History, Politics And Current Affairs

Seeking opinions / views on Latin America in TLW.

Other than the fact that the USSR is still a going concern, how does the continued Cold War affect Latin America?

Until 1999, I'm not sure how much changes other than a better armed Cuba with a non-failing economy. On the other hand, might all the Narco-Communist rebel groups out there be a little more active with Soviet backing?

Now once we hit 1999, that's when it looks like we hit a sub-POD in Latin America when Hugo Chavez takes over in Venezuela. But unlike in @, the USSR is still a going concern and the USSR under Renko likely takes full advantage of the situation. And at least in @, Venezuela's economy didn't really come off the rails until around 2011. So they had cash to buy stuff, and the military might not have gone to rot with Cuban and Soviet advisors in the mix. But are they being aggressive with their neighbors to the degree that the neighbors defense budgets reflect that?

If Gral happen to read this, I'm curious if things looks different enough in Brazil to push certain defense programs to the left - new fighter jet, attack helicopters, and the VBTP-MR Guarani in particular.
Is there anything in TLWverse from POD to early 1990s that might prevent the Brazilian defense industry from collapsing? Is there any chance Engesa could be nationalized, perhaps along with a few other companies to form a national defense conglomerate? Or do the economics of the time just not support it? What appears to be a good summary of the industry and its collapse can be found here.

Some quick thoughts about Brazil here, will return to this thread later:

- Engesa might be too far gone to save here, even with the continued Cold War and the absence of the twin punches of contracted defence budgets and ex-Soviet equipment fire-sale. Brazil has no money to save it, and the Saudis still bought the M1 Abrams here. Not certain Engesa will go bankrupt, but still the most likely result by far, unless they manage to get some orders from Africa or Asia real quick;

- This applies to most of the Brazilian defence industry - its greatest client was Iraq, and Saddam didn't pay its debts to it after the Iran-Iraq War (Avibrás almost went under in the early 90s because of that);

- Defence programs: Chávez being armed by the Soviets and being a clear and present threat will probably mean F-X gets done in the late 90s(no idea right now which fighter would win). VBTP-MR might be sped up to the late 90s to the early 00s if the defence industry gets its house in order enough to lobby for it as a matter of helping the sector(and save the jobs associated with it); the Brazilian missile projects(MAA-1, MAR-1) might be saved, and we might be getting some of these in the late 90s;

- Biggest factor here would IMO be economic policy: would Latin America go on the liberalizing spree it went on during the 90s in our timeline? Would we get Mercosul/Mercosur here?

gral wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 12:54 pm - Defence programs: Chávez being armed by the Soviets and being a clear and present threat will probably mean F-X gets done in the late 90s(no idea right now which fighter would win). VBTP-MR might be sped up to the late 90s to the early 00s if the defence industry gets its house in order enough to lobby for it as a matter of helping the sector(and save the jobs associated with it); the Brazilian missile projects(MAA-1, MAR-1) might be saved, and we might be getting some of these in the late 90s;

More on this(I'm assuming in this post Chavista Venezuela is seen as enough of a threat in the mid-to-late-90s to make Brazilian politicians spend more money in Defence than what is absolutely needed to avoid complete obsolescence of the Brazilian Armed Forces, which is the usual historical policy for Brazil.*):

Guarani will almost certainly be (somewhat) sped up - by how much, it depends on money available. I don't see it starting earlier than 1995, though(and by 1997-1998 would be more likely than that, given the timing of Brazil's military acquisitions in our timeline). If the program starts by 1997-8, prototypes would have been delivered in 2004-5, assuming a similar progression to our timeline's.

F-X winner would depend on politics, i.e., how close Brazil is to to the USA in 1999-2001. Competitors would have been F-16, F-18, Gripen, Mirage 2000, Eurofighter(it's very unlikely we would have gotten submissions for MiG-29 and Su-27 variants here). In our timeline(late 2000s to mid-2010s), we got F/A-18E, Rafale and Gripen as finalists(Eurofighter was dropped mainly because the multinational origin would mean more difficulties in getting technology transfers - I expect this to be a concern in the TLW TL as well).

In OTL, Brazil soured on F/A-18E after it was revealed the NSA was looking at our president's e-mails; the French lobbied hard for Rafale, but the Air Force didn't want a repeat of their experience with the stop-gap Mirage 2000s we bought; Gripen did have some very nice industrial offsets and no big political onus so it got the contract. Here, I expect the contract to go to either go to Mirage or Hornet(C/D), depending on whether Brazil is close to the USA at the moment, and whether the French offer(as they would do in the late 2000s) to transfer the Mirage 2000 production line to Brazil(they offered to sell it to India as well, later). My guess at the moment is we would have gotten Hornets. Big advantage with getting the F-18 is prompt delivery(it was a big advantage with the F/A-18E in OTL as well), so assuming Hornet wins, they would be in service with FAB by the time the balloon goes up.

Now, Brazilian missiles(MAA-1 short range AAM, MAR-1 ARM, MSS-1.2 ATGM). With more money, MAA-1A enters service in the late 1990s, being roughly equivalent to the AIM-9L. This means that Brazil won't buy a stop-gap batch of Python 3s to replace their AIM-9Bs in 2001. It also means MAA-1A is obsolescent as it enters service, so development of the MAA-1B will begin soon after that. Best I could get on MAA-1B was it wasn't as capable as Python 4, but it was an advance in capability.

The MAR-1 ARM started development in 1997 in OTL, and it had a big stumbling block on its development in 1999 when the USA blocked the sale of equipment needed for development, as 'it is not America's interest to introduce anti-radiation weapons in the region'. If Venezuela gets Su-30s and Kh-31 missiles in the late 90s, that ceases to be a problem, and speeds up development by some 5-7 years. This means by the time the war starts, test firings have been in progress at the very least, although the missile isn't probably in service yet.

MSS-1.2 ATGM. Now the story of this one is long and complicated. Originally an OTO-Melara project(MAF), Engesa started development of a Brazilian version. In the late 80s, Engesa spun-off a subsidiary which would be responsible for that project, and the subsidiary would go down with Engesa in 1991. Development was taken over by the Army in 1991, and the Army contracted Mectron(which was also responsible for both missiles above), with a contract for a prototype batch being signed in 1996, with missiles being delivered on the first half of 1999. The missile continued in development, being almost completely redesigned, until 2005, with a contract being signed for another prototype batch in 2008. This batch was delivered in 2013-4, and tests showed issues(especially with the laser receptor), and the missile wasn't accepted. Mectron, by then having been acquired by Odebrecht, continued the development, but from 2015 on corruption scandals rocked Odebrecht, which meant the program languished. Former Mectron employees founded SIATT, which took over development in 2017. Testing resumed in 2018, progressing well. By 2022, the main issue was setting up a production line. The UAE Edge Group bought 50% of SIATT in 2023, and first deliveries were soon after. The MSS-1.2 MAX was accepted into service in 2024, some 42 years after MAF's development started at Oto-Melara.

Here, I expect things to change from 1996 on. With the urgency caused by Chavista Venezuela, the MSS-1.2 will be put into service earlier, but it will be closer to the original MAF than the MSS-1.2 MAX is(and somewhat less capable, especially regarding guidance). My guess is deliveries of the prototype batch would be around 2001, with development being finished around 2003 and series production coming around 2004. It's quite possible Brazil buys some ATGMs as a stop-gap.

*Avibras and Mectron would be the greatest winners in this scenario. It would also affect Navy acquisitions, which means that, in this case the OOB i did for the Brazilian Navy would have to be changed.

EDIT: Just saw Chávez took power in 1999, not 1996 as I was wrongly remembering. This shifts the timetables somewhat.

The VBTP-MR program would start around 2001, being still in design phase when the war begins(and the design will factor in lessons of the war). F-X's timeline isn't changed, but F/A-18C is more likely to be the winner. MAA-1A will enter service at around 2001(with FAB possibly buying something off-the-shelf by 1999-2000 to fill the gap - quite likely they buy the 100 Python 3s they bought in 2001). MAR-1's timeline wouldn't change from what I posted, but I think the USA would offer earlier versions of the AGM-88 to Brazil. MSS 1.2 MAX won't be in service by 2004(but will probably be by 2006-7). The Armed Forces will certainly look for stop-gaps, may as well be the RBS-56 BILL the Brazilian Marines acquired in... 2000, I think, in our timeline. Will have to have a look at what is available for possible Navy acquisitions.

Very interesting video on how the elderly low-tech Spartan APC is far more effective in Ukraine than you might think.

(No, I'm not a treadhead but I found it very interesting)

Might have implications for TLW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2vtpN-4MRc Title "Ukraine Turned UK’s Junkyard Armor Into a FRONTLINE MONSTER"

Cheers: Mark

The Spartan is very much still in widespread service in TLW. Though, the British Army also uses the Stormer APC.

Just starting off a discussion on what bases would be available for USAF reinforcements. Some will be existing main bases, whose units will have deployed elsewhere, others will be co-located bases. Going to start with the UK.

United Kingdom.

STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND

* RAF Fairford, UK – Bomber Forward Operating Location
* RAF Elvington, UK – Bomber Forward Operating Location
* RAF Greenham Common, UK – Bomber Forward Operating Location (also tankers?)


MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND

* RAF Brize Norton - Transport Forward Operating Location
* RAF Lyneham - Transport Forward Operating Location


UNITED STATES AIR FORCE EUROPE - TAC

* RAF Alconbury: A-10s woud forward deploy, making the base available.
* RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge: Same as above.
* RAF Sculthorpe - Stand-by operating base : Had been used by Ohio ANG in the 1980s. Could be 180th Tactical Fighter Wing?
* RAF Wethersfield - Stand-by operating base: 819th RED HORSE SQUADRON based there in peacetime. MC-130s have used the base. Would be available for them and any suitable TAC units.


Co-located bases

* RAF Abingdon: Full munition storage site built, but unknown what USAF unit(s) might deploy there.
* MoD Bedford: In @ would probably have been used by F-111, so in TLW might host F-15E?
* RAF Benson: Unknown. Helicopter base, most would deploy abroad, making the base available.
* MoD Boscombe Down: In @ would probably have been used by F-111, so in TLW might host F-15E?
* RAF Coltishall: RAF squadrons would deploy abroad, so would be available for use by the USAF, though it also might be used by the RAF. RF-4 had visited in the '70s and '80s.
* RAF Cranwell: Unknown
* RAF Finningley: As per Ch.380 a Provisional TFW formed from the 170th TFS, Illinois Air National Guard & 113th TFS, Indiana Air National Guard. Both with the F-16C.
* RAF Leeming: Had been visited by F-4s in the 1980s in @. However, that would be when the station was still a training base. By 2005 would be home to two Tornado F.3 squadrons in wartime (a third would forward deploy to RAF Stornoway). So, IMVHO, not likely to be used by USAF units, as it would make the station overcrowded.
* RAF Odiham: Unknown. Base for Support Helicopters, most of which would deploy abroad. Like Benson, does have a runway.
* RAF Waddington: Home of the RAF's E-3 force, so the RAF might not want additional aircraft using it. Had been visited by A-7s in 1979.
* RAF Wittering: All squadrons there in peacetime would deploy abroad, making the station available. In @ was visited by A-7s, so possibly F-16s?
* RAF Machrihanish: FOL for USN P-3.


Others
Note: These are not officially recorded as co-located bases, or FOLs, but could be available.

* RAF Stornoway: FOL for USN P-3s, however would be used by a squadron of RAF Tornado F.3s, so accomodation would be at a premium.
* RAF Aldergrove: USAF tankers, FOL for USN P-3s? Staging post for MAC transports?
* RAF Cottesmore: Tornado squadrons likely to deploy abroad, making it available for TAC aircraft.
* RAF Binbrook: RAF fighter FOL, could also be used by TAC?
* RAF Wyton: EW warfare aircraft?
* RAF Manston: TAC aircraft and staging post for MAC?
* RAF Kinloss: FOL for USN P-3s.
* RAF Lossiemouth: Most Buccaneers would deploy abroad, however 11 Group, RAF, is now using the station.
* RAF St. Mawgan: FOL for USN P-3s.
* RAF Linton-on-Ouse: RAF training base.
* RAF Church Fenton: As above.
* RAF West Raynham: Used by RAF Regiment and has SAM flight, but has operational airfield.
* RAF Gibraltar: FOL for USN P-3, staging post for MAC, USMC tactical jets?
* RAF Akrotiri: F-111E/F, EF-111B, F-15? SAC det for SR.71.
* RAF Mount Pleasant: USAF ASAT det & USN P-3.

A general question initially motivated by the ROK Orbat, but also following on from Singapore, Israel, Bulgaria, Turkey, and to some extent Poland:

Why do some armies have seemingly random divisional numbers?

Having researched the Greeks, I can see why there are gaps in their numbering due to unit history and lineage and all that, but there doesn't seem to be a clear system or logic that I can fathom in other cases.

This would be the Netherlands Forces in the Caribbean in 2005 using a Orbat i created once for the Orange Twilight: the Netherlands during the Twilight War and beyond timeline i created.

Updated for 2005.

Netherlands Forces in the Caribbean in 2005

The Commander Netherlands Forces in the Caribbean (Dutch: Commandement der Zeemacht in het Caribisch Gebied, COMNLCARIB) is responsible for the activities of all forces in the Caribbean who operate from four bases (3 bases on Curaçao and 1 on Aruba).

The service branches, militias and volunteer corpses who operated in the Caribbean are:

The Royal Netherlands Navy (Dutch: Koninklijke Marine).

The 3 Amphibious Combat Group (Dutch: Derde Amfibische Gevechtsgroep, 3AGGP) of the Netherlands Marine Corps (Dutch: Korps Mariniers) which consist of the 31st,32nd and 33rd infantry companies.

The Netherlands Naval Aviation Service (Dutch: Marine-Luchtvaartdienst, MLD).

The Royal Netherlands Air Force (Dutch: Koninklijke Luchtmacht, KLu).

The Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (Dutch: Koninklijke Marechaussee, KMar), military police.

Netherlands Antilles and Aruba Coastguard (Dutch: kustwacht voor de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba, NA&A CG) (1).

The Antillean Militia (Dutch: Antilliaanse Militie, ANTMIL) which consist of three platoons (2).

The Aruban Militia (Dutch: Arubaanse Militie, ARUMIL) which consist of one platoon (3).

The Curaçao Militia (Dutch: Curaçao Militie, CURMIL) which consist of one platoon.

The Volunteer Corps Netherlands Antilles (Dutch: Vrijwilligers Korps Nederlandse Antillen, VKNA) is made up of three volunteer corpses namely the Volunteer Corps Aruba (Dutch: Vrijwilligers Korps Aruba, VKA), Volunteer Corps Curaçao (Dutch: Vrijwilligers Korps Curaçao, VKC) and the Volunteer Corps St. Maarten (Dutch: Vrijwilligers Korps St. Maarten).

Bases and deployments of Netherlands Forces in the Caribbean

Curacao: Parera Naval Base

Parera Naval Base, the main naval base for the Royal Netherlands Navy and headquarters of the Commander Netherlands Forces in the Caribbean where the station ship (Karel Doorman (M) class multi-purpose frigate) HNLMS Van Amstel, one permanent support ship HNLMS Pelikaan (4), six Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats and two P-class patrol boats (5) operated from.

Curacao: Marine Barracks Suffisant

Marine Barracks Suffisant (6), the main marine base which house the 31st and 32nd Infantry Company (7) of the 3 Amphibious Combat Group (8), a detachment of the Antillean Militia (Dutch: Antilliaanse Militie, ANTMIL) which is made up of a small training cadre and one infantry platoon, the Curaçao Militia and the Vrijwilligers Korps Curaçao (VKC) which is made up of some 120 volunteers.

Curaçao: Hato Airfield

Hato Airfield, the main military airfield with two Fokker F-27-M transport aircraft and two P3C-Orions.

Aruba: Savaneta Marine Barracks

Marine Barracks Savaneta (Dutch: Marinierskazerne Suffisant, MSKSUF) houses the 33rd infantry company of the 3 Amphibious Combat Group who also serves as a military education and training unit for the Antillean Militia which is made up of a training cadre and two infantry platoons, Volunteer Corps Aruba (Dutch: Vrijwilligers Korps Aruba, VKA) which is made up of some 100 volunteers and the Aruban Militia.

Sint Maarten

The Volunteer Corps St. Maarten (Dutch: Vrijwilligers Korps St. Maarten) which is made up of some 120 volunteers.

The Royal Netherlands Marechaussee has some 20 personal on the island of Sint Maarten to assist the local police.

Notes

(1) The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba Coastguard has approximately 160 personnel. Of these, 140 come from the Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten and 20 from the Royal Netherlands Navy. These 160 consist mostly of personnel actually deployed to carry out operations and the occupation of the Coast Guard bases located on Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten.

(2) The Antillean Militia consist of local conscript personnel and a small volunteer cadre numbering some 148 who form three infantry platoons. The Antillean Militia is trained, clothed and equipped by the Marine Corps as (conscript) marines. When mobilized the Antillean Militia will be made up of eight company-sized security detachments each with company strength of 148 men (totaling some 1,184 men) who would be commanded by Netherlands Marine Corps officers and sub-officers.

(3) The Aruban Militia and the Curaçao Militia are unlike the Antillean Militia made up of professional soldiers and have their own officers.

(4) HNLMS Pelikaan (A804) can be used for amphibious operations, with space for six rigid inflatable boats, four trucks and support equipment. The ship can support up to 77 personnel, including 15 crew with space for 62 marines.

(5) There are 3 Damen Stan 4100 patrol vessels named the Jaguar (P810), Panter (P811), and Poema (P812) who are operated by the Dutch Caribbean Coast Guard (DCCG)(Dutch: Kustwacht Caribisch Gebied (KWCARIB))

(6) Officially known as Detachment of Navy Base Parera, known until 1978 as Marine Barracks Suffisant (Dutch: Marinierskazerne Suffisant, MSKSUF).

(7) One company consist of a company staff, three infantry platoons, a combat support group and a service support group.

(8) Whit the outbreak of World War III the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps had station in the Caribbean the 21st Infantry Company stationed at Naval Base Parera (twenty-four men) and the 22nd Infantry Company stationed at Marine Barracks Savaneta (twenty-five men) part of the 2 Amphibious Combat Group (Dutch: Tweede Amfibische Gevechtsgroep, 2AGGP).

That’s the third year in a row I’ve been Roeled on this thread - May 15 2024, February 28 2025 and now July 30 2026. If I should have a serious question, meaty contribution or careful bit of collation in 2027, I’d better post it in the early hours of the Dutch morning on a holiday.

Simon Darkshade wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2026 5:23 am That’s the third year in a row I’ve been Roeled on this thread - May 15 2024, February 28 2025 and now July 30 2026. If I should have a serious question, meaty contribution or careful bit of collation in 2027, I’d better post it in the early hours of the Dutch morning on a holiday.

Good ore bad.

In 2024, the expanded and revamped version of the British orbat was nailed into the coffin of “forgotten post that never was” by a blithe picture of some Russian plane being hit on the ground in the Ukraine.

In 2025, a post on planned/projected British Army numbers and reserve forces using historical sources from before TLW’s POD, which had been put up in order to try to tease out some discussion from the only corner of the Internet where there is the combination of a knowledge base and relative engagement in the topic was again kicked into oblivion 13 hours later by a post about a 1 day difference in the calendar.

This year, my question above had a “lifespan” of just 37 minutes. Of your three posts, this was the most substantive one, and its length potentially indicates some degree of cross-posting, which is simply a case of bad timing.

As such, after looking through at the pattern, I jocularly suggested waiting until a window when I could guarantee your distraction. It’s not necessarily a good or bad thing, but by the nature of less active subforums, all it takes to effectively change a topic is a single post, given people’s natural reading habit of looking at the last thing posted.

It is the essence of an inadvertent situation, but does remind one of the truncated farewell scene in Brief Encounter, when Dolly Messiter barrels in to inadvertently interrupt the final moments together of Alec Harvey/Trevor Howard and Laura Jesson/Celia Johnson. It was in that light that I thought of the line about timing a future post.

Simon Darkshade wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2026 6:15 pm In 2024, the expanded and revamped version of the British orbat was nailed into the coffin of “forgotten post that never was” by a blithe picture of some Russian plane being hit on the ground in the Ukraine.

In 2025, a post on planned/projected British Army numbers and reserve forces using historical sources from before TLW’s POD, which had been put up in order to try to tease out some discussion from the only corner of the Internet where there is the combination of a knowledge base and relative engagement in the topic was again kicked into oblivion 13 hours later by a post about a 1 day difference in the calendar.

This year, my question above had a “lifespan” of just 37 minutes. Of your three posts, this was the most substantive one, and its length potentially indicates some degree of cross-posting, which is simply a case of bad timing.

As such, after looking through at the pattern, I jocularly suggested waiting until a window when I could guarantee your distraction. It’s not necessarily a good or bad thing, but by the nature of less active subforums, all it takes to effectively change a topic is a single post, given people’s natural reading habit of looking at the last thing posted.

It is the essence of an inadvertent situation, but does remind one of the truncated farewell scene in Brief Encounter, when Dolly Messiter barrels in to inadvertently interrupt the final moments together of Alec Harvey/Trevor Howard and Laura Jesson/Celia Johnson. It was in that light that I thought of the line about timing a future post.

Where is the like here when you need one.

I’m going to try and phrase this properly, so as not to give a meaning contrary to my view:

Is the East Coast Mine Battle really a battle?

I think Mark’s story is, quite simply, outstanding. Action, pathos, detail. It is written in his style and voice, which is given to Great Deeds. It just doesn’t quite ring true to the Australia of 2005 so much as a time before then, but that is in the nature of a story.

This isn’t going to be a quibble about number of ships.
Australia had ~56 merchant ships in total in @ 1999, and that dropped off to 30-40 by 2005, but I’ll warrant that the Timor situation warrants a lack of that drop off, but the ship of a substantive Australian flag merchant navy had already sailed. In any event, that isn’t my focus. The vast majority of ships are foreign flag ones, and perhaps not extensive as post 2005 when our mining boom really kicked off. The main ports would be Newcastle (coal), Sydney (everything) and Brissie; Gladstone, whilst big, wasn’t what it would become. The number of mine hunters et al fits for what is a big theatre. Alright on this one.

Why do the Sovs bother to begin with, and then plow so many resources into a quaternary non-NATO theatre without much impact upon anything substantive? They had an actual theatre in Japan which would squeeze the US far tighter globally than the charge at Oz, or off Korea, or around Malacca if they wanted to go for commerce mining. The OOC answer is that the story demands it, and the IC one is that Foxtrots need to be used. Alright on this one.

It just seems that, for a limited side theatre, it ends up like a bad day in Bosnia; not saying this shouldn’t be the case at all, mind you. However, there isn’t, to my recollection, an extensive similar and proportional dive into mine warfare in Europe or off the British Isles. There is mention, but The Cruel Sea is the Tasman. It does seem that this isn’t a Battle in the way of Kiel, or Denmark or indeed Britain in the last war, but more of a small c campaign in a theatre. One day in a long war, as it were.

TL/DR: Whilst the story name is good and the story rocks, having the term ‘Mine Battle’ employed in universe is just a tad too much. Probably better to call it the East Coast of Australia Campaign, or even the Tasman Campaign to include the Kiwis.

On the contrary, I think it deserves the title "battle" as much as any other fight outside the main theaters of action.

To take your points in the order I remember them.....

Australia is a fourth level theater so why are the Soviets putting the effort in? (nice use of quaternary, by the way. I thought I was the only person who used that word.)

Sure, Australia isn't putting forth a huge amount of troops, warships or merchantmen, but they are the primary forces keeping Indonesia from being a giant pain in the ass. Additionally, the Soviets are VERY good at putting together a plan, and then sticking with the plan FAR longer than common sense tells them they should. So they probably came up with the plan in the 70's or 80's, and once the appropriate boxes were ticked in the run up to war, the orders were issued, and continue to be issued, because that's what was going on. Finally, from the Soviet perspective, what kind of a huge propaganda coup would it be to knock one of the Western allies, and a member of the UK Commonwealth to boot, out of the war?


Why not Japan?

Because Japan is heavily defended and also still (I think) an active battleground. I'm guessing that the seas and particularly, the ports, are under a LOT more surveillance than anywhere around Australia. Even the Soviet Union's submarines and merchant mine layers are stretched, and there's a LOT more attention being paid to what's floating on and under the area around Japan. Why send older ships, more likely to be detected and sunk, into a area they're far more likely to be sunk, for minimal results, when you can send them off to Australia, and get some fairly good results, at a minimal cost?


No mention of mine warfare elsewhere????

No one has had the time/energy/interest to do a deep dive into mine warfare elsewhere.


East Coast Mine Battle to me seems like what the Aussies are calling it for internal consumption. A book written after the war in the US or UK would probably use terminology similar to what you're proposing, because "East Coast" means very different things to those countries. However, since its set during the war, and from an Australian-centric perspective, its a battle, it deals with mine warfare, and its on the East Coast.

I think the name is completely appropriate for both internal to the story and for us, the reader.

Belushi TD

As said, it blows it out of all proportion into a bad day in Bosnia/Beirut/insert city name starting with B.

1.) Australia isn't really keeping Indonesia down so much as focusing its limited (pre Canberra) manpower, money and resources in a far off minor theatre compared to others, such as Japan/Korea and the Middle East. This is done without Soviet commitment of forces beyond their brigade or so in Ambon, IIRC.

The Soviets, despite being a superpower, don't have unlimited resources. They do need to distribute them according to relative payoff, and on that count, Japan and Korea kick seven shades of stuffing out of Australia and New Zealand. Pouring, relatively speaking, boats and money and opportunity into mining a relatively minor and relatively unimportant littoral sea beyond a perfunctory fashion.

2.) The Japanese may have 42 minesweepers, but that is covering a lot of sea which is much more important to any Third World War. 5 Foxtrots being spent on Australia is around 3 too many for potential return on investment.

3.) That points to an issue inherent with shared universes, whereby people will focus on their backyards and hobbyhorses. That is why there is very little from France in TLW, for example. Britain has 55 mine warfare ships in the orbat plus an unspecified number of auxiliaries, whilst Australia has 61 listed in the story; prior to war starting, the characters are talking about the Soviets mining as if it were a given or pre-knowledge.

In Britain, the second major Allied power in WW3, we have this: "The MCM Force is, more than a decade after the war, still something of a ‘Forgotten Fleet’, its achievements and bravery unsung. However, without these small ships none of the other larger more glamorous warships could have done their jobs, not to mention that no merchant vessels would have been able to deliver their cargoes." In Australia, their counterparts are closely equivalent in number, much, much higher in profile and highlighted in action at war. It is as if the roles have been a bit flipped.

It works for the readers, who know of the Rule of Cool, but in universe, having it in such common parlance and putting action live onto Sky News...it just stretches things a tad. It is a complex and dangerous fight for the men involved, but the level of forces and consequences don't really rise to the level of a 'Battle' with a capital B, let alone one so well known as to be easily spoken of in everyday parlance as the 'Mine Battle'.

There are a few differences between the RN MCM force and its RAN counterpart.

Firstly, the RN MCM force is generally doing its job outside of the view of people on shore. Secondly, it has not taken anything like the number of casualties that the RAN force has. There are no regular examples of dead bodies washing up on British beaches. Moreover, the 2nd Squadron that Mark has written about is based in a major city, while the RN vessels are operating from a variety of dispersed locations. Such as Norwegian fjords, and remote anchorages off the west coast of Scotland. 2nd Squadron is also going to be somewhat unique in being noticed by the media. The rest of the 32nd Minesweeping Flotilla (Auxiliary Minesweeper Force) is probably going to be overshadowed and largely forgotten.

The RAN has not fought in a major fleet action, which the RN has. The Third Battle of the Atlantic was also far more intense than the convoy campaign in the Pacific. When looking for naval stories, the UK media is going to focus on the battle that defeated the Northern Fleet and the ships fighting supply convoys through. There is also the fact that while the MoD wants to put the message out there that British ports are being kept open, it has reasons of security to keep the MCMV out of the limelight.

I get the impression that the Aussie media is not being 'directed' to the same degree that the British is. That means they will be looking for stories that they think will attract viewers, listeners and readers. A story of local reservists fighting a valiant battle against an unseen, uncaring enemy is one, IMVHO, anyway, that will attract the attention of local media. Local news stories can often get picked up by the national media and go viral.

1.) There are large cities along the East Coast of Britain, and much, much closer together and much more heavily populated than the east coast of Australia. This would seem to suggest that any action can't be insulated from the people quite as much as it might be in Australia. Just Sydney to Britain is very close to the entire length of Britain.

2.) No issues here. It is a convoy campaign, as I've been saying. However, it is likely that some actions of the surface fleet will be seized upon, such as our equivalent of Anzac off the al-Faw in 2003.

3.) The ABC would be. Apart from them, in 2005, there were 3 commercial networks, one of which (10) was quite dilettante towards any matters of import. There was one significant cable news channel, known in Australian parlance of the time as 'pay TV' in the form of Sky News, but it was very limited in audience, and the total number of pay TV customers was a tad over a million at this time.

To get a picture of what the real news media from the time were like, we can look at the experiences of East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq. In none of those were the Australian media let go on a long leash or no leash. By and large, they were embedded and their product carefully processed. Some of the historical incidents where the ABC in particular decided to go into crusade mode against the government might not occur in the same way in the context of war in Timor for 6 years and now World War 3.

This was before the age of viral television in Australia, and a rather more staid time, if truth be told. There were certain aspects, though, which stuck through, and one of those was a very Australian lack of appreciation for pomposity or for what the youngsters might term today 'cringe'. John Howard faced a great deal of eye rolling criticism over the proposal addition of a preamble to the Constitution which included 'mateship', whilst the SA Premier got hit for six over his proposal to call the new Royal Adelaide Hospital after the current governor, with his idea that it would be called 'The Marge' attracting great opprobrium. Perhaps more than today, it was an Australia very good at popping others balloons.

There is a perhaps a simple solution to all this:
- The story stays with its title, as that is completely OOC
- It might be worth switching part of the TV component of it to Sixty Minutes, which was the major commercial weekly/Sunday night current affairs programme of record. That way, the title of 'The East Coast Mine Battle' can make more sense, being attached to it by a widely seen commercial free to air TV programme
- This might be seized upon by military magazine publishers in order to ride the coattails of greater publicity
- In everyday reference, rather than the 'Mine Battle', it would be identified with the geography of the 'East Coast' or the 'Tasman'