# Germany vs Japan



## Thorlifter (Jun 18, 2007)

My little wifey likes to give me questions to think about and she gave me this one......

Who would have won between Germany and Japan.

I thought for a minute a came up with this.

If they would have stayed out of jungles, Germany would have easily won. The only advantage Japan had was the IJN. I'll get the that in a minute.

The airforce was no comparison. In 1941/42, the Germans had the 109 and 190, which were light years better than the Zero. Neither side had heavy bombers so that is a wash. Transports/recon are probably even. And Japan was not trying to advance their technology at all compared to the Germans.

The ground forces were relatively even until it came to armor and big guns. Japan had no heavy tanks to speak of and Germany's field guns were top notch, especially the 88. Also, can you imagine Japan's tanks going up against Rommel and the Afrika Korps?

Now on to the navy. I would have loved to see the Graf Spee, Bismark, Prinz Eugen, and Tirpitz go up against the Yamato and Musashi. Gotta give the advantage to the Japanese with these two battleship and the fact they developed aircraft carriers. I would give this advantage heavily to Japan if it wasn't for one thing, Germany's U-boats. Still, overall, Japan wins in the navy.

So what do you guys think?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)

I added a poll.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)

Germany


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 18, 2007)

And how do you suppose the Germans could get to Japan to defeat them?

Nukes aside....... it may end up with a Japanese victory simply because of the vast logisitical lines the Germans would need to contend with.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> And how do you suppose the Germans could get to Japan to defeat them?
> 
> Nukes aside....... it may end up with a Japanese victory simply because of the vast logisitical lines the Germans would need to contend with.



Through China via Turkey, Iran and maybe Afghanistan and India. Hard to say how that would pan out with the British (an entirely different WW2 scenario).


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 18, 2007)

How and where would they fight each other? Would this have pappened if Germany had conquered Russia? That's what I'd like to know....
Need to give this a good thinking though.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 18, 2007)

You just jump the que you, you fly FLYBOJ!


----------



## delcyros (Jun 18, 2007)

As long as it belongs to the navy, the IJN toasts the KM, hands down. Yamato alone could take on Bismarck and Tirpitz under favourable conditions and Yamato Musashi together probably could wipe out the entire heavy KM fleet of 2 BC´s, 2 BB´s and 3 PBB´s (assuming the Yamato´s doesn´t get mission killed by volume of fire). The 3 german CA´s don´t stand a chance against 18 japanese CA´s, no way. The whole campaign belongs to the navy as it should be a naval campaign (with a huge geographical advantage for Japan). German submarines could become a potent force equalizer but IJN ASW would develop counter tactics (as it historically did once US subs became a serious thread) and the IJN has a huge number of ASW vessels.
I am not sure how the Luftwaffe would deal with well trained japanese 1941 CV airgroups. The -109 and -190 are arguably better, not certainly or with lightyears advantage. The -109 particularely misses the range to become any factor in airbattles.
Once the time advances, Germany get´s improvements which become to serious to be ignored: Long range bombers (Me-264), Fritz-X guided APC bombs (which may even defeat Yamato´s main armour deck) and a proper delivery system (either long range He-177 or medium range Do-217), finally the nuke and a proper delivery system...
However, neither side may mount a successfully invasion without help of other major powers...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> You just jump the que you, you fly FLYBOJ!




BTW Nice Siggy!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)

delcyros said:


> However, neither side may mount a successfully invasion without help of other major powers...


In this scenario, that's the key...


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> BTW Nice Siggy!



Thanks, but it's all thanks to Wurger....


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 18, 2007)

Agreed about the invasion help. If what was purely naval I would say the Japanese however if it was mainly land based (Manchuria as the fighting ground?) I would back the Germans to win (particularly late in the war - similar situation to the Russian invasion of the Area in summer 1945).


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 18, 2007)

Just to point out.....

1) Any movement of forces via the Trans siberian railroad, would mean exposing your forces to a single rail line thousands of miles long, located in a very inhospitable regions of the world.

2) A naval attack would need to go through several choke points at which the fleet would be at risk.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 18, 2007)

If it was a naval battle, then Japan would win. What did they have, 6-10 carriers?

What did Germany have? 1 carrier, not finished. 

In WWII, carriers decided the action many times. Even if Yamamoto and Bismark sidled alongside each other and had a rip roaring battle, they would both have been sunk before the end off it by cheeky naval aircraft. Germany didn't have to the carriers to launch aircraft, so Japan would sink the Bismark, any other german battle ship, and the 1 carrier Germany had. 
With sub's, the situation gets more complicated. If Germany gets past Japan's sonar defences and it's subs, then Yamamoto and Japan's carriers might be lost. But if Japan's subs and anti-shipping aircraft can keep the U-boats at bay, then Japan might win the day. Germany would need more carriers, at least, I think, to win a naval battle.

On land, poor Japan would probably lose, unless the Germans couldn't land on Japan's shores. They never tried mass assaults of beachs like the allies did. They could have nuked Japan, and then their troubles would be over. But if Japan maintained air superiority, then they might stop that threat. 

I don't know if Japan or Germany had the better air force. They both had top shot pilots. But Germany had the FW-190, and Japan had the Zero. But in 1946, if Japan had tried to get the "Frank" and "George" into the sky in large numbers, and maybe a few jets, they might have a chance agains't the Ta-152 and Me 262. 

I don't know what to vote for. Why did Germany want to be friends with Japan in WWII anyway? They were so biased about the "Master Race", and the Japanese were orientals. They were about as vulnerable as the Jew's in that area. 

If Germany had decided to turn agains't Japan, would they have put mass numbers of the Japanese in concentration camps, and eventually killed millions of them?


----------



## Heinz (Jun 19, 2007)

Voted Germany, I also think their production of materials was superior to keep supply up.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 19, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> In WWII, carriers decided the action many times. Even if Yamamoto and Bismark sidled alongside each other and had a rip roaring battle, they would both have been sunk before the end off it by cheeky naval aircraft.



It's the Yamato, not the Yamamoto.....but I get what your saying. I agree with almost everything you said. While the sailors on the Bismarck were first class, I don't think the Bismarck (and others) could have done too much to the Yamato. 15 inch guns vs 18 inch guns! In a one on one slugfest, I don't think it would have been close. Sure other ships and maybe planes would be involved which changes the dynamics of everything! I was just imagining in my head the two big Japanese BB's vs. the big 4 the Germans had. Even if you threw in some support cruisers and destoyers, the Japanese BB's would have quickly eliminated the 4 German big ships, then it would be all guns to bear on what was left.

As far as the airforce's go, I just don't see the Japanese advanses being anywhere similar to the Germans. But here is where I need some more education. Was the "Frank" and "George" anything even close to the TA-152, D-9, or Me-262?


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2007)

I went for Germany for three main reasons

1) The German Arny would be way ahead of the Japanese Army
2) The German Airforce has a significant lead over the Japanese AF in the early/mid war years. Later Japanese Aircraft Ki84/Shinden etc would be a good match for the Germans 109/190's but the Germans have the advantage at the start.
3) There is no doubt that the Japanese Navy would do to the German Navy what the German Army would do to the Japanese Army. But, and its a big but, the German U Boats would wreck havoc with Japans supplies and this would make the difference.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 19, 2007)

I'm just having trouble figuring out how these two are going to get at each other. It's not like they're right next door. Hell, they're on opposite sides of the planet. And it's a big planet. 

How they get together is going to dictate who wins. Ground war, Germans. Sea war, Japan.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2007)

Im with Glider on this based off of his 3 points.

1. Army - Germany would destroy the Japanese. The Germans were first class soldiers with good discipline and great NCOs. The German Armour would descimate what little Japanese tanks there were. The German Artillery was also 1st rate compared to the Japanese. All in all Germany has the advantage on the ground.

2. Airforce - The Luftwaffe was a better airforce through and through. Yeah Japan had some advantages in some areas but overall the Luftwaffe was more advanced and had better aircraft in in my opinion had better pilots.

3. Navy - Obviously the Japanese have the advantage here but I see Germany still taking out Japans supply lines with the U-Boots and also maybe succesfully sinking many BBs and CVs with the U-Boots as well.

Either way you put it I dont think either side would be able to be a large threat to one another because of distance but if it came down to a land battle, Germany would take it and therefore win the war between these two countries.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Im with Glider on this based off of his 3 points.
> 
> 1. Army - Germany would destroy the Japanese. The Germans were first class soldiers with good discipline and great NCOs. The German Armour would descimate what little Japanese tanks there were. The German Artillery was also 1st rate compared to the Japanese. All in all Germany has the advantage on the ground.
> 
> ...



I tend to agree with you on most accounts, except one.

Tanks and heavy vehicles were pretty much useless in many places in the PTO and CBI.

The only place they could be used (in northern China, they would have supply issues due to their only line of supply being cut from time to time.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 19, 2007)

Germany in a walkover. 

Japanese machines and equipment were junk in comparison to Germany's.

And the U-boats would do to Japan what the American subs did - sink everything afloat.

But the geography does make a hypothetical conflict interesting.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I tend to agree with you on most accounts, except one.
> 
> Tanks and heavy vehicles were pretty much useless in many places in the PTO and CBI.
> 
> The only place they could be used (in northern China, they would have supply issues due to their only line of supply being cut from time to time.



This is a hypothetical conflict so in that case it does not have to take place in the jungle. It can take place in Europe, Russia, wherever...


----------



## WoundedKnee (Jun 19, 2007)

Thorlifter said:


> *Neither side had heavy bombers so that is a wash*.



Well, the Germans had their FW200C-2, with an engine upgrade this aircraft would be a reasonable heavy bomber.. Also, if the Germans laid a bit more effort in the He-177 Greif, they would have had a very good bomber..

Yay, first post here


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2007)

WoundedKnee said:


> Well, the Germans had their FW200C-2, with an engine upgrade this aircraft would be a reasonable heavy bomber.. Also, if the Germans laid a bit more effort in the He-177 Greif, they would have had a very good bomber..
> 
> Yay, first post here




AND IT'S YOUR LAST @SSHOLE!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2007)

Oh I see you took down the picture you first posted. You're a putz. Go away and never return!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 19, 2007)




----------



## T4.H (Jun 19, 2007)

Less or more a ridiculous discussion.
Both sides couldn't reach each other.

OK, they would start on *one* continent.

80% or more of all material which was produced on allied side in WWII was send to europe!

Army:
Both armys have had the best "common" soldiers in WWII (I think). The NCO's of the german army were the best of WWII. Both sides fight with the same modern tactics (speed, etc.). The japanese army was never build up to fight on a continent. They used bicycles in malysia! They have had only light tanks! They wouldn't have had the material and industrial power to win against germany. Germany would again (like in russia) start the war with 100.000 cars, trucks, tanks and so on. And with 10.000 different types, subtypes sub-subtypes and so on. 
And with the same problems. The japanese army would be totally outnumbered. Two, three weeks, not more and...

And if the war would start 1944?
The german material predominance would be much more worse.

Airforce:
Both sides have had the best skilled pilots in WWII. Perhaps the german pilots were a little bit better. The japanese airforce would be outnumbered.
Most of the japanese aircrafts were unprotected. Less or more only some hits, perhaps even one everywhere and they didn't come back. No chance!
The ju87 as flying artillery...horror, pure horror.
Two to three weeks...
And if the war would start 1944? 
The german predominance would be much more worse.


Navy:
1941, the german navy would be totally outnumbered, the DD where only ****, the light cruisers...Hmmm
And the rest?
Really good, but totally outnumbered!
No chance, especially against carrier-groups.
1941 germany didn't have enough submarines, the torpedos were...lets say bad or more worse.
1944 germany would have had enough "diving boats". This would be devastating for the japanese navy and merchant vessels, but they couldn't rescue the surface ships (even when they have all radar on board). 
Whith enough XXI submarines...who knows...

2 to 1 for germany.
Armys win wars, airforces and navys support only.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Im with Glider on this based off of his 3 points.
> 
> 1. Army - Germany would destroy the Japanese. The Germans were first class soldiers with good discipline and great NCOs. The German Armour would descimate what little Japanese tanks there were. The German Artillery was also 1st rate compared to the Japanese. All in all Germany has the advantage on the ground.
> 
> ...



I would agree with three points as well. But the point still stands that they would have to get to each other to begin to fight it out and where would that be - in Russia/Northern China or where the Americans, British and the Aussies fought them?



FLYBOYJ said:


> Oh I see you took down the picture you first posted. You're a putz. Go away and never return!



What was it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> I would agree with three points as well. But the point still stands that they would have to get to each other to begin to fight it out and where would that be - in Russia/Northern China or where the Americans, British and the Aussies fought them?



Thats what I said at the end of my post as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> What was it?


He posted a pretty insulting picture on his first post in response to thornlifter's post - freggin idiot....


----------



## Soren (Jun 19, 2007)

Germany wins, and here's why:


1. German infantry was the best trained equipped on the planet. The deployment of excellently trained troops equipped with Stg.44's in the tropical forrests would absolutely decimate any opponent - and remember the Japanese Imp. Army was carrying bolt action rifles.

2. The German armored force was far more modern and well equipped, the Japanese were no match in this area. - And despite what Syscom3 says tanks would prove important in the PTO, and the Germans had the best light, medium heavy tanks on the planet - the Japs didn't even have anything which could cope with the Panzer IV.

3. The German LuftWaffe was considerably better trained equipped throughout the war, only the Ki-84 was on equal footing with most of Germany's piston fighters -but- the Germans had Jet fighters. The Germans also build some great long range bombers and special purpose a/c, the best in the world IMO - didn't recieve funding and therefore didn't see service though.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> Germany wins, and here's why:
> 
> 
> 1. German infantry was the best trained equipped on the planet. The deployment of excellently trained troops equipped with Stg.44's in the tropical forrests would absolutely decimate any opponent - and remember the Japanese Imp. Army was carrying bolt action rifles.




The German army was lacking in logistics. In this theater, logistics IS the single most important element. Dont jump to conclusions that the German Army would be any better than the US (and Aussies and Brits) that had to fight them.



> 2. The German armored force was far more modern and well equipped, the Japanese were no match in this area. - And despite what Syscom3 says tanks would prove important in the PTO, and the Germans had the best light, medium heavy tanks on the planet - the Japs didn't even have anything which could cope with the Panzer IV.



Again Soren doesnt read maps. Tanks were of quite limited use in the jungles. Mostly trackless dense forests, swamps and mud. The tanks were uselfull in some of the island invasions as they were able to get up close to bunkers and fortifications. But that assumes the KM and GA had the amphib capability in the first place.

In Manchuria and N China, they would be of some use, but the size of an army is dictated by its logistics, and the GA wouldnt be able to support more than a few armoured divisions. And then they run into the problems of what to do in the mountainous and hilly terrains that favored the defender.



> 3. The German LuftWaffe was considerably better trained equipped throughout the war, only the Ki-84 was on equal footing with most of Germany's piston fighters -but- the Germans had Jet fighters. The Germans also build some great long range bombers and special purpose a/c, the best in the world IMO - didn't recieve funding and therefore didn't see service though.



Most LW fighters didnt have the range needed for the theater.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 19, 2007)

Ok, let say it was going to be all naval. Like I said, the Japaense win this hands down. But if the Germans 'knew' they were going to attack the Japanese, they would have done what they did so well with their army......adapt. I believe they would have developed Aircraft carriers and an airplane with better range. Maybe a sea version of the FW-190, like what the British did with the Hurricane and Spitfire. At least until something more suited was developed, like what the U.S. did with the Hellcat.

Yes we know its a silly discussion, but I find it fun to imagine how it may have played out. I feel if Germany had won in Europe and won the war, they wouldn't have tollorated the Japanese very long.


----------



## Soren (Jun 19, 2007)

LoL Syscom3 ! I think you should read up about some of the engagments in the PTO where tanks were absolutely crucial to success ! 

And quit thinking about the lack of amphibian vehicles, if the war was to be in the PTO then these would be made in piles by the Germans - the Germans throughout the war built what they needed when they needed it, that Hitler prevented their use many times is another matter. If carrier's were needed then carrier's would be built - it would've proven a very small task for the Germans, esp. considering the extremely advanced U-boats they fielded.

And yes the German Wehrmacht troops equipped with Stg.44's would prove imensly more effective in combat than either the Brits, Aussies or US soldiers. The Stg.44 is superb for close range fighting as that in jungles and Ideal for medium range fighting - also the higher power of Stg.44's 7.92x33 Kurz round means that hiding behind trees wouldn't be an option for the enemy, the rounds penetrating thick oak trees like a hot knife through butter.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 19, 2007)

> It's the Yamato, not the Yamamoto.....but I get what your saying.



Thanks Thorlifter! 

Thinking about it more, yeah, the Luftwaffe would have probably won again'st the Japanese airforce. The Japanese didn't have any jets, and the one they were planning on making was totally based on the me 262! 

What if Japan, instead of Pearl Harbor, had tried a sneak attack on the German battle ships and Carrier? I suppose they were never in the same place, at the same time. And sailing in the Atlantic in secrecy is harder than in the Pacific. Still, if Roosevelt and his commanders could be slow in reacting to danger, so could Hitler and his staff!


And yeah, like you were saying, Yamato would have won the battle out of range of the germans, or at least have finished it off with more power quicker than they could.

And Soren, even if the germans had the stg. 44, the Japanese were always good at hiding in the dense jungles. I'm sure the Germans would have been ambushed many times like the Allies were by the Japanese, before they could see anything to machinegun in the bushes the attack would have started.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 19, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> .....
> And Soren, even if the germans had the stg. 44, the Japanese were always good at hiding in the dense jungles. I'm sure the Germans would have been ambushed many times like the Allies were by the Japanese, before they could see anything to machinegun in the bushes the attack would have started.



A US Army Surgeon General report on gunshot wounds/fatalities in the jungle found most of them to be close range, and surprisingly to the head.

Soren, care to tell me about the massed tank battles in the CBI/PTO (aside from the Manchurian incident).


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> And Soren, even if the germans had the stg. 44, the Japanese were always good at hiding in the dense jungles. I'm sure the Germans would have been ambushed many times like the Allies were by the Japanese, before they could see anything to machinegun in the bushes the attack would have started.



No doubt Soundbreaker, but the difference is the German troops would be able to instantly put heavy 'and' deadly firepower on the enemy in the case of an ambush - the wall of lead sent by the Stg.44's penetrating several tropical trees before loosing its killing power. But even without the Stg.44 the superior training dicipline would more than make sure of success - just look at how it went on land against the Japanese for the Allies.


Syscom3,

I never said anything about "massed tank battles" - In alot of incidents the tank provided much needed assistance in the PTO, even if just a couple were engaged in action - even a couple could prove devastating. The Japanese infantry were pretty much at a loss when'ever they saw a Sherman approaching.


----------



## Glider (Jun 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The German army was lacking in logistics. In this theater, logistics IS the single most important element. Dont jump to conclusions that the German Army would be any better than the US (and Aussies and Brits) that had to fight them..



This is a fair point but the Japs ability in this area is overated. Once the allies understood the basics they did well. The Japanese often relied on quick wins to overcome logistic issues. If the defense could hang on the Japanese often ran out of steam.



> Again Soren doesnt read maps. Tanks were of quite limited use in the jungles. Mostly trackless dense forests, swamps and mud. The tanks were uselfull in some of the island invasions as they were able to get up close to bunkers and fortifications. But that assumes the KM and GA had the amphib capability in the first place.
> 
> In Manchuria and N China, they would be of some use, but the size of an army is dictated by its logistics, and the GA wouldnt be able to support more than a few armoured divisions. And then they run into the problems of what to do in the mountainous and hilly terrains that favored the defender..



Tanks even the Lee Grants were the turning point in Burma with the abilty to get into places and supply firepower and support where none was available. German Tanks even the Pz III and Pz IV with the 75/24 would be devistating, let alone the Panthers and Tigers.



> Most LW fighters didnt have the range needed for the theater.



Rubbish. If Hurricanes, Spitfires, Blenhiem, P40, P36 and P39 to name a few could operate against the Japanese, then I don't see why the 109 and 190 couldn't.
It is also worth remembering that the 110, 410, Ju88 would be almost untouchable in the early war years as the Ki43 Japan's main land fighter wouldn't be able to get close to them and they have plenty of range.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> This is a fair point but the Japs ability in this area is overated. Once the allies understood the basics they did well. The Japanese often relied on quick wins to overcome logistic issues. If the defense could hang on the Japanese often ran out of steam.



The Japanese were really weak in this area. But it speaks volumes for their soldiers to be able to endure so much with so little.



> Tanks even the Lee Grants were the turning point in Burma with the abilty to get into places and supply firepower and support where none was available. German Tanks even the Pz III and Pz IV with the 75/24 would be devistating, let alone the Panthers and Tigers.



The light tanks were usefull enough. But the Tiger was *WAY* to heavy to be able to be used effectively in the climates encountered in SE Asia.. And wasnt the Tigers and Panthers tread and running gear prone to jamming in the mud (in Russia)?



> Rubbish. If Hurricanes, Spitfires, Blenhiem, P40, P36 and P39 to name a few could operate against the Japanese, then I don't see why the 109 and 190 couldn't.



None of the above were used on the long range missions needed to operate offensively far from bases. And only the Spitfire was effective. The others were 'also rans", fast outclassed by other allied fighters in 1943.



> It is also worth remembering that the 110, 410, Ju88 would be almost untouchable in the early war years as the Ki43 Japan's main land fighter wouldn't be able to get close to them and they have plenty of range.



The Ki43 would have chopped them up simply because of its far superior maneuverablity.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 20, 2007)

I voted Germany before thinking

but now that i think of it, I think Japan would have mopped the floor with Germany in naval battle, meaning the Germans would have a hard time mounting Amphibious assaults, the air war would have tipped more towards the germans favour but still, Germany has no aircraft carriers, 

And lets think about Geography here

Japan is way the F*CK EAST of Germany, to make japanese positions more accesible by land Germany would have to drive right through Russia into China ( and i think we know how that might turn out)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2007)

Neither side would be able to invade the other.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 20, 2007)

Precisely, I tend to act before i think (haha laugh it up get youre kicks in)

This thread makes about as much sense as the one when Germany invades the United States, its very highly unlikely


----------



## Glider (Jun 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The light tanks were usefull enough. But the Tiger was *WAY* to heavy to be able to be used effectively in the climates encountered in SE Asia.. And wasnt the Tigers and Panthers tread and running gear prone to jamming in the mud (in Russia)?



The point was that the Lee Grant was very effective and as a result the Pz III ad IV would be at least as deadly. Tigers I did pretty well in Russia once the learning curve had been reached, as did the Panther but they wouldn't be needed. To the Japanese, a Pz IV with a 75L43 or L48 is just as big a threat as a Tiger.



> None of the above (Hurricanes P40's etc), were used on the long range missions needed to operate offensively far from bases. And only the Spitfire was effective. The others were 'also rans", fast outclassed by other allied fighters in 1943.



Again the point is that these aircraft had the range to operate against the JAAF, you cannot say they didn't and as such, so would the Me109 and FW190. Re the comment about how effective they were, they more than held their own against the Ki43. A 109 or 190 would be all over the Ki43.



> The Ki43 would have chopped them up simply because of its far superior maneuverablity.



Rubbish. Me110, Me410 and Ju88 wouldn't try to dogfight with a Ki43 they would dominate the strike role. As for them being 'chopped up' by the Ki43, Beaufighters managed to do pretty well in the same role, so why wouldn't the German planes?


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2007)

Exactly Glider.


----------

