![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think it also comes down to what is canon - I use the original release as canon so version 2.0 or 2.2 isnt canon to me anymor than 2013 is
I will take a look at the challenge articles - thanks for the heads up on those Leg! (by the way I hope you dont take offense at my using Leg - if you want I can use the full Legbreaker) And I also agree with you that Australian forces overseas will be either volunteers who went to serve with British units or will be small in size - i.e. a battalion at most, posssibly just scattered companies face it - even if they dont get into a shooting war with Indonesia they have a lot of coastline to patrol and a lot of refugees who will be trying to get there |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The most likely Australians to be in Europe are in the British Army as part of the "Commonwealth Soldier" programme that would have been about 10% of the Army by 1995. Gives scope for a few fun characters.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Could be a few exchange personnel here and there as well. I remember an issue of "Soldier" magazine not long after Gulf War 1 that had a picture of an Australian officer in Aussie camo uniform and slouch hat (is that the right term?) who had served with the 1st UK Armoured Division during its drive into Iraq.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Actually Vietnam may have been an afterthought in the GDW timeline - those three divisions sent there looked awfully tacked on the way they are presented
as if they forgto them earlier and put them there intending to have a module deal with them (possibly a Southeast Asia one involving Australia, Indonesia and Vietnam) and then never got it released Considering how far out on a limb those troops are you would figure they would have been nuked for sure by the Chinese or the US - but they never got touched. (and frankly you would think the US would love to nuke northern Vietnam in a "lets get even with those SOB's" kind of event but we can say its really to get those pesky Russians) |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Agreed. The nuclear exchange is the opportunity for the US to settle the score once and for all. What Agent Orange failed to do, 20-30 megatons distributed liberally across Vietnam might accomplish. Payback is a b****, the Joint Chiefs might say.
__________________
"We're not innovating. We're selectively imitating." June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
WWIII is a lot different to WWII. 70 years ago, Australia still had a lot of emotional ties to the UK, today that's a distant memory for the most part. This is due mainly to the inability of the UK to assist Australia against the Japanese and Australia building closer defence ties with the US. There will always be a few exchanges of officers and NCOs (there was a British Captain attached to my unit back in '91), but they're fairly few and far between - maybe one in a thousand. Given Australia's current regular army numbers just 30,000 personnel, we're talking about 30 on exchange. Add in Naval and RAAF and it's 59,000, so maybe 60 or so on exchange. And that's world wide, not just to the UK. Come WWIII a few observers may be deployed, and the 2.x Nautical & Aviation book has Australian UN peacekeepers in Cyprus, but besides that and the Australians mentioned as being in Korea (probably UN also) Australia simply doesn't have the manpower available, especially with the Indonesian conflict closer to home. And besides small arms production and ship building, I don't believe we have any serious military industrial capacity. We're not going to be producing tanks, APCs, artillery, missiles, etc to equip additional forces (light infantry is the best we could manage). We don't even have enough APCs now to go around the reserve units (usually a single Squadron has to service an entire infantry Brigade) - most of the heavier equipment (rightly) being with the regular army.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
What you might see are ANZAC troops undertaking UN duties that would normally have been done by the UK to allow the UK troops to be deployed elsewhere - for example Leg references Australian forces in Cyprus. The UK usually has a number of troops assigned to UN duties in Cyprus (in addition to the Sovereign Base garrisons) - it's possible the Australians may have agreed to send some troops to Cyprus so the British forces could be sent elsewhere. There is past precedent for this - during the Falklands War the Royal New Zealand Navy took over the Royal Navy's Caribbean patrol so the RN ship tasked with that duty could join the South Atlantic Task Force.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I agree with much of what you said Leg but I think they will send more like company size based on their current dispositions in Afghanistan. May be as little as an MP company or a single infantry company but you dont use the fuel it takes to send men over for just 30 men.
And Australia does have good production facilities for ships and subs - i.e. the current series of frigates and the Collins subs. So that could be where they prove beneficial to the US - as a place to repair their ships and refit them. It could be where the special US/Australian relationships comes from that was in 2300AD. I.e. keeping the USN in business (especially if the US helped with Indonesia) was where it all started. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
By the way - starting to put down some words on screen (who puts down words on paper anymore by the way?) about the Papuan New Guinea armed forces and a possible start to an Indonesian Australian War based on Papua New Guinea with Australian help doing an all out offensive to end the secession in Bougainville in early 1997 - and leaving themselves wide open to the Indonesians invading, thus starting that conflict.
Definitely a start in looking at an area that really wasnt in the game at all - and could make a great area for adventuring in 2000-2001 time period for Australian and New Zealand characters. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
However, I agree that it simply would not be worth the fuel to send anything smaller than a Company anywhere. Our Military Police don't operate in the same manner as US Army MP Companies do, the MPs are usually sent in small groups to where ever they are required. They don't have the assets or personnel to do something like convoy escort like the US MPs do. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Regarding the apparent inequality of Soviet nuclear distribution, I think it's fair to have a look at how we hung the Turks, Jugoslavs, and Romanians out to dry once the tactical exchange began as a rationale for why Australia got hit. Once the Soviets get the idea that the US isn't going to stand up for all the allies equally, the equation changes. Just look at the treatment Canada gets. Is GDW making a very unfavorable statement about the US and her willingness to stand up for her allies in the worst circumstances? Quite possibly. Alternatively, the nuclear exchange logic might be that an attack on Canada merits an attack on Czechoslovakia; an attack on Australia merits an attack on Vietnam. If so, then the Soviets have every reason to cut Australia's throat and dump the body in the river. What do they have to lose, really? Anyway, these are just speculations.
__________________
"We're not innovating. We're selectively imitating." June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998. |
![]() |
Tags |
australia |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|