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: Was Sir Robert Menzies the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time...twice?
Volkodav    11/1/2009 4:26:14 AM
Australia did not begin full mobilisation (military and industrial) until early 1942 after Curtain took the Priministership. This was not because Curtain was a genius or a visionary but because he unlike Menzies thought it was better to something rather than nothing, infact a great many people of the time could probably have done better than Curtain. The issue, as I see it is that Menzies ignored the threat and failed, inspite of all advice, failed to rearm or mobilise. Upon being re-elected in 1948 he did the same thing again. He cancelled and delayed programs that would have been of great value to our forces in Korea and then emidiately after Korea, continued to cut existing and planned capabilities on the assuption our security was garanteed by others. Again he got it wrong and Australia was forced to spend huge sums of money rebuilding from a lower base to fend of the threat of Communisum in SEA. I do not argue that Menzies was an outstanding polititian but rather that he put his popularity and re-election before the security of the nation. Defence spending was not popular, financial sacrifice was not popular therefore he made the popular decissions to keep the majority of the people happy the majority of the time. In many ways Howard, although he idolised Menzies, was more of a leader, visionary and above all better for Australia than Ming ever was.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Volkodav       11/13/2009 4:54:26 AM
And the reason for the trade embargo was the Japanese conquest of Manchuria. Why would the US and the European powers strengthen the Japanese hand by helping the Japanese empire to expand when their territories (the Philippines, French Indochina, Britain's Straits Settlements, the Dutch East Indies) lay in the path of possible Japanese invasion? Their fears proved to be prescient.
True.
 
A review of Australias defences by Jellicoe in 1920 predicted the events that came to pass in 1942 with considerable accuracy.  His recommendations were not acted upon for a variety of reasons including political and economic but they were mainly overtaken by the event of the Washington treaty.  The only recommendation that was carried out was the development of Singapore as a Naval Base, which was a complete waste of time and money when they failed to build the 6 fleet units (each consisting of a battle cruiser, a couple of cruisers, several destroyers and a couple of submarines) that were meant to be based there. 
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       11/13/2009 6:46:58 AM
Singapore was nicely and quite heavily fortified, complete with 15" guns. Pity none of the 15" guns pointed towards the malay peninsula where the attack ended up coming from. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emangel.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       11/13/2009 7:10:56 AM
The plan was for the RN to provide 6 fleet units and Australia 2, in addition there would have been a support group consisting of an aircraft carrier, a couple of tenders and several cruisers and destroyers to support each 2 fleet units for a grand total of 8 battle cruisers 4 carriers about 20 cruisers, 40 destroyers and 20 submarines.  A pretty decent force to deny Japan sea control in SEA and far more effective than land based 15"guns that are pointing in the wrong direction.
 
Jellicoe specified that Australia needed two new battle cruisers so this force would be homoginous, this suggests that they would have been the 48000ton 16"gunned 32kt G3 battlecruisers that were cut down post Washington to form the basis of the Nelson design.  Ah what could have been.
http://www.steelnavy.com/images/1250Broman/1250Producers/SuperiorInvincible1921Olsen-1A.jpg" width="651" height="249" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

SSGT Kingston       11/13/2009 10:11:27 AM
Just FYI, most of Singapore's 15" Coastal guns could indeed face inland and did fire on the Japanese, the problem was that as they were really meant to be used against warships they were provided with AP shells.
 
Some 194 rounds were fired by the Johore Battery (3x 15" guns) during the battle.
 
As you can imagine, AP shells would have very limited effect against infantry.
 
Not having HE ammo is just about as stupid as not having guns that could face inland..

That really is a myth that needs to be dispelled.
 
Regards
 
Shannon
 
Sources:
h**p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore
h**p://www.fepow-community.org.uk/monthly_Revue/html/singapore_coast_guns.htm
h**p://www.navyhistory.org.au/the-guns-of-singapore/
 
Quote    Reply

Green Dragon    Drifting off topic   11/13/2009 8:35:21 PM
As you can imagine, AP shells would have very limited effect against infantry.
 
Not having HE ammo is just about as stupid as not having guns that could face inland..
 
Very true that it was stupid but also typical of British thinking of the time.
 
The Afrika Korp's 88's would have caused much less grief in North Africa if the British tankers had been issued with HE ammunition earlier to deal with them.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       11/14/2009 3:40:05 AM
Sorry guys, I was just going off memory of something I saw off TV once on that last post (documentary of some kind).
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    BAD DESIGN!   11/14/2009 4:28:48 AM

The plan was for the RN to provide 6 fleet units and Australia 2, in addition there would have been a support group consisting of an aircraft carrier, a couple of tenders and several cruisers and destroyers to support each 2 fleet units for a grand total of 8 battle cruisers 4 carriers about 20 cruisers, 40 destroyers and 20 submarines.  A pretty decent force to deny Japan sea control in SEA and far more effective than land based 15"guns that are pointing in the wrong direction.

 

Jellicoe specified that Australia needed two new battle cruisers so this force would be homoginous, this suggests that they would have been the 48000ton 16"gunned 32kt G3 battlecruisers that were cut down post Washington to form the basis of the Nelson design.  Ah what could have been.

http://www.steelnavy.com/images/1250Broman/1250Producers/SuperiorInvincible1921Olsen-1A.jpg" alt="" width="651" border="0" height="249" />

The G-3 is just about as bad as the Richelieus or the Lexingtons as conceived. Plus what about manpower and fleet logistics?
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       11/16/2009 6:32:50 AM
The G-3 is just about as bad as the Richelieus or the Lexingtons as conceived. Plus what about manpower and fleet logistics?
 
The recommendations were made irrelivant, first and foremost, by the Washington Treaty, but then by the Great Depression.  However manpower and logistics would have been doable in the early 1920's, remember this force was set as roughly twice the size of Australia's modest pre WWI navy but was well bellow the size and cost of the proposed 5 division post war army that was seriously proposed at the same time.
 
As to the design of the G3, it's armour scheme was similar to that of the Nelsons that were developed from them, but with much greater speed and range.  The Lexington design was quite odd, but Dunkerque and Richelieu made sense when you look at their design brief of running down surface raiders while being able defend themselves from lighter units on the aft quarters.
 
I wonder what would have happened had the RAN been allowed to keep and subsequently replace HMAS Australia under treaty rules?
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/20/2009 3:05:53 AM

The G-3 is just about as bad as the Richelieus or the Lexingtons as conceived. Plus what about manpower and fleet logistics?

The recommendations were made irrelevant, first and foremost, by the Washington Treaty, but then by the Great Depression.  However manpower and logistics would have been doable in the early 1920's, remember this force was set as roughly twice the size of Australia's modest pre WWI navy but was well bellow the size and cost of the proposed 5 division post war army that was seriously proposed at the same time.

The planned navy squadron suggested  has a shore establishment that is huge (14,000) compared to the needs of a five division army. That is 100,000 men on a population of how many? And then you add the 14,000 man Navy onto it? .

As to the design of the G3, it's armour scheme was similar to that of the Nelsons that were developed from them, but with much greater speed and range.  The Lexington design was quite odd, but Dunkerque and Richelieu made sense when you look at their design brief of running down surface raiders while being able defend themselves from lighter units on the aft quarters.

 The amidship C turret was a debacle.  Better to split fore and aft, thin the side armor and reduce the range and speed a bit. Tankers are cheaper than the proposed catastrophes

I wonder what would have happened had the RAN been allowed to keep and subsequently replace HMAS Australia under treaty rules?

With what would you replace her? Light cruisers would have been better than another dreadnought.

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       11/20/2009 6:04:49 AM
The G-3 is just about as bad as the Richelieus or the Lexingtons as conceived. Plus what about manpower and fleet logistics?

The recommendations were made irrelevant, first and foremost, by the Washington Treaty, but then by the Great Depression.  However manpower and logistics would have been doable in the early 1920's, remember this force was set as roughly twice the size of Australia's modest pre WWI navy but was well bellow the size and cost of the proposed 5 division post war army that was seriously proposed at the same time.

The planned navy squadron suggested  has a shore establishment that is huge (14,000) compared to the needs of a five division army. That is 100,000 men on a population of how many? And then you add the 14,000 man Navy onto it? .
 
A 100000 man Army was completely unrealistic, 5 Brigades would have been a challenge for our then population of about 3000000, as it was we didn't even keep 5 Battalions from the 1st AIF.  A 14000 man Navy on the other hand was realistic and could have been supported by this population apart from the fact it would have been of far greater value to our defence than a large standing army. 
All irrelevant as the world economy collapsed and there was no money to maintain existing force levels, let alone increase their size.
As to the design of the G3, it's armour scheme was similar to that of the Nelsons that were developed from them, but with much greater speed and range.  The Lexington design was quite odd, but Dunkerque and Richelieu made sense when you look at their design brief of running down surface raiders while being able defend themselves from lighter units on the aft quarters.

 The amidship C turret was a debacle.  Better to split fore and aft, thin the side armor and reduce the range and speed a bit. Tankers are cheaper than the proposed catastrophes
 
Thinner armour in the centre of mass would be a bigger issue than the small loss in the arc of fire directly over the stern.  Infact the arragement would have facilitated Q turret, or C if you prefer, to fire forward of centre which would have been very useful in the pursuit.
 
I wonder what would have happened had the RAN been allowed to keep and subsequently replace HMAS Australia under treaty rules?
With what would you replace her? Light cruisers would have been better than another dreadnought.  Light cruisers surperior to a dreadnought, in what reality?  Imagine the battle of Sunda Strait with a 12 or 14" gunned battle cruiser instead of HMAS Perth.  Then again why replace same with same, why not replace our battle cruiser with a carrier, HMS Ark Royal was designed for use in the far east after all.  Menzies looked at building a battleship in Australia in 1939 but it was all ready too late, not that a single BB would make that much difference
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics