Just a note. If the cut-off date is 27th September 1940 (the first post) then it's not a doctrine but just a Plan Otto in its early stage of development. Invitation to USSR to join Axis and intensive Moscow-Berlin negotiations are still ahead.
Much increased co-operation within Axis countries in technical and tactical matters?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Just a note. If the cut-off date is 27th September 1940 (the first post) then it's not a doctrine but just a Plan Otto in its early stage of development. Invitation to USSR to join Axis and intensive Moscow-Berlin negotiations are still ahead.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Japanese did not have heavy tanks until later in the war.
Their tanks were similar to the Italians: tankettes and light AFVs.
For the Italians to be an effective force, they needed better command and training.
This may have been an area where the IJA could have been of help - Japanese infantry tactics were sound and would have helped the Italians better use their manpower.
As far as Japanese Submarines go, the Germans had some of the best U-Boats until the IJA's I-400 class, but the Japanese did not have a solid doctrine for their submarine warfare, unlike the USN and Kreigsmarine.
Their tanks were similar to the Italians: tankettes and light AFVs.
For the Italians to be an effective force, they needed better command and training.
This may have been an area where the IJA could have been of help - Japanese infantry tactics were sound and would have helped the Italians better use their manpower.
As far as Japanese Submarines go, the Germans had some of the best U-Boats until the IJA's I-400 class, but the Japanese did not have a solid doctrine for their submarine warfare, unlike the USN and Kreigsmarine.
Admiral Beez
Major
Yes, but Nazi philosophy and goal has always been taking territory to the west, from the USSR. The invasion of Poland was part of that, and the defeat of France but a means to continue eastward without distraction.
For that goal, there are some tech and kit Japan has that Germany could use:
- The swamp vehicle might be useful in snow and mud
- Tractors and prime movers
- Diesel tank engines
- Thread starter
- #24
The early, smaller Ju 288 with Japanese engine, like Kasei of 1800+ HP?
Wing area of 581 or 640 sq ft against 841 sq ft of the G4M or 743 sq ft of the Ki-49 should mean both higher wing-loading and lower drag. The P1Y's wing area was 590 sq ft, the bomber designed to be much faster than G4M and as rangy.
Neither of the Japanese 2-engined bomber offered much of a bomb bay, so here the Ju 288 might make a difference. Granted, as with suggested Fw 190 manufacture, Japanese need to move fast and axe one or two of their future designs in order to have meaningful numbers in service early enough.
Wing area of 581 or 640 sq ft against 841 sq ft of the G4M or 743 sq ft of the Ki-49 should mean both higher wing-loading and lower drag. The P1Y's wing area was 590 sq ft, the bomber designed to be much faster than G4M and as rangy.
Neither of the Japanese 2-engined bomber offered much of a bomb bay, so here the Ju 288 might make a difference. Granted, as with suggested Fw 190 manufacture, Japanese need to move fast and axe one or two of their future designs in order to have meaningful numbers in service early enough.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Germany had:
"Landwasserschlepper"
"Raupenschlepper Ost"
"Radschlepper Ost"
SdKfz3, SdKfz6, SdKfz7, SdKfz9, SdKfz10, SdKfz11 and the "Schwerer Wehrmachtschlepper"
What Germany did not have, was an endless supply of raw materials and a large industry to manufacture more.
I honestly cannot see Japan being able to offer any better machine than what the Germans had already.
Admiral Beez
Major
Yes, it was a stretch to think of anything. Maybe Long Lance torpedoes, nothing else really.
Now the Japanese, they need some German help. Shipboard and land based radar, interference-free aircraft radios, powerful radial engines, synthetic fuel production, submarine warfare tactics, infantry semi-automatic and machine guns, and anti-tank guns.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
A lot of times the type of equipment used was not due to a "lack of technology" but due to manufacturing requirements, or service requirements or supplies of raw materials.
Not all crude oil contains the same amounts of different compounds/products. Some crude oil will yield much more diesel than another crude oil per barrel. You cannot always state that you can get X amount of diesel out of a barrel or crude. Sometimes setting up the refining process to make diesel means less gasoline per barrel or trades of other desired product.
Germans certainly knew how to make diesel engines of assorted types/sizes. The fact that they didn't use them in tanks doesn't mean they didn't know how to make one. It meant they had made other choices at the time.
The US for example, made thousands of Diesel powered tanks in WW II, The US army used hardly any. THe US Marines used diesel powered tanks because the navy had large supplies of diesel fuel for landing craft and other small ships. Diesels were usually both heavy and large for the power they produced. Often Armies wanted tanks of certain sizes/weights to fit existing bridging equipment or transport/recovery equipment. A bulky engine is worse than a small heavy engine as it requires a larger engine compartment the weight of armor for the larger compartment can be considerable if any but the thinnest armor is used.
Sometimes tech is actually the ability to manufacture stuff that works. The US supplied thousands of miles of Field phone wire to the Russians in WW II. It was of critical importance for two reasons. 1, was the general lack of radios in the Soviet army. 2, was the fact the Soviet made field phone wire had insulation that wasn't very good, it shorted out when wet. Insulation of phone wire isn't high tech/glamorus stuff but reliable communications was often critical.
Japanese radios may not have been as bad as some people claim. Part of the problems was the insulation/shielding on ignition systems of the engine. Some of us are old enough to remember AM radios in cars and the need to use certain types of ignition harness in the 50s and 60s.
see, Identifying and suppressing radio interference
Best radio in the world is useless if mounted in a plane that is acting like it's own jamming station.
Torpedoes using oxygen instead of compressed air was not a new idea. Getting them to work wasn't even that new. The standards of manufacture and maintenance had to be very high however. A leaking oxygen container could cause real problems in an environment with flammable liquids and other combustible materials. The need for an oxygen generator/plant to top off the torpedoes on long cruises was also seen as a detriment and another source of leaks.
BTW the British did use torpedoes using oxygen enrichment on many of their cruisers I believe? somewhat better performance with less risk. But still replaced by natural air early in the war. Range dropped from 16,000yds at 33 kts to 5700yds at 35 kts. Later torpedoes used natural air but had higher pressure air vessels for increased performance.
Germans during the 30s had tried
high pressure oxygen (rejected due to explosion hazard on starting)
Hydrogen and oxygen
Liquid ammonia
fuel, oxygen and CO2 (given up due to fears of the CO2 leaking into the crew compartments on subs)
Magnesium or aluminum as fuel with oxygen (impossible to control)
Hydrogen peroxide.
German subs already had problem with stowing reload torpedoes. Using larger torpedoes might well mean a larger sub. Large subs dive slower and are easier to see on the surface, they need more room to turn and also present handling problems. Depending on orientation to the sonar unit they may be detected at longer range?
Perhaps some exchanges of ideas would have been beneficial, but often countries used equipment for what they thought was good reason, not because it hadn't been thought of yet in that country.
Not all crude oil contains the same amounts of different compounds/products. Some crude oil will yield much more diesel than another crude oil per barrel. You cannot always state that you can get X amount of diesel out of a barrel or crude. Sometimes setting up the refining process to make diesel means less gasoline per barrel or trades of other desired product.
Germans certainly knew how to make diesel engines of assorted types/sizes. The fact that they didn't use them in tanks doesn't mean they didn't know how to make one. It meant they had made other choices at the time.
The US for example, made thousands of Diesel powered tanks in WW II, The US army used hardly any. THe US Marines used diesel powered tanks because the navy had large supplies of diesel fuel for landing craft and other small ships. Diesels were usually both heavy and large for the power they produced. Often Armies wanted tanks of certain sizes/weights to fit existing bridging equipment or transport/recovery equipment. A bulky engine is worse than a small heavy engine as it requires a larger engine compartment the weight of armor for the larger compartment can be considerable if any but the thinnest armor is used.
Sometimes tech is actually the ability to manufacture stuff that works. The US supplied thousands of miles of Field phone wire to the Russians in WW II. It was of critical importance for two reasons. 1, was the general lack of radios in the Soviet army. 2, was the fact the Soviet made field phone wire had insulation that wasn't very good, it shorted out when wet. Insulation of phone wire isn't high tech/glamorus stuff but reliable communications was often critical.
Japanese radios may not have been as bad as some people claim. Part of the problems was the insulation/shielding on ignition systems of the engine. Some of us are old enough to remember AM radios in cars and the need to use certain types of ignition harness in the 50s and 60s.
see, Identifying and suppressing radio interference
Best radio in the world is useless if mounted in a plane that is acting like it's own jamming station.
Torpedoes using oxygen instead of compressed air was not a new idea. Getting them to work wasn't even that new. The standards of manufacture and maintenance had to be very high however. A leaking oxygen container could cause real problems in an environment with flammable liquids and other combustible materials. The need for an oxygen generator/plant to top off the torpedoes on long cruises was also seen as a detriment and another source of leaks.
BTW the British did use torpedoes using oxygen enrichment on many of their cruisers I believe? somewhat better performance with less risk. But still replaced by natural air early in the war. Range dropped from 16,000yds at 33 kts to 5700yds at 35 kts. Later torpedoes used natural air but had higher pressure air vessels for increased performance.
Germans during the 30s had tried
high pressure oxygen (rejected due to explosion hazard on starting)
Hydrogen and oxygen
Liquid ammonia
fuel, oxygen and CO2 (given up due to fears of the CO2 leaking into the crew compartments on subs)
Magnesium or aluminum as fuel with oxygen (impossible to control)
Hydrogen peroxide.
German subs already had problem with stowing reload torpedoes. Using larger torpedoes might well mean a larger sub. Large subs dive slower and are easier to see on the surface, they need more room to turn and also present handling problems. Depending on orientation to the sonar unit they may be detected at longer range?
Perhaps some exchanges of ideas would have been beneficial, but often countries used equipment for what they thought was good reason, not because it hadn't been thought of yet in that country.
One of my dad's co workers had been a Marine and gone ashore on Saipan and Okinawa. He hauled his company's backpack radio and said when they were strafed by Japanese aircraft the radio crackled and became unreadable when the plane passed overhead. I remember hearing that captured Japanese aircraft had to have custom ignition harnesses fabricated if they were going to be flown stateside.
Greg, how many ignition harnesses has your Zero gone through over the years? BTW, I've seen some videos of your Zero flying, and that engine sounds an awful lot like a Pratt 1830.
"In 1939, Tachikawa commenced work on a long-range reconnaissance aircraft in response to a requirement issued by the IJAAF, who needed such a machine to conduct missions west of Lake Baikal from airfields in Manchuria during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The aircraft had to have a range of 3,100 miles and a cruising speed of at least 280mph, and with a maximum ceiling of more than 39,000ft, the crew required a pressure cabin."
"The lack of a functioning pressure cabin saw the project suspended until late 1941, when it was revived as a long-range high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft capable of targeting the US mainland."
{Chambers, Mark. Wings of the Rising Sun (p. 256). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition. }
This is about Ki-74.
Let's assume that the pressure cabin was the major reason for the delay of this project. Then, if Germany transfers pressurized cabin technology to Japan early enough (and subject Japan has tools, etc. to implement it), Ki-74 flies in 1942-1943 and is in active service in 1944. Reconnaissance aircraft - almost as fast as Dinah but with twice the range, higher altitude, higher loadout, more comfort for the crew.
"The lack of a functioning pressure cabin saw the project suspended until late 1941, when it was revived as a long-range high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft capable of targeting the US mainland."
{Chambers, Mark. Wings of the Rising Sun (p. 256). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition. }
This is about Ki-74.
Let's assume that the pressure cabin was the major reason for the delay of this project. Then, if Germany transfers pressurized cabin technology to Japan early enough (and subject Japan has tools, etc. to implement it), Ki-74 flies in 1942-1943 and is in active service in 1944. Reconnaissance aircraft - almost as fast as Dinah but with twice the range, higher altitude, higher loadout, more comfort for the crew.
Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 122
- Jul 13, 2020
The Japanese need He-100 for interceptor role,It simple design and modern manufacturing techniques that come along with it would also be a big help.
If the G3/G4 bomber can survive the skies of Britain and Soviet union their long range would also be a big help to the German.
About aircraft armament the German could give Japanese Mine shell and Mg131 and the Japanese could give the German belt feed for their Mg-FF.
If the G3/G4 bomber can survive the skies of Britain and Soviet union their long range would also be a big help to the German.
About aircraft armament the German could give Japanese Mine shell and Mg131 and the Japanese could give the German belt feed for their Mg-FF.
- Thread starter
- #31
By the time Japanese had the belt-fed for their equivalent of the MG FF, Germans also have the belt feed for the MG FFM (it was used on the Do 217 night fighters in 'forward' position). The Mine shell for the Japanese cannons is a very good proposal, it introduces stamped body for shells instead of machined body (= savings in material and manufacturing price and complexity), the M-shells are lighter thus their MV is much greater than of the 'classic' shells but without the loss of target effect. Would've mean the Type 99-1 doing above 700 m/s, and Type 99-2 at least 850 m/s?
Conversely, the armament of 4 belt-fed Type 99-1 guns with M-shell can offer an excellent firepower, with useful MV, all while being very light (both guns and ammo) for all that firepower.
As for the bombers - seems like nobody gave a good explanation why Japanese bombers were rarely carrying hefty bomb load, even the Ki-67 with it's powerful engines. 800 kg of bombs for 3800 HP? Granted, they were long-range types, but the ability to trade fuel load for bomb load seems nonexistent.
I'd again suggest that Japanese license produce the early Ju-288, powered by Kasei-21 for the starters.
Now - what about the Italians?
Conversely, the armament of 4 belt-fed Type 99-1 guns with M-shell can offer an excellent firepower, with useful MV, all while being very light (both guns and ammo) for all that firepower.
As for the bombers - seems like nobody gave a good explanation why Japanese bombers were rarely carrying hefty bomb load, even the Ki-67 with it's powerful engines. 800 kg of bombs for 3800 HP? Granted, they were long-range types, but the ability to trade fuel load for bomb load seems nonexistent.
I'd again suggest that Japanese license produce the early Ju-288, powered by Kasei-21 for the starters.
Now - what about the Italians?
Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 122
- Jul 13, 2020
He-100 for Italy is also a good idea since even Fiat G55 use outdated manufacturing techniques. They also need more capable bomber to replace SM79.
Italian tank is alright for the early war and IMO they only really fell behind after the introduction of Sherman,What they would need is a SPG armed with naval gun because they didn't produce enough AA gun in this department Germany couldn't help them much.
Shortround6
Major General
Yep, the He 100 would have been a wonderful addition to either the Japanese or the Italians, for the allies that is.
Imagine a plane with a radiator 10 times the size of normal radiators and with much larger unprotected fuel tanks than the Japanese used (as far as target area goes,not capacity)
Much much easier to shoot down IF you can get hits
Imagine a plane with a radiator 10 times the size of normal radiators and with much larger unprotected fuel tanks than the Japanese used (as far as target area goes,not capacity)
Much much easier to shoot down IF you can get hits
- Thread starter
- #34
We'd probably want a He 100 with a 'normal' radiator. Such the version is the German equivalent of the XP-39 doing 400 mph - a lot of talk about it, but no evidence.
Such a He 100 will probably go with annular radiator (as found on many German V12s), or perhaps the beard radiator (a-la P-40). Ideal might be the leading-edge radiator, not unlike what the Tempest I had; the pop-out auxiliary radiator from the historical He 100 will not cut it. I'm not sure what internal changes would've been required for such the 100 to emerge.
On the other hand - how much more vulnerable the He 100 was vs. Zero or Oscar?
But then again - how about the He 100 with Sakae for the Japanese?
Such a He 100 will probably go with annular radiator (as found on many German V12s), or perhaps the beard radiator (a-la P-40). Ideal might be the leading-edge radiator, not unlike what the Tempest I had; the pop-out auxiliary radiator from the historical He 100 will not cut it. I'm not sure what internal changes would've been required for such the 100 to emerge.
On the other hand - how much more vulnerable the He 100 was vs. Zero or Oscar?
But then again - how about the He 100 with Sakae for the Japanese?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Japanese had the equivalent of the He100 in the form of the KI-61 - they were FAR better off with the KI-100 radial conversion.
- Thread starter
- #36
Ki 61 and He 100 were not equivalents, the He 100 was a much better performer, that a lot had to do with it being much smaller (wing area 14.6 sq m vs. 20 sq m), lighter and more streamined. It was also much earlier. Wing t-t-c of the Ki 61 was 16% at the root, while the wing profile was of the same 2R series as the Bf 109 used. Granted, Ki 61 was a more 'realistic' aircraft, with much increased fuel tankage, with drop tanks, 'classic' cooling system, better armament (even the early versions) and much better protection. Apart from it coming a bit late, the story of the DB 601 production in Japan was a sorry saga.
Ki 100 was even more later, too late.
Thus my suggestion for He 100 with Sakae - gets rid of the need for cooling system, Sakae was a small engine with decent power at altitude and was available early enough while being very reliable, no voluminous cooling system means that more fuel and armament can be tucked in, small size of the He 100 basic airframe will mean low drag. Kawasaki was already making the Sakae under licence. All in all it should end up as the Japanese equivalent of the FFVS J.22, performance-wise.
Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 122
- Jul 13, 2020
I have a feeling that it will lose 20mph that way,or the engine will burn if the cowling were made too tight.
- Thread starter
- #38
What aircraft will lose 20 mph?
As for the cowling - just have the current best Japanese cowling around the engine.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I didn't say "identical" or "copy".
The He100 was certainly a performer, but it had short-comings that would have prevented it from being a front-line performer. The KI-61's successor, the KI-100 was far better due to it's radial engine being fitted to the KI-61's airframe - the result being one of the best interceptors in the Japanese inventory.
The He100 was certainly a performer, but it had short-comings that would have prevented it from being a front-line performer. The KI-61's successor, the KI-100 was far better due to it's radial engine being fitted to the KI-61's airframe - the result being one of the best interceptors in the Japanese inventory.
- Thread starter
- #40
Roger that.
The He 100 as-is was indeed with shortcomings. Going radial instead of V12 might alleviate some of these shortcomings. Granted, Japanese very rarely licence produced a foreign aircraft, the DC-3 being a notable exception.
Ki 100 gave to the IJA what Ki-61 or a Ki-84 could not - a reliable engine. (Un)fortunately, when compared with what the West was using, it was at least 3 years too late.
