senor freebie
Chieftain
I just read over a few more posts in this thread and I'm going to make some more comments.
Mounted infantry are a decent choice except for the fact that at the time they were most famous (and mounted) they were not Australian's but part of the British empire.
Also ... the Australian 'civilization' was technically a part of the British empire until the treaty of Westminster and later the fall of Singapore when we passed laws establishing our own independent foreign policy. So I say scratch any leaders before Curtin (who would also be an excellent choice to replace Barton).
Back to the UU, Australia built their own ships, fighter aircraft and even designed the worlds first 'tank' but never created significant enough units of them to be defined by them in battle. It was always our infantry that gained good reputations as often we didn't have the resources to equip our men as extravagantly as other nations (like the USSR, USA or UK) but still had a fair amount of fit, country men ready for service.
In WW1 our troops performed better then many in the trenchs, in WW2 we did an amazing job against the Japanese in Indonesia (but a pathetic job in Singapore). In Vietnam we were considered the only soldiers who could fight on the same terms as the Viet Cong and win. Our troops have proven great at fighting unconventionally and in thick cover, a must for any country that can't lay down some serious fire support (like the nations I mentioned before).
Going with the concept I mentioned before that Australia's independent foreign policy didn't evolve until 1941 ... its probably important to choose a unit that is relevant then. I'd suggest a modified Infantry or Marine unit that wasn't so 'wacky' as 'SEALS'. Something more along the lines of a unit that can operate well from tough terrain, even offensively and isn't so great at a conventional head on war.
Mounted infantry are a decent choice except for the fact that at the time they were most famous (and mounted) they were not Australian's but part of the British empire.
Also ... the Australian 'civilization' was technically a part of the British empire until the treaty of Westminster and later the fall of Singapore when we passed laws establishing our own independent foreign policy. So I say scratch any leaders before Curtin (who would also be an excellent choice to replace Barton).
Back to the UU, Australia built their own ships, fighter aircraft and even designed the worlds first 'tank' but never created significant enough units of them to be defined by them in battle. It was always our infantry that gained good reputations as often we didn't have the resources to equip our men as extravagantly as other nations (like the USSR, USA or UK) but still had a fair amount of fit, country men ready for service.
In WW1 our troops performed better then many in the trenchs, in WW2 we did an amazing job against the Japanese in Indonesia (but a pathetic job in Singapore). In Vietnam we were considered the only soldiers who could fight on the same terms as the Viet Cong and win. Our troops have proven great at fighting unconventionally and in thick cover, a must for any country that can't lay down some serious fire support (like the nations I mentioned before).
Going with the concept I mentioned before that Australia's independent foreign policy didn't evolve until 1941 ... its probably important to choose a unit that is relevant then. I'd suggest a modified Infantry or Marine unit that wasn't so 'wacky' as 'SEALS'. Something more along the lines of a unit that can operate well from tough terrain, even offensively and isn't so great at a conventional head on war.
