OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Raellus]

So we're looking at an isolationist Australia, c. 2020? I figured that since Australia's currently got forces in Afghanistan, of all places, they wouldn't be averse to helping their allies in a war or two in East Asia. Is there a more plausible way to get Australia into WWIII as we've formulated it so far?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Isolationist? To a certain degree yes, but not total isolation. Everything revolves around foreign trade and upsetting Indonesia could disrupt that trade.

If a conflict in Korea broke out and the UN called for a military force to intervene or protect South Korea, Australia would more than likely attend the party.
If Indonesia invaded PNG and the UN didn't take a stance against it, Australia probably would not either - sure the government would spout off volumes of dribble about how bad and nasty the Indons were for invading peaceful PNG but they'd tried to avoid war for as long as possible (something along the lines of Chamberlain appeasing Hitler is not too far fetched).

If the Indonesians went to war against Malaysia, then Australia would probably wait for a Commonwealth nations or UN mandate before committing itself to military action. We'd wait to get approval from the "big boys" first or we'd wait until the "big boys" committed and then we'd join them.

The Australian intervention in East Timor was a reasonably clear case of "We will win" with very little chance of full-blown war against Indonesia. In fact Aussie troops were militarily restricted by the political conduct of the intervention, in a number of cases they were expected to allow clearly identified gunmen to shoot at them but they were not allowed to fire back without government approval. There were even cases when clearly identified Indonesian para-military police where shooting at them and the Aussie soldiers were told not to prosecute the engagement and to let the Indons escape.

While we do have trade & good relations with South Korea, it's not seen as in our backyard anymore so any action would most likely be based on UN approval.
There is a lack of government will to play hard against Indonesia for the reasons stated previously, the government has got to the point were it is overly sensitive to criticism from Asian nations in the region and so it plays the "conciliation" game instead of flexing any military muscle.

[Targan]

I disagree. There is no way Australia would stand back and let Indonesia invade Papua New Guinea.

Australia failed to stop the Indonesians from annexing East Timor and West Irian during the 1970s largely because of the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Public sentiment was totally against going to war again so soon and the Australian military's morale had utterly collapsed. I wasn't even in Australia at the time and wasn't even in primary school yet but looking back at it I'm appalled and disgusted at Australia's lack of action against Indonesia during the early to mid 1970s.

Also, East Timor was a Portuguese holding and West Irian was formerly a Dutch holding. Paint it however you like, but PNG was a former Australian territory. In RL right now, if Indonesia made a land grab for PNG, there would be solid public support for the ADF to take action against the Indonesian military. Yes my view on these matters is coloured by my disdain towards the Indonesian government and military's past and most certainly present atrocities towards its ethnic minorities. I tell you what, if Indonesia invaded PNG and the Australian government didn't send in the ADF, I would donate my own money towards funding an anti-Indonesian insurgency.

Raellus, if you want a realistic trigger for Australia to go to war against Indonesia, in my opinion it would be the indigenous insurgency of West Papua ramping up their activities against the Indonesian police and military, perhaps due to an influx of funds and military equipment (from whatever source/s). It would really piss the Indonesians off if they thought the insurgents were launching raids from across the border with PNG, and if they demanded that the PNG government take action and they refused or dragged their feet, I think it would be realistic for the Indonesian military to commence cross-border operations.

I can also see the Indonesians being even bolder than usual if they thought that the ADF had its hands full elsewhere (say, supporting military operations in Korea).

[Cdnwolf]

Besides haven't you heard of the Australian Secret Weapons Research labs...

Crocs with explosives trained to attack enemy boats...
Sharks going after their marines...
Kangaroo combat troops...
Secret Koala cuddle attacks...

and worse of all...

Australian women... enuff said.

[mikeo80]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

Besides haven't you heard of the Australian Secret Weapons Research labs...

Crocs with explosives trained to attack enemy boats...
Sharks going after their marines...
Kangaroo combat troops...
Secret Koala cuddle attacks...

and worse of all...

Australian women... enuff said.

ROTF,LMAO

You forgot a spew warning. I was drinking coffee when I read this!

You did forget the snakes and spiders conducting surprise attacks during the night.

My $0.02

Mike

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Targan

I disagree. There is no way Australia would stand back and let Indonesia invade Papua New Guinea.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, the politicians of this country didn't have the balls to stop cross-border raids into PNG by Indonesia during the West Irian insurgency and they actually started to investigate Australians who sent aid to the West Irian groups. During that period, the Australian government went as far as to make it a crime for any Australian citizen to be employed as a soldier in a foreign, non-government military, irrespective of whether they got paid for their services or not they were classed as mercenaries and would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if caught. This was in response to several Australian ex-military personnel going to Indon-controlled East Timor and also Burma to give military training to the oppressed minorities in those countries - the Australian government didn't want to upset the governments of those countries.

Originally Posted by Targan

Australia failed to stop the Indonesians from annexing East Timor and West Irian during the 1970s largely because of the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Public sentiment was totally against going to war again so soon and the Australian military's morale had utterly collapsed. I wasn't even in Australia at the time and wasn't even in primary school yet but looking back at it I'm appalled and disgusted at Australia's lack of action against Indonesia during the early to mid 1970s.

Australia didn't even try to stop Indonesia from invading East Timor, despite pleas from East Timorese for Australia to aid them. Even with the substantial debt we owed them due to all the support the Timorese gave Australian forces battling the Japanese during WW2 and even after Indonesian troops murdered several Australian journalists, the government here took minimal action.
I disagree that at that time the ADF morale had utterly collapsed, I had family serving in the Army and Air Force at that time and from what they've said, although many personnel felt frustrated and disillusioned, they were still prepared to serve in the military. In fact, some of them believed our next war would be with Indonesia and were pissed off that the Australian government was so conciliatory towards the Indons.

Originally Posted by Targan

Also, East Timor was a Portuguese holding and West Irian was formerly a Dutch holding. Paint it however you like, but PNG was a former Australian territory. In RL right now, if Indonesia made a land grab for PNG, there would be solid public support for the ADF to take action against the Indonesian military. Yes my view on these matters is coloured by my disdain towards the Indonesian government and military's past and most certainly present atrocities towards its ethnic minorities. I tell you what, if Indonesia invaded PNG and the Australian government didn't send in the ADF, I would donate my own money towards funding an anti-Indonesian insurgency.

I agree, there would be a lot of public support for the ADF, but that doesn't mean the government would authorise any action. I also agree with your views on the Indonesian government, so much so that despite my dislike of its leftist agenda, I was giving money to FRETILIN - something that I was warned would destroy my chances for any sort of career in the government or ADF should I get found out.
Australia was giving serious consideration to conflict with Indonesia should Indonesia attack PNG (this was in the 1980s) but it was believed that we could lose our entire army and a good portion of our air and naval forces in such a conflict and thus have no chance of stopping the Indons. It was considered that we would lose any such fight without outside assistance and this mindset still colours Australian government thinking.
Fact is, with such a disparity of forces (in Indonesia's favour) and with $15 billion dollars worth of trade between the two countries, the Australian government is going to take a lot of pushing before it pushes back and it would be asking for substantial support from it's "big" friends in North America and Europe.

Originally Posted by Targan

Raellus, if you want a realistic trigger for Australia to go to war against Indonesia, in my opinion it would be the indigenous insurgency of West Papua ramping up their activities against the Indonesian police and military, perhaps due to an influx of funds and military equipment (from whatever source/s). It would really piss the Indonesians off if they thought the insurgents were launching raids from across the border with PNG, and if they demanded that the PNG government take action and they refused or dragged their feet, I think it would be realistic for the Indonesian military to commence cross-border operations.

I honestly do not think this would be enough. The West Irian freedom fighters have been operating from bases across the border in PNG for decades and, again for decades, the Indons have been violating PNG territorial sovereignty to attack these camps.
I believe Australia would have to be backed into a corner before our government would let us fight back. I believe it would take something more along the lines of Indonesia threatening mainland Australia before the government would authorise military action. Something like sinking a ship in an Australian port to prevent ship movement and therefore preventing export sales as a way to force the Aust Govt to concede to Indon demands.
However I don't think the Indons are likely to do such a thing unless they were in the throes of desperation (say from massive resource shortages be that food, water, fuel, minerals, whatever).

Originally Posted by Targan

I can also see the Indonesians being even bolder than usual if they thought that the ADF had its hands full elsewhere (say, supporting military operations in Korea).

I don't disagree with this either and I think massive overpopulation causing severe shortages could push Indonesia into a "lebensraum" policy and hey, "Australia only has an Army of 40,000 and we Indonesians have one about 6 times that size and those devil-whiteman, capitalist-running dog imperialists have so much land with such a small population but they don't share it and Australia really should belong to an Asian country..." i.e. think something along the lines of Argentina's junta reasoning for invade the Falklands.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

During that period, the Australian government went as far as to make it a crime for any Australian citizen to be employed as a soldier in a foreign, non-government military, irrespective of whether they got paid for their services or not they were classed as mercenaries and would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if caught. This was in response to several Australian ex-military personnel going to Indon-controlled East Timor and also Burma to give military training to the oppressed minorities in those countries - the Australian government didn't want to upset the governments of those countries.

I've learned something new. I know it's a crime in Australia to fight as a mercenary or with a non-government overseas military force but I didn't know that was the origin of those laws. Did David Everett's antics have anything to do with that?

[Raellus]

I'm learning a bunch here too. But, I do still have one lingering question. If Australia's government is so reluctant to employ its military in, what amounts essentially to its own backyard (i.e. PNG or, slightly further afield, Korea or SE Asia), why does Australia contribute troops to the coalition effort in Afghanistan? That's a fair bit further from Australia than any of the afore-mentioned theaters and, surely, it isn't treaty-bound to do so. Help me understand the reasoning behind this seeming foreign policy/military intervention paradox.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

If Australia's government is so reluctant to employ its military in, what amounts essentially to its own backyard (i.e. PNG or, slightly further afield, Korea or SE Asia), why does Australia contribute troops to the coalition effort in Afghanistan? That's a fair bit further from Australia than any of the afore-mentioned theaters and, surely, it isn't treaty-bound to do so.

Australia has provided military support to the coalition under the ANZUS treaty.

http://rslnsw.org.au/commemoration/h...-war-on-terror

Australia first committed military personnel to Afghanistan in October 2001 after the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Centre. Prime Minister John Howard invoked Article VI of the ANZUS Treaty in support of Australia’s involvement—the only time the Treaty has been invoked. The Australian Parliament supported the commitment on 17 September 2001.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliame...adfafghanistan

[RN7]

In regards to a war in Korea I would say Australia would contribute military forces, but maybe not the same type of forces it contributed in the 1st Korean War or in Vietnam. I don't think they would send infantry as they would only be a small fraction of what the US would send, and they would be under US command. But they would probably send some fighters, warships and support forces and maybe the Australian SAS.

Over the past decade Australia has expanded all of its military capabilities and will continue to expand over the next decade, and there is a lot Australia could contribute without sending infantry and tanks.

The Aussie Army is small; equivalent to a US infantry division with the reserve adding another light infantry division. But they use good equipment and they have a sizeable airmobile capability, and their special forces is large for the size of the army. The RAAF is also a good force, new Super Hornets, AEW's, tankers and 28 C-17/C-130H/J transport mix, with the F-35A and the P-8 in the pipeline. The RAN has two helicopter carriers and three Aegis destroyers building, and 12 new submarines and other ships are planned. The carriers are big and can carry 18 helicopters and an infantry battalion, and are fitted with ski-jump ramps which means they can carry US Marine or British F-35B's.

If a commonwealth force was sent to Korea I could see Australia sending some land forces as part of a joint British, Anzac, Canadian and maybe Indian force.

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by Raellus

OK. I like pretty much everything y'all have posted so far. I think it works really well. Now we just need to formulate some kind of a timeline. How about this for starters.

I think we can add a few other European ideas. One would be the Poles making a grab for Kaliningrad while the Russian Army is preoccupied in the Balkans, or are we assuming the Russians decide to take enough of Poland to open a land bridge?

Also, Greece? What shall we do with that economic basket case? Hmm, Turkey gets frisky and goes to war over Cyprus and some other Agean islands? And when Greece asks NATO and/or the EU for help, both turn their backs on them?

Spain I think would do it's best to stay neutral along with Italy. I think neither are well-disposed towards Russia, but the last thing they want to do is cozy up to the Americans (or American percieved NATO).

In short, might NATO implode to some extent? This might be an interesting caveat? And what about Germany? Does she rearm in the face of the Russian revaunchism? If so, Germany's neighbors are going to freak out. If not, the Russians are going to run roughshod over Eastern Europe as the US isn't sending a lot of troops (most are going to try and stop the North Koreans).

[Olefin]

I would think that Italy would support the US and NATO vs. it not doing so in the minds of the Twilight 2000 authors. Italy has been much more pro-US, helping with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and US efforts in Libya and Somalia as well. And Italy's pro-Russia days are long over - if it comes to war expect to see Italian troops there on the front lines.

[Rainbow Six]

We posited that Greece allied with the Russians, Bulgarians, and Serbs earlier in the thread and launched an attack on the Turks. It follows as logical that any Greco - Turkish War would involve fighting in Cyprus.

Re: Kaliningrad, this timeline has Russia annexing Belarus sometime within the next couple of years, making Belarus and eastern Ukraine part of the Russian Federation, which takes them almost but not quite up to Kaliningrad, however when the Russians make their move for the Baltics they will establish a land bridge with Kaliningrad in short order as the Lithuanians wont have much to stop them and their is a period of time before NATO commits. The original line of thinking was that the Russians make a grab for the Baltics but not Poland, the thinking amongst the Kremlin's leadership being that a fractured NATO is not willing to go to war over Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, particularly since the US is committed elsewhere.

A NATO implosion along much the same lines as the original T2K timeline(s) is definitely part of the scenario - those identified as most likely to withdraw from the alliance are France and the southern European members.

Incidentally, on the subject of Spain, once the brown stuff has really hit the fan and UK forces are fully committed elsewhere there is the possibility of Spain making a grab for Gibraltar.

[Rainbow Six]

For info, here's an idea of approximately what sort of ground force levels some of the major European nations might be fielding based on current levels ...source is Armed Forces of the European Union 2012 - 2013 by Charles Heyman. I haven't listed every country but have tried to cover those likely to be combatants plus some of the nations that withdraw from NATO. Note as Norway is not an EU member and Croatia only joined last year neither are covered in the book so info for those two is from wikipedia. Also, these are total strengths, so not every nation might be in a position to commit everything listed below to the front line

Germany
2 x Armoured Divisions
1 x Mechanised Division
1 x Airmobile Division
1 x Special Operations Division
Plus German components of the Franco German Brigade (1 x Lt Inf Bn, 1 x Arty Bn, 1 x Eng Coy)

United Kingdom
2 x Divisions (1 full strength with 3 x Armoured Infantry Brigades, 1 reduced strength)

Poland
1 x Armoured Division
3 x Mechanised Division
1 x Air Assault Brigade
1 x Air Cavalry Brigade

Czech Republic
1 x Rapid Deployment Brigade
1 x Mechanised Brigade
1 x Artillery Brigade

Netherlands
1 x Airmobile Brigade
2 x Mechanised Brigades

Denmark
2 x Infantry Brigades (one full strength, one reduced strength)

Hungary
2 x Infantry Brigades

Slovakia
2 x Infantry Brigades

Romania
3 x Infantry Divisions

Croatia (source wikipedia)
1 x Mechanised Infantry Brigade
1 x Motorised Infantry Brigade

Norway (source wikipedia)
1 x Infantry Brigade

The Baltic States have the following:

Estonia
3 x Infantry Battalions

Latvia
1 x Infantry Brigade

Lithuania
1 x Motorised Infantry Brigade
3 x Independent Infantry Battalions


And the possible opt outs...

France
2 x Armoured Brigades
2 x Light Armoured Brigades
2 x Mechanised Brigades
1 x Parachute Brigade
1 x Mountain Infantry Brigade
1 x Recce Brigade
Plus the French component of the Franco German Brigade (1 x Armoured Recce Regt, 1 x Mech Inf Bn)

The French also have the National Gendarmerie, which is approx 100,000 strong

Belgium
2 x Mechanised Infantry Brigades
1 x Rapid Reaction Group (3 x Para Commando Bns)

Bulgaria
1 x Armoured Brigade
2 x Mechanised Infantry Brigade
1 x Light Infantry Brigade
1 x Special Forces Brigade

Italy
3 x Divisions

Spain
2 x Divisions

Greece
1 x Armoured Division
3 x Mechanised Infantry Division
1 x Infantry Division
1 x Army Division (1 x Airborne Bde, 1 x Airmobile Bde, 1 x Marine Bde)

Portugal
1 x Airborne Brigade
1 x Mechanised Infantry Brigade
1 x Light Infantry Brigade

[Olefin]

I would still think that Italy would go with the US in this time period as to any military operation - Spain and Portugal most likely not and Greece is in too much turmoil for any war right now even one against the Turks

by the way when you group southern members we have to look at old ones versus new ones

countries like Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are staunch NATO members now - and have long memoires of the Soviets, let alone the Hungarians and Romanians - between them all they have a significant level of military power - so any Twilight 2030 war would be much different in the Balkans and Southern Europe than its Twilight 2000 version

Hungary may have only two infantry brigades - but they have 600 BTR-80's and 150+ T-72 (most of the tanks in reserve) tanks that are good to go - which makes them pretty heavily equipped brigades

And I dont see Italy, Bulgaria or Belguim opting out - the French very possibly, Spain and Portugal yes -but not the Belgians - I would put a higher possibility that the Dutch would sit out the war given their current military tendencies

[Rainbow Six]

Yeah, by Southern I was referring specifically to the "old" NATO members - Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy. I should have clarified that. Personally, I could be persuaded either way about what the Italians might do. With regard to Belgium I favour a schism between the French speaking Walloons and the Dutch speaking Flemish, with the Walloons siding with France and the Flemish siding with NATO. I didn't have Bulgaria opting out as much as changing sides completely.

The figures I gave are intended to give a top level overview of what each nation might be able to contribute...I can break it down into more detail for each country but that will take me time (days, not hours). Also, reserves are not included. My numbers for Hungary differ from yours in some areas....this is what I have (source as per previous post)

Army Strength: 10,900 (plus 30,000 reserves)
Tanks: 120 x T 72 (approx 30 in active units)
Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicles: 150 x BTR80A; 487 x BMP1 in storage
APC's: 150 x BTR80
SP Arty: 150 x 122mm; 251 in store

It's unclear whether the 150 BTR's in the AIFV entry are the same 150 BTR's that are in the APC entry or not, so they may have 150 or they may have 300. However it is fair to say that with a full mobilisation of reserves the Hungarian Army could possibly quadruple its current size, so I will revisit that listing in more detail when I can...

[Olefin]

and I am using what they have in reserve for their mobilization for Hungary - just to use them as an example - for instance Hungary could be used as a source of equipment for other ex-Warsaw Pact nations that might have men but dont have APC's to be able to have them survive on the modern battlefield

it definitely would change the strategic situation for the war - instead of the Balkans being almost a side show (as the authors mainly treated it in Twilight 2000) here it would be a major front - obviously Romania would be anxious to go into Moldava and take back their old territory - and having Bulgaria be at the worst neutral really makes the Turks a much bigger threat to potential Soviet Allies like Armenia or Syria especially if the Greeks cant get new equipment due to money issues and by 2030 have a very small army with limited armor

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm learning a bunch here too. But, I do still have one lingering question. If Australia's government is so reluctant to employ its military in, what amounts essentially to its own backyard (i.e. PNG or, slightly further afield, Korea or SE Asia), why does Australia contribute troops to the coalition effort in Afghanistan? That's a fair bit further from Australia than any of the afore-mentioned theaters and, surely, it isn't treaty-bound to do so. Help me understand the reasoning behind this seeming foreign policy/military intervention paradox.

And to go further with the information Kato posted, the USA is Australia's primary ally, if they ask for contributions/assistance, the government views it in our best long-term interest to do so and the ANZUS treaty gives impetus to that plus it allows the government to do so without having to justify itself to the opposition or public.

NOTE: I have the "misfortune" of having several family members involved in state and federal politics and I've found that many Australian politicians simply see politics as a lucrative career with an excellent retirement package. I despise modern politicians because of this "in it for themselves and not for the public" mentality - they're snakeoil salesmen who happen to be holding the reins of power - and my thinking is directly coloured by this.

The government has been reluctant to engage in military actions in the last several decades for a number of reasons, some already mentioned here but also include public sentiment and financial cost - we don't have a large population so the revenue base is limited (and like many governments they prefer to spend it on things that will aggrandize them).
But very important to government thinking, we rely almost exclusively on shipping for foreign trade (both import and export). I can't stress this enough, the government believes we cannot afford to alienate neighbouring nations through which that shipping must pass (e.g. Indonesia and Malaysia).

In regards to public sentiment, vocal special interest groups get a disproportionate voice on many occasions despite their definite minority in numbers. Examples include the anti-gun lobby's pressure on the government to restrict private ownership of firearms in response to the Port Arthur killings - they didn't have a majority voice then and they still don't but it was seen as a potential vote winner by the government.
Also the opposition to the Franklin River dam - a dam that would have removed some of Tasmania's dependency on coal-fired power stations in favour of the much cleaner hydro-electric (the dams original purpose). Although the dam was already in the process of being built, environmentalist groups protested it would destroy a portion of the forest around the river and they succeeded in permanently halting the building. The greenies were right but it was a proportionally small area and would have less long-term environmental impact than the continuing use of coal-fired stations does. The federal government went as far as having the air force fly reconnaissance missions over the dam area and in the end, told the Tasmanian state government to halt the dam.


EDIT: Something I meant to mention and forgot at the time. Australia's military during Vietnam.
The Army had large numbers of conscript forces but despite popular portrayal they were not actually under any obligation to serve in Vietnam. At the time, conscripts had an option presented to them:-
1. serve one year full-time service with the possibility their unit could be deployed to Vietnam
2. serve three-years part time service with no deployments outside Australian territory
Many of the conscripts wanted to serve in Vietnam because of the expected mix of "adventurism", patriotism and anti-communist beliefs but also because the combat pay for a year would be enough to buy a house or expensive car.
There were so many conscripts putting pressure on the government to let them serve in Vietnam that some regular Army combat units were held back to allow those units with large conscript numbers to be deployed. My father was subject to this, his regiment was tasked as a training unit and was kept from deploying to Vietnam for a few years so that the regiment would instead train the large volumes of conscripts coming from New South Wales.

[Raellus]

So, if the USA asks for Australia's help in Korea, Australia would presumably help to some extant, correct?

@Olefin: Our idea is that economic difficulties result in a split within the EU and possibly NATO. As the economic/diplomatic outcasts, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece, therefore, don't necessarily feel obligated to assist the Baltic states when the Russians invade, while the rest of NATO does. Perhaps, one or two of the afore mentioned countries could be brought back into the fold, though. Even in a decade or so, a full strength NATO could probably handle the Russians pretty well, but a short-handed NATO would likely have its hands full. Although it's an updated take on the Twilight war based on projections from where the world stand current (IRL), it also kind of keeps with the spirit of v1.0 which, sort of inexplicably for the time, did something similar with Greece and Italy.

Now, what about France. You know they're kind of headstrong and like to believe that they're calling the shots. Do they help NATO defend the Baltic states or do they sit on the sidelines and wait for a winner to emerge?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by RN7

In regards to a war in Korea I would say Australia would contribute military forces,

As far as I can find, Australia doesn't have any direct defence treaties with South Korea, we are not bound by any agreement to assist them except through UN committments - if the UN declared it, then Australia would oblige.

Originally Posted by RN7

but maybe not the same type of forces it contributed in the 1st Korean War or in Vietnam. I don't think they would send infantry as they would only be a small fraction of what the US would send, and they would be under US command. But they would probably send some fighters, warships and support forces and maybe the Australian SAS.

In fact, that's probably the only type of force we'd be able to send as our ground forces are nowhere near the size they were in the 1950s-70s period
However, they would not be under US command. If memory serves me correctly, after the Gallipoli campaign and some other battles in WW1, the Australian government declared that no Australia force would be under foreign command again and instead would always be under Australian command. There are plenty of examples of Australian forces working with foreign forces and being under the command umbrella of those forces but the Australian forces still retain their own command structure and will refer back to Australian HQ/government if they have any issues with tasks given by the allied command.

Originally Posted by RN7

The Aussie Army is small; equivalent to a US infantry division with the reserve adding another light infantry division. But they use good equipment and they have a sizeable airmobile capability, and their special forces is large for the size of the army. The RAAF is also a good force, new Super Hornets, AEW's, tankers and 28 C-17/C-130H/J transport mix, with the F-35A and the P-8 in the pipeline. The RAN has two helicopter carriers and three Aegis destroyers building, and 12 new submarines and other ships are planned. The carriers are big and can carry 18 helicopters and an infantry battalion, and are fitted with ski-jump ramps which means they can carry US Marine or British F-35B's.

The Australian military (particularly the Army) operates under a philosophy of retaining "core" forces in peacetime to maintain skills and equipment but committing to rapid expansion during wartime - e.g. WW2 and Vietnam.
Many of the current expansion projects support this purpose even though they were purchased under the banner of the Global War on Terrorism e.g the NH90 helicopters, the Canberra class LHDs, enlargement of the SASR. We haven't expanded actual regular force manpower by much particularly in regards to Infantry, Artillery or Armoured units.
In the last decade, the government has held numerous recruiting drives to increase regular forces but so far has not invoked the expansion to the extent seen during Vietnam (and there won't be any conscription unless it's life or death - conscription is a career killer for any political party these days).

At the present time, although the government would like to deploy 12 submarines, there aren't enough volunteers who want to serve in them. It's possible we might have seven or eight fully manned but so far there just aren't enough people willing to be submariners to man all 12.
Unfortunately with the per unit cost of new combat aircraft and the lack of long-term career potential in the RAAF, we don't have many options to increase the size of the air force. We have been progressively buying fewer and fewer fighter aircraft with each replacement e.g. we went from three full squadrons (of Mirage III) to two squadrons when we bought the F/A-18. Same thing has happened with 1st Amroured Regiment with the purchase of the Abrams to replace the Leopard AS1 - 59 Abrams (including variants) to replace 101 Leopards (including variants).

Originally Posted by RN7

If a commonwealth force was sent to Korea I could see Australia sending some land forces as part of a joint British, Anzac, Canadian and maybe Indian force.

I don't think this is particularly likely. If the UN declared support of South Korea in a war against the North and Australia committed forces to the conflict they would certainly work alongside and with any friendly forces and a joint Commonwealth force under that situation is not outside the realms of possibility but again, Australian forces would retain their own command structure and not be beholden to any other.
Irrespective of whether Commonwealth/former Commonwealth nations decided to assist South Korea, there is no current obligation for Australia to commit military forces.
If the US asked for it and it could be justified under some treaty/defence pact, then Australia would likely send forces but the government would not necessarily join a South Korean operation because other Commonwealth nations had.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Now, what about France. You know they're kind of headstrong and like to believe that they're calling the shots. Do they help NATO defend the Baltic states or do they sit on the sidelines and wait for a winner to emerge?

I'd say they sit it out. I think it's plausible and it is in keeping with the original T2K timeline. It also deprives NATO of quite a large military contribution, so goes towards the alliance having its hands full dealing with the Russians (obviously the Russians couldn't have known in advance that would happen but dependent on how far in advance they start planning for the invasion of the Baltics they may have been sowing seeds of discontent throughout western Europe for some time).

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

As far as I can find, Australia doesn't have any direct defence treaties with South Korea, we are not bound by any agreement to assist them except through UN committments - if the UN declared it, then Australia would oblige.

None with NATO either but they still sent a large force to Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

In fact, that's probably the only type of force we'd be able to send as our ground forces are nowhere near the size they were in the 1950s-70s period However, they would not be under US command. If memory serves me correctly, after the Gallipoli campaign and some other battles in WW1, the Australian government declared that no Australia force would be under foreign command again and instead would always be under Australian command. There are plenty of examples of Australian forces working with foreign forces and being under the command umbrella of those forces but the Australian forces still retain their own command structure and will refer back to Australian HQ/government if they have any issues with tasks given by the allied command.

I was sort of implying this.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The Australian military (particularly the Army) operates under a philosophy of retaining "core" forces in peacetime to maintain skills and equipment but committing to rapid expansion during wartime - e.g. WW2 and Vietnam. Many of the current expansion projects support this purpose even though they were purchased under the banner of the Global War on Terrorism e.g the NH90 helicopters, the Canberra class LHDs, enlargement of the SASR. We haven't expanded actual regular force manpower by much particularly in regards to Infantry, Artillery or Armoured units. In the last decade, the government has held numerous recruiting drives to increase regular forces but so far has not invoked the expansion to the extent seen during Vietnam (and there won't be any conscription unless it's life or death - conscription is a career killer for any political party these days).

At the present time, although the government would like to deploy 12 submarines, there aren't enough volunteers who want to serve in them. It's possible we might have seven or eight fully manned but so far there just aren't enough people willing to be submariners to man all 12.
Unfortunately with the per unit cost of new combat aircraft and the lack of long-term career potential in the RAAF, we don't have many options to increase the size of the air force. We have been progressively buying fewer and fewer fighter aircraft with each replacement e.g. we went from three full squadrons (of Mirage III) to two squadrons when we bought the F/A-18. Same thing has happened with 1st Amroured Regiment with the purchase of the Abrams to replace the Leopard AS1 - 59 Abrams (including variants) to replace 101 Leopards (including variants).

Still its a major jump over the capabilities they have had over the past 40 years and the willingness of what the Australian government was prepared to give them. There is even talk of Australia buying Virginia Class SSN's at the mo, couldn't see it happening but it is a major turn around in Australia's defence outlook.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I don't think this is particularly likely. If the UN declared support of South Korea in a war against the North and Australia committed forces to the conflict they would certainly work alongside and with any friendly forces and a joint Commonwealth force under that situation is not outside the realms of possibility but again, Australian forces would retain their own command structure and not be beholden to any other.
Irrespective of whether Commonwealth/former Commonwealth nations decided to assist South Korea, there is no current obligation for Australia to commit military forces.
If the US asked for it and it could be justified under some treaty/defence pact, then Australia would likely send forces but the government would not necessarily join a South Korean operation because other Commonwealth nations had.

Unless Australia was directly threatened or attacked by the North Koreans its the only way I could see the Aussies sending infantry to Korea. A brigade sized force would probably remain under Australian command.

[kato13]

One thing I think we have to remember if we are following the spirit of the original game. You sometimes include things that don't make complete sense to give a greater variety of potential for combat.

Logically I don't like the Soviets in Alaska, Washington and Southern Texas, but if they were not there someone solely running an North American campaign would have no use for the Soviet Vehicle Handbook.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by RN7

None with NATO either but they still sent a large force to Afghanistan.

For Australia, Afghanistan was Global War on Terrorism part 2. We committed forces because the US asked us to and under the actions against Al Quaeda previously established via ANZUS, we agreed.

Originally Posted by RN7

There is even talk of Australia buying Virginia Class SSN's at the mo, couldn't see it happening but it is a major turn around in Australia's defence outlook.

There was serious discussion in government about nuclear power for the next generation of subs due to China's continuing upgrade of its military capacity. However a government decision in 2012 ruled out this option. Unless a radical change comes about, Australia's next class of submarine will have conventional power. To quote the report “All options are being considered other than nuclear propulsion which the government has ruled out.”

However, in a Twilight: 2030 timeline with a Chinese government in a more threatening posture (the initial reason the government considered nuclear powered subs) or with an antagonistic Indonesia, SSNs could be part of a mixed sub fleet. Part of the Australian desire to maintain conventional subs is because of the stealth factor - conventional subs can shutdown noisy systems but SSNs cannot, their powerplants must be kept on.

There's also the possibility of Australia acting against Indonesia through the Five Power Defence Arrangements. If Indonesia were to threaten Malaysia (again) or Singapore, the FPDA could be invoked to bring UK, NZ and Australia military action against Indonesia.

Originally Posted by RN7

Unless Australia was directly threatened or attacked by the North Koreans its the only way I could see the Aussies sending infantry to Korea. A brigade sized force would probably remain under Australian command.

Aside from the UN calling for military action, there's also the likelihood that if North Korea attacked the US, the US government could invoke ANZUS to get Australian involvement (or we might invoke it ourselves).
As mentioned before though, although Australian forces might be placed under another nations command structure for joint operations, any Australian force deployed anywhere in the world for whatever reason will always retain Australian command authority. Any Australian unit operating under the command structure of an ally can refuse orders from that ally if the Australian unit commander believes it is against Australian interests.
Gallipoli left a very bad taste and the insult to Australian troops in WW2 by MacArthur with his directive that any victory by Australian forces under his command be written up as an "Allied victory" rather than Australian sure as hell didn't help.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by kato13

One thing I think we have to remember if we are following the spirit of the original game. You sometimes include things that don't make complete sense to give a greater variety of potential for combat.

Logically I don't like the Soviets in Alaska, Washington and Southern Texas, but if they were not there someone solely running an North American campaign would have no use for the Soviet Vehicle Handbook.

Well I think they were there for more than just that reason - and given that reasoning if you dont go up to Canada then you dont need the NATO book either - i.e. you wont see any NATO vehicles

was there ever a book that detailed the vehicles of the Italian Army by the way?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Well I think they were there for more than just that reason - and given that reasoning if you dont go up to Canada then you dont need the NATO book either - i.e. you wont see any NATO vehicles

was there ever a book that detailed the vehicles of the Italian Army by the way?

I agree it was not the only reason, but it makes sense from a business standpoint. Adding the Soviets as an enemy within the US was a lot of fun.

I don't remember if canon Mexican forces have any French vehicles, but I'm pretty sure they did IRL, so that gets you some NATO vehicles on the southern border as well.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Aside from the UN calling for military action, there's also the likelihood that if North Korea attacked the US, the US government could invoke ANZUS to get Australian involvement (or we might invoke it ourselves).

So if I'm reading this correctly is the most likely route for Australian involvement in an Asian War as a result of a North Korean attack on US forces in South Korea leading to an invocation of the ANZUS treaty?

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

There's also the possibility of Australia acting against Indonesia through the Five Power Defence Arrangements. If Indonesia were to threaten Malaysia (again) or Singapore, the FPDA could be invoked to bring UK, NZ and Australia military action against Indonesia.

The UK Parliament is on record as saying the FPDA has no "specific commitment to intervene militarily" and merely requires the signatories to "consult immediately" in the event of an attack (or threat of attack) on Peninsular Malaysia or Singapore so UK interpretation at least would seem to be that such an attack would not automatically lead to a military intervention.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Olefin

was there ever a book that detailed the vehicles of the Italian Army by the way?

Not specifically. The only guides were the US, Soviet, and NATO ones. I'm fairly sure the only publication that went into any sort of detail was Going Home, which listed the strengths and locations of several Italian Divisions (three if I recall correctly, but I'm going from meory so could be wrong). There was a Challenge magazine that had an article about Italy written for T:2300 which added some detail (for example that the Pope had gone to Perugia).

[Olefin]

Actually surprised they never put out details on their vehicles as you would have figured that either NATO units or US units that fought against them would have captured some of them - or that the Folgore Division, having declared for NATO would thus give them a reason to add them. And Italy has some very interesting vehicles that are unique to them.

Kato - you are right about the Mexican forces having some French vehicles - they had some armored cars and APC's that were part of the Texas module - and an official Mexican Army vehicle guide would have been very interesting indeed - especially for a North American campaign - face it they are in the whole Southwest and probably had some of their advanced patrols get as far as Oklahoma and Arkansas before they got stopped.

And even if you dont use the Texas module, the Satellite Down module is definitely one that getting home may require a long walk thru both Mexico and occupied America to get home.

Anyone ever ask Frank Frey if they were planning more vehicle supplements for Mexico or Italy or China and never got around to them?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kato13

One thing I think we have to remember if we are following the spirit of the original game. You sometimes include things that don't make complete sense to give a greater variety of potential for combat.

That's exactly what I'm going for. I want to keep elements of the original game but produce an updated setting so that I can incorporate more modern gear. I think that we can keep a lot similar in Europe but in Asia, with China on the other side this time, the changes will be significant.

Originally Posted by kato13

Logically I don't like the Soviets in Alaska, Washington and Southern Texas, but if they were not there someone solely running an North American campaign would have no use for the Soviet Vehicle Handbook.

Agreed. I haven't thought of a plausible way to do this, though. I can see how the designers could have thought it possible in the early 1980s but now, or in 10-15 years, I don't think anyone believes that the Russians could pull something like that off.

Could the Chinese, though? Probably not. Not with their current or even projected amphibious/sealift capabilities. And not with Japan in the way, either.

So, I'm thinking a gradual collapse of the U.S. federal system after the war goes nuclear, and I'm thinking about an opportunistic land grab by Mexico as well. That should create the degree of chaos in the CONUS that will facilitate gameplay in the States as well.

Any other ideas of how we could plausible mess with the U.S. looking forward about 15 years?