Rearm the ANZACs for the Pacific War.

What do we think of the idea of Australia and New Zealand investing in a torpedo/gun boat design to be mass produced if needed?
I like it. Something like the larger 80+ foot long American boats for longer ranged work and a smaller -60Foot long craft for things like harbor defense. Ideally make it structurally in such a way that it can take multiple different armament packages. Even better if you can modularly swap out the armament packages in existing craft. I was thinking it could come in three main packages. One a Sub chaser equipped with depth charges (or preferably one of the anti submarine mortar designs that later popped up). Another a TP boat equipped with torpedo tubes and a couple of heavy machine guns/light auto cannon. And a third version as a designated gunboat without depth charges or torpedo tubes. Instead the armament is a mix and match of machine guns, auto cannon, mortars, rocket launchers, and some sort of larger modified AT gun. Something like a 6 Pounder AT gun in the front (similar to the US 37mm AT guns located on some torpedo boats.).

For a typical package I'm thinking something like the OTL US PT 658.



That would be the "Mixed Model". The "Battleship" version would skip the depth charges and torpedo tubes for more guns similarly the torpedo version would skip the depth charges. The Sub Chaser version would have something like the Limbo or another anti submarine mortar in front instead of the gun.

Preferably build (or at least prepare to modify) a couple of medium/ large merchant ships designed to act as PT boat tenders in isolated areas. They don't have to be particularly fast or new but should have the capability to house extra crew, fuel stores, spare parts, munitions stores, machine shops and the like. Preferably have the ship be capable of carrying at least a couple as cargo either on davits on the side or on the deck which can be lifted by cranes. Similarly the cranes can lift damaged PT boats onto the tender to allow them to be repaired. Arm the tenders with a couple of auto cannon and machine guns and perhaps something like an old 3 Inch AA gun for basic AA defense.
Do we want to know how Syphilis spread to camels?
Random but for some reason you can actually catch Leprosy from Armadillo's. They're the only other species that carry it. So they recommend to never touch a live or dead one without wearing gloves.
 
Australia is a long way from anywhere. It is why they went cruiser rather than smaller ships for their patrol work. PT boats were romanticised in US service, but it is not clear that they were worth the effort. Europe OTOH...
 
The Sub Chaser version would have something like the Limbo or another anti submarine mortar in front instead of the gun.
The Limbo is actually a fairly big beast, and if you want reloads for it then it gets even more awkward. Look at pictures of the Limbo installation on the Leander-class frigates - I doubt you'd be able to fit one of those instead of a 40mm Bofors.
 
Australia is a long way from anywhere. It is why they went cruiser rather than smaller ships for their patrol work. PT boats were romanticised in US service, but it is not clear that they were worth the effort. Europe OTOH...
I mean their definitely very useful if used right. Its just that unless your nation is very poor they shouldnt be the center piece of your navy. Australia does want longer ranged craft but their is a role for some PT/ gunboats.

Plus their cheap.
 
The Limbo is actually a fairly big beast, and if you want reloads for it then it gets even more awkward. Look at pictures of the Limbo installation on the Leander-class frigates - I doubt you'd be able to fit one of those instead of a 40mm Bofors.
Maybe a Y gun thrower then?
 
I mean their definitely very useful if used right. Its just that unless your nation is very poor they shouldn't be the centre piece of your navy. Australia does want longer ranged craft but their is a role for some PT/ gunboats.

Plus their cheap.

They provide local defence while freeing up heavier units for service elsewhere. They can also be manned by reservists.
 
I mean their definitely very useful if used right. Its just that unless your nation is very poor they shouldnt be the center piece of your navy. Australia does want longer ranged craft but their is a role for some PT/ gunboats.

Plus their cheap.
If you want sea denial on the cheap you go submarines. Or close to shore, aircraft. If you don't get a geographical assist from close in shorelines PT boats are targets.

If you want sea control you go cruisers and sloops. Obviously you aren't building cruisers in Oz. Just having eyes in the area counts.

And you need to remember that the RAN is tied into the most powerful navy on earth. The high end is covered by the RN. At least it would be if they weren't suckered into a 3 way world war. That is why dropping the subs in the 20s was considered an acceptable cost saving measure.
 
Australia had the full capability of building a Cruiser, it was also able to make merchants. The Problem that every person myself included miss is the low population. Australia needed a population influx. Interestingly in the 20's and 30's two groups of Europeans can emigrate easily. They are the White Russians many of whom had run from communism. The other was the Jewish families in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Proper incentives could encourage the increase in population. Even if they do not serve they can man factories and bring expertise with them. Irish and British poor escaping the depression would also be good.

Please note i am only talking European due to the policies of the day. No none whites accepted due to actual racist governmental policy. Even Greeks and Italians would be discriminated against under that policy due to slightly olive skin. As i said it was a racist policy that hurt the country for decades and still causes some problems.
 
Australia had the full capability of building a Cruiser, it was also able to make merchants. The Problem that every person myself included miss is the low population. Australia needed a population influx. Interestingly in the 20's and 30's two groups of Europeans can emigrate easily. They are the White Russians many of whom had run from communism. The other was the Jewish families in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Proper incentives could encourage the increase in population. Even if they do not serve they can man factories and bring expertise with them. Irish and British poor escaping the depression would also be good.

Please note i am only talking European due to the policies of the day. No none whites accepted due to actual racist governmental policy. Even Greeks and Italians would be discriminated against under that policy due to slightly olive skin. As i said it was a racist policy that hurt the country for decades and still causes some problems.
Australia was quite anti-Semitic. Even postwar the minister of Immigration refused Jews migrating to Australia. Unfortunate but true. That changed under the Tories in the 1950s and 1960s. White Russians? Well, I think they wouldn't be that welcome either because of their origin. Menzies once remarked in Parliament that he was, "British to his bootstraps." Britain, Ireland at a pinch were where most migrants came from. South Australia was unusual because it's beginnings as a "free colony" where no convicts were allowed as settlers so they had a influx of Germans and Austro-Hungarians in the late 19th century and early 20th but was unusual. Invariably, they were people who left Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empires because they were persecuted.
 
Australia was quite anti-Semitic. Even postwar the minister of Immigration refused Jews migrating to Australia. Unfortunate but true. That changed under the Tories in the 1950s and 1960s. White Russians? Well, I think they wouldn't be that welcome either because of their origin. Menzies once remarked in Parliament that he was, "British to his bootstraps." Britain, Ireland at a pinch were where most migrants came from. South Australia was unusual because it's beginnings as a "free colony" where no convicts were allowed as settlers so they had a influx of Germans and Austro-Hungarians in the late 19th century and early 20th but was unusual. Invariably, they were people who left Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empires because they were persecuted.
A good example.

Rupert Murdoch’s father Keith was one of the main war correspondents I WW1. He fought tooth and nail to stop Sir John Monash, probably Australia’s best general from becoming Corps Commander in France.

Why, because Monash was Jewish.
 
Australia needed a population influx. Interestingly in the 20's and 30's two groups of Europeans can emigrate easily.
Starting in the 1900's empty Britain and Ireland's orphanages and children's homes. (I know of the abuses that happened when this was done post WWII but to be honest they were happening in the UK and every other country as well)
 
A good example.

Rupert Murdoch’s father Keith was one of the main war correspondents I WW1. He fought tooth and nail to stop Sir John Monash, probably Australia’s best general from becoming Corps Commander in France.

Why, because Monash was Jewish.
And he was German as well, being descended from German migrants...
 
Australia is a long way from anywhere. It is why they went cruiser rather than smaller ships for their patrol work. PT boats were romanticised in US service, but it is not clear that they were worth the effort. Europe OTOH...
Barge War.

Too many myths have to be corrected by naval historians. The "barge war" in eastern Indonesia and the southern Philippine Islands was just as crucial or perhaps more crucial than the efforts of 5th Air Farce and 7th Fleet surface forces to disrupt the Japanese at sea in that SWPOA theater. The only other USN outfits comparative were the Freemantle and Brisbane submarine flotillas in cutting Japanese seaborne logistics.

But to keep this in subject and in context, I suggest that Australia needed navally just about what was built...

only more of it.

1602949086869.png


Found at the article cited and in photo credited to its originator.
 
Last edited:
Barge War.

Too many myths have to be corrected by naval historians. The "barge war" in eastern Indonesia and the southern Philippine Islands was just as crucial ....
The "barge war" in eastern Indonesia and the southern Philippine Islands was just as crucial or perhaps more crucial than the efforts of 5th Air Force and RAAF
 
Last edited:
A good example.

Rupert Murdoch’s father Keith was one of the main war correspondents I WW1. He fought tooth and nail to stop Sir John Monash, probably Australia’s best general from becoming Corps Commander in France.

Why, because Monash was Jewish.
Not to mention Charles Bean campaign against Monash (and other wider views Bean held)...
 
Top