Set a Ceylon trap for Nagumo, March 1942

[Glider]

The population of Sweden was 6.4 million in 1940, and it was able to maintain a competent ordnance industry. I realize that Australia's geographic situation was different, but this could give Australia a better domestic air transport market, and its position in the Commonwealth may permit it easier access to British possessions in Africa and Asia. Note that the idea of industrializing Australia would require a major change in attitude in London, as it was colonial policy to discourage industrialization outside of the British Isles. It was pretty much universal for imperial powers to discourage industry and promote extractive industry and cash crops, vs food production.

Such a change in policy would have had to start well before the start of WW2, probably no later than the first decades of the 20th Century.

Comparing Sweden with Australia is definitely comparing apples and pears. Sweden was easy to defend and compact with both resources easily available and it was technically advanced. Despite these advantages name one piece of equipment that was at least a match for any of the main participants.

Australia would have been very hard pressed to defend its coastline even if they threw everything into it's navy, with 20 years to prepare.

 

[SaparotRob]

The leadership of the various Dominions weren't stupid; they knew that the RN couldn't -- not wouldn't -- defend them in the event of a world-wide conflict where the Japanese were a major enemy. Australia, at least, was making or threatening to make, overtures to the US for supply of military equipment because of this. How much of the perceived Japanese threat, at least in the early 1930s, was due to racial paranoia (the "yellow peril") and how much of it was due to a realistic assessment of Japanese intentions is moot (I suspect it was under-estimated in London and

Alas, for them, British policy had been to retard industrialization of the dominions, even the white dominions, for the benefit of industries in the British Isles. Canada was probably the most industrially advanced of the dominions, but that was largely because of the proximity to the US.

I've wondered for quite some time how WW2 and world history (or at least Australasian history) would have proceeded differently had the policy in London had been to promote industry in the British Empire. How would the war in the China-Burma-India theatre have proceeded were India capable of producing all the uniforms, transport, artillery, small arms, and ammunition needed for the Indian Army and Australia capable of designing and mass producing modern combat aircraft and tanks?

Comparing Sweden with Australia is definitely comparing apples and pears. Sweden was easy to defend and compact with both resources easily available and it was technically advanced. Despite these advantages name one piece of equipment that was at least a match for any of the main participants.

Australia would have been very hard pressed to defend its coastline even if they threw everything into it's navy, with 20 years to prepare.

Bofors

 

[SaparotRob]

Sorry swampyankee, I still haven't figured out how to "quote" correctly. I was trying to quote Glider.

 

[swampyankee]

Comparing Sweden with Australia is definitely comparing apples and pears. Sweden was easy to defend and compact with both resources easily available and it was technically advanced. Despite these advantages name one piece of equipment that was at least a match for any of the main participants.

Australia would have been very hard pressed to defend its coastline even if they threw everything into it's navy, with 20 years to prepare.

Defending a 26,000 km coastline would be difficult for any country. Australia's coastline is longer than that of the US.

 

[Glider]

Sorry swampyankee, I still haven't figured out how to "quote" correctly. I was trying to quote Glider.

I have to give you that one, Bofors is a clear example.

Hats off to you

 

[RCAFson]

What would the UK have had to give up, other than honor, to cut a deal with Hitler? Its Jewish population?

???

 

[RCAFson]

Comparing Sweden with Australia is definitely comparing apples and pears. Sweden was easy to defend and compact with both resources easily available and it was technically advanced. Despite these advantages name one piece of equipment that was at least a match for any of the main participants.

Australia would have been very hard pressed to defend its coastline even if they threw everything into it's navy, with 20 years to prepare.

Yes, and Sweden had industrialized trading partners nearby. There's always some give and take in terms of Anglo-Australian military and industrial relations but ultimately it was the Australian taxpayer that didn't want to spend the money to subsidize domestic production beyond a certain point, ditto for Canada.

Ultimately certain projects that Australia entered into, like tank and Bofors production, might not have been very cost effective. OTOH, Lendlease from the USA, (and Commonwealth Mutual Aid from Canada) also offered a disincentive for Dominions to spend on industrial plants for war production.

 

[Freebird]

Today? Ok.

Anyone here from the Dominions? The Royal Navy will not protect you in the event of a full scale Japanese invasion.

The British only ever contemplated supporting the Americans in the Pacific War, not fighting Japan alone.

The fact remains that the Royal Navy DID dispatch a very sizable force to the Indian Ocean in the spring of 1942 to support the defence of Australia and maintain control of the Indian Ocean.

In the spring of '42 in addition to 3 of their 4 modern carriers (Indomitable, Formidable, Illustrious ) they had 5 battleships in the Indian Ocean in April 1942, and in May 42 dispatched 3 more* (Nelson, Rodney, Malaya) leaving just two available British battleships (battlecruisers) in the Atlantic - HMS Duke of York & HMS Renown. (KGV is repairing damage, HMS Howe commissions in June 1942)
* Transfer of the 3 battleships to the Eastern Fleet was rescinded in late May when JN-25 in May decripts indicated that the entire Japanese Kido Butai was heading east towards the American Navy, and abandoning the Indian Ocean.

The fact that the Royal Navy was willing to send 75% of it's modern carriers and 80% of its available battleships to bolster the Eastern Fleet contradicts the notion that the Royal Navy would abandon Australia.

 

[The Basket]

Can you advise when a RN fleet were near Australia?

1942 looks like Indian Ocean Ceylon Madagascar and so on. Can't see any Australian or New Zealand encounters.

 

[Kevin J]

Can you advise when a RN fleet were near Australia?

1942 looks like Indian Ocean Ceylon Madagascar and so on. Can't see any Australian or New Zealand encounters.

1943, USS ROBIN aka HMS VICTORIOUS, operating out of New Caledonia, IIRC.

 

[The Basket]

1943, USS ROBIN aka HMS VICTORIOUS, operating out of New Caledonia, IIRC.

One ship a fleet ain't. And this was USN not RN.

 

[swampyankee]

???

Hitler was attacking the UK for a reason; he was not going to just say "OK; glad you want a peace. That's it, then. Have a good day."

He would have demands. What they would be are moot, but they would exist. At the very least, they would include the right to monitor HM's government and a good sized chunk of UK specie.

Yes, and Sweden had industrialized trading partners nearby. There's always some give and take in terms of Anglo-Australian military and industrial relations but ultimately it was the Australian taxpayer that didn't want to spend the money to subsidize domestic production beyond a certain point, ditto for Canada.

Ultimately certain projects that Australia entered into, like tank and Bofors production, might not have been very cost effective. OTOH, Lendlease from the USA, (and Commonwealth Mutual Aid from Canada) also offered a disincentive for Dominions to spend on industrial plants for war production.

Canada didn't want to spend money on defense, pretty much period. I suspect a big chunk of that was because the francophone Canadians felt themselves to be politically and economically marginalized, and felt no loyalty to their national overseers in London.


Indeed, all the Commonwealth countries still had some sense of enforced dependence on London: they had restrictions in the domestic laws they could pass, and their defense planning was not entirely independent.

 

[Freebird]

Can you advise when a RN fleet were near Australia?

1942 looks like Indian Ocean Ceylon Madagascar and so on. Can't see any Australian or New Zealand encounters.

No, you are correct, the only British fleet (after Java Sea) was in the Indian Ocean.
However the intent wasn't to park a fleet (aka - target) in Darwin, it was to put significant naval assets into the Indian Ocean to decisively assert control of the area.

Following completion of the Japanese conquest of DEI on Mar 12, the Allies had a 3 pronged approach to halting Japanese advances, and defending Australia.

The Australians would block the northern approach, defending New Guinea and Northern Australia.

In April Americans dispatched 4 fleet carriers to the SW Pacific to secure the sea lanes and eastern approaches to Australia, and engage the Japanese (Coral Sea)

The British sent a 4th carrier (HMS Illustrious) on Mar 24th to join the other 3 already in the Indian Ocean, to secure the western approaches to Australia, and attack the IJN fleet if possible.

This was considered vital to keep communication through the Indian Ocean secure, as Britain continued transferring military assets to Australia, including 3 veteran and fully equipped Spitfire squadrons from the UK in May 1942. (2 RAAF, 1 RAF)

 

[RCAFson]

Can you advise when a RN fleet were near Australia?

1942 looks like Indian Ocean Ceylon Madagascar and so on. Can't see any Australian or New Zealand encounters.

The IJN never attempted an invasion of Australia so the fleet remained in the IO. The Allies had sufficient code breaking intel, that they knew about major IJN operations fairly well in advance.

 

[RCAFson]

Hitler was attacking the UK for a reason; he was not going to just say "OK; glad you want a peace. That's it, then. Have a good day."

He would have demands. What they would be are moot, but they would exist. At the very least, they would include a


Canada didn't want to spend money on defense, pretty much period. I suspect a big chunk of that was because the francophone Canadians felt themselves to be politically and economically marginalized, and felt no loyalty to their national overseers in London.


Indeed, all the Commonwealth countries still had some sense of enforced dependence on London: they had restrictions in the domestic laws they could pass, and their defense planning was not entirely independent.

Actually, there is a strong probability that the UK could have had such a peace because Hitler mainly wanted a free hand in Europe. It would have meant abandoning Europe to the tender mercies of the Nazis. The Commonwealth decided to risk an all out war, alone, rather than negotiate a such a peace.

Canadian defence spending increased rapidly after 1937, but didn't kick into high gear until 1940.

All Dominions were defacto completely independent, and after the Statute of Westminster in 1931, legally so. However, it was the Dominions, that resisted too much 'formal' independence partly because being part of the 'Empire' gave them military parity with their larger neighbours, and thus allowed the paltry defence spending.

When Americans said that Canada was weak, we replied that it was the USA that was weak compared to the British Commonwealth and Empire. After 1812, the 'Empire' was a safe space to be in.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Can you advise when a RN fleet were near Australia?

1942 looks like Indian Ocean Ceylon Madagascar and so on. Can't see any Australian or New Zealand encounters.

Looks like HMS Repulse's Dec 1941 run to Darwin was as close as Australia got to have any heavy RN units since the February 1924 Sydney visit by HMS Hood and Repulse. It's too bad that the entirety of Force Z wasn't at Darwin when the shooting started, as they would have likely have been more diligently employed, including waiting for a carrier (Hermes or Indomitable) to arrive.

HMS Repulse, British battlecruiser, WW2
5th – REPULSE escorted by the destroyers TENEDOS and HMAS VAMPIRE sailed from Singapore for Darwin for a 'showing the flag' visit to Australia.
6th – At 1330 hours en route to Darwin, REPULSE and her escort were recalled to Singapore.

In Feb 1942, HMS Hermes was ordered to Freemantle where the Allies had a regional command centre, but was recalled to Ceylon to join Sommerville's eastern fleet.

 

[RCAFson]

Looks like HMS Repulse's Dec 1941 run to Darwin was a close as Australia got to have any heavy RN units since the February 1924 Sydney visit by HMS Hood and Repulse. It's too bad that the entirety of Force Z wasn't at Darwin when the shooting started, as they would have likely have been more diligently employed, including waiting for a carrier (Hermes or Indomitable) to arrive.

HMS Repulse, British battlecruiser, WW2
5th – REPULSE escorted by the destroyers TENEDOS and HMAS VAMPIRE sailed from Singapore for Darwin for a 'showing the flag' visit to Australia.
6th – At 1330 hours en route to Darwin, REPULSE and her escort were recalled to Singapore.

In Feb 1942, HMS Hermes was ordered to Freemantle where the Allies had a regional command centre, but was recalled to Ceylon to join Sommerville's eastern fleet.

There were RN units as part of the ABDA, which were lost near Java, whilst attempting to fight their way to Australia in Feb-March 1942.

 

[Admiral Beez]

There were RN units as part of the ABDA, which were lost near Java, whilst attempting to fight their way to Australia in Feb-March 1942.

That's where Prince of Wales and Repulse (plus Indomitable and Hermes) would have been useful. Of course the IJN and the Kido Butai (aka the IJN's 1st Air Fleet) would have sent something equally heavy to counter them.

 

[Shortround6]

I've wondered for quite some time how WW2 and world history (or at least Australasian history) would have proceeded differently had the policy in London had been to promote industry in the British Empire. How would the war in the China-Burma-India theatre have proceeded were India capable of producing all the uniforms, transport, artillery, small arms, and ammunition needed for the Indian Army and Australia capable of designing and mass producing modern combat aircraft and tanks?

Part of this is as simple as population. Some is not, India could have had a much larger armaments industry, at times the country could support it and at times the world situation would have supported the idea. However in the early to mid 30s the idea of building up India's manufacturing/defense industry while tens of thousands UK citizens were without work and many of the defence factories/shipyards in the UK were closed would not have been an easy sell, regardless of the morality of of it.

Australia on the other hand wasn't really big enough to support such an industry, attempts had been made. I believe there was one WW I cruiser built in Australia and 4 between the wars destroyers? But machinery and armament was supplied by the UK, but you can't keep a shipyard open with a very limited program. Likewise the size of the Austrailian market for aircraft and or weapons larger than small arms was very limited.

Australia may have been (and still is) huge and needed air transport more than most but flying was for the rich in the 1930s. Would the domestic air transport market really support an aircraft factory of any real size?

Yes, British policy has a lot to answer for but given a more open market would Australia really have had much more industry than it had?

Even in the US many aircraft factories had hundreds of sub-contractors.

I would also note that a "tank" factory tooled up to make MK VI light tanks will be of little use trying to build 16-26 ton cruiser tanks (or I tanks).

 

[The Basket]

So the bombing of Darwin was not the responsibility of the RN to protect the borders of Australia? Help me out here.