Australia Twilight War & After...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

From logically trying to look at what a Soviet nuclear attack on Australia might look like, and what the Soviet command would be prepared to commit or spare from use elsewhere...

A decent list, but one I feel could benefit from a local perspective.
Primary Targets

SS-18
Adelaide, SA (State Capital, Major Population and Industrial Centre, Submarine Building, Military Vehicles, International Airport and Sea Port, Army Base) - As far as I am aware, no subs have been built here for some time.

Canberra, ACT (National Capital and International Air Port, NASA Deep Space Communications Station) - The "international air port" is barely worthy of the name. It's not a lot more than a landing strip and a few supporting buildings. As for the politicians in Canberra, nuke away - it'd be no great loss!
I would miss that very cute woman I used to see there though.

Geelong, VIC (Industrial Centre, Oil Refinery, Airport and Sea Port)
Melbourne, VIC (State Capital, Major Population and Industrial centre, Oil Refinery, Warship Building, Military Aircraft, International Air Port and Sea Port, Army and Airforce Base) - Geelong and Melbourne could potentially be hit with one missile. Might take two warheads though to be sure. Warship (or any ship) building capacity is very limited (when compared to other locations). The various military bases are relatively small affairs and well dispursed.

Sydney, NSW (State Capital, Major Population and Industrial Centre, Oil Refinery, Nuclear Reactor, International Air Port and Sea Port, Major Army Base, Garden Island Navy Base) - I spent nearly ten years in Sydney. It would require multiple warheads to strike at all the listed targets. One may take out the majority of the port facilities, air port and garden island, but Holsworthy, Ingleburn, Richmond etc are quite a distance away (Richmond would require a nuke of it's own, but it's not much of a target.

Woomera, SA (Air Force Air & Space Test Range) - Don't know a lot about this one, but I believe there's not a lot there to nuke. I think it's more of an open space than actual facility.

SS-11 & SS-25
Newcastle, NSW (Industrial Centre, Airport and Sea Port, Army Base) - The Newcastle area would require several warheads at least to cover all probable targets, however some of those targets simply aren't worth the effort. Singleton for example is the Infantry Training Centre for the Australian Army, but consists of a small collection of buildings housing around a thousand people (at most) the majority of whom are usually out in the field at any given time. And those fields, well, they're BIG!

The remaining "target"s I don't really know enough about to comment on effectively. Some, like Darwin, I haven't laid eyes on in over twenty years, others such as Perth I've never been to.


As for the "total war" list...

Alice Springs, NT (Airport, Radar Station) - Is it really worth nuking an airstrip and radar dish?

Devonport, TAS (Airport and Sea Port) - probably two nukes required although neither needs to be very big. The port facility is incapable of major work being barely more than docks.

Launceston, TAS (Airport, Army Base) - two warheads required as there is at least 15 km between them. The two army bases are barely worthy of the name however, both are reserve units no larger than about an acre in size (0.4 hectares) with a standing staff counted on one hand. One is an infantry company, the other in the CBD is Artillery and support units (medical, supply, admin).

Orange, NSW (Army Base) - reserve unit only. No more than a handful of standing staff in BHQ plus thousands of sheep...

Richmond, NSW (Major Airforce Base) - Hmm, major.... If you consider C-130's and a hospital unit as a major combat asset...

Wagga Wagga, NSW (Airport, Airforce Base) - definately nukable since 1RTB is located at Kapooka, a short drive away. 1RTB is the recruit training centre for the entire army, everyone besides officers goes through there.
HOWEVER, it is only a training centre...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

7.62mmN L2A1 (automatic rifle)

VERY rare. In all my years in the infantry I've seen a total of, one, count 'em, 1 L2A1 in working condition plus one in the infantry museum at Singleton near Newcastle.
This doesn't mean that they aren't relatively plentiful in other areas, just that they're not standard issue in the units I was in or associated with.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

VERY rare. In all my years in the infantry I've seen a total of, one, count 'em, 1 L2A1 in working condition plus one in the infantry museum at Singleton near Newcastle.
This doesn't mean that they aren't relatively plentiful in other areas, just that they're not standard issue in the units I was in or associated with.

I do find it very interesting the way the Army seemed to hand out it's equipment. One of my friends joined an armoured recce regiment in Sydney and they had about 12 L2A1s apparently and the infantry unit in Western Australia he was in later had about 6 but that unit also had a Series III Landrover while all the other units had 110s and had complained that support units were getting the Austcam uniforms while his infantry unit was still in JGs!

[RN7]

SS-18
Adelaide, SA (State Capital, Major Population and Industrial Centre, Submarine Building, Military Vehicles, International Airport and Sea Port, Army Base) - As far as I am aware, no subs have been built here for some time.

Well were do the Collins Class subs go to be serviced or repaired if HMAS Stirling at Garden Island WA cant do the job or is nuked then?

Canberra, ACT (National Capital and International Air Port, NASA Deep Space Communications Station) - The "international air port" is barely worthy of the name. It's not a lot more than a landing strip and a few supporting buildings. As for the politicians in Canberra, nuke away - it'd be no great loss! I would miss that very cute woman I used to see there though.

Still an airport that handles 2.8 million people a year and that has a 3,270M runway and secondary 1,679M runway would be of some use.

Geelong, VIC (Industrial Centre, Oil Refinery, Airport and Sea Port)
Melbourne, VIC (State Capital, Major Population and Industrial centre, Oil Refinery, Warship Building, Military Aircraft, International Air Port and Sea Port, Army and Airforce Base) - Geelong and Melbourne could potentially be hit with one missile. Might take two warheads though to be sure.

My thinking exactly

Warship (or any ship) building capacity is very limited (when compared to other locations). The various military bases are relatively small affairs and well dispursed.

I think any shipyard that can build and repair modern warships is worth targeting.

Sydney, NSW (State Capital, Major Population and Industrial Centre, Oil Refinery, Nuclear Reactor, International Air Port and Sea Port, Major Army Base, Garden Island Navy Base) - I spent nearly ten years in Sydney. It would require multiple warheads to strike at all the listed targets. One may take out the majority of the port facilities, air port and garden island, but Holsworthy, Ingleburn, Richmond etc are quite a distance away (Richmond would require a nuke of it's own, but it's not much of a target.

A 20MT warhead might do the job, but I still would be open to a second missile strike on Australia's largest city. I think RAAF Richmond is home to much of Australia's military airlift resources, although its unlikely that all would be based there.

Woomera, SA (Air Force Air & Space Test Range) - Don't know a lot about this one, but I believe there's not a lot there to nuke. I think it's more of an open space than actual facility.

Woomera Test Range is the largest defence systems test and evaluation range in the western world and to be honest I'm not sure what there either as its sort of an Australian White Sands, so I believe a 20MT warhead would be needed to at least disable operations from it.

Newcastle, NSW (Industrial Centre, Airport and Sea Port, Army Base) - The Newcastle area would require several warheads at least to cover all probable targets, however some of those targets simply aren't worth the effort. Singleton for example is the Infantry Training Centre for the Australian Army, but consists of a small collection of buildings housing around a thousand people (at most) the majority of whom are usually out in the field at any given time. And those fields, well, they're BIG!

A MIRV strike then perphaps?

Alice Springs, NT (Airport, Radar Station) - Is it really worth nuking an airstrip and radar dish?

No its just a potential target.

Devonport, TAS (Airport and Sea Port) - probably two nukes required although neither needs to be very big. The port facility is incapable of major work being barely more than docks.

Launceston, TAS (Airport, Army Base) - two warheads required as there is at least 15 km between them. The two army bases are barely worthy of the name however, both are reserve units no larger than about an acre in size (0.4 hectares) with a standing staff counted on one hand. One is an infantry company, the other in the CBD is Artillery and support units (medical, supply, admin).

I wouldnt bother with Tasmania myself, as its of no strategic value.

Orange, NSW (Army Base) - reserve unit only. No more than a handful of standing staff in BHQ plus thousands of sheep...

Again just a potential target.

Richmond, NSW (Major Airforce Base) - Hmm, major.... If you consider C-130's and a hospital unit as a major combat asset...

Not all military resources are frontline combat ones.

Wagga Wagga, NSW (Airport, Airforce Base) - definately nukable since 1RTB is located at Kapooka, a short drive away. 1RTB is the recruit training centre for the entire army, everyone besides officers goes through there. HOWEVER, it is only a training centre...

Worth a nuke then?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

A 20MT warhead might do the job, but I still would be open to a second missile strike on Australia's largest city. I think RAAF Richmond is home to much of Australia's military airlift resources, although its unlikely that all would be based there.

Based maybe, but unlikely to remain there in the event of a war. Unless the nukes were sent as the opening shots of the war, I can't see a nuke hitting more than a handful of transport aircraft plus the servicing facilities (which I'm sure are duplicated elsewhere in various forms).

Originally Posted by RN7

A MIRV strike then perphaps?

Newcastle, Woolongong and especially Sydney would need multiple warheads to take out completely. Unlike cities in the northern hemisphere (especially Europe), Australian cites are spread over a very wide area. Sydney, with only approximately 4 million people (a little under a 1/5th of the total Australian population) takes about an hour to drive across even taking the motorways and cruising at around 110 kph.
Richmond is approximately 50km from Garden Island/CBD, Orchard hills is 20km from Richmond, Holsworthy 45km from Richmond and Holsworthy to the CBD/Garden Island area is about 30km.
It is my estimate that you'd need at least five warheads to significantly damage just those targets mentioned.

Originally Posted by RN7

Worth a nuke then?

I'm on the fence about this one actually. Being primarily just a training centre, it would be relatively easy to set up again elsewhere and be up and running within a short period or time (provided instructors could be found).
During WWII and Vietnam, other locations also conducted recruit training, so...
It's be worth a nuke if there were a few free, but it's not a location I'd have on my primary list (even though personally I'd LOVE to see it as a smoking, radioactive hole in the ground, but then so would anyone else who's ever been subjected to it's horrors).

[RN7]

It always good to get a local prospective on things. Would be great if we could do some target lists for other countries and get some local knowledge as well from people who live there.

Newcastle, Woolongong and especially Sydney would need multiple warheads to take out completely. Unlike cities in the northern hemisphere (especially Europe), Australian cites are spread over a very wide area. Sydney, with only approximately 4 million people (a little under a 1/5th of the total Australian population) takes about an hour to drive across even taking the motorways and cruising at around 110 kph. Richmond is approximately 50km from Garden Island/CBD, Orchard hills is 20km from Richmond, Holsworthy 45km from Richmond and Holsworthy to the CBD/Garden Island area is about 30km.
It is my estimate that you'd need at least five warheads to significantly damage just those targets mentioned.

I live in Dublin, Ireland which is a relatively small city compared to some of the bigger cities and conurbations in Britain and Europe, yet it would take nearly an hour to drive from the northern end to the southern end of it at a steady speed as the suburbs are huge, and the Dublin area has now spread well beyond Co. Dublin and out into four other counties.

[RN7]

Well this getting beyond the Australia discussion Mohender.

Here you are forgetting about boomers and aircrafts. Then, in the game (always v2.2) the four Russian SS-18 bases were targeted and destroyed and there is no point to do that if the missiles are already launched (especially as no one hits any target anywere). That alone would explain why US wasn't hit by SS-18.

I doubt bombers would used in a first strike by either America or Russia, particularly against each other. Although boomers may be used in conjunction with land based ICBMs.

Two things make me think that most of this comes from insufficient knowledge from the original T2K team (they didn't have internet and many informations were unavailable). Out of the 7 other bases destroyed in USSR, 3 are SS-26 (actual Iskander) and 1 is SS-27 (commissioned only after 1998). There is also no reason for them to have forgotten the 2 bases in Kazakhstan and especially/only these ones.

Probably right here.

So to answer your question:
- All ICBM bases are not listed as destroyed but if two SS-18 bases remain why not use any of them (104) against US/Canada and their highly strategic targets?

They may use some, but there are other targets (Australia) that need to be hit as well.

- To retaliate the soviets still have boomers and aircrafts+mobile ICBM fire units (about 300 SS-25).

I think they would be largely used against American and NATO targets closer to the USSR.

- If the soviets starts, it is possible that they don't send SS-18 in the first place. However, I would agree that it is highly unlikely. On the other hand, again, why leaving about 80 SS-18 in their Silos while they are the best suited weapons to take out NORAD, the US ICBM bases and even Washington DC?

Well they dont really need to use the SS-18 (R-36M2) to hit the US as other ICBM's have the range, but to cause the most damage they would be well suited.

In addition, according to the game text (again v2.2), both sides refrain from targetting the other side's ICBM land base for quite some times. At last, they do: All 4 US bases are taken out (Forks, Malmstrom, Minot & Warren +Vandenberg) and almost all Soviets bases in Russia with the base in others republics not accounted for (most likely forgotten). Then, they are two possibilities: All missiles are destroyed before being launched or they are launched before the bases are destroyed and, then, SS-18 should be accounted for all over (there are none/according to your own account most Satan were equipped with 20Mt warheads, they would have been used). I grant you that the Mt listed are highly questionable and can be open to debate (but that will become endless)

I don't think we will ever know will we.

For my parts (I mean in my game), I use several SS-18 but only on highly strategic targets. They are not used extensively because the first strike is successful in decapitating the US ICBM force. Then, in turn, the Soviets' ICBM force (silo only) is decapitated by strikes from SLBM.

If the Soviets launched a first strike on the US I think its highly probable that most if not all of the US silo based ICBMs would be launched before they were destroyed by the incoming Soviet missiles.

[Mohoender]

I'll answer that one on the What is Cannon? thread started by Leg.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

VERY rare. In all my years in the infantry I've seen a total of, one, count 'em, 1 L2A1 in working condition plus one in the infantry museum at Singleton near Newcastle.

Same here. I've only ever seen one in working condition and I never actually saw it fired.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

Same here. I've only ever seen one in working condition and I never actually saw it fired.

Weren't you producing the F1? What would be of these?

Oops realized that the L2A1 was a version of the FN-FAL/L1A1 produced in very little number by Australia.

What about the F1, nevertheless? Are there still some Owen around?

[Legbreaker]

I trained briefly with the F1 SMG waaaaay back in early 91. They were withdrawn from my unit within months of my arrival. A very simple weapon, although being a 9mm, I can't speak all that highly of effectiveness.

As for the Owen, I believe they went out of service back in the 60's. The F1 replaced it with the vast majority of Owens being destroyed. A few might be found "off the books" in unit armouries, but don't count on them being in working order (hard to ask the armourer to maintain them without parts and authorisation).

Besides the issued L1A1 SLRs, M60's, handful of M16A1s and the odd M203 (the latter two received as hand-me-downs from another unit which had received their F88 Steyr AUG earlier), my first unit had a Bren gun, two SMLEs and an ancient Martini Henry tucked away up the back of the company armoury.

[Legbreaker]

Attachment 827

[Targan]

I'd add and important addition just below "Sharks" and just above "Stinging Jellyfish" on the left hand side of the map - "TARGAN".

[Legbreaker]

I think "deranged gunmen" on Tasmania is right on the money.

[rcaf_777]

My two cents is there is nothing saying that a ANZAC Division could organized and trained and sent somewhere ethier the middle east or Europe in the later stages???

I also think that eveybody needs to take a look at target list for nukes and remember that, they are just lists, many factors have taken into account for actually nukes fired off durring TW2000

The Targets Are

US Forces in Europe and Misslie Launch feilds in the CONUS

Then Staging/Training areas for troops for US Forces in CONUS (cause that were the bulk of it Military is)

War Industrials CONUS

Now comes tragets outside the CONUS but still covering the same areas

But we must remmber the following

how much was used before the counter attack ?
how missile fail to go off ?
how many were used againist new targets?

[Olefin]

Been reading this discussion (very interesting one) and frankly I think that the GDW 2300 nuking of Australia doesnt really agree with the T2K canon as to its extent.

The Russians in their attack on the US and the UK really didnt go for city busting - they went after industrial targets mainly - after all if they were going for a city buster then why is NY still standing and why are large areas of LA intact? Heck they barely touched Chicago.

The attack on Australia seems to be overkill compared to the rest of the nuclear strikes in general - i.e. if you are going to hit Australia that bad then the nuclear exchange is a lot worse than anything painted in Howling Wildnerness or the timeline in general.

Plus look at the size of warheads used in the rest of the attacks - the biggest in the US was a total yield of 1.75 MT - if you are taking out Sydney with a 20MT attack then there is no way that any major US city is still there.

Frankly what I saw Leg post a long time ago is the reality as far as I am concerned - a single nuclear attack on the one US facility there to take it out and try to convince Australia to stay out of the war.

And I agree with the comments about the US using Australia as a supply center for its forces in Kenya and the Middle East - especially since Australia uses much the same weapons as the US.

I see them as staying neutral initially in the war until and then possibly coming in late, but with Australian contingents of volunteers fighting in Europe, the Middle East and Kenya.

I will have a small contingent of Australian troops in the Kenya sourcebook I am writing now based on Frank Frey's notes - not much more than a company - and based on similar Australian deployments during the War on Terror.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

My two cents is there is nothing saying that a ANZAC Division could organized and trained and sent somewhere either the middle east or Europe in the later stages???

Just the small conflict with Indonesia which happens to have a much greater manpower than Australia (if somewhat lacking in decent aircraft and ships).
There's also the small matter of Australia only having 2 Divisions total with only about 2/3rds of 1st Division being regular army and the balance made up of reserve units which can have as little as 10% of their full strength.

Originally Posted by Olefin

The attack on Australia seems to be overkill compared to the rest of the nuclear strikes in general.

Umm, what?
This is from the 2.2 BYB

Australia
Australia was largely untouched by the nuclear exchange. but the global panic which followed left its mark on both the cities and outback. Large parts of the countryside are now in anarchy, terrorized, or insular, but the major cities are organized and controlled by the central government. A short war was fought with Indonesia after it invaded Australia's ally, Papua New Guinea.The Indonesian offensive quickly halted, mostly due to logistic collapse but not before a majority of Australia's and Indonesia's modern aircraft and naval vessels had been damaged or destroyed in a series of running aero-naval actions.

The previous comments in this thread I think you'll find are all hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Olefin

I see them as staying neutral initially in the war until and then possibly coming in late, but with Australian contingents of volunteers fighting in Europe, the Middle East and Kenya.

Not likely!
One of the scenarios in Twilight Encounters (What's Polish for G'day) has a small Australian SAS unit and the PC's are supposed to be taken by complete surprise at Australians being anywhere near Europe.
Only one Challenge mag has Australians serving anywhere, and that's just a brief note about a presence in Korea (I've been working on fleshing that out for a while with some difficulty - best unit appears to be the reserve 9th Brigade from 2nd Div after being brought up to strength with fresh recruits). With the situation at home, the limited numbers of troops, and the war with Indonesia, it's just not going to happen that Australians are going to be sent anywhere else. Might be a few freelancers/mercenaries, but don't count on any serving military personnel unless it's the odd individual caught overseas on exchange, on holiday, or deserted.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Targan

I've always thought that Australian and New Zealand forces would have fought in the Korean and/or Korean theatres during the Twilight War (but I can't be sure that I actually read it in canon).

I don't have the quote immediately to hand (am at work at the moment) but when I was researching the Anglo German Brigade I'm pretty sure I came across a reference to Australian troops being in Korea in the Challenge article on Canada (Issue #30).

Edit - just saw that Leg beat me to this one...

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Only one Challenge mag has Australians serving anywhere, and that's just a brief note about a presence in Korea (I've been working on fleshing that out for a while with some difficulty - best unit appears to be the reserve 9th Brigade from 2nd Div after being brought up to strength with fresh recruits).

Leg, am pretty sure that article places Australian troops in Korea in early 1997 - would Reserve forces be ready to deploy overseas that early on in the War?

[Legbreaker]

Unlikely, but I think I proposed in a thread on Korea that regular army units would have been sent initially and rotated home as soon as the reserves were ready and the Indonesian situation had hotted up.
The reserve brigade (mostly light, foot mobile infantry) would have been used in Korea as rear area security most likely and supported by M113's and M113MRVs (Scorpion turrets). I'd like to see some New Zealanders there too as part of the Brigade, probably an artillery battery as occurred in Vietnam, or their light tanks (Scimitars?).

[Olefin]

I think it also comes down to what is canon - I use the original release as canon so version 2.0 or 2.2 isnt canon to me anymor than 2013 is

I will take a look at the challenge articles - thanks for the heads up on those Leg! (by the way I hope you dont take offense at my using Leg - if you want I can use the full Legbreaker)

And I also agree with you that Australian forces overseas will be either volunteers who went to serve with British units or will be small in size - i.e. a battalion at most, posssibly just scattered companies


face it - even if they dont get into a shooting war with Indonesia they have a lot of coastline to patrol and a lot of refugees who will be trying to get there

[James Langham]

The most likely Australians to be in Europe are in the British Army as part of the "Commonwealth Soldier" programme that would have been about 10% of the Army by 1995. Gives scope for a few fun characters.

[Webstral]

Regarding the apparent inequality of Soviet nuclear distribution, I think it's fair to have a look at how we hung the Turks, Jugoslavs, and Romanians out to dry once the tactical exchange began as a rationale for why Australia got hit. Once the Soviets get the idea that the US isn't going to stand up for all the allies equally, the equation changes. Just look at the treatment Canada gets. Is GDW making a very unfavorable statement about the US and her willingness to stand up for her allies in the worst circumstances? Quite possibly. Alternatively, the nuclear exchange logic might be that an attack on Canada merits an attack on Czechoslovakia; an attack on Australia merits an attack on Vietnam. If so, then the Soviets have every reason to cut Australia's throat and dump the body in the river. What do they have to lose, really? Anyway, these are just speculations.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by James Langham

The most likely Australians to be in Europe are in the British Army as part of the "Commonwealth Soldier" programme that would have been about 10% of the Army by 1995. Gives scope for a few fun characters.

Could be a few exchange personnel here and there as well. I remember an issue of "Soldier" magazine not long after Gulf War 1 that had a picture of an Australian officer in Aussie camo uniform and slouch hat (is that the right term?) who had served with the 1st UK Armoured Division during its drive into Iraq.

[Olefin]

Actually Vietnam may have been an afterthought in the GDW timeline - those three divisions sent there looked awfully tacked on the way they are presented

as if they forgto them earlier and put them there intending to have a module deal with them (possibly a Southeast Asia one involving Australia, Indonesia and Vietnam) and then never got it released

Considering how far out on a limb those troops are you would figure they would have been nuked for sure by the Chinese or the US - but they never got touched. (and frankly you would think the US would love to nuke northern Vietnam in a "lets get even with those SOB's" kind of event but we can say its really to get those pesky Russians)

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Olefin

(and frankly you would think the US would love to nuke northern Vietnam in a "lets get even with those SOB's" kind of event but we can say its really to get those pesky Russians)

Agreed. The nuclear exchange is the opportunity for the US to settle the score once and for all. What Agent Orange failed to do, 20-30 megatons distributed liberally across Vietnam might accomplish. Payback is a b****, the Joint Chiefs might say.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I think it also comes down to what is canon - I use the original release as canon so version 2.0 or 2.2 isnt canon to me anymor than 2013 is

V2.x is a direct cut and paste from V1 for the most part. V2.x has only expanded on V1 and made a handful of adjustments to account for changes in equipment (the LAV-75/M8 for example). As far as the timelines are concerned. There's almost NO difference from November 1996.

Originally Posted by Olefin

And I also agree with you that Australian forces overseas will be either volunteers who went to serve with British units or will be small in size - i.e. a battalion at most, posssibly just scattered companies

Nope, try a platoon at best, and they certainly won't be sent anywhere after war with Indonesia breaks out, and even before then won't be sent to remote places such as Kenya where Australia has absolutely no interests to worry about.

Originally Posted by Olefin

face it - even if they dont get into a shooting war with Indonesia they have a lot of coastline to patrol and a lot of refugees who will be trying to get there

We manage. Sometimes not well due to political interference, but when tensions increase, refugee boats tend to get "accidentally" sunk. Our greatest defence against an influx of refugees is the vast empty deserts refugees are likely to encounter. They may make it here, but it's extremely unlikely they'll survive long if they're not picked up by the authorities.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I remember an issue of "Soldier" magazine not long after Gulf War 1 that had a picture of an Australian officer in Aussie camo uniform and slouch hat (is that the right term?) who had served with the 1st UK Armoured Division during its drive into Iraq.

Yes, Slouch hat is the correct term.
WWIII is a lot different to WWII. 70 years ago, Australia still had a lot of emotional ties to the UK, today that's a distant memory for the most part. This is due mainly to the inability of the UK to assist Australia against the Japanese and Australia building closer defence ties with the US.

There will always be a few exchanges of officers and NCOs (there was a British Captain attached to my unit back in '91), but they're fairly few and far between - maybe one in a thousand. Given Australia's current regular army numbers just 30,000 personnel, we're talking about 30 on exchange. Add in Naval and RAAF and it's 59,000, so maybe 60 or so on exchange.
And that's world wide, not just to the UK.

Come WWIII a few observers may be deployed, and the 2.x Nautical & Aviation book has Australian UN peacekeepers in Cyprus, but besides that and the Australians mentioned as being in Korea (probably UN also) Australia simply doesn't have the manpower available, especially with the Indonesian conflict closer to home.

And besides small arms production and ship building, I don't believe we have any serious military industrial capacity. We're not going to be producing tanks, APCs, artillery, missiles, etc to equip additional forces (light infantry is the best we could manage). We don't even have enough APCs now to go around the reserve units (usually a single Squadron has to service an entire infantry Brigade) - most of the heavier equipment (rightly) being with the regular army.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Olefin

And I also agree with you that Australian forces overseas will be either volunteers who went to serve with British units or will be small in size - i.e. a battalion at most, posssibly just scattered companies

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

WWIII is a lot different to WWII. 70 years ago, Australia still had a lot of emotional ties to the UK, today that's a distant memory for the most part.

I seem to recall the question of Australian / New Zealand (and other Commonwealth troops) fighting in the Twilight War under UK command has come up a few times before. Leg is spot on - the nature of the relationship between the UK and the Commonwealth has changed significantly since WWII and the days of Empire. With the exception of a handful of British overseas territories (such asthe Falklands) Commonwealth members are all independent States who would be under no obligation to get involved in the War (with the obvious exception of Canada, which is a member of NATO as well as the Commonwealth). Where Australian soldiers are serving overseas (including Korea) I agree that it would be under the auspices of the UN.

What you might see are ANZAC troops undertaking UN duties that would normally have been done by the UK to allow the UK troops to be deployed elsewhere - for example Leg references Australian forces in Cyprus. The UK usually has a number of troops assigned to UN duties in Cyprus (in addition to the Sovereign Base garrisons) - it's possible the Australians may have agreed to send some troops to Cyprus so the British forces could be sent elsewhere. There is past precedent for this - during the Falklands War the Royal New Zealand Navy took over the Royal Navy's Caribbean patrol so the RN ship tasked with that duty could join the South Atlantic Task Force.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

... What you might see are ANZAC troops undertaking UN duties that would normally have been done by the UK to allow the UK troops to be deployed elsewhere - for example Leg references Australian forces in Cyprus. The UK usually has a number of troops assigned to UN duties in Cyprus (in addition to the Sovereign Base garrisons) - it's possible the Australians may have agreed to send some troops to Cyprus so the British forces could be sent elsewhere. There is past precedent for this - during the Falklands War the Royal New Zealand Navy took over the Royal Navy's Caribbean patrol so the RN ship tasked with that duty could join the South Atlantic Task Force.

Just to add further weight to this, I work with a guy who used to be a senior radar operator in the RAN. In 1982 the ship he was on was tasked to take over the Hong Kong patrol (or whatever it's called) to free up the RN frigate that was stationed there so it could join the Falklands taskforce.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

... And besides small arms production and ship building, I don't believe we have any serious military industrial capacity. We're not going to be producing tanks, APCs, artillery, missiles, etc to equip additional forces (light infantry is the best we could manage). We don't even have enough APCs now to go around the reserve units (usually a single Squadron has to service an entire infantry Brigade) - most of the heavier equipment (rightly) being with the regular army.

While we weren't doing this in the timeframe of the Twilight War, we could have been producing light armoured vehicles. The facilities existed and the precedent had already been set in WW2 when we needed tanks and couldn't get them so we designed and manufactured the Sentinel cruiser tank. In 1996 British Aerospace Australian had the rights to the Shorland armoured car design. There was never enough demand for them so manufacture never commenced.