# In ww2 who do you think had better planes Germany or Japan



## Xdominick97 (Apr 3, 2012)

Witch planes were overall better


----------



## futuredogfight (Jul 4, 2012)

Germany hands down.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 4, 2012)

futuredogfight said:


> Germany hands down.



between those 2 countries....yep!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 5, 2012)

Certainly Germany early on. IIUC, as the war progressed, IJ did close the gap somewhat when it bagan to put armor on its fighters with higher performing engines. Too little, too late.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 5, 2012)

I would agree that overall, Germany had the better aircraft, but at the beginning of the War, the Zero dominated everything it came up against...


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 5, 2012)

lesofprimus said:


> I would agree that overall, Germany had the better aircraft, but at the beginning of the War, the Zero dominated everything it came up against...



too true... too true


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 5, 2012)

".... at the beginning of the War, the Zero dominated everything it came up against..."

With _superb_ Japanese Navy fighter pilots ..... 

MM


----------



## futuredogfight (Jul 5, 2012)

LOL yep.


----------



## davebender (Jul 6, 2012)

I agree. 

The 1930s Japanese economy wasn't large enough to fight China and the Soviet Union plus develop the latest military technology. So they fell behind in critical areas such as aircraft engines and 20mm cannon. 1930s Italy had a similiar problem. Money necessary for military modernization was mostly siphoned off to fight in East Africa and Spain.


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2012)

Mmmm! Generally I agree that Germany had the more technically advanced aircraft,however the Japanese developed a number of long range naval aircraft,not neccessarily carrier borne. Anyone care to name a German naval aircraft which could compete with the Japanese types? I can think of the Fw 200.
Steve


----------



## davebender (Jul 6, 2012)

Variants of the Ju-87, Ju-88, He-111, Do-217 and He-177 were all excellent maritime attack aircraft.


----------



## javlin (Jul 6, 2012)

davebender said:


> Variants of the Ju-87, Ju-88, He-111, Do-217 and He-177 were all excellent maritime attack aircraft.



I thought the He-177 was a burner?


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2012)

davebender said:


> Variants of the Ju-87, Ju-88, He-111, Do-217 and He-177 were all excellent maritime attack aircraft.



Scratch the Ju 87 on grounds of limited range. Only good for coastal operations like the Kanal Kamf.

The He 177 is an aircraft which I wouldn't fancy a long over water flight in! It was also produced in relatively small numbers..

How about a fighter?

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jul 6, 2012)

A German deficiency for the entire war due to RLM decision not to place the Fw-187 into mass production. However the Me-110 was probably as capable as the A6M for aerial combat.


----------



## starling (Jul 6, 2012)

Hey guys,how many U.S.heavy bombers were shot down by Japanese A/C.?Starling.


----------



## davebender (Jul 6, 2012)

How many heavy bombers were employed against Japan prior to capture of the Mariana Islands during the fall of 1944? I don't think it was many. Consequently Japan had little incentive to pour scarce aircraft resources into a bomber interceptor program. If RAF bomber command had been attacking Japan from September 1939 onward then Japanese aircraft priorities would have been different. Just as German naval aircraft priorities would have been different if they had operational CVs throughout the 1920s and 1930s.


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2012)

I agree,but the original question was "who do you think had the better planes...?". Generally most agree that this was Germany but at least in the case of a naval fighter it was certainly Japan.
It's actually a "no contest" unless we count the woeful Bf 109 T.
Steve


----------



## davebender (Jul 6, 2012)

What was so woeful about the Me-109T? When they entered service (i.e. 1940) the Me-109T was as good as any other CV based fighter aircraft. 

If the German CV program had not been halted the Me-109T would have been replaced with the Me-155. I suspect that also would have been as good as any other CV based fighter aircraft.


----------



## davebender (Jul 6, 2012)

People claim the Luftwaffe didn't coordinate with the German navy but that was not the case for CV based aircraft. Development of the Me-109T1 and Me-155 proceeded in parallel with construction of CV Graf Zeppelin. Work on CV aircraft halted when work on the CV halted. 

Sep 1939.
KM Graf Zeppelin 85% complete. Expected to start sea trials during July 1940.
…..Work on sister ship halted 19 Sep 1939.
…..Partially completed sister ship scrapped February 1940.

8 Dec 1939.
KM Graf Zeppelin launched.

1940. 
60 x Me-109T1 produced for CV use.
Based on Me-109E4. DB601N engine.

29 Apr 1940.
Work on KM Graf Zeppelin halted.
…..This triggered conversion of Me-109T1 CV based fighter aircraft into Me-109T2 land based fighter aircraft.

15 May 1942.
Work resumed on KM Graf Zeppelin.
…..Significant design changes delayed completion.
…..This triggered design of Me-155 CV based fighter aircraft.

Sep 1942.
Detail design of Me-155 completed.

30 Jan 1943.
Work discontinued on all large German naval vessels.
…..This ended Me-155 CV fighter aircraft program before a prototype could be constructed.


Starting, stopping, resuming and then cancellation of CV program must have left RLM officials wondering if the German navy knew what they were doing.


----------



## renrich (Jul 6, 2012)

Since the 109T was never used for carrier operations there is no way to know how well it would have performed as a ship board fighter. I suspect that at the very least there would have been problems with the landing gear. Also it would have been very limited because of it's short range. The BF110 would have been definitely an underdog against the A6M just like it was with the Spitfire.

Designing carrier borne AC for the Germans must have been a real problem since the KM had never operated a carrier.


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2012)

davebender said:


> What was so woeful about the Me-109T? When they entered service (i.e. 1940) the Me-109T was as good as any other CV based fighter aircraft.



It obviously never operated as a carrier fighter. Eric Brown wrote "It is my opinion that the Bf 109 T-1 would have been barely suitable for carrier operations". The reasons he gives apply to the early Seafires too!

Only 70 production Bf 109 Ts were built. This is a minute number in terms of WW2 aircraft production.

The ones that did see operational service in Norway were T-2s or were remanufactured to that standard. They were not the full navalised version.

Even on its initial deployment to I./JG 77 and Jagdgruppe "Drontheim" in June/July 1941 The Bf 109 E,on which the T was based,was being replaced at front line units by the Bf 109 F.

By the time that the Bf 109 T was issued to Jagdstaffel Helgoland and NJG 101 (a nightfighter training unit,who later gave these machines up to the Helgoland unit), following the decision not to finish any of the Kriegsmarine's large surface ships still under construction,in April/May 1943 the Bf 109 G was in production. Fiesler had reconverted 46 aircraft from T-2 to T-1 standard however although technically T-1s the luftwaffe removed most of the naval equipment,notably the tail hook assembly.

It is to these units credit that they did achieve some successes in these aircraft. JG 77 accounted for a few Blenheims and Beauforts and "Jasta Helgoland" even got a few B-17s. 

I don't know that he Luftwaffe planned to replace the Bf 109 T with the Me 155. In early 1942 it was planned to develop a navalised version of the Bf 109 G.There is some evidence that later it was planned to assign this role to the Me 409,though how exactly that would have fitted on an imaginary Kriegsmarine carrier I don't know. By this time it was all pie in the sky.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jul 6, 2012)

> Bf 109 T-1 would have been barely suitable for carrier operations". The reasons he gives apply to the early Seafires too!


Me-109T1 was only an interim aircraft as it was simply a modified Me-109E. 

Me-155 was designed from the start as a CV based aircraft so I suspect it would have been better. However we will never know as none were produced. Not even a prototype.


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2012)

davebender said:


> Me-109T1 was only an interim aircraft as it was simply a modified Me-109E.



Yep,which in a nutshell was why it was a woeful naval fighter.

As you yourself say,the Germans never developed anything else which was the point I made in my post above.

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 7, 2012)

But as stated a little earlier, the DKM didn't really have any experience with CVs and didn't really know what they were looking for...

Had the Kreigsmarine actually built a carrier (or two) AND perhaps consulted with the Japanese who were seasoned operators of CV units well before the war, then perhaps a dedicated naval airframe would have been developed...


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> But as stated a little earlier, the DKM didn't really have any experience with CVs and didn't really know what they were looking for...
> 
> Had the Kreigsmarine actually built a carrier (or two) AND perhaps consulted with the Japanese who were seasoned operators of CV units well before the war, then perhaps a dedicated naval airframe would have been developed...



Yes,absolutely. Whether the RLM would have been able to develop a top class naval fighter in time to have been of any use is a moot point,particularly given its less than outstanding track record.
However the point remains that for all the reasons given above Germany never developed a purpose built naval fighter which makes for no contest with the Japanese who developed some very good ones.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## davebender (Jul 7, 2012)

I disagree. 

Admiral Raeder knew exactly what he was looking for and it wasn't aircraft carriers or submarines. He wanted to recreate the High Seas Fleet that was scuttled at Scapa Flow. Only he wanted battleships that were bigger and better then those built by Admiral Tirpitz. I think design work for H class battleships continued right up to the day Admiral Raeder got fired.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jul 14, 2012)

Germany, they had better firepower/armor and with a decent pilot can outmanouver most planes.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 18, 2012)

Simply stated, the IJN had the very best Naval Air Force and mix of naval aircraft in the world in 1940-1942 and even into 1943. The Zero performance and very long range perfectly suited for Japan's 'attack before the enemy can attack you' surface navy doctrine.

The 109T in the wildest imagination was barely a figment, and Germany had no analogue to Val or Kate or even Japan's long range and lethal torpedo's for naval operations.

The Zero in those same years were extremely competitive to the 109 and 190 for land based ops, the Betty was an excellent medium bomber. Having said that, IMO Germany had a better mix of bombers suited to tactical and CAS ops than the Japanese. After 1942, there is no question in my mind that German airpower had a better mix of high performance aircraft to support both land based operations, interception and CAS and sea lane shipping attacks from land than the Japanese.


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2012)

drgondog said:


> The 109T in the wildest imagination was barely a figment, and Germany had no analogue to Val or Kate or even Japan's long range and lethal torpedo's for naval operations.
> 
> The Zero in those same years were extremely competitive to the 109 and 190 for land based ops, the Betty was an excellent medium bomber. Having said that, IMO Germany had a better mix of bombers suited to tactical and CAS ops than the Japanese. After 1942, there is no question in my mind that German airpower had a better mix of high performance aircraft to support both land based operations, interception and CAS and sea lane shipping attacks from land than the Japanese.



Yep. It's down to culture and doctrine. The Luftwaffe was never going to operate over the vast expanses of the Pacific.
Steve


----------



## [SC] Arachnicus (Jul 21, 2012)

I do not have the knowledge most of you have. I will say that the lack of armor on Japanese planes for most of the war was their biggest downfall. Germany cared enough for their pilots to armor up their fighters hoping they would come back home.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 21, 2012)

stona said:


> The He 177 is an aircraft which I wouldn't fancy a long over water flight in! It was also produced in relatively small numbers..
> Steve



Much larger numbers than for the Fw 200C. The "Scourge of the Atlantic"


----------



## Oreo (Jul 21, 2012)

Germany had better aircraft, but Japan had carrier aircraft, which Germany never had in service (on carriers), and it also had what was probably the best production flying boat of the war, the H8K. Performance wise, the H8K blew the Fw 200C and all Germany's seaplanes and flying boats-- uh, out of the water. The landplanes Germany used for ocean patrol, some of them matched or exceeded the H8K's speed, but every type I can think of was worse off either in armament, reliability, range, speed, payload, or numbers built, and most were worse off in more than one of these categories.


----------



## Outta Leftfield (Jul 30, 2012)

I voted for Germany, in large part because they kept current with Allied aircraft development throughout most of the war (even sometimes pulling ahead). By 1944, US and British planes of probably had a modest performance edge overall. However, when the Germans lost air superiority decisively to the Allies in 1944, it was not primarily due to inadequate aircraft, but due to significant disparity in numbers, lack of fuel supplies, airbases within range of Allied attack, and the declining quality of pilots. 
That said, even with the best German planes, there is the knotty problem of range. Germany lost the Battle of Britain in large part because their excellent fighters lacked the range to escort the bombers even to targets just over the English Channel. If the German bombers had been escorted in the Battle of Britain by Zeros—for them the range would be a piece of cake— might they have won? Range was a major advantage of most Japanese planes for most of the war. However, because by late 1943 Japan's planes were decisively surpassed in performance by Allied planes while German planes remained competitive, I voted for Germany.


----------



## zoomar (Nov 7, 2012)

Has to be Germany. The only Japanese planes that were probably better than their German counterparts would be long-range floatplanese (H8K), and most catapult-launched recon planes. And of course carrier-based planes, duh. All of this makes sense because the Japanese had a real navy.


----------



## [SC] Arachnicus (Jan 2, 2013)

Germany cared a bit more for their pilots to armor them. Japan lost because of there disregard for there own lives. Can't keep great Japanese aces when your cockpit bursts into flames with a gas tank hit.


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2013)

I admit that I went for Japan but admit that I am ignoring the numbers built. 

The Zero, Ki44, Ki84, Raiden, Shinden were all first class fighters. How would they fare against the 109 and the 190 who knows, but I believe the 190 would give them the most difficulty.

Japanese bombers get a poor press and tended to have a smaller payload but the Ki67 didn't have to apologise to anyone for its performance, and some of the light bombers were very good.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 9, 2013)

zoomar said:


> Has to be Germany. The only Japanese planes that were probably better than their German counterparts would be long-range floatplanese (H8K), and most catapult-launched recon planes. And of course carrier-based planes, duh. All of this makes sense because the Japanese had a real navy.



Forgetting that the Japanese also produced the best purpose-built, long range, high speed reconnaissance aircraft of the war: the Mitsubishi Ki-46 series was just about immune to interception until late in the war, ditto for the Nakajima C6N series. Still Germany takes the honours overall, because few of the JAAF aircraft were outstanding (Ki-44 84 and Ki-67 and Ki-100 excepted).


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jan 9, 2013)

Courtesy of Google magazines, I have been reading old "Life" issues from the 1940's. They are amazing. Check out the weeks after Pearl Harbor, they show all the Japanese aircraft as being bi-planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J dog (Jan 10, 2013)

ha I love the old LIFE magazines!


----------



## stona (Jan 10, 2013)

Oreo said:


> Much larger numbers than for the Fw 200C. The "Scourge of the Atlantic"



A total of 1,146 He 177s were built between January 1942 and September 1944. Nowhere near that number entered service and of those that did the serviceability rate was woeful.

I believe 270-280 Fw 200s were produced but had the distinct advantage of generally being serviceable and safe. You'll see them but no He 177s on the strength of the "Fliegerstaffel des Fuehrers" 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## aurora-7 (Jan 10, 2013)

Japan had more quality control issues than Germany in aircraft production. 

Certain models could perform very well but at the expense of sturdy construction -the price of not being rich in resources.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 29, 2013)

This isn't even a contest, Germany all day long. FW-190 would take a Zero out very quickly.


----------



## altsym (May 31, 2013)

BF 109 would have no problems against the zero IMHO. 

On a side note I watched Deadliest Warrior on Spike TV, it featured the German Regular Army VS Viet Cong.. Germans won hands down.


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2013)

I must admit that those Deadliest Warrior programmes are so bad it almost impossible to not like them.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 31, 2013)

altsym said:


> BF 109 would have no problems against the zero IMHO.
> 
> On a side note I watched Deadliest Warrior on Spike TV, it featured the German Regular Army VS Viet Cong.. Germans won hands down.



The were a lot of former SS and Wehrmacht veterans fighter with the French Foreign Legion in Indo-China, up thru Dien Bien Phu, against the Viet Minh, the predecessors to the Viet Cong. That didn't seem to have made that much difference in that situation.

But of course, that just what really happened, not what happened on some fantasy TV show.


----------



## altsym (May 31, 2013)

I know its fantasy.. but according to there 'super computers' its real lol.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 31, 2013)

In real life the Germans never handled any geurilla war situation very well. 
Their only solution to any problem that showed up was to kill a lot of people, it didn't seem to matter to them who they killed, just kill em all.
In their occupied territories, they had the amazing ability to make enemies faster than they could kill them.


----------



## altsym (May 31, 2013)

Are we clumping the Waffen SS into the same category as the Regular Wehrmacht? Not arguing, just curious, because there is a huge difference.


----------

