License built copy?

I notice lots of new threads about licensing a <insert item here>. You only need a license to build an exact copy of an item, not something you reengineer to your specs. Japan had superior subs, they don’t need a type VII, Germany is the one that needs the exact copy of the I Boatsas an example.
 
I think people assume that technology will solve X or Y problem, rather than human organisations. I also think people assume that X country can integrate Y technology and it will be as successful as it was in the parent country, when these countries have their own mature industries building things to their own requirements.

For example Japan didn't build powerful aero engines not because they couldn't design them, or even cast/forge/machine or finish them. They did so because they didn't have the metallurgy to do so, so liscence build X or Y powerful aero engine is tough because it has to use Japanese metallurgy, even if the casting, forging and machining are good enough.
 
Last edited:
Good weapons need good personnel to man/crew and good tactics to be successful. Without any one of the trio, it's just a weapon and not a good weapon.
 
Licenses make a lot of sense, since it can buy you time - the most precious comodity.

Japanese have had powerful engines in production and use. Along with USA, the only other country with two 18 cyl engine types in production and service (vs. Germany, UK and Soviet Union with zero such engines).
 
Licenses make a lot of sense, since it can buy you time - the most precious comodity.
It is, Australia has and does make extensive use of license production of all sorts of aircraft, ships and other military gear as do many medium and minor powers who can build and sustain stuff but not design and develop it. Even great powers do this on occasion, the US built the Canberra and Harrier for example. That said the likes of Australia had to import the parts of licence built kit that we couldn't manufacture ourselves, so licence building means a lot of different things in a lot of different situations.

However it seems of late that people are seeing a failure on the part of a great power and suggesting that some other great power's piece of kit will solve the problem. This ignores all sorts of human and organisational issues, but I also think it ignores industrial issues as well and assumes that if a country can build a submarine (plane, tank etc) it can build X or Y type of submarine (etc) and that is good.

Japanese have had powerful engines in production and use. Along with USA, the only other country with two 18 cyl engine types in production and service (vs. Germany, UK and Soviet Union with zero such engines).
I was thinking of the Zero engine which had 950hp when the Wildcat had 1200hp and contemporary British radials had similar power. The US and Britain had 2000hp aero engines in production in about 1942.
 
I think people assume that technology will solve X or Y problem, rather than human organisations. I also think people assume that X country can integrate Y technology and it will be as successful as it was in the parent country, when these countries have their own mature industries building things to their own requirements.

For example Japan didn't build powerful aero engines not because they couldn't design them, or even cast/forge/machine or finish them. They did so because they didn't have the metallurgy to do so, so liscence build X or Y powerful aero engine is tough because it has to use Japanese metallurgy, even if the casting, forging and machining are good enough.
Japan did build powerful aero-engines. They were radials. Liquid cooled engines, they had problems with.
 
It is, Australia has and does make extensive use of license production of all sorts of aircraft, ships and other military gear as do many medium and minor powers who can build and sustain stuff but not design and develop it. Even great powers do this on occasion, the US built the Canberra and Harrier for example. That said the likes of Australia had to import the parts of licence built kit that we couldn't manufacture ourselves, so licence building means a lot of different things in a lot of different situations.

However it seems of late that people are seeing a failure on the part of a great power and suggesting that some other great power's piece of kit will solve the problem. This ignores all sorts of human and organisational issues, but I also think it ignores industrial issues as well and assumes that if a country can build a submarine (plane, tank etc) it can build X or Y type of submarine (etc) and that is good.
Piece of kit can patch a problem todayperhaps, but not be a cure for anything. Granted, some liecensing deals were competed better than other ones...

I was thinking of the Zero engine which had 950hp when the Wildcat had 1200hp and contemporary British radials had similar power. The US and Britain had 2000hp aero engines in production in about 1942.
Engine used on G4M in 1940 have had 1530 HP in 1940. Zero's engine in mid 1942 was making 1150 HP, Ki-44 have had 1250 HP and was getting the 1500 Hp engine.
A good deal of WAllied advantage was in their fuel - Japanese engines were running on 91-92 oct fuel, WAllied engines have had 100 oct fuel to use, and by 1942 it was 100/130 grade. More octanes/grade = more boost = more power. We can try running the Sabre or Taurus on 91 oct fuel and make a trainwreck out of what was a dumpster fire.
Japanese circumvented the lack of hi-oct fuel by 1944/45 via installing the water/alcohol injection systems on many aircraft (pushed Kasei to 1850 HP, Kinsei 1500-1600 HP, Homare to 2000+ HP, Ha-42 to 2200 HP), however by 1945 their fuel was not even 91-92 oct.

FWIW, Japanese were a lot behind in supercharging systems - their engine-driven S/Cs were always 1-stage, and turbochargers were not as mature as US types.

Japan did build powerful aero-engines. They were radials. Liquid cooled engines, they had problems with.
And liquid cooled ones were licenced, or spin-offs of the licenced types. Go figure.
 
Licenses make a lot of sense, since it can buy you time - the most precious comodity.

Japanese have had powerful engines in production and use. Along with USA, the only other country with two 18 cyl engine types in production and service (vs. Germany, UK and Soviet Union with zero such engines).
Uh the Bristol Centaurus, and yes it did see service in WW2.
 
I was thinking of the Zero engine which had 950hp when the Wildcat had 1200hp and contemporary British radials had similar power.
The Sakae were smaller in Displacement, 1687cu.in and lighter, 1300 pounds vs the 2360cu.in and 1929 pound Bristol Hercules, or similar to the 1000hp 1820cu.in 1184 pound Wright.
 
In service in ww2 powered by Centaurus?
From the link above

Warwick Mark VEdit
  • Warwick GR Mk V or Vickers Type 474 –; anti-submarine, general reconnaissance aircraft. It was powered by two Bristol Centaurus VII radial piston engines, armed with 7 machine guns and could carry 6,000 pounds (2,700 kg) of bombs, mines or depth charges. A Leigh light was fitted ventrally. The first operational sortie was carried out by 179 Squadron on 4 December 1944; 210 built.
The MkII was also in service earlier than the MK V with an earlier version of the Centaurus, sounds like the double wasps were quite troublesome in this aircraft.
 
It is, Australia has and does make extensive use of license production of all sorts of aircraft, ships and other military gear as do many medium and minor powers who can build and sustain stuff but not design and develop it. Even great powers do this on occasion, the US built the Canberra and Harrier for example. That said the likes of Australia had to import the parts of licence built kit that we couldn't manufacture ourselves, so licence building means a lot of different things in a lot of different situations.

However it seems of late that people are seeing a failure on the part of a great power and suggesting that some other great power's piece of kit will solve the problem. This ignores all sorts of human and organisational issues, but I also think it ignores industrial issues as well and assumes that if a country can build a submarine (plane, tank etc) it can build X or Y type of submarine (etc) and that is good.



I was thinking of the Zero engine which had 950hp when the Wildcat had 1200hp and contemporary British radials had similar power. The US and Britain had 2000hp aero engines in production in about 1942.
*cough* DC-4e and G5M *cough*
 
OK folks, I'm not going to die in a ditch about Japanese aero engine power.

However in 2013 I did the RAAF Advanced Airpower course and one for the students was a JASDF Major, an engineer, and he shared the metallurgy-power lessons that he knew as part of his professional development. I was surprised and interested to learn that less than awesome metallurgy lead to lower engine power (than other powers at the same time) which drove fighter design to ultra-light construction which in turn led to performance characteristics, weapons loadout etc. I take his word on the issue more readily than Wiki pages, sorry.
 
T-21 (the Czech tank that was licence produced by Hungary as the Turan) for Italy.

Stacked up against the M13/40:
+better armour
+higher speed
+three man turret
+larger turret ring allowing for ease of armament upgrade later on
+twice the horsepower
+wider tracks
-five tonnes heavier (although one could argue that this just means even more upgrade potential)

Additionally, as a riveted hull with leaf spring suspension, it is arguably quite well suited to Italy's limited tank manufacturing capabilities (unlike the Panzer III and IV which people tend to suggest when the topic of Italy licence building other tanks comes up, despite the fact that Italy really lacked welders).

Also, if Italy's main field howitzer is going to be the Austro-Hungarian 10 cm M. 14, then licensing Skoda's new and improved version, the 10 cm vz. 30, is probably not a bad idea.
 
Top