axis with a plan to win the war together

[nota]

the BIG ultimate what if

the axis was united with the will to cooperate and set goals with real plans

in stead of the real each axis nation does what ever when ever with very little if any thought to total war plans

I see very little very late common efforts far too few and too late to have any gains

one example long lance for E-boats and DD
maybe to unstable on a u-boat but need risks to WIN
japan's DD for an other maybe built in italy or balkans

they had no common arms or ammo no way to supply each other
but a bit of planning could fix a lot of problems
ONE WAY IS DECIDE WHO MAKES THE BEST IN THAT SIZE ARM TRUCK AIR CRAFT SHIP ECT
german radar japans navy aircraft DD CV BB italy's ships too
share the plans and all produce interchangeable arms ammo transport ect
do the plan not for a hope for short war
but the worst case long struggle plan with oversupplied everything in common

united axis navy adventures could win the war in summer 1940 if they had a clue to plan for it
and could with just their real tonnage afloat in 1940 if in position near england be a creditable threat
with a cheap peace vs england is possible
then a two front attack on the reds without wars limiting trade supply's needed world wide

not nice but far more possible with stuff in existence then most other what IF'S

[LineDoggie]

They would have had to start cooperating in manufacture for 30 years prior

[nota]

no most ww2 stuff was not that old

but yes they would need lead time time that vary by the item made
contracts and compensation deals make also need time

all agreeing on a 30 cal rife and machine-gun brass cartridge could be far quicker
then BB AP 15'' shells but is do able and better then not being able to rearm in your allies port

and about opposite the everybody does their own everything axis plans or total lack of them
inc starting major or minor wars with no notice to others

[OpanaPointer]

Allies of convenience don't have a good history. One problem would have been giving away secrets without the confidence that the other party wouldn't change sides without warning. Ask Count Ciano.

[T. A. Gardner]

the BIG ultimate what if

the axis was united with the will to cooperate and set goals with real plans

in stead of the real each axis nation does what ever when ever with very little if any thought to total war plans

I see very little very late common efforts far too few and too late to have any gains

one example long lance for E-boats and DD
maybe to unstable on a u-boat but need risks to WIN
japan's DD for an other maybe built in italy or balkans

The Type 93 torpedo uses liquid oxygen versus compressed air for the oxidizer with conventional fuel. As such, ships using them had to have a LOX plant aboard. Even Japanese submarines didn't use these torpedoes because of that and the fact the LOX was very dangerous aboard ship. The RN had tried the same sort of torpedoes but dropped them due to the dangers associated with using LOX.
So, S-Boats (E-boats) couldn't use them because they have no way to carry or make the necessary LOX to run them. U-boat captains wouldn't want them as they leave a wake (they have less of a wake than a compressed air torpedo, but still have one). They preferred electric wakeless torpedoes instead.
The other problem is that the Type 93 weighs about 6,000 pounds versus the about 3500 lbs. a G7 torpedo weighs. That means you are doubling the weight of each torpedo carried, and the size is also increased requiring more space to store them.

Japan's DD's also had what is arguably the worst main battery gun of any destroyers in WW 2.

On the other hand, the Germans didn't get the cavity magnetron from Japan that the Japanese had invented well ahead of Britain and develop centimetric radar. Japan had the first working prototype of one of these, but they didn't have the production capacity to make the sets until 1944.
That would have helped Germany more than a slightly better torpedo...

they had no common arms or ammo no way to supply each other
but a bit of planning could fix a lot of problems
ONE WAY IS DECIDE WHO MAKES THE BEST IN THAT SIZE ARM TRUCK AIR CRAFT SHIP ECT

The problem here is that each nation is limited by their extant manufacturing capacity and methods. For example, both Japan and Italy rely heavily on riveting to assemble ships and tanks because they lack the equipment and trained workers to do mass production welding.

The other problem is what each needs in terms of their military varies dramatically. Japan has no use for say, a Tiger tank. They can't ship it easily anywhere they would be using it, and even if they got it to the front, they couldn't maintain and fuel it. What they needed were light tanks that were easily shipped, and designs that were easy to maintain. Their Type 97 medium, for example, used a simple bell crank suspension system and air cooled diesel engine. Less maintenance and a vehicle that was within Japanese shipping weight limits.

german radar japans navy aircraft DD CV BB italy's ships too

As I mentioned, Japan was actually pretty much on par with Germany in terms of radar and more advanced having a working centimetric set that Germany lacked. Their problem was one of production, not invention. Italy had some basic radar, but again they lacked the industrial base to build sets.
Even Germany had issues with production. They couldn't produce enough tubes and other components to meet their own needs, let alone their allies'. If Germany didn't capture the Dutch Philips plant in the Netherlands, they'd have lost about a third of their available production capacity in electronics.

share the plans and all produce interchangeable arms ammo transport ect

This was done to some extent, but just because you give your ally some plans doesn't mean they can turn that into a usable production product. In the US, for example, the Dutch gave the US a set of plans for the Bofors 40mm AA gun. The US had to redesign many of the gun's parts and produce all new drawings that were in US measurements, not metric. That alone took months to do for the US. Japan and Italy had a fraction of the engineering capacity to do likewise.

do the plan not for a hope for short war

Japan had been, effectively, at war since the early 1930's. Their problem wasn't planning for a long or short war, but their inability to grasp that anything but total victory was the objective. That was a cultural thing, not a planning one. You'd have to change Japanese culture to fix it.
With Italy, their military was still based on WW 1 organizations for the most part, and suffered cultural issues with class structure within Italian society. Again, something you really can't fix in a few years.

united axis navy adventures could win the war in summer 1940 if they had a clue to plan for it

No, they couldn't. Italy's navy was designed to be used in the Mediterranean and that's it. The Germans didn't have a "real" navy, they had a spoiler navy. That is, the only naval war they could wage with success was a commerce war of raiding using submarines and individual surface ships. That isn't a winning strategy, but a spoiler to force your opponent to spend lots of effort and money on defeating it.
Japan's navy didn't have the fleet train or bases to operate outside of the Pacific Ocean.

and could with just their real tonnage afloat in 1940 if in position near england be a creditable threat

Again, Japan and Italy aren't coming to Germany's rescue at sea. It isn't happening.

with a cheap peace vs england is possible

Germany lacked the means to invade England successfully, and Japan and Italy weren't going to change that.

then a two front attack on the reds without wars limiting trade supply's needed world wide

What's in that for Japan other than massive losses against a land power they can't fight? Japan and Russia had a number of serious border skirmishes in 1938-39 that pretty much proved for Japan that they weren't up to fighting a land war against Russia.

not nice but far more possible with stuff in existence then most other what IF'S

Pretty much, most of this is a nonstarter. It isn't going to happen even if it were tried.

[T. A. Gardner]

no most ww2 stuff was not that old

but yes they would need lead time time that vary by the item made
contracts and compensation deals make also need time

all agreeing on a 30 cal rife and machine-gun brass cartridge could be far quicker
then BB AP 15'' shells but is do able and better then not being able to rearm in your allies port

and about opposite the everybody does their own everything axis plans or total lack of them
inc starting major or minor wars with no notice to others

Just the idea of a common rifle round is problematic. Japan from WW 1 on used two cartridges, the 6.5mm and 7.7mm. The 6.5 was the first adopted and part of why it was chosen was on the basis of weight for shipping, and on it being usable in a smaller rifle.

The Germans had been using the 7.92mm cartridge from before WW 1. Switching means having lots and lots of firearms and ammunition that is now non-standard in stock.

The Italians are the same way.

For Japan, the 14" naval gun was chosen back before WW 1 and continued forward. The 16", their next size up, was based on the Washington Naval Treaty limits and chosen well before they threw in with Germany. Most of Italy's battleships used a bored out 12.6" guns with their upgraded WW 1 12" battleships.

So, why would they want to standardize on what the Germans were using (11" and 15" guns)? The 11" was really too small to be a decent battleship gun, and the German 15" was a late comer to the party, so-to-speak.

[EwenS]

The 14” naval gun used by the Japanese dated back to 1910 and a Vickers design, who also built some of the guns used in the Kongo class (Kongo herself was built in Britain).

The 16” gun drove the 1922 Washington Treaty limit. The Japanese 16” gun was designed in 1914 and the Nagato Class Battleships were designed to carry them (2 ships laid down 1917/18 and completed 1920/21, before the Washington Conference even started). The US had also moved to design their first 16” gun in 1913, which went into the Colorado class, the first of which (Maryland) was laid down in 1917 and 3 of the class completed before the Washington Conference. The Conference allowed the US and Japan to keep the 16” ships already completed. Britain was then allowed to build the 2 Nelrods to maintain parity.

By late 1921 only Britain had built a larger weapon, the 18” gun (the US was working on a prototype of that calibre). Designed in 1915 the first such weapon went into the aft turret of HMS Furious when she completed in 1917. The other 2 guns built went into fixed mounts in monitors in 1918. By Washington, Furious was stripped down ready for conversion to her flush decked carrier arrangement.

While Germany itself did not manufacture the 40mm Bofors gun, there was wartime production in both Norway and Hungary under prewar licences and, along with captured weapons, it was used by the German Forces. Bofors sold licences prewar to many European nations.

[nota]

O2 for the long lance on a PT or E sized boat may use shore supplied stock for a short patrol in the channel
maybe not the critical new system but just one example of arm they could all use

the fact is there was very little planing or other cooperation between the axis nations
even the simple obvious stuff like beat one nation at a time then gang up one the next
aka winning war plan

[T. A. Gardner]

This video shows just how difficult it is to turn a set of prints into a production product.

https://youtu.be/yVeLsJtId_g

[thaddeus_c]

the Axis are not allies in the same sense as the Allies, but more akin to a group of crime families that gather from time to time to sort out their overlapping interests.

Japan was a reluctant ally for almost all of the interwar period, while Italy maintained their prerogatives over the Med until almost defeated?

IDK how, as constituted, the Axis could/would collaborate much more than historical?

it seems to me you could continue the well considered interwar plans of Gen. von Seeckt to cooperate with the USSR and China (albeit not to ally necessarily with either) and graft onto that an Axis of fascist/authoritarian European regimes?

basically Germany/Italy/Hungary and possibly Spain if an earlier end to the SCW. if the invasion of the USSR could be postponed, there could develop some of the joint weapons production mentioned.

[T. A. Gardner]

Here's an interesting question for this scenario.

In 1934 the Germans started training and equipping Chinese infantry divisions with a plan to create a modern 80 division Chinese army on the German military model. While only 8 divisions were fully realized, and another 12 partially trained, these fought against the Japanese Army when Japan invaded China a second time in 1937.



Would Germany still do this in this scenario? If so, how would that affect their alliance?