Search results

Thankｓ for hint. I have dug up following data: Sakhalin oilfields were known and mined by Japanese by 29 August 1924; concession included 50% of known oilfields area, including all of areas where Japanese equipment was already located in 1925. Also, prospecting rights on Japanese-chosen 1,000...

Japanese even did not check Sakhalin for oil. Regarding terms for mental state of interwar Japanese decision makers, the correct term would be "groupthink", not the idiocy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Was it really tried? My understanding was what without epoxies interfacing glass fibre to other materials was not efficient. G-3 composite (glass-phenolic): flexural strength 279 MPa G-10 composite (glass-epoxy): flexural strength 415 MPa Epoxy production did not start until 1943 though..

Absolutely incorrect. Japanese decision pathway before Pacific war was self-consistent (because ruling group did not change) but a lot of opportunities were simply excluded from decision process. For example, no systematic geological survey was taken, neither in Japan proper nor in Manchuria...

Logic was nothing to do with the Japanese politics around 1936. The Japanese were actually seeking "consensus", not "truth". The problem for China (or for ordinary Japanese citizen) was what nobody among Japanese elites have included them into "consensus group" (peer group in modern sociology)...

Yes. Low-drag engines were not panacea, and performance other than speed suffered. Also, tactics of air fighting evolved - "boom and zoom" become more favored compared to turning battles. Most pilots tended to emphasis turning battles and therefore maneurability in 1938 though - mostly because...

At the cost of 389kg of empty mass increase (of which just ~50% was from engine) and reduced range. Well, climb rate of Hawker Hector has improved over Hawker Hart, but i have grave doubts about Hector maneuverability. Well, P-36 to P-40 similar engine upgrade weighted ~600kg - and on airframe...

Could you give the full page link? My consideration for engine weight torque (which is proportional to offset of center of mass): Kestrel 16: 4.04 kN*m (on miles kestrel) Mercury 20: 2.56 kN*m (on miles master) Napier dagger: 6.13 kN*m (on ?) Allison V-1710: 6.77 kN*n RR R-1830: 4.13 kN*m...

As usual for early liquid-cooled engines, Napier Dagger had the cooling problems (or saying alternately, its alloys and lubricants were designed for way too low operation temperature). By the way, because so many liquid-cooled engines in 193x have tended to overheat, Allison V-1710 tended to...

These engines are my primary choice too. R-1830 was not formally fit to the OP conditions being 2-row and 1050 HP, but it was one of options for (easily) exported and licensed DC-3, therefore in fact may be most available of all the top-notch engines. Formally OP definition fit would be one-row...

I seen the discussion related to improved wood (actually wood-phenolic plastic composites with phenolic contents above plywood) in https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-panic-fighter-1938.444821/ Improved wood (densified wood, engineered wood) was advocated for fighter production...

Military defeat of France and later opportunistic grab of French Indochina by Japan in 1940 was directly in the chain of events triggering US oil embargo and then Pacific War; without France been defeated Japanese leaders would never dare to escalate in Southern direction, making OTL embargo and...

Well, easy to purchase from Soviets, but meaningful only if you can eventually fix all the problems of I-17 listed above, which was likely impossible. For start, I-17 had canvas-skinned fuselage on tubular frame which was probably the root cause of non-ergonomic (too narrow) cabin.. For...

I-17 was engined with license-produced HS12Ybrs (Soviet designation M-100 was down-graded to 750HP from 850HP of original Hispano-Suiza engine) Also, I-17 was still not used Meredith effect for radiator, and flaps+chassis were rather primitive, resulting in mediocre performance and ground...

1 ft*ton should be about 3 kJ. 112 ft*ton 37mm M6 was therefore 0.34 MJ, a lot for weapon of 37mm caliber. AP-T projectile of M3/M6 actually weighted 0.87kg, compared to 0.61kg (and at lower muzzle velocity) of M1. Even modern Millenium GDM-008 have muzzle energy of 0.31 MJ (although at caliber...

I do not know which units are you using (energy do not measure in tons). My database (WWIIg) has following (and quite typical) muzzle energy values for guns first made made in around 1940: 37mm gun M1A2 0.25 MJ 47 mm armata przeciwpancerna wz. 39 0.57 MJ 57 mm anti-tank gun M1943 (ZiS-2) 1.58 MJ

The production of ShVAK do include manual filing of metal parts as an obligatory part of manufacture. Not very good for productivity.

Well, then it is better to return to my original proposal of "large live-fire drills". Having design and usage failures uncovered in all sorts of military equipment instead of mass-producing would be most cost-efficient in the pre-war years up to beginning of 1940. Fixing design error costs a...

47mm AT gun (3-pounder) is 2-3 times the muzzle energy and cost of 37mm gun (one-pounder). 57-mm gun is 6-times the muzzle energy of 37mm. Not a "small hop". With a hindsight of 37mm gun soon becoming nearly useless in the AT role, the decision is obvious though..but large-caliber AT guns would...

I remember an anecdotal case i heard during my engineering practice. In late 1941, during a siege of Leningrad, an overworked Soviet engineer left the improperly calibrated gauge at artillery shell production line. A batch of slightly over-caliber shells was fabricated and promptly used...