And the Aussies in both World Wars. In fact we refused to allow anyone overseas until London signed a charter to that effect; including judicial independence for our people.
The Forge of Weyland
- Thread starter Astrodragon
- Start date
Could you elaborate on that?
What do you think "unified and commanded at the highest possible level by Canadian officers" means in practical terms?
I was thinking that would be exactly the objective of setting up Independent Armoured Brigades as an alternative to infantry divisions. So that such Independent Armoured Brigades would be under Canadian Officers, within something like the 7th Army.
Is it your belief that any Canadian formation would needs to be larger (its own Corps-level formation) in order to meet that requirement? Or would Division/Independent Armoured Brigade-sized formations be politically acceptable?
Unpatriotic traitors the lot of you! Only marginally less worthy of hanging than your average American.
Historically, the commonwealth sent divisions (or Corps) and expected them to fight together. As I recall Monty commanded some ANZACs in North Africa, I suppose that if Canada provided a Field Armies worth of soldiers then they'd basically be independent / allied commands.
But that’s the easiest way to explain the New Zealand Australian relationship to Canadians.As a proud Aussie, I resent being equated to a Yank!
As an Australian I hold the view he deserved to be executed for murder. The baleful impact of not shooting deserters gave Australia the worst rates of awol and desertion of all the ww1 forces in France. That doesn’t even get to the reputation of Australia’s troops in Egypt.
Totally agree - and he served originally in a unit formed in my state!
He was a war criminal.
According to Wiki he was an Aussie. He was born in England but emigrated to Australia where he eventually enlisted.
It says alot about Australia that two of their modern heros were criminals of the highest order
It sickens me that a justly convicted war criminal is held up as some sort of national martyr.
Australia and New Zealand had their own carrier factories in OTL. They produced the LP (Local Pattern) carriers from mid-1939 onwards. Australian pattern carriers were welded, not riveted. Their main distinguishing feature was improved ventilation for the engine with a large, long intake across the divider between the front compartment and the rear compartment. I am unsure why you believe either South Pacific Dominion didn't produce their own carriers.
His case was why the Australian Army introduced it's own law manual after Federation brought all the colonial troops together into one formation as the Australian Army. It reserved the death penalty which could apply to more heinous cases but it had to be agreed to by the Governor-General. No Australian commander applied it because of the difficulty of transmitting a signal to Australia and getting a reply quickly enough. They also had the example of Harry "Breaker" Morant when Australia reacted in horror at what had transpired in South Africa. Morant was as guilty as sin, a war criminal without a doubt but he was also railroaded as well by the British Army. I was actually an "extra" in the film of the movie Breaker Morant back in the late 1970s. Those were the days!
marathag
Banned
And which troops did better in combat? the French and Italians, both very free handing out executions orders, up to actual decimation, shows that particular stick was not effective in getting that fighting spirit going
Division level units were obviously acceptable as that was what was initially sent (1st Infantry Division) but the leadership of the Canadian military had been secretly working on plans to send a complete Corps. The best they could get from the politicians was a division at the moment but they weren't going to split it up.
It should be remembered that Canada saw itself as an ally of the UK and not a subject, a point driven home by the refusal to automatically declare war when the UK did but instead to wait for a parliamentary debate on the subject and declare war a week later. Therefore the military was prepared to act as an allied army and not as a subordinate part of the British army. Obviously this meant subordinating Canadian formations to higher level British formations but it was assumed that the Canadian formations would be the highest level possible that is to say multiple brigades would be a Canadian division and not parts of a UK division and similarly multiple divisions would be corps and not split into several UK corps
A lot of the governments hesitation about sending troops overseas and the focus on the air training plan was due to domestic politics and the residue of the WW1 controversies. This was exacerbated by a general election due in early 1940. Once the election was over and in particular once France was conquered the whole mood changed and the scope of the commitment changed quickly.
I didnt know that australia had carrier production before the war if thats true . But i thought the setting up factories and stuff was done in 1940 in otl and there is a driver for it thanks to the canadian example here to do it earlier . The brits know they have issues equipping themselves so creating a few factories in each dominion to produce atleast some of the gear makes sense since they are already doing that with canada to equip the imperial troops . India had 2,5million volunteers wich is about the size of the british army at the end of the war but started the war with over 200k troops wich is bigger than the british peace time army . The australians had about a army sized group in service altough around a corps or so was usually deployed outside of australia ( about 10 divisons in total i think) . New zealand had about two divisons . South africa had several but they werent to be used in europe i think and there were several generic african divisons from imperial posseisons.
Australian soldiers were very effective but no better than the highlanders, Canadians, New Zealanders etc but Australian lack of discipline resulted in high vd rates which impacted on troop availability also poor tactical discipline on the defensive was also a factor.
Question on carrier variants.. One variant I did not see mentioned was for 3" Mortars. Mortar baseplate bipod and 50 rounds was just over 600 pounds.. so a mortar carrier should be in play. Also a possible shock for German troops who get too close to the twin 20 mm AA carriers, probably not too far off from those who faced the American quad.50 Cal MG units. Will something like this happed during the battle of France?
Breaker aside, the rest of this comment paints the Australians who voluntarily served in World War I and suffered amongst the greatest per capita casualties of all the belligerents in a rather, well, bullshit light. There’s no evidence shooting deserters and so forth did anything for desertion rates. What it did do is lead to some pretty shitty injustices. And who gives a shit about their reputation in Egypt? Did they do their duty at Gallipoli? I’ve seen the graves so I know the answer to that one.