Yuku free message boards

Fred,
I've taken note of your suggestions so that I can refer back to them in the future.

No problem Jan. Just one thing to lkeep in mind - my comments were about the current and planned structure of the Australian Army. So bringing this structure forward in your timeframe would be about as realistic as you can get, IMHO. By the way, the only thing that hasn't happened so far in terms of the ORBAT I posted above is the re-raising of 8/9RAR. 5/7RAR has been delinked, with 7RAR in the process of being brought up to strength. Effectively, the Australian Army has finally set itself firmly on the battlegrouping concept. The intention is that there will be 11 units capable of acting as battlegoup HQs - the seven infantry battalions, the armoured (tank) regiment, the two cavalry (AUSLAV) regiments, and 1 Aviation Regiment (with its Tigers).

Also, one correction to my previous post - it would be unlikely we would raise a second armoured regiment called the 2nd Armoured, since the policy has been that the Royal Australian Armoured Corp regular units are numbered as if they are of the same type. Hence, 1 Armoured, 2 Cavalry, 3/4 Cavalry. We would also now have a former reserve unit - 2/14 Light Horse Regiment - which has converted to being all regular, or at least almost all regular. It may be that this unit gets a new name, or maybe not. But in any case, I would think that a second armoured regiment would be called something other than 2nd Armoured - perhaps 5 Armoured would be safe.

A couple of equipment issues; Shane suggested either the Bradley, CV90, or LAV-IV as the new IFV. I chose the last because it would, AFAIK, have the most commonality with the ASLAV and wheeled vehicles would probably be cheaper.

The LAV-IV may be cheaper, but I would suggest it would be most unlikely Australia would go down this path. If you're getting the Abrams, a SPH, adding a second mechanised battalion, and (in this timeline) a second armoured regiment, it runs somewhat contrary to the theme of hardening the army to then get a wheeled IFV. Bradley or Warrior are the best bets for my money, with the upgraded M-113s (i.e. the actual) more likely in my opinion than the LAV-IV.

Because of the RAN procurement of Merlin HM.51s with the V class destroyers, the Army procured the Merlin TTH (HC.53) rather than the MRH.90. In fact I've got a couple of nice picies of Aussie Merlins which I'll post below.

They certainly are nice piccies. Don't want to hurt any feelings here, but the V class destroyers and, to a lesser extent, the Merlins doesn't fut too well at all. Why would we go British with such major purchases when we haven't done that for many years? The decisions in reality - the F-100 and the NH-90s - make more sense for Australia.

I think that the Aussies and the Kiwis would also send a small detachment to Malaysia to join the British Gurkha battalion; a chance for a CW brigade perhaps. It would be a good way to take the fight to the Indonesians.

Have you considered the wishes of Malaysia here? The Malays are hardly jumping to the tune of the Brits and certainly not the Australians anymore - particularly ever since one of our PMs called one of their's recalcitrant. A lovely word that. But even thinking of this in military terms, Malaysia arguably has a stronger army than Indonesia - four divisions - with modern, by the immediate region's standards, equipment. Singapore does even better. If either or both of these two wanted to fight Indonesia, then the latter would be in a world of pain. An air campaign from all directions - Australia from the south-east, Singapore and Malaysia to the north and north-west. Any Australian Army deployment here would be purely symbolic, therefore, a waste of resources, and possibly unwanted. It it were to happen, it would be to Brunei, where the Gurkhas are, but I think this would run the greatest risk of creating the fear in Indonesia that we intended to invade its half of Borneo.

Stuart,

The issue is not the numbers of units, paper is deceiving, its equipment and manpower. Given the gear, and some time, two brigades are possible, and if that was proposed then it might as well be full division, but for that NZ would be looking at WW2 levels of mobilisation. Time and equipment are the key for NZ, enough of both and you get an excellent 'shock' unit, 4th Division, 3 NZEF.

Not disagreeing with anything you've said there, except to add that money would also be needed, of course. But just to expand on how much time would be needed I would think we would be talking a minimum of six months and more likely at least a year. All of NZ's six reserve battalions are, like Australia's, well below strength. Even just bringing those up to strength with trained personnel would take at least six months. Raising new units will definitely add up to another six months.

It really is odd how Australia and NZ have over the years failed to maintain stronger armies than what was considered the norm in western Europe during the Cold War, but there you go.