Better prepared Australia in WW 2

[La Rouge Beret]

Things Australia could possibly do to prepare for war starting in 1937 in addition to otl.
MTB's and single engine torpedo bombers for home defence forces.
Radial engine Hurricanes and Henleys.
SNIP
Offer to host large scale armoured corps exercises.
Build submachine gun.

Well the Owen gun has the submachine gun option covered, here is a picture of it still in service during Vietnam.

I'm particularly interested about the ability to host large scale armoured exercises, and who would participate? Would it be British Army units from India?

Of course the Radial engine Hurricane based purely on the WI model constructed on the other thread looks like a sturdy plane that would be put to good use in the SW Pacific.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Going back to Post 36 the regular personnel establishment of the HM Australian Forces in 1928 was 7,811 made up of the following:

1,748 Army
5,093 Royal Australian Navy
970 Royal Australian Air Force

7,811 Total Regular Military Personnel​

In the 1928-29 Estimates, the equivalent personnel establishments, Vote A, of the British Armed Forces were as follows:

153,500 Army, exclusive of the British Troops in India and Burma, which were paid for by India and Burma
100,600 Royal Navy, this is the average number borne, because I don't have Vote A for 1928-29.
32,500 Royal Air Force

286,680 Total Regular Military Personnel​

The UK had seven times the population of Australia in 1928 (that is 45,580,000 against 6,251,000 according to the source I am using), which if Australia and the UK had the same number of military personnel per capita would increase Australia's regular forces to 40,000 men.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Well the Owen Gun is a wartime design. The Australians really didn't like the Sten.

 

[riggerrob]

Owen SMG was developed despite the Australian Army brass. Owen could have entered service 2 or 3 years earlier without bureaucratic delays. Sure Owen Mark 1s would have been crap, but Mark 2s and Mark 3s would steadily improve.
Owen ended more reliable than Sten and far less expensive to manufacture than Austen.

 

[riggerrob]

Owen SMG was developed despite the Australian Army brass. Owen could have entered service 2 or 3 years earlier without bureaucratic delays. Sure Owen Mark 1s would have been crap, but Mark 2s and Mark 3s would steadily improve.
Owen ended more reliable than Sten and far less expensive to manufacture than Austen.

Definitely need an Aussy factory building a light or medium MG, ideally an MG43 clone. The goal is to use as many automobile industry tools as possible (e.g. hydraulic presses for cold-stamping sheet-metal).

Definitely get Australian truck factories building armoured cars on popular truck chassis, maximum 37mm gun with the emphasis on long-range and durable enough to cross the Outback. Back AC up with wheeled APCs, ambulances, recovery and supply vehicles all based on the same - proven - 6x6 chassis. Bonus points if you can build a 25 pounder portee on that same chassis.

As we discussed - in a Canada wank thread - get Australian factories to cooperate with Montreal Locomotive Works to combine the best features of Ram and Sentinel to build a Commonwealth medium tank.

Bristol products were obsolete before the end of WW2. So Aussies would be wiser to follow the Canadian example of license-building a handful of Grummans before the war, then build Wildcats, Hellcats and Avengers during the war.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

To be fair the Beaufighter was a quick fix lash up that worked surprisingly well, and the Australians have no way of telling Beaufort or later Beaufighter would be obsolescent by the end of the Pacific war. So was the Wildcat, Hellcat and Avenger. The Merlin engine Spitfires were too.

 

[Some Bloke]

Maybe earlier interest in the Vickers K leading to a belt fed variant and then something like the Besal (a simplified Bren) with a belt feed.

As to spending and budgeting, maybe adoption of Keynesian policies rather than austerity measures might help.

Tanks? Start small, maybe a licence build of the Vickers 6 Ton to start with.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is an expansion of Post 42.

The regular personnel establishment of the HM Australian Forces in 1928 was 7,811 made up of the following:

1,748 Army
5,093 Royal Australian Navy
970 Royal Australian Air Force​

7,811 Total Regular Military Personnel

In the 1928-29 Estimates, the equivalent personnel establishments, Vote A, of the British Armed Forces were as follows:

153,500 Army, exclusive of the British Troops in India and Burma, which were paid for by India and Burma
100,600 Royal Navy, this is the average number borne, because I don't have Vote A for 1928-29.
32,500 Royal Air Force​

286,680 Total Regular Military Personnel

In 1928 the UK had seven times the population of Australia (that is 45,580,000 against 6,251,000 according to the source I am using), which gives Australia potential regular armed forces totalling 40,000.

The regular personnel establishment of the HM Australian Forces in 1932 was 5,543 made up of the following:

1,536 Army
3,117 Royal Australian Navy
890 Royal Australian Air Force​

5,543 Total Regular Military Personnel

In the 1932-33 Estimates, the equivalent personnel establishments, Vote A, of the British Armed Forces were as follows:

148,700 Army, exclusive of the British Troops in India and Burma, which were paid for by India and Burma
91,410 Royal Navy
32,000 Royal Air Force​

272,110 Total Regular Military Personnel

In 1932 the UK had seven times the population of Australia (that is 46,335,000 against 6,552,000 according to the source I am using), which gives Australia potential regular armed forces totalling 39,000.

The regular personnel establishment of the HM Australian Forces in 1938 was 5,543 made up of the following:

2,795 Army
4,986 Royal Australian Navy
3,104 Royal Australian Air Force

10,885 Total Regular Military Personnel​

In the 1938-39 Estimates, the equivalent personnel establishments, Vote A, of the British Armed Forces were as follows:

170,000 Army, exclusive of the British Troops in India and Burma, which were paid for by India and Burma
121,000 Royal Navy
83,000 Royal Air Force​

374,000 Total Regular Military Personnel

In 1938 the UK had seven times the population of Australia (that is 47,494,000 against 6,871,000 according to the source I am using), which gives Australia potential regular armed forces totalling 54,000.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 3 – Air Volume I – Royal Australian Air Force, 1939–1942 (1st edition, 1962). The following extract is from Page 11 and is the wish list of the newly formed Australian Air Board published on 7th February 1920:

On 31st January 1920 the new board held its first meeting. It had been appointed specifically to prepare an air policy for Australia. Its report, completed on 7th February only eight days after the first meeting, was both frank and precise. It contained an early note that the board 's estimates were necessarily based on figures prepared by previous authorities without verification, which, anyway, could be little more than a guide because it was not possible to foresee accurately the effect on cost of the rapid change and development inevitable in an air corps . With this qualification, the report presented a six-years program with "a valuable air force at the end of two years", which would be "able to take the field should necessity arise ". The estimates were for these first two years only—first year, £1,790,110; second year, £2,338,155. This was brave planning, yet there was the inevitable qualifying statement: "The Board does not recommend any reductions from the figures submitted . . . but, in accordance with the request of the Minister that, in view of the financial situation, it may be impossible to meet the full requirements, Air Board has considered means by which these can be reduced with the least prejudice to the defence of Australia."

For the naval portion of the six-years plan the recommendations of Jellicoe were adopted—one squadron each of fighting and torpedo-carrying aeroplanes, each with a strength of 18 aircraft ; one squadron each of ships' aeroplanes (or seaplanes) and of flying-boats for training, each with a strength of 12 aircraft, and eleven and a half flying-boat service squadrons. Aircraft required for this part of the program, including 50 per cent spare aircraft, totalled 297. Military requirements were: 8 single-seater fighter and 6 reconnaissance squadrons of 24 aircraft each; 6 bombing squadrons (4 light of 18 aircraft each and 2 heavy of 10 aircraft each); one training squadron of 18 aircraft. Provision of spare aircraft again amounted to 50 per cent, which would be "the minimum needed until aircraft were being produced in Australia", making a total of 669 aircraft. The grand total of aircraft for the entire program, with spares, was 966 in 36½ squadrons. If finances demanded it, reduction on the naval side was to be 6 squadrons. On the military side the reduction was to be on the basis of 18 instead of 24 aircraft for each fighter and reconnaissance squadron, and, if civil aviation could use bomber-type aircraft, the 4 light bomber squadrons could be dispensed with.

If implemented the RAAF would have had a front-line of 644 aircraft in 36½ plus a 50% reserve of 322 aircraft. As follows:

192 single-seat fighters in 8 squadrons of 24;
144 reconnaissance squadrons in 6 squadrons of 24;
72 light bombing aircraft in 4 squadrons of 18;
20 heavy bombing aircraft in 2 squadrons of 10;
18 training aircraft in one squadron;​

446 total military aircraft in 21 squadrons (20 service and one training) of 10 to 24 aircraft, depending on their role.

18 naval fighters in one squadron;
18 torpedo-bombers in one squadron;
12 ships' aeroplanes in one squadron;
12 flying boats in one training squadron;
138 flying boats in 11½ service squadrons.​

198 total naval aircraft in 15½ squadrons (14½ service and one training) of 12 to 18 aircraft, depending on their role.

In terms of the number of squadrons that is 3 times what the RAAF actually had in September 1939 and because there were more aircraft per squadron its more than 3 times the number of aircraft.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Owen SMG was developed despite the Australian Army brass. Owen could have entered service 2 or 3 years earlier without bureaucratic delays. Sure Owen Mark 1s would have been crap, but Mark 2s and Mark 3s would steadily improve.
Owen ended more reliable than Sten and far less expensive to manufacture than Austen.

Definitely need an Aussy factory building a light or medium MG, ideally an MG43 clone. The goal is to use as many automobile industry tools as possible (e.g. hydraulic presses for cold-stamping sheet-metal).

Definitely get Australian truck factories building armoured cars on popular truck chassis, maximum 37mm gun with the emphasis on long-range and durable enough to cross the Outback. Back AC up with wheeled APCs, ambulances, recovery and supply vehicles all based on the same - proven - 6x6 chassis. Bonus points if you can build a 25 pounder portee on that same chassis.

As we discussed - in a Canada wank thread - get Australian factories to cooperate with Montreal Locomotive Works to combine the best features of Ram and Sentinel to build a Commonwealth medium tank.

Bristol products were obsolete before the end of WW2. So Aussies would be wiser to follow the Canadian example of license-building a handful of Grummans before the war, then build Wildcats, Hellcats and Avengers during the war.

Shameless plug of a ATL I wrote on the Owens

 

[edgeworthy]

This is an expansion of Post 42.

The regular personnel establishment of the HM Australian Forces in 1928 was 7,811 made up of the following:

1,748 Army
5,093 Royal Australian Navy
970 Royal Australian Air Force​

7,811 Total Regular Military Personnel

In the 1928-29 Estimates, the equivalent personnel establishments, Vote A, of the British Armed Forces were as follows:

153,500 Army, exclusive of the British Troops in India and Burma, which were paid for by India and Burma
100,600 Royal Navy, this is the average number borne, because I don't have Vote A for 1928-29.
32,500 Royal Air Force​

286,680 Total Regular Military Personnel

In 1928 the UK had seven times the population of Australia (that is 45,580,000 against 6,251,000 according to the source I am using), which gives Australia potential regular armed forces totalling 40,000.

The regular personnel establishment of the HM Australian Forces in 1932 was 5,543 made up of the following:

1,536 Army
3,117 Royal Australian Navy
890 Royal Australian Air Force​

5,543 Total Regular Military Personnel

In the 1932-33 Estimates, the equivalent personnel establishments, Vote A, of the British Armed Forces were as follows:

148,700 Army, exclusive of the British Troops in India and Burma, which were paid for by India and Burma
91,410 Royal Navy
32,000 Royal Air Force​

272,110 Total Regular Military Personnel

In 1932 the UK had seven times the population of Australia (that is 46,335,000 against 6,552,000 according to the source I am using), which gives Australia potential regular armed forces totalling 39,000.

The regular personnel establishment of the HM Australian Forces in 1938 was 5,543 made up of the following:

2,795 Army
4,986 Royal Australian Navy
3,104 Royal Australian Air Force

10,885 Total Regular Military Personnel​

In the 1938-39 Estimates, the equivalent personnel establishments, Vote A, of the British Armed Forces were as follows:

170,000 Army, exclusive of the British Troops in India and Burma, which were paid for by India and Burma
121,000 Royal Navy
83,000 Royal Air Force​

374,000 Total Regular Military Personnel

In 1938 the UK had seven times the population of Australia (that is 47,494,000 against 6,871,000 according to the source I am using), which gives Australia potential regular armed forces totalling 54,000.

That really is a horribly low Regular Establishment, surely even Australian Politicians should have been aware of the serious nature of the International Situation?
(And that whining about the lack of support from Britain seems ludicrous)

Given the potential manpower, and given that its much harder to build ships, possibly:

33,750 Army (Just about enough for a Light Division)
13,500 RAAF (Or about 11 Operational Squadrons)
6,750 RAN (Maybe enough for a Single Aircraft Carrier, a small one, more problematic)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That really is a horribly low Regular Establishment, surely even Australian Politicians should have been aware of the serious nature of the International Situation?
(And that whining about the lack of support from Britain seems ludicrous)

Given the potential manpower, and given that its much harder to build ships, possibly:

33,750 Army (Just about enough for a Light Division)
13,500 RAAF (Or about 11 Operational Squadrons)
6,750 RAN (Maybe enough for a Single Aircraft Carrier, a small one, more problematic)

In the earlier posts there was a quote from the Australian Army Official History that included a proposal to form 2 regular infantry brigades.

However, my current thinking is that until the middle 1930s Australia would have a regular force of about 21,000 made up of 3,000 Army Permanent Force, 12,000 RAN and 6,000 RAAF.

Everybody bear in mind that increases in the RAN in the first half of the 1930s may require decreases in the strength of the Royal Navy because of the First London Treaty tonnage quotas.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Everybody bear in mind with that increases in the RAN in the first half of the 1930s may require decreases in the strength of the Royal Navy because of the First London Treaty tonnage quotas.

I've often wondered how the treaty signatories would have reacted if at some point the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand had put out a joint statement that they didn't consider themselves bound by a treaty they didn't sign and would organise their national defences how they saw fit. Not how other nations dictated. Even if they didn't do anything else it would shake things up a bit.

 

[jsb]

I've often wondered how the treaty signatories would have reacted if at some point the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand had put out a joint statement that they didn't consider themselves bound by a treaty they didn't sign and would organise their national defences how they saw fit. Not how other nations dictated. Even if they didn't do anything else it would shake things up a bit.

They did sign it (WNT),
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;

 

[jsb]

.
7,811 Total Regular Military Personnel
....
286,680 Total Regular Military Personnel

In 1928 the UK had seven times the population of Australia (that is 45,580,000 against 6,251,000 according to the source I am using), which gives Australia potential regular armed forces totalling 40,000.

....
5,543 Total Regular Military Personnel
...
272,110 Total Regular Military Personnel

In 1932 the UK had seven times the population of Australia (that is 46,335,000 against 6,552,000 according to the source I am using), which gives Australia potential regular armed forces totalling 39,000.

10,885 Total Regular Military Personnel​

..
374,000 Total Regular Military Personnel

In 1938 the UK had seven times the population of Australia (that is 47,494,000 against 6,871,000 according to the source I am using), which gives Australia potential regular armed forces totalling 54,000.

I would be interested in other nation if anybody has them, Europe will be much higher but what would US be like?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I would be interested in other nation if anybody has them, Europe will be much higher but what would US be like?

At 1st November, 1938 the US Army had 183,447 men and 310,884 trained reserves. The grand total of 493,931 was 0.38% of the US population. Those figures might include 20,341 regular USAAC and 5,554 trained USAAC reservists.

Source the Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1939.

According to that source the combined armies of the British Army had 382,770 regular personnel and 624,800 trained reservists. The combined air forces had 87,950 regular personnel and 26,175 trained reservists. The Grand total of the armies and air forces was 1,121,695 men, which was 0.25% of the British Empire's population.

That included the 208,500 in the British Regular army, 365,000 trained reservists, 83,000 RAF and 25,000 RAF reservists. That was a grand total of 681,143 men which was 1.43% of the British population.

The biggest regular army was Japan with exactly 2 million. Joint second were the USSR and Japan with 1.5 million each. Germany had 750,000 regular army and 206,000 air force, but reserves brought the total up to 4,126,000 which was 5.2% of Germany's population.

 

[jsb]

Since you can have a 1930s Pod I would go early,

Invasion of Manchuria 31 starts to get the AUS gov wound up,
by 33 they agree to subsidise CAC as a private aircraft manufacture but provide a subsidy to cover building and tooling costs as nobody wants to build in the depression.
They start in 34 building a small trainer to get experience say 60 de Havilland Tiger Moths for the RAAF, Government transport and civilian sale in AUS, but due to delays they fall out a bit with English manufactures so think about going to USA.
This gets them going until they start in 36 building under license (for AUS and Empire use) Douglas DC-3 and they select the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp to power it (also under licence).
They get on with building DC3s and by July 37 they have build 24 of the 60 originally ordered for Quantas and RAAF

With the invasion of China the Australian government decides they need to rearm and look for options?
The final report in October 37 leads to the ordering of large number of aircraft, All with the R 1830 now in large scale production.
The initial orders for 1938 includes,
250 Tiger Moths
100 more DC3s
60 PBY-3 Consolidated Catalina
At that point it was decided under GB pressure that a British design would also be used and 60 Bristol Beaufort with the R1830 are also ordered.

In 1939 by September more orders have flowed in and the factory is fully converted to war use only with as much contracting out sub work to other industries.

By the start of WWII the RAAF has,
300+ Tiger Moths under use as a large scale training for both AUS and the rest of the empire.
146 DC3s under RAAF Transport command control although some are still operating on Quanta's routes.
84 PYBs under RAAF Coastal command Spread across the empire from AUS, Singapore, to India and even some in the Atlantic from Capetown and Freetown searching for KM raiders and U boats.
24 Beauforts after a bit of delay, but still in front of the GB models are getting ready forming up as the main RAAF bomber/TB force.
And the first 3 Grumman F4F Wildcats from the licence ordered of 60 placed in late 38.

In September 1940, the Japanese invaded Vichy French Indochina causes the Australian government to overrule GB and move a RAAF force to Singapore that includes,
2 squadrons of PYBs for long range search and night strike
4 squadrons of Beauforts/Beaufighters for anti shipping with torpedoes and land bombing.
4 squadrons of Wildcats.
to augment the 4 local squadrons (mostly Vildebeest and seaplanes).

By Dec 41 the RAAF has gradually added 1 PYB, 2 more strike and 4 more Fighter squadrons...

 

[Just Leo]

Production of Tiger Moths would most likely be undertaken by de Havilland Australia, rather than CAC, since that was what they did, although the Moth production facility will be bumped forward from OTL 1940. I don't know if you would still want the DH Dragons produced from OTL, what with all those Dakotas, but Mossie production from 1943 is up for maintaining or bumping.

 

[johnboy]

Albatross is a bit small for that 443ft by 58ft is a very small deck for an any but the slowest aircraft to land on. You really need another 100ft of flight deck to have any real value.
The advantage of converting a ship is that you don't need to dry dock it or use any slip way. Just tie up alongside the yard. Pre war I think the best bet for the RAN would be to take over either Argus or Hermes, and as Argus is in reserve that would be the most likely.

Correct. OK for Swordfish, perhaps Gladiators, but little more

 

[johnboy]

Alternatively, maybe have CAC develop a project similar to Vultee
with several different aircraft with common wing and aft assemblies,
meaning that the Wirraway and Boomerang are designed more or less concurrently.
A less rushed development cycle than OTL means that the design could be refined
giving better performance to earlier models.

Perhaps the design is put forward as a candidate for specification F.19/40.
As a competitor with the Miles M.20, it would have the advantage of not
cutting into Merlin production, and perhaps allow an earlier licence build of the
Twin Wasp in the UK, maybe in exchange for an earlier licence build of the Merlin.

One of the major problems that occurred OTL was the fact that Britain cut off exports of all engines. That was something that cannot be seen OTL. Firstly, what would be required was the establishment of mass engine production prior to 1940. Build that engine and then if that was done there proved OTL to be sufficient talent to design good aircraft around it.

As it was, they had to go with the twin wasp as nothing else was available.