Australia Twilight War & After...

[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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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]

... 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]

... 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.