Australia Twilight War & After...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

Maybe not so, have a look at the two new planned Canberra Class LHDs.

But they aren't due to be in service until 2013. In the T2K timeline this suggested HMAS Perth (ex-USS Peleliu) would have to be purchased, modified/refitted and commissioned by the RAN all during the early to mid 1990s (20 years before 2013). Add to that the need to select and purchase the aircraft it carries and train all the required personnel.

Also, of the five Tarawa class vessels why would the USN decommission and sell off the Peleliu (unless in Millenium's End the USN decommissioned all five). IRL the USS Tarawa, USS Saipan and USS Belleau Wood were decommissioned in 2009, 2007 and 2005 respectively. USS Tarawa and USS Saipan are part of the inactive fleet but could be returned to service. USS Belleau Wood was sunk as part of the 2006 RIMPAC exercise but could easily have been sold off instead. IRL USS Nassau and USS Peleliu are still in service with the USN.

Originally Posted by RN7

From Millennium’s End:
The Australian Army
[snip]There is a... Marine Assault Regiment based around the Navy’s HMAS Perth (a former Tawara class amphibious assault ship).[snip]

Perhaps this "Marine Assault Regiment" would be a third Commando Regiment, specialising in amphibious assault? This third Commando Regiment would be all-regular the amphibious assault role could cycle between 2 Cdo Regt and 3 Cdo Regt (with a two or three year rotation instead of the 12 month rotation followed by the SASR's Sabre Squadrons).

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

However one thing I would say, when Webstral mentioned that the Soviets are not nice people who play fair, I'd extend that across the board to all the nations involved. As much as we like to believe that we ourselves would be more civilized/polite/fair/gentlemanly etc. etc., differences of ideology aside, we are all as bad as each other. I think once you throw nuclear weapons into the fight, you're really saying "The gloves are off, now we start to really get nasty".

Sad, but true.

Webstral

[ChalkLine]

It'd be madness for the USSR to nuke Australia unless a US warship is in port or they hit the telemetry stations at Pine Gap or North West Cape. Everything else is far less unimportant than tasking more warheads to critical European and US targets where the initial warheads may not get through.

Canonically the USSR plays a gentleman's nuclear war with the USA, launching just a few warheads at a time before making a half-hearted strike (that somehow takes everyone by surprise!) that is launched in dribs and drabs. In this odd and unrealistic scenario they may nuke an ally 'to show that it could be done', but no one was ever in any doubt anyway. They'd make the point better by nuking Peurto Rico.

It's all academic anyway. Both systems were designed that once confirmed nuke launches or strikes were observed the arsenals were immediately launched, because otherwise they would risk being destroyed in their silos. The crews knew they would be dead shortly anyway.

If there's one part of the canonical backstory I would have GMs looking at addressing, it is the fundamental question of how the nuclear aspect of the war was waged. At present it is ridiculous.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I'm curious how you define "barely worth".

As in a few hundred people. The facility itself is important, but not exactly large. A few well placed explosives detonated at a critical time may well be enough.

Originally Posted by Webstral

Do you believe that the Soviets are afraid of angering Australia in the midst of an East-West nuclear exchange?

Afraid? Of course not. But bringing in yet another country on the enemy side is never a good thing, especially when that country is not within easy striking distance and possesses a signifiant resource base to exploit.
During WWII, Australia's military grew larger than the population could support, even with rationing, etc. At the height of the war, contrary to all other combatant nations, Australia actually REDUCED their military so it would have enough manpower to feed the nation, etc.
I can't recall any other country in history ever having so many people voluntarily carrying arms full time that they couldn't feed themselves....
That fact alone is going to give pause to anyone planning an attack against Australia (though probably won't stop them by itself).

Originally Posted by Webstral

Do you believe the Soviets will struggle to get a warhead on target? Do you believe the Soviets are rationing their thousands of nuclear warheads and/or missiles? Do you believe that the administrative effort of ordering a strike on Australia would be taxing on the Soviet leadership?

No, I'm simply questioning the need to use a nuke when other more efficent options (such as a Spetnaz type unit) may be available. Unlike a nuke, a team on the ground can be reused time and time again (provided they're not caught of course).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Targan

... Perhaps this "Marine Assault Regiment" would be a third Commando Regiment, specialising in amphibious assault? This third Commando Regiment would be all-regular the amphibious assault role could cycle between 2 Cdo Regt and 3 Cdo Regt (with a two or three year rotation instead of the 12 month rotation followed by the SASR's Sabre Squadrons).

The Commando units in Australia were organized for amphibious warfare since the 1950s albeit in much smaller operations than say a British or French Marine type unit let alone the scale that the USA or USSR could organize.

[RN7]

First to address RN7's post, with the Merc: 2000 situation.
Australia and the UK would be operating Milan as their ATGW and not a US system. I am fairly certain that the Javelin ATGW was not obtained by either nation until the early 2000s.

Well I was talking about current Australian small arms not Cold War equipment, so both Australia and Britain would be using the Franco-German Milan system.

As for the Abrams and Bradleys, I think it was just a lucky guess that GDW picked the Abrams as MBTs for Australia, certainly the decision wasn't really made to buy them until long after the game books were published. The thinking of the time was that we were probably going to buy the Leopard 2 or perhaps the Challenger to replace the Leopard 1. The Abrams was not a good choice for the Australian Army but it was a very good for the Australian government.

What the Aussie Army wanted and what the Aussie government wanted where and probably still are entirely different things. The Challenger 1 or 2 was probably overlooked despite a tradition of British tanks in Australian service dating to well before WW2. I sence a cynical bias against all things British in Australian government circles and maybe some military circles as well, and it also occurs in Ireland were I'm from, despite the fact that British equipment may sometimes be the best suited for its needs. The Leopard 2 would be a logical choice to replace the Leopard 1, so the Abrams was a bit of a suprise.

[ChalkLine]

I'm not a fan of the M1 tanks but this isn't what happened. Simply put, the best tank in the world at the moment is the M1 tank. It's not as far ahead as many of its fans think it is, but it is the best.

However, you need to have the vast US logistics train behind it for it to work at its full potential, which we don't have and never will unless we operate under the US umbrella.

The government that bought was happy to because the centre-right government in Australia is very 'big and powerful friends' orientated, and really seems a little insecure about being an independent second (or even third) rank power. Just because you're not the baddest bastard on the block doesn't mean we should be hiding behind US skirts, but I'm letting my politics intrude.

The grunts wanted the Abrams because they're very, very survivable. Having few tanks means that more of the enemy's AT arsenal gets directed at the tanks that you have, The Abrams is aimed not just at battlefield lethality (at which it excels) but also at crew life expectancy. The whole third generation of tanks is like this but the Abrams adds interoperability with our US friends and an access to parts we'd never be able to manufacture ourselves.

That said, expect Australian Abrams to diverge rapidly away from the US model. We never leave anything like we bought it, and our Leopards are a unique vehicle themselves.

[RN7]

But they aren't due to be in service until 2013. In the T2K timeline this suggested HMAS Perth (ex-USS Peleliu) would have to be purchased, modified/refitted and commissioned by the RAN all during the early to mid 1990s (20 years before 2013). Add to that the need to select and purchase the aircraft it carries and train all the required personnel.

Well I knew that but you did say...

That would involve taking Australia's levels of defence spending to to whole new level.

Their doing it now despite the demise of the Soviet Union. Also Australia nearly bought the British HMS Invicible in the early 1980's before the Falklands War. They planned to use it as a helicopter carrier with embarked Sea King and Wessex helicopters to replace the then decommisioned HMAS Melbourne. Australia never officially planned to buy Harriers or Sea Harriers but they certainly could have been embarked.

Also, of the five Tarawa class vessels why would the USN decommission and sell off the Peleliu (unless in Millenium's End the USN decommissioned all five). IRL the USS Tarawa, USS Saipan and USS Belleau Wood were decommissioned in 2009, 2007 and 2005 respectively. USS Tarawa and USS Saipan are part of the inactive fleet but could be returned to service. USS Belleau Wood was sunk as part of the 2006 RIMPAC exercise but could easily have been sold off instead. IRL USS Nassau and USS Peleliu are still in service with the USN.

I have no idea but in Millenium's End the Australian's obviously needed a carrier and the USN had a few to spare and transfered it to Australia, probably for a lot of Aussie dollars. In Millenium's End the USN also mothballed its nuclear powered carriers. Why? I dunno.

Perhaps this "Marine Assault Regiment" would be a third Commando Regiment, specialising in amphibious assault? This third Commando Regiment would be all-regular the amphibious assault role could cycle between 2 Cdo Regt and 3 Cdo Regt (with a two or three year rotation instead of the 12 month rotation followed by the SASR's Sabre Squadrons).

Could be.

[RN7]

I'm not a fan of the M1 tanks but this isn't what happened. Simply put, the best tank in the world at the moment is the M1 tank. It's not as far ahead as many of its fans think it is, but it is the best.

I think the British Challenger 2 may be arguably the best of the lot, and I think certainly is the best protected. I could be wrong but to my knowledge none have been lost to enemy fire, and a few have survived almost unscathed from mass attacks in Iraq.

[ChalkLine]

They use Chobham+ (Renford Armour from memory?)

The problem is that that the UK doesn't have the lift ability that the US does in a crisis. If we get involved in a general conflict we will be on the side of the USA unless something really, really odd happens. If we get in a regional one it is likely that the US will intervene. If for some reason, like Timor Leste, the US is busy elsewhere they will still have lift available to ship stuff overseas. Finally, if the US can't lift it, no one is capable and we're well and truly stuffed

The big problem, in my uneducated but opinionated opinion, with the M1 is the mileage. We haven't got the ability to fuel the beasts with as much fuel as they need in a theatre sense. We run the risk of a smart enemy, and if you bank on your enemy being dumb you're already half way to losing, a smart enemy will strike at our under developed strategic fuel transport system and not have to worry about fighting the actual tanks. The US and other first order combatants don't have to worry about that, they can take losses in their strategic logistics and still win a war. We don't have that option.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

I think the British Challenger 2 may be arguably the best of the lot, and I think certainly is the best protected.

I tend to agree with you on that.

The milage problem is one all modern tanks face. Weighing in around and average of 50-60 tonnes they're all going to chew through the fuel and from that viewpoint alone, only the wealthier, more developed countries are ever likely to employ them.

As for Australia using tanks, the last time any were deployed outside the country was back during the Vietnam war and we were still using Centurions. That situation is not likely to change any time soon partly due to the logistical issues, but also because there simply isn't any need for them in todays conflict zones. The M113's and LAVs (plus a few other vehicle types) we have used in East Timor, Iraq and Afganistan have, on the whole, been sufficent for the job.

Of course in a WWIII situation this is quite likely to change. If Australian troops were sent to Korea as part of the UN, it's likely some tanks would be sent along in support of the infantry. It is highly doubtful however that they would be involved in a war with Indonesia, at least not outside Australia's mainland borders.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The milage problem is one all modern tanks face. Weighing in around and average of 50-60 tonnes they're all going to chew through the fuel and from that viewpoint alone, only the wealthier, more developed countries are ever likely to employ them.

Going away from the original thread, I have a question. Wouldn't modern tank quickly become useless simply because of their weight? In a modern world, the 50-60 tons are definitely not a problem but with decaying bridges and rusting infrastructures everywhere, wouldn't they be stopped by every small river around?

After a few years of the twilight war, I don't really expect many bridges to be still capable of resisting such heavy weights.

Another question. How many time can last a M1A2 Abrams (even worse: a french Leclerc) without proper care and the vast technological support system to fix them?

Erf. I make a a thread of its own with that.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by RN7

What the Aussie Army wanted and what the Aussie government wanted where and probably still are entirely different things. The Challenger 1 or 2 was probably overlooked despite a tradition of British tanks in Australian service dating to well before WW2. I sence a cynical bias against all things British in Australian government circles and maybe some military circles as well, and it also occurs in Ireland were I'm from, despite the fact that British equipment may sometimes be the best suited for its needs. The Leopard 2 would be a logical choice to replace the Leopard 1, so the Abrams was a bit of a suprise.

Generally true and despite the numbers of US armoured vehicles in service during and just after WW2, Australia literally did nothing except "buy British" when replacements were chosen for those WW2 vehicles.
As for a bias against all things British, I do think that this is somewhat correct but not in the "We are anti-British" sense.
It was more that certain people in Defence wanted nothing but US equipment and they took every opportunity to push the pro-US agenda and rubbish the competitors, these same people argued that we "must have" the AH-64 even though it was overkill for our projected needs. This was more a "toys for the boys" mentality than a proper consideration of our military needs.
For the government it was a very measured decision, it strengthened our ties with the US and proclaimed some sense of future interoperability... but it also made us beholden to the US for not just the tanks themselves but also an upgrade of our logistics system that would not have been required with tanks that were more fuel efficient as we also had to buy heavy fuel tankers and heavy recovery vehicles for those tankers just to support the Abrams.

The heavy lift argument has somewhat diminished with the C-17 entering service with the RAAF and the Canberra Class amphibious ships coming into service in the next half a decade.
But other than that, Chalkline's statement (The government that bought was happy to because the centre-right government in Australia is very 'big and powerful friends' orientated, and really seems a little insecure about being an independent second (or even third) rank power.) is right on the mark.

The other aspect of the Abrams that was initially overlooked was their thermal signature compared to the competitor tanks. The engine heat from the Abrams stands out far more in thermal scans than the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 even against a background of 45-50 degree C ambient temperature that is common in Australia's north where the tanks are based.
The single aspect of the Abrams that stands in favour of them was that they would already be wired for network centric warfare whereas the other two would have to be upgraded.

I remember one article in an Australian defence magazine claiming that anything other than the Abrams was bordering on criminal negligence because, to paraphrase
...the Leopard 2 was nothing more than a development of the Leopard 1 and the Leopards have never fired a shot in anger and they are based on WW2 design philosophy.

Well, even in a respectable defence magazine, the truth is sometimes lacking The Leopard 2 and the Abrams are in fact related, sharing not just the main gun but also their pedigree. The Leopard 2 is not a development of the Leopard 1 as it (and the Abrams) was the result of the failed German-US MBT-70 tank project. Also, Danish Leopard 1 tanks have been involved in combat albeit minor (if you call being shot at with ATGWs minor) in former Yugoslavia. Yes it was not tank combat as such but they have fired shots in anger so to speak.
And finally, what modern tank today isn't based on design philosophies from WW2?! There are three principles governing armoured vehicle design and they never change; protection, mobility, firepower. Each design team chooses to promote one or two over the other but the design philosophy will always be based on those three elements. these three elements have never changed and are unlikely to ever do so, so you could argue that every tank is based on design philosophies not just from WW2, but from WW1!

I would argue that the claim of "best tank" is too subjective, the Abrams is not as well suited to Australian terrain/climate as say the Merkava but it is faster. It certainly is not as fuel efficient as the Leopard 2 but it is wired for network centric warfare whereas the Leopard 2 would have to be upgraded. The Abrams has arguably less all around protection than the Challenger 2 but not too much less and again, it is faster. The reality is Australia probably does not need tanks unless they are to be used as the centrepiece for combined arms groups but unfortunately we seem intent on thinking that we need tanks because we might get into a tank fight sometime down the road.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

And finally, what modern tank today isn't based on design philosophies from WW2?! There are three principles governing armoured vehicle design and they never change; protection, mobility, firepower. Each design team chooses to promote one or two over the other but the design philosophy will always be based on those three elements. these three elements have never changed and are unlikely to ever do so, so you could argue that every tank is based on design philosophies not just from WW2, but from WW1!

Actually these three principles date back to the first known armored vehicles, back to Mesopotamia (almost 3000 years ago). The only thing before ww1 is that such vehicles were all ultimately abandonned because of their poor mobility.

No need to argue, just a digression.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

As in a few hundred people. The facility itself is important, but not exactly large. A few well placed explosives detonated at a critical time may well be enough.

Delivered how? Aircraft, surface ships, and submarines approaching Australia's coastline are far more vulnerable to interception than a ballistic missile. A ballistic missile is quick, easy, and painless--at least from the Soviet point of view. Commandos, on the other hand, are valuable assets.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Afraid? Of course not. But bringing in yet another country on the enemy side is never a good thing, especially when that country is not within easy striking distance and possesses a signifiant resource base to exploit.
During WWII, Australia's military grew larger than the population could support, even with rationing, etc. At the height of the war, contrary to all other combatant nations, Australia actually REDUCED their military so it would have enough manpower to feed the nation, etc.
I can't recall any other country in history ever having so many people voluntarily carrying arms full time that they couldn't feed themselves....
That fact alone is going to give pause to anyone planning an attack against Australia (though probably won't stop them by itself).

That's exactly what strategic surgical strike is supposed to prevent. Why hope that a member of an alliance with the United States will sit on the sidelines ad infinitum when a handful of already paid-for ICBM and their warheads can take the guesswork and diplomacy out of the equation?[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

No, I'm simply questioning the need to use a nuke when other more efficent options (such as a Spetnaz type unit) may be available. Unlike a nuke, a team on the ground can be reused time and time again (provided they're not caught of course).

It's true that the Spetznaz offer a superior degree of precision. You don't knock nations out of war with commando raids, though. You knock nations out of a war by destroying their production facilities, their military facilities, and their power generation. The Soviets built a truly gratuitous armory of nuclear warheads (in a variety of sizes and colors) and missiles (in a variety of ranges and carrying capacities) so that they would have the option of attacking hard-to-reach targets at long range. (The US also assembled a gratuitous armory for exactly the same purpose.)

The very existence of a fully functional Australia furthers the aims of the Western powers. This is the way the Soviets will see it, at any rate. If Australia has sat on the sidelines until 1997 (an idea I question, but I'm not familiar with any canon material on Australia), then her military and industrial capabilities represents a very useful strategic reserve for ANZUS and, in effect, the Western Allies. The Soviets have no good reason to leave Australia unscathed and plenty of good reasons to ensure that a member of the Western Alliance is not in a position to cause mischief in the Pacific.

Webstral

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

It'd be madness for the USSR to nuke Australia unless a US warship is in port or they hit the telemetry stations at Pine Gap or North West Cape. Everything else is far less unimportant than tasking more warheads to critical European and US targets where the initial warheads may not get through.

How would it be madness? Any form of retaliation Australia might mete out to the Soviets or their satellites is exactly the sort of thing a modest nuclear strike would be intended to prevent.

[QUOTE=ChalkLine;13921]It's all academic anyway. Both systems were designed that once confirmed nuke launches or strikes were observed the arsenals were immediately launched, because otherwise they would risk being destroyed in their silos. The crews knew they would be dead shortly anyway.
QUOTE]

Simply not true. If this were the case, we'd have been incinerated already due to the number of false alarms--some of them extremely convincing. In any event, the idea of massive automatic retaliation takes the fate of nations out of the hands of exactly the kinds of people who prefer to make important decisions themselves. The US (and presumably the other nuclear powers as well) haven't invested literally billions in communications so that a general can call up the President and tell him, "You're ******, sir. Sorry, you don't get a say. It's all automatic." It's a fact that some aspects of the system are automated. It's not a fact that the President gets no say.

Webstral

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Webstral

How would it be madness? Any form of retaliation Australia might mete out to the Soviets or their satellites is exactly the sort of thing a modest nuclear strike would be intended to prevent.

Web, I think you may have misunderstood me. This is exactly what I'm saying.

Australia is so militarily insignificant in a USA/USSR war that any expenditure on targets there is a waste of resources.

The US has the only credible NATO ABM system, so you have to multitarget the same area as many times as you can to overwhelm defences. You send not 16 MIRVs at a US target, you sent 16 ICBMs with 16 MIRVs each at one to ensure you get a penetration.

Everyone goes on about the 3000 warheads the USSR has, but that's actually not as many missiles as you'd think. For target saturation you strike and strike again.

Don't forget, once you launch you're going to lose your targeting capability within ten minutes. There's no time to say 'bugger, target x didn't get hit' and task a few more missiles at it.

[Mohoender]

Sorry to say that but Web you are wrong despite having the wisest thinking. Australia can't be hit by nukes during the Twilight War (New Zealand even less).

- Following how the war is set up, the Soviets have lost their pacific fleet (not the case for US, however). I doubt that the US navy/Japanese navy (respectively 1st and 3rd navy in the world) would forget a single Soviet sub. Moreover, these Soviet subs would target US as a priority (as you said Australia can't hit you back).
- Australia is simply out of range (someone mentioned that loosely already but we overlooked that, me included).

At most, the Soviet can make the Australian desert glow in the dark. Aborigines and Kangaroos might be wiped out and the Soviets will have solve Australia's problems with wild horses and ferral camels.

Here is a small review of Soviet ICBM range to compare with Australia/New Zealand cities distances to the Soviet Union southern border (There are no ICBM bases directly on that border by the way: add 500/1.000km to the cities distances). That puts two cities within extreme range: Darwin (Crocodile Dundee is gone along with 50.000 Aussies) and eventually Perth (Sorry Targan but you are glowing in the dark). The most the Soviets will get out of this is a full commitment of an intact Australia to the war (about 3 million troops if you include male/female motivated by anger alone).

RT-23UTTKh Molodets (SS-24) : 10.450km
MR-UR-100 (SS-17) : 11.000km
R-36M/M2 Voyevoda (SS-18) : 11.000km/16.000km (only with 20Mt warhead solely targeted at US ICBM bases…)
RT-2P (SS-13) : 9.500km
RT-2PM Topol (SS-25) : 10.500km
UR-100N (SS-19) : 10.000km

Distance to Soviet Southern Border
Adelaide 10.500km
Brisbane 10.500km
Canberra 11.000km
Darwin 8.000km
Melbourne 11.500km
Perth 9.500km
Sydney 11.000km

Auckland 12.500km
Wellington 13.000km

You might be back to the Spetnaz raid advocated by Leg but that's doubtful as well: they would have to swim a F... Long Way.

One conclusion, T2K team was right, Soviets always considered Australia to be insignificant. More seriously, Australia without Europe and US is simply no threat except may be to penguins occupying Antartica. Of course, Soviets have plenty of missiles and warheads but they can't deliver them that far.

I might have the end word on that one (no false modesty but take a map and measure distances)

[Rainbow Six]

If you're strictly observing canon, isn't Australia co operating with France? It's been a while since I looked at my copy of Twiilight Encounters but I seem to remember there was a scenario entitled "What's the Polish for G'day?" that had a squad of Australian SAS troopers in Poland who had got there on a French submarine? I know the whole scenario was meant to be a little out of the ordinary and quite vague on detail but wasn't there a reference in that about France and Australia forming a "League of non irradiated nations"?

Also, someone at one point in time posted a write up on a website about a group of troops from Australia, NZ, and the Pacific Islands who had been in Europe and North Africa on various UN missions at the outbreak of War and were now serving as a Brigade unit in Germany. Sorry, but I can't for the life of me find the link. It was non canon obviously.

Good discussion btw...I'm enjoying reading it.

Cheers

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

You might be back to the Spetnaz raid advocated by Leg but that's doubtful as well: they would have to swim a F... Long Way.

Give the Spetznaz a suitcase nuke and Australia still gets nuked

Or, rather than Spetznaz, who probably are in greater need elsewhere (plus it does sound a bit like a suicide mission for spetznaz), a lone KGB agent operating under deep cover could do the same job and then blend back in to the population afterwards?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Give the Spetznaz a suitcase nuke and Australia still gets nuked

Or, rather than Spetznaz, who probably are in greater need elsewhere (plus it does sound a bit like a suicide mission for spetznaz), a lone KGB agent operating under deep cover could do the same job and then blend back in to the population afterwards?

Would certainly make for an interesting game scenario with a lot of opportunity for long campaign tracking down the badguys.

I am, however, in full agreement with Webstral. I don't for a second believe that the quite significant US communications abilities found in at least two places in Australia (Pine Gap and Harold E. Holt AKA North-West Cape), would be ignored by the Soviets simply because they are out of range of Soviet land-based missiles.

After some discussion with friends who were more into Twilight: 2000 than I ever was (my primary interest is in the Cold War) I believe that the 'Australia invaded by Indonesia' scenario was an alternate history by a fellow Australian called Damian. None of us recall his full name but we are reasonably sure he had a website with the information and that he lived in Queensland.

Anyway, to throw out some more information, particularly for Mohoender...
http://www.geocities.com/lucktam/awacs/p3aew.htm A short page about the P-3 AEW plane

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

- Following how the war is set up, the Soviets have lost their pacific fleet (not the case for US, however). I doubt that the US navy/Japanese navy (respectively 1st and 3rd navy in the world) would forget a single Soviet sub.

I disagree. There is virtually nothing written about the naval events in the Pacific. Anything anyone says on the matter is merely opinion and any outcome you want can be said on the matter.

Not only that but, thinking about it a little more, we know that it isn't true because there were Soviet surface ships running around the Pacific in 1999, well after the nuclear exchange (Satellite Down).

There is a possibility subs could have been lurking within range of Australia in 1997.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

If you're strictly observing canon, isn't Australia co operating with France?

I never got much on Australia per cannon and don't read scenarios. Possibly.

[Rainbow Six]

Just a passing thought...

I've read somewhere that during the Falklands War the Royal Navy warship that was stationed in the Caribbean was replaced by a Royal New Zealand Navy ship so that the Royal Navy ship could join the South Atlantic Task Force.

Would have thought that if Australia / NZ remained non combatant during the Twilight War (or at least the opening phases) it's possible that such a thing might be repeated and Australian and New Zealand warships might relieve NATO vessels in areas away from the active theatres (such as the Faklands) to allow the NATO vessels to redeploy to those active theatres?

Potentially this might mean that by the year 2000 Australian and New Zealand warships might be found many thousands of miles from home? Imagine the look on the faces of pirates in the caribbean finding themselves under attack by the Royal Australian or New Zealand Navies....

[Targan]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

After some discussion with friends who were more into Twilight: 2000 than I ever was (my primary interest is in the Cold War) I believe that the 'Australia invaded by Indonesia' scenario was an alternate history by a fellow Australian called Damian. None of us recall his full name but we are reasonably sure he had a website with the information and that he lived in Queensland.

According to the Traveller 2300 timeline (which is theoretically T2K v.1 canon) Darwin and Cape York were occupied at one stage by Indonesia. That may have been after the Twilight War though, I don't have my T2300 books at hand to check.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

If you're strictly observing canon, isn't Australia co operating with France? It's been a while since I looked at my copy of Twiilight Encounters but I seem to remember there was a scenario entitled "What's the Polish for G'day?" that had a squad of Australian SAS troopers in Poland who had got there on a French submarine? I know the whole scenario was meant to be a little out of the ordinary and quite vague on detail but wasn't there a reference in that about France and Australia forming a "League of non irradiated nations"?

I think it is possible that Australia took a pragmatic approach in its relationship with France, much as the two rival US governments' commanders in the Persian Gulf did.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Also, someone at one point in time posted a write up on a website about a group of troops from Australia, NZ, and the Pacific Islands who had been in Europe and North Africa on various UN missions at the outbreak of War and were now serving as a Brigade unit in Germany. Sorry, but I can't for the life of me find the link. It was non canon obviously.

I have attached a word document with this article. Sorry that I haven't included attribution to the author but I don't know its source.

[RN7]

They use Chobham+ (Renford Armour from memory?)

I think they call the 2nd generation Chobham armour on the Challenger 2 Dorchester. Its certainly very tough, only one tank has been destroyed in action, and that was in a friendly fire incident when it was hit from another British Challenger 2.

In one encounter in Iraq a Challenger 2 came under attack in an urban area. Despite damage to the driver's sight and throwing its tracks, and being hit directly by eight RPG's at close range and a MILAN ATGM, and being under fire from heavy small arms fire for hours, the crew survived safely and the tank was back in operation six hours later after repairs. Another Challenger 2 survived being hit by 70 RPGs with little damage.

I think the Challenger 2s 120mm/55 L30A1 rifled tank gun is also the longest ranged of any western tank gun, and may hold the record for the longest kill by a tank. Although the Rheinmetall L55 120mm/55 smoothbore gun used in the German Leopard 2A6 has proven slightly superior in penetration when fitted with Tungsten rounds versus the Challenger 2's DU rounds.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Sorry to say that but Web you are wrong despite having the wisest thinking. Australia can't be hit by nukes during the Twilight War (New Zealand even less).

One conclusion, T2K team was right, Soviets always considered Australia to be insignificant. More seriously, Australia without Europe and US is simply no threat except may be to penguins occupying Antartica. Of course, Soviets have plenty of missiles and warheads but they can't deliver them that far.

I might have the end word on that one (no false modesty but take a map and measure distances)

Sorry, Mo, but you are wrong despite some very good and very reasonable number crunching for land-based ICBM. You blithely assume that American attack boats sink every Soviet boomer that might come within range of Australia before November 1997. Even I, an unapologetic booster for the USN, would not go this far. Since the land-based missiles are adequate for the task of hitting CONUS, a single boomer operating in the Indian Ocean or South Pacific could supply all of the nukes needed to ensure that Australia gets put in the same category as the US or the other Western allies.

Australia may not have the largest industrial base in the Western world, but she's hardly a Third World country. Australia may not have the largest oil reserves in the world, but she has mineral wealth. Australia may not be the world's bread basket, but as of 1997 she is a net exporter of grains. These are strategic assets. It doesn't take very many nukes to disrupt the fabric of modern society, whereas leaving Australia's resource and production base fully functional is needlessly risky. Who knows how Australian aid might speed American recovery? One or two MIRV-capable missiles ought to do the job, leaving plenty for the launching boomer to continue other missions.

Again, I hope my Australian cousins don't take offense that I am pushing for an acceptance of nuclear incineration for hundreds of thousands of Australians and major disruption of the nation.

Webstral

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Targan

I have attached a word document with this article. Sorry that I haven't included attribution to the author but I don't know its source.

Yep, that's the one. Unfortunately, like yourself I have no clue who the original author was.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I've read somewhere that during the Falklands War the Royal Navy warship that was stationed in the Caribbean was replaced by a Royal New Zealand Navy ship so that the Royal Navy ship could join the South Atlantic Task Force.

Would have thought that if Australia / NZ remained non combatant during the Twilight War (or at least the opening phases) it's possible that such a thing might be repeated and Australian and New Zealand warships might relieve NATO vessels in areas away from the active theatres (such as the Faklands) to allow the NATO vessels to redeploy to those active theatres?

Potentially this might mean that by the year 2000 Australian and New Zealand warships might be found many thousands of miles from home? Imagine the look on the faces of pirates in the caribbean finding themselves under attack by the Royal Australian or New Zealand Navies....

I've always thought that Australian and New Zealand forces would have fought in the Korean and/or Korean theatres during the Twilight War (but I can't be sure that I actually read it in canon).

In addition it seems a certainty to me that the RAN and RNZN would be engaged in patrolling the sea lanes in the Indian Ocean (to try to keep the fuel shipments safe from the Persian Gulf) as well as the South Pacific and South China Sea.

There is a specific mention in the Nautical/Aviation Sourcebook of a multinational UN peacekeeping force, which included Australians, being deployed in Sri Lanka between 1993 and the Twilight War.