Could HMAS Australia have been saved from scrapping ?

[Oberon_706]

So back on topic...

Hypothetically;

Tiger is transferred to the RAN as either 1) part of the WNT settlement, OR, 2) in an alt. post-LNT scenario where the escalator clause is triggered earlier than in OTL and the RN transfers Tiger to the RAN once Hood comes out of refit.

Or...

HMAS Australia I is converted into an aircraft carrier as part of the WNT washup. In this capacity, it serves the RAN well into WWII and played an instrumental role in...

Thoughts? Anyone care to contribute?

 

[Dilandu]

Tiger is transferred to the RAN as either 1) part of the WNT settlement, OR,

It would require either very alternative WNT or some case of serious dancing around definitions.

an alt. post-LNT scenario where the escalator clause is triggered earlier than in OTL and the RN transfers Tiger to the RAN once Hood comes out of refit.

What justification can be used?

HMAS Australia I is converted into an aircraft carrier as part of the WNT washup. In this capacity, it serves the RAN well into WWII and played an instrumental role in...

Not reasonable. From 1920s point of view, aircraft carrier is a useful, but addition to the main combat force. Without such combat force, there is no reason to have a carrier.

 

[Scott Kenny]

HMAS Australia I is converted into an aircraft carrier as part of the WNT washup.

I dunno, I'm thinking that the ship is a bit too slow to be good as a carrier.

 

[EwenS]

So back on topic...

Hypothetically;

Tiger is transferred to the RAN as either 1) part of the WNT settlement, OR, 2) in an alt. post-LNT scenario where the escalator clause is triggered earlier than in OTL and the RN transfers Tiger to the RAN once Hood comes out of refit.

Or...

HMAS Australia I is converted into an aircraft carrier as part of the WNT washup. In this capacity, it serves the RAN well into WWII and played an instrumental role in...

Thoughts? Anyone care to contribute?

So if Australia is converted to a carrier it counts towards the British Empire 135,000 tons of carriers. And it would not be covered by the "experimental" clause able to be replaced anytime because it wasn't a carrier in Nov 1921.

So it couldn't be replaced until June 1933 at the earliest.

That then creates a problem in the 1930s when Ark Royal is built. Argus was reclassified as an auxiliary (Queen Bee carrier) to allow that to happen. So other sacrifices will also have to be made. Carrier Australia? Hermes? Eagle? Furious?

I haven't got the exact figures to hand but at least one if not 2 will have to go.

 

[1635yankee]

It would require either very alternative WNT or some case of serious dancing around definitions.


What justification can be used?

I think that since all the Commonwealth navies were jointly bound by the Washington and London treaties, transferring a capital ship from the RN to the RAN would be acceptable if there is no net increase in Commonwealth capital ship tonnage, although Japan may whine a bit.

Increasing Commonwealth capital ship tonnage would be a much harder sell, and likely impossible.

 

[Dilandu]

I think that since all the Commonwealth navies were jointly bound by the Washington and London treaties, transferring a capital ship from the RN to the RAN would be acceptable if there is no net increase in Commonwealth capital ship tonnage, although Japan may whine a bit.

Hm. If it's done within the British Empire limits, then yes, it won't matter to whom exactly those ships would be subordinated.

 

[Owens Z]

I think that since all the Commonwealth navies were jointly bound by the Washington and London treaties, transferring a capital ship from the RN to the RAN would be acceptable if there is no net increase in Commonwealth capital ship tonnage, although Japan may whine a bit.

Uh oh: earlier a postwar acquisition by Australia of one or more of the flimsy Courageous class battlecruisers was mooted. Now it seems we are getting close to somebody suggesting that one of the tired, slow R-class battleships be transferred to the Royal Australian Navy in the 1930's... OH NO! In post #70, 1635yankee did just that. Run away, Australia!

 

[Owens Z]

There is no argument that there weren't significant obstacles to be overcome before retaining the battlecruiser would have been a practicable possibility (the least of which was a monetary one), but I don't believe shipyard capacity or capability would have been one of them. Larger tasks than basic seaworthiness and engineering maintenance would have initially been beyond CoDock, requiring a trip to, at least, Columbo or Malta for dry-docking, but the yard would have grown and matured with the necessity. The real challenge would have arisen when tasks requiring infrastructure the yard didn't possess in the 20's and 30's came along, as Sunderland Dock never had an attendant large capacity cranage sufficient to, say, unship a tripod masthead or change a 12" gun barrel. Only the floating crane, Titan (lift cap. 150 tonnes), was remotely capable of such work, requiring the ship to be afloat and alongside at the time. Major refit or modernisation work would likely have required a trip to the UK, or at a minimum, Malta, Gibraltar or (from 1938 - if she was still in commission) Singapore. Not necessarily a problem, but not ideal either.

Whichever way you look at it, retention of Australia I or allocation of a replacement battle cruiser like, say, Princess Royal or Tiger would have required significant investments in Australia's military-industrial complex across the board. From shipyards and machine shops to steelmaking and fabrication, armaments/explosives production and beyond.

EwenS and Scott Kenny were quick to gainsay you, Oberon, but I think you are basically correct. Some commenters here believe that it would have been impossible for the country to maintain battlecruiser HMAS Australia until WW2, due to limited port facilities. This seems excessive: they were doing fine in 1913-14. And all the huge British Pacific Fleet was based in Sydney (until it forward-deployed to Manus Island). And between the wars, the dreadnought capital ships of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Spain, and Turkey (hardly industrial powerhouses) managed to stay in service with modest funding. All accounts agree that the will to spend even modest funding on the battlecruiser was not there in Australia during the 1920's. But "unrealistic at the time, for understandable reasons" is not at all the same thing as "impossible". Had the will been there, the ship could have at least muddled through, and probably done a bit better.

The unavoidable problem, in true history and in plausible alternate worlds, is that the Indefatigable class were flawed ships even for WW1, much less WW2.

 

[EwenS]

EwenS and Scott Kenny were quick to gainsay you, Oberon, but I think you are basically correct. Some commenters here believe that it would have been impossible for the country to maintain battlecruiser HMAS Australia until WW2, due to limited port facilities. This seems excessive: they were doing fine in 1913-14. And all the huge British Pacific Fleet was based in Sydney (until it forward-deployed to Manus Island). And between the wars, the dreadnought capital ships of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Spain, and Turkey (hardly industrial powerhouses) managed to stay in service with modest funding. All accounts agree that the will to spend even modest funding on the battlecruiser was not there in Australia during the 1920's. But "unrealistic at the time, for understandable reasons" is not at all the same thing as "impossible". Had the will been there, the ship could have at least muddled through, and probably done a bit better.

The unavoidable problem, in true history and in plausible alternate worlds, is that the Indefatigable class were flawed ships even for WW1, much less WW2.

You cannot compare the naval facilities in Australia in 1945 with even that of 1939 let alone earlier in time.

The RN chose Singapore over Sydney in the 1920s to build a new RN Dockyard facility. But even in 1945 Australia couldn't cope with all the needs of the BPF.

Brisbane - Cairncross Dry Dock 800ft x 110ft. construction stared in Sept 1942, receiving its first ship in June 1944. When it opened it couldn't be used for the largest ships due to problems with access from the Brisbane River.

Sydney - Captain Cook Dry Dock and associated facilities. Approved in principle by Federal Govt in 1938. Construction started in 1941. HMS Illustrious was the first ship to use it on 2 March 1945 when she arrived in Australia.

Such was the shortage of dry docking facilities in Australia in 1945, especially in Sydney, that the battleship Howe had to be sent to Durban, South Africa in June for a 3 month refit. Destroyers and cruisers were being sent to Auckland in New Zealand due to lack of facilities in Australia. The two worst damaged ships, destroyers Ulster & Quilliam, were sent back to the UK. 3 destroyer sized floating docks had to be towed from Iceland, Britain & Malta to augment the docking facilities in Australia.

As for Chile, when the Admiral Latorre required modernisation in the late 1920s she spent nearly two years between 1929 and 1931 having the work carried out in Britain. Having been built in the USA the two Argentinian battleships Moreno & Rivadavia each spent spent 2-3 years between 1923 & 1926 being modernised in the USA. So these countries were definitely limited in the work that their home bases could carry out on them.

Edit - think about the various cruisers damaged in 1942/43 in the Solomons. Achilles and Leander both RNZN, New Orleans and Minneapolis from USN and Hobart RAN come immediately to mind. Some were patched up in Australia before being sent to US or Britain for full repairs. Only Hobart was fully repaired and had her AA modernised in Australia Aug 1943 to Dec 1944.

 

[Owens Z]

For what it's worth the Australian Government thought about acquiring one or more capital ships in the late 1930s. That's according to Chapter One of the official history of the RAN 1939-42, that can be downloaded from the Australian War Memorial website.

Chapter 1 – Between the Wars

www.awm.gov.au

See Page 39 onwards.

Thanks, NOMISYRRUC. I have read this Chapter 1 "Between the Wars" of the official Volume I: Royal Australian Navy 1939–1942; very interesting. Regarding a new Australian capital ship in the late 1930's, which this history states was being actively discussed in the government and among the general public, the chapter concludes:

"As to the proposal that Australia should acquire a battleship or battleships, that was of a long term plan which was overtaken and nullified by events. None suitable was in existence for purchase, and even had building facilities [in Australia] been available, four or five years must elapse before a battleship could be completed... So any hope that Australia might have had of acquiring a capital ship died with the outbreak of war [in September 1939]."

This sounds right. I think I will go on to read further chapters, to get the Australian view of the fierce naval battles of early 1942 around Indonesia.

 

[1635yankee]

Uh oh: earlier a postwar acquisition by Australia of one or more of the flimsy Courageous class battlecruisers was mooted. Now it seems we are getting close to somebody suggesting that one of the tired, slow R-class battleships be transferred to the Royal Australian Navy in the 1930's... OH NO! In post #70, 1635yankee did just that. Run away, Australia!

I think a "tired, slow R-class battleship" would be a better option than an obsolete, poorly armed and armored battlecruiser.