View Single Post
  #4  
Old 10-06-2009, 04:53 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Targan is right and he reminds me of what we already said on the subject.

For my part, Australia isn't nuked and I made it (in fact the Oceanian Union which includes Australia, New Zealand, Fiji Islands and Papua New Guinea) the last truly industrial part of the world (they have more than enough resources for that). Their industries was shot down by the EMPs of course, but as their country's infrastructures were intact, they could fix pretty much everything in a matter of a few month (limited electricity within days and all vital power supplies with a couple of weeks).

As a result, it is indeed supplying US but also many other belligerants. After all trade is trade and I can see Australia acting (after the nukes) like Sweden in WW2 (with the exception of the Warsaw Pact).

About civil unrest, as I already said in other thread, I simply don't buy it. You might have some but this IMO remain limited.

I keep the war with Indonesia but If the Indonesians effectively land at Darwin, they are repelled (AMX-13 and PT-76 are simply no match for Leopard 1 and eventually Abrams). Cannon states that both air forces and navies destroyed each other. Except if Australians are the most stupid fighter (what they are not) on this planet I see that totally unrealistic.

I agree that the Australian/N-Z navy will suffer some losses (may be serious ones) but it should (IMO) come up on top. First, they won't engage their whole force without full control of the air. Second, they have better ships and better trained crews. Third, their ships are better maintained and they have ample supply to repair them while Indonesia will quickly suffer from supply shortages. Later, I even have Australia commissioning at least 2 aircraft carriers (similar to Principe de Asturias) and they can build new ships as well to replace the eventual losses.

Air power is the key IMO. From what I get, the Indonesian air force is no match for the Australian/N-Z air force, especially on its own soil. Just look at the combat aircrafts.

- The indonesian will have about 10 F-16, 16 F-5 and 32 A-4 (su-30 cancelled and further deliveries of F-16 cancelled by Indonesia itself in 1989).

- Australia can count on 70+ F/A-18, 24 F-111 (not matched by anything flown by Indonesia), A-4 from New Zealand (better suited for anti ship missions) and eventually 28 F-16 (N-Z). Depending on your timeline and choice, they might have kept the 50 Mirage III sold to Pakistan in 1990. Nevertheless, even with the minimal amount of aircraft they are still on the winning side (Australians are not known to fly with broken harms). In addition, they can produce more aircrafts what Indonesia can't do.

At last, I adapted the situation described in the Gazeteer (Merc 2000). Indonesians were pushed back to the sea and the Australians landed in Indonesia, ultimately controlling Java and Sumatra under a puppet government. However, they are faced with a difficult situation there with terrorist attacks and opposing forces controlling most of the other islands (not to talk of piracy).

If Indonesia's bet was short live, Australia can't control Indonesia.
Reply With Quote