A good 5 cents, an amount well invested. The problem of increased recruitment or pay for soldiers is that the regular Australian Army was tiny between the wars. It consisted of a few thousand men who were largely employed manning the coast defences around the major harbours and the HQ in first Sydney and Melbourne and then later, in Canberra. Regular soldiers were few and far between indeed. Regular officers were rarer. The Government of the day was very much in the pockets of the bankers back in London who were counseling belt tightening, not increased expenditure. Indeed, they had seen to the dismissal of one State Premier, Jack Lang, the "Big Fella" because he countenanced defrauding the bank loans owed by a broke Government. Australia was in a hard place, during the Depression. Families were broke, there was no work, Governments didn't pay unemployment benefits in those days. Families were evicted, homeless. The Government wasn't concerned enough to do anything about it. Indeed, they weren't allowed to be concerned...Absent more information, IMO you can't presume enormous changes. Changes to procurement to cope with a greater perceived threat are credible to me; conscription, even in the face of the Depression, when met with such a deep historical opposition in Oz culture (& one I was unaware of, so the discussion hasn't been for naught), no. A scheme of increased recruitment, or improved pay, with the goal of a stronger army, coupled with the Depression, might get to the (putative) goal of conscription without actually using it...& that's an approach I could believe.
My $0.05 (adjusted for inflation).
Rearm the ANZACs for the Pacific War.
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
I don't see why compulsory military training could not have been reintroduced earlier. It was only abolished in 1929 (although watered down a bit after the Washington Treaty) and there was always a bit of an expectation that it would be brought back at some stage. It only came back in in 1939, but a more defence conscious PM than Joe Lyons might have brought it back earlier (say around 1935, perhaps initially in its weakened late 1920s form then ramped up late in the 1930s.
Exactly, and given the OP it would make sense. Of course, the OP still needs to flesh the scenario out more. (We can say that though about the OPs in a lot of threads.)
Its hard to see what scenario could have led to the ANZACs putting more effort into rearmament. My impression was that there was no public support for increased military spending at the time, and one of the themes' of Ross' Armed and Ready was that the Australian Government did the best it could given the political constraints of the time.
In addition, the only significant politician that favoured rearmament was Billy Hughes, so probably the only realistic scenario of one of rearmament is one where he led in 1933 a conservative coalition government. Is such a thing likely? Its a bit far fetched. But ill have a go at it.
1. Forget about Labor. It was opposed to any military spending at the time, and politically unsuccessful in the 1920s and 1930s so for this scenario it is irrelevant.
2. Hughes was stuck on the backbenchers from 1923 onwards but imagine he made his peace with the leaders of the Nationalist Party in the mid 1920s and returned to the cabinet, perhaps as he did in the 1930s as Minister for Health and Repatriation. He hated Stanley Bruce for replacing him, so imagine Bruce had an accident, say he trips and falls down the steps of the Melbourne Club after a long lunch and resigns because of his subsequent injuries. The next PM decides to bring Hughes into the Government.
3. The Coalition is flogged at an election around 1928, 1929, with heaps of prominent ministers losing their seats and Hughes takes over as opposition leader.
4. The Labor Government splits, Hughes refuses to step down as opposition leader in favour of the renegade Lyons, as Latham did, and subsequently, at an election in 1931 he becomes PM.
Hughes as PM then spends money on everything previously mentioned on this thread; ie. guns, tanks, subs, planes, cruisers, you name it he buys it.
Likely Australian politician thinking would need to be influenced by events outside the country, including stronger fears that the Japanese had southern ambitions and maybe that the Mother Country would not be quite as forthcoming with help. Whatever the causes, the point remains that the OP demands a significant change in thinking or there’s just no point to the discussion.
Hmmm if we're rearming the RAN can we order a trio of Edinburghs instead of buying the Amphions? And order a couple Flotillas of destroyers of the JKN class and one of the T class subs? And a dozen or so sloops. All ordered in early 1936 so that they'll be done and worked up by the time the war breaks out.
It might need a bit more than that. Most Australian politicians at the time reacted to german and japanese aggresion by becoming even more in favour of appeasement. Politicians like Lyons, Bruce and Menzies were pretty strong supporters of it. I think some sort of domestic political change would be needed that keeps the ultra-appeasers out and Hughes and like minded ones in.
It was a Crusader. See here from 3 minutes 40 seconds to 4 minutes 5 seconds.
I got in contact with a Museum Curator about the Sentinel. It took them a while for them to get back & me to get around to writing this, but anyhow here's some choice parts from their response -
(Paraphrased) - "Our copy is currently undergoing asbestos remediation, so we can't access the interior to take photos, but..."
"I contacted Mick Cecil who was formerly head of our section here and who is a world acknowledged tank expert. He is currently living in the US. He sent a detailed response"...
"The Youtuber is a US National Guardsman and the resident 'historian' for World of Tanks, some sort of gaming platform. His name is Nicholas Moran, aka, 'The Chieftain'. I've watched a couple of his Youtube videos, and marvel at his uninformed comments and conjecture. As you can gather, I take Moran's comments with a bucket of salt. I believe he is unduly harsh in his critique of the AC1. It may not be the best design, but it is not nearly as bad as Moran would have us believe. "
Here, I'll go first. The gunners seat isn't down when it should be folded up, in Mike Cecil's words (cont);
"What led to this was several uninformed statements by Nicholas Moran, who is seated in the video in the gunners position at right angles to the line of the main armament with the seat at its maximum height adjustment. To be fair, the interior of the Australian Cruiser is very cramped, as were all small-diameter turret tanks of the period."
He continues on, TL: DR;
- Moran gets the power traverse wrong. It's infinitely variable, there's a voltage regulator wired to deliver constant volts & amps above a minimum engine rev. The faster the handle is turned the faster it rotates. It only needs one engine to drive it, not three. Advanced for it's day, it wasn't until the Centurion that tanks in that line of development had traverse on battery only, & that was only for an emergency duration.
- Moran doesn't understand that the manual traverse disconnects from the power traverse. He thinks he's read the (workshop) manual, but it's more likely the instruction book (provisional) that he's read.
- Talks about the other crew positions, consults photographs he took of the last time he was in the tank from 30 years ago to be sure.
I think it's worth noting that the Average Australian soldier in this period was 5'7", it might well have been easier for them to find someone that fit.
De Havilland had a scandal around this time that changed the course of the Australian aviation industry. Same thing happened with their passenger aircraft that happened with the first Mosquito's built in Australia. Glue that works in European conditions doesn't necessarily work in Australian ones. Those in charge looked at what Britain had. Wooden stuff that disintegrates in mid-air. Then at what the U.S had, the DC-3. That's why the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation had the Twin Wasp for the CAC Boomerang available.
McPherson
Banned
Makes a lot of sense. Still the ergonomics of the AC1, leave me shaking my head. I would like more turnaround room and elbow paths.