Historical What If questions about HMAS Australia

[Todjaeger]

Reading about the history of the HMAS Australia (I) the Indefatigable-class Battlecruiser, I came across a link http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/semaphore/2004_5.pdf

which led me to ask some questions.

The 1922 Washington Treaty mandated that Britain reduce the number and tonnage of her Navy, and one of the vessels chosen for scuttling was the HMAS Australia of the RAN. Given that Australia was not a signatory nation of the Washington Treaty, it could have elected not to scrap the HMAS Australia. Here are where the "What If" questions start.

1. The HMAS Australia was scuttled April 12th, 1924. If she had not been scuttled, which RN vessel or vessels would most likely have been scrapped or scuttled in her place?

2. Would Australia, given the economic problems caused by the Great Depression, have been able to maintain the HMAS Australia in sufficient condition to participate in WWII?

3. How would the presence of the HMAS Australia effected the balance of power in the Pacific during WWII?

4. Similarly, how would've the absence of whatever RN ships effected whichever theatre they were deployed to?

5. What effect would there have been on the growth and deployment of the RAN during and after WWII if the HMAS Australia had been retained & deployed during WWII?

The link does cover some of the questions I've asked, but leaves others unanswered and doesn't go into as much detail as I'm interested in.
I am particularly interested in what people's thoughts are on the WWII & post WWII development of the RAN, if HMAS Australia had been retained.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Reading about the history of the HMAS Australia (I) the Indefatigable-class Battlecruiser, I came across a link http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/semaphore/2004_5.pdf

which led me to ask some questions.

The 1922 Washington Treaty mandated that Britain reduce the number and tonnage of her Navy, and one of the vessels chosen for scuttling was the HMAS Australia of the RAN. Given that Australia was not a signatory nation of the Washington Treaty, it could have elected not to scrap the HMAS Australia. Here are where the "What If" questions start.

1. The HMAS Australia was scuttled April 12th, 1924. If she had not been scuttled, which RN vessel or vessels would most likely have been scrapped or scuttled in her place?

I would think that the battlecruiser Tiger, a much more powerful ship than Australia and similar to the Japanese Kongos, would have been scrapped. As it was Tiger served on until 1931. Tiger was larger, faster, better (though still inadequately) armoured and had a main armament of 8x13.5" guns compared with 8x12" in Australia. After 1931 the RN probably would have had to dispose of an 'R' class battleship or one of the Renown class battlecruisers. I suspect they would have chosen the former.

2. Would Australia, given the economic problems caused by the Great Depression, have been able to maintain the HMAS Australia in sufficient condition to participate in WWII?

The RAN found it was unable to maintain Australia in commission after WW1 and she was decommissioned in December 1921 and paid off into reserve until her scrapping. The financial state of the RAN was such that at the time the Washington treaty was signed its seagoing fleet was just 3 cruisers (1 training), 4 destroyers (1 training), 3 submarines and 2 sloops. The rest of the fleet was in reserve. From this it seems likely that the Australian government was probably quite happy to have a 'reason' to scrap Australia. Otherwise it would have needed to maintain it indefinitely in reserve. IMO it is most unlikely it would have been modernised and kept in good enough condition to participate effectively in WW2.

3. How would the presence of the HMAS Australia effected the balance of power in the Pacific during WWII?

I think Australia would have been a liability. She could not have stood up to any Japanese capital ship. At best she may have been able to deter German pocket battleships from Australian waters or served as a convoy escort to provide protection against these vessels.

4. Similarly, how would've the absence of whatever RN ships effected whichever theatre they were deployed to?

If the RAN still had Australia the RN would have been a capital ship short of what they had in 1939. The RN generally attached an "R' class battleship to Australasian troop convoys and Australia would probably have had to fill this role. However, she could not have stood up to the German battlecruisers Scharnhorst or Gneisenau which may have been detered by an 'R'.

5. What effect would there have been on the growth and deployment of the RAN during and after WWII if the HMAS Australia had been retained & deployed during WWII?

The RAN developed a modern cruiser force as the backbone of its pre WW2 fleet. At the outbreak of WW2 it had two 8" gun cruisers, three modern and one old 6" cruiser, 5 old destroyers and 2 modern sloops, with 2 destroyers and 2 more sloops under construction. If Australia had been retained it would probably have been at the expense of several of the modern cruisers which gave excellent service in the war that followed.

In the last few years leading up to the outbreak of war the RAN considered that acquisition of a modern capital ship and some references including Raven and Roberts British Battleships of World War Two, Arms and Armour Press, 1976, suggest that Vanguard, which was a 'one off' design ordered in 1940, may have gone to the RAN. Once war broke out, however, the RAN expanded its small ship fleet (destroyers, frigates and corvette/minesweepers) together with coastal and amphibious forces whilst plans for major units which would eventually include light fleet aircraft carriers became a post war project. The only heavy unit added during the war was the heavy cruiser Shropshire, which was a gift from Britain to replace Canberra, which had been lost in 1942. The idea of Vanguard , appropriately renamed, as flagship of the post war RAN does fill me with happy thoughts.


Its midnight in Hobart so I'll leave this for the time being.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

How much impact did Repulse have, or the more modern Prince of Wales? How about the Yank USS Nevada, California, Arizona? How about the Japanese Yamato? Or Musashi? How much damage to the enemy did the German Tirpitz do? Or was even Bismark worth the price paid?

No, I would have liked to have seen the Australia saved just because it looked so cool but by WW-ll, and Taranto, the writing was on the wall regarding BCs and BBs. Most of all in the Pacific where most future battles would be fought by CVs whose crews never even saw each other.

There is some argument for the utility of a commerce raider against the Japanese but we did enough raiding with air power and submarines at a lower cost, eventually bringing the Island to the brink of starvation. Not just that but the Japanese, and rather stupidly, never embraced a strategy of convoying their supplies in the Yank/Brit manner. They said they didn't have the assets for it but I think they just didn't consider such duty to be samurai enough. Thus they left millions of their soldiers to starve on meaningless Islands MacArthur was more then happy to bypass.

For evidence I introduce their magnificent submarine arm that they didn't use correctly http://www.combinedfleet.com/sensuikan.htm Instead of using them as commerce raiders they used them as capitol ships against the most powerful ships in the allied fleet. They scored some successes but not like those of the allied boats who slowly strangled Japan.

But I'm getting off topic. The Aussies did the right thing in scrapping her because you have to wonder just how much impact could one 30yo BCV have made in the war. By wars end, in the Pacific, if you couldn't fly an air plane off the thing then any floating platform was a bit player in a support role.

The Aussie navy fought hard and well in WW-ll in their CVs and DDs and didn't need a WW-l relic to earn a place of honor. They were part of the bigger Commonwealth navy anyways, you cant just look at them alone. A few years later they joined the big boys http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/melbourne2.html

 

[Tasman]

How much impact did Repulse have, or the more modern Prince of Wales? How about the Yank USS Nevada, California, Arizona? How about the Japanese Yamato? Or Musashi? How much damage to the enemy did the German Tirpitz do? Or was even Bismark worth the price paid?

With hindsight both the RN and the USN would have been better served by having fewer battleships/battlecruisers and more aircraft carriers. Until the expiry of the Washington Treaty, however, both countries were limited in carrier tonnage, hence the fact that the US built the small Wasp to follow the Enterprise and Yorktown. After the expiration they reverted to the larger Hornet. So even if the navies had wanted them more carriers couldn't have been built. Because of the limit on the British Empire the RAN was unable to even consider a carrier of its own. Some attempt was made to support the seaplanes operated from the cruisers by building the small seaplane carrier, Albatross . But it was too small and slow to be able to work efficiently with the cruiser squadron.

The other thing to remember is that the quality of carrier aircraft available in 1939 was nothing like that of 1942/45 and the ability of carrier based aircraft to destroy battleships at sea was unproven. The German pocket battleships and battlecruisers succeeded in tying up large numbers of RN capital ships, carriers and cruisers, so their mere presence was possibly more important than the number of ships sunk. The more powerful battleships Bismark and Tirpitz had an even more paralysing effect, though the crippling of Bismark by Swordfish torpedo bombers demonstrated the ability of carriers to at least slow down a battleship and therefore assist in its destruction. The attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto, still with obsolete aircraft was no doubt observed with interest by the Japanese! So up until 1942 I think the battleship had an important role. Australia , however, would have been useless other than, perhaps, against the pocket battleships. When Japan came into the war she would have been too slow to have countered the Japanese heavy cruisers and would have been overwhelmed by any Japanese capital ship.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

... I would have liked to have seen the Australia saved just because it looked so cool...

As someone else said a few days ago 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. To my eye I thought that Australia (I) was, with the possible exception of the OH Perry class FFGs, and the old seaplane carrier Albatross, the least symmetrical, ugliest ship to have ever served in the RAN. Still it did look powerful, so maybe that makes it 'cool'. 'Cool' WW1/WW2 ships to me were the British Hood and Vanguard, the German Bismark and Tirpitz and the US Iowa(BB61) and her sisters.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org11-2.htm

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/australia1.html


Cheers

 

[Tasman]

There is some argument for the utility of a commerce raider against the Japanese but we did enough raiding with air power and submarines at a lower cost, eventually bringing the Island to the brink of starvation. Not just that but the Japanese, and rather stupidly, never embraced a strategy of convoying their supplies in the Yank/Brit manner. They said they didn't have the assets for it but I think they just didn't consider such duty to be samurai enough. Thus they left millions of their soldiers to starve on meaningless Islands MacArthur was more then happy to bypass.

For evidence I introduce their magnificent submarine arm that they didn't use correctly http://www.combinedfleet.com/sensuikan.htm Instead of using them as commerce raiders they used them as capitol ships against the most powerful ships in the allied fleet. They scored some successes but not like those of the allied boats who slowly strangled Japan.

But I'm getting off topic. The Aussies did the right thing in scrapping her because you have to wonder just how much impact could one 30yo BCV have made in the war. By wars end, in the Pacific, if you couldn't fly an air plane off the thing then any floating platform was a bit player in a support role.

The Aussie navy fought hard and well in WW-ll in their CVs and DDs and didn't need a WW-l relic to earn a place of honor. They were part of the bigger Commonwealth navy anyways, you cant just look at them alone. A few years later they joined the big boys http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/melbourne2.html

A submarine arm would, IMO, have been a much better asset to the RAN in the war against Japan than keeping Australia. Three times the RAN tried but failed to establish a submarine arm. Two submarines were in service in 1914 but both were lost early in the war. In 1919 the RN transferred 6 J class subs but these were in poor condition and the RAN didn't have the infrastructure to support them. Financial and manpower worries led to them being decommissioned and then sold off from 1924. The third attempt saw two O class submarines ordered in 1924, the first of six that were planned. Unfortunately the economic depression saw the follow on units fail to materialise and keeping just two was inefficient so they were transferred to the RN in 1931 (Ross Gillet, Australian and New Zealand warships 1914-1945, Doubleday, Australia, Pty Ltd, 1983 and Herman Gill, Royal Australian Navy 1939-42, The Griffen Press, Adelaide, 1957). Apart from briefly commissioning an ex Dutch K class for training in WW2 the next attempt to set up a submarine arm, this time successfully, had to wait until the 1960s.

Until the end of WW2 I think it’s fair to say that the RAN saw itself as an 'independent' part of the RN, but transfer of units away from the Australia Station had to be approved by the war cabinet. Ships on the Australia Station were under the direct control of the Australian Naval Board but units attached to RN squadrons (generally at least 2 cruisers and all of the destroyers before 7/12/41) came under RN command (Herman Gill, Royal Australian Navy 1939-42, The Griffen Press, Adelaide, 1957). From 1942 RAN cruisers and destroyers worked in close co-operation with the USN, establishing a partnership that continues to the present. Proposals were made in 1944 for a 'Colossus' class light fleet carrier to be manned by the RAN for operations in the Pacific, but manpower problems and other priorities led to the acquisition of carriers being deferred until after the war (The Australian Aviation Museum friends and volunteers, Flying Stations, A Story of Australian Naval Aviation, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards, NSW, 1998).

Had Australia had the funds and the manpower to develop a more powerful fleet, keeping Australia (i) would have IMO:
1. been at the expense of a more powerful RN capital ship,
2. resulted in the RAN having a unit that would have been badly outclassed and
3. wasted money and manpower that would have been better spent on the cruiser and destroyer force and the establishment of a strong submarine arm (given that treaty restrictions prevented the acquisition of a carrier unless, again, it was at the expense of a RN unit).

IMO, had the RAN decided to keep a capital ship Australia would not have been kept. It would almost certainly have been replaced in the RAN by a more modern RN ship, probably Tiger. That raises another 'what if?'
Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Had Australia had the funds and the manpower to develop a more powerful fleet, keeping Australia (i) would have IMO:
1. been at the expense of a more powerful RN capital ship,
2. resulted in the RAN having a unit that would have been badly outclassed and
3. wasted money and manpower that would have been better spent on the cruiser and destroyer force and the establishment of a strong submarine arm (given that treaty restrictions prevented the acquisition of a carrier unless, again, it was at the expense of a RN unit).

IMO, had the RAN decided to keep a capital ship Australia would not have been kept. It would almost certainly have been replaced in the RAN by a more modern RN ship, probably Tiger. That raises another 'what if?'
Cheers

Very interesting so far. I also had a few more questions occur to me, largely due to a gap in my knowledge of the RAN & RN in the post-WWI to WWII period.

As I understand it, had the Australian government opted out of scuttling the HMAS Australia, they could have, since Australia didn't sign the Washington Treaty. By extension, any vessels in the RAN wouldn't have counted towards the total tonnage allowed the U.K. Out of curiousity, does anyone know if vessels in the RCN where included with the vessels of the RN?

With the above thought in mind, what are the answers to the following questions.

1. What major RN vessels operated in the Pacific from after WWI, up to 1942? Also, where did they operate from and did they operate as lone ships or parts of squadrons?
2. Did the RN operate a carrier in the Pacific, and if so, when?

It is my understanding that prior to WWI, Commonwealth nations would provide for some of their local naval defence, but the bulk of naval defence would be provided by the RN, with much of the funding coming from the nation being defended. After WWII, the RN no longer maintained units in the Pacific aside from wartime (Korea). I'm interested in find out more about the situation between WWI and WWII.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Very interesting so far. I also had a few more questions occur to me, largely due to a gap in my knowledge of the RAN & RN in the post-WWI to WWII period.

As I understand it, had the Australian government opted out of scuttling the HMAS Australia, they could have, since Australia didn't sign the Washington Treaty. By extension, any vessels in the RAN wouldn't have counted towards the total tonnage allowed the U.K. Out of curiousity, does anyone know if vessels in the RCN where included with the vessels of the RN?

With the above thought in mind, what are the answers to the following questions.

1. What major RN vessels operated in the Pacific from after WWI, up to 1942? Also, where did they operate from and did they operate as lone ships or parts of squadrons?
2. Did the RN operate a carrier in the Pacific, and if so, when?

It is my understanding that prior to WWI, Commonwealth nations would provide for some of their local naval defence, but the bulk of naval defence would be provided by the RN, with much of the funding coming from the nation being defended. After WWII, the RN no longer maintained units in the Pacific aside from wartime (Korea). I'm interested in find out more about the situation between WWI and WWII.

-Cheers

The tonnage limits applied not to Britain but to the British Empire, so the RCN and RAN vessels were included in this tonnage. The Dominions were represented as part of the British delegation during negotiations at Washington and they accepted the outcomes of the conference. Hence if either Australia or Canada had say a 30,000 ton capital ship (battleship or battlecruiser), then that would be 30,000 tons not allowed to the RN in that category. Along with the USA, the British Empire was allowed 525,000 tons for capital ships and 135,000 tons for aircraft carriers. New capital ships were limited to 35,000 tons and aircraft carriers to 33,000 tons for two and 27,000 tons for the remainder. The 33,000 tons was allowed to enable the USN to complete two battlecruisers as aircraft carriers (these became Lexington and Saratoga). The conference got down to some detailed discussion as to which existing ships had to be scrapped and HMAS Australia was included in the British list to be scrapped.

No total tonnage limits were placed on cruisers but new cruisers were not to exceed 10,000 tons or be armed with guns greater that 8". No limits were imposed in other categories such as destroyers. As a result it was not in the in the interests of Empire naval defence for the independent dominions like Australia or Canada to have kept obsolete ships. However, as cruisers were not given a total tonnage limit the building of modern cruisers by Australia was a worthwhile addition and the RAN acquired the 10,000 ton cruisers Australia (ii) and Canberra in the late 1920s. A subsequent naval conference at London in 1930 reduced the maximum size for new carriers and placed limits on total tonnage for other categories of warship including cruisers.

Between WW1 and WW2 the RN maintained the China Station based on Hong Kong and Singapore. Usually this station had a battleship, an aircraft carrier, a cruiser squadron, a destroyer flotilla and a submarine flotilla. As far as carriers were concerned the Hermes and Eagle, both relatively slow ships with small aircraft complements, were rotated on this station. The battleship had been withdrawn by 1939. The other naval forces East of Suez comprised the RAN (cruiser squadron and destroyer flotilla), the NZ Division of the RN (2 cruisers) and the East Indies Station operating in the Indian Ocean and using bases such as Trincomalee (cruiser squadron). BTW the RNZN didn't form until 1 October, 1941. Ships in the NZ Division were RN units manned as far as possible by Kiwis.

Herman Gill, Royal Australian Navy 1939-42, The Griffen Press, Adelaide, 1957)
Lenton and Colledge, Warships of World War II, Ian Allan, Ltd, Shepperton on Thames, 1968

the 1939 edition of Janes Fighting Ships shows the China Station as including:
1 aircraft carrier (Eagle)
3 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
9 destroyers
15 submarines
6 escort vessels
20 river gunboats
6 motor torpedo boats

In addition 4 destroyers and a minelayer were based in Hong Kong and 9 minesweepers were in reserve at Singapore. With the addition of 8 RAN and NZ cruisers, 5 RAN destroyers and 2 RAN escorts, this was a reasonably substantial force but it was rapidly reduced after the start of the war as vessels were transferred to the Atlantic and the Med.

In the event of war with Japan the plan was for the RN to fall back on Singapore and hold out until the arrival of reinforcements, including capital ships and carriers. Unfortunately, by December 1941, the RN was fully occupied against Germany and Italy and had very few ships to spare to send to the Pacific.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

I agree Australia would have been much better off spending what capitol she had available on fleet submarines in between wars. To put it in perspective Yank long range boats made up 2% of the Yank navy but accounted for 60% of sunk Japanese shipping. The boats destroyed well over 1/2 of the entire Jap merchant fleet themselves, and did all this hampered by torpedo problems much of the time.

Most people dont know this but the RAN purchased two E-class boats from the Germans before the great war and then fought them afterwards. One of them was the first sub to successfully get thru the Dardanelles strait, the sub equivalent at the time of walking on the moon, and then sunk a Turkish cruiser afterwards.

One can only guess what impact RAN submarines could have made in WW-ll if only they would have reconstituted the submarine force. Still, the Yank Pacific successes, and the influence of Yank boats basing in Australia during the war, changed naval thinking in the RAN. Even today when I Look at the Collins class SSK I see the ultimate evolution of a Yank WW-ll fleet submarine. They may have been built with Swedish influence but the thinking behind them is all WW-ll Pacific.

Think about the strategic reach that those 6 Collins class boats give the RAN. Really a pity Tomahawk wasnt fitted on them ,but even still, they can cause big problems for a nation more powerful then Australia and one far away as well.

 

[Tasman]

I agree Australia would have been much better off spending what capitol she had available on fleet submarines in between wars. To put it in perspective Yank long range boats made up 2% of the Yank navy but accounted for 60% of sunk Japanese shipping. The boats destroyed well over 1/2 of the entire Jap merchant fleet themselves, and did all this hampered by torpedo problems much of the time.

Most people dont know this but the RAN purchased two E-class boats from the Germans before the great war and then fought them afterwards. One of them was the first sub to successfully get thru the Dardanelles strait, the sub equivalent at the time of walking on the moon, and then sunk a Turkish cruiser afterwards.

One can only guess what impact RAN submarines could have made in WW-ll if only they would have reconstituted the submarine force. Still, the Yank Pacific successes, and the influence of Yank boats basing in Australia during the war, changed naval thinking in the RAN. Even today when I Look at the Collins class SSK I see the ultimate evolution of a Yank WW-ll fleet submarine. They may have been built with Swedish influence but the thinking behind them is all WW-ll Pacific.

Think about the strategic reach that those 6 Collins class boats give the RAN. Really a pity Tomahawk wasnt fitted on them ,but even still, they can cause big problems for a nation more powerful then Australia and one far away as well.

I think you are spot on here Rich. Whilst the exploits of US naval aviation is rightly recognised it seems to me that few people realise the devastating effect the submarine arm had on the Japanese war effort. The subs cut communications and supplies to Japanese garrisons on Pacific islands and stopped the transport of raw materials to Japan. The shortage of oil became so critical that the bulk of the Imperial Japanese Navy heavy units were bottled up in harbour for the last few years of the war and even when they sortied they were short of fuel.

I also agree with your comments about the capacity of the Collins to cause problems to a more powerful enemy and I would also have liked Tomahawk to have been available for these boats. The RAN has wanted a minimum of 8 submarines and I suspect we will see that number acquired when the Collins are replaced.

BTW the E class submarines, AE1 and AE2, were built by Vickers in Britain.

Ross Gillet, Australian and New Zealand warships 1914-1945, Doubleday, Australia, Pty Ltd, 1983

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

. Still, the Yank Pacific successes, and the influence of Yank boats basing in Australia during the war, changed naval thinking in the RAN.

After reading this I did some research into USN submarine operations in Australia and discovered the following info:

Between 1942 and 1945 122 American, 31 British, and 11 Dutch submarines used Australian ports with Fremantle having the largest role. At one time, there where 65 submarines carrying out patrols from there with total tonnage sunk being second only to that from submarines based at Pearl Harbour. The greatest tonnage of tankers sunk in 1944 were the victims of Fremantle submarines and during the course of the war one third of all US submarines operated out of Fremantle at some stage.

http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/collections/maritime/submarine/submarineheritage.asp
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/7660/Fremantle.html

77 USN submarines also served out of Brisbane at various times during the war. Up to 8 at a time were alongside on some occasions.

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ozatwar/capricorn.htm

I thought I had a good grasp of Australian naval history but whilst I knew submarines had operated from Fremantle and Brisbane I was surprised at the scale of operations. I guess this reflects the fact that the submarine arm really is the silent service.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

I thought I had a good grasp of Australian naval history but whilst I knew submarines had operated from Fremantle and Brisbane I was surprised at the scale of operations. I guess this reflects the fact that the submarine arm really is the silent service.

Exactly. The Aussies got to see first hand the impact the long range fleet submarine can make in the vast Pacific. Starting in 1949, I think, they reconstituted the submarine arm of the RAN and as far as I know they never did without boats again, eventually operating Oberon and Collins class boats and such weapons/combat systems as the Yank Harpoon, MK-48 ADCAP, and AN/BYG 1.

Forget the HMAS Australia. It would have been far better had her steel been recycled into submarines in between World Wars.

 

[Tasman]

What if Australia (II) replaced the original battlecruiser?

Originally posted byTodjaeger:

I am particularly interested in what people's thoughts are on the WWII & post WWII development of the RAN, if HMAS Australia had been retained.

-Cheers

Todjaeger, I thought I might look at this question from a slightly different angle. As I said earlier, Australia had to be scrapped because it was specifically decreed in a clause of the Washington Treaty to which Australian reps in the British delegation agreed. However, a more modern vessel could have been transferred in its place and become Australia (II). If that course of action had been followed I had thought the RN would have transferred the battlecruiser Tiger which was able to be kept until 1931 as the British Empire moved towards its eventual maximum capital ships tonnage of 525,000. Australia would have preferred a battlecruiser and I think the RN would have wanted to have kept the sister ships Repulse and Renown, whilst its other battlecruiser, Hood, had too much prestige to be transferred to a ‘dominion’.

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/tiger.htm

However, with the need to replace Tiger with another ship in 1931 and no new construction allowed by the treaty until the end of 1936, I now think a more logical vessel to have transferred would have been a Queen Elizabeth class battleship. They were regarded as fast for their day (24-25 knots) and were deemed worthy of extensive modernisation leading up to WW2. So I think maybe a ship like Warspite or Queen Elizabeth rather that Tiger would have become Australia (II).

http://www.answers.com/topic/hms-warspite-1913


With Australia (II) as its flagship, the RAN would have probably also have needed an aircraft carrier to support it and I suspect Hermes would have been the likely candidate. Of the other RN carriers, Argus and Eagle were too slow and the fast carriers, Courageous, Glorious and Furious, made up a homogeneous squadron. Hermes was small but her airgroup of approx 9 torpedo bomber/reconnaissance/spotter aircraft and 6 fighters would have given valuable support to the battleship and cruisers. Her speed was less than ideal but she would have been able to keep pace with Australia (II) and the cruisers. Importantly, foundations would have been established for a fleet arm that could be expanded when the need arose.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hms-hermes-95

A balanced fleet would have required the destroyer flotilla to have been kept as a full (9 units) rather than a half flotilla and the submarine arm would almost certainly have been maintained with a strength of at least 6 boats.

Hermes was due for replacement in 1940 and the armoured carrier Indomitable was under construction at the outbreak of war. She was a modified Illustrious class modified for service in the Far East so I think she would have replaced Hermes in my 'what if' fleet. A replacement for Australia (II) would also have been projected. RN plans called for two Lion class battleships in the 1940 program but a ship designed around four spare 15” gun turrets was also projected. In 1940 this materialised into the battleship Vanguard. The Lions were cancelled as they were too much for Britain’s war torn economy and shipbuilding capacity. From the outset Vanguard was (according to Raven and Roberts British Battleships of World War Two, Arms and Armour Press, 1976) suggested as a flagship for the RAN and it would have been a logical vessel to become Australia (III) in 1946, and flagship of the post war RAN.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hms-indomitable-r92
http://www.answers.com/topic/hms-vanguard-23

When the RAN considered acquiring a battleship in 1939 it was (according to Herman Gill, Royal Australian Navy 1939-42, The Griffen Press, Adelaide, 1957) determined that 6 Modified Tribal class destroyers would be needed for its screen and that the cruiser force could be reduced by one so that manpower wouldn’t be too overstretched.

So at the outbreak of WW2 in 1939 my 'what if' fleet would have comprised

1x battleship Australia (II) - ex Warspite or sister (plus Vanguard projected)
1 x small aircraft carrier - ex Hermes (plus Indomitable under construction)
2 x 8” heavy cruisers
3 x 6” light cruisers
9 x destroyers (plus 6 Mod Tribals under construction)
6 x submarines
2 MS/escort sloops (plus 2 under construction)

Plus support vessels

Had this fleet been in place and with Australia (II) substituted for the original battlecruiser we can then look again at the questions put forward by Todjaeger at the beginning of this thread:

How would the presence of HMAS Australia (II) have affected the balance of power in the Pacific during WWII?

What effect would there have been on the growth and deployment of the RAN during and after WWII if HMAS Australia (II) had been retained & deployed during WWII?

The cricket (NZ playing England to see who meets Australia in the tri series final) is starting on TV so I'll come back to these questions later.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Impact of Australia (II) in a 'what if' RAN in WW2

How would the presence of HMAS Australia (II) have affected the balance of power in the Pacific during WWII?

What effect would there have been on the growth and deployment of the RAN during and after WWII if HMAS Australia (II) had been retained & deployed during WWII?

Up until 10 June 1940 when Italy entered the war I expect Australia (II) would have formed a hunting group with Hermes and a heavy cruiser to search for heavy German surface raiders like the pocket battleship Graf Spee and her sisters. She would also have been used to escort important Anzac troop convoys to Europe or the Middle East, a task normally given to a British battleship. After the Italian declaration of war it is likely that she would have joined her British sisters in the Mediterranean Fleet and served there until the Japanese entry into the war.

After 7/12/41 HMAS Australia (II) would have been rushed to home waters, accompanied by Indomitable which had recently joined the fleet and just finished working up with her Airgroup of Sea Hurricane fighters and Albacore torpedo bombers. As a result of the loss of Repulse and Prince of Wales on 10/12/41 both would have proceeded to Australia and joined with the RAN and USN cruisers and destroyers to form a task force. Unfortunately I expect Hermes would have suffered the same fate as if she had still been in the RN and been overwhelmed by Japanese aircraft in the indian Ocean early in 1942. With Indomitable re–equipped with American Wildcats in place of her Sea Hurricanes, and with Dauntless dive bombers replacing one of her Albacore squadrons this force would have been part of the allied force which halted the Japanese navy’s forward momentum at the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942. The likely destruction of the Albacore biplanes in this battle would have led to the acquisition of Avenger torpedo bombers and by the end of the war Indomitable would be operating an Airgroup of approx 36 Hellcats and 18 Avengers. Later in thee war Australia (II) would have served in the surface bombardment role and would likely have been involved in the Battle of Leyte when, accompanied by the heavy cruiser Shropshire she would have participated with USN units in the last battle between battleships in Surigao Strait.

The possession of an established fleet air arm would have enabled Australia to bring forward plans to acquire light fleet aircraft carriers and two of these could have joined Indomitable in the British Pacific Fleet for operations against Japan in the second half of 1945. Between 2 and 4 additional cruisers and 12 destroyers would have been acquired to work with the new carriers.

I think the greatest impact against Japan of the ‘what if’ RAN would have been made by the submarine arm. This would have expanded rapidly from 1942 with the probable transfer of British T class subs and the total RAN submarine force could easily have been at least 12 strong by the end of the war.

The presence of a battleship in the RAN together with its supporting units may well have resulted in the strength of the RAN by August 1945 being approx:

1 battleship (plus one building)
1 fleet carrier
2 light fleet carriers
2 heavy cruisers
4 light cruisers (plus 2 building)
20 destroyers (plus 4 building)
10-12 submarines (plus 4 building)
12-16 frigates
60 + corvette/minesweepers

The post war RAN would have been built around the new battleship, the 3 carriers, the newer cruisers, the destroyers and the submarine force. I expect that the success of the carriers in WW2 and later in Korea would have caused public support for the retention of a carrier force in the RAN to this day. The success of the submarines would have ensured that the RAN would have had no trouble in maintaining its strength at a minimum of 8 to the present day.

What a pity this is all just what might have been!

 

[abramsteve]

Very interesting Tasman. You sure have done a fair bit of research on this subject! Especially your thoughts on the Subs, definatley overlooked by most!

 

[Todjaeger]

Todjaeger, I thought I might look at this question from a slightly different angle.

to...

So at the outbreak of WW2 in 1939 my 'what if' fleet would have comprised

1x battleship Australia (II) - ex Warspite or sister (plus Vanguard projected)
1 x small aircraft carrier - ex Hermes (plus Indomitable under construction)
2 x 8” heavy cruisers
3 x 6” light cruisers
9 x destroyers (plus 6 Mod Tribals under construction)
6 x submarines
2 MS/escort sloops (plus 2 under construction)

Plus support vessels

Had this fleet been in place and with Australia (II) substituted for the original battlecruiser we can then look again at the questions put forward by Todjaeger at the beginning of this thread:

How would the presence of HMAS Australia (II) have affected the balance of power in the Pacific during WWII?

What effect would there have been on the growth and deployment of the RAN during and after WWII if HMAS Australia (II) had been retained & deployed during WWII?

The cricket (NZ playing England to see who meets Australia in the tri series final) is starting on TV so I'll come back to these questions later.

Cheers

Ah, now this is interesting for discussion. And you're correct, this is more of less what I was thinking over. I was less concerned with the specific ship HMAS Australia (I) than with what effect there would've been on the RAN, RN and WWII if the RAN hadn't had the reduction in power. Or alternatively, if the RAN had a reduction in power, which was then rebuilt/replaced prior to the outbreak of WWII.

Incidentally, prior to the start of WWII, did the RN/British Empire reach max #/tonnage of aircraft carriers? One thing I've realised is that my library (personal) is woefully inadequate when it comes to Commonwealth/Empire military history. A side effect I suppose from living where I live. Most military books are centred on the US, with the rest largely being from a German/Axis POV. Oh well.

BTW Sorry for the late reply, been working on tracking down the text of the Washington Treaty.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Incidentally, prior to the start of WWII, did the RN/British Empire reach max #/tonnage of aircraft carriers?

-Cheers

The following details are from my 1939 edition of Janes Fighting Ships:

On 3/9/39 when Britain declared war on Germany the RN had the following carriers in service (tonnages are the Washington Treaty 'Standard'):

Ark Royal 22,000 tons 30.75 Knots 60 aircraft
Courageous 22,500 tons 30.5 knots 48 aircraft
Glorious 22,500 tons 30.5 knots 48 aircraft
Furious 22,450 tons 31 knots 33 aircraft
Eagle 22,600 tons 24 knots 21 aircraft
Hermes 10,850 tons 25 knots 15 aircraft

Total tonnage = 122,900

There was also the ex carrier Argus (14 000 tons, 20 knots, 20 aircraft as operational carrier) which was serving as a tender for unmanned target aircraft. She had been partly 'demilitarised' as she would have taken the tonnage above the limit. She was returned to service as an operational carrier when the war began.

Other info from a variety of sources including Roger Chesneau, Aircaft Carriers of the World 1914 to the Present, Arms and Armour Press, London, 1992:

Apart from Ark Royal which had commissioned in 1938 the six new Illustrious class carriers which were under construction (23,000 tons, 31+ knots, 54-72 aircraft) were to have replaced the older vessels, starting with Hermes which would have raised the total tonnage close to the 135,000 ton limit. By the outbreak of war, however, the quantitative limits of the Washington treaty had been abandoned and it is likely that the three faster old carriers would have been retained.

The RN carriers were capable vessels and (except perhaps for the 33,000 ton USS Lexington and her sister Saratoga) compared favourably with those of the Japanese and US navies. The problem was that the RN did not get control of naval aviation until 1937. Up until then aircraft were supplied by the RAF and flown by RAF pilots. Naval aviation was low on the RAF priority list and the quality of aircraft was poor compared with those available for land operations. RN practice was that all aircraft in the air group should be able to be stowed in the hangar, unlike the USN practice where some were carried in a permanent deck park. This limited the size of the air group so the numbers of aircraft carried compared unfavourably with US carriers. The deck park was adopted by the RN during the war so that HMS Illustrious, for example, had her initial air group of 36 increased to 54+ by the end of the war.

It can be seen from this that in the pre war years the RN was always under the treaty tonnage limit for carriers but was getting close towards the start of the war, by which time the limit had been abandoned anyway!

Cheers