Fleet base Darwin, not Singapore.

I'm reading a book about the sinking of Force Z, and the intro mentions the other choices available for a Far East Fleet base, including Hong Kong, Colombo and Sydney. WI, instead of Singapore, Darwin was chosen? Perhaps a deal could be struck with the Australian govt to build a railway to Darwin and develop the area to sweeten the deal. Such a choice could provide a more secure base which still has good access to the strategically significant region of South East Asia.

How would WW2 pan out if the fleet base was in Darwin? For starters the Australians would be keen to defend it and not be left to the mercies/circumstances of the British.
 
Eh. Singapore makes a lot of sense.

Sydney is useless unless the British are going to fight the USA.

Hong Kong is useless unless the British control quite a bit more of the surrounding areas, and it's only useful against Japan.

Columbo (Ceylon) is very useful to control the Indian Ocean, but is deeply limited for Pacific operations.

Darwin isn't bad, but it's positioned to cover Australia against a northern strike, it does less to cover the approaches to India.


No, Singapore is pretty much the ideal point. You can cover the approaches to the Indian Ocean. You can move to relieve Hong Kong or attach Japan/China faster than from Darwin. You can use it to support Dutch East Indies operations easily, and you can protect Australia nearly as well as Darwin. You're slower to stop the USA, but if you want that Sydney would have been the choice. Columbo takes you out the Pacific loop entirely.


There would need to be a pretty good reason to go with Darwin over Singapore. And security isn't it. The British should have been able to keep Singapore, but they screwed up badly enough that they didn't.

However, if there is one, than the Japanese will still have to hit it but they can't properly invade. It will also make the Australian government more nervous about sending troops elsewhere to support the British because they have to be concerned about Japanese invasion even more than OTL.
 
With the Railway thing, I presume you are talking about the Gan ( Darwin-Adelaide-Melbourne) b/f 1930's which is a big capital ask from a sparsely pop continent esp when the Snowy Mountains Scheme was yet to get underway and that was a far greater priority in terms of Aus overall development.
 
The original Ghan line (Adelaide to Alice Springs) took about 50 years to be completed (1878 to 1929) and in the 1930s was already running at a loss.

The railway from Alice Springs to Darwin was built only very recently (2001 to 2004); note that overall there are almost 3,000 km from Adelaide to Darwin, and Alice Springs is located midway. To complete the railway in the 1930s would have been impossible, given the capitals and the manpower required and the effective lack of any need for it.

Darwin can never replace Singapore: a British fleet at anchor in Darwin could not protect the approaches to Indonesia, much less the routes to India. It would be a good way to sterilize the fleet.

Note that nowadays Darwin is a significant naval base because it protects the approaches to Australia: its role is completely different.
 
As it happened Singapore didn't protect shit, it was outflanked to the north by Japanese occupation of Indochina and made indefensible to the south as a result of the German occupation of Holland. Even if Percival and Phillips had done their jobs Singapore would still be virtually surrounded before Sommerville could arrive.

While Darwin isn't in as good a position as Singapore it isn't as vulnerable to events in Europe and Asia either, so it's position remains unchanged by events elsewhere. As for the railway, there was talk from the 30s of it being extended to Darwin, but as mentioned nothing came of it. But there is nothing physically impossible about it, just the motivation was lacking, a fleet base up north would provide the motivation.
 

Cook

Banned
The problem remains the same. Fleet to Singapore becomes Fleet to Darwin; but there was no fleet to send. Britain’s Navy had nothing to spare.

Continuing the rail line from Alice to Darwin would not be cost effective. What Darwin desperately needed was the port facilities upgraded; particularly Darwin’s notorious pier with the dog-leg bend that can only have been designed by an insane man determined to prohibit the loading and unloading of cargo in Darwin.
 
Britain/Australia lost 2 capital ships and 2 cruisers in the first weeks of the war. Add the Dutch to that and you have a fleet.
 
No, you have a badly outclassed squadron whose ships were destroyed by the IJN as soon as they found them OTL, along with an American contingent of cruisers and destroyers.


Darwin was not remotely credible as a major fleet base for reasons already given but also because it literally had nothing to offer, least of as the sole major RN base for the entire Pacific Ocean.
 
Keep in mind I'm talking about major investments from 2 governments here, dockyards 16 years in construction costing 60 million pounds and having the largest drydock in the world, plus a railway running for thousands of km.

How would the Japanese outflank Darwin? Would Force Z sortie into the teeth of the Japanese operating from Indochina if it was based in Darwin?
 
Keep in mind I'm talking about major investments from 2 governments here, dockyards 16 years in construction costing 60 million pounds and having the largest drydock in the world, plus a railway running for thousands of km.


So what? You've built a major naval base in the back of beyond where even basic rations need to be transported in by rail or sea for thousands of miles. Great logistical planning there.

Also, will you care to tell us how you're going to convince all the civilian workers the base needs on even a peacetime basis to relocate to the ass end of nowhere? Bigger paychecks aren't going to do the trick, especially when you remember families are involved.

How would the Japanese outflank Darwin?

Try looking it from the RN's perspective for a change, after all they're the ones stuck basing out this foolish boondoggle. How are they, operating out of Darwin going to flank any Japanese aggression against Borneo, Malaysia, or the DEI?

Look at the map. Singapore sits on the "flank" of any Japanese thrust towards those goals as well as controlling the quickest route to India. Darwin, on the other hand, sits beyond Japan's likeliest targets in southeast Asia. Any RN force based in Darwin is further away from the places it needs to defend, will take longer to respond to any attacks, and will need to pass through a limited number of passages between major islands thus giving Japan a better chance of detecting them.

Sounds good to Yamamoto!

Would Force Z sortie into the teeth of the Japanese operating from Indochina if it was based in Darwin?

Probably not because it wouldn't be able to get there in time to accomplish anything useful anyway and, when it did, it would have to be based out of Singapore anyway because the RN doesn't have a fleet train.

Singapore to Darwin:Send Force Z quickly! Enemy troops transports have been sighted heading to Malaysia!

Darwin to Singapore: Righto! We'll be there in four days, okay?

Singapore to Darwin: Hurr Durr Derp Herp...

You've got this all topsy-turvy anyway. You're looking back with perfect hindsight knowing that Japanese bombers will easily sink Force Z while it's steaming on the high seas. The people at the time didn't know that, only a few barely even suspected it could happen.

They put Force Z and the naval base in Singapore so both could be used against any potential Japanese aggression, aggression whose goals, targets, assets, abilities, and character they can only speculate about.

You're putting Force Z and the naval base in Darwin so that both can be saved from the consequences of Japanese aggression, aggression whose goals, targets, assets, abilities, and character you know perfectly thanks to the historical record.

Your idea only makes sense from a 2010 standpoint as it "saves" Force Z and the naval base to perhaps fight another day. From a 1930-41 standpoint it makes no sense at all because it removes Force Z and the naval base from the very region they are supposed to be helping defend.
 
It's kind of illogical considering that a naval base in Darwin would be far from able to protect a prizedBritish colony in Singapore, which was reaping in millions, if not billions of pounds from trade in the city port. Besides, the Australians might have wanted the British to build such a naval base further north to halt or blunt any Japanese assault coming down mainland Asia and the Malay Archipelago.
 
With the Railway thing, I presume you are talking about the Gan ( Darwin-Adelaide-Melbourne) b/f 1930's which is a big capital ask from a sparsely pop continent esp when the Snowy Mountains Scheme was yet to get underway and that was a far greater priority in terms of Aus overall development.

1) If I were building rail before WWII to Darwin, I'd build from Mt. Isa.

2) If it were considered a war priority, the Aussies could easily find the money. Or, if it were for an Allied base, the Brits (or, later, the US) could offer funds.
 
I think an earlier POD might be needed, where for some reason (who knows what?) there is an earlier move to develop better infrastructure or settlements in northern Australia.

An Australian would be better placed to come up with something here, but the old favourite of a minerals rush/boom of some kind in the late 19th century along the NW coast of Australia could work. Even if the economic case had long since receded by the time the 1930s rolled around there might still be a small town with a good port and some residual infrastructure that could be cheaply restored and enhanced
 
The main problem for a Base in Darwin is its remte geographical possitioning, compared to Singapore, which is in the center of the likely warzone. Problem for Singapore however is it close proximity to potential hostile territory, which in the end was fatal for the base itself.

A better sollution would have been a primary base closer to India, prefered at Ceylon, far enough from the Asian Mainland to prevent direct assault and close enough to allow Naval forces to strike at ease in primarily the Asian waters of Indian Ocean and partly Pacific (East Indies). A secondary base in Darwin woudl therefore be desired, to augment the Indian Ocean Fleet in its operations in the Pacific Region.
 
1) If I were building rail before WWII to Darwin, I'd build from Mt. Isa.
http://www.gobyrail.net/clappplan.gif
You mean something like this, taken from the post war 'clapp plan' that never got off the ground dew to the massive costs, if perhaps a pretty good idea?
Couple of issues.
1. Even today, the route to Mt Isa and others in Northern Australia are easily disrupted by flooding and other severe weather.
2. Given the mess and bad blood over the Australian Standard Garrett affair later on, any federal interference with QGR would likely not end well, especially if the main purpose of this railway is for defense and therefore the Commonwealth would likely bludgeon its way through regardless of the interests of QGR.
3. Its not going to make any money for QGR who will have to run and maintain it. The North Australia Railway would likely be brought into the QGR fold and upgraded to a suitable standard.
4. I'll have to check my sources, but this extension would require new motive power, most likely more C17's, so where does the money come for it? Its highly unlikely they would make it so only light weight branch line locos such as the PB15's could use it (even though many QGR lines into the interior were made using 20lb rail, little ballast if any and no earth works to save money). Basically it would be a question of what the Total Axel Loading would be, given the civil engineering in Queensland.
5. Any freight from the Southern states would require a change of gauge in either at Brisbane or Wallangarra.
6. QGR had limited draw-hook strength, especially on the Toowoomba range and parts of the North Coast Line, which would mean more (and) shorter trains compared to ones south of the Tweed.
 
The trouble with developing Darwin rather than Singapore is that Singapore was in a far better position as a fleet base (including being able to interdict LOC to the DEI, hence protecting Australia). If the DEI are safe, Australia is safe. The Malay barrier was the correct place to defend Australia from.

When Singapore was built, the nearest enemy (Japan) was the other side of FIC, and out of range. While it was accepted Singapore was vulnerable to a land attack, it was assumed that the Japanese would first have to neutralise or occupy FIC, then arrange landings. Giving ample time to reinforce Singapore and the fleet.

By the time this had changed, FIC rolling over to the Japanese without a struggle, Britain was enmeshed in war in Europe.

So the pre-war planning was logical, it just got overtaken by events in the war. Which happens.
 
I'#m far from an expert - but wouldn't Singapore become a naval base even if Darwin was the primary base? Singapore is rapidly becoming an important harbour on one of the most important sealines in the world. So with Darwin the primary naval base, woldn't there be a detachement of British ships including personel and infrastructure at all times to this crucial point in international trade lines?
 
http://www.gobyrail.net/clappplan.gif
You mean something like this, taken from the post war 'clapp plan' that never got off the ground dew to the massive costs, if perhaps a pretty good idea?
Couple of issues.
1. Even today, the route to Mt Isa and others in Northern Australia are easily disrupted by flooding and other severe weather.
2. Given the mess and bad blood over the Australian Standard Garrett affair later on, any federal interference with QGR would likely not end well, especially if the main purpose of this railway is for defense and therefore the Commonwealth would likely bludgeon its way through regardless of the interests of QGR.
3. Its not going to make any money for QGR who will have to run and maintain it. The North Australia Railway would likely be brought into the QGR fold and upgraded to a suitable standard.
4. I'll have to check my sources, but this extension would require new motive power, most likely more C17's, so where does the money come for it? Its highly unlikely they would make it so only light weight branch line locos such as the PB15's could use it (even though many QGR lines into the interior were made using 20lb rail, little ballast if any and no earth works to save money). Basically it would be a question of what the Total Axel Loading would be, given the civil engineering in Queensland.
5. Any freight from the Southern states would require a change of gauge in either at Brisbane or Wallangarra.
6. QGR had limited draw-hook strength, especially on the Toowoomba range and parts of the North Coast Line, which would mean more (and) shorter trains compared to ones south of the Tweed.

Thank you for the reply. I didn't know any of that, from the far side of the globe, all one sees on maps is little lines:)

I knew the Mt. Isa line was narrow gauge, but a bunch of the rail in the south is, too. I didn't realize it was light rail.

I THOUGHT having all one gauge from a major population centre would make more sense than changing gauge ?4? times like you do getting to the Alice would make things easier. But rail washing out, underweight rail and politics would trump that.

As I say, thanks again, it was informative and a help.
 
I must admit, I never realised the Oz railway network was such a mess!!:)

I assume that the main way of long distance transport was by ship?
 

Cook

Banned
I must admit, I never realised the Oz railway network was such a mess!!:)

I assume that the main way of long distance transport was by ship?

It isn’t a mess; the Ghan was servicing a small population at the end of 1500km of track.

Heavy haul traffic has always been more efficient by sea than rail. A rail line from Alice to Darwin would not have been practical in the 1930s-1940s because the cost would have been enormous and the return minimal. Darwin’s population was in the order of about 3000 people at start of the Pacific War.

The natural harbour in Darwin is outstanding.

Darwin’s major problem with receiving supplies, troops and equipment was the wharf at Darwin harbour. It had no cranes so all unloading was done manually (temps average 35 to 45C in the wet season and humidity 80%), could only tie up two ships at a time and although it had a rail track on it directly linked to the local rail system the notorious dog leg prevented anything moving rapidly on or off.

The dog leg in the wharf was a 90 degree turn in the direction of the wharf. Rail cars negotiated this one at a time on a turnstile that was turned manually. The wharf could only accommodate 5 rail cars at a time and all were pushed by hand.

Add to that the Wharfies; Australian wharf workers at the time can be charitably described as unreliable, unscrupulous, unpatriotic and unrushed.

One ship with desperately needed anti-Aircraft guns took six weeks to unload in Darwin in early 1942.

Another issue is the desperate shortage of antiaircraft defences in Australia in late 1941, early 1942. It had been assessed that Darwin required 65 anti-aircraft guns to be adequately defended; it had three. There were not 65 AA guns in all of Australia when the Pacific War started on December 8th 1942.
 
Top