Australia/New Zealand in the Twilight War

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

That was actually Mountbatten, not Montgomery. Most Commonwealth troops loved Monty because he avoided attritional battles and concentrated on tactical manoeuvre.
Mountbatten sacrificed a vast amount of Canadians and British in the lunatic Dieppe Raid that had no objectives and no possibility of a good outcome. He was actually called 'a murderer of hundreds of my countrymen' by a senior Canadian general. He was eventually murdered by the IRA along with his family in the 70s. The whole project was compromised before its launch, but Mountbatten needed an operation to justify his position.
As an aside, Monty spent a lot of his youth in Hobart, where I live. He was very distant to his immediate family but had close contacts with his Australian friends.

get the brass mixed up sometimes

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by headquarters

get the brass mixed up sometimes

No worries mate, I probably only know because I studied that part of the war in uni. Monty actually wanted the operation cancelled.

[boogiedowndonovan]

Hey a bit OT, but,

Assuming that the New Zealand F-16 buy went through, what year would they have had them?

In my T2k world, I am going to assume that with the never ending Cold War and the hostilities between PRC/USSR, the RNZAF has them around 97 before the nukes start flying.

[Targan]

Also a bit OT but it is my understanding that IRL when the RNZAF got rid of the last of its combat aircraft many RNZAF fighter pilots joined the RAF and the RAAF.

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

Hey a bit OT, but,

Assuming that the New Zealand F-16 buy went through, what year would they have had them?

In my T2k world, I am going to assume that with the never ending Cold War and the hostilities between PRC/USSR, the RNZAF has them around 97 before the nukes start flying.

According to "Edging into Isolation" in Flight International, March 1989 and "Skyhawk Soars Again" in the December 1988 edition of the same magazine (available at http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%203548.html) an A-4 scheme fitting new avionics allowed the RNZAF to achieve maritime strike and CAS capability equal to a F-16 at one-sixth of the cost. Given that those upgrades were supposed to finish up in the early 90s and the subsequent aircraft purchases talked about in 1989 were trainers, tankers, transports and avionics upgrades for the P-3 fleet, I think a F-16 buy was off the table until the war in China broke out, by which time it was too late - the Chinese ordered all the F-16s Fort Worth could crank out, and the USAF started impounding most of the production once the slaughter of fighter aircraft began over the Oder.

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by chico20854

According to "Edging into Isolation" in Flight International, March 1989 and "Skyhawk Soars Again" in the December 1988 edition of the same magazine (available at http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%203548.html) an A-4 scheme fitting new avionics allowed the RNZAF to achieve maritime strike and CAS capability equal to a F-16 at one-sixth of the cost. Given that those upgrades were supposed to finish up in the early 90s and the subsequent aircraft purchases talked about in 1989 were trainers, tankers, transports and avionics upgrades for the P-3 fleet, I think a F-16 buy was off the table until the war in China broke out, by which time it was too late - the Chinese ordered all the F-16s Fort Worth could crank out, and the USAF started impounding most of the production once the slaughter of fighter aircraft began over the Oder.

Interesting stuff, I'm having a problem opening that article at work but I'll check it out later.

This is way OT and probably should be another thread, but would the USA be selling top of the line F-16's to the PRC, even if it is engaged in open warfare with the Soviet Union?

Again, I'm going to sound like some old codger griping about the good ole' days, but in one of the old threads, someone (Matt Wiser) proposed that F-4s and A-7s from AMARC would be refurbished and sold to the PRC. Someone even posted the AMARC inventory!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by headquarters

As for Indonesia invading -it somehow seems that if the Imperial Japanese Forces couldn't do it -the Indonesians wouldn't get any closer than locking themselves in a stalemate in PNG -just like in the 1940s.

Japan in 1942 were overextended in a BIG way with troops in Korea, China, and just about everywhere south and east of there. Also there are indications they never intended to step one foot on Australian mainland soil. They were really only after Papua New Guinea to secure their southern border (there just isn't much they could use in the northern part of Australia, and no way they could have held it anyway).

Indonesia in T2K on the other hand were not spread halfway across the world trying to hold onto various conquests and weren't at war with numerous other countries. Their entire might could be focused squarely on Australia and the space it represented for it's overcrowded islands. Unlike Japan 60 years earlier, Australia does have something Indonesia needs.

Indonesia also has little need to bog themselves down in the mountainous PNG, not when with just a little more effort they could have the flat terrain of northern Australlia.

Now as for a brigade to Centcom, that's extremely unlikely. Australia only has two Divisions TOTAL, with the majority of that strength in the form of reservists. With a Brigade in Korea (which I'm working on an OOB for now) that doesn't leave much at home to resist the Indonesians.

With such minimal strength, you can also rule out completely an offensive action into Indonesia. That country has a comparatively MASSIVE military, and even if not up to the same standard, they'd swamp the Australians with numbers.

[Targan]

One bonus for the ADF is as soon as hostilities with Indonesia heated up they would have a huge influx of people wanting to join the Army, RAN and RAAF. Probably wouldn't need to even consider conscription for the first year or two.

[Legbreaker]

There'd be huge demand for PR/Propaganda people too....

[headquarters]

I agree that Indonesia have something to win by taking Australia in a T2K scenario. But isnt the question if they could do so in a T2K setting?

Indonesia is a diverse country with internal strife and difficult logistics seeing as everything must go by ship. They would face problems on teh same scale that the Imperial Japanese army did imho. The Japanese in 1942 were a mighty opponent. They had over 50 years of indoctrination in their culture, a massive militaryindustrial complex and something like 10 000 000 people under arms all told. The real reason for the nuclear bombings in 1945 were that the US high command rightly concluded that a conventional attack on mainland Japan would be far more risky operation than Operation Overlord, and that the war would drag on for several years before victory was ensured.

We do not know if the Indonesians can be assessed in the same way- undoubtedly fierce people but probably not along the same lines as the 1942 Japanese population.

They Indonesians would be fighting in their own rear against insurgents and separatists of various creeds and ethnicities, as well as trying to project a force large enough to capture a continent, to your shores ,all the while their economy is in a shamble sdue to the breakdown of the global trade economy.

Admittedly the advent of the airmobile infantry would greatly ease their capture of PNG and I guess if the USN isnt available and the Royal Navy is elsewhere too, most minor Island states would fare ill against an attack from whatever invasion force the Indonesians would send.

But the sheer timeframe involved in capturing Northern Australia if it was defended by delaying actions would probably give the you the possibility to mobilize an army of conscripts and rudimentarily arm them to start the reconquista. A possibility for the Indonesians could be a complex operation involving a 5th column,surprise attacks and WMDs. But such a plan has numerous pitfalls, and even if the Indons could get nukes, its doubtful that they could ship enough troops into Australia in a timeframe that would deny you guys the opportunity to mobilize and start driving them out.

Australia is like Russia, only with heat and crocs instead of snow and wolves.

How many Owen guns can be produced in Queensland in a month if all pitch in ?

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Japan in 1942 were overextended in a BIG way with troops in Korea, China, and just about everywhere south and east of there. Also there are indications they never intended to step one foot on Australian mainland soil. They were really only after Papua New Guinea to secure their southern border (there just isn't much they could use in the northern part of Australia, and no way they could have held it anyway).

Indonesia in T2K on the other hand were not spread halfway across the world trying to hold onto various conquests and weren't at war with numerous other countries. Their entire might could be focused squarely on Australia and the space it represented for it's overcrowded islands. Unlike Japan 60 years earlier, Australia does have something Indonesia needs.

Indonesia also has little need to bog themselves down in the mountainous PNG, not when with just a little more effort they could have the flat terrain of northern Australlia.

Now as for a brigade to Centcom, that's extremely unlikely. Australia only has two Divisions TOTAL, with the majority of that strength in the form of reservists. With a Brigade in Korea (which I'm working on an OOB for now) that doesn't leave much at home to resist the Indonesians.

With such minimal strength, you can also rule out completely an offensive action into Indonesia. That country has a comparatively MASSIVE military, and even if not up to the same standard, they'd swamp the Australians with numbers.

[Legbreaker]

Why do you think Indonesia would got for PNG? There's no logic to it that I can see. The terrain is just too rough for the effort to be worthwhile.

I agree that Indonesia would be mad to invade in it's RL situation, but if it could have temporarily quelled dissent, perhaps with offers of land for the crowded masses, and organised just their normal standing army, hell, even just a fraction of it, they could have captured, and held (at least to begin with) a sizable area. A totally untenable position in the long term, but if the aim is nothing more than to dump a few million less desirable ethnic minorities....

Indonesia has no hope of defeating Australia, but they could hold some of it provided their logistics were sorted out.

My belief is that Australia won the war, perhaps by throwing the Indonesian military back into the sea, but I can also see a lot of "settlers" showing up, trying to survive for a while before throwing themselves on the mercy of the Australians. With the virtual destruction of mass transport capacity, Australia would have no choice but to absorb them rather than send them back.

Mind you, I'm just throwing ideas out there...

It's worth noting that in the 80's and 90's the Australian military were training to fight the mythical enemy invaders the "Kamarians" who's home country, "Kamaria" was located roughly in the same location as Indonesia...
Yes, there actually were plans to deal with just such a situation.
http://www.4rarassociationsaustralia.com/irc.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1111115959477
http://www.securitychallenges.org.au...rabinSmith.pdf

A decade it two earlier and the mythical enemy was Musoria, which we were told was equipped and organised as well as located in the same general area as the USSR.

[headquarters]

I was thinkig they would want it just to deny its use to Australia.

I agree that the invasion might be pulled of as you describe ( and I was speaking T2K and not RL in my post).

Just airing ideas me as well.

Well - if anyone could do it it would be the Indonesians I guess.

As for contingency plans - a friend of mine who had a clerk job at military intelligence swears he saw plans for repelling an attack from "the west" rather than "the east" in a pile of older docs. Meaning that invasion from Britain and the US wasnt entirely ruled out - at least not theoretically

About Kamarians - we have them to here. Only we call them Havland ( literally Ocean Land) and they are a sneaky bunch of devious and tenacious
troops from the politically unstable nation of Havland. Every ex we have their special forces try to influence our national decision making by sabotaging our infrastructure and oil and gas facilities. Everytime I tell the brass that next ex we surely must hit back and train for the massive amphibious operation th epunitive expedition to Havland will entail? I mean how many times shall we let tham conduct raids onto our territory before we go for regime change there?

..

I never seem to get a full understanding from them on the joke.. I guess after the fall of Musoria we are all wondering what next out on the periphery of the western world..

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Why do you think Indonesia would got for PNG? There's no logic to it that I can see. The terrain is just too rough for the effort to be worthwhile.

I agree that Indonesia would be mad to invade in it's RL situation, but if it could have temporarily quelled dissent, perhaps with offers of land for the crowded masses, and organised just their normal standing army, hell, even just a fraction of it, they could have captured, and held (at least to begin with) a sizable area. A totally untenable position in the long term, but if the aim is nothing more than to dump a few million less desirable ethnic minorities....

Indonesia has no hope of defeating Australia, but they could hold some of it provided their logistics were sorted out.

My belief is that Australia won the war, perhaps by throwing the Indonesian military back into the sea, but I can also see a lot of "settlers" showing up, trying to survive for a while before throwing themselves on the mercy of the Australians. With the virtual destruction of mass transport capacity, Australia would have no choice but to absorb them rather than send them back.

Mind you, I'm just throwing ideas out there...

It's worth noting that in the 80's and 90's the Australian military were training to fight the mythical enemy invaders the "Kamarians" who's home country, "Kamaria" was located roughly in the same location as Indonesia...
Yes, there actually were plans to deal with just such a situation.
http://www.4rarassociationsaustralia.com/irc.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1111115959477
http://www.securitychallenges.org.au...rabinSmith.pdf

A decade it two earlier and the mythical enemy was Musoria, which we were told was equipped and organised as well as located in the same general area as the USSR.

[Sanjuro]

the damned British threw away tens of thousands of Australian and New Zealand lives during WWII

AND they did the same in WWI.

Australia and New Zealand had the highest casualty rates of all the combatant nations in WW1, and many Ozmates have taken this to be because the British High Command considered ANZAC troops particularly expendable. However, when the casualty rates per unit are examined, they are similar to British losses.
The reason for this was the unique nature of the ANZAC contribution- all teeth and no tail. The ANZACs relied entirely on British logistical, engineering, administrative and medical support, all of which were manpower-intensive; had the Australian and NZ governments insisted on a proportion of their troops being used for these functions, ANZAC casualties would have been similar overall to British ones.
This is not to say that British generals cared about ANZAC troops- just that their callous acceptance of losses, and contempt for the lives of their troops, did not differentiate between nationalities.

[HorseSoldier]

The Indonesian invasion of Australia trope seems to be a very salient/significant one in Australian culture -- if I'm not mistaken (and apologies to our Australian members if I am) it gets consideration not only in popular fiction but at least somewhat legitimate political debate concerning the Australian military's capabilities, etc.

Personally, though, I see the regional T2K scenario being one where Indonesia fragments/implodes under the weight of global commerce collapsing and whatever third tier nuclear strikes they caught to take useful facilities off the game board.

Australia I can see getting rocked pretty hard by Soviet megatonnage -- it's solidly enough in the western camp that I could even see the zombies in the Kremlin authorizing a nuke boat to make a run down out from under the polar ice to be able to hit Australia with ordnance if nothing else will reach (I seem to recall a thread about Australia on one board or another where someone looked at the published stats for Soviet ICBMs and wasn't quite sure how you even hit Australia from missile fields in northeastern Europe and Siberia -- not sure how accurate that assessment is). Anyway, by "rocked pretty hard" I mean a few warheads set aside for non-petroleum targets of value (probably RAN/RAAF bases).

So the overall situation I see is less one where Indonesia ends up at war with Australia, and certainly no invasion, and more one where Australia's capabilities are seriously eroded and their northwestern frontier is a maritime free fire zone of Indonesian civil war factions, warlords, pirates, and refugees (lots and lots of those). I don't see Australian troops fighting to defend Australian soil, more fighting on below-shoestring-budget conditions to secure/stabilize key terrain/facilities/points in that morass and ensure freedom of navigation for the remnants of shipping. Half cordon-sanitaire and half-hold things worth holding, with the added stressor of the maritime LOCs mission. How well all that goes? Lots of room there for debate -- also lots of room there for gaming opportunity. The ultra-economy of force mission could yield lots of calls for 2000 era equivalents of the AATTV hooking up with some statelet or faction that Australia wants to support, as well as small unit commando-ing and raiding of point targets/smaller marauder and pirate groups/etc.

[Legbreaker]

That discussion was on here a while back and I think the result was there is only a handful of viable targets - Newcastle/Sydney/Woolongong, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and perhaps Brisbane and Darwin. There really isn't anything else that warrants a nuke (even our national capital Canberra given that besides Politicians, there's nothing much there but sheep).

As for British/Australian troop differences in WWI, I recall just one of many incidents where a Section (9 men) of Australian Engineers assaulted and captured a German position that an entire British Battalion could not for days...
Speed, aggression and the willingness to get on with the job were the key to success in this instance (which was in an infantry training manual on tactics).
Note also the Australians were unsupported by fire or artillery at the time and captured over 30 prisoners.

This isn't to say the British didn't have similar examples amongst their ranks though.

[Sanjuro]

Legbreaker, I have nothing but admiration for the ANZAC contribution in both world wars; in WW1 especially though, the two countries' overall losses would have been lower if they had had a few more filing clerks...

[Legbreaker]

Perhaps so, but I can't imagine ANY Australian at the time being happy with a position in the rear.
Also, I don't believe the British leadership were all that interested in Australia (or any colony for that matter) providing their own support structures. Even the upper levels of command were held by British officers, at least in the earlier part of the war before strong demands were made for Australian leadership.