Australia Twilight War & After...

[Olefin]

Have seen the comments about Australia getting heavily nuked and on this one I will say I totally agree with Legbreaker - I dont see it happening - for one I doubt Australia may have even been involved in the war in 1997 and 1998 except possibly with Indonesia in a local war

Face it - Greece, Italy, France and Belguim did not fight on the NATO side - the chance of a non-NATO country not getting involved in the war is rather high given that fact

Now could the Soviets have hit their oil production capabilities - ok thats a possibility - but even then if Mombasa isnt a big hole in the ground (i.e. its obvious from Frank Frey that the refinery is still there) then it means that they didnt hit every refinery in every neutral country

And also Australia is very remote - hitting Mexico and Saudi heck yes - you dont hit the US and leave Mexican facilities alone and intact

As for Canada - its a NATO nation that sent troops to fight the Russians - you do that, you can get nuked

But I highly doubt, outside of volunteers that on their own went to the UK to join up with the fighting, that any Australian unit in the early part of the war when the nukes were still flying ever deployed to Europe

However Kenya, Korea, Vietnam, possibly the RDF - yes there I could see it happening but even then until Indonesia and New Guinea is settled not much beyond possibly a company or two here and there or possibly Special Forces types

Oh and volunteer units could have been large - I could see the country officially being neutral and several thousand Aussies heading out to join up - or they could have been a token force of a few hundred

[Webstral]

People are going to have to believe what fits their preferred narrative when it comes to nuclear actions against Australia. It makes me smile, though, to read fussing about where a few ships in the Persian Gulf might have gone during the 1997-2000 period, then read that Soviets essentially have gone all fluffy bunny and decided that Australia will be spared nuclear attention because they really werent that involved in the war. Its like after two years of conventional war, Western treachery, the deaths of millions of Soviet troops and citizens, the crippling of Soviet industry, and the loss of the paradigm of the USSR as a global power theyve found a way to bring out their inner sunshine instead of using a small portion of their massive nuclear arsenal to establish a more tolerable post-war global balance of power at little cost to themselves. Its nice.

oeFirst, military targets were hit. Then industrial targets clearly vital to the war effort. Then economic targets of military importance. Then transportation and communications, oil fields and refineries. Then major industrial and oil centers in neutral nations, to prevent their possible use by the other side (emphasis added)(p. 26, Referees Manual).

[Legbreaker]

Australians today, and even 20 years ago are a totally different animal to those of the 1930's and 40's - Vietnam saw to that.
It's hard for reserve units to maintain even 25% strength in peacetime with tax free pay, and all the other benefits, start throwing the possibility of being killed into the mix and voluntary recruitment will drop. Conscription may fill out the numbers, but it will also put any government who tries it out of power for decades in about 5 seconds flat, and they know it.

Right now we have a paper strength of two woefully understrength divisions. In T2K where we don't have a clear enemy of our own (until Indonesia) and only a small UN presence to worry about (Korea perhaps and Cyprus), there'll be no obvious need to increase recruitment soon enough to make a serious difference.

In WWII, we still had ironclad links to the UK and many people still felt somewhat British at heart, or at least their parents and grandparents certainly did. It was our DUTY as Commonwealth citizens to join up and go fight the Nazi's who were putting the motherland at threat. Then, when Singapore fell, virtually all Australian units were brought home as fast as transport could be found for them - only individuals and small units stayed behind.

Australia only raised such a large army at the time because we had no hope of help from elsewhere - the British were pinned down at home and bogged in Africa, the rest of the Commonwealth were assisting them, and the US were still neutral. Once the US came on board, our military started to be downsized as it had been completely unsustainable - there were serious shortages of food, equipment, and machines for the soldiers, and even less available for the civilians, even with the militia only being part time soldiers for the most part.

Now admittedly that was when we had a much smaller population than today, however even if Australia was subject to only a handful of nukes to take out the industrial capabilities (or part thereof) of the major cities, we'd suffer some pretty damn high casualties since roughly 80% of our population lives in those locations.

At best we may have three Divisions, but more likely the two current ones would be brought up to strength (in manpower, if not heavy equipment) and an "adequate" supply of reserves trained and probably used in civil defence duties until called up as replacements.

[RN7]

Is has always puzzled me how people think that WW2 led to a dramatic shift in Australia's relationship with Britain and closer links with America, when in fact the oppinion of the Australian military was as critical of America as it was of Britain in regards to its treatment and use of Australian soldiers. Sure after the war America was the new super power and Britain couldn't afford an empire anymore, and after 1970 there where no British forces left East of Cyprus other than the Gurkhas and a few garrison units in Hong Kong, so its obvious why Australia drew militarily closer to America.

But when war broke out in Europe it was logical to see why Britain used ANZAC troops as its own troops were tied up fighting the Germans and Italians, and it was very easy to to ship ANZAC reinforcements to North Africa and the Far East. The fact that Australian troops weren't immediately transferred back to Australia to defend the country when war broke out with Japan, and Singapore fell was due to poor political leadership in both Australia as well as Britain.

What is not logical is how America failed to fully utilise Australian troops in the Pacific from 1942. When MacArthur fled to Australia after the fall of the Philippines Australian troops accounted for nearly all the land forces under his command, as well as a substantial proportion of the air and naval forces present in the south Pacific. Although the US quickly started to build up its own forces in the area, Australian forces were only realy used for secondary roles such flanking US forces or mopping up operations once the US forces had been moved on to another assignment or battleground. This has always puzzled me as the Australian soldier had a very good reputation before WW2, with training levels as good as any British soldier and coming from a culture similar in many ways to the US soldier; largely white and superior in physical health and education to the majority of the brown or black troops from India and Africa that Britain used in Burma and the Middle East.

[Webstral]

Looking back over the old comments in the thread, Im struck by a few ideas.

1) The idea that nuclear strikes on targets in Australia might not be oeworth it.
2) The idea that Australia might sit entirely on the sidelines
3) The idea that there is some sort of spirit of fair play such that the light treatment given to CONUS results in an even lighter treatment of Australia
4) The idea that the absence of evidence of Aussie and Kiwi involvement in the fighting in Korea amounts to evidence of absence

In 1997, the Soviets have thousands of warheads and hundreds of delivery systems. France and the UK might have to worry about whether a given strike is oeworth it. The US and the USSR dont have to worry about wasting nukes. Even if 75% of the delivery systems are destroyed prior to November 1997, they have more than enough to do all of the work discussed in the written materials and have hundreds left over. Their issue is whether they want to pay in form of absorbing retaliatory strikes.

Long before 1997, the Soviets have allocated more than enough resources to turn Australia into Mad Max land. By the 1980s, theyve already figured out how they are going to get enough warheads there to turn the urban centers into glass parking lots. Just as there are redundancies for ensuring every other target of interest is incinerated three times over, there are redundancies for getting warheads to Australia. The Soviets arent the sort of people to allow their strategic planning to be upended by the loss of a single boomer.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, Australia and New Zealand are partners in ANZUS. I know the US-New Zealand part of ANZUS is dysfunctional as of 1996. However, the New Zealand-Australia part is functioning just fine, as is the Australia-US portion. That amounts to guilty by association in the Soviet book.

Ive said it many times, but it seems to bear repeating yet again. The US gets lighter treatment than a general exchange because the US is in a position to retaliate in kind. The USSR also gets lighter treatment than wed expect from a general exchange for the very same reason. This has nothing to do with good-heartedness or fair play on the part of the Soviets. Theyd love to go after York, PA. But they arent willing to have the US hit a major Soviet arms factory in return. That logic changes when it comes to the non-nuclear Western allies, since none of them can retaliate with nuclear weapons.

One of the arguments for distinguishing between Canada and Australia is that Canada actively participates in combat against the Pact. It would be great if a Korea sourcebook had been published such that the presence of Australian troops in Korea could be established. But lets think it through. The DPRK invades the ROK in late 1996. The Left in Australia probably would argue that the North invades the South only in response to German and Anglo-American provocation in Europe. There would be some validity to this viewpoint. However, the fact remains that the ROK has been invaded by another country. Australia can fight to defend the ROKs sovereignty without endorsing any of the actions undertaken by NATO in Europe or the West in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, theres ANZUS. US forces are under attack in the ROK. Australia is signatory to a treaty that states that an attack on one signatory in the Pacific basin is an attack on the other signatories.

We dont have much knowledge regarding events in Korea. The history of 2nd Infantry Division states oeThe division was first engaged against North Korean commando units on 12/19/96 and by 1/3/97 was actively engaged against mechanized elements of the North Korean Army. The division participated in holding actions along the 38th Parallel throughout the first half of 1997(US Army Vehicle Guide, p. 5) The other US formations in Eighth US Army arrived in Korea after the fighting started. This is a reasonable basis for concluding that the North Koreans initiated offensive action. Therefore, regardless of what Australia thinks of the war in Germany, the ROK is under attack by a foreign power not associated with events in Europe or the Middle East. A fellow ANZUS signatory is under attack by a foreign power not associated with events in Europe or the Middle East. Surely this constitutes a reasonable basis for the deployment of a ANZAC brigade, plus supporting sea and air assets. Thus while we have no categorical evidence one way or another, we have good reason to believe that Australia was involved in the fighting in Korea on the side of the Allies.

[Webstral]

What is not logical is how America failed to fully utilise Australian troops in the Pacific from 1942.

Ego, my friend. Pure ego. MacArthur was not about to have some Aussie upstart getting headlines. Therefore, the Australians were assigned the crappy job of clearing New Guinea while the Americans engaged in more newsworthy operations, once there were enough Americans available to conduct separate operations.

[Rainbow Six]

Australians in Korea

Legbreaker and I both referenced Challenge #30 earlier in this thread. Here's the quote in question.

The Canadian Army began to organise a battlegroup to be ready for departure for Korea by the 20th of July [1997] in order to assist the American, Australian, and South Korean (ROK) troops already fighting against North Korean troops in Korea.

So there we have it...definitive confirmation that not only were Australian soldiers in Korea but they were playing an active role in the fighting. Other than the 20th of July there's no specific dates given, although the paragraph in question follows one that refers to conscription beginning in May, so likliehood is that it's sometime in the early Summer of 1997 (at the latest), which I think is compatible with what Webstral has said. There's no mention of the size of the Australian force. Nor is there confirmation of New Zealand involvement, although I'd agree that's likely.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Australia only raised such a large army at the time because we had no hope of help from elsewhere - the British were pinned down at home and bogged in Africa, the rest of the Commonwealth were assisting them, and the US were still neutral. Once the US came on board, our military started to be downsized as it had been completely unsustainable - there were serious shortages of food, equipment, and machines for the soldiers, and even less available for the civilians, even with the militia only being part time soldiers for the most part.

I'd like to clarify some points here.
At one point during WW2, there were so many volunteers coming forward that the Australian government actually stopped men from joining the military because the drain on the workforce was becoming too severe. Men involved in transport, agriculture and mining just to name a few, were often not allowed to leave their jobs to join the military to ensure that those industries could still produce enough material to support the war.

The militia soldiers mentioned were full time during the war as they constituted the bulk of land forces for the defence of Australia. The regular army was deployed overseas but under the legislation of the day, militia forces could not serve outside Australia - so they were used for the defence of the nation while the regular forces were deployed to other theatres.

The ground fighting in Papua New Guinea was done primarily by Australian militia forces and not the regular army. PNG was an Australian protectorate so the law allowed the militia forces to be sent there.

During the earlier stages of the war, Australia saw itself in dire need of aircraft and armoured vehicles. These were traditionally supplied by Great Britain but with GB herself needing them, orders for the Australia forces could not be supplied. We set about building our own aircraft and also a cruiser tank to alleviate this. After the US entry into the war and the gearing up of their factories to produce war materiel, they were able to supply much of the needed aircraft and armoured vehicles - it could be argued that this was likely the start of the "buy American" relationship between Australia and the US.

[Webstral]

Legbreaker and I both referenced Challenge #30 earlier in this thread. Here's the quote in question...definitive confirmation that not only were Australian soldiers in Korea but they were playing an active role in the fighting. Other than the 20th of July there's no specific dates given, although the paragraph in question follows one that refers to conscription beginning in May, so likliehood is that it's sometime in the early Summer of 1997 (at the latest), which I think is compatible with what Webstral has said. There's no mention of the size of the Australian force. Nor is there confirmation of New Zealand involvement, although I'd agree that's likely.

How could I have missed that I'm hearing voices from my past at Benning School for Boys. "Attention to detail, Candidate..."

[kato13]

While I would considered it "barely canon" the mini adventure "Whats Polish for G'day" seems to put the Australians in the same category as the French.

They are both jokingly in the "Organization of non irritated nations" or something similar according to one of the SAS chaps.

[Legbreaker]

Surely this constitutes a reasonable basis for the deployment of a ANZAC brigade, plus supporting sea and air assets. Thus while we have no categorical evidence one way or another, we have good reason to believe that Australia was involved in the fighting in Korea on the side of the Allies.

Yes, that's something I've been trying to work on for a while now. My thoughts are a regular army Brigade was sent over initially and replaced by a reserve Brigade (the 9th) when things hotted up in Papua New Guinea with the Indonesians. The majority of sea and air assets assigned to Korea were withdrawn with the initial troops to deal with the problem closer to home and never returned (damaged/destroyed as mentioned in the books). 9 Brigade were used by the UN/US commanders in Korea to secure rear areas and as of 2000 are looking for some way of getting home.

The militia soldiers mentioned were full time during the war as they constituted the bulk of land forces for the defence of Australia. The regular army was deployed overseas but under the legislation of the day, militia forces could not serve outside Australia - so they were used for the defence of the nation while the regular forces were deployed to other theatres.

It depended on where they were. Members of some units still participated in their prewar occupations, or the entire unit was used in traditionally non-military tasks.
Edit: Militia were indeed employed on a similar basis as the AIF troops, I was thinking of the VDC - Volunteer Defence Corps.

The ground fighting in Papua New Guinea was done primarily by Australian militia forces and not the regular army.

Initially yes. The first unit in contact with the Japanese advance over the Owen Stanley Ranges was the Militia 39th Battalion, a unit which up until a few weeks before had received little to no military training (previously used as labourers in and around Port Moresby) and were (under) equipped. Most were armed with SMLEs but there was only a handful of Brens and even less Thompson SMGs. They conducted an almost textbook fighting withdrawal over the mountains in what can only be described as some of the worst terrain possible in the face of approximately 10,000 of Japans finest.

The 53rd Battalion of the militia were sent in to support them but as a unit performed dismally - they'd received even less training than the 39th and were just as poorly equipped, if not worse.

Eventually the 21st Brigade AIF (regular soldiers) arrived having been fighting in Syria just a few months before. But even the injection of fresh, veteran troops didn't stop the Australians being pushed back. In fact, the Japanese managed to move so far south that they could see Port Moresby below them before they were pushed back.

[Rainbow Six]

Yes, that's something I've been trying to work on for a while now. My thoughts are a regular army Brigade was sent over initially and replaced by a reserve Brigade (the 9th) when things hotted up in Papua New Guinea with the Indonesians. The majority of sea and air assets assigned to Korea were withdrawn with the initial troops to deal with the problem closer to home and never returned (damaged/destroyed as mentioned in the books). 9 Brigade were used by the UN/US commanders in Korea to secure rear areas and as of 2000 are looking for some way of getting home.

Out of curiosity, when did the fighting start between Australia and Indonesia Did it kick off in PNG

[Legbreaker]

Everything seems to indicate it only happened in PNG. When is open for debate, but it would seem logical for Indonesia to wait until Australia was involved heavily in Korea and none of our allies could help due to entanglements in Europe and elsewhere.
So, shall we say no sooner than mid 1997

Whenever it was, it would appear to have been rather short and sharp, at least as far as naval and air operations go anyway. The ground conflict could be one that grinds on for years, or barely happens at all.

I'm of the opinion a force of around Brigade strength were sent in to reinforce the local PNG military, there's a Brigade or so in Korea and the rest are back home either carrying out disaster relief missions, assisting the police, securing vital facilities or training for deployment to PNG (not much of the latter). Most of the major population centres are nuked to some degree or another with Brisbane, Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth almost certainly receiving at least a warhead each (probably 3-4 for Sydney) and Townsville, Cairns and Darwin being possible secondary targets. Pine Gap may have suffered a small warhead. Canberra, the national capital, seems an unlikely target as there's not much in the way of military, industrial or other targets of worth - just a lot of politicians which are easily replaced.

Even with only those primary targets I've listed being hit with small yield warheads, the effects are going to be huge. Roughly 30-40% of the countries population are going to be killed either in the initial strikes or the aftermath. Medical facilities will be completely overwhelmed, especially as most of the specialists and advanced facilities are located in the strike zones. Survivors aren't going to be hanging around for radiation, starvation, etc to kill them, so there's going to be a few million people heading into the countryside looking for food and shelter. By the time things settle down a bit, about 50%, or ten million people will be dead.

Meanwhile, there's upwards of 5,000 troops deployed in Korea, and about the same in PNG. Reserves will be called up (probably the moment Indonesia invades PNG) but are unlikely to have completed training by late 1997. They, and every other available unit, will be rushed into action trying to control the refugees and provide for their basic needs - they'll make only a small difference and be completely overwhelmed. What's left of the government will be desperately trying to get the troops home from Korea, but with the destruction the RAN suffers fighting the Indonesians, there'll be few or even no ships available for escort duties. The destruction wreaked on the oil processing facilities will also rule out using civilian shipping as troop carriers as what small amounts are available will be desperately needed by the troops still at home.

Some additional recruitment will occur post nuke, but most of these troops will be rushed through training and are likely to be used in humanitarian tasks rather than military. As previously posted, small arms will be available (in quantity given the stockpiles we've got tucked away here and there), but heavy weapons and military vehicles will be scarce. Most of these units will have to either walk, or use requisitioned civilian transport.

With the lack of fuel, many of the old steam engines will be pulled from their museums and used for longer distance transport of troops and supplies, however the mere rumour of a train carrying food is likely to result in ambushes, derailments and the loss of these valuable resources. While Australia does have a fairly extensive rail network, outside the major cities they're usually single lines and in poor shape due to insufficient maintenance (even today). Sabotaging them in the hope of capturing a container or two of flour isn't going to be all that difficult and once the line is cut, re-routing will require going hundreds of miles out of the way.

South east Queensland is likely to be the best place to be after around 2000 due to the availability of sugar cane for fuel and the ability to grow crops year round. Sugar mills are scattered about the countryside and breweries and distilleries are relatively common.

[Rainbow Six]

Thanks Leg, that looks like a pretty decent summary to me - I would certainly buy into it.

Just one question...if we settle on a mid 97 start date for the Australian / Indonesian conflict and Reserves aren't called up until that time, wouldn't that make it more difficult to replace a Regular Brigade in Korea with a Reserve one given the time that would be required to bring the Reserves up to speed and deploy them to Korea Might there not be a call up of the Reserves at the end of 1996 as a purely precautionary measure (and possibly limited in scope) or could you end up with one Regular Brigade in Korea and another Regular Brigade in PNG

[Olefin]

this huge nuking of australia still makes no sense and definitely seems to be added on a long time after the rest of the canon was in place - as in "oh crap we forget about the Aussies" kind of thing