Australia Twilight War & After...

[Targan]

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.

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).

[Webstral]

However one thing I would say, when Webstral mentioned that the Soviets are not nice people who play fair, I'd extend that across the board to all the nations involved. As much as we like to believe that we ourselves would be more civilized/polite/fair/gentlemanly etc. etc., differences of ideology aside, we are all as bad as each other. I think once you throw nuclear weapons into the fight, you're really saying "The gloves are off, now we start to really get nasty".

Sad, but true.

Webstral

[ChalkLine]

It'd be madness for the USSR to nuke Australia unless a US warship is in port or they hit the telemetry stations at Pine Gap or North West Cape. Everything else is far less unimportant than tasking more warheads to critical European and US targets where the initial warheads may not get through.

Canonically the USSR plays a gentleman's nuclear war with the USA, launching just a few warheads at a time before making a half-hearted strike (that somehow takes everyone by surprise!) that is launched in dribs and drabs. In this odd and unrealistic scenario they may nuke an ally 'to show that it could be done', but no one was ever in any doubt anyway. They'd make the point better by nuking Peurto Rico.

It's all academic anyway. Both systems were designed that once confirmed nuke launches or strikes were observed the arsenals were immediately launched, because otherwise they would risk being destroyed in their silos. The crews knew they would be dead shortly anyway.

If there's one part of the canonical backstory I would have GMs looking at addressing, it is the fundamental question of how the nuclear aspect of the war was waged. At present it is ridiculous.

[Legbreaker]

I'm curious how you define "barely worth".

As in a few hundred people. The facility itself is important, but not exactly large. A few well placed explosives detonated at a critical time may well be enough.

Do you believe that the Soviets are afraid of angering Australia in the midst of an East-West nuclear exchange

Afraid Of course not. But bringing in yet another country on the enemy side is never a good thing, especially when that country is not within easy striking distance and possesses a signifiant resource base to exploit.
During WWII, Australia's military grew larger than the population could support, even with rationing, etc. At the height of the war, contrary to all other combatant nations, Australia actually REDUCED their military so it would have enough manpower to feed the nation, etc.
I can't recall any other country in history ever having so many people voluntarily carrying arms full time that they couldn't feed themselves....
That fact alone is going to give pause to anyone planning an attack against Australia (though probably won't stop them by itself).

Do you believe the Soviets will struggle to get a warhead on target Do you believe the Soviets are rationing their thousands of nuclear warheads and/or missiles Do you believe that the administrative effort of ordering a strike on Australia would be taxing on the Soviet leadership

No, I'm simply questioning the need to use a nuke when other more efficent options (such as a Spetnaz type unit) may be available. Unlike a nuke, a team on the ground can be reused time and time again (provided they're not caught of course).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

... 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.

[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]

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]

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.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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]

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.

[Webstral]

As in a few hundred people. The facility itself is important, but not exactly large. A few well placed explosives detonated at a critical time may well be enough.

Delivered how Aircraft, surface ships, and submarines approaching Australia's coastline are far more vulnerable to interception than a ballistic missile. A ballistic missile is quick, easy, and painless--at least from the Soviet point of view. Commandos, on the other hand, are valuable assets.

Afraid Of course not. But bringing in yet another country on the enemy side is never a good thing, especially when that country is not within easy striking distance and possesses a signifiant resource base to exploit.
During WWII, Australia's military grew larger than the population could support, even with rationing, etc. At the height of the war, contrary to all other combatant nations, Australia actually REDUCED their military so it would have enough manpower to feed the nation, etc.
I can't recall any other country in history ever having so many people voluntarily carrying arms full time that they couldn't feed themselves....
That fact alone is going to give pause to anyone planning an attack against Australia (though probably won't stop them by itself).

That's exactly what strategic surgical strike is supposed to prevent. Why hope that a member of an alliance with the United States will sit on the sidelines ad infinitum when a handful of already paid-for ICBM and their warheads can take the guesswork and diplomacy out of the equation[/QUOTE]

No, I'm simply questioning the need to use a nuke when other more efficent options (such as a Spetnaz type unit) may be available. Unlike a nuke, a team on the ground can be reused time and time again (provided they're not caught of course).

It's true that the Spetznaz offer a superior degree of precision. You don't knock nations out of war with commando raids, though. You knock nations out of a war by destroying their production facilities, their military facilities, and their power generation. The Soviets built a truly gratuitous armory of nuclear warheads (in a variety of sizes and colors) and missiles (in a variety of ranges and carrying capacities) so that they would have the option of attacking hard-to-reach targets at long range. (The US also assembled a gratuitous armory for exactly the same purpose.)

The very existence of a fully functional Australia furthers the aims of the Western powers. This is the way the Soviets will see it, at any rate. If Australia has sat on the sidelines until 1997 (an idea I question, but I'm not familiar with any canon material on Australia), then her military and industrial capabilities represents a very useful strategic reserve for ANZUS and, in effect, the Western Allies. The Soviets have no good reason to leave Australia unscathed and plenty of good reasons to ensure that a member of the Western Alliance is not in a position to cause mischief in the Pacific.

Webstral