Or, conversely plan such a vast military programme of rearmament (perhaps without the intent of implementing it) that the opposition couldn't possibly compete economically with. Strategic military planning 101.
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
Or, conversely plan such a vast military programme of rearmament (perhaps without the intent of implementing it) that the opposition couldn't possibly compete economically with. Strategic military planning 101.
Admiral Beez
Major
That would give Hood the unfortunate record of being the only battleship ever destroyed by gunfire alone. Unless we're also reclassifying the Kongo class battlecruisers, in this case Kirishima makes two.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Don't forget the Battle of Tsushima. Plenty gunfire only sinking.
Admiral Beez
Major
True. I was thinking of Dreadnought battleships.
A few things have gone astray on this discussion:
1 The German Navy in WW2 was constrained to a fleet 33% the size of the British fleet (in tonnage) by the Anglo-German naval treaty. It had to be a balanced fleet to match the Royal Navy so number of battleships would need to be 1/3rd that of the Royal Navy. This actually forced the Kriegsmarine to build more battleships than they would have. The would have been better of with a fleet of heavy cruisers.
The Anglo German treaty also locked the Germans in to the Washington and London Naval treaties which limited tonnage and gun bore (to 14 inches) which is what the British were after. As it was the elevator clause kicked in (late 1937) the Bismarck was completely legal for nearly 1.5 years before launched in both tonnage and gun bore.
2 In WW 1 Tirpitz's navy was supposed to be 60% the size of the Royal Navy. Obviously with the Anglo-German Treaty the WW 2 German navy could be only about 33% the Royal Navy.
Incidentally many in the German military blamed the excess investment in Tirpitz's navy for leaving them short of the divisions they needed to win the battle of the Marne which would have won them WW1 at the beginning.
3 Bismarck's radar did fail due to shock from own main guns but they were repaired. Happened to the PoW as well.
4 Hipper class heavy cruiser were more powerful than country. They had deck armour, they had longer range guns, they were bigger. To some degree able to engage at battleship ranges.
1 The German Navy in WW2 was constrained to a fleet 33% the size of the British fleet (in tonnage) by the Anglo-German naval treaty. It had to be a balanced fleet to match the Royal Navy so number of battleships would need to be 1/3rd that of the Royal Navy. This actually forced the Kriegsmarine to build more battleships than they would have. The would have been better of with a fleet of heavy cruisers.
The Anglo German treaty also locked the Germans in to the Washington and London Naval treaties which limited tonnage and gun bore (to 14 inches) which is what the British were after. As it was the elevator clause kicked in (late 1937) the Bismarck was completely legal for nearly 1.5 years before launched in both tonnage and gun bore.
2 In WW 1 Tirpitz's navy was supposed to be 60% the size of the Royal Navy. Obviously with the Anglo-German Treaty the WW 2 German navy could be only about 33% the Royal Navy.
Incidentally many in the German military blamed the excess investment in Tirpitz's navy for leaving them short of the divisions they needed to win the battle of the Marne which would have won them WW1 at the beginning.
3 Bismarck's radar did fail due to shock from own main guns but they were repaired. Happened to the PoW as well.
4 Hipper class heavy cruiser were more powerful than country. They had deck armour, they had longer range guns, they were bigger. To some degree able to engage at battleship ranges.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
I would hope the Hippers were more powerful than the County class.
Aside from being newer (10 years counts for a lot in the 1920s/30s) they were 30-40% heavier. They were not Washington treaty cruisers.
German cruisers were often flawed in a number of ways, looked good on paper, not so good at sea.
Light cruisers had weak hulls, Hippers had unreliable machinery, all were short ranged for trying to fight the British or even the French.
Aside from being newer (10 years counts for a lot in the 1920s/30s) they were 30-40% heavier. They were not Washington treaty cruisers.
German cruisers were often flawed in a number of ways, looked good on paper, not so good at sea.
Light cruisers had weak hulls, Hippers had unreliable machinery, all were short ranged for trying to fight the British or even the French.
I would expect the flaws such as weak stern and issues with the reliability of the superheated steam turbine system to be resolved as newer improved versions come out.
They have good fire control but they need their 10.5cm guns in fully enclosed turrets and improvements to the 3.7cm FLAK such as an auto loader and the same type of fire control used on the 10.5cm guns used on the 3.7cm.
I know for instance that Hipper used "large gyros" to stabilise its main range finder whereas the Prinz Eugen had small gyros with a 15kW or 20kW servo motor on each axis. They did improve and modify and presumably could retrofit some of the advances.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I bet British or Japanese crews and command could have got more out of those German surface vessels. While the ships had weaknesses, they had strengths to work with, too. I think the biggest weakness of the German ships was not design, it was higher command.
The ships themselves, and the KM sailors manning them, could dish it out and take it too. The leadership at sea was subpar, in my opinion. Fix the engines on the cruisers and put Vian in charge of them and I bet you'll get one hell of a show.
The ships themselves, and the KM sailors manning them, could dish it out and take it too. The leadership at sea was subpar, in my opinion. Fix the engines on the cruisers and put Vian in charge of them and I bet you'll get one hell of a show.
Just a Summary of this thread
How the Germans could have helped the Japanese more:
1 Coal to Oil Technology
2 Radar technology, particularly blind fire techniques.
3 Man Portable Anti Tank Weapons such as Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek. Effective against Marine Shermans.
4 Welding Techniques
5 Phased Array "GHG" Passive Sonar
6 Jet Engines
7 Rockets
8 Sort out the Japanese 25mm AAA gun with a quad FLAK vierling style mount based on the German quad.
9 The MG 151/20 had box magazine and would have given the A6M Zero a much larger ammunition supply and changed the behaviour of the Japanese Carriers which kept flight decks clear so that Zeros could rearm.
9 Infrared vision and passive sea search devices.
10 homing torpedo's.
How the Japanese could have helped the Germans
1 Type 22 Magnetron Radar. Assuming the Germans are told in May 1942 after sea trials the Germans have 9 months head start in understanding microwave radar before they actually discover the British using it.
2 Possibly Pentax Optics, though Germans are so good it's little different.
3 Some of the Japanese radial engines are very good.
4 Affordable long range twin engine aircraft for maritime patrol.
5 Cooperation on nuclear reactors and bombs. The Japanese theoretical work was very good and the German practical work in advance. Weakness in one is overcome by the other.
The A6M Zero and Me 109F1 entered service within months of each other. A few squadrons of Luftwaffe Zeros stationed on the coast would have been able to help protect German u-boats against Wellingtons up until 1943 over the bay of Biscay.
Of course the Germans did help in many of these areas but it wasn't an easy business class flight.
How the Germans could have helped the Japanese more:
1 Coal to Oil Technology
2 Radar technology, particularly blind fire techniques.
3 Man Portable Anti Tank Weapons such as Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek. Effective against Marine Shermans.
4 Welding Techniques
5 Phased Array "GHG" Passive Sonar
6 Jet Engines
7 Rockets
8 Sort out the Japanese 25mm AAA gun with a quad FLAK vierling style mount based on the German quad.
9 The MG 151/20 had box magazine and would have given the A6M Zero a much larger ammunition supply and changed the behaviour of the Japanese Carriers which kept flight decks clear so that Zeros could rearm.
9 Infrared vision and passive sea search devices.
10 homing torpedo's.
How the Japanese could have helped the Germans
1 Type 22 Magnetron Radar. Assuming the Germans are told in May 1942 after sea trials the Germans have 9 months head start in understanding microwave radar before they actually discover the British using it.
2 Possibly Pentax Optics, though Germans are so good it's little different.
3 Some of the Japanese radial engines are very good.
4 Affordable long range twin engine aircraft for maritime patrol.
5 Cooperation on nuclear reactors and bombs. The Japanese theoretical work was very good and the German practical work in advance. Weakness in one is overcome by the other.
The A6M Zero and Me 109F1 entered service within months of each other. A few squadrons of Luftwaffe Zeros stationed on the coast would have been able to help protect German u-boats against Wellingtons up until 1943 over the bay of Biscay.
Of course the Germans did help in many of these areas but it wasn't an easy business class flight.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I knows that Japanese took foreign gear but did the Japanese ever give gear to a foreign power in WW2?
Anything at all?
Invading a foreign country and providing technical assistance that way don't count.
Anything at all?
Invading a foreign country and providing technical assistance that way don't count.
glennasher
Senior Airman
They might have (might have) provided technical assistance to Thailand, but I'm not sure about that, either. I know they were the producers of the Siamese Mauser rifles for Thailand before the war (built in the the Arisaka plant), but for other matters, I'm not sure. I seem to recall reading that they provided aircraft for the Thai Army, but I might be mis-remembering that, too.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
There were Ki-27's (Ki-43's too?) supplied to Thailand. I remember seeing one in Thai livery.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I had to look this up. Per Wikipedia, the Japanese supplied the RTAF with Ki-27, Ki-43 and Ki-36 aircraft.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Slippy slope whether Thailand was a Japanese ally or puppet. So not sure I can give you that one.
Will need a stewards enquiry if that is allowed.
Will need a stewards enquiry if that is allowed.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
As to your first statement, yes.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Did you know Thailand declared war on USA and UK?
The hidden face of the Axis has finally revealed itself.
And always check for an Adam's Apple.
The hidden face of the Axis has finally revealed itself.
And always check for an Adam's Apple.
As a full fledged member of Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, did they have a choice?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
All that and more had been revealed to me. Oh, btw, don't go by just the Adam's apple anymore.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,680
- May 13, 2018
Somewhere I still have my 1/72 Ki-43 in Siam mkgs.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Cool. I saw one in a hobby shop in Khorat.
