maximum military force australia could muster.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

fall out RE:maximum military force australia could muster. 6/6/2004 9:14:28 PM

WW2 out of an entire pop of 7m, we had around 1m in the armed forces with the 4th largest airforce in the world, a very capable navy and an army with multiple divisions. Present day - 20m, on the same rate, we could muster nearly 3m in the armed forces (div = 10,000 men so...), many more ships/subs, aircraft, tanks, arty, APC, etc. Aircraft numbers i would reakon could go to about 400-500 strike aircraft. Not exactly sure though.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust maximum military force australia could muster. fall out 6/6/2004 9:18:28 PM

3 million men? nah, too many fat kids in australia. 1/2 would be dead from heart failure before the end of basic... we have a far more substantial latent capability in place now (natch).

Quote Reply

husky65 RE:maximum military force australia could muster. fall out 6/6/2004 10:31:41 PM

I expect that if the threat was there a 3 month or so 'pre basic' fitness course would be established, dealing with limited military theory skills and primarily working on building fitness to the point that the recruit can pass Basic.

Quote Reply

husky65 RE:maximum military force australia could muster. fall out 6/6/2004 10:36:14 PM

For info, from the CIA world factbook Australian entry - Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 4,339,011 (2003 est.)

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust maximum military force australia could muster. fall out 6/6/2004 10:49:14 PM

good grief, 4.3 mill... how many of those would be saps and lefties though... ;) I look at some of the youth today and almost get ready to build my own bunker as they won't be able to defend their cars let alone their country.

Quote Reply

fall out RE:maximum military force australia could muster. fall out 6/6/2004 11:38:17 PM

as a kid pretty much (although i did turn 20 the other day, hence im not a teen anymore!), i gotta say that yeah it is a big problem that needs to be addressed (not a problem with me personally though), but as husky said, the vast majority would get into some acceptable level of fitness for/during/after basic training. although there would be some hippies that would rather some pot and live in the forest than fight for their country. ;)

Quote Reply

southern cross RE:maximum military force australia could muster. fall out 6/6/2004 11:43:09 PM

not all would be willing to serve, infact i fear that very few would have the courage and patriotism to fight. remember that whilst conscription may bring greater numbers, what kind of people would we get, i would rather have fewer fighting with but all want to fight. read opinion letters in newspapers and young lefties and pacifists are writing in every day, complaining that "no sane young people in this day and age are willing to fight in the military", speak for yourself hippie b!tch. also remember training to operate todays warfare equipment takes a lot longer than it used to, building machines of war also does. much more money is also needed. it all depends on how long a timeframe we have to build up our forces.

Quote Reply

fall out RE:maximum military force australia could muster. 6/6/2004 11:48:18 PM

well hossen didnt' mention a time frame so does anyone care to create one? 1yr? 2? 3?....

Quote Reply

AMTP10E RE:maximum military force australia could muster. gf0012-aust 6/7/2004 6:58:54 AM

I've had some involvement in examining just this issue and while I can't say what we came up with, there's a whole bunch of variables that need to be answered first before coming up with numbers. For example, can the ADF focus totally on training or do they have to fight at the same time? It makes a big difference in numbers we can output. How big is the defence budget (noting that social security costs around $60 billion a year alone)? How much power would the government hand over to the ADF (under the Australian Constitution the defence powers expand and contract in proportion to the threat to the country)? What's the threat? How long have we got? What is going on with the US/UK? (can we ship in enough equipment to arm the masses we train?) Are we going to allow women in the infantry? Like I said, a whole bunch of variables that need answering before we can start looking at numbers.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust Evolving issues - AMTP10E 6/7/2004 7:13:49 AM

Other issues: There's the issue of surge requirements across a number of disciplines. Time frame - relevant historical core warfighting knowledge in place Extent of the threat - what intel warnings have let us prep basics for conflict Logistics. Reserve stocks. Garrison Base Support - is it still viable or does it get expanded so that core warfighting competencies are dealt with If it's a "Kumarian" threat, what regional impact has occurred, can we preposition offshore? If it is "Kumarian", is Singapore effected? If yes, then are their assets dispersing in Aust as well Have the US finally committed to a forward base option/training area in Shoalwater etc... (just adding some currency.. ;) )

Quote Reply

ilpars Australia, uninvadable 6/7/2004 7:16:06 AM

I think Australia is one of the countries that can not be invaded. Others are Russia, China and USA. First of all Australia is an island on an Ocean. Every potential enemy's supply line must cross over thousands of km. of Ocean. that will be a logistical nightmare. 2. Australia is a very big country. Australia has a strategical depth. Even if initial enemy landing succeded, there is too many depth too retreat. 3. A large population with strong military traditions.

Quote Reply

AMTP10E RE: No country is uninvadable 6/7/2004 7:56:58 AM

There are, however, countries that would be so bloody difficult and costly to invade that it just ain't worth it. I've wargamed (as both Australian and Kumarian) the invasion of Australia and it can be done. You just need 3 things: you need to be smart, you need strategic surprise, and you need America to sit it out.

Quote Reply

ilpars RE: No country is uninvadable 6/7/2004 8:10:36 AM

I am not a military expert but these are my opinions. 1. An invasion fleet can not achieve a strategical surprise in the age of satellites and awacs when crossing thousands of kimometers of Ocean. 2. Creating and protecting such a long oversea supply line is too difficult nearly impossible. And if I remember correctly Australian submarine fleet is not small or inexperienced. They will be a constant threat.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust No country is uninvadable - Ilpars - AMTP10E 6/7/2004 8:21:26 AM

Tactical surprise: There are some who argue that the "kumarians" could attempt an invasion by saturation on small boats. The argument was used on masses of small "refugee" boats used as transporters. small enough to be deceptive, draught shallow enough to be impervious to a torp attack massed enough for australias fleet interdiction to choke on the sheer volume and able to do a "Cole" if an unsuspecting skimmer pulled in too close. The fact that we use boarding parties from a distance would minimise that - but the issue of saturation is still a possible. It's a bit Tom Clancyish, but it's still gameable.

Quote Reply

ilpars RE:No country is uninvadable - Ilpars - AMTP10E 6/7/2004 8:24:56 AM

Let's say they achieved to land on Australia. How will they supply? Days of living off the land ended long time ago.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

	News As History - February 9, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us