Hi Greg.
"What this paper, in common with most other material, does not explain, is how they came to be so overpowering when coming into contact with "super-powers" who were already fully militarised. There is no evidence of superior technology nor strategy."

The common paradigm that these Aegeans overpowered many nations is obviously a complete misunderstanding of the texts. Which is why such claims have never been confirmed by archaeology.

There is no need to acuse the Egyptians of extreme hyperbole in this case, the culpability for the misreading lays firmly with academia.
Where the texts advise that, "no land could stand before them, from Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arvad & Alishaya," we should read this as an alliance of Hittite states, not a list of defeated nations.
A more accurate interpretation should be that "no-land could stand before this alliance of Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arvad & Alishaya".

Incidently, "Yereth" is commonly interpreted in a half dozen extanct examples of pharaonic conquest lists as meaning "Arvad", not "Arzawa".

That aside, there is growing reason to see these Aegean cultured peoples as local to the east Mediterranean. Originating from Cyprus, classical "Cilicia", and coastal Syria they were in collaboration with the Hittites, who are shown as the principal enemy of Egypt in the Asiatic wars of Ramesses III.

Whatever happened in the west Aegean, on mainland Greece, and in western Anatolia, had nothing to do with the wars of Merneptah & Ramesses III.
Rather than continue to treat destructions across these regions as related, they should be approached as if they were separate and distinct events.
Let subsequent interpretations stand on their own worth, rather than be shackled by the expectation of contributing to this hypothetical, Wave of Invading Aegeans.

Regards, Jon S.