Australia Twilight War & After...

[Olefin]

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

[James Langham]

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.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by James Langham

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.

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.

[Olefin]

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)

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Olefin

(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)

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.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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

V2.x is a direct cut and paste from V1 for the most part. V2.x has only expanded on V1 and made a handful of adjustments to account for changes in equipment (the LAV-75/M8 for example). As far as the timelines are concerned. There's almost NO difference from November 1996.

Originally Posted by Olefin

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

Nope, try a platoon at best, and they certainly won't be sent anywhere after war with Indonesia breaks out, and even before then won't be sent to remote places such as Kenya where Australia has absolutely no interests to worry about.

Originally Posted by Olefin

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

We manage. Sometimes not well due to political interference, but when tensions increase, refugee boats tend to get "accidentally" sunk. Our greatest defence against an influx of refugees is the vast empty deserts refugees are likely to encounter. They may make it here, but it's extremely unlikely they'll survive long if they're not picked up by the authorities.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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.

Yes, Slouch hat is the correct term.
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.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

I seem to recall the question of Australian / New Zealand (and other Commonwealth troops) fighting in the Twilight War under UK command has come up a few times before. Leg is spot on - the nature of the relationship between the UK and the Commonwealth has changed significantly since WWII and the days of Empire. With the exception of a handful of British overseas territories (such asthe Falklands) Commonwealth members are all independent States who would be under no obligation to get involved in the War (with the obvious exception of Canada, which is a member of NATO as well as the Commonwealth). Where Australian soldiers are serving overseas (including Korea) I agree that it would be under the auspices of the UN.

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.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

... 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.

Just to add further weight to this, I work with a guy who used to be a senior radar operator in the RAN. In 1982 the ship he was on was tasked to take over the Hong Kong patrol (or whatever it's called) to free up the RN frigate that was stationed there so it could join the Falklands taskforce.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

... 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.

While we weren't doing this in the timeframe of the Twilight War, we could have been producing light armoured vehicles. The facilities existed and the precedent had already been set in WW2 when we needed tanks and couldn't get them so we designed and manufactured the Sentinel cruiser tank. In 1996 British Aerospace Australian had the rights to the Shorland armoured car design. There was never enough demand for them so manufacture never commenced.

[Olefin]

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.

[Olefin]

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.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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.

Afghanistan is not a good basis for comparison, it's nothing like the commitment we'd have with the Twilight War (we can concentrate resources in Afghanistan that would not be available in the Twilight War).
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.

[Webstral]

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.