"Dumb What Ifs: HMAS Australia" Topic

The Australians were extremely proud of the battlecruiser HMAS Australia, and there was a public outcry when she was discarded in 1924. What if she had been modernized instead?

This is a completely imaginary counter-factual – the UK probably wouldn't have kept any original battlecruisers even without the Washington treaty, and Australia didn't have the money – but kind of a fun mental exercise anyway. There are lots of examples of obsolete old warships modernized between the wars and kept in service through WWI to guide the imagination. Every navy with battleships kept a bunch of them through the treaty years and modernized them. Nearly all of the Turkish and Greek fleets were obsolete units with periodically refreshed machinery and armament; Turkey kept Yavuz (Göben) in service until 1950(!). South American nations also tended to keep obsolete designs in service. There were some even in the navies of major countries like Italy (San Giorgio, San Marco) and Germany (Braunschweig and Deutschland class pre-dreadnoughts).

What changes would have made Australia remain useful in the 1930s?

Off the top of my head, I can suggest the usual modernizations:

• New oil-fired boilers
  
• Upgraded secondary guns
  
• Lots of new anti-aircraft weapons
  
• Upgraded or removed torpedo tubes
  
• Upgraded misc. internal systems (fire control, ranging/sighting equipment, damage control equipment, wireless, maybe radar, etc.)

After WWI, her main guns were worn out, and nobody was making more, nor manufacturing ammo for them. The old Royal Navy 12" guns were obsolete. I'm not sure what, if anything, could have replaced them. This is purportedly part of the reason she was scuttled rather than modernized.

Given the armor scheme and speed, in WWII she could have been useful as a cruiser killer. She had the same basic armor level as heavy cruisers, but much bigger main guns.

A reconstructed clipper bow might have been a good idea too, if feasible.

It's unclear if a new bow, upgraded boilers and refreshed turbines could have made her faster. Her speed was high for WWI, but a bit slow for a WWII cruiser.

Most large post-WWI designs had provisions for aircraft, but it's hard to know where to fit the hanger and catapult(s) on Australia. The rear superstructure was tall and covered in boats, but still seems like the best choice for conversion. If the middle stack was removed and trunked into the fore and aft stack positions, that middle island could have become a hanger with cranes and the catapults could have been placed atop the midships turrets; that seems a bit of a stretch. If cross-deck firing could be sacrificed, there was plenty of deck space in the two openings for the wing turrets to place a hangar and catapult.

More thoughts welcome.

- Ix

Joined Force Z, got sunk. Game over ;)

Agreed! The Japanese fleet in early 1942 were capable of dealing with any Allied warship, (see Java sea, for example). But air power was the great decider in the Pacific sea war.

There are some interesting articles around the proposed purchase and modernisation of HMS Tiger for the Dutch Nay. Those would be good references. The ODGW site , amongst others, has articles in their General Quarters rules areas.
Australia was an earlier, and much poorer, design in terms of armament and particularly protection. That would have a big impact on the cost effectiveness of modernising her. Waste of time and money in my view.

I read somewhere that apparently the British were a bit miffed when they saw how the Japanese had modernised their old WW1 ship and realised they could have done the same to her super-dreadnaughts.

Also New Zealand wanted to have HMS New Zealand modernised and returned to NZ but it too was disposed of in 1824. Which was annoying because we didn't finish paying for her until 1942!

I think the only one of the British BC's that received serious consideration for modernization was HMS Tiger although I have seen some mention of Lion and Princess Royal possibly considered as well. I believe the Dutch may have kicked the tires on Tiger but as I recall, the 13.5" guns might have been an issue. I don't know if a conversion to oil would be needed but between that and adding bulges, it would not have been cheap. I can't see any value in the earlier 12" surviving BC's as their vulnerability was well established.

Ix,

I like the concept. To build off the previous comments I think it would be a good variant to the Java Sea campaign booklet that ODGW put out to have the two old girls given to the ANZACs. The ODGW campaign has the Japanese assign more BBs to the campaign if Force Z survives or in the alt-history where the dutch bought Tiger or three Scharnhorst-class BCs from Germany.

As to the most likely modernization, I'd say due to the age and layout of her guns that the best use would be conversion to Aircraft Carriers. If you wanted a crazier what-if than maybe a sort of pre-Hyuga hybrid battlecarrier.

Bud

Bud (Halfmanhalfsquidman) made a reference to the "Java Sea campaign booklet that ODGW put out". I am the author of that booklet, Defending the Malay Barrier. As Bud notes, the campaign already has provisions for including some "what if" ships, including modifications to the IJN OB in response. I have also posted some files on the ODGW forum that address the Dutch acquiring the Mackensen class BCs, or the "battle carriers" from the novel Far Aft and Faintly.

Some of the assumptions I make in those files are heavily influenced by the availability of GQ3.3 data/charts (e.g. for the Dutch Mackensen class BCs, I went with their main battery being fitted with British 13.5" guns, in no small part due to that gun being on the GQ3.3 Netherlands Navy Gunfire CRT).

Without going into any thought as to what the ship logs for HMAS Australia (and possibly HMNZS New Zealand) would look like as far as armor, speed, and secondary/tertiary armament, the first thing that comes to my mind for main battery would be to say the ship's 12" guns are simply "refurbished" and thus use the 13.4" • 12" column on the Marine Francaise (MF) Gunfire CRT. Alternately, one could postulate the ANZACs somehow procure surplus U.S. 12" guns & shells, and thus they could use the 12" column on the USN Gunfire CRT (one might not think so from looking at it, but there is a thread on the ODGW forum stating this entry is for the 12"/50 Mk 7 on USS Arkansas, and not the Mk8s on the Alaska class).

Obviously when one gets into the "what if" realm, there are usually many paths available depending on what level of suspension of disbelief one is willing to incur.

Dave

If we gloss over the issue that HMAS Australia would almost certainly have been charged against the Commonwealth treaty tonnage totals, tilting more bottoms into the other signatories totals, there is some hopeless math waiting at the other end.

Building, or modernizing, any weapon system is like hurling a watermelon over a high wall and hoping it lands on a picnic table you're not even sure is on the opposite side. Many weapon systems are never called upon to fire a shot in anger. Many others reach their moment of trial hopelessly outclassed, outnumbered, and or techno-trumped.

In 1924 who is HMAS Australia potentially going to have to fight? The war to end all wars is only 5 years gone. HMAS Australia would be of limited value against any potential Pacific enemy except the US or Japan, against whom she'd be worse than useless. This before any thought is devoted to the risk of subs or aircraft. By WWII Australia had barely enough ASW craft to protect its coastal commerce. How many ASWs did it have that could keep up with a 25kt capital ship? If the BC had been fitted with 1939 state of the art AA, she'd be little better than she was with her 2 4" from 1920.

Retaining Goeben made sense as she posed a rear counter to local Greek and Russian naval power.

HMAS Australia would have had to be regunned. 12" from other retired ships might have been an option, assuming Australia was willing to build an entire 12" ammo infrastructure.

There might have been money 1924-1929 to afford upkeep and modernization, but after the crash, she'd have been a total white elephant.

It's a hard reality that in weapons systems, as in electronics, there is simply no room for sentimentality. HMAS Australia might have found a niche as a training ship, or a target ship, or a receiving ship in a much larger navy. She might have made it to 1930 as a museum ship, but sooner or later a dignified scuttle was perhaps the best that time and tide had to offer.

In 1939 a refurbished HMAS Australia is transferred to Force G, South Atlantic command, helping hunt the Graf Spee and other German surface raiders.

Early in the morning of December 13th smoke was sighted to the north-west …

I totally agree that upgrading one of the first battlecruisers would have been a waste of money. I did title this thread "Dumb What Ifs". The second HMAS Australia (the County class cruiser) was a much better use of money and better fit for Australia's needs.

I was more interested in musing about what kinds of things might have been done if Australian national pride had trumped military practicality. These kinds of things do occur from time to time, especially in poor nations without the industrial capacity to replace the thing they're giving up.

The idea to use spare USN 12" guns is a very interesting one. The Mark 5 12"/45 was removed from USN service in 1922, and kept for the army to use as coastal artillery. The army never used them, so a bunch got sold to Greece and Brazil. It isn't much of a stretch to imagine Australia getting some.

- Ix

Just what I needed, another piece of inspiration for interwar "what-ifs"! At least I already have the model for this one!

I absolutely agree that she would fare poorly in WWII, but without that hindsight I could see her serving in a "Great Pacific War" or such setting in the 20s and 30s.
The postwar German designs are comparable, perhaps more cruiser warfare after a stalemate in Europe that leaves the Central Powers intact for a second round? She would also have her work cut out for her if you gamed the South American dreadnought race spilling over.

I do like the idea of equipping her with other castoff armament.

link

Here's a link to one I like: a 1944-era rebuilt of a Lexington class battle cruiser. These guys do a lot of interesting "what if's."

Think of it as the American Hood, sole survivor of a class otherwise converted to carriers or scrapped on the ways. Imagine it missing Pearl Harbor because of a stateside rebuild, arriving in the Pacific in time to escort the carriers at Midway, and perhaps fight at Guadalcanal.

I have it on my workbench in Measure 21, cobbled together a "refitted" log for Seekrieg using PDF editor…..can't wait to see how it performs.

Ha! This thread brought back frond memories of when I used to hack at navwar ships to modernize them for general quarters. My only successful one was HMS Tiger to be used by the Dutch.

At the time, this page game a lot of inspiration. Interesting ideas if you ignore practicalities.

link

Or the Washington Treaty. But what-ifs are fascinating. GHQ does a couple of good what-ifs, including the Lion, Montana, and H-20 and Graf Zeppelin, but Tiny Thingamajigs is killing it with some of their offerings. Really quite a range. They have a very good "1938 rebuild Hood" that is almost as good as a GHQ casting.

Norman Friedman's book on British battleships spends some time analyzing the ideas they experimented with, particularly the proposals for a 12" gun battleship in the 1930s, and the G3/N3 classes.

Dutch Mackensens?

Never mind…found them. Nice idea…