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: What could have been - Australian between wars ship building
Volkodav    2/1/2009 5:25:06 AM
Australia built its own destroyers and cruisers before and during WWI with the light cruiser HMAS Adelaide, commisioned in 1922, being the last Australian built warship to enter service before WWII. Our destroyers were surplus WWI RN ships and our new Heavy Cruisers were ordered from the UK with the only new construction in Australia consiting of a seaplane carrier and a couple of sloops. Three modern light cruisers and several more WWI vintage destroyers were bought during the mid/late 30's to bolster our defences but things could have been very different. During 1923 atoo Island quoted on the construction of a pair of 10,000 ton "treaty cruisers" based on the Effingham hull, its self evolved from the Town Class we had already built, but with three triple 8" turrets inplace of the originals single 7.2" guns. This design was knocked back on cost and the Counties were ordered from the UK instead. I am not suggesting that the atoo Cruiser would be superior to the Counties, infact it would likely have been inferrior but that building these ships in Australia would have better prepared Austrlaias industry for what was needed in the future. Had these ships been built they likely would have taken longer to deliver than the UK built Counties which would have stretched the program enough to make ordering a second batch to begin replacing the early Town's in the early to mid 30's. End result Australia would have entered WWII with an enhanced local production capability that would have allowed us to build the modern warships we needed when we needed them instead of having to rebuild our shipbuilding industry during a global war. We could have gone to war with six heavy cruisers and been able to build upwards of twenty destroyers instead of the three we managed to complete.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
hairy man       2/10/2009 5:17:53 PM
A lot of the time in the timeframe we are discussing was the Great Depression.  Therefore it would have been advisable to build as much in Australia as possible to create employment.   What were the largest warships we could have realistically built in Australia in this period?
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       2/11/2009 1:13:34 AM

A lot of the time in the timeframe we are discussing was the Great Depression.  Therefore it would have been advisable to build as much in Australia as possible to create employment.   What were the largest warships we could have realistically built in Australia in this period?
Well you built 10,000 ton freighters in government built shipyards in 1940-1944.

A Leander is about three times as tough to build as a freighter, and a Casablanca is twice as tough. But if you start with a basic 10,000 ton hull send out for the engines until you build a factory to make your own and you settle for slow (<25 knots), you get the start of a home built navy in 1928. 
 
You can build two and six.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    This is what we did build (from Wikipedia)   2/11/2009 5:13:27 AM
Chatham / Sydney class
The Chatham class were ordered under the 1911 Programme and commissioned between 1912-1916. Three ships were built to the same design for the new Royal Australian Navy, where they were known as the Sydney class. The Chathams / Sydneys differed from the two previous sub-classes only slightly. Deck armour was reduced in order to allow the introduction of belt armour, and they had eight 6 in guns in single turrets. They had no secondary armament but did have AA weaponry that consisted of four 3 pounder guns. Their AA armament was further increased during the First World War, with the addition of four 3 in guns. As was common at the time the guns only had shields to protect them from splinters and so were spaced well apart to reduce the chance of a single hit knocking out several at once. The class also had aircraft fitted during the war. Chatham was briefly part of the New Zealand Naval Forces in 1920, subsequently the New Zealand Division, until it returned to the RN in 1924.
 
  • HMAS Sydney, built by London & Glasgow, laid down 11 February 1911, launched 29 August 1912, and completed June 1913. Broken up at Cockatoo Dockyard in April 1929.
  • HMAS Melbourne, built by Cammell Laird, laid down 14 April 1911, launched 30 May 1912, and completed January 1913. Sold for breaking up 8 December 1928.
  • HMAS Brisbane, built by Cockatoo Dockyard, laid down 25 January 1913, launched 30 September 1915, and completed November 1916. Sold for breaking up 13 June 1936.
  • [edit] Birmingham class

    The Birmingham class were all ordered under the 1912 Programme and was commissioned in 1914. They featured slight differences in appearance and armament. Their main armament were nine 6 in guns in single turrets, with an additional 6 inch gun mounted on the forecastle in order to improve forward fire. Their AA armament was exactly the same as the Chatham sub-class and a 3 in (76 mm) gun was also added during the First World War. The class did not have an aircraft fitted during the war. Also more flare was added to the bow to improve sea keeping. Further improvement to the Birmingham class resulted in five ships of the Hawkins class. The similar Adelaide had built for the Royal Australian Navy' she had one of her funnels removed in the late 1930s.
     
  • HMAS Adelaide, built by Cockatoo Dockyard, laid down January 1915, launched 27 July 1918, and completed August 1922. Sold for breaking up in Australia in January 1949.
  • Quote    Reply

    HERALD1357    Wiki is ugh!   2/11/2009 9:35:01 AM

    Chatham / Sydney class
    The Chatham class were ordered under the 1911 Programme and commissioned between 1912-1916. Three ships were built to the same design for the new Royal Australian Navy, where they were known as the Sydney class. The Chathams / Sydneys differed from the two previous sub-classes only slightly. Deck armour was reduced in order to allow the introduction of belt armour, and they had eight 6 in guns in single turrets. They had no secondary armament but did have AA weaponry that consisted of four 3 pounder guns. Their AA armament was further increased during the First World War, with the addition of four 3 in guns. As was common at the time the guns only had shields to protect them from splinters and so were spaced well apart to reduce the chance of a single hit knocking out several at once. The class also had aircraft fitted during the war. Chatham was briefly part of the New Zealand Naval Forces in 1920, subsequently the New Zealand Division, until it returned to the RN in 1924.
     


  • HMAS Sydney, built by London & Glasgow, laid down 11 February 1911, launched 29 August 1912, and completed June 1913. Broken up at Cockatoo Dockyard in April 1929.

  • HMAS Melbourne, built by Cammell Laird, laid down 14 April 1911, launched 30 May 1912, and completed January 1913. Sold for breaking up 8 December 1928.

  • HMAS Brisbane, built by Cockatoo Dockyard, laid down 25 January 1913, launched 30 September 1915, and completed November 1916. Sold for breaking up 13 June 1936.


  • [edit] Birmingham class


    The Birmingham class were all ordered under the 1912 Programme and was commissioned in 1914. They featured slight differences in appearance and armament. Their main armament were nine 6 in guns in single turrets, with an additional 6 inch gun mounted on the forecastle in order to improve forward fire. Their AA armament was exactly the same as the Chatham sub-class and a 3 in (76 mm) gun was also added during the First World War. The class did not have an aircraft fitted during the war. Also more flare was added to the bow to improve sea keeping. Further improvement to the Birmingham class resulted in five ships of the Hawkins class. The similar Adelaide had built for the Royal Australian Navy' she had one of her funnels removed in the late 1930s.

     


  • HMAS Adelaide, built by Cockatoo Dockya
  •  
    Quote    Reply

    Volkodav    Herald   2/12/2009 6:06:50 AM
    The Leanders were commissioned between 1933 and 1936, this post is about continuing to build cruisers in Australia after the last of or Towns, HMAS Adelaide, commissioned in 1922.  The Leanders simply were not available in the required time frame to maintain and improve upon Australias ability to build cruisers.
     
    Licence building Leanders would not have solved the problem of lost capability and may not infact have been doable due to that very same loss in capability.  Building Hawkins, 8" turreted Hawkins or even Counties would have maintained and built upon this capability allowing Leanders, Towns, Colonies, or Minotaurs to be built down the track with Australia ideally starting with 8" treaty cruisers and progressively increasing the local content until we were manufacturing the armour, machinery and main armament locally. 
     
    As you have pointed out light carriers are easier to build than cruisers.  Maintaining and improving our cruiser building skills would set us up well to build proper light fleet or even fleet carriers in the late 30's, early 40's.  This leads to the "ideal" RAN Squadron, a CVL, CA, CL or CLAA and a couple of DD's.
     
    On the CLAA, a Dido derivative with 6 twin 4.5" in place of the 4 or 5 twin 5.25".
     
    Quote    Reply

    HERALD1357       2/12/2009 8:24:42 AM

    The Leanders were commissioned between 1933 and 1936, this post is about continuing to build cruisers in Australia after the last of or Towns, HMAS Adelaide, commissioned in 1922.  The Leanders simply were not available in the required time frame to maintain and improve upon Australias ability to build cruisers.

    Good points. You should have kept building Towns in the interim as well as another better light cruuser.
     
    In that case then may I propose the Danae class as the license design of choice, It has a decent range, decent size of hull and much better topside layout from the Towns that renders it easily modifiable as better weapons and equipment come into development. You don't risk block obsolescence as you did with the Chatham-class. You still have pedestal gun mounts and the primitive fore control, but you have the hull room and the hull stability to try out say a twin 4 inch hoist served protected mount on barbettes in the positions of the forward and aft super-impositional mounts.  Land the amidshups pedestal guns and replace with AAA autocannon (40 mm Borfors) for the close and mid-range flal and presto-instant DIDO.
     
    Licence building Leanders would not have solved the problem of lost capability and may not in fact have been doable due to that very same loss in capability.  Building Hawkins, 8" turreted Hawkins or even Counties would have maintained and built upon this capability allowing Leanders, Towns, Colonies, or Minotaurs to be built down the track with Australia ideally starting with 8" treaty cruisers and progressively increasing the local content until we were manufacturing the armour, machinery and main armament locally. 

    More good points. Let's look at that? 
     
    The Hawkins class was a terrible design. The only contemporary cruiser class that was worse laid out was the American Richmond class 
     
    http://www.naval-history.net/Photo06clHawkins1NP.jpg" width="706" height="495" /> 

    As you can see from the above photograph topview: topside  layout was cluttered, working space was cramped and machinery layout was poorly thought out, What you cannot see was the pioor seakeeping and stability problems the class hullform suffered.  
     
    As you have pointed out light carriers are easier to build than cruisers.  Maintaining and improving our cruiser building skills would set us up well to build proper light fleet or even fleet carriers in the late 30's, early 40's.  This leads to the "ideal" RAN Squadron, a CVL, CA, CL or CLAA and a couple of DD's.
     
    I am not sure I would be using DDs as carrier escorts at that stage of knowledge once the RAN begins to learn how.to operate aircraft carriers  Let me explain
     
    1. The only reason the US and the Japanese got away with using destroyers as task force escorts was because the Japanese didn't know what they were doing and the US starting in the mid 1930s used their carriers as task force refueling ships. A Fletcher generally ran out of fuel after a 2000 nautical mile high speed run. Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons and Santa Criz are notable in that the Japanese and the Americans suffered refuelling crisises in the middle of those battles. Such a refueling crisis led straight to Ozawa's defeat in the Turkey Shoot. He had to slow down to conserve fuel and our subs thus caught him refueling. TWICE.  
     
    2. Then there is your naval anti-aircraft artillery. By 1935; if you have any brains at all, and both the USN and the British Royal Navy then did, you become very nervous about air attack. Britain doesn't have many good choices for a DP HA AAA gun, that being the 4 inch gun (CREF below). The British answer to their AAA escort problem was the Didos. Ours was the Atlantas. The British solution was hampered by the wrong choice of AAA guns. They tried to use the 5.25   and found it didn't work.
     
    3. So you are sort of stuck with your tech tree limits  and your logistics. The Danae cruiser, proposed, becomes your  carrier escort by default; until you st
     
    Quote    Reply

    HERALD1357    GAGH! typos.   2/12/2009 9:08:11 AM
    Don't ever get your hands caught in machinery. It ruins your typing for life.
     
    Quote    Reply

    HERALD1357       2/12/2009 11:28:14 AM
    The Leanders were commissioned between 1933 and 1936, this post is about continuing to build cruisers in Australia after the last of or Towns, HMAS Adelaide, commissioned in 1922.  The Leanders simply were not available in the required time frame to maintain and improve upon Australia's ability to build cruisers.

    Good points. You should have kept building Towns (Chathams actually) in the interim as well as another better light cruiser.
     
    In that case then may I propose the Danae class as the license design of choice, It has a decent range, decent size of hull and much better topside layout from the Towns that renders it easily modifiable as better weapons and equipment come into development. You don't risk block obsolescence as you did with the Chatham-class. You still have pedestal gun mounts and the primitive fire control, but you have the hull room and the hull stability to try out say a twin 4 inch hoist served protected gun mount on barbettes in the positions of the forward and aft super-imposed mounts.  Land the amidships pedestal guns and replace with AAA auto cannon (40 mm Borfors) for the close and mid-range flak ranges and presto-instant DIDO.
     
    Licence building Leanders would not have solved the problem of lost capability and may not in fact have been doable due to that very same loss in capability.  Building Hawkins, 8" turreted Hawkins or even Counties would have maintained and built upon this capability allowing Leanders, Towns, Colonies, or Minotaurs to be built down the track with Australia ideally starting with 8" treaty cruisers and progressively increasing the local content until we were manufacturing the armour, machinery and main armament locally. 

    More good points. Let's look at that? 
     
    The Hawkins class was a terrible design. The only contemporary cruiser class that was worse laid out was the American Richmond class 
     
    http://www.naval-history.net/Photo06clHawkins1NP.jpg" width="706" height="495" /> 

    As you can see from the above photograph top view: topside  layout was cluttered, working space was cramped and machinery layout was poorly thought out, What you cannot see was the poor sea keeping and stability problems the class hull form suffered.  
     
    As you have pointed out light carriers are easier to build than cruisers.  Maintaining and improving our cruiser building skills would set us up well to build proper light fleet or even fleet carriers in the late 30's, early 40's.  This leads to the "ideal" RAN Squadron, a CVL, CA, CL or CLAA and a couple of DD's.
     
    I am not sure I would be using DDs as carrier escorts at that stage of knowledge once the RAN begins to learn how to operate aircraft carriers  Let me explain
     
    1. The only reason the US and the Japanese got away with using destroyers as task force escorts was because the Japanese didn't know what they were doing and the US, starting in the mid 1930s, used their carriers as task force refueling ships. A Fletcher (destroyer) generally ran out of fuel after a 2000 nautical mile high speed run. Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz are notable in that the Japanese and the Americans suffered refueling crises in the middle of those battles. Such a refueling crisis led straight to Ozawa's defeat in the Turkey Shoot. He had to slow down to conserve fuel and our subs and and aircraft thus caught him refueling. TWICE.  
     
    2. Then there is your naval anti-aircraft artillery. By 1935; if you have any brains at all, and both the USN and the British Royal Navy then did, you become very nervous about air attack. Britain doesn't have many good choices for a DP HA AAA gun, that being the 4 inch gun (CREF below). The British answer to their AAA escort problem was the Didos. Ours was the Atlantas. The British solution was hampered by the wrong choice of AAA gun. They tried to use the 5.25   and found it didn't work.
     
    3. So you are sort of stuck with your tech tree limits  and your fuel logistics. The Danae cruiser, proposed, becomes your  carrier escort by default (long endurance high speed runs between refueli
     
    Quote    Reply

    Volkodav       2/13/2009 4:01:24 AM
    I am not sure I would be using DDs as carrier escorts at that stage of knowledge once the RAN begins to learn how to operate aircraft carriers 
     

    I would definitely prefer a 4.5" armed Dido to a destroyer as a carrier escort or maybe a DL type with six twin 4" and the DD's with four x twin 4".
     
    The thing is though if Australia was building cruisers through the 20's and 30's building a reasonable number of CLAA's, DL's and DD's during the war would be a cinch.
     
    Quote    Reply

    HERALD1357    Volka reply:   2/14/2009 6:00:33 AM

    I am not sure I would be using DDs as carrier escorts at that stage of knowledge once the RAN begins to learn how to operate aircraft carriers 
     




    I would definitely prefer a 4.5" armed Dido to a destroyer as a carrier escort or maybe a DL type with six twin 4" and the DD's with four x twin 4".

     

    The thing is though if Australia was building cruisers through the 20's and 30's building a reasonable number of CLAA's, DL's and DD's during the war would be a cinch.


    Thought you might like to know what a Flight III Omaha might look like circa 1933.
     
    http://i555.photobucket.com/albums/jj445/battlecrab_2009/USNOmahaclass2.jpg" width="800" height="500" /> 
     In a bit I'll do up a Danae and show you how a base type hull can evolve.
     
    Quote    Reply
    PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



     Latest
     News
     
     Most
     Read
     
     Most
     Commented
     Hot
     Topics