Much increased co-operation within Axis countries in technical and tactical matters?

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

Part of the problem/s with the He 100 is however brilliant it may have been in 1938-39 in fitting 1000 ML in a one liter bottle the year 1940 saw the requirements change.
You are now trying to fit 1250ml into the 1 liter bottle.

The He 100 fuselage was small, smaller than a 109. Fuel tanks have to go in the wings. Wing roots hold guns so tanks are forced even further out into thinner parts of the wing. No He 100 had self sealing tanks. With small fuselage tank the fuel capacity was decent but you can't put in protected tanks without reducing the fuel capacity.
Japanese need for short ranged fighter?
He 100 needs more than a conventional radiator, it needs a conventional oil cooler. Where did the speed go??????
He 100 had crap for armament (did they ever get the 20 mm gun to work?) and without it you have the armament of a KI 43 with two 7.7mm guns.

Part of the brilliance of the HE 100 design was using the cowl as part of the stressed engine mount to save weight and volume. Changing to a radial engine means you need a conventional engine mount. some of the weight savings just went away.

and for more mundane considerations, landing and take-off speeds. This thing is going to land and take-off like a KI-44 except it doesn't have the Ki 44 flaps.
 

I am trying to put 900 ml in a liter bottle.
Cooling system (tanks, condensers, pop-out auxiliary radiator) were all eating the internal volume, especially the CoG-neutral volume in the wings and center fuselage. All of that is not needed with a radial in the nose. Fuel tanks were already in the wings (behind the main spar; the 'double shaded' sections of the wing in this picture are the tanks; the gun bay is just inboard the tanks; ammo was held in fuselage), the new fuel tanks go in fuselage, that can be of s-s versions without much of the loss of volume. No water tank(s) and condensers in the wing leave volume for guns, the guns can also be installed in the cowl.


I'm certainly willing to save 400 lbs due to the engine type change, even if I can't save 500 lbs. A turn of speed similar to the I-180 or J.22 is still very competitive vs. Ki-43, and not that worse than Ki-44 (that had a much better & heavier engine that was more expensive and used more fuel) or Ki-61 (a bit too late, with engine introducing own set of problems). Range with fuselage tank and drop tanks can be much improved for the 'radial 100'.
Guns - at least 4 x 7.7mm (two in the cowl, two in the wing roots), work upwards from it.

and for more mundane considerations, landing and take-off speeds. This thing is going to land and take-off like a KI-44 except it doesn't have the Ki 44 flaps.
Click to expand...

Japanese will either learn how to fly it, or they will whip up the Fowler flaps, like they did on Ki-43 after the 1st prototype.
 

I'm not so sure about that. Considering how much time, treasure, effort, lives, expended by the traumatizing effect of the Tirpitz just laying about in the fjords waiting , all the resources of the RN tied up keeping the ship from getting out into the North Atlantic, etc. it seems like the Tirpitz did it's job fairly well. All of the Admiralty was certainly wound up about it, all the way to Churchill himself. Carrier raids, midget submarines, countless bombing strikes, keeping the Home Fleet at home (just in case the Tirpitz did steam outside the fjord).
It seems to me that the Tirpitz, for all it's lack of real naval seapower exploits, did a marvelous job living inside the Admiralty's head rent-free, and tying up resources to a fare-thee-well. All of those resources could have been used chasing after Uboats or trying to shut down the Luftwaffe's Northern contingent, attacking German airfields in Norway, or perhaps working in the Med.
Just the threat of the Tirpitz and it's auxilliary craft kept the RN pretty busy for quite a long time. That's hardly a total waste.
 


That is the whole theory of a "fleet in being";

Fleet in being - Wikipedia

Which many armchair (or computer desk chair) admirals/sea lords want to throw away and use the 'saved' resources in other ways.
If Germany stops building capitol ships in 1935/36 does the RN build all five KGVs?
How much fuel oil is saved if the RN is not using one or two battleships as distant escorts for North Atlantic or Russian convoys?
Germans build more U-boats in the late 30s (breaking the treaties) The RN builds more destroyers or escorts.
 
FWIW, the layout of the cooling system (both for oil and coolant), plus fuel tanks on the He 100:



(item 4 should be more correctly called 'heat exchanger'; I've went with more up-to-the-letter translation, however)
 

Hi

The RN had the Japanese and Italian Fleets, with their battleships, to worry about in the mid to late 1930s, not just any 'potential' German fleet, so the KGVs would have still to be built to, at least, replace the mainly WW1 built battleships they had already.

Mike
 
The Tirpitz even attracted the Ranger (CV-4) at one point.
 
Another idea i have for a long time is equipping large portion of Italian force with French gears, Make up for the shortcoming of the airforce with Dewoitine D.520 and equip their armored force with Somua cavalry tank these are superior to Italy early war equipment and the Germans must let French industry run it course and upgrade their equipment Dewoitine D521/530 equipped with DB601 and belt fed Hispano would be awesome as well as Somua S40 armed with KWK39.
 
Outfitting the Italians with captured French gear makes a lot of sense. Historically, they operated the D.520 from captured Vichy French stocks, in 1943. That is obviously too late to matter, so the armistice needs to specify that Italians get as much of the stuff they lack (basically - everything...).
D.520 was supposed to be well suited for the mass production, in stark contrast vs. probably every Italian design, fighters included. Tooling from H-S should be shipped to A-R, or Fiat, or Isotta-Fraschini.
I'd also ship the tooling for the G&R 14R engine to Italy (to Fiat or to Piaggio), trying to stick it in the Re.20OX series of fighters, or the future G.55 (it was G.58 to be powered by the Fiat's big radial).

Tanks and AFVs are another badly needed item, be it as-is or suitably modified for Italian needs.
 

In my opinion the Italian should strike a deal with both Germany and France for that to happen,the idea is mobilizing France industry to supply Italian War effort,maybe this will even result in French 4 engine strategic bomber in service of Germany.
But shipping France machine tools to Italy might not be optimal instead of letting Italy produce some designs under license.
 

Germany was trying to do that - have French make something for the German war effort. IIRC the G&R company walked the fine line of supplying the Germans with bare minimum while avoiding closing the company that would've resulted sending their workers to live and work in Germany. Luckily (for Allies), Germans chosen the least capable engine that G&R produced to be continued with. I'm not sure that more than a handful of the HS 12Y engines were manufactured for the Germans.
In the same time, for example Regianne was making about 20 of Re.2000s plus Re.2001s monthly in 1941-42 - that is order of magnitude less than of the US production of just 2-engined bombers in these years. Italy certainly needs any help they can get. French workers and tooling in Italy might produce better results than French workers and tooling in Germany.
 

Hispano cannon on Hispano engine block.
On the DB 601 there was a 70mm tube that ran through the engine the cannon had to fit in. Breech and feed were behind the engine.
The tube on the Hispano above the barrel is the gas tube/piston. If it is over 70mm from the bottom of the barrel to the top of the gas tube it won't fit in the engine tube and the gun will have to be mounted further back.
On the 109 the space between the rear of the engine and the pilot was devoted to the guns (engine gun and cowl guns) On the D 520 the space behind the cannon and in front of the pilot was the fuel tank. The machine guns were in the wing. If you stick the DB 601 in the Dw 520 and have to the move the Hispano cannon back a foot or more you may have to do a lot more shifting things around.
The Dw 520 was not a particularly good handling plane in any case. Stall was bad and the ground handling (ground looping) was rather notorious.

The Gun in the Somua 40 was about as good as the short 50mm in the MK III tanks.
The Somua had a few problems of it's own, primary was the one man turret.

Problem with trying to stick in a bigger gun was the room needed for the bigger gun to recoil and the room needed to load the gun (and store the ammo)

The German KWK39 ammo was about 227mm (9 in) longer for the cartridge case.

It is going to be a lot more awkward to load in a single man turret.

The Italian 13/40 may have had thinner armor but it's gun wasn't that far behind the French gun.
Unless the Italians change their training program changing tanks isn't going to do much.
First tank school was opened in 1941?
 
The King George V were supposed to be replacement for the R-class. But the Revenges kept going. With a noticeable exception.

The Decima Mas frogmen would have been an excellent knowledge transfer.

Buying the Goeben back from Turkey in 1934 would have set the cat amongst the pigeons!

Transfer MAS-36 to Italy and replace the Carcano.

2 tech transfers in U-Boats were Metox and Schnorkel. Metox was maybe French and Schnorkel was Dutch. So always good to take advantage.
 
The biggest contribution the Germans would make to the Japanese would be their synthetic fuel technology which could process any type of coal using either hydrogenation or fischer tropsch synthesis. The Germans did try to help but communication links by u-boat was poor and slow.

This would produce a big increase of fuel for Japans army, navy and air force especially after the blockade became effective. It would also increase the grade of their fuel. This would include coal to oil plants in Manchuria/Korea as well as japan home islands. Japanese forces would be conducting a lot more fighting. Fighters may be sent to intercept Enola Gay.

The Japanese had radar. The Japanese toured Germany in 1940 and the Germans showed how good their radar was and stirred the Japanese up to work harder on their own sets.

The Germans gave the Japanese a calibration system called rehbok that allowed precise calibration of range and angular postion with ease.

The Japanese were ahead in one radar area. They had invented a multicavity magnetron with circular cavities and narrow slits about 1 year before Randall and Boot in the UK and they had them operating on cruisers as 25km range surface search radars by 1942. It was known as the The Japanese Type 22 radar, also known as Mark 2 Model 2. The Japanese never invested in this technology as much as the US or UK and the IJN was notorious for not helping the army.

Had the Japanese informed the Germans of this technology the Germans would have known what was detecting their u-boats. They also would have started their own efforts about 1 year earlier.

The Germans should have produced the Messerschmitt Me 261 Adolfine whose 20,000km range would have allowed flights to Japan over the Nth Pole skirting Russian territory (9600km) or Over the Middle East to Japanese held India or 10500km. Both legs are 50% longer than needed to avoid overflying soviet territory. The Adolphine could proably have been ready by early 1941 and would also have provided reconnaissance and weather data. The abillity to transport 4 personel or so or 1/2 ton of samples and plans would have done wonders.
 
Last edited:
I know of a few examples of military hardware where a gizmo was copied.

The Germans copied the Sten SMG as a last ditch weapon.

The RN had duff shells from the High Seas Fleet when the bombarded the coast in ww1. So the RN needs new fuses and hey presto your new design has been gifted to you.

Roly Beaumont in the designs of the Hawker fighters wanted a bubble canopy like the Fw 190. So he didn't say he wanted a copy but wanted a bubble canopy like the 190.

But looking at say the Bf 109 and would I make a copy. Nope. But the gunsight may be of interest. Cannon installation, radio. Fuel injection, slats.

Maybe I look at the slats and think the Seafire could use that. So not copying but simply taking ideas.
 


Germany can't stop building Battleships because the Anglo German naval treaty which, was to keep the German Fleet at 1/3rd the British fleet and locks the German Navy into the tonnage and gun calibre limits of the Washington and London Naval treaties. The treaty actually 'forced' the Germans to build more battleship than they otherwise wanted to. Japan was not part part of the latter treaty limits and that caused Britain enough headaches.

It's in Britain's interests to have more slightly smaller Battleships so that she can build more to meet her empire and escort needs. The KGV class was fine and the 10% cost in speed acceptable.

U-boats and the Luftwaffe could easily sink lone or small batches of ships that were not in an well escorted convoy.

However if Tirpitz got into a convoy in the right conditions she would have made mince meet of it.

We saw what happened when 24 out of the 35 ships forming Convoy PQ 17 were destroyed. after it had been dispersed out of fear of Tirpitz.
 
The Basket said:
Maybe I look at the slats and think the Seafire could use that.
Click to expand...

The Spitfire already had washout built into its wing and although the slats reduced the Bf 109's stall speed - it had, for a high wing loading a relatively benign stall, those slats popped out automatically at high rates of turn, and asymmetrically, which tended to spoil the aircraft's track, making aiming and following through in a steep turn troublesome. The Spitfire could out turn the Bf 109 and adding slats to the Seafire's wing might help slow it down on landing, but it might also compromise its handling in combat.
 
AS I understand it, Slats (as used on the 109) and washout do the same thing. They do NOT reduce stall speed, at least not much.

If/when a wing stalls the airflow is disrupted over the top of the wing and the ailerons become ineffective. If the plane starts to tip to one side (roll) the roll cannot be controlled as the ailerons are operating in the disturbed airflow and the plane will continue to toll to that side.

What the slats do is alter the airflow so that it stays attached to the wing at high angles of attack and keeps the outer wing (behind the part span slats) from stalling and preserves the airflow so the ailerons stay effective and the pilot has lateral control.

With washout the wing is twisted so that outer wing or tips are operating at a different angle of attack than the inner wing. For example (Not Spitfire figures unless I am a really good guesser) say we have 2 degrees of washout and say the inner or main part of the wing stalls at 14 degrees angle of attack. The outer part of the wing is at 12 degrees angle of attack is not stalled and the ailerons are still effective.

In either case the plane can be operating with 1/2 to 2/3rds of the wing stalled, in a turn it is mushing out of the turn instead of maintaining the flight path/turn rate. For landing the sink rate just up dramatically. In both cases the pilot still has lateral control and the plane (if the pilot does his job) will not go into an uncontrolled roll and enter a spin (for the turning aircraft) or hit a wing tip on the ground for the plane that is trying to land.
If the pilot ignores the warning signs of the near stall (slots popping out or buffeting or others) and keeps the stick back the outer part of the wing can stall and control will be lost.

Adding a few feet of slats to a wing that already has washout isn't going to change when the main portion of the wing stalls.

Full span slats are different.
 
Not saying the Seafire would have worked better with slats what I is saying that you can take ideas from an aircraft without copying the whole cake.

Seafire needed all the help it could get on landing.

How was Germany forced to build battleships? That one I never heard.

The only treaty that mattered was Versailles. The London Navy Treaty puked all over Versailles and was proof that the Kreigsmarine could build big ships again.

10,000 tons was the size limit which is why we have the Panzerschiffe.

Had Britain pushed hard against the Kreigsmarine to stick to Versailles then no Tirpitz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Other countries' Dauntless?
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Alan Stevens
A
1939 Tactical Bomber
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
GrauGeist
"Super" A-36 for CAS/ground attack and tactical recon.
Replies
14
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
M
Bf-109 increased production - effects?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
33k in the air
Z
Battle Network Competitions and competitive regime shifts
Replies
8
Views
584
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register