|
|
|
|
|
#1
03-24-2016, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
AUSTRALIAN ARMY 2016 Last edited by RN7; 03-27-2016 at 08:16 PM. 
|
|
#2
03-24-2016, 07:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's also worth noting those locations are the HQ elements. Reserve units as a whole are usually spread over areas hundreds of miles across with companies, even individual platoons located in separate towns.
__________________
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
|
|
#3
03-24-2016, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
So what we have hear is the basis of three divisions organisationally on full mobilisation in 2016; one infantry and two reserve light infantry divisions, although the light infantry divisions would be more or less truly light infantry.
|
|
#4
03-24-2016, 09:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Australia Reserve units are not in any shape or form close to combat ready. Yes, there are individuals who may be, but 95% of each unit needs a good 3 months (minimum) additional training.
Added to that most reserve units are staffed at only skeleton levels - the 41st for example (my original unit) could barely scrape together a company plus minimal support elements when it came to the annual exercise, and even then we were usually still operating with about 70-80% strength. To bring these units up to full manpower will take time, and then more time to train the reinforcements. Mobilisation speed is not exactly a priority in that sort of situation... What would happen is the unit as a whole would be called up to full time service, a process which would take a few days. The unit would then move to a dedicated training establishment such as the Infantry centre at Singleton just outside Newcastle in NSW. There they would absorb reinforcements and conduct intensive training for several months. Finally it's likely to be sent on a large scale exercise in terrain similar to that where they are expected to deploy, before at last being declared combat ready. Note that the training establishments do not currently have the facilities to cater for large scale mobilisation of troops with Singleton as an example really only capable of handling about two battalions at a time with a sizeable proportion of the troops housed in tents when not out on the range. The facilities that do exist beyond normal peace time requirements consist mostly of buildings from WWII and Vietnam (ie riddled with asbestos).
__________________
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
|
|
#5
03-24-2016, 09:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And I would agree with what you said. But I did say the capability to raise three divisions does exist in theory organisationally on full mobilisation, not realistically. And I wouldn't expect that situation to change any time soon as Australia is just to remote for any potential major power to threaten its borders, excluding strategic nuclear weapons. Even Indonesia lacks the logistical resources to seriously invade and hold any Australian territory. And any move by the Indonesians would be detected and eliminated by the RAAF and RAN before it gets any where near the Australian mainland. For Australia to fully mobilise three divisions (and that's organisationally only), the Australian government would have to seriously plan to use Australian troops abroad in some expeditionary capacity and to take steps to logistically plan such a mobilisation in advance. Or some major threat to Australia and its regional interests would have to emerge.
|
|
#6
03-24-2016, 10:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yes, it would likely take years to fully mobilise and have a reasonably high percentage of combat ready units.
As for equipment, we've probably got enough small arms (rifles and machineguns) to do the job already, even if many reinforcements would be armed with older equipment. Heavier weapons (40mm grenade launchers and up) are another matter. That was the case in the 41st anyway. Technically every officer and machinegunner (plus a few others) were supposed to be issued with a pistol as well as their main weapon, but the armouries of the whole battalion had a grand total of just 7 of them... I don't think they ever even saw the light of day. On the other hand BHQ armoury still contained at least one .55 Boys AT rifle, and my own Company armoury had two .303 Brens, along with three Martini Henry rifles left over from about 150 years before! The Brens might have seen service again if the shit really hit the fan, but the rifles? 
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#7
03-24-2016, 09:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think everyone is being far too pessimistic and conservative on what FULL mobilization of any country would look like. In the US Civil War, the Confederates essentially built a competent field army from scratch in six months. The US raised about 50 divisions in the first two years of WWII, and Russia was churning out a division in about 12 weeks in 1940-1941 and the Germans a division in roughly 8 weeks in 1944. In short, when you have to, you can churn out a division in just weeks; it may not be the best trained but all they really need to know is how to shoot and maneuver and men can be taught that in just weeks if need be.
If your just trying to get leg infantry, you can essentially build 12 divisions from 200K personnel in about 18 months easily as well as a good chunk of the vehicles to move them. That is from recruitment to a trained and functional division. A trained Airborne division takes about two years and a commando the same period of time. As for training facilities, well that's where the good old fashion tent comes in. After all, the training camps the US Marines established in New Zealand in WWII consisted of hundreds of tents. For Australia and New Zealand the limiting factor is equipment. A draft will get the manpower fairly quickly. In 1990, Australia had a population of 17 million. A mobilization and draft to provide say 250,000 recruits to raise 15-20 divisions would hardly make a dent in the overall population. Additionally, every army in 1990 had mountains of equipment just waiting for an emergency. The AUG is far from a complicated weapon and its largely plastic components can be churned out by injection molding very rapidly and in great quantities. Furthermore with a major war going on in their backyard, New Zealand and Australia would have started mobilizing in 1995 almost as soon as the Soviets crossed the border into China with over a year of time to get a few divisions operational before the war started in earnest. Same for the US, England, and the rest of Europe. In my take on the situation, you had almost a full corps of Australian and New Zealand troops in Europe, at least two divisions in each of the middle East and China. Another 2-3 divisions available to deploy into Indonesian and/or the Philippines, and at least another two to keep at home. Last edited by mpipes; 03-24-2016 at 09:26 PM.
|
|
#8
03-24-2016, 11:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Also how do you arm an army that size? Australia now has only one small arms factory at Lithgow NSW, now owned by French company Thales Group.
|
|
#9
03-25-2016, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Also.
If Australia brought in conscription to raise an army of 200,000 and also built a few small arms factories to produce enough rifles and ammunition (barely) to arm it, what about everything else such an army would need. The only divisions that Australia could raise would be light infantry divisions, and I emphasize the world light. Warfare in the Twilight War as it is today is a lot different to what it was in the Second World War. Highly mechanised and heavily armed armies and the threat from airpower. The casualty rates of Australian divisions would be horrendous. Where will they get the machineguns, grenade launchers, mortars, anti-tank missiles, and the munitions for them? What about armoured vehicles and artillery? The Americans might be able to supply some equipment, but their priorities will be on supporting US forces and there are many other US allies who will also be looking for support. Although Australia is a developed country its industrial focus is on mineral and energy extraction and refining, not engineering and precision industries or the mass production of transport equipment. Australia does not have the industrial capacity to arm and support an army of 200,000 troops by itself without a major investment and expansion of its arms and related industries. Also what about logistics. Even today with more capable military transport aircraft and sea logistics than existed 20 years ago, Australia could barely transport and support one brigade overseas.
|
|
#10
03-25-2016, 01:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Australia does have the capacity to equip a 200,000 strong army, however it's unlikely we could do it with modern equipment. WWII level technology, absolutely, Vietnam era, perhaps. The problem is more with the advances in armour and weaponry - we know how, but can only produce on a small scale (upgrading existing equipment such as the M1 for example). Large scale means going back to simpler processes.
Now that may be well and good for fighting a low tech opponent such as Indonesia, but add in the necessity of conscription and you can bet the population will be very upset - bad enough you take our sons, but to give them obsolete equipment too!? 
__________________
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
03-26-2016, 11:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
In case my view isn't clear, I think the Australian orbat in the opening past is far too big. I seem to recall a similar conversation taking place about the British Army some years ago and the same arguments applied.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#12
03-26-2016, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You don't worry about the small stuff; you churn out guys with basic skills and that is good enough. As I said, Germany found it could churn out an infantry division in about 8 weeks in 1944. That division was not as well trained as a 1940 division, but they could man defensive position and effectively engage a veteran Allied division. You are fundamentally missing the point. When a nation has to churn out an army, generally it rises to the occasion and does so. They don't care if he can fold his underwear the army way, they care if he can shoot his gun and keep it functioning. Why do you think the Russian's came up with the idiot-proof AK-47? So they did not have to spend two weeks training him how to shoot it and maintain it. True, todays armies are more technical, but in the end, all they really need to know is how to shoot. Its not a particularly elegant way to run a war, but the reality in a T2k world is to churn out replacements. You eliminate as much of the training syllabus as you can and get that warm body into the replacement pool. Australia would be no different in 1990. Want oil? You damn well better get troops to the middle East to keep it flowing. China and Russia going at it, you better get troops to Korea and Hong Kong to hopefully keep the war contained. Australia's war plans had troops deploying for a Pacific war involving China or the USSR in 1990. That is simply reality (I know cause I was in on some of the transportation plans for USAF C-141s). You can find unclassified info if you look hard enough, but I can tell you that a 10 division contribution from ANZAC was not an unrealistic expectation. The UK mobilization plans were actually larger than what was listed in the game as were Germany's. Germany expected to have well over 20 divisions at the six month point and I do know that the UK was expected to double the size of the army as well. Remember, for all of NATO, everyone discharged/retired within the previous seven years was being recalled to active duty. That generally gives you a 50% increase in the size of your military right there....fully trained too. Or more accurately in many cases, your training contingent. Last edited by mpipes; 03-26-2016 at 03:49 PM.
|
|
#13
03-26-2016, 03:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm done with this thread - I can think of better ways to spend a Saturday night than being lectured to.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#14
03-26-2016, 04:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I think you have missed the point. Australia will have to introduce conscription to raise an army of the size you are proposing. And as difficult as it would be for Australia to raise, train, staff, officer and support and army of that size, the main issue is not raising the manpower but arming it. Australia has one small arms factory and two munitions factories (one for bullets and one for munitions). This is enough for sustaining the current regular army and maybe equipping another division, but it is way to limited to arm an army of 10 or more divisions. And that is just bullets and rifles, what about machine guns, grenades, mortars, anti-tank weapons etc . Also what about armoured vehicles and artillery. Australia has two factories that build light armoured vehicles at a very low production level. It could maybe build some trucks and jeeps/Landrovers as well, but no mass production of armoured vehicles and certainly no artillery or tanks or heavy munitions. Quote:
Incidentally in T2K the German Army has more than 20 divisions after German Reunification in 1996 12 West German (6x Armour, 4x Mechanised, 1x Airborne, 1x Mountain). 6 East German (2x Armour, 4x Mechanised). After mobilisation add another 1 mechanised division in 1996. Another 2 mechanised division and 1 infantry division in 1997, and 6 infantry divisions by 2000 plus possibly 2 Austrian mountain divisions. And there would be other independent regiments and battalions as well In T2K the UK did practically double the size of its army including independent brigades and regiments, and its still smaller than your ANZAC army. Also what about Australian logistics. Could you tell me how Australia could transport and supply multiple divisions overseas with its current logistical resources? Last edited by RN7; 03-26-2016 at 04:21 PM.
|
|
#15
03-27-2016, 08:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
mpipes
I am very interested in those unclassified war plans you mentioned, can you PM me. I think we may all be missing something here....... While I agree that the size of the Army in the first post is completely unrealistic based upon my research (check Library Thing under my user name Louied, I have tagged all the books "Australian Army" or "New Zealand Army". Plus I urge anyone interested in the manpower subject to read this book, The Commonwealth Armies: Manpower and Organisation in Two World Wars (War, Armed Forces and Society). It's a bit pricey but well worth it ! http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0719...es+and+Society Getting back, we have a Major Theatre War starting in August 1995 (practically in Australia's backyard). Besides the Soviet Union, I would bet that Mongolia (practically an SSR at the time), Vietnam (China's nemesis), and possibly India (free Tibet anyone) would be actively supporting the Soviets. On the other hand we have the U.S. supplying arms to keep China in the war (with ramped up production, ditto most of NATO looking to get a hold of Chinese cash/credit). Add that Indonesian (even tacit) support for the Soviets is making everyone (Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, PNG, etc.....i.e. All countries with mutual Defence treaties with Australia) very concerned. Now given all that I took a gamble that Australia would start peacetime National Service in this climate (strictly into the Reserves and limited to a specific geographic area). I agree with Leg, universal conscription would probably be a non starter, but maybe just maybe if it was presented as a "Defence of Australia Act", I believe there is a chance. As for equipment, I believe Australia flogged away all its Centurions by the late 1980's, however we are looking at convoys from the U.S. Bringing war material (tanks, trucks, munitions, etc) to China from late 1995 to late 1996. I believe there is no reason why some of this equipment couldn't go to Australia, even just enough to establish a training base. And yes I know the controversies involved in the sending of the 2nd AIF to the ME in WW2 and then the mad scramble to bring them back after Japan enters the war. But history has a strange way of repeating itself...... IIRC Indonesia didn't make a move until 1997. I structured the 3rd AIF/10th Div going to the ME late 1996/early 1997, well before Indonesia enters the conflict. Could a U.S. Promise to "bomb Jakarta back to the Stone Age" if they make a move influenced Australian policy ?!? So having Australia having four Divs/twelve Bdes (with one Div & one Bde equipped with U.S. Material. While the others make do with Leo 1, M113s, etc) IMHO is very doable.
|
|
#16
03-27-2016, 08:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In that situation they're not about to send anything anywhere, nor are they going to risk starting yet another front in South East Asia by making threats against Indonesia. No, Australia (and New Zealand) must stand alone. There is nobody available to help, and no supplies coming from elsewhere. Sure Australia has treaties with various nations, but just how much stock can you put in them when those allies are already stretched to breaking point?
__________________
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
|
|
#17
03-27-2016, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#18
03-27-2016, 08:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#19
03-27-2016, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Turning back the clock about 25 years to about 1990 and the Australian Army actually had plans to raise 3 divisions on mobilisation: one regular army and two reserve. But they were organisational divisions and not real divisions. The Australian Army was pretty much the same size then as it is now excluding the odd regiments or so. Today it is better armed, with a better airmobile and special forces capability.
Australian Army 1990 Regular One divisional HQ One mechanised brigade (one armoured battalion, one mechanised battalion, one para-infantry battalion) One infantry brigade (two infantry battalions) One infantry brigade (two infantry battalions) One reconnaissance regiment One APC regiment One special forces regiment Three artillery regiments (one medium, two light) One air defence regiment One engineer regiment Two aviation regiments Reserve Two divisional HQ Seven brigade HQ Two reconnaissance regiments One APC regiment Two APC squadrons Fifteen infantry battalions One Commando battalion Five artillery regiments (one medium, four light) One artillery battery (light) Four engineer regiments Three regional surveillance units New Zealand Army 1990 Regular Two infantry battalions (one ranger company) One light armoured squadron One artillery battery (light) One special forces squadron Reserve Six infantry battalions Five artillery battery (one medium, four light) Two armoured squadrons (one APC, one light reconnaissance) So organisationally we have roughly four ANZAC divisions, but three will be basically light infantry and nothing really more. Could Australia's allies supply some heavy weapons and vehicles to pad this force out? Yes in small quantities, but only from the US as with the war raging in Europe and the Middle East the UK and Germany etc will be in no shape to supply Australia. Between 1996 and the nuclear war from the end of 1997 the US could supply equipment if Australia is willing to pay for it in dollars. A couple of light artillery battalions, APC's and a battalion worth of tanks plus infantry support weapons. But that would be it. So maybe we could see an ANZAC Corps organised into four divisions, but in reality just a bunch of brigades spread across Australia and New Zealand. Maybe it would include a mechanised brigade size expeditionary force for Korea or the Middle East, and another light infantry brigade for New Guinea and the Pacific etc. But ten fully armed divisions? Nope
|
|
#20
05-22-2018, 02:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry for this two year old thread resurrection but just read this book.....
Anzac Cove to Afghanistan: The History of the 3rd Brigade Apparently there was an ORBAT Review in 1979 that stated that the Australian Army needed to maintain a mobilization base to raise the following for the defense of Australia: Two Corps One Armoured Div One Mechanized Div Three Infantry Div Just food for thought as I don’t know how long this was carried on in the 1980’s
|
|
#21
03-25-2016, 10:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#22
03-25-2016, 11:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#23
03-26-2016, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If I am reading it correctly the original posting had the Australia military that today is 12+ (counting the reserves) brigades at least on paper, and making it in to 11+ Divisions.
I am not (and have never had the privilege of even visiting) from Australia, but looking at this. Here is my thoughts on it. Going with the basic "history" that the game starts about five years after the first incident in 1995 (war between Russia and China). This gives us a hard time of no more than five years. Some of NATO gets involved in 1996-97 but not all (France stays neutral). Thanksgiving 1997 Nuclear balloon goes up. War goes on, with final push before you are on your own is in 2000. With that history What I see is that you really have about a year or two to build up. In 1995 I do not see any call up of reserves, maybe an increased footing for the active units. As we roll into 1996 and the war is looking more and more like it is going to happen I could see they taking a good look at what each country has, and needs. Maybe even increasing production a bit (not a lot as they are trying to stay out). Once war starts then yes I can see the production increasing. However as others have pointed out Australia does not have the production capability, and even if they started building it in 1996, I do not think it would be up and running by time the nukes went. Would the US, Germany, and/or England have the extra production capability to produce stuff for Australia at the same time they are ramping up themselves? I do not think so, there are lots of fluff about this American guard unit or that one still having their old tanks, if they had the production to sell extra they would have provided it to there units. So if we go with that Australia can not produce the heavy equipment needed, and there allies can not provide what is needed in the numbers needed then why raise the troops if you can not equip them. So summing up my thoughts, could Australia raise a 11+ Division army? Yes, if they wanted to. Could they do it in the time provided for in the game time line? Maybe, if they wanted only light infantry, No if they wanted the heavy troops listed in the post. As they could not equip them. I have seen people talk about how this or that was done in WWII, there are some big differences. Speaking for the US here in WWII most of the auto makers could make most of the military vehicles needed, today we have I believe one, say that again one manufacturer who can make tanks. Aircraft are not much better, were as WWII you could have lost of shops make them. Training, yes some of the training would be cut out, but it still takes longer to train a troop today then it did back then. Back in WWII even most of the "city" folk still has some understanding of firearms, to day some of them (I dare say a lot of them) have no clue other than what TV show them. Well I think I have gone on long enough so I will end it here.
|
|
#24
03-26-2016, 12:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This I think was touched upon here. http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4627 Currently the US has only one tank factory in Lima, Ohio. I believe that America has not built a new tank from scratch since the mid-1990's. The Abram's are all now taken in and rebuilt or re-molded when needed. Some new parts are still produced and fitted but that is all that is being built at the moment.
|
|
#25
03-26-2016, 01:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Attachment 3687 Edit: The first post is exceptionally unrealistic and totally unachievable.
__________________
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; 04-29-2021 at 04:56 AM.
|
|
#26
03-26-2016, 09:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You are VASTLY underestimating what can be done by nations when they put their efforts toward raising an army.
Some quick historical parallels...... Confederate States of America Population: ~5,500,000 (Caucasian) Army Size: 1/1861 = 0 12/1861 = ~500,000 England WWII Population: 46,000,000 Army Size: 1/1939 = Regulars 227,000/TA 204,000 5/1940 = 1,650,000 April 1940 BEF strength 400,000 Australia WWII Population: 7,039,000 Army Size: 9/1939 = 80,000 8/1942 = 479,000 11 Divisions Russia: 6/41 303 Divisions 8/41 401 Division (with 41 destroyed) Russia was in effect shitting divisions in the first months of the war; about 5,000,000 men by December if memory serves me correct. What you can see from these quick examples is that manpower is hardly ever the issue in effect for rapidly raising a force. A rough rule of thumb; you can effectively double the size of your military within six months from the decision to mobilize. Now that does not mean that you will have units every bit as good as those that existed pre-mobilization, but it does mean you can get an adequately trained and effective combat force into service within 6 months. US Cold War planning assumed about six months to fully mobilize from about 15 divisions to 35 divisions within six months. Desert Storm was the first real test, as it tried to mobilize three National Guard brigades within 60 days. That attempt did not work out as planned, as these units still required considerable training to get them up to active duty standards. However, it was conceded in post-war studies that the three brigades could have deployed and been effective at the 60 day point; just not fully trained to active duty standards. It was also conceded that at least one of the units was indeed fully qualified, but somewhat arbitrary training rule said it was not, and that if the decision had been to go ahead and deploy, training deficiencies could have been addressed in country after deployment and the units rated as fully ready by the start of the war. In any event, your main limitation is equipment. BUT that is not really an issue for small arms, as doubling production for say the M-16 or the AUG can be accomplished in a few weeks. Australia in 1995 had thousands of L1A1s, Sterlings, Stens, and Brens in storage. And then there are wartime production plans. Normal production for most arms manufacturers are basically one 7-5/M-F shifts. Wartime, it goes to 3-shifts 24/7/365. Just look at WWII production in the US and UK at what can be accomplished. You had workers all but being dragged off the streets and stuck on a production line. In Russia, that was literally happening. Its also interesting to note that in 1990, the US expected to reactivate B-1B production within six months of a decision to do so. Wartime production plans for F-16s hit over 600/yr within one year. M-1 production was to be doubled as well. The hallmark of mobilization for war is to not start off thinking about what you can't do and concentrate on doing what you must do. The US built the atomic bomb in three years. It built an army of 8,000,000 in less than four years. Australia itself went from an army of 80,000 in 1939 to 479,000 in three years. Its all a matter of national will. For the record, I was a logistic officer in the Air Force.
|
|
#27
03-26-2016, 10:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Manpower can possibly be scraped together. The problems are equipment, politics, and finance.
The best Australia could do by itself is 1950-60's vehicles and heavy weapons, except on a small scale. What's the point in having half a million troops if virtually ANY opponent is using far superior equipment? Politics is another matter. Australians simply will not stand for wide scale conscription any more. It was tough enough in WWI and WWII - by Vietnam the tide had well and truly turned against forced military service, so any recruits would have to be volunteers. To conscript civilians would almost certainly result in the downfall of the government which tried to implement it. Then there's finance. Volunteers don't come cheaply - patriotism only goes so far. Equipment (what little of it which may be available) will fetch premium prices, prices Australia simply cannot afford. Even raw materials will go up in price putting them out of the reach of many smaller nations. Australia is not America. We only have about 20 million people in total and not enough heavy industry to cover all our domestic needs. Most of our cars, trucks, heavy equipment is imported. We do not have the industrial base to enable us to ramp up production to cover wartime requirements. We do not have large scale heavy industries to switch from making consumer goods to tanks and aircraft. We DO have the capability to upgrade, modify and maintain what we have, and some limited small scale production. WWII is commonly pointed at as an example of what can be done to rapidly build up forces, but that's a very misleading example to use for modern warfare. The technology of today, or even 20 years ago (the time of T2K) is much more advanced than the 1940's. It required much lower technical skills and specialised equipment to produce. Australia did have a large military, but it was so large we simply could not support it. Australia was the only nation (to my knowledge) to actually reduce the size of it's forces while the war still raged - we had no choice if we wanted to eat and have enough manpower to produce and transport the materials our soldiers needed.
__________________
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
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
