Australia Twilight War & After...

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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.

My mistake on that one, confused probably with something else. Nevertheless, given the US fleet in the Middle East the US still has some means of action while the fleet in the Atlantic is shatered.

For SSBN, the Soviets IRL at the time of T2K had at most 20 SSBN in the Pacific. 1/2 Delta and 1/2 Yankee carrying SS-N-8 (7000 km range) and SS-N-6 (2400km range) respectively. Having one sailing in Range of Australia is not that obvious, especially as these subs are much needed for retaliation on the US.

Moreover, giving the naval odd in the Pacific, having one closing unoticed within range of Australia is almost impossible (unless you consider, that US, China, Japan, Taiwan, Australia... are simply leaving the Soviet navy wander freely in the Pacific. What you say on soviet didn't escape the West and that may well be the reason explaining these comm centers down there). Sorry but if the Soviet forces in the Atlantic are more or less matching NATO, the Soviet Naval forces in the Pacific are fighting 1 out of 10.

A Soviet SSBN might get lucky but doing this on purpose, I doubt it. This sub would have to sail from 7000-10000 km in a fully hostile ocean. No support ships, no air cover, constantly chased down by hostile subs, destroyers, carriers, aircrafts and even petty boats. US was operating from Okinawa, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, California... Why would you waste such a valuable asset when you need to hit your only true threat.

However, rumors states that the Soviets were pretty much advanced with EMP tech. If I were them I would try that instead. It would not destroy Australia, but it would disrupt the comm capablity when needed.

I agree with all of you that Australians target will be in the mind of Soviets but they are out of reach, simply and physically out of reach. By the way, how big was Pine Gap at the time (it seems that it wasn't fully grown until 1999)?

Of course, if you want so much nuking Australia, you can make a scenario for it. A lost Yankee, firing at it because it had no other target. Here are some sources but I'm not sure they are that convincing. The second document seems interesting but doesn't adress the problem of range. The last element is off-topic but I put for fun.

http://www.aussurvivalist.com/nuclear/index.htm
http://www.reasoninrevolt.net.au/pdf/a000700.pdf
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_12...5/00054746.pdf

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

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.

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.

The US ABM system in existence as of 1997 is sited to protect the missile silos in the Dakotas. If you're not attacking the silos, you don't have to worry about having your missiles intercepted. The v1 chronology specifically states that neither side attacks the land-based ICBM of the other side. Missile failure and accuracy issues still apply, but interception isn't a a real issue for the Soviet surgical nuclear strike. If your first attack experiences a malfunction, you have the option of a follow-up later on.

You're right that in an all-out exchange each side ought to target multiple missiles and/or reentry vehicles on each target to ensure destruction. Twilight: 2000 isn't about an all-out exchange. At the very heart of the game is the idea that everyone is terrified of exactly the situation you are describing; therefore, each nuclear use is intended to give the using side a little advantage. No one wants to destroy all human life, but neither the US nor the USSR can walk away from using just a couple more nukes to "redress" the situation until both nations (and global civilization) have been crippled. There are other games oriented around MAD gone wrong, but Twilight: 2000 has always been about a world knocked on its fourth point of contact without being hacked into hamburger.

Webstral

[RN7]

Accoring to GDW 2300AD Earth/Cybetech sourcebook the Twilight War heavily damaged Australia.

" Following the nuclear exchanges of 1997, Australia all but ceased to exist as a nation. 30% of the population perished in the first nuclear strike, which also accounted for the destruction of Australia's industrial base and oil refining capacity. With its government left powerless and its economy destroyed, Australia slipped in chaos.

For the next 40 years, the only cohesive force on the entire Australian continent was the Australian military. Australian troops established cantonments in New South Wales, Victoria, and the cities of Darwin in the north and Fremantle on the west coast. These forces regulated food production and distribution inside their cantonments but abandoned the regions outside."

So unfortunately Australia didn't either survive the war in good shape, and there is also no mention of a war with Indonesia.

A side effect of the Twilight War was the later independence of Tasmania from Australia, and the development of an independent and aparthied state in northern Queensland which also controlled much of Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea is later assimilated by northern Queensland, and the name of the state is changed to Papua as the majority of the population are ethnically Papuan.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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.
Webstral

No I just wasn't precise enough. I didn't count the boomers. I agree they are still a possiblity but they must be lucky as there are not enough of them facing too many ships and aircrafts. I also forgot you had boomers in mind, my mistake (hé hé).

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by RN7

Accoring to GDW 2300AD Earth/Cybetech sourcebook the Twilight War heavily damaged Australia.

Ok but I'm playing T2K (and don't care about GDW2300AD) and the two games are simply contradicting themselves as T2K states exactly the opposite. As ourselves, the authors serve their purpose.

[RN7]

Ok but I'm playing T2K (and don't care about GDW2300AD) and the two games are simply contradicting themselves as T2K states exactly the opposite. As ourselves, the authors serve their purpose.

Well if you have any information on how Australia was effected in the Twilight war then lets hear it.

[jester]

The land of Oz and nukes:

As Web said, yep you would get it!

You are a regional power. And thus a threat. Ivan has tons of nukes and the reality is, many targets have multiple warheads for redundancy sakes. A mirv, well, each rocket has X mumber of warheads and each one is programable for a different target. 1 missile in your direction landing half a dozen warheads would be enough.

You are a line of communication and a floating aircraft carrier, port and shipping facilities those factors alone would make you a nice juicy target.

And your folks in New Zealand would also be on the list as well for the same reason. A base of operation for any other allied nation to operate out of or even for their damaged vessels to head to after attacks by submarines, aircraft and comerce raiders per the Marines heading to Korea.

As for a Speitznaz unit verses a nuclear attack. That would make for a cool campaign. But, selecting, training, equiping for operations and we are talking long term operations over wilderness and urban operations in a remote area, getting them into the region then deploying them to the target country and then inserting them into the target. That is going to take alot of logistics. And maintaining communications with the team to report mission success and assign new targets based on the equipment and personel left, the skills of the personel and the intel delivered.

And of course the whole escape and or evasion the team would have to manage after their first couple of raids when it was determined that there is a comando force operating in the area. And your areas are often open deserts, <As scenes from Bravo 2.0. and "The One That Got Away." flash into my head, that is what a team would be up against. The logistics, the chances of success, the resources needed and the cost would be something that would make it a lower priority than punching a code into a nuclear weapon and pushing "launch" or just adding it to the target list.

I mean, what base would the team deploy from? The Soviet Pacific Bases is the nearest. And the most likely method would be by submarine. Which would be risky with the sensor and active anti submarine operations. And then having them surfaced long enough to get the team and their equipment enough to conduct combat operations and to survive with, ashore. And enough diverse equipment to plan and accomplish any number of unknown missions so they are going to have to bring ALOT of gear, I would guess over two tons of equipment for a squad. Figure about 4 large packs per man when you are talking food,some water, radios, spare radios, batteries, demotlitions equipment, camoflauge equipment, medical kits, personal weapons, special weapons, ammunition, special mission essential items, spare equipment and items all to last for an unknown but extended period of time. And none of your missions are planned, so you must have all manner of gear to cover all methods of attack.

You would need a good ammount of redundancy as well, setting up caches incase your main camp was compromised as well as for convience. Its easier to move with just a combat harness and personal weapon move to a cache where your food, water and demo is then assault the target than to trek 30km with all your goods.

It can be done. But there is alot of risk, alot more uncertanty. Heck, a P3 Orion nail the submarine leaving port and the mission is over before they even touch land.

A better use of a small team like that is to have assets already in place studying the target, knowing the specific target what it is and predetermining how your are going to attack it. Then you land, spend less than a week on station studying, moving and attacking and then immediate extraction. That sort of mission you can get away with one pack per man in addition to specialty equipment for the mission.

Nope, nuking Oz is the best way.

[Targan]

I think the Traveller 2300 history follows on from the T2K 1st edition timeline. Had T2300's history been an extension of the T2k 2nd ed timeline it probably would have contained some significant differences.

It seems possible that if you extend out the T2K ist ed timeline Australia "slipped in(to) chaos" and suffered an Indonesian invasion in the decades following the Twilight War, whereas if you extend out the T2K 2nd ed timeline you don't have any canon info after 2001 but up until then Australia maintains some kind of governmental and social cohesion and successfully prosecutes a war with Indonesia.

[Targan]

I can accept that Australia would suffer a number of nuclear strikes during the Twilight War, but there is some hope that it could be less damaging than hoped for by Ivan. After all the extensive naval and military command facilities in and around Norfolk VA were the target of a Soviet MIRV (obviously intended to be a ground burst) but it went off course and created a quasi-tsunami instead of a giant glowing bowl of glass.

I would suggest that Australia would be as badly affected by EMP bursts as its western industrialised allies (precise targetting isn't really necessary when you want to deliver a high altitude nuclear detonation that will fry electronics across half a continent) but could get lucky with a few of its facilities and cities targeted by the Soviet Rocket Corps.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by jester

As for a Speitznaz unit verses a nuclear attack. That would make for a cool campaign. But, selecting, training, equiping for operations and we are talking long term operations over wilderness and urban operations in a remote area, getting them into the region then deploying them to the target country and then inserting them into the target. That is going to take alot of logistics. And maintaining communications with the team to report mission success and assign new targets based on the equipment and personel left, the skills of the personel and the intel delivered.

They would be russian head-long to their dooms (horrible pun I know but I couldn't help it). If the crocodiles and the brutal Australian environment didn't get the the Spetznaz first, NORFORCE would eventually detect their presence, track them, and finding them in a weakened and demoralised state, destroy them.

Originally Posted by jester

Nope, nuking Oz is the best way.

Sad but true . I respect your decision to tell it how it is despite the bitter flavour left in my mouth having read it .

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by RN7

Well if you have any information on how Australia was effected in the Twilight war then lets hear it.

RN7 you have not read the entirer thread. Post N°9 has what is written in v2.2. I know what we all think of cannon but as there are 3 different cannons..., often crontadicting each other (sometimes within each other). Your point is right about GDW 2300 but I never played, don't want to play and don't feel like playing it (just don't like futuristic Earth settings).

As a result, if you try to go by cannon the basic is simple: do as you want, like it is said on the back of the book: you are on your own.

At least we have a nice exchange and plenty of good and constructive ideas as we didn't have in some times. I like when we are arguing but keep it civil.

The last counter-argument by Webstral was a good one. His point on the lone boomer is the best you can get. I'll disagree only with one thing, given the types available, there is a good chance that it will not conduct any more missions. One more thing. As Alice Spring is within extreme range, there is no need to bother sending a boomer for the comm center.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by jester

You are a regional power. And thus a threat. Ivan has tons of nukes and the reality is, many targets have multiple warheads for redundancy sakes. A mirv, well, each rocket has X mumber of warheads and each one is programable for a different target. 1 missile in your direction landing half a dozen warheads would be enough.

3 at most given the boomer types with for half of them only 12 missiles.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

I can accept that Australia would suffer a number of nuclear strikes during the Twilight War, but there is some hope that it could be less damaging than hoped for by Ivan. After all the extensive naval and military command facilities in and around Norfolk VA were the target of a Soviet MIRV (obviously intended to be a ground burst) but it went off course and created a quasi-tsunami instead of a giant glowing bowl of glass.

I would suggest that Australia would be as badly affected by EMP bursts as its western industrialised allies (precise targetting isn't really necessary when you want to deliver a high altitude nuclear detonation that will fry electronics across half a continent) but could get lucky with a few of its facilities and cities targeted by the Soviet Rocket Corps.

Definitely agree to that. I agree with Jest/Web opinion that nuking is the best option. I merely say that giving the difficulties to achieve this, there is a good chance for it not to be carried out. At least 50/50.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by jester

I mean, what base would the team deploy from? The Soviet Pacific Bases is the nearest. And the most likely method would be by submarine. Which would be risky with the sensor and active anti submarine operations. And then having them surfaced long enough to get the team and their equipment enough to conduct combat operations and to survive with, ashore. And enough diverse equipment to plan and accomplish any number of unknown missions so they are going to have to bring ALOT of gear, I would guess over two tons of equipment for a squad. Figure about 4 large packs per man when you are talking food,some water, radios, spare radios, batteries, demotlitions equipment, camoflauge equipment, medical kits, personal weapons, special weapons, ammunition, special mission essential items, spare equipment and items all to last for an unknown but extended period of time. And none of your missions are planned, so you must have all manner of gear to cover all methods of attack.

Here Jester, you are fueling my point on the Boomer. I agree nuking is their best option but a risky and hazardous bet nonetheless.

[Mohoender]

One last point about this.

If I was to change my mind (and probably will), giving the wise points developped here, I would effectively target three locations in Australia (North Cape West, Pine Gap and Nurrungar). Each one of them hit by a single warhead SS-18 Satan as part of the US strategic targets (MIRV versions don't reach that far). Not many targets but 20-25Mt each: put your sunglasses on.

[RN7]

RN7 you have not read the entirer thread. Post N°9 has what is written in v2.2. I know what we all think of cannon but as there are 3 different cannons..., often crontadicting each other (sometimes within each other). Your point is right about GDW 2300 but I never played, don't want to play and don't feel like playing it (just don't like futuristic Earth settings).

Well I was just providing information that I read about Australia in the Twilight War, canon or not. You can feel free to contradict it anyway you like.

As a result, if you try to go by cannon the basic is simple: do as you want, like it is said on the back of the book: you are on your own.

I don't think that I'm alone in the view that Australia was damaged by Soviet nuclear strikes.

At least we have a nice exchange and plenty of good and constructive ideas as we didn't have in some times. I like when we are arguing but keep it civil.

Who's being uncivil?

The last counter-argument by Webstral was a good one. His point on the lone boomer is the best you can get. I'll disagree only with one thing, given the types available, there is a good chance that it will not conduct any more missions.

From what I've checked in the early to mid 1990s the USSR had 326 UR-100/SS-11 and 308 R-36/SS-18s. Darwin and northern Queensland seem to be well within the range of an UR-100/SS-11 launched from the Soviet Far Eastern bases of Svobodnyy, Gladkaya, Olavyannaya and Drovyanaya. While an R-36/SS-18 from Aleysk, Dombarovskiy, Imeni Gastello, Kartaly, Uzhur or Zhangiz Tobe could probably hit any location in Australia depending on the model, with the possible exception of Tasmania.

Would somebody with some more time on their hands than me at the moment like to verify the range of the Soviet SS-11 & SS-18 ICBM, and check the distances from Soviet silos in the Soviet Far East, Siberia and Central Asia to Australian cities and locations to confirm this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...e_Soviet_Union
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...a/icbm_fac.htm
http://www.mapcrow.info/cgi-bin/citi...sydney&cntry2=

[Mohoender]

I changed my text on Australia. I'll put the changes in Italic.

RN7 you took me wrong sorry about that.

[simonmark6]

English Teacher mediation here:

Mo does an excellent job in English, about a thousand times better than I could do in French.

What he said was: I like it when we argue but keep it civil.

Meaning: I like it when we can discuss issues in a civil manner.

Rather than: I like it when we argue, but keep it civil.

Which would suggest that he felt RAN was straying from the bounds of civil discussion.

As Mo has indicated, he was complimenting Ran on his ability to keep the arguement civil, not the opposite.

Please excuse me this intrusion, I'm not trying to be a grammar Nazi or put down anybody's use of the language, I'm just hoping to clarify that Mo was applauding the quality of debate, not denigrating it.

Here endeth the lesson, homework will be issued in the next post...

[jester]

Targan, sorry if it left a bad taste, but it is kinda true if one wants to be realistic. Which I tend to be often.

Now, as for your idea of a Russian Speitzie force landing to carry out sabotage and commando operations, that is what they do. And they did have alot of stashes or caches placed in Europe and even a few spots in N. America. So, they probably had a few in Oz.

As I said it would be a cool campaign still! Actualy that was what I was trying to do with my Arctic Raiders game. Except the raiding comando force was going to be Americans and Canadians operating in Siberia.


Now back to the Spetzies. To make it more plausible.

The Ruskies shoot their load and they have fewer nukes to toss around. But up-oh! They forgot to target the land of Oz. OOPSIE! Someone is going on a winter vacation for that one.

But, they have a bunch of Spetzies laying around being lazy and irritating the comand with their wild ways. After all all play and no work makes a Speitzi a dull boy. Ivan has a couple old time diesel subs laying around one of the bases in their Far East Ports. So some commander comes up with this hairbrained idea. <A Russian version of Cockellshell Heroes.> They repair an old diesel electric submarine, making it seaworthy with the purpose of inserting comando forces and raiding partys.

The submarine has a full platoon consisting of 3 or 4 12 man teams. They are going to land them on the N. Coast of Oz, each having a zone of operation where they will be tasked with disrupting industry, transit and communication assets. Each has half a dozen small cashes <enough to reequip a full team with basic equipment, weapons, ammo, food, batteries, radios, demolitions the works. And a couple big caches with again enough to reequip the entire team plus alot more equipment for specialty and mission specific items as well as consumables in great quantity. They may even have a vehicle or two with additional fuel. >

The teams land, they make it to specific broadcast point and radio their message back to HQ. To their horror! <OH NO!> the submarine was lost! And only 1 other team was landed successfully, the others went down with the sub. <Life now sucks for the Speitzis who landed> Their mission has expanded, as has their operational area! <No good deed ever goes unpunished! Or were they just victims of their own success?> And to make things worse! <GASP!> those other teams were specialized for the missions they would be required to preform. The team that landed, well they have the basic skills, but they aren't the experts that the other teams were by a long shot! So now you have to accomplish the new mission the hard way, by going old school!

I don't know, but to me it sounds like a campaign I would love to conduct.

And the purpose of the operation?

Oz and NZ are floating aircraft cariers, have port and shipping facilities. And dry docks to repair the vessels that are supporting the Chinese who are tying half the Russian Army, and Korea which they never thought would be such a thorn in their side! They need to deal with Oz but they just don't have anymore nukes to spare. So in goes a platoon or two of Spetzis.

I mean, imagine what a team of SEAL type or SBS comandoes could do to a port filled with ships laden with arms, ammunition and fuel? As well as the transport networds that feed these shipping centers. And of course the comm centers a nice relay station, and a base for Orion flights to detect comerce raiders and submarines. And of course the other aircraft that fly and detect enemy communication.

So, when hightech hardward is no longer available old methods would be brought back. So, a Spetzi attack would be possible in a T2K world.

[Mohoender]

Thanks to the english teacher. I make a copy of the way you write it down.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by RN7

Would somebody with some more time on their hands than me at the moment like to verify the range of the Soviet SS-11 & SS-18 ICBM, and check the distances from Soviet silos in the Soviet Far East, Siberia and Central Asia to Australian cities and locations to confirm this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...e_Soviet_Union
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...a/icbm_fac.htm
http://www.mapcrow.info/cgi-bin/citi...sydney&cntry2=

Your numbers are accurate at least for the SS-18 (204 in Russia and 104 in Kazakhstan). SS-11 were being retired by 1986.

Replace the SS-11 by about 500 Topol (SS-25) that are mostly road mobile (MAZ-547) and regularly moving in Russia. These eventually located at fix bases are to be about 200. That makes them harder to hit and despite a slightly smaller range and single warhead they are much more threatening. SS-25 were designed to counter ABM systems. The ability to penetrate ABM systems should be true also of the R-36M2 (SS-18).

About the SS-18, they are to be R-36M2 (99) and R-36MU (209) as R-36M were retired by 1981. R-36M2 are the only one with enough range to hit any city in Australia (outside Alice Spring, Darwin, Norse West Cape and Perth) if they carry a single warhead of 20Mt. Out of the 99 (more or less) R-36M2 a question remain: how many are equipped with that 20Mt warhead? Don't expect to find this answer until 2020 as the missile will remain in service until at least 2014. Nevertheless they represent such a threat that the Start II treaty which didn't come into effect was specifically designed for them. One last thing about the R-36M2, IRL their number has possibly been reduced to about 2 dozens.

Here is a good site about missiles and the most reliable source on nukes today:
http://missile.index.ne.jp/en/
http://www.nti.org/b_aboutnti/b_index.html

Your research have been good but you should not rely on Globalsecurity (except as a starting point). As everyone I used them a lot until I got to the conlusion that they are among the worse source on the Web on military subjects.

[Webstral]

Mo, you’re probably right about the limited missiles on a boomer tasked to hit Australia. It's impossible to say which boomer gets tasked with the launch, but since we can't say for certain an older boat isn't the launch boat it's safest to assume the boomer in question expends his ammunition.

Another potential launch site for Soviet ballistic missiles is Vietnam. According to the Soviet Vehicle Guide, the USSR has several formations in Vietnam during the Twilight War. I don’t know if the presence of Soviet troops automatically means the presence of Soviet nuclear missiles, but there’s at least a chance that there are Soviet missiles in Vietnam in 1997. Vietnam is less than 3000 miles from Darwin.

Webstral

[Mohoender]

Web you can expect the formations in Vietnam to have a few nuclear device at hand but these would be carried by SCUDs or SS-21 with a maximum range of 300-400km.

Vietnam allows for another option, however: a Tu-95 Bear-H carrying 4 AS-15 Kent nuclear long range cruise missile (3000km range for the Bear and 3000km range for the AS-15).

Actually, the AS-15 could as well be used from a SSN (Victor III, Akula or Sierra). 6 to 8 were carried by each subs and IMO a SSN stands a much better chance to get within range unoticed as the priority would be to destroy the SSBN. The AS-15 carries only a single 200kt warhead but that's enough to do the job.

Anyway during the Twilight War the minimum number of nuclear warheads of the Soviets would be 35.000 (1990). The peak was at 45.000 in 1986. Depending on the timeline and the corresponding tensions this number as a good chance to be around 45.000 again and may be more if i was to follow v1.0.

That also makes the Exchange in T2K very limited indeed.

[RN7]

Which would suggest that he felt RAN was straying from the bounds of civil discussion.

That's RN7!

[RN7]

Your numbers are accurate at least for the SS-18 (204 in Russia and 104 in Kazakhstan). SS-11 were being retired by 1986.

But the SS-11 wasn't completely retired until 1996, and the main reason I mentioned it was because of its proliferation in the Soviet Far East and Siberia which is the closest part of the USSR to Australia.

Replace the SS-11 by about 500 Topol (SS-25) that are mostly road mobile (MAZ-547) and regularly moving in Russia. These eventually located at fix bases are to be about 200. That makes them harder to hit and despite a slightly smaller range and single warhead they are much more threatening. SS-25 were designed to counter ABM systems. The ability to penetrate ABM systems should be true also of the R-36M2 (SS-18).

Maybe they were aimed at North America as it was harder for the Americans to locate them.

About the SS-18, they are to be R-36M2 (99) and R-36MU (209) as R-36M were retired by 1981. R-36M2 are the only one with enough range to hit any city in Australia (outside Alice Spring, Darwin, Norse West Cape and Perth) if they carry a single warhead of 20Mt. Out of the 99 (more or less) R-36M2 a question remain: how many are equipped with that 20Mt warhead? Don't expect to find this answer until 2020 as the missile will remain in service until at least 2014. Nevertheless they represent such a threat that the Start II treaty which didn't come into effect was specifically designed for them. One last thing about the R-36M2, IRL their number has possibly been reduced to about 2 dozens.

In 2000 I believe there were a total of 122 R-36M2 with 20Mt warheads in Russian service, and another 58 with 10x MIRVs, although some of these were located in Kazakhstan. Today there are less but in the Twilight War timeline the Soviet Union or at least the Russian part of it depending on the version is still heavily militarised and beligerent.

Here is a good site about missiles and the most reliable source on nukes today:
http://missile.index.ne.jp/en/
http://www.nti.org/b_aboutnti/b_index.html

Here are a few more, and their Russian too!

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=265&c...ace-to-Surface

Your research have been good but you should not rely on Globalsecurity (except as a starting point). As everyone I used them a lot until I got to the conlusion that they are among the worse source on the Web on military subjects.

I have some books too, I've been collecting them since the 1980s.

[Mohoender]

Thanks for the two websites.

I'm already using warfare.ru even as I'm not convinced of its reliability (interesting nonetheless). Then, real thanks for the other one as I had used it in the past and lost it. This time I put it in my favorites (an extremely good website IMO).

The main problem with Russia are secrecy, rumors and confusing serial numbers: UR-100 is both the SS-11 and SS-19.

Where did you get you figures for the warheads carried? I couldn't find that.

I also have books from the 1980's and so on. However, they are now proving to be mostly nice pieces of Science Fiction. Still usefull but authors writing on military issues have more imagination than novelists. I have a nice book from 1991 that I'm using to make OOBs (from a well respected author and a well respected editor) stating that despite the fall of the Berlin Wall there is no doubt that Russia will remain fully comited to its engagement abroad and that the army will remain an influencial force within Russia. No more than a year after the publication of the book the russian army started to shrink from 2 million to less than 400.000 (nowadays it can be back to about 1.2 million). Six months after the publication date, Moscow cut all military and economical aid to Afghanistan resulting in what we know today.

Not even talking of Russia, depending on sources you can't know how many SSBN are currently in French service. If you look at informations on BA103 "Cambrai". All sources states that the base had converted to Mirage 2000 by 1992. I was there in 1994 and at least one squadron was still flying Mirage F1C (not entirely retired before 1996). However, all pilots at the base had been qualified on Mirage 2000 by 1992 (an entirely different matter). Our ICBM base on the Plateau d'Albion (BA-200) was officially closed by 1999, may be. That's only for France, what about Russia?

[RN7]

The main problem with Russia are secrecy, rumors and confusing serial numbers: UR-100 is both the SS-11 and SS-19.

I think the UR-100N & UR-100NUTTkH models are SS-19s. The SS-17 was also called the MR-UR-100 as it was to be a replacement for the existing UR-100 missiles in service and designed to fit into existing UR-100 silos.

Where did you get you figures for the warheads carried? I couldn't find that.

Its on warfare.ru under information about the SS-18.

also have books from the 1980's and so on. However, they are now proving to be mostly nice pieces of Science Fiction. Still usefull but authors writing on military issues have more imagination than novelists. I have a nice book from 1991 that I'm using to make OOBs (from a well respected author and a well respected editor) stating that despite the fall of the Berlin Wall there is no doubt that Russia will remain fully comited to its engagement abroad and that the army will remain an influencial force within Russia. No more than a year after the publication of the book the russian army started to shrink from 2 million to less than 400.000 (nowadays it can be back to about 1.2 million). Six months after the publication date, Moscow cut all military and economical aid to Afghanistan resulting in what we know today.

Some books from the 80's and 90s are suprisingly accurate about force and equipment levels, orbats and technical information, and can also be better than online sources about the period than what is currently available online. Others have to be taken with a grain of salt as they were published before the end of the Cold War and their data on the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact was largely based on western estimates, conjecture and rumour.

Not even talking of Russia, depending on sources you can't know how many SSBN are currently in French service. If you look at informations on BA103 "Cambrai". All sources states that the base had converted to Mirage 2000 by 1992. I was there in 1994 and at least one squadron was still flying Mirage F1C (not entirely retired before 1996). However, all pilots at the base had been qualified on Mirage 2000 by 1992 (an entirely different matter). Our ICBM base on the Plateau d'Albion (BA-200) was officially closed by 1999, may be. That's only for France, what about Russia?

I think the French were fairly notorious for upping their forces to confuse the Soviets and even the Americans during the Cold War. I would be fairly certain that France's IRBM force was retired in 1999, and I would be fairly certain that there are only 4 French Triomphant Class SSBN's at the moment. But France built 6 of the preceding Redoutable Class and it is possible that one or two were held in reserve for testing and training while the French Navy was switching over to the newer Triomphant Class which led to confusion during the transition period, and I'm sure the French where happy to go along with that. There were also rumours as late as the late 80s that Britain built 5 Resolution class SSBN's instead of the official 4 subs, which was never officially confirmed or denied during the Cold War by the British government.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by RN7

Its on warfare.ru under information about the SS-18.

Thanks I had overlooked that one. However, the Start 2 agreement is no longer into effect as US administration under Bush refused to comply with parts of the treaty (actually the ABM part). Nevertheless, Russia will comply as soon as US does and I suspect that this is at the heart of the current discussions.

Originally Posted by RN7

Some books from the 80's and 90s are suprisingly accurate about force and equipment levels, orbats and technical information, and can also be better than online sources about the period than what is currently available online. Others have to be taken with a grain of salt as they were published before the end of the Cold War and their data on the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact was largely based on western estimates, conjecture and rumour.

I often find books from the 70's-80's more accurate than the ones from the 90's.

Originally Posted by RN7

I would be fairly certain that France's IRBM force was retired in 1999, and I would be fairly certain that there are only 4 French Triomphant Class SSBN's at the moment.

You right about the French Triomphant but I was only talking of the sources. However, one of the Redoutable remained in service until 2006 while another one was retired in 2004 (I think). About the IRBM force (sorry for writing ICBM), it is not retired but deactivated.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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

That would come from here:
http://www.geocities.com/jimandpetal...T2K-Index.html

I tend to agree that a couple of nukes may well have been used on Australian targets, but nowhere near the coverage the rest of the world received. As has been indicated, there are only limited numbers of missiles capable of even reaching Australia and the vast majority of these are likely to be targeted against Nato members (not just the US).

Yes, sub launched missiles are an option, but once again, any sub operating in the southern hemisphere is doing so without much in the way of support. They would also very quickly find themselves the target of a rather intensive search by the nations not directly involved in the European conflict. (Australia, New Zealand, perhaps a few others in Africa and South America - but I don't put a lot of stock in that). Would the Soviets be willing to loose a boomer just to strike at the non-involved and very distant Australia?

A long range air strike from Vietnam is possible, but Australia does have a decent air defence system. There is no guarantee the aircraft wouldreach their targets let alone manage to return.

So, yes a few nukes might fall, but it's not going to destroy the country.

When I mentioned the possibility of Spetnaz a few days ago, I was also thinking along the lines of spies, saboteurs, etc, not just military teams. It might also include rabid pacifists (contradition in terms, I know) who break in to places such as Pine Gap and go on a sledge hammer rampage in a misguided (and possibly Soviet supported) effort to keep Australia un-nuked. Just imagine how much trouble a few charismatic people could stir up given the right circumstances.

Getting back to the military units, it is HIGHLY unlikely any infiltration teams would be landed in the north of the country unless their primary, secondary and tertiary targets were all located in that area. It's far too remote to relocate and the military presence in the north WILL react very quickly, setting up road blocks, etc - it's what the annual Kangaroo exercises were all about (at least they were back in the 80's and early 90's).

A team may be dropped near Perth (I'm personally not too sure about what's over that way), Melbourne, Woolongong, Sydney, Newcastle and probably Brisbane. Adelaide, Townsville and Cairns may also attract attention while Tasmania is largely ignored (trust me, there's nearly nothing of military or industrial significance here).

These teams might be dropped at the opening stages of the war with China, or even be sleeper cells set up years in advance. If the weapons and equipment had been stockpiled previously, the actual personnel might even fly in on a regularly schedule airline flight! It's even conceivable unit members returned to the USSR (by rather long convoluted routes) for additional training, holidays, etc. What would it take? A couple of good quality false IDs, good English skills and the ability to act....

[jester]

Well I once read the manual on Speitzis, and they often do infiltrate as civis and have personel there as sleepers. A good number of embassy staff and olympic and similiar touring atheletes are said to have been spetzis. So have a handful on scene before hostilities is not out of the realm of posibility.

These advance personel would be the ones setting up the caches. A storage unit filled with basic gear. A shed on some property in the boonies filled with supplies and equipment. A shipping container or two with other gear, weapons, demo, com gear.

Other members of the sleeper cell will be studying targets, police, military and other targets and threats and they will have been studied and planned routes, operations, deleiveries shift changes etc.

Now, the landing of a team would be landing the operational members of the team/assault force. Who will operate with the help of members of the sleeper cell. Of course the contact would or should be minimalized to protect the sleepers from detection should info or team members be captured.

As for the landing of the operational team. Since your Northern Coast is pretty isolated it would be PERFECT to land a team undetected. Especialy if they had access to vehicles to travel in. Again part of preplanning, or even just stolen. A team could go to an isolated farm/ranch or minning operation or station. They capture or even kill the few people there and use it as a base of operations, using the facility as shelter and a place to hide out in and of course using their vehicles, supplies and radio since many isolated stations do have a long range or Ham radio. <even just listening and monitoring the channnels is going to glean ALOT of intel.>

The team would set out to attack targets about 100km away. A good sabotuer knows that it is best to make the attack not look like an attack. An attack that looks like an attack is a last resort since it will result in an almost immediate mobilization of all forces which would make things very unplesant.

No, one must make the attack look like an accident or failure of equipment or even negligance. And idealy it should be timed to allow you to some escape time, so the charges would be set to explode say an hour after they are armed or planted. That is enough time to get out of the immediate area and a decent head start.

Good ideas for sabotauge targets would be ports and hardbors. Train tunnels and bridges. Mines would be another target. I mean sink a vessel or two in a harbor, or set a tanker on fire or blow up an ammunition ship and you have seriously affected the harbor and alot of its shipping ability. A rail tunnel or mine, blow the sucker or cause a rockslide and it is closed. A bridge well you've just closed that route and now force a detour of all traffic for who knows how far a distance.

Communications facilities, those are another storey. Those would be well guarded, and would need a direct attack . On the plus side. In the twilight world it is doubtful that such assets would be replaced soon if at all.

Also, the idea of the area being a vast area also works in the favor of the team. A force hunting them down would be searching for a needle in a haystack. And if your wilderness is like our deserts or our west it is alot of wide open in which you would be able to see them comming well in advance.

Now, if team members had good English ability then they could even assimilate into the community in a more populated area and just blend in.

Think it would be similiar to the movie "The Eagle Has Landed."

Again, a good idea for a campaign.