Rearm the ANZACs for the Pacific War.

[Cryhavoc101]

Valentines with close support guns with some HEAT or HESH rounds mixed in with the HE will do all you need in the Pacific. Easier to build than the Sentinel as well. Commission Vickers to build some pilot models for testing prewar while arranging a licence and production facilities should the need ever arise. (We know it will, they don't)


View attachment 587722

Seconded - and very little reinventing of the wheel going on - so no going down the Sentinel dead end development route when these can be built almost right away at the New South Wales Railway Company and be useful till the end of the war

They can even arm them with the 3.7" mountain gun - there was a HEAT round developed for it when in Burma - not sure when but anytime after 1940 I suspect so it can be used mainly for infantry support with its 20 pound HE shells while retaining some 94mm HEAT rounds if they chance upon Japanese tanks.

More than enough tank for the Pacific and SEA theatre of operations

I suggested that they start light tank building in the mid 30s with the Vickers 6 Ton design armed with the same 3.7" mountain Howitzer.

 

[Jellico]

so I don't see why US money for a railway would be unthinkable. Just call it a civilian project rather than a military one.

It is a railroad to nowhere. It makes military sense. But it doesn't make commercial sense. To get Australia's produce to where it needs to go it is far more efficient to load up a ship. Ships beat rail every time. Have a look at the structure of say Queensland. It is a series of discrete harbors with railroads heading up into the hinterland. That is pretty much how the country worked until trucks took over.

 

[McPherson]

Case in point that leapt out at me, the Pan Am Clippers. How is that going to work when the Short Emprires were made for Imperial service? It is a complete 180 to suddenly go American.

Shrug. From Wiki.

Specifications (314A Clipper)[edit]

Data from Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II[29]

General characteristics

• Crew: 11, including 2 cabin stewards
• Capacity: 68 day passengers and/or 36 sleeping passengers / 5 short tons (4,536 kg) of mail and or cargo
• Length: 106 ft (32 m)
• Wingspan: 152 ft (46 m)
• Height: 20 ft 4.5 in (6.210 m)
• Airfoil: root: NACA 0018; tip: NACA 0010[30]
• Empty weight: 48,400 lb (21,954 kg)
• Gross weight: 84,000 lb (38,102 kg)
• Fuel capacity: 5,408 US gal (4,503 imp gal; 20,470 l) in wing and sponson tanks
• Powerplant: 4 × Wright 709C-14AC1 Twin Cyclone 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, 1,600 hp (1,200 kW) each
• Propellers: 3-bladed Hamilton Standard fully-feathering constant-speed propellers

Performance

• Maximum speed: 210 mph (340 km/h, 180 kn) at 6,200 ft (1,890 m)
• Cruise speed: 188 mph (303 km/h, 163 kn) at 66.5% power at 11,000 ft (3,353 m)
• Range: 3,685 mi (5,930 km, 3,202 nmi) normal, 4,900 mi (4,258 nmi; 7,886 km) at maximum loaded weight

Also from Wiki>

Specifications (Short S.23)[edit]
Data from The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft,[37] The Short Empire Boats[24]

General characteristics

• Crew: 5 (2 pilots, navigator, flight clerk and steward)[38]
• Capacity: [38]
  • 24 day passengers or 16 sleeping passengers
  • 1.5 ton of mail
• Length: 88 ft 0 in (26.82 m)
• Wingspan: 114 ft 0 in (34.75 m)
• Height: 31 ft 9 3⁄4 in (9.696 m)
• Wing area: 1,500 sq ft (140 m2)
• Empty weight: 23,500 lb (10,659 kg)
• Gross weight: 40,500 lb (18,370 kg)
• Powerplant: 4 × Bristol Pegasus XC radial engines, 920 hp (690 kW) each

Performance

• Maximum speed: 200 mph (320 km/h, 170 kn)
• Cruise speed: 165 mph (266 km/h, 143 kn) [39]
• Range: 760 mi (1,220 km, 660 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6,100 m)
• Rate of climb: 950 ft/min (4.8 m/s) [39]

Now there were three (count them three) of these.

Specification[edit]
Data from Jackson[4]

General characteristics

• Crew: 7
• Capacity: 38 passengers
• Length: 101 ft 4 in (30.89 m)
• Wingspan: 134 ft 4 in (40.94 m)
• Height: 37 ft 7 in (11.46 m)
• Wing area: 2,160 sq ft (201 m2)
• Empty weight: 37,700 lb (17,100 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 73,500 lb (33,339 kg)
• Powerplant: 4 × Bristol Hercules IV 14-cylinder radial engines, 1,380 hp (1,030 kW) each
• Propellers: 3-bladed DH constant speed[2], 14 ft 6 in (4.42 m) diameter

Performance

• Maximum speed: 209 mph (336 km/h, 182 kn)
• Cruise speed: 180 mph (290 km/h, 160 kn)
• Range: 3,200 mi (5,100 km, 2,800 nmi)

Armament

• Guns: 2 × dorsal and 1 × tail Boulton Paul BPA Mk. II four-gun turrets[6]
• Bombs: [6]
  • 8 × 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the wings
  • 20 × reconnaissance flares
  • 28 × flame floats
  • 8 × smoke floats

Those are the choices. If one is flying peacetime recon as part of a Qantas cover-op, what platform does one use? Empire is out and the Short S26 is a WARBIRD that would be shot down if it was flying a route from which it "strayed".

Clipper it is. Get the Americans to pay for it. RTL.

It is a railroad to nowhere. It makes military sense. But it doesn't make commercial sense. To get Australia's produce to where it needs to go it is far more efficient to load up a ship. Ships beat rail every time. Have a look at the structure of say Queensland. It is a series of discrete harbors with railroads heading up into the hinterland. That is pretty much how the country worked until trucks took over.

Darwin is close to Indonesia, at least closer than Brisbane or Fremantle. Justify the RR as a trade corridor to goods up north to the Dutch Indonesian and American Philippine Islands. It is not cheaper to ship Australian exports a long 8000 km when a shorter 2700 km route by ship and 1100 km by rail is possible.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Those are the choices. If one is flying peacetime recon as part of a Qantas cover-op, what platform does one use? Empire is out and the Short S26 is a WARBIRD that would be shot down if it was flying a route from which it "strayed".

The S26 was designed as a transatlantic airliner but impressed into RAF service at the start of the war.

 

[Jellico]

One is available from 1936. The other from 1939.

Why does it matter what aircraft is used flying peacetime recon as part of a Qantas cover-op? It is a big silver bird in the wrong place. And if you want the range, then go American with a Catalina like everyone else.

And why would would Boeing do anything but make you pay through the nose before lend lease? As noted with the Sentinel above. Australia is on the bottom of the supply chain.

The S26 was designed as a transatlantic airliner but impressed into RAF service at the start of the war.

Less transatlantic, more for a series of 500 mile hops down through the southern Empire. But it could get across the Atlantic eventually.

 

[ArtosStark]

Less transatlantic, more for a series of 500 mile hops down through the southern Empire. But it could get across the Atlantic eventually.

That was the Empire Flying Boat/Sunderland. The S.26 was designed because they realized that the Empire could not do Transatlantic when they were trying to get a join- Anglo-American Transatlantic air route running.

 

[McPherson]

One is available from 1936. The other from 1939.

Why does it matter what aircraft is used flying peacetime recon as part of a Qantas cover-op? It is a big silver bird in the wrong place. And if you want the range, then go American with a Catalina like everyone else.

And why would would Boeing do anything but make you pay through the nose before lend lease? As noted with the Sentinel above. Australia is on the bottom of the supply chain.

This. (From Wiki)

A Dutch Dornier Do 24K-1 flying-boat (s/n X-1, c/n 761) in flight. "X-1" was the first Do 24 ordered by the Marineluchtvaartdienst (Netherlands Naval Aviation Service). It was delivered on 3 July 1937 and finally lost on 3 March 1942 near Broome, Australia, during a Japanese air raid. Parts of the wreck are still visible today.

was always my first choice.

 

[Jellico]

Definitely one that I thought of immediately. The politics of a Dornier product would be interesting for anyone not Dutch...

 

[Fred the Great]

Not really mentioned so far is the shortcoming of raising an all volunteer force for overseas service and gutting the militia in the process. Raise a single conscript army and allow soldiers to opt out of overseas service - as was the case in Vietnam. Few will. Overseas, by the way, did not include Australia’s then mandated territories. Mobilise as many as six divisions by a year into the war, half sent overseas as historical. That would give you well trained forces of up to a corps in Australia in December 1941. And then you could still bring your corps home from the Middle East, or maybe leave a division. It wouldn’t make a huge difference to outcomes but would reduce the angst about the Second AIF needing to come home and some of the panic.

 

[jsb]

Those are the choices..Clipper it is.

As has been suggested above it's far to late a design to be useful? It needs to be in production and flying in 35/37 or it's going to get delayed to much.

A Dutch Dornier Do 24K-1 flying-boat
was always my first choice.

I don't see the overwhelming advantage over a Consolidated PBY Catalina that flew two years earlier?

I would go with something much smaller and with floats for the first Australian aircraft, probably a very small twin bush plane with floats?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I am not sure. How does that work in the Malay Settlements, Indonesia, the Solomon Islands or THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS? It might work but it is heavy and very short ranged as a mountain gun.

I am thinking that many units early war fought as Brigade sized formations or smaller without RA support - so the 3.7" would be a Battalion level weapon system along side the 3" mortar and Vickers guns (which the Aussies kept at Battalion as well as Division) - as their are places in SEA and South PAC that a 700 KG 3.7" pack howitzer (Broken down into 8 mule loads) can go that a 1600 KG 25 pounder cannot.

Its range is about 6000 meters and OTL was used in those theatres (not PH)

Note - this is not as a replacement for true artillery.

The only other weapon I would consider is the US 75mm pack howitzer - but it was not mature in the mid 30s and only went into really serious production from 1940+ with the USA only making 91 in the first 13 years of its existance.

But later in the war yes (but by then the US Built ones can be supplied etc)

Also the 3.7" is already in the system and used by the Indian army

47mm gun (3 pounder). Useful against likely threat armor in region. Might want to check out Walter Christie?

Main purpose of an Aussie tank in SEA and South Pac would be infantry support - flinging 20 pound HE shells would be its main day job.

Keep 1 tank per troop armed with a 2 pounder and later 6 pounder until the design matures into the QF 75mm armed version which can arm everything.

And keep the thing equipped with some 3.7" HEAT Shells

I am quite sure that the average Japanese tank is not going to enjoy being hit by a 20 pound HE shell either!

Also there is not a 47mm gun in the Commonwealth system.

Shrug. Any surplus 18 pounders for the...

What's a surplus 18 pounder?



Again the 3.7" is for Battalion work not RA units attached at Brigade/Division or higher

18 pounder.

Certainly build the 18 pounder in the late 30s but switch to the 18/25 pounder ASAP and then true 25 pounder when able (they built 25 pounders OTL pretty much as soon as they could)

The 18 pounder is too big for early tanks

 

[McPherson]

I don't see the overwhelming advantage over a Consolidated PBY Catalina that flew two years earlier?

I would go with something much smaller and with floats for the first Australian aircraft, probably a very small twin bush plane with floats?

1. About 6 to 8 patrol hours in the air. Australia is a huge country.
2. Lysander as mentioned.

 

[jsb]

1. About 6 to 8 patrol hours in the air. Australia is a huge country.

How does Do24 stay in the air longer if it's faster with shorter range? Do you have the endurance of them in similar missions?

2. Lysander as mentioned.

It's too & late high tech (large engine and wing spars) and I would like twin smaller cheaper engines if we are starting in 33 then a de Havilland DH.84 Dragon would be my choice.

 

[Father Maryland]

Might be worth it to buy a few dozen FT 17s in the early/mid 1930's. They should be available for virtual scrap prices at the time. Definitely won't be usable in Europe in OTL but during the 30's it will give Australian troops something to train on and against (and as importantly give mechanics experience in keeping one going). Theoretically even into early WW2 in the Pacific they could find some uses. Not deployed as actual tanks as such but to be used in training or as slightly mobile armored pillboxes. Stick a few penny packets at airfields and harbors in the North of Australia. Or theoretically send a few to the Australian pacific island possessions as a way of bypassing bans on peacetime fortification construction. They would be used more then anything else as a mobile pill box versus actually seeing large scale coordinated usage as tanks.

At least in the Pacific the Japanese were always lacking in AT gear (especially the infantry) and a lot of the Japanese island occupations were more or less just light infantry maybe with a couple of pack howitzers. Dealing with said landings or paratrooper drops could be doable if deployed right and supported by infantry. Japanese tanks were such (especially in the 30's) that the old 37mm "Trench Guns" that the cannon armed FT-17s might be able to actually pierce their armor. And it's not like the Japanese deployed a lot of tanks. Perhaps modify them slightly to suit Australian needs (Say replace the French machine guns with Vickers or Lewis guns (or later Bren guns).

I don't believe Australia actually had any tanks in the early/mid 1930's so they're better then nothing for training up crews and repairmen and perhaps as part of defenses. One of the biggest plus points would be the cheapness of spare parts at the time. Cheap to buy and relatively cheap to run. For Australia at the time that means a great deal.

Later on perhaps buy some Vickers 6 tons for a slight update.

I know the budget will be a big big issue for Australia. Perhaps have the Australian military officials discretely partner with a few sufficiently patriotic/nationalistic wealthy persons to help pay for small quantities of new gear to experiment on and try out. Various governments have tried that in the past.

In general sticking with British (or later on American) gear makes sense for standardization. Though part of me likes the insanity of Australia purchasing Czech made PZ 38s before the occupation of Czechoslovakia. Ya gotta admit the idea of the Japanese fighting Australian troops supported by Czech made PZ 38s would be pretty cool.

Be a pain to support of course with Czechoslovakia occupied. But they'd probably be better then any Japanese tank to the end of the war.

Panzer 35(t) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Panzer 38(t) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Crowbar Six]

Pretty much this. Neither ANZAC nation was really industrialized at the time and to my knowledge imported virtually all non agricultural manufactured goods from abroad. So you pretty much need to boost either or both nations industrial capacity. Perhaps higher tariffs on imported manufactured goods? Though I'm not sure how well that will play economically or politically in either nation.

Even with that boost you will still probably need to make the most of not a lot.

Considering the potential usage of ANZAC troops in tropical jungle conditions a SMG could prove pretty useful. I know a lot of Aussies here are very fond of the Owen gun but it seems like you'd really want a cheaper to produce and simpler design. Something like the STEN should be easily within the capabilities of the Aussies. Though personally I'd go with something like the US M3 "Grease Gun" since it seems to be nearly as cheap and simple to produce as the Sten while being better in a number of ways.

Another option which would probably be pretty useful would be to acknowledge that the ANZACs can't hope to produce everything they need and that with mounting tensions in Europe it's possible that GB's attention and resources might be devoted towards Europe. It's sounds horrible but from Britain's viewpoint keeping Nazis or Soviets out of Paris (let alone London) is a hell of a lot more important then keeping the Japanese out of Sydney or Wellington (Not that either is necessarily likely). So making plans to look outside of the Commonwealth/Empire for armaments, munitions, and potentially loans in the event of a war makes a lot of sense (though won't be popular in London). Off the top of my head the only Industrialized non commonwealth nation that fits the bill is the US. Even if large orders aren't forthcoming in the early and mid 30's it makes sense to build relationships with American firms in order to potentially rapidly order new production or purchase existing merchandise.

Similarly planning on how to fight alongside the US would probably be a good thing to say the least. Spend more effort on war planning on how to fight alongside the US and how to properly work together. While large scale international war games probably aren't doable in the cash strapped 30's you could theoretically at least have a larger exchange program where American/Anzac officers and senior NCO's spend some time surrounded by each other's armed forces.

If I recall correctly Australia scrapped or dumped into the sea large quantities of WW1 surplus ordnance and munitions to save money on storage costs around this time. Just not doing that could prove helpful. Similarly a lot of countries at this time are trying to sell or scrap vast quantities of WW1 surplus. The stuff might not be as good as brand new but it will be literal pennies on the dollar. Making plans to purchase said obsolescent gear and then upgrade at least some of it makes sense to me. Upgrading existing gear (as long as it's more basic) should be easier for Australia's limited industry then building new.

Oh and as a minor thing how about starting the "Flying Doctors" program early and using it as an excuse to build or at least plan out a number of small airfields and sea plane/flying boat facilities along the North Coast and other strategic locations. You could also probably spin it as a further Depression relief effort by using something along the lines of the US Civilian Conservation Corp. Namely having unemployed young men volunteer to do the work for some pay. Perhaps do some modest increases in certain strategic infrastructure using the same group. It's not really "A military build up" since the facilities have at least a nominal civilian use and the construction program might help a little with the unemployment rate while being relatively cheap.

They hated the STEN, and were not keen on the AUSTEN. Leave the Owen, it is more expensive but is utterly reliable and well liked.

 

[McPherson]

How does Do24 stay in the air longer if it's faster with shorter range? Do you have the endurance of them in similar missions?
It's too late high tech (large engine and wing spars) and I would like twin smaller cheaper engines if we are starting in 33 then a de Havilland DH.84 Dragon would be my choice.

It's cruise gives it a 350 km edge over a PBY. 6 to 8 hours is based on comparison of ABDA to Guadalcanal patrols. Faster is an advantage when ducking Oscars.

Dragon or Dragon Rapide? Some of those islands are a bit far apart.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

For use around the Islands I'd buy a licence for the Grumman Goose, and back them up with longer range flying boats or land planes.

 

[Jellico]

I am starting to wonder if we are too busy looking at the tech and not at the requirements? All that jungle fighting is only really a thing if the Japanese break out of the Malay barrier, and that isn't going to happen. Singapore
Even then the clear threat is in Europe.

With hindsight you would have to build some kind of choco force designed to irritate and delay around PNG with minimal hardware. Anything remotely front line is going to Europe, even in 1936. Even then you are reliant on the UK, US and Dutch coming to the party.

 

[jsb]

With hindsight you would

I think a fleet of merchant LSTs for working the Australian islands and coastline get the most return for your money?

They then pull the BEF off Dunkirk and then outflank the Italians in the Med so IJN never comes south......

 

[Father Maryland]

Amongst the war trophies brought back at the end of WW1 to Australia or New Zealand was there an MP18? If so just hope some bright spark sees it and develops an Ausssie/NZ version tailored for the local production capabilities. Even it it enters volume. production as late as early 1940 it would be a very useful weapon in the Jungle warfare of late 1941.

Were there any Australian troops on the Western front in 1918? To my knowledge virtually all of the few MP18s produced during the war got sent to the Western Front. It's theoretically possible that an Australian trooper could end up purchasing/trading for/ stealing a MP18 from his British or French counterparts.

I think right after the war ended they started making a MP18 copy in Switzerland (since German production was banned) though I'm not sure how good the sales figures were. More likely the idea of a SMG enters the Australian public conscious during the 1920's when reports start coming in about American Gangsters using the "Chicago Piano" during Prohibition. I'm not sure what Australian gun laws were at the time but in the US Thompson was selling brand new Tommy Guns with a case and a couple free magazines for 20 bucks US through mail order catalogs. Though sales were actually pretty poor partially because 20 bucks was a lot at the time. Perhaps the Australian army (or some sympathetic groups) end up purchasing a handful of "Tommy Guns" and end up playing with them giving them the idea for a better cheaper domestic product. Use the imported Thompson's in trials, training, some small scale war games, and let engineers screw around with them until they can make something better inspired by them.