Australia Twilight War & After...

[RN7]

"The army force of helicopters consists of 47 OH-58 Kiowa’s and 48 AH-1s." As much as I like the Cobra, it wouldn't have been selected for Australia unless a fantastically good deal was made for its purchase. We evaluated them during the Vietnam War and the decision was made to acquire them to the point where they were issued an Australian aircraft serial prefix but the war ended and no purchase was made. Later evaluation in the 1980s decided that attack helicopters were a very low priority and that a helicopter better suited to Australia's environment and long distances was required. More importantly, up until the late 1990s, the Air Force would most likely have been the operator of any attack helicopters we purchased as it was seen to be the primary supplier of combat air assets.

Probably the thinking with the Cobra in Australian service was that it was bought second hand from the Americans, and was needed to give air support to the large mercenary force (nine brigades) that Australia created to occupy Indonesia.

Also, the Army operated the Bell 206B Jet Ranger and not the military model OH-58 Kiowa. As such, they were not fitted for armaments of any sort and were used as light utility, recce/observation only.
This isn't a complaint really, just an attempt to provide some better information for everyone.

Maybe similar thinking with the Kiowa, bought second hand from the US Army and used to supplement the Cobra force. Probably would have been better off buying more UH-1 or a few UH-60s though.

"Indo-Australian fixed-wing assets in Indonesia consist of two 16 plane squadrons of A-6..." I believe this is a typo that slipped past the editors as no force outside the USA operated/operates the A-6 as far as I'm aware. I believe it should have read A-4 as Indonesia was a customer for the Skyhawk.

Definetly a typo, Indonesia was a customer for the A-4.

Another mistake in the Merc: 2000 book is the notion that we would automatically buy small arms from the UK so we would be using the L85 and L86 when in fact we were looking to acquire a licence to build M16A2 rifles here but Colt said no so we went for the AUG instead. This is common misconception with RPG companies in Europe as well as the USA.

Common notion this, although both countries used to use much the same small arms. I think the only small arms of British origin that the Australian's currently use are sniper rifles and 81mm mortars, although both countries use the same German sub-machine guns, American heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, short range anti-armour weapons, shotguns and anti-tank guided missiles, Belgian light machine guns and general purpose machine guns, and Swedish recoilless rifles.

It is entirely unlikely that we would have bought brand new M2 Bradleys let alone secondhand ones as there has not been any need identified for the operation of MICVs here. They are the province of nations with bigger budgets or larger logistics support. The mech infantry role here is sufficiently covered by updated M113 vehicles. No mention is made of the L14 Carl Gustav and we have many more of those than the Milan.

Probable thinking was that if they are using the Abrams well the M2 would complement it, maybe bought second hand or new in smaller numbers to supplement the M113.

This may be nit-picking but Fremantle (as in HMAS Fremantle) is not spelt Freemantle.

A typo perhaps!

As for what would have been a nuclear target in Australia, the list is actually larger than might be expected. Certainly Pine Gap would be a target but also the Harold E. Holt communications station next to Exmouth in Western Australia as it controlled all communications to USN submarines in this part of the southern hemisphere. Melbourne would certainly have been a target because it was (still is I think) the location of a Corp of Signals base that handled all the communications between Australia and Canada, the UK and the USA during the Cold War period (it served as a backup for communications between the UK and Canada/USA and the UK and New Zealand too by the looks of things). Perth may have been on the target list as it is the site of the deep water harbour of Fremantle plus a RAN submarine base, ship building facilities and some petroleum refining/storage. Canberra may be hit simply because it is the site of Australian military command (along with being the seat of government).

Other targets of significance might be Adelaide were they build the Collins Class submarines and military vehicles, and Bendigo and Williamstown in Victoria were they build military vehicles and warships respectively. Possibly Lithgow in New South Wales as well were most Australian small arms are built.

Any thoughts on the HMAS Perth and Australian Harriers?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

Any thoughts on the HMAS Perth and Australian Harriers?

It would be nice. But that would involve taking Australia's levels of defence spending to to whole new level.

[RN7]

It would be nice. But that would involve taking Australia's levels of defence spending to to whole new level.

Maybe not so, have a look at the two new planned Canberra Class LHDs..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

Maybe not so, have a look at the two new planned Canberra Class LHDs.

But they aren't due to be in service until 2013. In the T2K timeline this suggested HMAS Perth (ex-USS Peleliu) would have to be purchased, modified/refitted and commissioned by the RAN all during the early to mid 1990s (20 years before 2013). Add to that the need to select and purchase the aircraft it carries and train all the required personnel.

Also, of the five Tarawa class vessels why would the USN decommission and sell off the Peleliu (unless in Millenium's End the USN decommissioned all five). IRL the USS Tarawa, USS Saipan and USS Belleau Wood were decommissioned in 2009, 2007 and 2005 respectively. USS Tarawa and USS Saipan are part of the inactive fleet but could be returned to service. USS Belleau Wood was sunk as part of the 2006 RIMPAC exercise but could easily have been sold off instead. IRL USS Nassau and USS Peleliu are still in service with the USN.

Originally Posted by RN7

From Millennium’s End:
The Australian Army
[snip]There is a... Marine Assault Regiment based around the Navy’s HMAS Perth (a former Tawara class amphibious assault ship).[snip]

Perhaps this "Marine Assault Regiment" would be a third Commando Regiment, specialising in amphibious assault? This third Commando Regiment would be all-regular the amphibious assault role could cycle between 2 Cdo Regt and 3 Cdo Regt (with a two or three year rotation instead of the 12 month rotation followed by the SASR's Sabre Squadrons).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Targan

... Perhaps this "Marine Assault Regiment" would be a third Commando Regiment, specialising in amphibious assault? This third Commando Regiment would be all-regular the amphibious assault role could cycle between 2 Cdo Regt and 3 Cdo Regt (with a two or three year rotation instead of the 12 month rotation followed by the SASR's Sabre Squadrons).

The Commando units in Australia were organized for amphibious warfare since the 1950s albeit in much smaller operations than say a British or French Marine type unit let alone the scale that the USA or USSR could organize.

[RN7]

First to address RN7's post, with the Merc: 2000 situation.
Australia and the UK would be operating Milan as their ATGW and not a US system. I am fairly certain that the Javelin ATGW was not obtained by either nation until the early 2000s.

Well I was talking about current Australian small arms not Cold War equipment, so both Australia and Britain would be using the Franco-German Milan system.

As for the Abrams and Bradleys, I think it was just a lucky guess that GDW picked the Abrams as MBTs for Australia, certainly the decision wasn't really made to buy them until long after the game books were published. The thinking of the time was that we were probably going to buy the Leopard 2 or perhaps the Challenger to replace the Leopard 1. The Abrams was not a good choice for the Australian Army but it was a very good for the Australian government.

What the Aussie Army wanted and what the Aussie government wanted where and probably still are entirely different things. The Challenger 1 or 2 was probably overlooked despite a tradition of British tanks in Australian service dating to well before WW2. I sence a cynical bias against all things British in Australian government circles and maybe some military circles as well, and it also occurs in Ireland were I'm from, despite the fact that British equipment may sometimes be the best suited for its needs. The Leopard 2 would be a logical choice to replace the Leopard 1, so the Abrams was a bit of a suprise.

[ChalkLine]

I'm not a fan of the M1 tanks but this isn't what happened. Simply put, the best tank in the world at the moment is the M1 tank. It's not as far ahead as many of its fans think it is, but it is the best.

However, you need to have the vast US logistics train behind it for it to work at its full potential, which we don't have and never will unless we operate under the US umbrella.

The government that bought was happy to because the centre-right government in Australia is very 'big and powerful friends' orientated, and really seems a little insecure about being an independent second (or even third) rank power. Just because you're not the baddest bastard on the block doesn't mean we should be hiding behind US skirts, but I'm letting my politics intrude.

The grunts wanted the Abrams because they're very, very survivable. Having few tanks means that more of the enemy's AT arsenal gets directed at the tanks that you have, The Abrams is aimed not just at battlefield lethality (at which it excels) but also at crew life expectancy. The whole third generation of tanks is like this but the Abrams adds interoperability with our US friends and an access to parts we'd never be able to manufacture ourselves.

That said, expect Australian Abrams to diverge rapidly away from the US model. We never leave anything like we bought it, and our Leopards are a unique vehicle themselves.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by RN7

What the Aussie Army wanted and what the Aussie government wanted where and probably still are entirely different things. The Challenger 1 or 2 was probably overlooked despite a tradition of British tanks in Australian service dating to well before WW2. I sence a cynical bias against all things British in Australian government circles and maybe some military circles as well, and it also occurs in Ireland were I'm from, despite the fact that British equipment may sometimes be the best suited for its needs. The Leopard 2 would be a logical choice to replace the Leopard 1, so the Abrams was a bit of a suprise.

Generally true and despite the numbers of US armoured vehicles in service during and just after WW2, Australia literally did nothing except "buy British" when replacements were chosen for those WW2 vehicles.
As for a bias against all things British, I do think that this is somewhat correct but not in the "We are anti-British" sense.
It was more that certain people in Defence wanted nothing but US equipment and they took every opportunity to push the pro-US agenda and rubbish the competitors, these same people argued that we "must have" the AH-64 even though it was overkill for our projected needs. This was more a "toys for the boys" mentality than a proper consideration of our military needs.
For the government it was a very measured decision, it strengthened our ties with the US and proclaimed some sense of future interoperability... but it also made us beholden to the US for not just the tanks themselves but also an upgrade of our logistics system that would not have been required with tanks that were more fuel efficient as we also had to buy heavy fuel tankers and heavy recovery vehicles for those tankers just to support the Abrams.

The heavy lift argument has somewhat diminished with the C-17 entering service with the RAAF and the Canberra Class amphibious ships coming into service in the next half a decade.
But other than that, Chalkline's statement (The government that bought was happy to because the centre-right government in Australia is very 'big and powerful friends' orientated, and really seems a little insecure about being an independent second (or even third) rank power.) is right on the mark.

The other aspect of the Abrams that was initially overlooked was their thermal signature compared to the competitor tanks. The engine heat from the Abrams stands out far more in thermal scans than the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 even against a background of 45-50 degree C ambient temperature that is common in Australia's north where the tanks are based.
The single aspect of the Abrams that stands in favour of them was that they would already be wired for network centric warfare whereas the other two would have to be upgraded.

I remember one article in an Australian defence magazine claiming that anything other than the Abrams was bordering on criminal negligence because, to paraphrase
...the Leopard 2 was nothing more than a development of the Leopard 1 and the Leopards have never fired a shot in anger and they are based on WW2 design philosophy.

Well, even in a respectable defence magazine, the truth is sometimes lacking The Leopard 2 and the Abrams are in fact related, sharing not just the main gun but also their pedigree. The Leopard 2 is not a development of the Leopard 1 as it (and the Abrams) was the result of the failed German-US MBT-70 tank project. Also, Danish Leopard 1 tanks have been involved in combat albeit minor (if you call being shot at with ATGWs minor) in former Yugoslavia. Yes it was not tank combat as such but they have fired shots in anger so to speak.
And finally, what modern tank today isn't based on design philosophies from WW2?! There are three principles governing armoured vehicle design and they never change; protection, mobility, firepower. Each design team chooses to promote one or two over the other but the design philosophy will always be based on those three elements. these three elements have never changed and are unlikely to ever do so, so you could argue that every tank is based on design philosophies not just from WW2, but from WW1!

I would argue that the claim of "best tank" is too subjective, the Abrams is not as well suited to Australian terrain/climate as say the Merkava but it is faster. It certainly is not as fuel efficient as the Leopard 2 but it is wired for network centric warfare whereas the Leopard 2 would have to be upgraded. The Abrams has arguably less all around protection than the Challenger 2 but not too much less and again, it is faster. The reality is Australia probably does not need tanks unless they are to be used as the centrepiece for combined arms groups but unfortunately we seem intent on thinking that we need tanks because we might get into a tank fight sometime down the road.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

And finally, what modern tank today isn't based on design philosophies from WW2?! There are three principles governing armoured vehicle design and they never change; protection, mobility, firepower. Each design team chooses to promote one or two over the other but the design philosophy will always be based on those three elements. these three elements have never changed and are unlikely to ever do so, so you could argue that every tank is based on design philosophies not just from WW2, but from WW1!

Actually these three principles date back to the first known armored vehicles, back to Mesopotamia (almost 3000 years ago). The only thing before ww1 is that such vehicles were all ultimately abandonned because of their poor mobility.

No need to argue, just a digression.

[RN7]

But they aren't due to be in service until 2013. In the T2K timeline this suggested HMAS Perth (ex-USS Peleliu) would have to be purchased, modified/refitted and commissioned by the RAN all during the early to mid 1990s (20 years before 2013). Add to that the need to select and purchase the aircraft it carries and train all the required personnel.

Well I knew that but you did say...

That would involve taking Australia's levels of defence spending to to whole new level.

Their doing it now despite the demise of the Soviet Union. Also Australia nearly bought the British HMS Invicible in the early 1980's before the Falklands War. They planned to use it as a helicopter carrier with embarked Sea King and Wessex helicopters to replace the then decommisioned HMAS Melbourne. Australia never officially planned to buy Harriers or Sea Harriers but they certainly could have been embarked.

Also, of the five Tarawa class vessels why would the USN decommission and sell off the Peleliu (unless in Millenium's End the USN decommissioned all five). IRL the USS Tarawa, USS Saipan and USS Belleau Wood were decommissioned in 2009, 2007 and 2005 respectively. USS Tarawa and USS Saipan are part of the inactive fleet but could be returned to service. USS Belleau Wood was sunk as part of the 2006 RIMPAC exercise but could easily have been sold off instead. IRL USS Nassau and USS Peleliu are still in service with the USN.

I have no idea but in Millenium's End the Australian's obviously needed a carrier and the USN had a few to spare and transfered it to Australia, probably for a lot of Aussie dollars. In Millenium's End the USN also mothballed its nuclear powered carriers. Why? I dunno.

Perhaps this "Marine Assault Regiment" would be a third Commando Regiment, specialising in amphibious assault? This third Commando Regiment would be all-regular the amphibious assault role could cycle between 2 Cdo Regt and 3 Cdo Regt (with a two or three year rotation instead of the 12 month rotation followed by the SASR's Sabre Squadrons).

Could be.

[RN7]

I'm not a fan of the M1 tanks but this isn't what happened. Simply put, the best tank in the world at the moment is the M1 tank. It's not as far ahead as many of its fans think it is, but it is the best.

I think the British Challenger 2 may be arguably the best of the lot, and I think certainly is the best protected. I could be wrong but to my knowledge none have been lost to enemy fire, and a few have survived almost unscathed from mass attacks in Iraq.

[ChalkLine]

They use Chobham+ (Renford Armour from memory?)

The problem is that that the UK doesn't have the lift ability that the US does in a crisis. If we get involved in a general conflict we will be on the side of the USA unless something really, really odd happens. If we get in a regional one it is likely that the US will intervene. If for some reason, like Timor Leste, the US is busy elsewhere they will still have lift available to ship stuff overseas. Finally, if the US can't lift it, no one is capable and we're well and truly stuffed

The big problem, in my uneducated but opinionated opinion, with the M1 is the mileage. We haven't got the ability to fuel the beasts with as much fuel as they need in a theatre sense. We run the risk of a smart enemy, and if you bank on your enemy being dumb you're already half way to losing, a smart enemy will strike at our under developed strategic fuel transport system and not have to worry about fighting the actual tanks. The US and other first order combatants don't have to worry about that, they can take losses in their strategic logistics and still win a war. We don't have that option.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

I think the British Challenger 2 may be arguably the best of the lot, and I think certainly is the best protected.

I tend to agree with you on that.

The milage problem is one all modern tanks face. Weighing in around and average of 50-60 tonnes they're all going to chew through the fuel and from that viewpoint alone, only the wealthier, more developed countries are ever likely to employ them.

As for Australia using tanks, the last time any were deployed outside the country was back during the Vietnam war and we were still using Centurions. That situation is not likely to change any time soon partly due to the logistical issues, but also because there simply isn't any need for them in todays conflict zones. The M113's and LAVs (plus a few other vehicle types) we have used in East Timor, Iraq and Afganistan have, on the whole, been sufficent for the job.

Of course in a WWIII situation this is quite likely to change. If Australian troops were sent to Korea as part of the UN, it's likely some tanks would be sent along in support of the infantry. It is highly doubtful however that they would be involved in a war with Indonesia, at least not outside Australia's mainland borders.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The milage problem is one all modern tanks face. Weighing in around and average of 50-60 tonnes they're all going to chew through the fuel and from that viewpoint alone, only the wealthier, more developed countries are ever likely to employ them.

Going away from the original thread, I have a question. Wouldn't modern tank quickly become useless simply because of their weight? In a modern world, the 50-60 tons are definitely not a problem but with decaying bridges and rusting infrastructures everywhere, wouldn't they be stopped by every small river around?

After a few years of the twilight war, I don't really expect many bridges to be still capable of resisting such heavy weights.

Another question. How many time can last a M1A2 Abrams (even worse: a french Leclerc) without proper care and the vast technological support system to fix them?

Erf. I make a a thread of its own with that.

[RN7]

They use Chobham+ (Renford Armour from memory?)

I think they call the 2nd generation Chobham armour on the Challenger 2 Dorchester. Its certainly very tough, only one tank has been destroyed in action, and that was in a friendly fire incident when it was hit from another British Challenger 2.

In one encounter in Iraq a Challenger 2 came under attack in an urban area. Despite damage to the driver's sight and throwing its tracks, and being hit directly by eight RPG's at close range and a MILAN ATGM, and being under fire from heavy small arms fire for hours, the crew survived safely and the tank was back in operation six hours later after repairs. Another Challenger 2 survived being hit by 70 RPGs with little damage.

I think the Challenger 2s 120mm/55 L30A1 rifled tank gun is also the longest ranged of any western tank gun, and may hold the record for the longest kill by a tank. Although the Rheinmetall L55 120mm/55 smoothbore gun used in the German Leopard 2A6 has proven slightly superior in penetration when fitted with Tungsten rounds versus the Challenger 2's DU rounds.

[RN7]

Accoring to GDW 2300AD Earth/Cybetech sourcebook the Twilight War heavily damaged Australia.

" Following the nuclear exchanges of 1997, Australia all but ceased to exist as a nation. 30% of the population perished in the first nuclear strike, which also accounted for the destruction of Australia's industrial base and oil refining capacity. With its government left powerless and its economy destroyed, Australia slipped in chaos.

For the next 40 years, the only cohesive force on the entire Australian continent was the Australian military. Australian troops established cantonments in New South Wales, Victoria, and the cities of Darwin in the north and Fremantle on the west coast. These forces regulated food production and distribution inside their cantonments but abandoned the regions outside."

So unfortunately Australia didn't either survive the war in good shape, and there is also no mention of a war with Indonesia.

A side effect of the Twilight War was the later independence of Tasmania from Australia, and the development of an independent and aparthied state in northern Queensland which also controlled much of Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea is later assimilated by northern Queensland, and the name of the state is changed to Papua as the majority of the population are ethnically Papuan.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by RN7

Accoring to GDW 2300AD Earth/Cybetech sourcebook the Twilight War heavily damaged Australia.

Ok but I'm playing T2K (and don't care about GDW2300AD) and the two games are simply contradicting themselves as T2K states exactly the opposite. As ourselves, the authors serve their purpose.