Rearm the ANZACs for the Pacific War.

[Father Maryland]

Instead of the Bren it might make more sense for the ANZACs to adopt the Vickers Berthier. The British Indian Army adopted it in OTL in 1933. It's similar to the Bren in a lot of ways but slightly inferior in a couple categories. It's main advantage is that it's cheaper and easier to produce (Hence why the British Indian Army with it's much lower industrial base adopted it). Also if the Brits are simultaneously busy in Europe it makes sense that the ANZACs are more like to fight alongside the British Indian Army equipped with Vickers Berthier's then they are by Brits with Brens.

Vickers–Berthier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Colonel Grubb]

I agree with @jsb that getting local production of aero-engines (either US or British) would be massively beneficial.

What land armaments changes are going to help the Australian formations defend Singapore and Malaya? Wouldn't the arguments in parliament follow that having a stronger Navy and a more capable air force (as they debated OTL) provide better security and trade protection - after all, if the Japanese don't even get ashore, there's nobody to fight on land. Or that the shiny new machine carbine (and the man holding it) can't be supplied due to the IJN cruiser between him and the supply ship.

Any tanks (that aren't totally obsolete by the time of the war) are going to be sent the Middle East (why would tanks be needed in the jungle?) mentality.

Local production of light and medium anti-aircraft guns would go a long way.

 

[Driftless]

Local production of light and medium anti-aircraft guns would go a long way.

Depending on gun carriages, there's also the potential for those AA guns to serve in an anti-tank, or other direct fire role, in a pinch

 

[James Ricker]

When is the earliest the Sentinel Tank or a atl similar design be realistically built in decent numbers?

Will they keep the bow gun?
Besides that they might want to purchase American tanks, because they are mechanically reliable and the distances involved would make logistics difficult

 

[Colonel Grubb]

want to purchase American tanks,

What American tanks? Nothing is available pre-war, and until 1941 production is being sucked up by the US military and the British/French. They managed to get Grants by 1942...

 

[marathag]

What American tanks? Nothing is available pre-war,

Just Walter Christies 'Agricultural Tractors', for $30,000.
Soviets liked it so much, they bought two, and then reverse engineered it to make the BT series.

 

[Sam R.]

The Soviets didn’t have London finance disciplining their governments spending.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Here are a few notes I picked up when working on some Australian material back 9-10 years ago. The salient material from the forum link comes from 'Armed and Ready' which I recommend to all those interested in this particular topic:

Australian Munitions Production June 1942

Historical Australian Munitions Production June 1942:

Rifles (many would be WW1 stock) 400,977, production 10,000 month
LMG (Bren/Lewis) 7,563, production 385 Bren/Month
MMG (Vickers) 2,968, production 300/month
0.303 Ammo 41,039,000, Production 45,509,000 (seams high...)
SMG Ammo 20,000000, production 66,000 month
2 Pdr AT Guns 788, production 43 month
2 Pdr AT ammo 654,943, production 58,000 month
25 pdr guns 760, production 64 month
25 pdr ammo 1,263,461, production 150,000 month
18 pdr guns 262, no production
4.5" Howitzer 77, no production
3" Mortar 1,330, production 354 month
3" ammo 774,041, production 112,650 month
2" mortar 142, no production (orders issued Dec 1941)
2" ammo 225,645, no production (orders issued Dec 1941)
AT mines 194,195, production 5,931 month
Hand grenades 949,846, production 137,952 month
Rifle grenade 720,000, production 60,000 month
Armoured Carrier ("Bren Gun Carrier) 2612, production 175 month.
Armoured recce vehicle (?) 350, 130 month.

By 1939 Australia had a significant capability to produce small arms, small arms ammunition (Rifles, Brens, Vickers), Mortars and ammunition, 18 pdr ammunition and began tooling for 25pdr production and ammunition, Naval gun ammo to 8". About 50% of machine tools were made in Australia, and 50% imported, with the later number droping.

Early 1940 Australia begins supplying munitions to the Indian Army (who lacked production capabilities?) and to British forces in the SEASIA/Middle east.

By Dec 1941 Austraia had 7 Small Arms Ammunition Factories, 10 Small Arms Factories, 6 Explosive making factories, 5 cartridge case factories, 2 ordonance factories.

In March 1940 they had the capacity to make (but NOT the orders):
400 3.7" AA guns a year
121 40mm Bofors a year
840 Field guns (25 pdr)
1900 AT guns (2 pdr)
24 Naval guns (4-6" by the looks of it)
2000 Mortars
6000 Bren
2500 Vickers
200,000 Rifles
50,000 pistols

10,500,000 "Gun ammo" all natures.
1,950,000 Mortar ammo
240,000 aircraft bombs
730,000,000 small arms ammo.

2,000 carriers
1,000 light tanks

10,000 depth charges
3,000 Naval mines
260,000 AT mines
1,000,000 grenades


In Feb 1942 torpedoes where added to the list at 520 a year.

Some interesting "cost of production" Jun 1942 Pounds:
Carrier, MG LP2.....1500
2 pdr at gun........1750
3.7 AA..............6000
25 pdr..............4500
Vickers MMG.........109
Bren................150
Rifle...............13
1000 rounds303 ammo.9.9
Bomb 250lb anti sub.24
3.7 shell fille.....7.5
25pdr shell filled..3.9
4.5" shell filled...4.7
4" shell filled.....10
6" shell filled.....27

Australian manufactured items were cheaper than UK for small arms and SA ammo but more expensive for AA/arty/Naval shells (largely due to the lack of orders and therefore inability to effectively mass produce).

Actual production figures for period Jun 1940 til March 1942 then Jun 1940-June 1942 (I.e. the second figure INCLUDES the first figure)

25pdr Field Gun...267.......459
25pdr HE..........238,448...608,942
3.7 AA Gun........216.......264
3.7 ammo..........110,439...178975
3" mortar.........1261......1541
3"ammo............514,426....810,389
No Bofors produced until Dec 1942
Vickers...........4,411......5,213
Bren..............2,047......3,267
SMG...............280........1,909
Carriers..........2,264......2,830
Scout Car.........8..........70

Navy Stuff
Mines.............3,105......4,689
depth charges.....10,496.....11,896
4" ammo...........34,808.....39,720

Air
20lb frag.........6514.......24,072
100lb asw.........7,883......7,883 (production run completed a few months prior)
250lb ASW.........3,364......3,364 (production run completed a few months prior)
250lb GP..........22,613.....29,243
250lb SAP.........299........467 (production really ramped up in the next 6 months)

 

[HaroldWinthrop]

It's 1933 and the governments of Australia and New Zealand are getting twitchy about the ambitions of the Empire of Japan. You are tasked with making recommendations for how their militaries can prepare for a potential war. It is of course assumed that the Mother Country will be fighting alongside them but it is requested that they are able to rely on their own resources as much as possible and steps be taken to maximise the input of local industrial capacity.

Before the logistics of re-armament, there needs to be a shift in thinking by the Australian Government and the Chiefs of the Defence Staff around Australia's defence posture away from either raising a 'heavy' divisional expeditionary force for use in the Middle East (replaying WWI) or Malaya (to support the Singapore Strategy) towards the defence of Australia.

Obviously, the various State Railway workshops (as the largest industrial employers) are a key capability, but also the seeding of key industrial capability, particularly chemicals will also be important.

The absolute rock bottom of Australian Government defence spending is taking place at this time as well, so perhaps a more Keynesian approach rather than the deflationary economic orthodoxy would help to start pump priming the long lead items, set up manufacturing capability (esp. for small arms, support arms & ammo) and provide some decent monetary incentives for the Militia (attendance payments, uniforms, bonus for skills) to attract some of the unemployed and create a pool of trained manpower.

 

[Rickshaw]

The first problem to solve then is the local industrial capacity, given that it wasn't all that much. Decide what weapons/vehicles you want to build, then buy sufficient machine tools to do so. You'll probably need to import some specialists to get production going earlier than might be the case without them as well.

A.E. Ross in his book, "Armed and Ready: The Industrial Development and Defence of Australia 1900-1945. " made it quite clear, Australia was quite well situated with it's defence industries. The problem was the Government of the day wasn't. It wasn't sure there was going to be a war at all, where as the industrialists were. Australia prepared rapidly once war broke out in 1939. In 1941, the impetus was increased as the likelihood of a war with Japan increased. Australia geared up to manufacture all it's own small arms, artillery and AFVs.

 

[Rickshaw]

With small arms it makes sense to keep to British standard weapons as much as possible, but given the terrain they may have to fight in I would look at carbines and smgs as well.
Artillery. I'd look at mountain guns that can be carried by mules through the bush on the islands.

SMGs? What SMGs? The British didn't have SMGs until 1940. Australia had the Owen gun, perhaps one of the best available. The problem was the "cultural cringe" that the Army exhibited. It it was made in Australia, it wasn't as good as a gun which was made in the UK, so the UK gun was preferred, until Frank Forde, the minister for the Army intervened and forced them to adopt it after it was demonstrated to him.

The "baby 25pdr" was a small version of the standard 25 Pdr field gun, with a reduced carriage and a shorter barrel but fired the standard 25 Pdr rounds. It was created when Sir Lawrence Hartnett was asked, "How short do you want us to cut the barrel?" "Short enough so the gunners bleed from their ears." Was his famous reply and that was how short them they made it. It performed very well on the Owen Stanleys.

 

[Rickshaw]

Looks good, but I don't see much need for any sort of armor. Warfare in the Pacific, where I presume most of this war is occuring for the ANZAC lads, makes armor a liability in most cases.

In reality it was often a battle winner for the ANZAC forces (not that there were anything called an ANZAC in the Pacific as they never fought together).

 

[Rickshaw]

Yeah I was thinking of the Aussies developing the M3 Grease Gun. Not much more expensive or hard to produce then the STEN but seems like it had a number of superior advantages. The question is in what caliber?

Sticking largely with British small arms (hence keeping .303) but do the Brits have any existing calibers that would work with a SMG? They haven't adopted the Hi Power yet so 9mm is out.

I was kind of thinking go with .45 ACP based on more then anything else the fact that they can most likely purchase it in large quantities from the US. At the time they can also probably buy large quantities of US WW1 surplus .45 meaning cheap training. To me at least the particular caliber (and it's advantages versus others) matters less then it's ability to be sourced easily

The problem was ammunition manufacture. This was made clear in the history of the Owen Gun which was far superior to the M3 Grease Gun. The Australian Army wasn't sure what calibre it wanted it's future SMG to be so had Owen and Lysachts manufacture it in various calibres before settleing on what was already in production 9mm Parabellum. They tried .45acp, they tried .32in. None worked or looked as good as the 9mm. 9mm was being manufactured so 9mm it was. Everything else had to be imported and was twice as expensive.

 

[Rickshaw]

When is the earliest the Sentinel Tank or a atl similar design be realistically built in decent numbers?

AC I was available from early 1941. Any earlier and it runs into the same problems. There were no engines available. There were no suspension systems available from overseas. You would need to resolve the supply chain problem for the vehicle to become available earlier. You would also need to overcome the problems of needing such a vehicle as well.

 

[Rickshaw]

Build Universal carrier as OTL

It built "Local Pattern" Universal Carriers on it's own. In fact it built superior versions compared to the UK.

 

[Rickshaw]

Could arming and training local idigenous folks for constabulary or militia use on New Guinea or other islands controlled by Australia or New Zealand been done in the interwar years? Or was that already in place?

That was done. The Pacific Islanders regiment was established and used primarily for local security and police work in New Guinea and the Islands.

 

[Rickshaw]

Instead of the Bren it might make more sense for the ANZACs to adopt the Vickers Berthier. The British Indian Army adopted it in OTL in 1933. It's similar to the Bren in a lot of ways but slightly inferior in a couple categories. It's main advantage is that it's cheaper and easier to produce (Hence why the British Indian Army with it's much lower industrial base adopted it). Also if the Brits are simultaneously busy in Europe it makes sense that the ANZACs are more like to fight alongside the British Indian Army equipped with Vickers Berthier's then they are by Brits with Brens.

Vickers–Berthier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Bren was chosen and it was produced in more than sufficient quantities. The Berthier was manufactured by the Indians. The Australians wouldn't have looked at it.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Here are a few notes I picked up when working on some Australian material back 9-10 years ago. The salient material from the forum link comes from 'Armed and Ready' which I recommend to all those interested in this particular topic:

ZIP

Very interesting and puzzling at the same time. Are there any numbers on the orders made after march 1940? I could imagine that the fall of France would have made the Emprie scramble for everything that could possibly be manufactured. Otherwise I don't see why for example the KNIL didn't utilise the potential of the Australian weapons factories.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

It built "Local Pattern" Universal Carriers on it's own. In fact it built superior versions compared to the UK.

The LP1s were utter gash with the most serious issues (of many) being overheating engines and excessive break wear (160 made)

The LP2 and 2A was the demanded upon improved version (4700 made till 1943 - not sure when production started)

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

SMGs? What SMGs? The British didn't have SMGs until 1940.

I am aware of this, however that doesn't stop Australia from looking at the potential theatre of operations (The Pacific Islands) and deciding that an SMG would be something useful in the Jungle. They don't have to slavishly follow British practice.