A6M - Germany Japan Technology Exchange Missed Opportunity?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Just thought of this today, although it would not have been a war winner, what would the effects of Germany having 7076 grade aluminum in 1939?

From previous posts in another thread:

"Japanese 7076 was developed in 1939 and used in the A6M2 & A6M3, Japanese 7075 developed in 1942 and used from early-1943."

"It should also be noted that the A6M used the equivalent of modern 7076 aircraft aluminum (the Japanese developed it in 1939, and I believe the A6M was the first application) which is significantly stronger (Tensile +60 to 75%, Yield +120%, Shear +150%) than the 2017(T4) and 2024/Duraluminum series used by the Allies and Germans (my apologies to our Russian and Italian members for not including them but I do not have data on their nations aluminum alloys)."
 
Admiral Beez said:
No, no, Britain wasn't preparing for war against the USA. Plan Red was the USA's preparation for war against Britain.
Click to expand...
And war plan Orange was for fighting a two front war with Japan and Great Britain.

In regards to Britain, from the book "Thinking the Unthinkable: British and American Naval Strategies for an Anglo-American War, 1918-1931" by Christopher Bell:
"The British military never prepared a formal plan for war with the United States during the first half of the 20th century. For instance, the government of David Lloyd George in 1919 restricted the Royal Navy from building more ships to compete with American naval growth and thereby preventing the plan's development. Like their American counterparts, most British military officers viewed cooperation with the United States as the best way to maintain world peace due to the shared culture, language, and goals, although they feared that attempts to regulate trade during a war with another nation might force a war with America.

The British military generally believed that if war did occur, they could transport troops to Canada if asked, but nonetheless saw it as impossible to defend Canada against the much larger United States, so did not plan to render aid, as Canada's loss would not be fatal to Britain. A full invasion of the United States was unrealistic and a naval blockade would be too slow. The Royal Navy could not use a defensive strategy of waiting for the American fleet to cross the Atlantic because Imperial trade would be left too vulnerable. Royal Navy officers believed that Britain was vulnerable to a supply blockade and that if a larger American fleet appeared near the British Isles, the Isles may quickly surrender. The officers planned to, instead, attack the American fleet from a Western Hemisphere base, likely Bermuda, while other ships based in Canada and the West Indies would attack American shipping and protect Imperial trade. The British would also bombard coastal bases and make small amphibious assaults. India and Australia would help capture Manila to prevent American attacks on British trade in Asia and perhaps a conquest of Hong Kong. The officers hoped that such acts would result in a stalemate making continued war unpopular in the United States, followed by a negotiated peace.

Canadian military officer Lieutenant Colonel James "Buster" Sutherland Brown developed an earlier counterpart to War Plan Red, Defence Scheme No. 1, on April 12, 1921. Maintaining that the best defense was a good offense, "Buster" Brown planned for rapid deployment of flying columns to occupy Seattle, Great Falls, Minneapolis, and Albany. With little hope of holding the objectives, the actual idea was to divert American troops to the flanks and away from Canada, hopefully long enough for British and Commonwealth allies to arrive with reinforcements. Defense Scheme No. 1 was terminated by Chief of the General Staff Andrew McNaughton in 1928, two years before the approval of War Plan Red."
 
War Plan Orange was only for use against the Japanese. It actually contained an analysis of what, depending on the course of the conflict, the British could contribute to the plan.
 
ThomasP said:
War Plan Orange was only for use against the Japanese. It actually contained an analysis of what, depending on the course of the conflict, the British could contribute to the plan.
Click to expand...
War Plan Orange was revised several times. Go back and look at the post-WWI revision, in that, it considered the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and the fact that Japan assumed most of Imperial Germany's south Pacific possessions, many of which were bisecting US possessions. With the possibility of a conflict with Japan, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance meant there was a chance that Britain would become involved.
As it turns out, the Washington Naval Treaty changed that to a certain extent and Plan Orange went in to be revised ince again.
 
It all depends how it's applied in the structure
 
To go to war with America must be a reason. Just for the lolz is not good enough reason. Although it is but that's just me.

So what would be the spark to get this party started?

And I can't find one. Getting rid of the debt by getting rid of USA? A plausible one could be destroy the American fleet before it gets a threat to British power but what British power? This is post war Britain, not height of empire Victorian Britain. Trying to stop or curb American power is too late in the 1920s. Unless America invades Canada or something. Would America deliberately try and do that? Start a war with Britain so Britain can't start a war with USA first?

There is no spark or powder keg so cannot see a war happening.
 
The fear that the British and the Americans would go all in making massive battle fleets which then would face off and one random error and it's Jutland 2 and so now most of your shiny battle fleet is on the sea floor and then the French move in unopposed with row boats.

A fortune has been spent for nothing to make both countries weaker and poorer and then you still have to dictate terms on the White House lawn.

Admiral King could make war on the Salvation Army so there is hope yet.
 
The only premise that I have ever seen, was connected to the Anglo-Japanese accord, where as mentioned earlier, Japan was given Imperial German territories in the South Pacific.
These could have been in direct conflict with American holdings in the region and a very possible trade conflict could arise.
Add to that, both the accord as well as neighboring British interests, it *could* have happened.
Not sure what might have triggered such a situation and it would have been great to have Michael (Parsifal) weigh in on the matter
 
The Anglo Japanese alliance was against Russia. And it was a request that UK give the Japanese the elbow by the Americans as part of the Washington Naval Treaty.

Even if Japan was hellbent on making war with the USA, the UK would realize and eject out of it.

Just cannot think of a plausible mechanism of UK and USA going to war and it sticking and making sense.

USA invading somewhere? UK trying to take back those traitorous colonies

Maybe some territory dispute with Canada that goes nuts.

One scenario I like is when Mexico defeats USA and while accepting the American surrender in the White House, offers the north to the British Empire. I would take it.
 
This is a mixed bag of comments to several posts.
Interesting to see so many posts about naval matters from people with only an incomplete knowledge of naval details.

- The Kaidai Type 1 (I.51) was based on British submarines.
- The Kaidai 2 (I.52) was based on the German U-139 type. More of the type were planned but cancelled after the WNT.
- The Junsen Type 1 subs (I.1 - I.4) were based on Germaniawerft plans for the U-142 type, fitted with MAN diesels and built under supervision of Dr. Techel, Germaniawerft chief submarine designer. The Junsen 1M (I.5) was a modification.
- The Junsen Type 2 was, again, based on the U-139 design.
- The big Kirai-Sen minelayers (I.121 - I.124) were straight copies of the German U-125 which had gone to Japan as war booty in 1918.

Koopernic in Post #145 f :
The problem with the depth-keeping of the German torpedoes was not just that the reference chamber leaked (which was rectified only in 1942) but that the linkage that transmitted the pendulum movements to the tail fins was so stiff it moved only with large inputs so most of the small corrections were suppressed.
The British detonator was not copied. They tried that one but the torpedoes equipped with it all made abrupt turns to the left after being fired - the British detonator mechanism obviously did not play with the German torpedo shape.
The G7e electric torpedo went into series production in 1934 - in fact 6 of the first series were sold to Turkey together with the Submarine E 1 (built in Spain on German plans) in 1934. Most of the torpedos used by German subs throughout the war were G7e or derivatives because it was far easier to mass-produce them than the wet-heater G7a.
Magnetic detonators were only used after November 1942.
The homing torpedoes - T5 and following- used inertia pistols. Incidentally, German subs operating in the Indian Ocean had strict orders to deep-six their T5 before entering Japanese harbors.
The zig-zag torpedoes (FAT and LUT) were used, but had only limited success because of the difficulty of setting the zig-zag track correctly - you needed pretty precise distance, speed, and course data of the target which were rarely available.

There were about 100 Japanese Type 91 aircraft torpedoes in Germany, but they were not used in combat nor do they seem to have been tested at all. That may have been due to the fact that the Luftwaffe was responsible for torpedoes used by aircraft.

Several German subs in the Indian Ocean received replacement batteries of Japanese manufacture; the unanimous opinion of the engineering officers was that the Japanese batteries were better.

Towards the end of the war, several automatic depth-keeping and hovering devices for submarines were under development in Germany based on devices the Germans had seen in Japanese subs visiting Germany during the war.


By the way, the BMW 801 and the Mitsubishi Kasei, both 14-cylinder twin-rows, were practically identical in size, weight and power output up to 1943 - if the FW190 had used the Kasei instead of the BMW it might have been in combat a year earlier.

And perhaps you know that Japan had purchased the He100 design. Hitachi was already building a factory near Tokio for production, but the production jigs and most of the plans didn't make it to Japan due to the outbreak of war. The RLM had also tried to sell the DB603 to Japan as surplus to requirements.
 
The Japanese and Heinkel had a long standing relationship and the didn't just purchase the He100 for licensing, they had Heinkel engineers in Japan working in various projects.
The Japanese Navy also purchased the Heinkel He50b dive-bomber, designated the He66, which became the D1A1 Type 94 when manufactured by Aichi. The D1A2 Type 96 was an improved version.

The Japanese also purchased the Heinkel He112A and He112B, receiving only partial shipments of each.

An He70 was also purchased by the Japanese Navy for study and Aichi utilized many of it's features on the D3A1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Z
Air cooled inline engines - a missed opportunity?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
Z
Germany goes for centrifugal flow turbojet engines?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
2K
bf109xxl
Upper Limits of Imperial Japanese Aerospace Technology
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
JoblinTheGoblin
A
If Weimar Republic succeeds, is Britain unprepared to face Japan?
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Radial engines more favored in Germany, 1935-45?
6 7 8
Replies
146
Views
13K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register