Pre WWII What If - Partial mechanisation and motorisation of the Australian Army

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

doggtag 1/15/2009 4:15:34 PM

As to Sentinel developments later: if Australia could prove capable of designing a 17pdr-friendly turret by its demonstration of a turret armed with two 25pdrs, there's no reason that same turret couldn't have fitted a high performance 18pdr gun (in effect, the 20pdr concept in all but name), more than a match for Axis armor (just not in any useful numbers anytime soon, if we stick to the current history timeline).

The 18 pdr howitzer is NOT the 18 pdr gun.

(Didn't realiz I was that close to the end of the post...)
On this note,..

definition of develop :

To bring from latency to or toward fulfillment: an instructor who develops the capabilities of each student.

To expand or enlarge: developed a national corporation into a worldwide business.
To aid in the growth of; strengthen: exercises that develop muscles.
To improve the quality of; refine: develops his recipes to perfection; an extra year of study to develop virtuosic technique.

...Going into WW2, the German s started off with a rather unimpressive (unless you were on the receiving end) L24 75mm gun in early Panzer IVs as a fire support complement to the tanks armed with higher velocity 50mm guns,

and the Panzer IV eventually matured to carry a very competent 75L48 gun, not to mention the highll potent L70 used both in the Panther and the lesser-known Jagdpanzer built on the Panzer IV chassis.

And seeing the various 75 and 76mm guns that cycled thru the Allied ranks, why couldn't the 18pdr howitzer (field gun) have evolved further, thru development, into a more formidable high performance tank gun?

If this mechanisation brigade/regiment had gotten off the ground even by the late 1920s, with Australian industry slowly tooling up to support it, then they would've settled on a general purpose artillery piece before the 25pdr plans and tooling were available.

With that investment of capital and industry, and the logistics chain implemented into Australian service in the late 1920s/early 1930s, adoption of the 25pdr going into the 1940s may have gone about much slower than what history teaches us did occur.

Had the Australians taken to the 18pdr over any 3" types coming out of WW1, they certainly would've had the opportunities, and learning curve, to improve away from the the faults the British found with that gun caliber, and even slight improvements (shell designs, range, even adapting away from fixed ammo to accept artillery-style charge increments) might've negated their adoption of the 25pdr altogether. By 1942, their armaments industry should've been well established enough they could've made that decision (to drop that caliber altogether in favor of the 25pdr or something else entirely, or stick with it).

...Biggest typo in that last post: it wasn't the Saracen (APC variant) that had the L18 series 76mm support gun, but rather the Saladin.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 I'm short on tIme so I'll try to squeeze as much in as I can. 1/15/2009 6:19:11 PM

Of all the points I hoped to make I wanted to make these.

1. The tooling for making a howitzer barrel and a gun barrel blank into a working weapon.is different. The guns aren't usually even made the same exact way a howitzer us..The working dynamic pressures of propellant that is sufficient to lob a shell are 1/3x to 1/2x the pressures you would find in a gun that hurls one. Gun barrels are thicker, some use a different build up process. You probably have the same Ian Hogg books I do. Doesn't he describe this difference when he writes about HOW guns, howitzers and mortars are made?

2. The reason I keep harping about the 1890's era naval guns, is that when it came time to field the new steel navies that the world powers built to murder each other, their anti-torpedo boat guns were in the 47mm-88mm range and usually about 45-60 calibers long. Those navies usually had what were called "boat howitzers" or "signal guns" in the same bore range.

Come the First World War and nobody has a modern artillery park-not even the French.

Where do you COTS modern artillery designs for the army?

Anchors aweigh!

Like rockets, guns and howitzers don't care what the mount is or what the target is. The devices just obey ballistics and chemistry. "I need a howitzer that can throw a 18 pound shell around 6500 yards etc." Enter Armstrong Whiteworth with a destroyer boat gun around 85mm bore as the base design barrel, etc. A few chops and slashes later-OQF 18 pounder. That barrel goes back to 1888..

Except for the Schneider 75mm, the US 90 mm. and the 25 pounder, I think this was the general line of development for every tank gun/howitzer we mentioned: naval gun to AAA gun to AT gun and/or howitzer.

The land based descendants had to be downsized to fit the weak mounts that we could build then.

3. Hard as it is to believe, the Vickers 6 tonner tank was the state of the art for tanks from 1927-1937. After 1939 then let is outclassed by even the awful Marmon Harrington C series tanks.

4. If Australia could have built an H-35 clone with an acceptable Oerlikon gun in a two man turret in 1934, she would have over leaped US developments at that point. Something around 10 tonnes would be reasonable using either Caterpillar small bogey or Marmon Herrington railroad truck type medium sized wheel track laying mechanisms. I would use the MH track layer at that point because Australia has a locomotive works and can build it.

5. Where water is scarce and engine mechanics scarcer, you use the air-cooled radial engine. The best air cooled engines in the world in 1934 are the Pratts. License a small one and build it for tanks and aircraft.

6. What's wrong with rear drive? You can use electrical clutching for your steering and engine transmission. In a light tank the weight penalty isn't that much. Again this is locomotive technology and Australia should either be able to do it locally or license it to do locally.

7. Armor early will be thin as you cast it, but who cares? The basis for a three man tank is what you aim to 1934 achieve.at a base cost of $23,000 Aus for a 100 machine run. Call it the Wallaby 1. Next tank for 1938 or thereabouts will be the Sentinel AC-1 with your 18 pounder surplus barrels you bought from Canada until your foundry starts making 25 pounders for your AC-3s.

Herald.

Quote Reply

doggtag you've covered it well enough... 1/16/2009 9:37:33 AM

(must make mental note to one's self: if posting a really big reply, 'tis a good idea to number separate topics to make replying easier than reposting entire previous threads in bits and pieces...)

# 1& 2 together:

(I have no idea anymore exactly whose and how many books I have stacked and stashed around the house.

When I find something new to keep close to the computer, the old goes off the bookshelf and into a box in the attic...

But I know there are quite a few Hogg books, countless stuff by Foss and partners, and who knows who else.)

As to gun manufacture, I can't directly say I know which Hogg books or articles you're specifically implying, but know that varying tube artillery requirements aren't all built identically (mortars can be much thinner-walled due to lower velocities, medium caliber guns can be fabricated from boring out rods on lathes and other rotating machinery, and the reqally big guns of cruisers and BBs and such have sometimes been helically cast as hot metal around a solid round blank of necessary length, and somehow congeal and cool into solid tubes that can be machine-finished to tolerance afterwards.

As to all the higher-performance "guns" being naval and land warfare only principally using howitzers and mortar types in WW1 and other wars of that era, I find it odd, especially considering numerous articles we can read about how a given nation's naval elements "landed" various guns (fashioned to ad hoc chassis and trunnion assemblies that allowed them to be assembled & disassembled and moved around as needed) to support elements in ground battle.

But there again, ships at sea had armor, and a lot of closer-ranged WVR fighting required flat trajectories and high velocities to pierce side armors. Until the advent of heavily-armored AFVs on land, there wasn't seen as a whole lot of need for large diameter high velocity guns firing AP type ammo, so howitzers and mortars offering plunging fire were deemed plenty sufficient.

# 3 & 4, even 5, together:

Considering all the more complex that technology was back in those days, I defintely see it possible that, if much of Europe knew how to build at least WW1 type AFVs, certainly enough smart people in Australia could've worked together to at least get that level of industrial base built in Australia going into the 1920s ()but there again, why were AFV production facilities used on a sea-locked (opposite of land-locked) nation, who was principally seen as fighting enemies at sea if not as infantry in land warfare?

It just doesn't seem like the attitudes and ideals of the day really saw anything more for Australia's military capabilities (there wasn't a lot of post-WW1 interest in aviation manufacturing down under, either, and history shows just how valuable an aset aviation became: those WW1-era engines weren't such mechanical nightmares that concerted Australian efforts couldn't have learned quickly enough to at least be on par (industry-wise knowledge base) with late-1920s Europe).

Those early developments in aviation powerplants would've then given them what they needed to progress into AFV engines.

And like you mentioned: if they could handle manufacturing and maintaining the mechanical complexities of steam locomotives, then they weren't really too "behind the curve" as far as when compared to Europe's industrial know-how.

# 6: there's nothing wrong with rear drive. I was actually complaing that the suck-all of US-designed tanks especially, and plenty of others,

had engines at the back: in the US, the radial just didn't provide enough room for a transmission bach there beside it,

and in other nations inlines and V-types were mounted transversely to the hull because of their lengths,

so out of necessity, a drive shaft had to be run up to the front where there was room for transmissions and final drive sprockets.

Especially for the US because of the large cross section of a radial necessitating additional hull height (see blueprints of the Lee, for example), but certainly for everyone else using that engine-rear-transmission-front layout: that drive shaft running up to the front meant that the turret floor had to be raised high enough to allow safe clearance, and in kind meant that the turret was going to sit higher overall on the vehicle, thus giving higher silhouettes in general.

So until someone came out with more compact engines allowing them to be nextdoor neighbors with the transmission and drive sprockets all fighting tightly togetherthere in the rear of the AFV, rear drive sprockets just weren't technically feasible,...unless you mounted the engine up front, in a

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 1/16/2009 2:57:57 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/M2-tank-england.gif" width="600" height="444" />

doggtag you've covered it well enough... 1/16/2009 9:37:33 AM

(must make mental note to one's self: if posting a really big reply, 'tis a good idea to number separate topics to make replying easier than reposting entire previous threads in bits and pieces...)

# 1& 2 together:

(I have no idea anymore exactly whose and how many books I have stacked and stashed around the house.

When I find something new to keep close to the computer, the old goes off the bookshelf and into a box in the attic...

But I know there are quite a few Hogg books, countless stuff by Foss and partners, and who knows who else.)

:) Mine goes into the library room.

As to gun manufacture, I can't directly say I know which Hogg books or articles you're specifically implying, but know that varying tube artillery requirements aren't all built identically (mortars can be much thinner-walled due to lower velocities, medium caliber guns can be fabricated from boring out rods on lathes and other rotating machinery, and the really big guns of cruisers and BBs and such have sometimes been helically cast as hot metal around a solid round blank of necessary length, and somehow congeal and cool into solid tubes that can be machine-finished to tolerance afterwards.

The blanks are usually tap bored, Some of the barrels are built ups from hooped or ?coopered? style processes. Some of the blanks become bored out wire wraps etc, but the point is that a modern barrel is more or less ?built up?.

The guns were too heavy. Even some of the US medium artillery of WW II was too heavy to be moved as anything but two piece barrels.

Schneider 75mm.s?

# 3 & 4, even 5, together:

Considering all the more complex that technology was back in those days, I definitely see it possible that, if much of Europe knew how to build at least WW1 type AFVs, certainly enough smart people in Australia could've worked together to at least get that level of industrial base built in Australia going into the 1920s ()but there again, why were AFV production facilities used on a sea-locked (opposite of land-locked) nation, who was principally seen as fighting enemies at sea if not as infantry in land warfare?

This confuses me. Do you mean to tell me that you think many nations were capable of building tanks in 1935?

The British

The French

The Germans

The Italians

The Russians

The Japanese

The Americans

The Canadians

The Australians

That is it. Those are the nations that could build tanls

Quote Reply

Volkodav 1/17/2009 4:19:02 AM

But the kicker there still is, how would Australia have been convinced that it needed to produce AFVs for land warfare, prior to WW2 (1920s)?

From Wikipedia, I have read the same in a number of books but good old wiki copies and pastes...specifically Jellico predicted Japans actions in SEA and the Pacific 20 years before they eventuated and while his report concentrated on Naval and Airforces a strong mechanised AIF would have been a stronger (and cheaper) deterent to invasion than any fleet or airforce we could have fielded...........

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Following the end of World War I, the Australian Government believed that an immediate evaluation of the RAN was necessary. Australia had based its naval policy on the Henderson Recommendations of 1911, developed by Sir Reginald Henderson. The government sent an invitation to Admiral John Jellicoe, he arrived in Australia in May 1919. Jellicoe remained in Australia for three months, before returning to England via New Zealand and Canada. Jellicoe submitted his findings in August 1919, titled the Report on the Naval Mission to the Commonwealth. The report outlined several policies designed to strengthen British naval strength in the Pacific Ocean. The report heavily stressed a close relationship between the RAN and the Royal Navy. This would be achieved by strict adherence to the procedures and administration methods of the Royal Navy. The report also suggested constant officer exchange between the two forces. Jellicoe also called for the creation of a large Far East Imperial Fleet, which would be based in Singapore and include capital ships and aircraft carriers. The creation cost for this fleet was to be be divided between Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand: contributing 75%, 20%, and 5% respectively. The suggested makeup of the RAN would include; one aircraft carrier, two battlecruisers, eight light cruisers, one flotilla leader, twelve destroyers, a destroyer depot ship, eight submarines, one submarine depot ship, and a small number of additional auxiliary ships. The annual cost and depreciation of the fleet was estimated to be £4,024,600. With the exception of implementing closer tier with the Royal Navy, none of Jellicoe's major recommendations were carried out.^[18]

With the end of World War I, the Australian Government began to worry about the threat Japan posed to Australia. Japan had extended its empire 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) to the south, bringing it right to Australia's doorstep. Japan had continued to build up its naval force, and had reached the point where it outgunned the Royal Navy in the Pacific. The RAN and the government believed that the possibility of a Japanese invasion was highly likely. In his report, Admiral Jellicoe believed that the threat of a Japanese invasion of Australia would remain as long as the White Australia Policy remained in place. Due to the perceived threat, and bilateral support in Australia for the White Australia Policy, the Australian Government became a vocal supporter of the continuance of the 1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Australia was joined in its support for the alliance by New Zealand but was heavily opposed by Canada, which believed that the alliance had hindered the British Empire's relationship with China and the United States. No de

Quote Reply

Volkodav 1/27/2009 6:15:59 AM

A thought on an APC option available using prewar technology, a Morris C8 Quad based wheeled APC, similar in concept to the long serving Humber Pig.

Quote Reply

doggtag 1/27/2009 4:01:13 PM

.....a Morris C8 Quad based wheeled APC,........

I remember this one from an old MRC Tamiya model kit catalog from the late 1980s.

Stretch it out a bit, further refine it into various models like the Humvee and Bushmaster....

Catch: how much armor protection could the mechanical bits of the day have handled, for a fully-enclose 4x4 truck?

If I was in the market for something with a little more backbone to be a wheeled APC type, I'd have considered a full box body (sloped sides?) built on the M25 tank transporter's M26 tractor.

Seems like they got a pretty good ballistic front to it (3/4inch armor front, 1/4 inch at the sides), we'd really only need a good passenger compartment design with an enclosed roof and a good in/out ramp at the back.

That, or a 1930s design leading up to it (refined Scammel?), could've been interesting.

There again, back then there wasn't much sense seen in giving truck-mobile infantry much armor protection during the movement: after all, we wouldn't want them getting to the battle area only to have them stay in the truck because it had more protection than canvas tarps (infantry were just that: the get-out-and-go-fight-on-your-feet divisions of armies).

But to have MG- and rifle-fire resistant logistics trucks for personnel and other important stuff (ammo, fuel) could've given a worthwhile tactical advantage.

Major disadvantage is a high, boxy truck that would've been easy prey for all those light guns of 20mm & 37mm, who could've been set up in ambush positions the infantry didn't fan out to find on foot because they were too comfy and secure riding in those trucks...

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Volkodav 1/29/2009 6:23:25 AM

Sorry to bust your bubble but a mechanised AIF would have been pretty useless in the absence of a strong RAN. This is because the Jap's could just have blockaded Australia until we ran out of petroleum products to run our fleet of AFV's on.

Quote Reply

doggtag ...for those of you with a pnchant for the Sentinel... 1/29/2009 2:16:29 PM

...there's a guy over on Tank-Net who built an AC1 from scratch!

Quite impressive.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 1/29/2009 5:45:21 PM

...there's a guy over on Tank-Net who built an AC1 from scratch!

Quite impressive.

Your link has a corrupted strong in it. Can you reformat it please?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT