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    must be you...   1/29/2009 9:48:36 PM
I tried it on two different rigs, works fine. (using IE7, even tried whatever the latest Firefox is, even seemed to work in Safari...)  http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmilep.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Easiest thing I would suggest would be manually typing in Tank-Net.Org (all their threads are funky number strings)
and scrolling down to the Modeller's Forum, it's listed in there...
 
He did a fine job...still, and taking into consideration when it was built, it certainly seems laden with shot traps and some odd ballistic shaping.
Proof against 37mm I'll wager...against 50L60 fire it might have been sorely lacking (it was the AC "1" after all).
 
It could possibly be a members-only thread, I don't know (some seem to do that).
Not like it's hard to get in there, either...
 
Props go out to scrathbuilder Coldsteel...
(pic courtesy of imageshack,..if it works!)
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9573/80211xt5.jpg" width="600" border="0" />
 
Yup, scratchbuilt.
Damn fine.
(but that bow machine gun armored sleeve sure looks funny!)
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    ...but then again...   1/29/2009 9:55:21 PM


Proof against 37mm I'll wager...against 50L60 fire it might have been sorely lacking (it was the AC "1" after all).

 

...after doing a few quick searches, Wiki suggests the AC1's armor base as
"Hull front 65 mm
sides and rear 45 mm
Turret 65 mm all round"
 
....so I suppose it could've held its own versus a Panzer III at a good distance,..if it had the 6pdr gun to respond in kind.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       1/30/2009 2:12:40 AM





Proof against 37mm I'll wager...against 50L60 fire it might have been sorely lacking (it was the AC "1" after all).



 




...after doing a few quick searches, Wiki suggests the AC1's armor base as

"Hull front 65 mm

sides and rear 45 mm

Turret 65 mm all round"

 

....so I suppose it could've held its own versus a Panzer III at a good distance,..if it had the 6pdr gun to respond in kind.

It was supposed to. Still think they should have configured for the 25 pounder in the AC-1. The tank could have used the British AT shell available for it at the time and been a sort of DP gun tank.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/31/2009 2:25:43 AM
I am curious as to why the Brit's Infantry Tanks, such as the Matilda and early Churchills, were armed with 2pdr AT guns instead of a 75mm / 3" with the sort of HE shell you would expect in the inf support role.
 
On the AC1, it was basically Australia's attempt to build an equivalent to the Covenanter / Crusader using technology and facilities available locally at the time.  Why, because the UK couldn't spare any to send to us.  This reliance on local resouces can be seen in some of the inovative solutions used, i.e. cast hull and turret because we had no facility to produce rolled armour plate.
 
Another thought I had was where would we have been come WWII if we had taken an interest in and adopted Christie based armoured vehicles during the late 20's early 30's?
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       1/31/2009 4:19:08 PM

I am curious as to why the Brit's Infantry Tanks, such as the Matilda and early Churchills, were armed with 2pdr AT guns instead of a 75mm / 3" with the sort of HE shell you would expect in the inf support role.

Curious about that, myself.  
 
Matilda II   Says the turret ring was too small for a larger gun.

On the AC1, it was basically Australia's attempt to build an equivalent to the Covenanter / Crusader using technology and facilities available locally at the time.  Why, because the UK couldn't spare any to send to us.  This reliance on local resources can be seen in some of the innovative solutions used, i.e. cast hull and turret because we had no facility to produce rolled armour plate.

British cruiser tank design philosophy-some (a few) American parts, Australian tech base. 

Another thought I had was where would we have been come WWII if we had taken an interest in and adopted Christie based armoured vehicles during the late 20's early 30's?
 
You would have to do what the British and Russians did,, buy an example and then ignore Christie as you went about solving your technical problems for yourselves. Christie was great on powertrains and automotive tracklaying suspensions for tanks, but from what I read about him, he could never just shut up and deliver a WHOLE tank to the customer's specs.  


 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/15/2009 5:55:28 AM
Another thought, 6pdr semi auto Molins gun as used by the RN on MGB, on the Sentinal as well as something like the AEC Armoured Car and on casemate type SPG with Christie suspenstion.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Educate me.   2/15/2009 9:18:49 AM

Another thought, 6pdr semi auto Molins gun as used by the RN on MGB, on the Sentinal as well as something like the AEC Armoured Car and on casemate type SPG with Christie suspenstion.

What is a Molins gun? Could that have been made into an OQF HA AAA weapon?
 
How heavy was it?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    here you go...   2/15/2009 11:22:09 AM
You can find info on the Molins, and other 57s, here:
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    here you go...   2/15/2009 11:25:22 AM
Feh!
Saw you beat me to it, over on the ships thread... 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    here you go...   2/15/2009 11:39:05 AM
 ...Could that have been made into an OQF HA AAA weapon?
 
Doubtful the 43-50 cal tubes would've given any respectable AA capability (would've been relatively short-ranged for the caliber, akin to comparing 2pdr AA guns to the 40 Bofors).
However, the Russians enjoyed more potential in their ~70-72 caliber tubes which we saw mature into the ZSU-57-2.
Turnabout even more as it's the basis of the new AU-220 mount, even if they use a cartridge that's comparably weak to the Bofors 57mm gun...
 
A shameless pitch on my behalf, but you can read the first two chapters here as a teaser.
Time travel aside, he hits on a lot of bringing to fruition the speculation we do here.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics