Modelling > Scenarios

Australian Combined Arms Capability in Interwar Period

(1/4) > >>

GTX_Admin:
A complex title (perhaps) for a basically simple concept.  During WW1 and especially the Battle of Hamel , the Australians under General Sir John Monash showed the way for what would later become standard combined arms doctrine.  Monash was a noted advocate of the co-ordinated use of infantry, aircraft, artillery and tanks and indeed wrote:


--- Quote ---... the true role of infantry was not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, nor to tear itself to pieces in hostile entanglements—(I am thinking of Pozières and Stormy Trench and Bullecourt, and other bloody fields)—but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward; to march, resolutely, regardless of the din and tumult of battle, to the appointed goal; and there to hold and defend the territory gained; and to gather in the form of prisoners, guns and stores, the fruits of victory.
--- End quote ---

In reality, post WW1, the Australian Army did seek to obtain tanks, however, due to post-war economic measures this was slow in occurring with the first (4 British Vickers Medium Mark IIs) not being until 1927.  However, what if this did not get hampered.  What if instead, the Australian Government/Defence Force took to heart the lessons from the Battle of Hamel and similar and in a step towards avoiding future unnecessary loss of infantry took to heart the concept of combined arms approach to warfare and thus plan on/equip/train for highing integrated forces?  This would perhaps include:


* Armour:  Perhaps early adoption of tanks in 1919/20 starting perhaps with a mix of Male/Female Mark V tanks or even Medium Mark C plus Mark IX armoured personnel carrier (APCs) and maybe even the UK/US Mark VIII 'heavy' tank.  Smaller Medium Mark A Whippets might also be used.  Note that I have stayed with the UK designs for the most part initially though that would not preclude others being acquired or even indigenous designs being developed.  Maybe also more could happen on the self propelled gun/mortar front - for instance Gun Carrier Mark Is did operate with Australians during the war.
* Aircraft:  Probably not much here differing from reality, though perhaps greater use of ground attack types - for instance, maybe the Bristol F.2 Fighter is kept in service post war in the army cooperation role much like it did with the RAF.  Perhaps also see use of variants equipped with 'tropical' radiators.  These would eventually be replaced with Westland Wapiti much as in the real world.  There might also be developments such as paratroops earlier and other aerial resupply developments leading on from those initiated in WW1
Other thoughts?

Volkodav:
Interestingly not only Monash, but also Chauvell and Blamey, well pretty much every general we had wanted a motorized regular army, supported by tanks artillery and aircraft.  The political classes and a minority or militia officers were in favor of a citizen army i.e. the continuation of the status quo, seeing WWI as an aberration and small conflicts such as the Sudan, South Africa (Boer War), etc. as more likely (not to mention more affordable).

Blamey, despite his bad reputation was a master planner and responsible for most of the detail planning as Monash's Chief of Staff, in WWII he was even trying to get early helicopter deployed operationally to PNG to support troops in their fight against Japan.

As for the Bisfit, the RAAF wanted them but was gifted DH-9As instead.  I will happily stand corrected, but I believe the RAAF did a much better job of working with the army than the RAF did in the interwar period, they knew their very existence depended on being useful.

The AIF in France was actually one of the most heavily motorised armies in the world at the end of WWI, they however were required to leave their vehicles in France as no need was seen for them back home by the political classes, well not enough use to justify transporting them back.  Sadly all Australia was left to show for what they were in 1918, was a massive war debt and none of the materiel the debt was run up to pay for.

apophenia:
Along with the DH.9As, the Imperial Gift also included the problematic Puma-powered DH.9s. Perhaps the latter were substituted for the RAAF's preferred Bristol F.2s?

Anyway, here is my take on Greg's postwar RAAF 'Brisfits' ...

Top RAAF Bristol F.2b Fighter of 'C' Flight, 3 Squadron, Richmond, NSW. This aircraft is shown with exercise markings applied - 'Red 4' and a 3 Sqn crest on the fin - in late August of 1925.

'Brisfit' A5-14 was originally 'White 1', the personal mount of 3 Squadron C/O, Sqn Ldr FWF Lukis - hence her 'Flyer' motif. Note the newly-adopted Matthews & Hassell auxiliary radiator beneath the engine.

Bottom RAAF Bristol F.2J Brisbaine (aka 'Jupiter Fighter') with 'B' Flt, 1 Flying Training School RAAF, Point Cook, Victoria. Although not dual-controlled, this aircraft was employed as a flight trainer in late 1929. Yellow recognition markings were distinct to 1 FTS.

Note that the RAAF's F.2J Brisbaine was a local modification, differing from Bristol's Jupiter Fighter in detail - one being the use of a cowling similar to that of the RAAF's Bulldog II fighters.
__________________________

BTW: These sideviews are based on Ronny Bar's 'Brisfit' profile for Wingnut Wings.
__________________________

I've also played with a possible substitute for the Whippet but thought was maybe a bit too nutty to mount here ...
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg191374#msg191374

GTX_Admin:
 :smiley:

Rickshaw:
These plans are wonderful.  Pity they cost so much.  Money which none of the armed services could afford. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page