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
Volkodav       1/12/2009 1:57:40 AM
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?).
 
There was apparently  a shortage of lathes long enough to turn the 50-cal barrels.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       1/12/2009 6:50:08 AM
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.
The problem came from North Africa, where the British forces encountered the deadly '88s, and found that the anti-tank 6pdr (and of course the smaller 2pdr) was borderline useless on these, and the German infantry around them. As such, tanks were being lost for lack of a suitable HE round. This meant that Britain wanted, as an interim option, to use the American 75mm, simply because it already had a reasonable HE shell. The theory was, presumably, to mix them into the regular tank units, e.g. two or three 6pdr-armed tanks, and one or two 75mm armed ones; this would be similar to what ended up happening with the Sherman Fireflies. The Firefly had the excellent 17pdr gun, and these were fitted to Shermans, and assigned to regular Sherman units.
The overriding problem here was the lack of a good AP and HE firing gun in the right timeframe. The same sort of thing was arguably true of the man portable anti-tank weapons. The American Bazooka was relatively easy to use and had decent range, but poor armour piercing capability; on the other hand, the British PIAT was harder to use, poor reliability, but had an excellent armour piercing capability. If we had scaled the Bazooka up, to use a PIAT-derived warhead, then it would have solved a lot of the problems encountered by troops using them.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    DT   1/12/2009 7:38:33 AM
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?
It would have undoubtedly been useful to have had the Boomerang a year earlier. It was no good as a fighter but useful as a AC aircraft and the experience might have meant we could have built a better fighter in time for the latter part of the war.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    DT   1/12/2009 7:41:10 AM

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?


It would have undoubtedly been useful to have had the Boomerang a year earlier. It was no good as a fighter but useful as a AC aircraft and the experience might have meant we could have built a better fighter in time for the latter part of the war.

 

 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       1/12/2009 10:09:57 AM

Yeah, I could see that: reboring a 50-cal 57mm tube would give a 38-cal 75mm tube, depending on chamber depth.
 
Not an artillery expert, that would be within Australian capability? .

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?).

Significantly better.

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.
 
Dual purpose guns were then the correct choice in Europe and North Africa. Most of a tank's time was spent killing infantry and other soft targets. Rarely did tanks fight other tanks. In the Pacific this was even more the case, where the tank's main enemy was the Japanese pillbox, or coconut log bunker

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)...?

The US fault was not building something like the  M-36 Jackson  tank destroyer sooner when the pieces were ready in 1942. The AC-3 Sentinel might have been a good weapon carrier for the 90 mm gin though I think the QF-25 pounde.wouldf have served just as well provided that a Munroe Effect shell was one of the types of anmmunition thatn went with it .
 
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.
 
CREF above.

The math suggests that any 76mm shell should be designable (?) to be at least equal to the HE payload of any 75mm shells...
 
The math does not. All other things being equal, the math suggests to me that the differnce between 13,000 g sharp start and 22,000 g sharp start means that the cargo body needs at least 2x  thickness from one tpo the other before the same length shell is CRUSHED, 1 mm is not a significant offset when we look at 1/3 cm difference in thickness assumiong same steels.  

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.

In WW II tank guns were set up already to have two different firing tables and aiming guides between the AP and HE shells trajectories calculated over the range sets. The HE shells used lesser propeelant charges and were lobbed.  

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....

Lathes are entirely different as are the bore out machinery. Otherwise the British would have done so. 

Any good fiction writers here?
 
Blue Wings hasn't posted recently.

Sounds like we have a good Foresight Australia in the making...

Maybe there is someone. 
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       1/12/2009 11:16:33 AM
The alternative to building more 2pdr guns post Dunkirk, pending availability of the 6pdr, would be to simply go for the existing 25pdr, using AP and later rounds (the Canadians were developing shaped charge rounds, and HESH could have been developed at the same time). The 6pdr would still be built, and fitted to many tanks, but probably to be accompanied by tanks mounting the 25pdr. It should also be possible to fit the 25pdr to the American M3 halftracks (and 6pdrs for that matter, as the Soviets did); these would then become mobile screening forces.
 
On a side note, it might have been interesting to see the Aussies being tasked with building tanks for Britain, from the late thirties. Australia, with foresight, sees that the Liberty engine is going to be too weak in future, and isn't produced in Australia anyway, so a derated version of the Merlin is chosen instead, enter the Meteor... They see the way tank development is going, and decide to start with a bigger tank design, since there is plenty of engine power available. An Aussie delegation to London reviews available intelligence on German and Russian tank designs; particularly the Russian KV-1, and the rumours of the sloped-armour of what was to become the T-34. The delegation comes back, and a new design, weighing around 30 tons, and designed to use the largest practical gun, namely the 25pdr. With around 500-600hp, sloped armour, and a large gun, it becomes an instant hit, boasting excellent mobility and firepower.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/13/2009 5:18:01 AM
On a side note, it might have been interesting to see the Aussies being tasked with building tanks for Britain, from the late thirties. Australia, with foresight, sees that the Liberty engine is going to be too weak in future, and isn't produced in Australia anyway, so a derated version of the Merlin is chosen instead, enter the Meteor... They see the way tank development is going, and decide to start with a bigger tank design, since there is plenty of engine power available. An Aussie delegation to London reviews available intelligence on German and Russian tank designs; particularly the Russian KV-1, and the rumours of the sloped-armour of what was to become the T-34. The delegation comes back, and a new design, weighing around 30 tons, and designed to use the largest practical gun, namely the 25pdr. With around 500-600hp, sloped armour, and a large gun, it becomes an instant hit, boasting excellent mobility and firepower.
 
Sentinel AC4, 600Hp RR Meteor, 17 Pounder (Gun tanks) 25 Pounder (Support tanks), torsion bar suspension.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       1/13/2009 6:31:46 AM

Sentinel AC4, 600Hp RR Meteor, 17 Pounder (Gun tanks) 25 Pounder (Support tanks), torsion bar suspension.
Yes!

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/13/2009 7:14:04 AM



Sentinel AC4, 600Hp RR Meteor, 17 Pounder (Gun tanks) 25 Pounder (Support tanks), torsion bar suspension.


Yes!




Basically an M-48 Patton a decade earlier.
 
One thing I would have liked to have seen in 1942 would have been Australia sending our 3 armoured divisions to the Mediterranean in exchange for the UK sending us additional Light Infantry, especially Ghurkha's to fight in NG and SEA/Pacific.
 
Now an Armoured Corps of 3 Armoured divisions equiped with AC4's and maybe even 5.5" SPG's and an APC built on a related chassis.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       1/13/2009 9:06:37 AM

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?).
 

There was apparently  a shortage of lathes long enough to turn the 50-cal barrels.



Yes, I understand that was a reason that the 50-cal 57mm tubes weren't produced from the outset.
But that still doesn't answer why there were 50-cal 57mm tubes being re-bored and turned into 38-cal 75mm tubes.
Were there defects in those barrels, perhaps in those first several weeks when the gunwrights (?) were familiarizing with the bigger lathes?
Just curious, as it seems the 50-cal 57mm tubes would've been the better AT gun than the earlier 43-cal tubes,
so why else would I waste their armor piercing performance to turn them into better HE throwers?
 
On another note, the Russian ZiS-2 57mm gun, using a ~70 tube, entered service initially in 1941.
Interesting that the British couldn't have negotiated longer lathes in a reverse Lend-Lease kinda thing with the Russians, as the additional velocities a ~70-cal tube can achieve over anything 43-50-cal should be obvious.
(But again, there still the relatively lackluster HE performance, at least when compared to 75mm).
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics