Axis aircraft sharing/exchange (like Allies did)

zoomar said:

The original comment:

" The Mustang was designed to a British specification for procurement by the RAF. To me that makes it a British aircraft which was produced in an American factory."

is not "pretty much correct". It is also the opposite of what you said yourself. Even if the USAAF had never adopted the Mustang, it would not be a British aircraft unless it was also manufactured entirely in Britain, any more than the P-63 was a Soviet fighter. This statement was one of those deliberate statements that take a grain of truth (the British asked NA Aviation to produce fighters for them) and exaggerate it all out of proportion to make make an interesting claim. I'm not criticisng here - we all do that.

Actually, it was my understanding that the RAF only asked NA to produce P-40s for them - it was NA itself that proposed designing and building their own fighter. The Mustang is 100% American

Click to expand...

It was still from a British design requirement.

Again I am not saying it was a British Aircraft, and have never said that.

I have always wondered what if Germany would have H6K's and then H8K's. Both the ranges on these aircraft were excellent, and would have covered a lot more ocean then Fw200's and still have a useful payload. If you could then fit them with Fritz X, and Hs 293's, and have them hunt out in the far western approaches from France, I would like to think that they could have caused a little stir. Or, G3M3's and G4M's would have been nice as naval reconnaissance.

GrauGeist said:

The Japanese did in fact use the He100. They purchased some He100s (as well as the Soviet Union) and built thier own. Thier first prototype even had the evaporative cooling system in the wings.

As the KI-61, it was a formidable fighter used by IJA but issues with the engine eventually caused them to fit the design with a radial engine resulting in the KI-100 (borrowing from the Fw190's design for the conversion).

The total amount of KI-61 aircraft produced was 3,159 (and 359 KI-61 airframes were converted to KI-100)

Click to expand...

Haven't heard anything about the Japanese building He 100s; Kawasaki built the Ki-60 and Ki-61 as heavy and medium fighters respectively; the Ki-60 proved to be too heavy and unweildy in flight and was dropped in favour of the Ki-61. The He 100 may have inspired the Ki-78 , which was designed as a research aircraft potentially capable of capturing the World Speed Record
The tandem-engine Kawasaki Ki-64 and a modified Ki-61 used evaporative cooling, which proved to be a bust.

The design of the engine installation and exhaust system of the Ki-100 was, as mentioned by GrauGeist, inspired by the design of the Fw 190 which had been inspected by the Ki-60, 61, 64, 78 and 100 designers Takeo Doi and Shin Owada.

Actually, the key difference the Axis didn't share more technology, IMHO, is that they never truly shared a common vision of the world they were seeking to create. All were expansionist regimes that were focussed on purely nationalist priorities. The Allies, even despite their many disagreements (most notably over the fate of the British Empire), ultimately agreed that Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo had to go and that the countries oppressed by them had to be freed. That binding common purpose promoted a degree of technology sharing - radar, the jet engine, code-breaking, intelligence etc - that the Axis simply couldn't achieve because their strategies were ultimately in opposition. Imagine the scene where Germany and Japan succeed and meet up in India...do we really think they'd have reached an amicable accommodation? No, the former partners would have started fighting over that country, or others. That said, I'm all in favour of some interesting whiffery just for fun!!!

buffnut453 said:

Actually, the key difference the Axis didn't share more technology, IMHO, is that they never truly shared a common vision of the world they were seeking to create. All were expansionist regimes that were focussed on purely nationalist priorities. The Allies, even despite their many disagreements (most notably over the fate of the British Empire), ultimately agreed that Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo had to go and that the countries oppressed by them had to be freed. That binding common purpose promoted a degree of technology sharing - radar, the jet engine, code-breaking, intelligence etc - that the Axis simply couldn't achieve because their strategies were ultimately in opposition. Imagine the scene where Germany and Japan succeed and meet up in India...do we really think they'd have reached an amicable accommodation? No, the former partners would have started fighting over that country, or others. That said, I'm all in favour of some interesting whiffery just for fun!!!

Click to expand...

An interesting point, but I am not sure I completely agree. While the USA and UK did share technology (most notably jet engines and atomic research) neither western power shared cutting-edge technology with the Soviets. It could be argued that Germany and Japan attempted the same degree of technology sharing as the UK and USA managed, but that simple geography (not suspicion) prevented this from being substantial. Virtually the only exchange of data and actual material between Japan and Germany had to be accomplished via long and dangerous submarine voyages. Germany provided Japan with production licenses and design data for several engines and aircraft types (the DB engines, the BMW and Jumo jet engines, and various aircraft such as the He-100 and Me-163 most notably). Japan provided technical advice to Germany in the development of the abortive Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier. If anything it was Japan that held its best innovations close to the chest. Germany might have made good use of Japanese long-lance torpedoes or large aircraft carrying submarines, for example.

Also, from the perspective of "evil empires" the German-Japanese alliance was ideal. They were on opposite sides of the world and the official ideologies of both would tend to support - not hinder - a fairly peaceful division of the spoils if they had won. From their perspective, they had no need for a grand strategy - which would not have been possible anyway since Japan was not at war with the USSR throughout out most of the war. Neither power was after total global domination - just total racist enslavement of their large corners of it. Eventually of course they would come into conflict, but there is little evidence Germany or Japan allowed that future risk to guide their strategies.

Another point that can be made is that from early 1943 on, the Aliies were pretty sure they would wi the war, which allowed them to get into testy discussions regarding how to win the quickest and the shape of the postwar world. Germany and Japan were just trying to stave off defeat.

You make some good points, Zoomar. Despite the U-Boat threat, the UK and USA shared interior lines of communication whereas the Germans and Japanese, as you note, were never in contiguous operational areas. Your points about German sharing of technology are also valid. I'd entirely forgotten about the rocket and jet engine technology that went to Japan. It probably was more geography than ideology that prevented more effective sharing. Another factor was surely that both Germany and Japan were losing the economic war. They were being out-produced by the Allies and hence didn't have excess capacity to share.

To be truthful, I'd rather excluded the USSR from the Allied team (very western-hemisphere-centric of me!!). I think from a Western perspective, the USSR fell into the category of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" rather than being a true ally within the grand vision that ultimately became the United Nations. The US and UK greatly mis-trusted Stalin and were under no illusions about how divergent were his postwar plans from those of the other Allies.

All that said, I still believe that had German and Japanese forces ended up in contiguous operational areas there would have been frictions. Both nations had supremacist views of their own national psyches - other nations were "untermensch", destined to succumb to the moral strength of National Socialism or the People of Japan. Since both could not be right, there would likely have been a power struggle to determine which country was supreme. However, I agree my linking of that issue to export of technology was probably a leap too far!

buffnut453 said:

You make some good points, Zoomar. Despite the U-Boat threat, the UK and USA shared interior lines of communication whereas the Germans and Japanese, as you note, were never in contiguous operational areas. Your points about German sharing of technology are also valid. I'd entirely forgotten about the rocket and jet engine technology that went to Japan. It probably was more geography than ideology that prevented more effective sharing. Another factor was surely that both Germany and Japan were losing the economic war. They were being out-produced by the Allies and hence didn't have excess capacity to share.

To be truthful, I'd rather excluded the USSR from the Allied team (very western-hemisphere-centric of me!!). I think from a Western perspective, the USSR fell into the category of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" rather than being a true ally within the grand vision that ultimately became the United Nations. The US and UK greatly mis-trusted Stalin and were under no illusions about how divergent were his postwar plans from those of the other Allies.

All that said, I still believe that had German and Japanese forces ended up in contiguous operational areas there would have been frictions. Both nations had supremacist views of their own national psyches - other nations were "untermensch", destined to succumb to the moral strength of National Socialism or the People of Japan. Since both could not be right, there would likely have been a power struggle to determine which country was supreme. However, I agree my linking of that issue to export of technology was probably a leap too far!

Click to expand...

No problem. I rather appreciated a dicussion that focused, not on RPM's, detailed combat records, and raw performance data (which seems to be a major focus of this board), but on broad geopolitical realities, economics, and national ideologies. These are probably more critical to who wins a war than the specific differences between Zeros, Ki-43s, Bf-109s, Fw-190s, Me-262s, Spitfires, Wildcats, P-51s, Corsairs, Yaks, Laggs, and how well they are flown.

A few of you guys may find this link interesting.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/german-technical-aid-japan-20033.html