seemed to muster about 75% of required strength. A handful of those who did attend were still ineffective in one way or another (e.g. not attended annual Ex, marginal passes on rifle quals and so on).
A Coy on the other hand, another country depot was much like C Coy, understrength but of the personnel on the books, most of them were effectives. No surprise to some, but the country depots still tended to have better shooting scores during annual qualification.

Annual training was usually well attended and there was a decent range of training courses available for those that wanted them. I qualified for SFMG, others from my unit qualified for medic, mortar, sigs and so on.

Reservist Corp of Trucks was typically well manned but I would rate many of their personnel as marginally effective. They could drive fine but many had no damned idea of recovery techniques and it was not uncommon for, surprise surprise, the Reservist Infantry unit being transported to be the ones who knew how to recover the vehicles. A number of Transport personnel appeared to treat their time in service as a place to socialize and it was said by non-Transport personnel that the only reason you joined Transport was to "learn to drive trucks or to pick up a fuck".

The Reservist field artillery unit that used to be in WA was apparently pretty damned good although I have no idea of their percentage of effectives. The medical unit that was here was pretty good too, I knew a few people in it although I cannot recall the unit designation. They had a reasonable number of qualified doctors, nurses and dentists on strength and a good number of personnel who were at least medic trained. Again I don't have any idea of their number of effectives but there were always some of the Reserve medical units (to complement the Reg units) on every major Ex I went on.

For a complete change of pace, my first unit, 1/15 RNSWL an Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment based in Sydney using M113s, had plenty of personnel on the books and most of them attended but aside from vehicle crews, support, admin etc. etc. there was insufficient training for some roles. Specifically, while I was qualified as Assault Trooper, there were a number of specialist training requirements for that role that were never met.
Assault Troopers were "meant" to be trained in shallow water diving, minor demo (not anywhere near as much as Assault Pioneers but enough to clear tracks for the vehicles at the least) and even para-drop.
Too pricey for the government so although those qualifications were on the books, they were never offered in training. However we did get plenty of range time with machineguns as we had plenty on strength and it was expected that the Assault Troop buckets would mount a few at the rear hatch.

Unfortunately not a lot of specific info for you :(

Legbreaker 07-03-2019 01:37 AM

No, that's pretty much the sort of thing I'm after. You've given me more than I was expecting actually.
Totally agree with you re the country depots and especially the uni regiments. To be "promoted" to corporal after just six months as a reservist, just because it was a stepping stone to commission never sat right with me, especially after being around a few on various courses. Quite a number of oxygen thieves looking to subsidise their university fees...

Legbreaker 07-03-2019 01:40 AM

Here's another one open to the gallery.
Which units would you reconstitute to bring 3rd Division up to strength? As at their disbanding in 1991 they had just two badly understrength infantry battalions and a smattering of support units...
I'm thinking of looking back to WWII for inspiration.

Olefin 07-03-2019 07:58 AM

You always have new recruits that could be trained and incorporated to fill out the understrength infantry battalions and build up more - what is the training cycle in Australia to go from inducted recruit to fully trained infantryman?

Legbreaker 07-03-2019 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 81942)
What is the training cycle in Australia to go from inducted recruit to fully trained infantryman?

At the time it was about six months training before they hit their Battalion (11 weeks recruit training including basic infantry skills, three more months Initial Employment Training at the infantry centre). Corners can be cut in wartime to almost halve that, but that's really pushing it.
Note that's minimum level for an infantryman too. I've been on both sides of the training both as trainee (of course) and DS. You really get an appreciation of how much more they need to learn when you're on the other side looking in.

Olefin 07-03-2019 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 81943)
At the time it was about six months training before they hit their Battalion (11 weeks recruit training including basic infantry skills, three more months Initial Employment Training at the infantry centre). Corners can be cut in wartime to almost halve that, but that's really pushing it.
Note that's minimum level for an infantryman too. I've been on both sides of the training both as trainee (of course) and DS. You really get an appreciation of how much more they need to learn when you're on the other side looking in.

I would say then they would start by bringing both the old battalions back on line with a cadre of experienced NCO's and officers, probably from other units, and staff them with recruits to start with - which means six months minimum to get those two battalions back up to strength. Same with whatever support units the division used to have.

Question would be - did Australia have artillery in storage to be able to equip them with artillery support or would they have mortars only?

Legbreaker 07-03-2019 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 81944)
Question would be - did Australia have artillery in storage to be able to equip them with artillery support or would they have mortars only?

Not much I think. Might be a few 105's and 155's from the disbandment of 3rd Div, but not much more. Plenty of mortars available though, especially since they're relatively easy to make. IRL many of the Artillery units had their guns taken off them around 2005 (I think) and replaced with 81mm mortars. Still can't work out why this was considered a good idea.....

Fortunately I'm really only going to need to properly equip two of the three Divisions with proper artillery, as the 3rd will be assigned to security and anti insurgency tasks within the Australian borders.

Of course while I'm considering all this, the other nations also need mobilising, but besides New Zealand (which MIGHT muster a Brigade plus perhaps a couple of additional light infantry Battalions), the island nations (Tonga, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Samoa, etc) probably won't be contributing much of significance - a few company's of light infantry and the like at a guess, mostly used for rear area security/civil defence tasks at home.

I also need to consider what's happening with Indonesia's other neighbours to the north - Malaysia, Brunei, etc. Thinking I'll just have them bolster their defences but have most of their attention focused on Vietnam/China/Korea. Indonesia has less to gain (and more to lose) in attacking them they they do with going east into PNG.

StainlessSteelCynic 07-03-2019 10:27 PM

In regards to artillery, I believe at that time, the Regular Army was equipped with the L118 105mm and the M198 155mm. The Reserve Army artillery units were equipped, if I remember, with the BL 5.5in gun.
There may have been some 25 pounder field guns still in war stores but I believe most, if not all. of them were disposed of by the 1980s (except for use as memorials and so on).

Legbreaker 07-03-2019 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic (Post 81948)
In regards to artillery, I believe at that time, the Regular Army was equipped with the L118 105mm and the M198 155mm. The Reserve Army artillery units were equipped, if I remember, with the BL 5.5in gun.
There may have been some 25 pounder field guns still in war stores but I believe most, if not all. of them were disposed of by the 1980s (except for use as memorials and so on).

Most of the reserve units I am familiar with had the 105 Hamel or L5 pack howitzer. The 5.5 inch went out of service in 1983.
From memory one of the reserve artillery units of 3 Div had the 155mm M198.

There has been no self propelled artillery (except mortars) in Australian service since the Yeramba SP 25-pounder went out of service in 1957. It was also the only SP artillery Australia has ever had.

dylan 07-03-2019 10:58 PM

There is no way NZ could muster a full brigade in the 1990s.

The poor state of the Army in responding to Bosnia and to Timor is illustration enough.

This actually resulted in what some people call the "army coup" in NZ whereby the army mounted a covert operation to shaft the other services and recover its lead service privileges. One result was the scrapping of the air combat force. Another was the acquisition of "gold plated" LAVs all fitted with 25mm chain guns in a revolving turret.

StainlessSteelCynic 07-03-2019 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 81950)
Most of the reserve units I am familiar with had the 105 Hamel or L5 pack howitzer. The 5.5 inch went out of service in 1983.
From memory one of the reserve artillery units of 3 Div had the 155mm M198.

There has been no self propelled artillery (except mortars) in Australian service since the Yeramba SP 25-pounder went out of service in 1957. It was also the only SP artillery Australia has ever had.

Ack! I completely forgot about the L5 - shows how good (bad) my memory is.
The Reserve arty unit in WA in the 1980s was I believe 7th Field Battery and I have vague memories of them having medium guns and not the L5 (and they certainly weren't lucky enough to have the L118 Hamel (WA units were always a poor cousin anyway but the L118 would have been too new to let the Reservist here have them!).
But I'm certain they did not have any 155mm (they would have been kept for the Regs). They were definitely a medium arty unit and not light arty.

Doesn't matter much for a mid-90s timeline as they would have been converting to mortars anyway... but it does lend itself to some extra (albeit obsolescent) arty being in warstores.

Legbreaker 07-04-2019 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dylan (Post 81951)
There is no way NZ could muster a full brigade in the 1990s.

Yes, totally agree IRL, however I'm giving them about 12 months warning that hostilities are coming to beef up their strength. Equipment will likely be in short supply, and those units which stay within NZ borders will likely be armed with civilian rifles and the like, but manpower is possible - they did have about 150,000 people in uniform and armed in 1942 when the total population was significantly lower than today.
I'm talking of raising an army of perhaps 10,000, or approximately double what it is today, plus a small increase to naval and air personnel of perhaps 10-20% IRL numbers. Any greater increase to the navy and air force probably wouldn't be justified as there probably wouldn't be the ships and planes to equip them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic (Post 81952)
Doesn't matter much for a mid-90s timeline as they would have been converting to mortars anyway... but it does lend itself to some extra (albeit obsolescent) arty being in warstores.

From what I've read to date, the reserve artillery didn't loose their guns until around 2005 give or take. Have you some information that some switched earlier?

StainlessSteelCynic 07-04-2019 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 81953)
<snip>

From what I've read to date, the reserve artillery didn't loose their guns until around 2005 give or take. Have you some information that some switched earlier?

No, just working from my (increasingly poor) memory and I never had that much info on units outside my direct experience e.g. the arty. I'm probably misremembering things and screwing up the timings. For instance, sometime in 1992 or 93, we were told that in the near future Support Coy would be losing their mortars and refitting as SFMG. The mortars would be going to Reserve arty units who would be losing their big guns to the Regs.
That was the talk but it was not mentioned officially at that time.
I'm obviously putting 2 and 2 together and getting about seven & a half as the answer! :D :rolleyes:

CDAT 07-04-2019 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic (Post 81955)
No, just working from my (increasingly poor) memory and I never had that much info on units outside my direct experience e.g. the arty. I'm probably misremembering things and screwing up the timings. For instance, sometime in 1992 or 93, we were told that in the near future Support Coy would be losing their mortars and refitting as SFMG. The mortars would be going to Reserve arty units who would be losing their big guns to the Regs.
That was the talk but it was not mentioned officially at that time.
I'm obviously putting 2 and 2 together and getting about seven & a half as the answer! :D :rolleyes:

It could also be a case of how governments work. I am guessing they all do things more or less the same. For example the US Military adopted the M9 Pistol (to replace the M1911) in 1985, and officially replacement was completed in Oct 1986. However when I joined the Army in 1993 we still had the M1911, seven years after it was replaced.

On a side note I have to take double takes here a lot, every time I see WA (Western Australia I am guessing) my first thought is Washington where I live.:)

StainlessSteelCynic 07-04-2019 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDAT (Post 81956)
It could also be a case of how governments work. I am guessing they all do things more or less the same. For example the US Military adopted the M9 Pistol (to replace the M1911) in 1985, and officially replacement was completed in Oct 1986. However when I joined the Army in 1993 we still had the M1911, seven years after it was replaced.

On a side note I have to take double takes here a lot, every time I see WA (Western Australia I am guessing) my first thought is Washington where I live.:)

Hehehe. :D
Yes, WA is Western Australia. In regards to how governments work, yes indeed. When the Australian Army got its Disruptive Pattern Camouflage Uniform (DPCU) to replace the old Jungle Green uniform, there were some cases where Reservist support units in WA ( :p ) were issued the new cams before Reservist Infantry units... I wasn't alone in thinking that the Infantry units might have needed them more than a support unit. :confused:

Legbreaker 11-18-2019 12:02 AM

In need of a little input at the moment. Given the ANZUS treaty requires the US to assist Australia should another party attack (as Indonesia does in PNG as described briefly in the BYB), what response could be expected in say, 1998?

My initial thoughts are perhaps a missile cruiser (the USS Mobile Bay springs to mind given it was involved with East Timor in 1999) could be dispatched, and/or a battalion of infantry (as usually occurs during joint training exercises). If it's the latter, is there an independent US unit which may be sent?

Of course the treaty doesn't really require much more than the military equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" either especially since Australia itself wasn't directly attacked by conventional forces (I will however have numerous units of saboteurs/guerrillas operating throughout the country).

It is interesting to note that the US invoked the treaty after 9/11 (first time in it's 50 odd year history). This is why Australia was subsequently involved in Iraq and Afghanistan (and is still in the latter country nearly two decades later).

StainlessSteelCynic 11-18-2019 05:20 AM

On a tangent, at one time when the Philippines was talking about all US bases out of their country, one of the potential replacement USN home ports was in Indonesia.
Now that would make for some "interesting" diplomacy in the T2k Indo-Australia conflict.

But anyway, onto your question. Maybe some USMC infantry from the base in Japan? I think it's on Okinawa. Assuming they weren't in Korea or dealing with Russia.

CDAT 11-18-2019 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 82460)
In need of a little input at the moment. Given the ANZUS treaty requires the US to assist Australia should another party attack (as Indonesia does in PNG as described briefly in the BYB), what response could be expected in say, 1998?

My initial thoughts are perhaps a missile cruiser (the USS Mobile Bay springs to mind given it was involved with East Timor in 1999) could be dispatched, and/or a battalion of infantry (as usually occurs during joint training exercises). If it's the latter, is there an independent US unit which may be sent?

Of course the treaty doesn't really require much more than the military equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" either especially since Australia itself wasn't directly attacked by conventional forces (I will however have numerous units of saboteurs/guerrillas operating throughout the country).

It is interesting to note that the US invoked the treaty after 9/11 (first time in it's 50 odd year history). This is why Australia was subsequently involved in Iraq and Afghanistan (and is still in the latter country nearly two decades later).

Real world it would likely have been the USMC if (BIG IF) they had a unit afloat near there, but if a unit needed to be sent most likely the 82nd Airborne or 75th Rangers.

Legbreaker 11-18-2019 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDAT (Post 82463)
Real world it would likely have been the USMC if (BIG IF) they had a unit afloat near there, but if a unit needed to be sent most likely the 82nd Airborne or 75th Rangers.

They're all otherwise occupied in 1998 T2k though.
I don't want a full US Division, or even a Brigade as they'd drastically change the balance and make it more a US show. Australia will have a TOTAL of 3 short Divisions, one of which is assigned to mainland defence, about a Brigade of the second assigned to Korea, leaving perhaps 5 Brigades total for PNG.

Meanwhile, Indonesia has about 20 Divisions worth of units. About half of them are internal security, but that still leaves the defenders outnumbered upwards of 10 to 1 (although more likely about 8 to 1 once I include New Zealand and units from the Pacific Island nations).

Raellus 11-18-2019 05:40 PM

My thoughts are that, with three very active fronts (Europe, Korea, Iran), the U.S. wouldn't be in a position to send much of anything to Australia, other than what happens to be there at the time (probably a few ships/aircraft/troops in transit to other theatres, and that only on a very temporary basis.

There's just nothing left to send, by '98, and that's straight from the canon.

I think your "thoughts and prayers" comment is right on the money. To put it in T2K terms, though, it'd be "Good luck. You're on your own." ;)

One thought that just occurred to me is that a few hundred/couple thousand U.S. military personnel could be in Australia on leave (common enough during the Vietnam War) when the Indonesians attack. With no safe way to return to their posts (likely in Korea), they're stuck there and formed into an Ad Hoc "American Legion" under Aussie command. This could be a fun way to incorporate American PCs from any of the U.S. Army, USMC, USN, USAF or even USCG units in the Korean canon (which the KPSB follows closely) into an Australia-based campaign.

-

cawest 11-19-2019 09:07 AM

ANZAC might get a something along the lines of a few Team Yankees, or a Battalion Task Force on the ground. now it could get a few subs, surface ships or aircraft that were moved out of Pearl, Philippines, diego Garcia, or johnston atoll


now that is a thought what would be at johnston atoll in this time line?:D

Legbreaker 11-19-2019 07:58 PM

Bear in mind I'm not kicking hostilities off in PNG until it's clear the major world players are tied up elsewhere. Just doesn't make much sense for a 2nd rate military power to attack if there's 1st rate armies available to spank them for it.

My thoughts are one, maybe two ships (could be a support vessel, LST or the like instead of a "proper" warship), or a small unit of number of units. The question really is which ones might be available for more than just a brief visit on the way to somewhere else.

Note it doesn't even have to be a combat unit - medical team, engineers, intelligence, etc would all be suitable in my mind. Could even be civilians, or a unit made up of people found somewhat less than suitable for military draft but still very keen to help out in some way.

So lets hear some ideas, wilder the better! :D

One point I need to stress is PNG has an absolutely ABYSMAL transportation network. There's very limited roads, of which only a tiny percentage is sealed. No railroads at all, except for some short narrow gauge dating from pre WWI which have been neglected for 80 years. They were originally built by the Germans (back when it was still one of their colonies) to service a handful of old mines. Most bulk transport is by small boat along the coastline and up the rivers, and some air transport to very primitive bush airstrips. https://youtu.be/sy_HNd6N4IE

Olefin 11-19-2019 08:22 PM

I could easily see an ad hoc American unit being formed from stranded sailors, airmen, etc. that get stuck in Australia do to various reasons

Heck even just the men and woman manning places like Pine Gap could give you at least a small force to help the Australians out. Add in things like US Marine Corps Marine Security Guard detachments that are in various Asian nations being evacuated to Australia after the war starts from places like Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.. and you have the beginnings of a couple of companies at least - maybe even more.

The Company C Headquarters is located in Bangkok, Thailand and is responsible for 18 detachments located in the Far East, Asia and Australia. You could at the least see the HQ being relocated to Australia in 1997 after the nukes fly, perhaps earlier with embassies being evacuated out of hot spots

Especially if you add in a stranded USN ship or even nuclear sub and its crew being turned into infantry.

Legbreaker 11-19-2019 08:50 PM

The more I look at it, the more I think logistics is the key in PNG rather than another company or two of infantry. Yes, fighting troops are important, but they're useless without supporting units. Stranded US crewmembers might be better utilised running supplies along the coast in commandeered civilian craft rather than handed a rifle and sent to the front line. Their skill set would lend themselves more to that I think.
This opens up a whole new range of possible RP opportunities - US crew on a supply mission gets into trouble in some way and finds themselves behind enemy lines. Or, why not have them shipwrecked somewhere in the Indonesian controlled area and have to get themselves to friendly, Australian lines.

swaghauler 11-19-2019 09:05 PM

GOOGLE the US ARMY'S USAV Major General Robert Smalls with its 13-foot draft, more than 10K kilometer range, and its 6000-ton displacement.

Then GOOGLE USMC "gator fleet."

StainlessSteelCynic 11-19-2019 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swaghauler (Post 82474)
GOOGLE the US ARMY'S USAV Major General Robert Smalls with its 13-foot draft, more than 10K kilometer range, and its 6000-ton displacement.

Then GOOGLE USMC "gator fleet."

This brings up an interesting potential situation. The ship is part of the General Frank S. Besson class and they started building them in 1987. There's only eight of them in service and I would argue that a major reason for that is because the collapse of the Soviet Union removed the need for a larger fleet.
So the potential situation is that without the "peace" from the end of the Cold War, more of the class could have been constructed.
Meaning that as a sourcebook/module writer or GM, you could expand the fleet and add a few of these ships where you needed them.

In a similar "what if", the Philippines Navy had two logistics support vessels built in the early 90s based on the Besson class with the most significant differences being a helicopter pad at the rear of the ship, a roof over part of the main deck and the ability to carry two LCVPs.
So for game purposes, it's not too far fetched to have the US Army also put that variant into service to compliment the Besson class. A helo/LCVP capable version would allow for certain operations that the conventional class wouldn't i.e. small team insertion by air/LCVP, wider range of SAR abilities and so on. There's no hangar but with the relatively calm oceans in the PNG area, transporting a helo on the pad wouldn't be so problematic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...support_vessel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacolo...support_vessel

Legbreaker 11-19-2019 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic (Post 82475)
...the relatively calm oceans in the PNG area...

Hehe.
It's funny seeing people driving up to Darwin with surfboards on the roof to take advantage of the legendary huge surf up there!
Even funnier seeing their faces when they arrive and lay eyes on the MASSIVE 6 inch waves! :D

Olefin 11-19-2019 11:22 PM

Examples of how you could get US military personnel to Australia

US Marine detachment sent to help guard the Pine Gap facility - could easily see the US sending a couple of platoons given the importance of that facility and could have the US reinforce their embassy detachment in Canberra as well - or have detachments from other countries evacuated along with embassy personnel to Canberra

US logistics troops sent to Australia to assist shipments to South Korea and China from Australia - possibly with the US establishing depots for materials being transshipped there from the US

US military members of the Pine Gap facility (mostly communication/intelligence/signals personnel)

USN personnel from ships damaged by Soviet attacks that made port in Australia and that were never re-assigned or marooned by lack of fuel

USAF personnel supporting long range transport and cargo operations that were stranded in Australia due to lack of fuel

None of which would require a unit of any size to actually be located there either pre or post 1998

StainlessSteelCynic 11-20-2019 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 82476)
Hehe.
It's funny seeing people driving up to Darwin with surfboards on the roof to take advantage of the legendary huge surf up there!
Even funnier seeing their faces when they arrive and lay eyes on the MASSIVE 6 inch waves! :D

:) Hahaha
Oh yes indeed! There's a reason the beaches on either the east coast or the west coast are rated as the best surfing spots in Australia. I recall a statement about surfing in the Northern Territory with it's "one or two months a year if you're lucky, waist high at best, waves and please keep an eye out for the saltwater crocodiles who are one of the stealthiest predators in the world", as being "unpleasant". :rolleyes:

There's a reason why people have used small, open boats (like the 12ft dinghy) to nip back and forth between Far North Queensland and PNG and it's not simply because it's a (relatively) short distance.

pmulcahy11b 11-20-2019 07:22 AM

I have a blurb on the Australian Battle Rifles page, under the versions of the FN-FAL they had, about the "Brisbane Black Window," a good sniper who is merely a civilian Australian who has mad skills with her rifle. Anyone want to add this into the official record?

Legbreaker 11-20-2019 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b (Post 82479)
I have a blurb on the Australian Battle Rifles page, under the versions of the FN-FAL they had, about the "Brisbane Black Window," a good sniper who is merely a civilian Australian who has mad skills with her rifle. Anyone want to add this into the official record?

See, that's exactly the sort of thing I want to include in the book! :D
Although I'm not sure she'd like being called a "window"... :rolleyes:

Olefin 11-20-2019 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 82477)
Examples of how you could get US military personnel to Australia

US Marine detachment sent to help guard the Pine Gap facility - could easily see the US sending a couple of platoons given the importance of that facility and could have the US reinforce their embassy detachment in Canberra as well - or have detachments from other countries evacuated along with embassy personnel to Canberra

US logistics troops sent to Australia to assist shipments to South Korea and China from Australia - possibly with the US establishing depots for materials being transshipped there from the US

US military members of the Pine Gap facility (mostly communication/intelligence/signals personnel)

USN personnel from ships damaged by Soviet attacks that made port in Australia and that were never re-assigned or marooned by lack of fuel

USAF personnel supporting long range transport and cargo operations that were stranded in Australia due to lack of fuel

None of which would require a unit of any size to actually be located there either pre or post 1998

FYI one very possible source for US characters could be USAR personnel that were originally deployed to support port operations in Australia to support US operations in the Gulf and Korea and then were cut off in Australia after the reduction in fuel supplies cut them off

they could be elements of a Transportation Terminal Battalion deployed to Australia in 1996-97 along with a couple of transportation companies to help with port operations - which would be a perfect addition for the sourcebook

swaghauler 11-20-2019 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic (Post 82475)
This brings up an interesting potential situation. The ship is part of the General Frank S. Besson class and they started building them in 1987. There's only eight of them in service and I would argue that a major reason for that is because the collapse of the Soviet Union removed the need for a larger fleet.
So the potential situation is that without the "peace" from the end of the Cold War, more of the class could have been constructed.
Meaning that as a sourcebook/module writer or GM, you could expand the fleet and add a few of these ships where you needed them.

In a similar "what if", the Philippines Navy had two logistics support vessels built in the early 90s based on the Besson class with the most significant differences being a helicopter pad at the rear of the ship, a roof over part of the main deck and the ability to carry two LCVPs.
So for game purposes, it's not too far fetched to have the US Army also put that variant into service to compliment the Besson class. A helo/LCVP capable version would allow for certain operations that the conventional class wouldn't i.e. small team insertion by air/LCVP, wider range of SAR abilities and so on. There's no hangar but with the relatively calm oceans in the PNG area, transporting a helo on the pad wouldn't be so problematic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...support_vessel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacolo...support_vessel

Don't forget the Cyclone PCs! They were being used in the Philippines as well as the Gulf of Mexico for anti-piracy, drug enforcement, and general patrol. The Philippines was actually given USS Cyclone as a patrol ship.

This is something that is OFTEN overlooked when the LCS class ships are discussed. They were intentionally give "shoal-drafts" specifically for operating in this region because they replaced the OHP class Frigates (also having a shallow draft) that were also used in the shallow waters of the Asian Basin and the Persian Gulf where the much deeper drafted Burkes and Ticos could get into trouble trying to sail there.

Legbreaker 12-08-2019 09:01 PM

Some good stuff in here some of which can be translated into T2K and the Anzac book. https://youtu.be/rdaVTtuz3YM
It's followed by this one covering the post cold war period which I'm about to start watching now. https://youtu.be/VYI02dhyer8

Legbreaker 12-08-2019 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker;82560
It's followed by this one covering the post cold war period which I'm about to start watching now. [url
https://youtu.be/VYI02dhyer8[/url]

Ex Chief of Army. Very good, thought provoking presentation with the odd bit of humour thrown in. Has some interesting thoughts on China's recent expansion into the South China Sea and the US response.
Starts off with the question, why do we refer to the current time as the "post cold war period and what's a better name for it?"


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.