Best British Strategy in the Far East

No need to expand - its pretty much what it had OTL - it's just the 3 overseas formations have been moved from the North African/Middle east region to Malaya/Australia

I was talking about air force and navy.

I think its would be far better to have AUS PM/AM fall out with GB publicly and buy US just to show they can if GB doesn't sell what they want in 36.

I would suggest a licence for Catalina's/DC3s (for RAAF/QEA) and the PW engines for them, US companies would be very willing in the depression to help set up production and with no rearmament issues it will get done much faster.

Then in 38/39 RAAF would look at its fighters needs and think it should also build something using the same Twin Wasp they can already build domestically say the Curtiss P-36 Hawk?

By 41 RAAF will have far more good aircraft than OTL and a few of them might make it to Malaya?


I think the idea that Australia would be able and willing to pay for this in early/mid 30s is very unlikely?

Just how much of the Australian armoured division equipment is actually make in Australia so not deploying it to NA just means that it may lack tanks and guns etc?

Yep, expansion of the Australian forces may be easier said than to be done. Can Australia afford such expansion?
 
IIRC Lockheed offered to set up a factory to build Hudsons in Australia so there is some plausibility in that.

Another IIRC (but I'm not very sure that I do) is that the RAAF decided to build the Harvard under licence as the Wirraway because the UK couldn't deliver the advanced trainers that had been ordered. The Boomerang fighter was a development of the Wirraway. So if they decide to build Harvards under licence earlier as well there is the possibility of building the Boomerang earlier as a knock-on effect.

I would say just try and get license production of the P-36 in the late 1930s vs. developing the Boomerang which really wasn't any better.

Also, what about license production of the Fairey Battle in say 1937 or 1938? I realize it is not a hot performer but it can haul a 1000 pound warload with decent range (something important to the Australians) and it will hold up better against say Ki-27s and Ki-43s than it did against Bf-109s.
 
I would say just try and get license production of the P-36 in the late 1930s vs. developing the Boomerang which really wasn't any better.
I agree,
Also, what about license production of the Fairey Battle in say 1937 or 1938? I realize it is not a hot performer but it can haul a 1000 pound warload with decent range (something important to the Australians) and it will hold up better against say Ki-27s and Ki-43s than it did against Bf-109s.
Why not a Catalina under cover of buying them for QEA, it may be 50mph slower but that's not going to save the Battle anyway and it can haul 4000lb 1500 miles more in the pacific that will help a lot. it can also be based away from the limited airfield in South East Asia?

It also could share engines with P36 to ease logistics and production?
 
I was talking about air force and navy.

Most RA**F and to a lesser extent R*N ships were part British manned - I recall reading many years ago that 'Dominion' squadrons were generally never more than 50% (and more likely far lower particulalrly early war) dominion personnel with the majority being British - while there was attempts to keep personnel from a given Dominion together - combat/training losses, training requirements away from the unit and sortie limits generated a good turn over of pilots, aircrew and ground staff making this intention very difficult resulting in those units generally being 'dominion' in name only.

Earlier in the war therefore Dominion Squadrons were largely British manned - and to some extent ships companies in the RAN relied on the much larger RN 'Tribe' for specialist support - although of the Dominion navies it was the best placed at the beginning of the war in terms of ships and trained sailors and officers.

So any expansion to the number of RAAF Squadrons in 1941 will definitely require a large amount of RAF support and far more likely to simply be RAF squadrons and while the Aussies were better placed regarding the RAN any further expansion in ship numbers is likely to made up of RN ships not more RAN ones in the time frame we are discussing.
 
I would say just try and get license production of the P-36 in the late 1930s vs. developing the Boomerang which really wasn't any better.

Also, what about license production of the Fairey Battle in say 1937 or 1938? I realize it is not a hot performer but it can haul a 1000 pound warload with decent range (something important to the Australians) and it will hold up better against say Ki-27s and Ki-43s than it did against Bf-109s.

I wonder if the Battle could carry and drop a torpedo?

Wiki says that the Battle could carry 1000 pounds internally and 500 pounds externally and an 18" air dropped fish is 1670 pounds or even do some farming - an air dropped mine of the period is 1500 pounds

Could end up with a 'decent' early war land based 'cheap' TBR for MPR and maritime strike missions?
 
Licensed production of the Battle is unlikely unless Rolls Royce have the engineers available to build a plant for the Merlin in Australia.

Of course if they do, that opens up the possibility for Hurricanes and spitfires to be produced in Australia.
 
I would say just try and get license production of the P-36 in the late 1930s vs. developing the Boomerang which really wasn't any better.
If they are going to produce any single-engine fighter under licence in the 1930s it should be the Hurricane or Spitfire and a licence to build their Merlin engines.
Also, what about license production of the Fairey Battle in say 1937 or 1938? I realize it is not a hot performer but it can haul a 1000 pound warload with decent range (something important to the Australians) and it will hold up better against say Ki-27s and Ki-43s than it did against Bf-109s.
I think more Blenheims and Beauforts would have been better operationally and in the interests of standardisation.

The RAAF was very small. In the middle of the 1930s it had around half-a-dozen squadrons, which had grown to 12 by September 1939 and the plan for 19 squadrons by the middle of 1941 had been changed to 31 by that date. I'm doing that from memory so the numbers and dates may not be 100% correct, but for a small air force like the RAAF the fewer types the better from the maintenance and training points of view.
 
Beware of assuming that Australia just licence an aeroplane from the USA and it is just a matter of making the parts on the plan sheets. There are a whole variety of issues from varying technical projections through off the shelf material measures and specifications not to mention that all the bought in components are made in the parent country. What will you do with the undercarriage legs for example if it demands steel that you do not make and requires seals you do not make. A USA design is a result of a complete nation of assorted pre existing industries from which it draws only a part of each supplier's factory production. Either you have to import all these bits (much of the cost) or establish a complete suite of industries in miniature from scratch. Of course some can be made by local industries but you are still tied to the parent. The OTL licence production items in Australia used common UK production material standards which eased matters but still needed imported components which have to be shipped in. Note that the UK imported US aeroplanes but never seriously ever considered licence production. The Japanese and Russian DC3 licence copies certainly did not import components but they were extensively modified to meet local standards and parts and both countries had pre existing industries in major aviation construction and components.

This is not to knock Australian industry and innovation but there was not the scale and breadth of industry to simply licence make any complex US design. It will still be tied to imports and one might as well import the finished product and spares. By the end of WW2 it had moved on to be able to make the majority of airframe parts and did so with domestic designs but, as the weapon economy expanded so did the demand for labour to staff it many of whom were in the forces already. USA factories were already flat out on commercial demand for their weapon wares. It was the forced entry of the USA into the war that let them expand so much more with government factory building capital. Until then Australia would have been fighting other countries for deliveries.

Also remember that it is a long way from Australia to Malaya whereas India is closer and Australia will have a war on it's own doorstep to deal with before considering Japan. Perhaps Australia could turn it's support rather to the DEI instead of Malaya?
 
Does Australia need to 'make Battles' as there were Hundreds available once deemed obsolete following the France debacle

Keep making the Beaufighter but have a wing or 2 worth of Battles to tie them over until 1942 when allied production on both sides of the pond starts catching up with the requirements of fighting WW2

Look at how long it took to get Castle Bromwich working to capacity I would reinforce yulzari's point he makes above in post #188 making aircraft like Spitfires is difficult even for the UK

I would suggest that they concentrate on making more simple things - like corvettes and MTBs instead of Tribal DDs and Valentines (like Canada did) instead of trying to design and build the Sentinel tank

Regarding aircraft would the Wellington not be a better design for Australia given its range over the Beaufort?
 
Top