Alternative Royal Australian Navy for the 1930s

[La Rouge Beret]

Inspired by this thread on the Royal Navy and another thread on the Royal Australian Navy having submarines available for World War 2 here.

With a POD in 1930, what could the Australian government do to improve the Royal Australian Navy leading up to World War 2?

 

[jsb]

Lots if they have the willingness to spend some cash.

1) Subs make sense (they might have to be bought from GB), but they will likely be wasted in the med/north sea before they are needed near Malaya .

2) A production line for DDs/cheaper mass production escorts (hunts ? rivers ?) would be nice.

3) I think anything else requires GB help (and that will be tight in the post treaty 37+ period ).

Really anything more would help and it also depends whether you go for stuff just to help AUS or generally the whole commonwealth.

What limit do you want to place on it ?

I think the cheapest would be to just buy a 1/2 flotilla of cheap escort DDs, but insist that they have to be made mass producible in civilian yards (so the design can inspire classes of RN war emergency types later) you could insist on a 40mm Bofors (use the same ammo as the army ) + DP guns etc as well.(but that's just helping a RN wank)

JSB

 

[Riain]

Firstly Australia should ratify the Statute of Westminster and thus exempt itself from the terms of the London Naval Treaty of 1930.

Secondly it should give the Australia and Canberra rebuilds along the lines of HMS London, but prior to 1941.

Thirdly a submarine flotilla should be established.

Fourthly some more destroyers should be procured.

 

[Delta Force]

Firstly Australia should ratify the Statute of Westminster and thus exempt itself from the terms of the London Naval Treaty of 1930.

I thought the limits applied to the Commonwealth entirely?

 

[jsb]

So did I,
and I think if you go separate then US/J will insisted that GB cant build you stuff so you are still limited. (and GB will hate you for potentially damaging the treaty's)

Subs and DD aren't really limited (well not sufficiently to matter) and they are all you can make locally (not sure about subs).

I think that you should make a deal with the RN to build sloops (civilian standard loch class types) and swap some of them for GB built subs.

You get jobs and a fleet of useful escorts (easy to build in AUS+ later in GB) and a flotilla extra of subs.

JSB

 

[Riain]

I thought the limits applied to the Commonwealth entirely?

It was, but the WNT and LNT were signed before the SoW and by then BCs HMAS Australia and HMS New Zealand had been scrapped and HMS Canada was re-sold to Chile.

By the time of the LNT the only Dominion ships that counted in the LNT tonnage were HMAS Australia and Canberra.

The SoW was ratified in 1942 and backdated to 3 Sep 1939 so British Law didn't automatically apply in Australia. I'd suggest that if the SoW was ratified sometime in the early 30s Australia could argue that the LNT and 2nd LNT didn't apply to the RAN and act accordingly. I wouldn't be surprised if Britain welcomed this in order to free up some tonnage for themselves.

 

[Delta Force]

It was, but the WNT and LNT were signed before the SoW and by then BCs HMAS Australia and HMS New Zealand had been scrapped and HMS Canada was re-sold to Chile.

By the time of the LNT the only Dominion ships that counted in the LNT tonnage were HMAS Australia and Canberra.

The SoW was ratified in 1942 and backdated to 3 Sep 1939 so British Law didn't automatically apply in Australia. I'd suggest that if the SoW was ratified sometime in the early 30s Australia could argue that the LNT and 2nd LNT didn't apply to the RAN and act accordingly. I wouldn't be surprised if Britain welcomed this in order to free up some tonnage for themselves.

I can see such a move being very controversial in Japan and the United States, since the Washington Naval Treaty and the other naval treaties didn't foresee something like that happening.

 

[Riain]

I don't think it would be a problem until the 2nd LNT when Australia might want to build outside the restrictions. By then Japan had pulled out so Australia's actions would be the least of anyone's worries.

 

[jsb]

I think you need to read the text of the treaty,

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India:
The Right Honourable Arthur James Balfour, O. M., M. P.,
Lord President of His Privy Council;
The Right Honourable Baron Lee of Fareham, G. B. E., K. C. B.,
First Lord of His Admiralty;
The Right Honourable Sir Auckland Campbell Geddes, K. C. B.,
His Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United
States of America;

and

for the Dominion of Canada:
The Right Honourable Sir Robert Laird Borden,
G. C. M. G., K. C.;

for the Commonwealth of Australia:
Senator the Right Honourable George Foster Pearce, Minister
for Home and Territories;

for the Dominion of New Zealand:
The Honourable Sir John William Salmond, K. C., Judge of the
Supreme Court of New Zealand;

for the Union of South Africa:
The Right Honourable Arthur James Balfour, O. M., M. P.;

for India:
The Right Honourable Valingman Sankaranarayana Srinivasa Sastri,
Member of the Indian Council of State;

I think that US/J will say that AUS is walking away from something it has signed (even if it wasn't fully sovereign when it signed it).

They will invoke,

Article XXI If during the term of the present Treaty the requirements of the national security of any Contracting Power in respect of naval defence are, in the opinion of that Power, materially affected by any change of circumstances, the Contracting Powers will, at the request of such Power, meet in conference with a view to the reconsideration of the provisions of the Treaty and its amendment by mutual agreement.

It will in any case annoy GB so I don't think you can do it.​

JSB​

 

[Barry Bull]

Apart from the problem of money, trained manpower is another bottleneck that limits expansion of the RAN. Something similar to the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan will be needed to train enough mariners.

 

[Riain]

I think you need to read the text of the treaty,


I think that US/J will say that AUS is walking away from something it has signed (even if it wasn't fully sovereign when it signed it).

They will invoke,

It will in any case annoy GB so I don't think you can do it.​

JSB​

As I said above, it won't be a problem until the 2nd LNT. Australia isn't about to rebuild HMAS Australia and Canberra until closer to the war and there are no other ships in the RAN that are affected. Only in 1936 are submarines and 6" cruisers affected.

 

[jsb]

IMO,

With a 1930 POD,

1930 - 1936 (WNT/LNT1 in effect)
- you can build DDs (+escorts) as GB didn't build to limit
- you could buy Subs as GB didn't build to limit
- you could buy CLs (if GB gives you treaty tonnage)

1937 +
- you can build DDs (+escorts)
- you could buy Subs
- you could buy CLs (8000t + if GB gives you priority in its yards)

So I'm not sure but I think DDs are the way to go (subs would be good but not sure you can build them and jobs will help with funding, that why I like a swap deal I think Gb would go for it as they would like you to help out in any way possible).


Or with 20/20 hindsight build LSTs ?.

JSB

 

[Delta Force]

As I said above, it won't be a problem until the 2nd LNT. Australia isn't about to rebuild HMAS Australia and Canberra until closer to the war and there are no other ships in the RAN that are affected. Only in 1936 are submarines and 6" cruisers affected.

The Commonwealth exceeding the spirit (quite possibly the law) of the total fleet tonnage limits established by the naval treaties is the issue, not so much the compliance of individual ships with the treaties.

 

[Simon]

Lots if they have the willingness to spend some cash.

And that right there is the question. I'd have to go and search for it but I came across a page by an Australian that was IIRC arguing that both sides of the domestic political divide used the Singapore Naval Base and Royal Navy as an excuse to avoid paying for the necessary defence spending, even when warned they needed to build out forces to hold off attackers for at least six weeks and after the war in Europe started more likely six months for the fleet to arrive in force.

I thought the limits applied to the Commonwealth entirely?

IIRC they did, mainly because everyone knew that if one of the Dominions or the UK got into a shooting war it was more than likely that the others would come in on their side to help. If Australia were to unilaterally exempt itself from the London Naval Treaty of 1930 then come 1936 I can't see any of the other participants recognising that and still demand that the British tonnage limits be less whatever Australia was claiming. This has the potential to rather annoy the Admiralty due to the complications it causes them. I could very easily see their position being 'Well if you want your own personal tonnage then you can pay for any of it'.

 

[Riain]

Australia does not need, or can afford, to break the LNT since it is not going to get any more 8" cruisers, or other bigger ships. But being independent in 1936 when the 2nd LNT rolled around Australia could be free to rebuild the 2 8" cruisers without treaty limits, acquire submarines not limited by tonnage limits like the T class were and avoid the other restrictions of the LNT.

 

[jsb]

Australia does not need, or can afford, to break the LNT since it is not going to get any more 8" cruisers, or other bigger ships. But being independent in 1936 when the 2nd LNT rolled around Australia could be free to rebuild the 2 8" cruisers without treaty limits, acquire submarines not limited by tonnage limits like the T class were and avoid the other restrictions of the LNT.

By 2LNT there are no limits on number so apart from rebuilding the 2 CAs what does it give you ?

I don't think rebuilding 2 CAs (that you could maybe do anyway post 38 when nobody cares anyway, assuming AUS can rebuild rather than just pay GB to do it ? I think GB would have to do it due to AUS lack of big docks and in that case you cant do it ether way).

Realistically AUS industrial base (or lack of it) limits what you can build more than treaty's.

I would think what is the goal of a AUS navy ? and design a force structure from there.
1) hold back the IJN as in comes south
2) help the empire so it is free to stop the IJN coming south
3) colonial policing etc.

JSB

 

[La Rouge Beret]

It is always interesting to review POD's and in the lead up to WW II so much depends on the politicians in power at the time.

For me it would appear that Australia has to beat their own drum earlier and the RAN to create the support needed for a balanced expansion of the fleet.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

As an aside I remember reading an article in 'Australian Warship Review,' several years ago that proposed converting HMAS ALBATROSS, a seaplane carrier, into an escort carrier. Which would conceivably launch Buffalos or Martlets / Wildcats. I remember being impressed by the article, but wondering about the funding to achieve it.

 

[jsb]

I think a crafty deal where by,

AUS builds some type of (sloop/loch class/hunt ?) GB designed cheap DD.

The RN swap some of them for Subs.

So you get home jobs and a light fleet of DDs, SSK (invest in lots of mines etc.) to defended the Malaya barrier.

Most of them end up fighting in the med so not sure how much it help AUS but it will help the empire generally (more escorts for the BoA etc.) so will make a difference.

(reading another thread about reusing old DD turbines, what about with a 1930 POD can you keep the old RN DDs and rebuild, or claim you going to scrap them for parts to get them out of the treaty's ? may save you cash)

JSB

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Yeah that's definitely possible.

No torpedo tubes, optimised for maritime 'fisheries' / customs patrol. Surpisingly well armed for the role and with long legs due to the Pacific and Indian ocean potential AO's.

Sounds like something to investigate.