Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australia Twilight War & After...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Fusilier View Post
    I disagree. There is virtually nothing written about the naval events in the Pacific. Anything anyone says on the matter is merely opinion and any outcome you want can be said on the matter.
    My mistake on that one, confused probably with something else. Nevertheless, given the US fleet in the Middle East the US still has some means of action while the fleet in the Atlantic is shatered.

    For SSBN, the Soviets IRL at the time of T2K had at most 20 SSBN in the Pacific. 1/2 Delta and 1/2 Yankee carrying SS-N-8 (7000 km range) and SS-N-6 (2400km range) respectively. Having one sailing in Range of Australia is not that obvious, especially as these subs are much needed for retaliation on the US.

    Moreover, giving the naval odd in the Pacific, having one closing unoticed within range of Australia is almost impossible (unless you consider, that US, China, Japan, Taiwan, Australia... are simply leaving the Soviet navy wander freely in the Pacific. What you say on soviet didn't escape the West and that may well be the reason explaining these comm centers down there). Sorry but if the Soviet forces in the Atlantic are more or less matching NATO, the Soviet Naval forces in the Pacific are fighting 1 out of 10.

    A Soviet SSBN might get lucky but doing this on purpose, I doubt it. This sub would have to sail from 7000-10000 km in a fully hostile ocean. No support ships, no air cover, constantly chased down by hostile subs, destroyers, carriers, aircrafts and even petty boats. US was operating from Okinawa, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, California... Why would you waste such a valuable asset when you need to hit your only true threat.

    However, rumors states that the Soviets were pretty much advanced with EMP tech. If I were them I would try that instead. It would not destroy Australia, but it would disrupt the comm capablity when needed.

    I agree with all of you that Australians target will be in the mind of Soviets but they are out of reach, simply and physically out of reach. By the way, how big was Pine Gap at the time (it seems that it wasn't fully grown until 1999)

    Of course, if you want so much nuking Australia, you can make a scenario for it. A lost Yankee, firing at it because it had no other target. Here are some sources but I'm not sure they are that convincing. The second document seems interesting but doesn't adress the problem of range. The last element is off-topic but I put for fun.



    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by ChalkLine View Post
      The US has the only credible NATO ABM system, so you have to multitarget the same area as many times as you can to overwhelm defences. You send not 16 MIRVs at a US target, you sent 16 ICBMs with 16 MIRVs each at one to ensure you get a penetration.

      Don't forget, once you launch you're going to lose your targeting capability within ten minutes. There's no time to say 'bugger, target x didn't get hit' and task a few more missiles at it.
      The US ABM system in existence as of 1997 is sited to protect the missile silos in the Dakotas. If you're not attacking the silos, you don't have to worry about having your missiles intercepted. The v1 chronology specifically states that neither side attacks the land-based ICBM of the other side. Missile failure and accuracy issues still apply, but interception isn't a a real issue for the Soviet surgical nuclear strike. If your first attack experiences a malfunction, you have the option of a follow-up later on.

      You're right that in an all-out exchange each side ought to target multiple missiles and/or reentry vehicles on each target to ensure destruction. Twilight: 2000 isn't about an all-out exchange. At the very heart of the game is the idea that everyone is terrified of exactly the situation you are describing; therefore, each nuclear use is intended to give the using side a little advantage. No one wants to destroy all human life, but neither the US nor the USSR can walk away from using just a couple more nukes to "redress" the situation until both nations (and global civilization) have been crippled. There are other games oriented around MAD gone wrong, but Twilight: 2000 has always been about a world knocked on its fourth point of contact without being hacked into hamburger.

      Webstral
      “We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.

      Comment


      • #63
        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.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Webstral View Post
          Sorry, Mo, but you are wrong despite some very good and very reasonable number crunching for land-based ICBM. You blithely assume that American attack boats sink every Soviet boomer that might come within range of Australia before November 1997.
          Webstral
          No I just wasn't precise enough. I didn't count the boomers. I agree they are still a possiblity but they must be lucky as there are not enough of them facing too many ships and aircrafts. I also forgot you had boomers in mind, my mistake (h h).

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by RN7 View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #66
              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.
              Well if you have any information on how Australia was effected in the Twilight war then lets hear it.

              Comment


              • #67
                The land of Oz and nukes:

                As Web said, yep you would get it!

                You are a regional power. And thus a threat. Ivan has tons of nukes and the reality is, many targets have multiple warheads for redundancy sakes. A mirv, well, each rocket has X mumber of warheads and each one is programable for a different target. 1 missile in your direction landing half a dozen warheads would be enough.

                You are a line of communication and a floating aircraft carrier, port and shipping facilities those factors alone would make you a nice juicy target.

                And your folks in New Zealand would also be on the list as well for the same reason. A base of operation for any other allied nation to operate out of or even for their damaged vessels to head to after attacks by submarines, aircraft and comerce raiders per the Marines heading to Korea.

                As for a Speitznaz unit verses a nuclear attack. That would make for a cool campaign. But, selecting, training, equiping for operations and we are talking long term operations over wilderness and urban operations in a remote area, getting them into the region then deploying them to the target country and then inserting them into the target. That is going to take alot of logistics. And maintaining communications with the team to report mission success and assign new targets based on the equipment and personel left, the skills of the personel and the intel delivered.

                And of course the whole escape and or evasion the team would have to manage after their first couple of raids when it was determined that there is a comando force operating in the area. And your areas are often open deserts, <As scenes from Bravo 2.0. and "The One That Got Away." flash into my head, that is what a team would be up against. The logistics, the chances of success, the resources needed and the cost would be something that would make it a lower priority than punching a code into a nuclear weapon and pushing "launch" or just adding it to the target list.

                I mean, what base would the team deploy from The Soviet Pacific Bases is the nearest. And the most likely method would be by submarine. Which would be risky with the sensor and active anti submarine operations. And then having them surfaced long enough to get the team and their equipment enough to conduct combat operations and to survive with, ashore. And enough diverse equipment to plan and accomplish any number of unknown missions so they are going to have to bring ALOT of gear, I would guess over two tons of equipment for a squad. Figure about 4 large packs per man when you are talking food,some water, radios, spare radios, batteries, demotlitions equipment, camoflauge equipment, medical kits, personal weapons, special weapons, ammunition, special mission essential items, spare equipment and items all to last for an unknown but extended period of time. And none of your missions are planned, so you must have all manner of gear to cover all methods of attack.

                You would need a good ammount of redundancy as well, setting up caches incase your main camp was compromised as well as for convience. Its easier to move with just a combat harness and personal weapon move to a cache where your food, water and demo is then assault the target than to trek 30km with all your goods.

                It can be done. But there is alot of risk, alot more uncertanty. Heck, a P3 Orion nail the submarine leaving port and the mission is over before they even touch land.

                A better use of a small team like that is to have assets already in place studying the target, knowing the specific target what it is and predetermining how your are going to attack it. Then you land, spend less than a week on station studying, moving and attacking and then immediate extraction. That sort of mission you can get away with one pack per man in addition to specialty equipment for the mission.

                Nope, nuking Oz is the best way.
                "God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."

                Comment


                • #68
                  I think the Traveller 2300 history follows on from the T2K 1st edition timeline. Had T2300's history been an extension of the T2k 2nd ed timeline it probably would have contained some significant differences.

                  It seems possible that if you extend out the T2K ist ed timeline Australia "slipped in(to) chaos" and suffered an Indonesian invasion in the decades following the Twilight War, whereas if you extend out the T2K 2nd ed timeline you don't have any canon info after 2001 but up until then Australia maintains some kind of governmental and social cohesion and successfully prosecutes a war with Indonesia.
                  sigpic "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I can accept that Australia would suffer a number of nuclear strikes during the Twilight War, but there is some hope that it could be less damaging than hoped for by Ivan. After all the extensive naval and military command facilities in and around Norfolk VA were the target of a Soviet MIRV (obviously intended to be a ground burst) but it went off course and created a quasi-tsunami instead of a giant glowing bowl of glass.

                    I would suggest that Australia would be as badly affected by EMP bursts as its western industrialised allies (precise targetting isn't really necessary when you want to deliver a high altitude nuclear detonation that will fry electronics across half a continent) but could get lucky with a few of its facilities and cities targeted by the Soviet Rocket Corps.
                    sigpic "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by jester View Post
                      As for a Speitznaz unit verses a nuclear attack. That would make for a cool campaign. But, selecting, training, equiping for operations and we are talking long term operations over wilderness and urban operations in a remote area, getting them into the region then deploying them to the target country and then inserting them into the target. That is going to take alot of logistics. And maintaining communications with the team to report mission success and assign new targets based on the equipment and personel left, the skills of the personel and the intel delivered.
                      They would be russian head-long to their dooms (horrible pun I know but I couldn't help it). If the crocodiles and the brutal Australian environment didn't get the the Spetznaz first, NORFORCE would eventually detect their presence, track them, and finding them in a weakened and demoralised state, destroy them.

                      Originally posted by jester
                      Nope, nuking Oz is the best way.
                      Sad but true . I respect your decision to tell it how it is despite the bitter flavour left in my mouth having read it .
                      sigpic "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by RN7 View Post
                        Well if you have any information on how Australia was effected in the Twilight war then lets hear it.
                        RN7 you have not read the entirer thread. Post No9 has what is written in v2.2. I know what we all think of cannon but as there are 3 different cannons..., often crontadicting each other (sometimes within each other). Your point is right about GDW 2300 but I never played, don't want to play and don't feel like playing it (just don't like futuristic Earth settings).

                        As a result, if you try to go by cannon the basic is simple: do as you want, like it is said on the back of the book: you are on your own.

                        At least we have a nice exchange and plenty of good and constructive ideas as we didn't have in some times. I like when we are arguing but keep it civil.

                        The last counter-argument by Webstral was a good one. His point on the lone boomer is the best you can get. I'll disagree only with one thing, given the types available, there is a good chance that it will not conduct any more missions. One more thing. As Alice Spring is within extreme range, there is no need to bother sending a boomer for the comm center.
                        Last edited by Mohoender; 10-09-2009, 10:19 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by jester View Post
                          You are a regional power. And thus a threat. Ivan has tons of nukes and the reality is, many targets have multiple warheads for redundancy sakes. A mirv, well, each rocket has X mumber of warheads and each one is programable for a different target. 1 missile in your direction landing half a dozen warheads would be enough.
                          3 at most given the boomer types with for half of them only 12 missiles.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Targan View Post
                            I can accept that Australia would suffer a number of nuclear strikes during the Twilight War, but there is some hope that it could be less damaging than hoped for by Ivan. After all the extensive naval and military command facilities in and around Norfolk VA were the target of a Soviet MIRV (obviously intended to be a ground burst) but it went off course and created a quasi-tsunami instead of a giant glowing bowl of glass.

                            I would suggest that Australia would be as badly affected by EMP bursts as its western industrialised allies (precise targetting isn't really necessary when you want to deliver a high altitude nuclear detonation that will fry electronics across half a continent) but could get lucky with a few of its facilities and cities targeted by the Soviet Rocket Corps.
                            Definitely agree to that. I agree with Jest/Web opinion that nuking is the best option. I merely say that giving the difficulties to achieve this, there is a good chance for it not to be carried out. At least 50/50.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by jester View Post
                              I mean, what base would the team deploy from The Soviet Pacific Bases is the nearest. And the most likely method would be by submarine. Which would be risky with the sensor and active anti submarine operations. And then having them surfaced long enough to get the team and their equipment enough to conduct combat operations and to survive with, ashore. And enough diverse equipment to plan and accomplish any number of unknown missions so they are going to have to bring ALOT of gear, I would guess over two tons of equipment for a squad. Figure about 4 large packs per man when you are talking food,some water, radios, spare radios, batteries, demotlitions equipment, camoflauge equipment, medical kits, personal weapons, special weapons, ammunition, special mission essential items, spare equipment and items all to last for an unknown but extended period of time. And none of your missions are planned, so you must have all manner of gear to cover all methods of attack.
                              Here Jester, you are fueling my point on the Boomer. I agree nuking is their best option but a risky and hazardous bet nonetheless.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                One last point about this.

                                If I was to change my mind (and probably will), giving the wise points developped here, I would effectively target three locations in Australia (North Cape West, Pine Gap and Nurrungar). Each one of them hit by a single warhead SS-18 Satan as part of the US strategic targets (MIRV versions don't reach that far). Not many targets but 20-25Mt each: put your sunglasses on.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X