Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It wasn't without justification that Pacific nations felt Britain had abandoned them
The Empire was always about serving those with power and influence in Britain, or more precisely England. This was the fatal flaw in the British Empire, it was run on a shoestring and never really cared about bringing its colonies into equal footing in the greater empire.Britain had no one to blame but themselves, to be honest.
Maybe let the Australians take over Malayan defence instead of taking the lions share of their troops to North Africa.What exactly was Britain supposed to do from half a world away. I suppose they could ask Hitler and Mussolini to stop the fighting so Britain could send troops, planes and ships to go and fight in the Pacific.
Maybe let the Australians take over Malayan defence instead of taking the lions share of their troops to North Africa.
What exactly was Britain supposed to do from half a world away. I suppose they could ask Hitler and Mussolini to stop the fighting so Britain could send troops, planes and ships to go and fight in the Pacific.
But it needed to be stripped out, extra fuel tanks fitted and could carry no practical payload, not even a few hundred pounds of mail.
That number includes everyone in uniform. AIUI in 1941 Australia had five combat infantry divisions, plus four militia/reserve/training division.I don't know the total number of Australian personnel involved in North Africa but there were 3 Australian infantry Divisions in the theatre. After the start of the Japanese attacks 2 divisions were withdrawn almost immediately and returned to Australia. The 9th division stayed in Africa till the end of 1942. The Australian Armed forces early 1941 was nearly 600,00 strong. An Infantry Division in Africa could vary in size but the usual complement was ~18,000 men.
So approximately 10% of the Australian armed forces was in Africa before the Japanese attacks.
They did: South Africans.So, send someone else to North Africa
Where did you get the range of the clean Do-26s that you had confidence in to compare to the Wikipedia range of the Mars that you posted as evidence it had the longest legs. I ain't saying you are wrong but you didn't do much to convince us readers that the Mars out-ranged all versions of the Do-26.The Axis made some ultra long range flying boats. Though we must be wary of Wikipedia as some aircraft are ferry weight and others loaded weights.
Blohm & Voss BV 222 - 6,100 km (3,800 mi, 3,300 nmi)
Blohm & Voss BV 238 - 6,620 km (4,110 mi, 3,570 nmi)
Kawanishi H8K - 7,152 km (4,444 mi, 3,862 nmi)
Meanwhile the Allies were comparatively short ranged.
Short Seaford - 5,000 km (3,100 mi, 2,700 nmi)
Consolidated PB2Y Coronado - 1,720 km (1,070 mi, 930 nmi)
That is, until Mars conquers all.... Martin JRM Mars 8,000 km (4,900 mi, 4,300 nmi)
It must have seemed incredible to fly those distances in the late 1930s to mid 40s.
I didn't reference the Do-26.Where did you get the range of the clean Do-26s
See the USN Performance Data document:"http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/XPB2M-1R_Mars_PD_1_April_1943.pdf"
The Mars was a lot more plane but the elegant little Do-26 had the advantage of very efficient diesels (Junkers Jumo 205E). I think they could do like 5,600 miles with a very modest 500kg payload and assisted take off. This was of course before they militarized it with defensive guns. The turrets really impacted the performance. Both were very interesting airplanes.
Mars conquers all the ones I listed. I didn't compare every flying boat in existence.I was taking the "Mars conquers all" as an implication that it out-ranged all other flying boats rather than just US ones.