HMAS AUSTRALIA was the RAN's 1st and only battlecruiser (INDEFATIGABLE class) which served during 1916-19, but which after the war was scrapped under the 1922 Washington Treaty as a surplus dreadnought, with the Aust govt's full agreement. But WI the British and Aust govts had decided to scrap another capital ship instead of AUSTRALIA ? How much more of a deterrent effect against Japan would have been facilitated with the presence of a battlecruiser in Aust's order of battle by 1939 ? What effect could Aust having a battlecruiser have had on the course of Aust's contribution to the war in both the Atlantic and Pacific ?
WI HMAS AUSTRALIA not scrapped ?
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
David S Poepoe
Banned
HMAS Australia was obsolete by 1922 and would have been a tremendous waste of money to modernize at all between 1922-1939. What would have been better would have been Australia coughing up the money for a replacement to begin with.
Melvin Loh said:
If I were a Japanese admiral, I'd laugh at the Royal Navy's stupidity at retaining one of the weakest capital ships in service. If the Royal Navy wants Austrailia to have a battlecruiser, keep one of the 13.5" ships-they are faster, better armored, and better armed. Better yet, give them Repulse or Renown. From the RN's perspective, I'd hate to give up a 15" gun ship to keep any extra BC, however. In the event of a full scale war, I'd need all the firepower I can get--and I'd be very thankful that the Americans were forced to keep some 12" ships. (Remember, the RN had only two ships with All or Nothing armor, while the USA had 12--a critical concern in a Pacific war.
Alternatively, perhaps each navy gets to keep one older dreadnought--Japan keeps Settsu (20823 tons, 12 x 12" guns, poor layout, Italy keeps Dante Alighieri (19552 tons, 12 x 12" and the USA keeps Delaware (20380 tons, 10 x 12" guns.)
Tonnage is comparable--Britain gets a fast ship for commerce protection, the others get a powerful coast defence ship. France gets the short end of the stick here--no more dreadnoughts to retain.
To retain the balance, these "extra" battleships are under a seperate replacement clause. Keep the 20 year lifespan, but these second class ships must be replaced by ships of no more than 20,000 tons standard, with 12" guns maximum.
Either way, I doubt that one BC in Austrailian waters would make that much of a difference, although one extra convoy escort gives Scharnhorst and Gneiseneau something to thnk about. Most likely, Australia stays in the Pacific, while a slower, but more powerful, ship stays in the Atlantic. Britain now has to contend with another Italian battleship, though.
Yes in peacetime,but I would wager a guess that in wartime the dominion navys fall under overall controll of the Royal Navy, case in point: The canadian navy in WWII, a large chunk of it was used as convoy escorts nad other RN wartime dutys.DMA said:
Anyway,about the battlecruiser,I dont belive that it would have made any diffrence what so ever,perhaps the japs loose a cruiser or destoryer or 2,but I would guess the HMAS Austrailia is sunk by jap aircraft,maybe a aussie version of preal the next day(Dec8th) like a bombing raid on sydney.
Anyway,I think that she would have undergone an extensive refit(Somewhere on one of the battleship board I visit theres a thread on rebuilding the austrailia,Ill find it and post it here.)
BattleshipBoy said:
To answer the first part about the RAN - it all depends upon what wartime arrangements take place between London & Canberra. In the case of Canada, the Atlantic was the obvious naval battlefield & the fate of both Canada & UK rested upon ensuring victory in the Atlantic. The situation was, for Australia, not so clear cut. Not only did we have to keep an eye on Japan, but Australia's other interest was Egypt. Having said that, the RAN was still the RAN & operated by the sovereign government of Australia, not the UK one. And it wouldn't be the first time an Australian govt said no to London. Nonetheless, Australia acted like a good UK ally like Canada until the fall of Singapore. But this event changed everything. The UK was basically told to look after themselves & Australia withrew basically everything it could back to defend Australia. As a result, co-operation between the RAN & RN, based upon the RAN doing what the RN wanted, more or less disappeared overnight in early 1942.
As for the second part, yes I can agree with most of this, especially the assumption that HMAS Australia wouldn't have effected Japanese war plans all that much. In fact I'd doubt that the IJN would have even have bothered overly much about it. As I said, HMAS Australia probably would have been sunk alongside HMAS Perth in the Java Sea without effecting the OTL one single bit.
BattleshipBoy said:
Thank's for the link. When you first mentioned this "rebuilding project" I thought you meant in the here & now as some historical museum project. lol
Anyways, I gave the board a quick read. The problem that's totally ignored is that WW2 was the death of the battleship & the rise of the aircraft carrier. This lesson was learnt the hard way at Pearl Harbor & it would have been merely repeated with the HMAS Australia, regardless of its upgrades.
Here's a radical thought for you though - say the Australian govt, seeing the wild building of aircraft carriers elsewhere, decides in 1936 that the battleship days are numbered & orders HMAS Australia to be rebuilt into an aircraft carrier. Not all that crazy when one considers that such rebuilds have taken place in Britian, Japan & the USA. This could have a far great impact for the war in the South Pacific - South East Asia region than an old battlecruiser ever would. Furthermore, have American aircraft on board rather than UK ones.
Well,we all over there(Myself included) Belive that carriers are the spawn of satan, so yeah we tend to ignore them 
Rebuilding Austrailia as a carrier? and another thought
In 1936, HMAS Austrailia is almost 30 years old--ancient for a warship. She's also quite small--if Austrailia wants a carrier, I think they could get far more ship for their pound than by rebuilding an ancient battlecruiser.
As far as the point raised earlier about Austrailia being a sovereign state, and therefore not bound by the Washington treaty, may be legaly true--but creates a problem.
An Austrailian government that refused to adhere to the treaty would cause it to collapse altogether, I'd expect. Japan would envision Britain building new battleships, officially ordered by Austrailia, and then, should war break out, Austrailia declares war as well. Britian suddenly has a vast naval advantage. The USA would be concerned about the same thing. These nations would probably put enormous pressure on Austrailia to not build capital ships, lest the treaty fall apart, and economic ruin result.
If Austrailia agreed to keep one capital ship, and the other signatories agreed to keep one smaller ship, as I posted below, perhaps the treaty could be salvaged. This also leads to each nartion building a replacement small battleship. These could be interesting ships--20,000 tons Washington standard tonnage, 12" guns maximum. Large cruisers or small battleships?
In 1936, HMAS Austrailia is almost 30 years old--ancient for a warship. She's also quite small--if Austrailia wants a carrier, I think they could get far more ship for their pound than by rebuilding an ancient battlecruiser.
As far as the point raised earlier about Austrailia being a sovereign state, and therefore not bound by the Washington treaty, may be legaly true--but creates a problem.
An Austrailian government that refused to adhere to the treaty would cause it to collapse altogether, I'd expect. Japan would envision Britain building new battleships, officially ordered by Austrailia, and then, should war break out, Austrailia declares war as well. Britian suddenly has a vast naval advantage. The USA would be concerned about the same thing. These nations would probably put enormous pressure on Austrailia to not build capital ships, lest the treaty fall apart, and economic ruin result.
If Austrailia agreed to keep one capital ship, and the other signatories agreed to keep one smaller ship, as I posted below, perhaps the treaty could be salvaged. This also leads to each nartion building a replacement small battleship. These could be interesting ships--20,000 tons Washington standard tonnage, 12" guns maximum. Large cruisers or small battleships?
NHBL said:
Oh I have no doubt that HMAS Australia in 1936 was as close to useless as you can get a warship to be. My suggesting of rebuilding it into a carrier, instead of an upgraded battle cruiser, was merely a thought of how to get it to play some influence in WW2. As a battle cruiser it would have merely added its name & crew to the casuality list. As for tonnage - it would be in the class of HMS Furious &/or IJN Hiryu type carriers I'd imagine. Considering Hiryu could carry 70 odd aircraft, I wouldn't say then it was totally useless.
And Australia collapse? Oh please. You're talking to one. There is about as much chance Australia (&/or it's govt) collapsing if we kept one old battlecruiser, as there was of America collapsing the day after Pearl Harbor.
Furthermore, I doubt anyone would really care less if a country, few of them had heard about, kept HMAS Australia. I'm sure the Treaty would go ahead, although the UK & USA may show some annoyance. On the Australian side, & more to the point, we only got the battleship brand new in 1913! And here we are, less than a decade later, being told to sink it or else. I know what I would have said as Australian PM if that was the case & it would be two words - one of which would be off.