Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Pre WWII What If - Partial mechanisation and motorisation of the Australian Army
Volkodav    12/6/2008 8:55:15 AM
Been thinking on this one for a while. Post WWI Australia had one of the best militaries, man for man in the world. Our leaders, in particular Monash and Chauvel, were amoung the best. Even our soliders were well above average with many examples of individuals joining as Privates and ending up as Majors and Colonels (Percy Black and Harry Murray come to mind). The AIF was already well on the way to becoming motorised with Service Corps posessing thousands of vehicles and combined arms operations well and truely proven during 1918 in battles such as Hamel. Post war Chauvel pushed for mechanisation but instead it was decided, by polititians, that the true lesson of the Great War was that Australians were natural solidiers and as such there was no need to have a standing army. The assumption was than in the event of another war our citizens would simply take up arms and win the day. So instead of a Regular Army with Tanks, mechanised Infantry and Cavalry combat elements and motorised support echelons our army was gutted, the AIF disbanded and the greatest stupidity of all, Service Corps was forced to leave their vehicles in Europe and the hand full of units remaining in existance, reverted to horse drawn transport. Considering the known threats of Japanese Imperialism and Communist Expansionism my what if is that common sense applied instead of jingoism and expediency. -The RAR was formed in 1920 as motorised infantry using trucks as section vehicles and with Tankettes as support vehicles and all terrain tractors. -An Australian Tank Regiment with a number of battalions was formed to provide organic armoured support to each Motor Brigade. -The Cavalry was both motorised and mechanised with some units used as mounted infantry with armed trucks they could ride into battle and others were equiped with armoured cars to serve in the recc role. -above all Service Corps would have retained and even upgraded their vehicles. The other big change would be to dramatically increase the number of RAAF sqn's assigned to Army Cooperation. Depending on responses to this post I wouldn't mind getting into the nitty gritty of ORBAT's and specific equipment selection, even Aust specific evolutions and developments. Thoughts?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
HERALD1357    Bodged up nightmare.   1/7/2009 3:57:12 AM
http://mailer.fsu.edu/%7Eakirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-PrayingMantis-HomeGuard.jpg" width="650" height="451" />
 
Maybe on second thought some of those bodgers should have been assigned to mind hunting duty with a blunt stick?
 
And I thought some of the Marmon Harrington junk floating around at the time was junk!
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/7/2009 5:46:53 AM
T-16 Carrier of the Lake Superior Regimenthttp://www.diggerhistory.info/images/tanks/t16-carrier.jpg" width="600" NOSAVE />
 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       1/7/2009 6:50:36 AM
Herald, back to school for you.    100 x $20'000 is $2'000'000. not $20'000'000.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       1/7/2009 8:34:36 AM

I don't know. A Stug made out of a universal carrier with a 57/30 for its main armament?

 

That still is a lot of gun for a relatively small chassis.

 

Herald


 




 



Looking at that British Self Propelled Guns website,
and scrolling down to the Archer entry (17pdr on a Valentine chassis),
I suddenly remembered the Russian ASU-57 (not a ton of good websites on it).
 
ASU-57 (from Jane's A&A)
weight: 3350kg (app 3.7 tons)
crew: 3
armament: 57mm Ch-51 series gun (1.76kg HVAP projectile @ 1255m/sec penetrates 100mm @ 0° @ 1000m (ideally))
ammo: 30 rounds carried (typically no secondary armament other than crew's personal weapons)
hull length: 3.48m ( app 11&1/2 feet )
hull width: 2.086m ( just under 7 feet)
height: 1.18m ( just under 4 feet)
armor: 6mm
engine: 55hp @ 3600rpm, 4-cylinder petrol, 250km range on 140 liters of fuel
 
Compare that to the Universal Carrier (as per Wiki entry, 3-road wheel model, not the 4-road wheel Carden Lloyd chassis)
weight: 3.75 tons
crew: 2
armament: Bren MG, Boys AT rifle
hull length: 3.65m (app 12 feet)
hull width: 2.11m (app 6&1/2 feet)
height: 1.57m (just over 5 feet)
armor: 10mm max
engine: 85hp @ 3500rpm V8, 250km range
 
So, with the proper lay out, the UC could've fitted the 6pdr gun (probably better suited for the 4-road wheel CL chassis).
Looking at the Alecto entry on the British SPG page though, a key note is: "Upon historical reflection, this tank would have been a deathtrap as SPGs tended to draw all sorts of unwanted attention on the battlefiled and the armor was too thin to stop even a simple rifle bullet. "
 
So without adequate armor, putting bigger guns on small vehicles is just asking for too much unwanted attention.
However, being relatively small, the UC-based SPG would be much easier to conceal in ambush positions.
Seeing as the UC chassis couldn't have supported the additional weight of a lot of extra armor in addition to a big gun and its ammo,  it would have been a good idea to improve the chassis and engine to allow for greater acceleration (forward and reverse) to shoot-n-scoot rather quickly, as once those first few shots are fired, the element of surprise is lost.
 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    HaIRY MAN REPLY   1/7/2009 9:44:57 AM

Herald, back to school for you.    100 x $20'000 is $2'000'000. not $20'000'000.
Yep. Second math typo in TWO days and I LOOKED right at it and missed it.
 
Need a vacation!
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       1/8/2009 11:23:11 AM
Actually, a better bet might have been to copy the British "Experimental Mechanised Force", especially the Birch gun, which was basically a Vickers Medium tank, with a 75mm gun. Now, to update it, you could base it on a newer type, such as the Cruiser MkIII.
 
The experimental force was based around a series of specialised types. For recon, tankettes or armoured cars were used (updated, you could use the Universal Carrier, some fitted with the 2pdr gun, some with the 3in mortar). Armoured support would come from Cruiser MkIIIs, armed with 2pdr guns (but hopefully built to allow upgrade to the 6pdr once it becomes available). Add in air defence, also using the Universal Carrier, based on the American quad .50cal mount, and you've got a pretty decent mini Blitzkrieg!
 
There would then be normal artillery and trucks for support - the infantry should be motorised, along the lines of German Panzergrenadier forces. They used a ten/twelve man unit; there were two assigned to the vehicle (one driver, one gunner, for the mounted MG34/42), and ten dismounts, with one or two MG34/42, and the rest of the troops equipped with a mix of Kar98Ks and MP38s. The ten troops could dismount, and act as two five-man units, or the driver and gunner could dismount as well, boosting firepower as well. For Aussie forces, this could be translated to M1919 or Bren guns, Lee Enfields (or even Garands ideally) and Austens or Thompsons.
 
The whole mechanised/motorised force would rely on common equipment, initially 2pdr guns for anti-tank duties, and 75mm guns for artillery. As the war progresses, this would simply transform into 6pdr or 17pdr guns, and 25pdr howitzers. The equipment and doctrine may need to be modified, but the overall structure would probably remain pretty constant. For facing the Japanese, the older kit would probably remain useful, since the Japanese never really went in for modern tanks, since their old light tanks were well suited to jungle ops.
 
For Aussie industry, the best thing would have been for Britain to distribute its war production capacity earlier - e.g. establish an engine facility in Australia, for the Merlin engine (for aircraft purposes) and Liberty engine (for tanks). If this happened, then it would have been a heck of a lot easier for Australia to beef up once the war started.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/10/2009 9:20:25 AM
For Aussie industry, the best thing would have been for Britain to distribute its war production capacity earlier - e.g. establish an engine facility in Australia, for the Merlin engine (for aircraft purposes) and Liberty engine (for tanks). If this happened, then it would have been a heck of a lot easier for Australia to beef up once the war started.
 
Or better still forget the Liberty and mass produce the Meteor along side the Merlin for AFV applications.  It was a much better engine and would also have offered significant advantages through economy of scale and commonality of the majority of components.  During the war Meteors were built as such from scratch but also from surplus older model Merlin blocks and with components rejected on quality grounds for use on Merlins.
 
A suitable second engine line would have been for the Bristol Hercules Sleeve Valve Radial as used in the Beaufighter with a possible future concurrent production of the Centaurus for the original radial engined designs for the CAC CA-15.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       1/10/2009 11:17:55 AM

The whole mechanised/motorised force would rely on common equipment, initially 2pdr guns for anti-tank duties, and 75mm guns for artillery. As the war progresses, this would simply transform into 6pdr or 17pdr guns, and 25pdr howitzers. The equipment and doctrine may need to be modified, but the overall structure would probably remain pretty constant. For facing the Japanese, the older kit would probably remain useful, since the Japanese never really went in for modern tanks, since their old light tanks were well suited to jungle ops.

 
Sounds good.
But again, here I still wonder the sense of "downscaling" to the 40mm caliber of the 2pdr gun when the British already had the 3pdr/47mm caliber that could've carried a more useful general purpose HE support shell than what the 2pdrs got (or rather, didn't get), as well as the potential for better AP perfomance with a more ideal barrel length and cartridge/case size.
If we're going to contemplate the foresight to have developed a better class of light vehicles back in the day, why can't we also predict then that the 2pdr would prove, in time, to be a relative weakness (especially so for its widespread lack of HE) when compared to Axis weapons of 37-50mm (37mm included because it generally did have more access to HE, even cannister types).
Or we could've skipped the 2pdr altogether, and just went with the 6pdr to replace all those 3pdr types already in pre-War service.
 
As to making it upgradeable as bigger guns came along, that's only common sense (worked well enough with the Crusaders).
Especially for the PTO, high velocity AP guns weren't really needed against the threat armor there (Italian tanks in the Med Theater weren't impressive, either).
Seeing where the British took HESH in the postwar era (especially with the L23 of the Scorpion), I wonder how effective HESH shells would've been had they been developed sooner and achieved mass prodruction, for a gun like the Alecto's 95mm close support howitzer (as used also in the Centaur IV ).
Further developing the 3.7inch mountain howitzer much sooner might have skipped over the 25pdr design altogether.

If, as the one article there suggests, the 95mm CSH was intended to mount in place of a 6pdr tank gun, that could solve a lot of problems right there, as those could've been the two calibers to focus on, not needing then to also make production effort for all the various 2pdr, 75/76mm (tank guns and howitzers), and 25pdr class munitions also...
The 6pdr could've started, as mentioned in that alternate 1930s tank gun article, with a shorter case, and evolved to or beyond what we the 6pdr gun culminate in by War's end (even to the 72-cal barrel of the Russian 57mm gun), and could've developed earlier as per the Bofors gun into a highly-capable automatic DP gun for ships.
The 95mm/3.7" class we saw not only in these howitzers, but also in the various 3.7" AA guns, with the pinnacle of development there becoming the 32-pdr AT gun (pity the Tortoise heavy AFV was the only real outcome of that program, it would've been a superb gun for the Centurion, more than a match for any Tiger model, and even completely negating the devlopment need of the 20-pdr, and possibly delaying 105mm developments post-War).
Twin 3.7" DP guns on frigates and destroyers could've been quite potent.
Would've made for an interesting Allied SP artillery gun, akin to the German Hornisse, and with a AT performance that the Bishop, Sexton, and Priest lacked.
 
I realize that howitzers and guns of the same caliber utilize different charges and cases, but the machinery and tooling for forging and forming the actual shells may have been able to share more commonality than needing the tooling necassary for a dozen different calibers.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/11/2009 4:22:16 AM
An interesting fact is that the British 75mm Tank Gun, developed to fire US 75mm HE and AP rounds as used by the M3 Grant/Lee and Sherman was actually a bored out and rechambered QF 6 Pounder Tank Gun.  Ironically, while it was far superior interms of its HE shell it AP performance was inferior to the original 57mm. 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    75's from 57's....   1/11/2009 11:38:47 PM
Yeah, I could see that: reboring a 50-cal 57mm tube would give a 38-cal 75mm tube, depending on chamber depth.
Here again though, I wonder the sense in using the 50-cal 57mm tubes, as they were slightly better in velocity over the earlier 43-cal tubes (production defects?).
 
Still, other than the obvious gain in HE usefulness, it's a crying shame that the Allies actually had the mentality that a better HE support shell far outweighed the obvious deficiencies of a lower velocity (even if it was heavier) armor piercing shell.
I wonder how many crews lost their lives just because of that (and a failed mentality, principally by the US, that purpose-designed tank destroyers were more deserving of higher velocity guns and their better armor piercing shells, because tanks were supposed to support infantry, not square off against other tanks, even though actual tactics have demonstrated otherwise)...?
 
Here again, in hindsight, maybe we could've convinced the US to not build the stopgap Lee/Grant altogether, and put that effort into the Sherman sooner (or Sentinel?), and with the reality that higher-velocity 76mm guns would be better than medium-velocity 75mm guns principally intended as HE throwers.
The math suggests that any 76mm shell should be designable (?) to be at least equal to the HE payload of any 75mm shells...
And there's little reason we couldn't have messed about with the 76mm HE support shell to get the ideal range, velocity, and trajectory. It needn't necessarily match the same ballistic path as the AP shells, even though the different types then would require additional training for crews, seeing as we didn't have the complex fire control systems back then to automatically make those calculations.
 
Another issue in hindsight: with the British losing umpteen 2pdrs at the evacuation of Dunkirk being a key reason why the 2pdr stayed in production longer (make up the loses for fear of invasion), we could've just said "hang it all" and went for broke in getting the 6pdr into production and service sooner, including converting lines from 2pdr ammo to 6pdr ammo....
 
Any good fiction writers here?
Sounds like we have a good Foresight Australia in the making...
 
Back to the opening argument of this thread, "The other big change would be to dramatically increase the number of RAAF sqn's assigned to Army Cooperation. "
 
What would be the aircraft of choice here?
Was the Boomerang ever really considered a successful-enough aircraft, to the point it would have been worth it to have it developed maybe a year, year-and-a-half sooner?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics