Without proper RAF presence in the region both Army and RN will have hard times ahead of them in a case of a new conflict in the region.
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Maybe we will eventually see Australia fielding squadrons of CAC CA-15s?
I hope so, it's one gorgeous aircraft, if only CAC had decided to go ahead with it more than build Mustangs under licence, it would easily have replaced the Mustang - especially if they used the R-2800 radial engine as planned
- 1
trekaddict - It's a bit specialist, but I suspect fairly popular round here.
Nathan Madien - Given the number of volunteers for the Hong Kong Regiment in OTL (and the somewhat strange Canadian decision to send two battalions there in very late 1941) you would be in a minority.
Fighting for Hong Kong is perfectly rational as long as relief is coming. If not then I agree you'd have to hit the gin quite hard before thinking it was a wise move.
trekaddict - With relations with France currently cool those Hispano-Suiza cannons are looking tricky to acquire. There may be no cannon armed Spits at all at this rate. A butterfly I had not foreseen has come back to bite the RAF.
DonnieBaseball - India is the obvious choice, if only because the units there (well some of them) are used to the climate. The Burma Division for instance would acclimatise quite well, the 53rd Welsh Division might struggle somewhat to begin with.
In a different game the 'T's might make an impact, in HOI2D they're just going to get eaten up. Luckily however I don't have to accurately report what happens, so they may yet do some good if war comes.
Agamemnon_1781 - Welcome from the lurking, please feel free to make non-technical question comments.
So from yourself and DonnieBaseball I understand it the NA-16 was a 'Jack of all trades, do anything' purchase, on the basis there would be no money for anything else. Makes sense. What was throwing me was the RAAF went on to buy Miles Magisters (another two seat, low wing, monoplane trainer) in 1938 - i.e. before the Wirraway was in service.
However if the Wirraway was to be a general purpose fighter-bomber-observer-whatever aircraft, any training role was coincidental. Hence you'd accept dodgy fighter performance (two seats is not good) because you need two people for bombing/observing.
Assuming I've not missed anything that helps alot.
Sir Humphrey - That will involve weaning Lawrence Wackett out of a position of power, he had the occasionally admirable quality of inpatient arrogance - valuable when it worked out, a massive waste of time, money and effort when it didn't. For the CAC-15 it didn't work out.
Karelian - I can guarantee there will be planes if the Far East, no promises of quality or quantity though.
Agamemnon_1781 - I'm not sure about that, I think one of the later marks of RR Griffon would have done at least as well if not better. But then I've always preferred a big V-12 over a radial
Nathan Madien - Given the number of volunteers for the Hong Kong Regiment in OTL (and the somewhat strange Canadian decision to send two battalions there in very late 1941) you would be in a minority.
Fighting for Hong Kong is perfectly rational as long as relief is coming. If not then I agree you'd have to hit the gin quite hard before thinking it was a wise move.
trekaddict - With relations with France currently cool those Hispano-Suiza cannons are looking tricky to acquire. There may be no cannon armed Spits at all at this rate. A butterfly I had not foreseen has come back to bite the RAF.
DonnieBaseball - India is the obvious choice, if only because the units there (well some of them) are used to the climate. The Burma Division for instance would acclimatise quite well, the 53rd Welsh Division might struggle somewhat to begin with.
In a different game the 'T's might make an impact, in HOI2
D they're just going to get eaten up. Luckily however I don't have to accurately report what happens, so they may yet do some good if war comes. Agamemnon_1781 - Welcome from the lurking, please feel free to make non-technical question comments.
So from yourself and DonnieBaseball I understand it the NA-16 was a 'Jack of all trades, do anything' purchase, on the basis there would be no money for anything else. Makes sense. What was throwing me was the RAAF went on to buy Miles Magisters (another two seat, low wing, monoplane trainer) in 1938 - i.e. before the Wirraway was in service.
However if the Wirraway was to be a general purpose fighter-bomber-observer-whatever aircraft, any training role was coincidental. Hence you'd accept dodgy fighter performance (two seats is not good) because you need two people for bombing/observing.
Assuming I've not missed anything that helps alot.
Sir Humphrey - That will involve weaning Lawrence Wackett out of a position of power, he had the occasionally admirable quality of inpatient arrogance - valuable when it worked out, a massive waste of time, money and effort when it didn't. For the CAC-15 it didn't work out.
Karelian - I can guarantee there will be planes if the Far East, no promises of quality or quantity though.
Agamemnon_1781 - I'm not sure about that, I think one of the later marks of RR Griffon would have done at least as well if not better. But then I've always preferred a big V-12 over a radial
- 1
trekaddict - With relations with France currently cool those Hispano-Suiza cannons are looking tricky to acquire. There may be no cannon armed Spits at all at this rate. A butterfly I had not foreseen has come back to bite the RAF.
Spits with no cannon ain't awesome, which I don't like at all.
So you want some 20 mm cannons? Here's somesort of "replacement" for the HS cannons. But this replacement has a significant lower rate of fire to begin with.
o
Last edited:
- 1
Pippy
Sorry to disagree but the training role was instrumental to its purchase.
Agamemnon_1781 is right in his history but simple facts don't tell the story of why.
The RAAF planned 32 squadrons, only 2 were to be fighters because the RAF and RN would keep foreign aircraft far enough away from our mainland. We didn't think we needed modern fighters and if we did we'd buy them. Heh, we only planned to field 20-30 of them!
Our industry was geared to be part of the worldwide British aircraft industry rather than to cater specifically for our own needs. We built Beuforts and sold half on to other Dominions or Britain. We built Wirraways because we could use them for trainers, and we made them jack of all trades because we expected them to be bought by all the Dominions. It was part of the compartmentalisation of the Empire defense scheme. The Magisters were stop gaps for our own training because of the delays with the Wirraways.
If you look at the history of RAAF fighter units they flew whatever the RAF supplied them with wherever they were sent. Buffaloes in Malay, Hurricanes and Kittyhawks in the Mid East and Spits in England. Fighters for the Pacific were few and far between, and with the collapse of British sea/air power we had to scape together fighter squadrons quickly. The Wirraway was the only aircraft available... given Churchill sent all his spare modern fighters to the Turks.
The Boomerang was our attempt to build a modern fighter asap. It was late and not quite modern but not bad considering our circumstances... a direct parallel to the story of the Sentinel tanks.
Dury.
P.S. Oh and nice update!
Sorry to disagree but the training role was instrumental to its purchase.
Agamemnon_1781 is right in his history but simple facts don't tell the story of why.
The RAAF planned 32 squadrons, only 2 were to be fighters because the RAF and RN would keep foreign aircraft far enough away from our mainland. We didn't think we needed modern fighters and if we did we'd buy them. Heh, we only planned to field 20-30 of them!
Our industry was geared to be part of the worldwide British aircraft industry rather than to cater specifically for our own needs. We built Beuforts and sold half on to other Dominions or Britain. We built Wirraways because we could use them for trainers, and we made them jack of all trades because we expected them to be bought by all the Dominions. It was part of the compartmentalisation of the Empire defense scheme. The Magisters were stop gaps for our own training because of the delays with the Wirraways.
If you look at the history of RAAF fighter units they flew whatever the RAF supplied them with wherever they were sent. Buffaloes in Malay, Hurricanes and Kittyhawks in the Mid East and Spits in England. Fighters for the Pacific were few and far between, and with the collapse of British sea/air power we had to scape together fighter squadrons quickly. The Wirraway was the only aircraft available... given Churchill sent all his spare modern fighters to the Turks.
The Boomerang was our attempt to build a modern fighter asap. It was late and not quite modern but not bad considering our circumstances... a direct parallel to the story of the Sentinel tanks.
Dury.
P.S. Oh and nice update!
- 1
gaiasabre11 - It would be an alarming prospect, though rest assured matters are well in hand.
Duritz - I must say after discovering a new Australian source I must disagree. Google has scanned, OCR'd and put online The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times.
From reading the 1930s archives a few things become clear;
1. The NA-16 was repeatedly called an 'interim build' until a modern British twin could be built. They would only build 40 of them then switch over to a British design.
2. The Minister for Defence, Archdale Parkhill, claimed the plan was for them to serve as 'general purpose' aircraft until obsolete then be used as trainers
3. The Australian government told a hell of a lot of lies to get it built - there were no British fighters with stressed skins , No British firm wanted to build a factory in Australia, that sort of rubbish.
4. It was a rigged selection process, General Motors-Holden was a major investor in the CAC and pretty much insisted on the NA-16. The fact North American Aviation was a subsidiary of General Motors was a complete coincidence I'm sure.
5. Opposition was fairly intense, the NA-16 was declared obsolete by a lot of non-government observers and almost everyone was worried about it being incompatible with the RAF. Plus the high 'American' content, there were big concerns the design would be dependent on continuing US support.
Now it could be the papers at the time were completely wrong and had been comprehensively misled by the government over many years. However I'm leaning more towards a combination of corruption and commercial pressure, the factory had been tooled up for the NA-16 the costs of re-fitting for a British design would be high, while making more NA-16 relatively cheap (and 40 planes is a very short run).
Hence I think the training role was somewhat irrelevant but GM cash was significant.
Duritz - I must say after discovering a new Australian source I must disagree. Google has scanned, OCR'd and put online The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times.
From reading the 1930s archives a few things become clear;
1. The NA-16 was repeatedly called an 'interim build' until a modern British twin could be built. They would only build 40 of them then switch over to a British design.
2. The Minister for Defence, Archdale Parkhill, claimed the plan was for them to serve as 'general purpose' aircraft until obsolete then be used as trainers
3. The Australian government told a hell of a lot of lies to get it built - there were no British fighters with stressed skins , No British firm wanted to build a factory in Australia, that sort of rubbish.
4. It was a rigged selection process, General Motors-Holden was a major investor in the CAC and pretty much insisted on the NA-16. The fact North American Aviation was a subsidiary of General Motors was a complete coincidence I'm sure.
5. Opposition was fairly intense, the NA-16 was declared obsolete by a lot of non-government observers and almost everyone was worried about it being incompatible with the RAF. Plus the high 'American' content, there were big concerns the design would be dependent on continuing US support.
Now it could be the papers at the time were completely wrong and had been comprehensively misled by the government over many years. However I'm leaning more towards a combination of corruption and commercial pressure, the factory had been tooled up for the NA-16 the costs of re-fitting for a British design would be high, while making more NA-16 relatively cheap (and 40 planes is a very short run).
Hence I think the training role was somewhat irrelevant but GM cash was significant.
- 1
trekaddict - With relations with France currently cool those Hispano-Suiza cannons are looking tricky to acquire. There may be no cannon armed Spits at all at this rate. A butterfly I had not foreseen has come back to bite the RAF.
You could always have MI6 just nick the plans.
- 1
I would not believe everything you read in the Fairfax press.
Unless it was the football scores.
- 1
Perhaps not (I've honestly no idea, particularly not from 60 years ago) but I'd imagine they got the direct quotes from government ministers and others correct, which is what I've been using.
Plus the GM-Holden owning North American part is undeniable and frankly suspicious.
- 1
The problem is not the plans - the UK could buy one cannon and reverse-engineer it.
The problem is the machine-tools and the whole production lines, including the know-how of the workers. Even if the British industry reorganized other factories to produce parts for the HS cannon, that would mean they'd have to stop manufacturing that other things they're currently producing, and that'd be less efficient than using already existent lines.
- 1
Oerlikon 20mm FF is a possibile alternative--2/3 the length/weight of the H-S (good), but only 2/3 the muzzle velocity and 3/4 the RoF (bad--which is why the H-S was preferred). .5in Browning M2 is another possibility.
As for the RAAF, why not make life easy and just have CAC license-build Hurricanes for now?
As for the RAAF, why not make life easy and just have CAC license-build Hurricanes for now?
- 1
I forgot to mention this:
The Oerlikon 20mm FF is developed in the late 20s, and the HS.404 is a derivative of the cannon. It is possible for Britain to obtain the Oerlikon FF, and then produce yet another derivative of the cannon.
btw, .5 Browning ain't that good of a choice either when compared to the H-S cannon...
- 1
trekaddict - I don't think HMG want to get involved in industrial espionage at this stage, relations with France aren't that bad. Though all that could change when (if?) we see the Amsterdam Conference unfold.
Atlantic Friend - Indeed, just getting the plans or a copy isn't really enough. As you say it's machine tools, techniques and countless other things. I suppose the best example is the Soviet copy of the B-29, despite having three examples to take apart and duplicate their version (the Tu-4) just wasn't as good (heavier, slower and with less range).
DonnieBaseball/gaiasabre11 - Ahh the curse of bright readers. Yes the RAF will be heading off to Oerlikon to licence their own version of the 20mm cannon, specifically the FFL (the model Japan used as the basis for the Type 99).
With a decent belt feed and big buffer springs you can beef up the RoF and muzzle velocity (as per Japan in OTL). With those developments it's still not as powerful per shot as a H-S but RoF is close and it's lighter, more compact and with less recoil - so much easier to fit and none of the jamming problems suffered by the RAF's early H-S in OTL.
The other advantage of all those attributes is there's a good chance you could fit four of them into the wing of a Spitfire, which can only be a good thing.
Atlantic Friend - Indeed, just getting the plans or a copy isn't really enough. As you say it's machine tools, techniques and countless other things. I suppose the best example is the Soviet copy of the B-29, despite having three examples to take apart and duplicate their version (the Tu-4) just wasn't as good (heavier, slower and with less range).
DonnieBaseball/gaiasabre11 - Ahh the curse of bright readers. Yes the RAF will be heading off to Oerlikon to licence their own version of the 20mm cannon, specifically the FFL (the model Japan used as the basis for the Type 99).
With a decent belt feed and big buffer springs you can beef up the RoF and muzzle velocity (as per Japan in OTL). With those developments it's still not as powerful per shot as a H-S but RoF is close and it's lighter, more compact and with less recoil - so much easier to fit and none of the jamming problems suffered by the RAF's early H-S in OTL.
The other advantage of all those attributes is there's a good chance you could fit four of them into the wing of a Spitfire, which can only be a good thing.
- 1
The other advantage of all those attributes is there's a good chance you could fit four of them into the wing of a Spitfire, which can only be a good thing.
And do away with the .303 alltogether? But then again, there's still the ammo problem, as not too much can be carried.
- 1
I was led to believe the problem was as much space as weight, and I think four compact FFLs would have to take up less space than two drum fed Hispano MkIIs and four .303s. Not to mention two less sets of ammo handling and so on.
That said nobody had big cannon mags till later in the war, so I'm not sure it's a big issue.
- 1
errr, the Japanese type 99 cannon can fire at no greater RoF than the FF S at 520 rpm? Anyways, both guns have way lower RoF than the H-S.
The other advantage of all those attributes is there's a good chance you could fit four of them into the wing of a Spitfire, which can only be a good thing.
It's definite great to have 4 cannons, but one thing that concerns me is that the recoil strength of the cannons might be too strong for Spit's thin wings. This can probably be fixed at the cost of aerodynamic performance...
Last edited:
- 1
DuritzHence I think the training role was somewhat irrelevant but GM cash was significant.
Not cash, manufacturing capacity... Britain denied it to us.
As much as I read the Fairfax press (it's far better that News Ltd, which is the only alternative) I agree with Davout. The papers were not what you would describe as an informed, complex and modern media.
I've read sources that rely on the National Archives (ie Cabinet papers, Departmental papers, private papers) and they all represent the Wirraway as a trainer meant for foreign sales. Why else would they have caused such controversy for just 40 units? They expected foreign sales to then kick in and jobs to flow. Both sides of parliament wanted to use arms development to assist in building up an aircraft and car industry, for overseas sales and the local market. It was all about jobs and domestic politics. Consider it from the viewpoint of a mainly resource producing nation that was just coming out of the worst depression in history. Our secondary industries were tiny and we were looking to retool our nation and diversify our economy.
The British offered us designs already being made in the UK. They were just as obsolete as the Wirraway but the key in the government's decision was that this would limit our ability to develop export markets as we'd be trying to sell the same aircraft in the same markets as Britain.
The papers may have run that line but they were missing the real reasons. It also misses the parochialism of it all, even after all the US intervention as a result of the war there was still outrage in the 60's when we bought our first US made warships and even when we went for F111's...
As a general rule the British didn't want Australia developing industries that they hoped to dominate. It's the whole give a man a fish arguement, except Britain had a vested interest in making sure we didn't learn how to fish.
All that said, this isn't the real World. We have to consider the whole Butterfly effect. The superior showing of the RAAF in the Mid East will have an effect on the Foreign policy outlook, and we've discussed that privately, but the economics and domestic politics of this issue wouldn't change and would override foreign concerns. Do you think Britain now has a reason to offer us assistance in industrialisation?
Cheers,
Dury.
Last edited:
- 1
In terms of aircraft armament, could the the 15mm BESA be pushed into development as an aircraft gun? That could avoid the whole 'cannon malaise'.
- 1
Hm? It seems to have worked quite well for the US--any specific problems with it (especially considering the rather lower amounts of ammunition that cannons usually carried)?gaiasabre11 said:
Well, most of the cannons didn't carry all that much ammo, as you said. Even modern-day aircraft guns don't usually carry all that much (taking into account RoF); usually a few seconds burst. The .303 is obviously obsolete as an anti-aircraft weapon, but what to replace it with? The .5 has the advantage of extra ammunition, a higher RoF, but it's not as powerful (OTOH, you can put quite a few on one aircraft--look at the Mustang, with six of the things, or the Thunderbolt with EIGHT), and there might be manufacturing issues (I dunno, did the UK make much, if any, .5 ammo in between the wars? What about 20mm cannon ammo?) The cannon have the inverse issues. It did turn out autocannon were the way to go after the war, though obviously it would be straining credulity a lot to have the RAF foresee THAT!El Pip said:
Of course, there was the whole terrible state of Soviet industry in general there--I'd be surprised if they could build a copy lighter, faster, and with longer range!El Pip said:
Anyways, all the tank-, air-, and naval-porn is very fun, and the extra political and strategic angles make it heaven.
- 1
Well, the BESA ain't that good compared to the 20mm cannons in the first place.
I just think that the projectile weight of the .50 ain't that powerful for AtA use when compared to the 20mm cannons. Of course it can still be used alongside 20 mm cannons like in the F6F Hellcats.
Agreed.
- 1