I like war stories, but whenever I try to write war stories myself, I am always tripped up by the fact that I have never served a day in the military and so I have no idea how military organization works. The basic premise I have is that I want to create a scenario where Australia has been blanketed by toxic volcanic fumes and there are monsters on the loose. To prepare for this, the Australian government has devised a plan for the deployment of military units to secure places with a high civilian population. The set up I have is that main Army units are sent to major population centres like Melbourne, Sydney and Perth while other smaller units are sent to secure smaller towns. The problem is I don't know what army units are perfect for what task. In our world, the Australian Defense Force has considerable manpower, but it's nowhere near as big as the US Army. It has close to 49,000 personnel, combining both the regular defense forces and the Reserves. The link below contains all of the units included in the Australian Army. Structure of the Australian Army - Wikipedia I have no idea which units should go where in this fictional disaster I've created. I might be overthinking this, but I just want to portray the Defense Force as accurately as possible. So I guess the question I should be asking is, what is the army unit best suited for establishing command and control in larger cities with the responsibility of delegating orders to smaller units? I'm open to discussing the particulars with commenters. Also, are 49,000 men enough to secure locations across a continent as sparsely populated as Australia?
This sounds like a general peace keeping operation. I would suggest looking at UN forces and operations in the Balkans, during the 90s.
I would suggest contacting a veteran's organization. You would want to talk with a retired senior officer for a more official type response, then talk with a retired senior NCO for a down-to-earth POV. Prediction: the two won't match.
No they won't, because they have different perspectives. Officers tend to focus on their part in the bigger picture A very simplistic view of the difference is: Officer: What's next? NCO: What now?
The difference between strategy and tactics. Tactics are about making it through the current engagement, whereas strategy is about the longer game.
Early in the Ukraine war, some commenters on the BBC and other mainstream media were saying Russia's build-up of ~250,000 was a fraction of what they'd need to hold a country the size of Ukraine - even if they had been initially successful. I'd aver that's been proved right - but it's an open question what would have been sufficient. iirc back then they were saying a million or more. Australia is ten times the area of Ukraine. But it depends what the monsters are like. If they're town-sized snails eating everything in their path, 49,000 highly-mobile troops might be more than enough. If it's emus again they might need to conscript every adult male. Portraying the Defense Force should always be secondary to characters and themes. So if the MC is meeting the love interest at the Defense Force HQ, it might be fine to call it just that The approach then would be to write the whole thing, and go back and only put more effort in to contradictions, discrepancies, or any places where the suspension of disbelief might break down. E.g. do they need to meet officers at various levels with the whole hierarchy worked out. Or could the whole thing be represented by a single general? At the HQ. Of the Defense Force.
