Rearm the ANZACs for the Pacific War.
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
marathag
Banned
Marines didn't find that a problem, and for awhile there were a lot of M1 Carbines around, and there were not the stories of lack of stopping power, either, that would pop in the next conflict.
The statute of Westminster basically allowed Australia to make it's own political decisions not bound by what the UK did. In 1939, Australia was semi-happy to go to war but it's declaration of war against Japan on 9 December 1941 was problematic because it was before the UK did. The Labor Government therefore passed the Statute separately, afterwards. This meant that Australia was the second Imperial power and the third nation to declare on Japan. However the Statute did not completely separate Australia from the UK. That had to wait until 1986 when Hawk passed the Australia Act which removed appeals to the Privy Council in London.
Last edited:
Part of the costs are that the UK didn't provide technical packages and tooling for the Vickers or Bren for free, they felt perfectly justified in charging all the market would bear. The UK wanted so much money for SMLE tooling that the Australians bought theirs from Westinghouse who, even with the tariff for importation into the Empire were still a third cheaper and a lot faster than the UK.
People think of .30 carbine as a wimpy cartridge whereas it is actually very close to .357 magnum in terms of muzzle energy and performance.
IMO, turning WW1-surplus tanks into crude SPGs or APCs would be better than dumping them.
I also think RAN building DDs or DEs (product improved corvettes, most probably) would be a big help in the Atlantic (if less so against Japan).
The Oz Army doesn't need Sentinels against IJA as much as it needs something like a Vickers 6-ton: the 2pdr is plenty against (just about) any Japanese tank. Building more of them in Oz will a) provide training tanks in Oz (&, a bit later, Britain & Canada), b) free up British production of training tanks for more combat-worthy types, c) improve the Oz Army's effectiveness (better training prewar, better armor for PTO in-war), & d) reduce the supply headaches once Japan attacks (because the U.S. won't have to ship so many tanks & spares from CONUS, nor Britain from home, & because there may be somewhat fewer different models).
A licence for the P&W R1830 sounds like an excellent idea. Would P&W go for licencing the R2800? (Could CAC justify licencing the F4F or Hawk 75 & independently trial powering it with an R2800?)
I'm less sure building F4Fs or 75s makes sense, inferior as they are. Better than nothing, yes... Could reps from Canberra, DC, Lockheed, CAC, & P&W be locked in a room long enough to agree to licence-building P-38s in Oz, with R2800s?
A fast-climbing, long-legged interceptor seems more what Oz needs, especially if ops over New Guinea are planned. Same seems to apply to NZ.
I also think RAN building DDs or DEs (product improved corvettes, most probably) would be a big help in the Atlantic (if less so against Japan).
The Oz Army doesn't need Sentinels against IJA as much as it needs something like a Vickers 6-ton: the 2pdr is plenty against (just about) any Japanese tank. Building more of them in Oz will a) provide training tanks in Oz (&, a bit later, Britain & Canada), b) free up British production of training tanks for more combat-worthy types, c) improve the Oz Army's effectiveness (better training prewar, better armor for PTO in-war), & d) reduce the supply headaches once Japan attacks (because the U.S. won't have to ship so many tanks & spares from CONUS, nor Britain from home, & because there may be somewhat fewer different models).
A licence for the P&W R1830 sounds like an excellent idea. Would P&W go for licencing the R2800? (Could CAC justify licencing the F4F or Hawk 75 & independently trial powering it with an R2800?)
I'm less sure building F4Fs or 75s makes sense, inferior as they are. Better than nothing, yes... Could reps from Canberra, DC, Lockheed, CAC, & P&W be locked in a room long enough to agree to licence-building P-38s in Oz, with R2800s?
A fast-climbing, long-legged interceptor seems more what Oz needs, especially if ops over New Guinea are planned. Same seems to apply to NZ.I'd have them switch from building No. 1 Mk 3's to No. 1 Mk 5's with the rear aperture sight but with the sight from the No. 4 Mk 1.
McPherson
Banned
Medium Tank Mark II | The main British tank from 1923
Australia has four of them in 1927. Later bought some more for 2 tank companies.
Then
Vickers Mk VIA light tank in Royal Australian Armoured Corps Tank Museum, Puckapunyal, Victoria, Australia. This is one of the 10 vehicles purchased by Australia in 1936.
No comment. I think the Bathurst-class corvette was useful.
.jpg/1200px-Valentine_II_%E2%80%985-40%E2%80%99_-_Patriot_Museum%2C_Kubinka_(38390149682).jpg)
Valentine tank - Wikipedia
Maybe too early.
so...
British A10 Cruiser MkIIA CS tank Survivor of France and ...
They have the R1830.
I don't know if the Hawk can be be back-radialed? Curtiss sure screwed it up. Maybe CAC can take a Hawk and fix it.
Baseball bat and some good Mexican loco weed? Sure.I'm less sure building F4Fs or 75s makes sense, inferior as they are. Better than nothing, yes... Could reps from Canberra, DC, Lockheed, CAC, & P&W be locked in a room long enough to agree to licence-building P-38s in Oz, with R2800s?
It passes my test for useful.
All too much tank for ops in the jungle, IMO. The M3 Light (aka Stuart/Lee) or Vickers are plenty.
Valentine tank - Wikipedia
Maybe too early.
so...
British A10 Cruiser MkIIA CS tank Survivor of France and ...
In 1933-4? By WW2 start, yes: so get there earlier. Also, greater Oz production of R1830s might just enable Canberra to cut a deal with the Dutch to re-engine their Brewsters.
https://hars.org.au/pratt-whitney-r1830-radial-piston-aero-engine/
Back-radialed? The 75 was a radial-powered fighter. (By the time Curtiss got to the P-40, I'm not sure I'd trust them to get anything right beyond that.)
McPherson
Banned
(^^^)
I am convinced that the A10 is doable (1938 available). I am also convinced that it makes more sense than a M3 Stuart which is not available until 1941.
1939, I believe, for the R1830.
P-40 Warhawk was the bird Curtiss tried to make into a P-60. Why was it not selected? About 315 mile range (40-60 minutes available aloft.) and that is just about worthless since the P-36 could stay aloft 90-120 minutes.
I am convinced that the A10 is doable (1938 available). I am also convinced that it makes more sense than a M3 Stuart which is not available until 1941.
1939, I believe, for the R1830.
P-40 Warhawk was the bird Curtiss tried to make into a P-60. Why was it not selected? About 315 mile range (40-60 minutes available aloft.) and that is just about worthless since the P-36 could stay aloft 90-120 minutes.
You are not building to fight the Japanese.IMO, turning WW1-surplus tanks into crude SPGs or APCs would be better than dumping them.
I also think RAN building DDs or DEs (product improved corvettes, most probably) would be a big help in the Atlantic (if less so against Japan).
The Oz Army doesn't need Sentinels against IJA as much as it needs something like a Vickers 6-ton: the 2pdr is plenty against (just about) any Japanese tank. Building more of them in Oz will a) provide training tanks in Oz (&, a bit later, Britain & Canada), b) free up British production of training tanks for more combat-worthy types, c) improve the Oz Army's effectiveness (better training prewar, better armor for PTO in-war), & d) reduce the supply headaches once Japan attacks (because the U.S. won't have to ship so many tanks & spares from CONUS, nor Britain from home, & because there may be somewhat fewer different models).
A licence for the P&W R1830 sounds like an excellent idea. Would P&W go for licencing the R2800? (Could CAC justify licencing the F4F or Hawk 75 & independently trial powering it with an R2800?)
I'm less sure building F4Fs or 75s makes sense, inferior as they are. Better than nothing, yes... Could reps from Canberra, DC, Lockheed, CAC, & P&W be locked in a room long enough to agree to licence-building P-38s in Oz, with R2800s?
Until 1940 you are building to indulge in some wartime profiteering selling wheat and wool to the English while paying just enough of a blood price to look respectable. Maybe get some of that sweet sweet wartime credit for some infrastructure boodoggles.
After that you are building to fight the Germans because that suddenly got real. It is not till the back half of 41 that you care about the Japanese. And the answer there is let the Americans bring and do whatever they want while indulging in some wartime profiteering selling wheat and wool to the US.
M3 (indeed, even M2) Light tanks were a failure in the Pacific because they were "too light". The Australians tried them during the Battle of the Bridgeheads in New Guinea and the USMC used them in Guadacanal. In both cases, their light weight armour and their 37mm guns were found to be nearly useless against Japanese bunkers. Bunkers which were made from coconut logs with sand and then another layer of coconut logs where nigh on impregnable with a 37mm gun. The tanks also tended to "bottom out" on logs which they attempted to cross. They simply didn't have the "oomph" required. The Infantry Tank Matilda II was found to be an ideal combination of weight, size, armour thickness and gun to attack the bunkers and other Japanese positions in New Guinea and the islands. M3's might have worked on the Australian continent against any potential marauding Japanese invaders but that opporunity never presented itself. M3 mediums were used almost exclusively there instead.
marathag
Banned
But the M2A4 was around since 1938, with only slight difference that would make little difference vs any Japanese armor
Not quite. The Australia Army trained and fought exclusively in the Middle East between 1939 and 1941 - three years. It fought the Italians, the Vichy French and the Germans. It was an infantry army, with three infantry divisions, the 6,7 and 9th divisions in the Middle East. The 8th was deployed to Malaya in the middle of 1941 to counter the potential of a Japanese attack against Singapore. Australia had been concerned about the possibility of Japanese aggression since approximately 1900. There had been numerous cartoons, editorials and articles talking about this supposed danger. Australia feared the Japanese. It's aggression in China and Indo-China appeared to show it was a real fear.
Australia because of it's position as a major food producer appeared to profit from Lend-Lease and while we came out with a surplus at the end, feeding most of liberated Asia and a lot of Europe, the Australian Government out of the goodness of it's heart didn't turn that into a profit.
Don't you believe it. The 37mm was a nose fused HE round. The 2 Pdr HE round used by the Australians was a base fused round. That allowed the round to penetrate before exploding, unlike the British nose fuse round. Trials were carried out in 1943 comparing 37mm HE, British 2 Pdr HE and Australian 2 Pdr HE rounds against recreated Japanese bunkers in Australia. The Australia 2 Pdr HE round was found to have superior penetration and destructive effects.
The problem wasn't against Japanese armour. The problem was mobility and it's ability to destroy Japanese bunkers. The M2 and M3 Light tanks failed on both counts.
I am well aware of what it did do. Call it my passive aggressive frustration with people who want to build an army to fight the Japanese in 1939 without a crystal ball. Eg every time Sentinel had been mentioned in the last three months.
Not quite. Every time I've mentioned Sentinel it has been to correct misconceptions on the part of certain posters about the ability of Australia to design and build the vehicle. It was designed to fight the Italians and the Germans in North Africa, not the Japanese. Hence it's heavy armour and it's increasing gun sizes. It would have worked against the Japanese as well, particularly the Mk.III with it's 25Pdr gun. However, that was not it's Raison d'être. The Afria Korps was. I agree that designing an armoured Army to fight the Japanese exclusively in 1939 was silly and is silly.