Australia in T2K (Long)

[RN7]

Originally Posted by mpipes

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.

To raise an army that size you would need to introduce conscription (national service). The last time Australia introduced national service was during the Vietnam War (as did America) ending in 1972. Conscription during the Second World War was necessary and even popular as Australia (like America) was under threat by a foreign powers. But it certainly wasn't necessary or popular during the Vietnam War were many if not most people objected to the conscription of young men to fight in a war overseas which was far from vital to the national security of Australia. And even during the Vietnam War Australia did not introduce universal conscription, but a lottery based on birth dates of 20 year old males. During the timeline of the Twilight War I don't think any Western government brought in conscription, even countries with bigger defence priorities than Australia. I don't think any Australian government would ever seriously consider doing it again as it would be political suicide, unless of course Australia was under direct attack.

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.

[RN7]

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.

[Legbreaker]

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!?