|
|
|
|
|
#1
10-09-2009, 03:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Australia definitely not hit by nukes!!
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  )
Last edited by Mohoender; 10-09-2009 at 03:28 AM. 
|
|
#2
10-09-2009, 06:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#3
10-09-2009, 08:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
10-09-2009, 08:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
 "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#5
10-09-2009, 09:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#6
10-11-2009, 06:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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....
__________________
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 Last edited by Legbreaker; 10-11-2009 at 04:44 PM.
|
|
#7
10-11-2009, 10:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
|
|
#8
10-11-2009, 03:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm firmly in the same camp as those who believe that Australia will receive a lighter load of nukes than, say, Canada. Issues like range, limited involvement, and limited capacity will be in turn limiting factors on what kind of megatonnage the USSR directs at Australia. My whole point is that the nuclear exchange will not simply bypass Australia and New Zealand, leaving two potentially important Western nations completely unscathed. I'm sure with a bit of research and analysis, we could come up with a list of ANZ targets that would involve perhaps five Mt--sufficient to knock out the site and support functions of civilian government, the principal military command-and-control center(s), a handful refineries, and a couple of important military bases in each country. The idea would not be annihilate Australia (or New Zealand), which would run the risk of an Allied nuclear response beyond the one already envisioned in canon. The idea would be to prevent Australia from projecting force beyond her own borders for a few years and to prevent the US from using Australia to pursue American aims in the South Pacific.
Webstral
|
|
#9
10-11-2009, 04:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi guys!
Was out of town for a few days and am just now getting back to the board. First: Thanks for the responses, lots of good information and good conjecture as well. I tend to agree with Webstral that Oz would suffer some kind of nuclear strike. T2K v1 (which is what I'm working off of) clearly shows that the Soviets were targeting neutral countries to deny those resources to NATO. In my game Australia was a Western combatant activly fighting the Soviets in the Middleeast and in N. Korea, as well as in the Pacific ocean. -------------- Here's the back story I developed based on a lot of the info I got here: Austraila was involved in combat against the Soviets & their allies and had deployed troops and equipment to the Middle East and Korea. It also acted as a resupply base for Allied shipping in the South Pacific. Australia was not hit in the initial nuclear exchanges or late '97. But there was some limited civil panic and disruptions in the immediate aftermath (mostly in the bigger cities.) By early 1998 the USSR realized the growing logistics and support roll Austraila had become to US/NATO forces in the ME and Korea and dispatched one of it's few remaining Boomers to take Oz out of the war. The Boomer in question only had 6 SLBM's remaining on board. The Soviet boomer made it into the Coral Sea and began launching it missles when it was attacked and destroyed by a US 688 class attack sub that had been tracking it for weeks. Four of the six SLBMs were launched before the boomer was destroyed. Melbourne, Canberra, and Brisbane were destroyed/badly damaged by 3 of the SLBM strikes. the fourth missle targeted for Sydney malfunctioned and failed to detonate but did contaminate a three kilometer area of downtown Sydney with radiation for a short time. The missles targeted for Perth and Darwin went down with the Soviet sub. Chaos reigned for a time in the aftermath of the strikes mostly in the cities, in the vast rural areas of the country people mostly hunkered down and waited to see if more strikes were on the way. Vital services and supplies were disrupted for a time, but the central government having relocated from Canberra at the start of the Soviet nuke strikes on NATO in '97 had survived the attack largely intact. More devastating to Australia was the pandemic of plagues which swept over the country in the fall & winter of 1998 and into 1999. While the government maintains control in most coastal areas, much of the interior of the country has become a lawless land ruled by bandits & local warlords. Though it should be noted these groups are few and hold little power. From mid 1999 into 2000 a running conflict was fought with Indonesia for control of New Guinea, the Australian Forces have been largely victorious but some limited fighting continues. Currently Australia is a vital link in the tenuous supply chain between US forces in the Middle East and the continental United States. The Australian government does not recognize either of the two American governments; CivGov & MilGov, but is in limited communication with both though has more dealings with MilGov via it's forces in the Middle East. Though heavily damaged by EMP, Australia with much of its industrial base intact is in the beginnings of a recovery both domestically and as a world power. ------------- I think I'll run with that. Thanks again for all the info. <S>
|
|
#10
10-11-2009, 04:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Now you're getting it Jester!
One point though, I don't think you understand just how isolated the north really is. Even in the more populated areas there's still vast stretches of beachfront without anyone around. There's no problem slipping ashore under cover of darkness, something the police can testify to in their struggle to intercept smugglers. You go ashore up north and almost guarentee you're not going to survive. It only takes one mistake - the vehicle isn't where it's supposed to be, the landing was in the wrong spot, the weather is hotter than expected that day, and you're toast (litterally in some cases). Dogger, I like what you've got there. Not sure I'd be nuking Brisbane in preference to Newcastle or Wollongong though (both MAJOR industrial centres).
__________________
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
|
|
#11
04-23-2012, 07:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Been reading this discussion (very interesting one) and frankly I think that the GDW 2300 nuking of Australia doesnt really agree with the T2K canon as to its extent.
The Russians in their attack on the US and the UK really didnt go for city busting - they went after industrial targets mainly - after all if they were going for a city buster then why is NY still standing and why are large areas of LA intact? Heck they barely touched Chicago. The attack on Australia seems to be overkill compared to the rest of the nuclear strikes in general - i.e. if you are going to hit Australia that bad then the nuclear exchange is a lot worse than anything painted in Howling Wildnerness or the timeline in general. Plus look at the size of warheads used in the rest of the attacks - the biggest in the US was a total yield of 1.75 MT - if you are taking out Sydney with a 20MT attack then there is no way that any major US city is still there. Frankly what I saw Leg post a long time ago is the reality as far as I am concerned - a single nuclear attack on the one US facility there to take it out and try to convince Australia to stay out of the war. And I agree with the comments about the US using Australia as a supply center for its forces in Kenya and the Middle East - especially since Australia uses much the same weapons as the US. I see them as staying neutral initially in the war until and then possibly coming in late, but with Australian contingents of volunteers fighting in Europe, the Middle East and Kenya. I will have a small contingent of Australian troops in the Kenya sourcebook I am writing now based on Frank Frey's notes - not much more than a company - and based on similar Australian deployments during the War on Terror.
|
|
#12
10-11-2009, 11:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It'll be gone at the end of the month, Geocities is closing down. I'll clean up the atrocious spelling, abysmal layout and general poor work before putting it up elsewhere. I've got a lot of new stuff that never made it up there because the formatting system for Geocities is very crude and difficult.
|
|
#13
10-09-2009, 06:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#14
10-09-2009, 07:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
#15
10-09-2009, 08:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#16
10-09-2009, 07:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Fusilier; 10-09-2009 at 07:50 AM.
|
|
#17
10-09-2009, 08:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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....
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#18
10-09-2009, 09:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#19
04-23-2012, 08:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Edit - just saw that Leg beat me to this one...
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#20
10-09-2009, 09:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
#22
10-10-2009, 12:19 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 Quote:
|
|
#23
10-10-2009, 01:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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?
|
|
#24
10-10-2009, 08:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#25
10-10-2009, 09:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#26
10-09-2009, 09:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
#27
10-09-2009, 09:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Tags |
| australia |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
