Author Topic: What if the fall of Singapore didn't happen?  (Read 18104 times)

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: What if the fall of Singapore didn't happen?
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2018, 12:41:50 PM »

That was what really killed the Sentinel.

Errr...what really killed the Sentinel was a simple lack of resources combined with a more easily/practical solution from overseas, which in turn allowed better allocation of previously mentioned scarce resources.

That might be what played out but what the Americans wanted counted, Greg.  What Uncle Sam wants, Uncle Sam invariably gets.   In this case, the intransigence of the states prevented that from happening:

Standardisation of Australia's Interstate Track Gauge:

Quote
   
History of Rail

The process standardising Australia's interstate track to a standard, 1435 mm gauge commenced in the 1930s, and was only completed in 1995.

    A standard gauge line connected Brisbane with the New South Wales system in 1930.
    Melbourne was linked to New South Wales by a standard gauge line in 1962.
    The standard gauges link between Perth and Kalgoorlie was completed in 1968.
    The Broken Hill to Port Pirie line in 1969 completed the standard gauge east-west transcontinental connection.
    Alice Springs was connected to the transcontinental line in 1980 with a line built from Tarcoola.
    Adelaide was connected to the transcontinental line in 1982 with the conversion of the line from Crystal Brook,
    Melbourne and Adelaide were linked by a standard gauge line that opened in June 1995.
    The standard gauge link between Alice Springs to Darwin was completed in January 2004

It was unimaginably difficult to move stuff by Rail during the 1930s-40s.  I remember how hard it was to go to WA from Adelaide in the late 1960s.   We had to take a train from Adelaide to Port Augusta, unload everything, take the transcontinental line to Kalgoorlie, unload everything, take the narrow-gauge line to Perth.  I cannot imagine what it must have been like in the 1930s-40s.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2018, 11:10:13 AM by Rickshaw »

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: What if the fall of Singapore didn't happen?
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2018, 03:51:31 PM »
The US actually initially supported the Sentinel as their own production was still ramping up.  Once it became clear that the required machine tools, plant and equipment, needed to support Australian production was going to be more difficult to source than US build tanks themselves, they removed their support.  By the end of 1942 the US had tanks to spare but still needed machine tools for other purposes.

Many of my relatives were tool makers by trade, its what boys with brains, but no money for a tertiary education, did up until education became more accessible in the 70s.  They were not allowed to enlist in WWII as their skills were critical to munitions production.  One grandfather who served in the RAAF in WWII, initially as a flight engineer, spent the later part of the war sourcing (sometimes even designing) jigs and fixtures required for aircraft maintenance and repairs, while the other alternated between the merchant marine and QA at a munitions plant depending on what had precedence the time (and how desperately he needed space and time away from my grandmother) and neither of them were indentured tradesmen, one was a bush mechanic and the other an ex RAN cook. 

A number of their siblings and inlaws were however qualified toolmakers and even though each volunteered they were rejected because their skills were too critical to the war effort.  A lot of the issue is that there were just so few of them, the industries that had stated to develop before WWI had withered and died between the wars because of economic pressure and short sighted stupidity.  Cruisers had been built in Australia during WWI and destroyers assembled and built, submarines and aircraft were seen as the next step but then nothing.  No work, no trained people and a steeper, more difficult leaning curve to get back to where your were, let alone to where you needed to be.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: What if the fall of Singapore didn't happen?
« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2018, 11:18:05 AM »
Why not simply have Australia get some Shermans?

An excellent point and one I have made in the past.  The M3 medium and the M4 medium were more than adequate to deal with Japanese armour and fortified positions.  Their major problem was weight and size.  The Matilda had superior armour but an inferior gun and it was all in a small, neat package which made moving it around the coast of initially New Guinea and then to the Islands and Borneo an easier solution.   

The RAAC decided that the Matilda was a better option than the M3 or M4.   Their tests of the M4 late in the war, also demonstrated that it was relatively easy to belly a Sherman and immobilise it in attempting to negotiate terrain.  Something the USMC had discovered with the M3 light tank earlier in the war.   It's main problem was that it was simply too broad and flat on it's bottom and it lacked the "oompth" to get itself off the mud and timber the artillery barrages had often created.

The real key to defeating the Japanese was well trained, well motivated infantry, occasionally, when necessary, supporter by well armoured and gunned tanks.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: What if the fall of Singapore didn't happen?
« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2018, 11:25:58 AM »
Some interesting and relivent stuff there thank you Rickshaw

Especially in the case of my want and need your comment:
 
Quote
The British didn't really field it until late 1943 - despite having developed the round in the late 1930s


So technically speaking, Australia would/could be in good stead to request license production of this 2-pounder HE round or even upsize it to 6-pounder/57mm at the beginning of the Second World War or there abouts 😯

There was a 6 Pdr HE round - developed at the same time as the gun and issued fairly liberally as well.  The British had caught onto the value of a HE round and with their experiences against the Germans in the Western Desert felt it was desirable.   There was also a 6 Pdr HE round which dated from the original 6 Pdr naval gun (which was what was used in WWI tanks).   So, there really wasn't a need to "upsize" anything.

In Australia's case, the reason why they developed  a base fused round was because of their experiences in New Guinea facing Japanese bunkers.  The 37mm rounds, used in the M3 Stuart (used at Buna) were found to detonate too early, on the front face often of the bunkers, so it was felt a base fused round would be superior with it's armour penetration.   The British simply stuck with their nose fused round because they used the 2 Pdr primarily in open warfare (and, "Really?  Wasn't that the way we always designed our HE rounds?  Why should we change? Mmmm?"  No doubt played a part in their thinking...)  The 6 Pdr HE round used a nose fuse as well BTW.