| Leonis |
01-13-2003 07:47 AM |
Quote:
Originally posted by homer:
I suppose a lot would have to do with the kind of war that would be fought. The two countries are rather far away from each other so I think that naval type conflicts would definitely play a part. I do not know which country has a stronger navy; I do not even know if they both have a navy.
I would think that as far as the on land battles go, it would depend on which country did the invading. Even though we do not want to involve the U.S., they do occupy the entire southern border of Canada. There is also that part of Canada that touches Alaska, another U.S. territory. In the least the Australian army would need co-operation from the U.S.
On the other hand if the Canadians were able to land a sizable force on the Australian mainland the Australian army could be hard pressed. Lets face it a country completely surrounded by water is hard to defend. [img]graemlins/rambo.gif[/img]
|
Actually, I have been told from a very reliable source that if our forces were all at home, even the USA would have a difficult time mounting a succesfull invasion of Australia. Logistically, it is too vast, too sparse and too remote - with the Australian troops very well trained in the type of warfare needed to defend an enourmous desert and a few cities, with a small force and very limited technology. In 'man to man' war games, Australia consistently outperforms our rivals..er..allies. ;)
Our forces are primarily defensive and would struggle to invade someone like Canada. So it may be that home advantage would win... |
