ANZAC?

[Warbear]

A simple question, but I don't know:
Are Australians (7th Australian Infantry Division with Elite Squads) ANZAC units - and therefore stealthy?

 

[Justiciar]

Warbears need to be aware of Koala bears.... A25.44. It is not by unit particular but by national force....

 

[Mr Incredible]

Nope, Drop Bears are the worst.

Don't walk in heavily forested woods at night in Australia.

 

[Warbear]

Warbears need to be aware of Koala bears.... A25.44. It is not by unit particular but by national force....

Of course I've first looked into A25.44 (and thought of COWTRA).
It mentions "Australians and New Zealand" forces (not "and/or") - so I thought it might be possible that ANZAC forces are special forces of both nations.

I thought Justiciars always look for unexact definitions ...

 

[aneil1234]

ANZAC is the World War I formation (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps)
this is a generic term used to describe all Australian and New Zealand forces that fought in both the Great War and the 2nd world war.
it was used to describe the troops that served overseas in the 1st Australian Imperial Force (AIF - WWI) and the 2nd AIF (2nd WW) that is why you see all unit designations for the main Australian Army units during the Second World War with the prefix 2/***** i.e. 2/13th Battalion, 20th Brigade, 9th Australian infantry division
so those units that you refer to in your question are absolutely Anzac, and are thus stealthy as per the ASL rules.
What they are not, is British !!! lol
Thats why we keep beating them at the Cricket...... and Rugby...... and Netball lol

As for them being special forces, in my biased opinion they are lol
Rommel acknowledged them as the best infantry opponents he faced - in particular the 9th Division
especially after the siege of Tobruk. (the ones where Rommel didn't get the town !)
and for the New Zealanders, they fought all the way from North Africa, through the bloodbath of Monte Cassino and then on to the surrender of the German forces in Italy.
Elite
absolutely!

Hope this helps

 

[Jon]

Barring any SSR to the contrary (I don't have the Korea module yet), A25.44 would also apply to Australian and/or New Zealand forces in Korea

From memory, Australia sent 1 or 2 infantry battalions and New Zealand sent an artillery regiment to Korea.

Cheers
Jon

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Barring any SSR to the contrary (I don't have the Korea module yet), A25.44 would also apply to Australian and/or New Zealand forces in Korea

It would primarily depend on how the FW rules are written, and not directly related to the presence/absence of an SSR.
In this case you are correct though, and it is even spelled out in Chapter W.

W4.1:
4.1 BRITISH & COMMONWEALTH ARMIES: All BCFK (Australian, British, Canadian, and New Zealander) MMC types are listed in the KW National Capabilities Chart; there are no Green MMC, and 2nd Line MMC that suffer ELR Replacement are Disrupted. A25.4 BRITISH rules and A25.44-.46 apply normally to BCFK units.

 

[Jon]

It would primarily depend on how the FW rules are written, and not directly related to the presence/absence of an SSR.
In this case you are correct though, and it is even spelled out in Chapter W.

W4.1:
4.1 BRITISH & COMMONWEALTH ARMIES: All BCFK (Australian, British, Canadian, and New Zealander) MMC types are listed in the KW National Capabilities Chart; there are no Green MMC, and 2nd Line MMC that suffer ELR Replacement are Disrupted. A25.4 BRITISH rules and A25.44-.46 apply normally to BCFK units.

Yes, i should have been clearer. By "SSR", I meant Korea module special rules

Cheers
Jon

 

[aneil1234]

Jon/others

It was actually, 3 battalions. 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment 2nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment and 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment
initially the 3rd Battalion deployed at the outbreak of hostilities from where they were part of the Commonwealth occupation force in Japan, and were thus "Johnnies on the spot". they literally deployed just weeks after the initial NK invasion of the South occurred (Sept 1950). they then form part of the 27th Commonwealth brigade, of caught up in the fighting for the Pusan perimeter.

Ultimately this brigade and a another the 28th Commonwealth brigade (which included the 1st Battalion RAR) formed the 1st Commonwealth division that served through the remainder of the conflict
this occurred in July 1951.
ultimately the 3rd Battalion withdrew from the 27th Brigade and returned home. And the 1st Battalion was replaced with the 2nd Battalion RAR in 1952 (this included my father as one of the infantryman !)
the 2nd battalion served during the last period of the war. And then remained on the line (DMZ) for a period of almost 2 years after the conclusion of the armistice.
During that time, the Koreans and the Chinese were very active in trying to provoke the allied forces in raids, artillery exchanges, and sniping.
There might've been a sort of peace. But it certainly wasn't peaceful

this Little history piece of course does not include a very large contingent of RAAF and Royal Australian Navy personnel as well

 

[bprobst]

To answer the OP question:

If the scenario card says that the OB units are "Australian" or "New Zealander" then they meet the requirements of A25.44 and thus are Stealthy (barring, of course, an SSR that specifies otherwise). You do not need an SSR to invoke A25.44, any more than you need an SSR to say that Russian units are Russian, Japanese unit are Japanese, etc.

It does complicate the occasional multi-national scenario where some parts of the OB are regular British and other parts are ANZAC. Easy to label them appropriately in VASL, playing ftf with actual cardboard you may need to make side notes, a bit of a PITA.

Has nothing to do with "special forces", unless you happen to think that all ANZAC troops were special. Which of course they were.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Of course I've first looked into A25.44 (and thought of COWTRA).
It mentions "Australians and New Zealand" forces (not "and/or") - so I thought it might be possible that ANZAC forces are special forces of both nations.

I thought Justiciars always look for unexact definitions ...

The authors of the rulebook didn't seem as versed in the intricacies of the Commonwealth military histories as with the other nationalities - though the Chapter H notes were pretty good about describing the peculiarities of the British 'regimental system'.

ANZAC referred to the very specific Australia-New Zealand Army Corps of the First World War. The corps fought at Gallipoli. A second ANZAC corps was also raised, and another ANZAC corps was briefly formed in the Second World War. The term is apparently used in some quarters colloquially to refer in general terms to Australians "and/or" New Zealand troops, and this is how the authors of the ASL rulebook use it. To my mind, kind of similar to how some authors think that "Wehrmacht" refers only to the German Army, when in fact it means "armed forces" and includes the army, navy and air force.

They also incorrectly stated that Canadian troops were an all-volunteer force, which was not the case. Canada drafted troops beginning in 1940, and the government approved their use as overseas combat troops in late 1944.

 

[von Marwitz]

To answer the OP question:
If the scenario card says that the OB units are "Australian" or "New Zealander" then they meet the requirements of A25.44 and thus are Stealthy (barring, of course, an SSR that specifies otherwise). You do not need an SSR to invoke A25.44, any more than you need an SSR to say that Russian units are Russian, Japanese unit are Japanese, etc.

Has nothing to do with "special forces", unless you happen to think that all ANZAC troops were special. Which of course they were.

Hehe. This. You heard him? But betcha you didn't see Bruce.

von Marwitz

 

[bprobst]

I'm a veritable ninja.