Germany vs Japan, Who would have most likely won in warfare between the two?

Considering what a terrible job Japan, an island nation, did at defending its sea commerce against US subs, I can't see them doing a better job against German U-boats.

Wavelength said:

Considering what a terrible job Japan, an island nation, did at defending its sea commerce against US subs, I can't see them doing a better job against German U-boats.

Click to expand...

Good point...

Did Germany have any combat operational submarines that had the range to operate in the Pacific ?

I know they conducted trade with the Japanese via sub, but having a sub get to the Pacific and have the ability to conduct combat patrols and then return is a whole different problem.

tyrodtom said:

Did Germany have any combat operational submarines that had the range to operate in the Pacific ?

I know they conducted trade with the Japanese via sub, but having a sub get to the Pacific and have the ability to conduct combat patrols and then return is a whole different problem.

Click to expand...

You would have to assume they had access to one or more bases in the reion. Obvious choices ar Aden Suez and Massawa.

Historically, a number of German U-Boats did operate from Singapore with the Japanese at the end of the war.
From memory i think it was six Type IXs


The Germans and the italians did design and build several very long range subs, with long range commerce raiding in mind. The Germans had their Type IX D2 and the Italians had a class (I think it was called a Romolo Class), with even greater range. The italian design was quite intersting. It utilized smal high performance torpedoes, about 15 in diamter, with a quite small warhead. The propulsion system in these torpedoes was first class, so the torps were ideal for commerce work. A smaller torp meant more could be carried for susttained lr operations, whilst the small warhead was still more than adequate for sinking escorts and shipping. The toprpedo engine in this design was designed to be both fast and long ranged, so that they would have decreased detection chances for the Japanese escorts.

Japan would have had to increase its efforts at ASW to counter even a modest German U-Boat effort in the Indian Ocean. They would have had no hope against the new ytech Type XXIs.

tyrodtom said:

Did Germany have any combat operational submarines that had the range to operate in the Pacific ?

I know they conducted trade with the Japanese via sub, but having a sub get to the Pacific and have the ability to conduct combat patrols and then return is a whole different problem.

Click to expand...

Did the the Japanese have any?

Mobius said:

In a land war the Germans would win. In a sea war Japan. The decider would be the side that didn't have Hitler at its helm.

Click to expand...

As horrible a person as he was don't think you can say Hitler was a bad military strategist which is all that would matter here I would think. Plus the doesn't the u-boats and air force give Germany an edge there?

Which gets me to the topic that doesn't seem like it has been touched yet. How much more powerful was Germany's Air Force compared to Japan?

yyuusr said:

Did the the Japanese have any?

Click to expand...

The IJN did have several subs with over 21,000 nm range, and a good surface and submerged speeds. They just didn't use they very aggressively.

yyuusr said:

As horrible a person as he was don't think you can say Hitler was a bad military strategist which is all that would matter here I would think.

Click to expand...

I think we can say that.

yyuusr said:

As horrible a person as he was don't think you can say Hitler was a bad military strategist which is all that would matter here I would think.

Click to expand...

What makes you think he was a good strategist? He was a terrible strategist. His military commanders were always under minded by him. One could argue that many of his decisions helped to shorten the war.

Hitler was the worst military strategist. Ever.

His short military career was in WWI as a Corporal...and not even a Landser, but a courier...and he had final say on strategy and planning when he had some of the finest military commanders in the world at his disposal.

As far as the scenario between the Japanese and Germans go, why wouldn't they be able to square off in a bigass slug-fest?
I saw the comments about "how would it be possible for them to meet?"...well, how was it possible for the United States to fight in North Africa, Europe or even the Pacific, then? Naturally, there wasn' t a land bridge, so those crafty Americans had to figure out a way over without the benefit of a "Teleporter"...

We're looking at a "what if" and there are countless possibilties that could have brought the Japanese and Germans into contact under certain circumstances. Suppose Germany rolled into Russia and instead of butchering the civilians, embraced them as the liberators the Russians thought they were? Stalin would have been in serious trouhble as his "loyal and devoted troops" turned on him along with the civilians all in support of the liberators from the west.
In North Africa, Mussolini's military instead of surrendering in the thousands, actually put up a ferocious fight and shoved the allies into abandoning their territories, freeing up precious German men and material for the push eastward.
The Japanese decide against attacking Pearl and dragging the U.S. into the war and instead decide to push into the oil rich regions of far east asia...

Bottom line, if the Germans and Japanese squared off, I seriously doubt the Japanese would be able to gain ground against the Wehrmacht UNLESS it was on territory where the Japanese had the upper hand. Such as battlefields where the superior German armor was not able to come into play. Then it would be up to the Luftwaffe to provide close ground support and this is where the IJN/IJA airforces would be a deciding factor in preventing such support. The Germans would need to avoid engaging the IJN, simply because the Kreigsmarine just did not have the assets to counter the superior Japanese forces except for the U-boat. The U-boats would be a serious threat to the IJN much like the U.S. submarines were in the PTO. And so on...

There's alot to ponder about this possibility but all in all, I would say the Germans would have the upper hand, but the Japanese would make themselves felt in any battles they fought.

The allies had a tremendous advantage when it comes to "teleporters" a lot of merchant ships, and always building more, in numbers both Germany and Japan could only dream about.
I just don't see how Japan can solve it's oil shortage without getting into a war with the USA or Britain. Would they invade and occupy the Dutch East Indies with no thought of the security of getting that oil back to Japan. No matter which route is chosen, Singapore or the Philippines is right in the perfect position to interfere with the supply routes, I doubt Japan would ignore that threat.

In a land battle the Germans would have a decisive edge. Their divisions/corps had much more artillery and much more ammo per tube. With more radios/field phones their artillery was much more flexible. The Japanese could be very clever in their use of artillery and used it to very good effect per shell but just didn't have the numbers.
Japanese machine guns were in competition with the French and Italians for worlds WORST.
Japanese were even less motorized than the Germans, even not counting tanks these means supply is much more difficult. Try moving 100 tons of artillery ammo per day with horse drawn carts.

In very rough terrain where supply is a nightmare for everyone the Japanese may give a good account of themselves but in more open Terran they are in big trouble.

Submarine warfare gets very iffy as so much depends on where and when. Type VII U-boats are almost useless without bases in the Indian Ocean or in Indo-China. The type IX is much more useful but comes in several types and much fewer numbers until when?

Same for the Japanese boats. Truly long range ones aren't that common and the targets are where? If the Germans skip the Middle East (Iran,Iraq) and this meeting takes place half way between Germany and Japan you are in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan.

Otherwise you are looking at massive amphibious efforts with the net effect of the Russians sailing to Tsushima in 1905. A long sea voyage with little or no chance or refit/repair or even proper refueling before going into combat. This is assuming that Germany and Japan are the ONLY ones at war and the rest of the world is neutral.

Germans are going to be able to out produce the Japanese when it comes to aircraft.

Interesting question. Japan clearly would be superior at sea, and Germany superior on land, that is on a flat/open land where Germany could use their tanks. Assuming one has air superiority.
And indeed, where would the fighting take place? Neither side would be capable of invading the other without building up close to their nations. As said, other nations would be involved.

yyuusr said:

As horrible a person as he was don't think you can say Hitler was a bad military strategist which is all that would matter here I would think.

Click to expand...

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

What makes you think he was a good strategist? He was a terrible strategist. His military commanders were always under minded by him. One could argue that many of his decisions helped to shorten the war.

Click to expand...

GrauGeist said:

Hitler was the worst military strategist. Ever.

His short military career was in WWI as a Corporal...and not even a Landser, but a courier...and he had final say on strategy and planning when he had some of the finest military commanders in the world at his disposal.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should of said that Hitler wasn't a bad military strategist.....for the allies!

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

What makes you think he was a good strategist? He was a terrible strategist. His military commanders were always under minded by him. One could argue that many of his decisions helped to shorten the war.

Click to expand...

His short military career was in WWI as a Corporal...and not even a Landser, but a courier...and he had final say on strategy and planning when he had some of the finest military commanders in the world at his disposal.

Click to expand...

Yep. And he did have excellent professionals-the exception being Goering who might have been even worse. Compounding their (Hitler and Goering) ineptness at strategy was their scientific illiteracy. However, the Japanese command was no better. There was really no grand strategy that was realistic. The IJA and IJN had such an intense rivalry that they could agree on no approach. They basically conducted two sperate strategies with minimal consultation between them. The high command did not normalize this situation but actually compounded it. Then instead of putting rational thinking into strategy, and also tactics, they trusted in Bushido to carry the day. This is a recipe for disaster against any foe-including Nazi Germany.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

What makes you think he was a good strategist? He was a terrible strategist. His military commanders were always under minded by him. One could argue that many of his decisions helped to shorten the war.

Click to expand...

Never said he was a good strategist to be honest just don't think he was a bad one. I just don't believe you can conquer most of Europe by being a terrible military strategist. And he would have had to play his part in that.

Besides in comparison to his group are the Japanese really any better?

GrauGeist said:

Hitler was the worst military strategist. Ever.

Click to expand...

That's a huge over-exaggeration.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

What makes you think he was a good strategist? He was a terrible strategist. His military commanders were always under minded by him. One could argue that many of his decisions helped to shorten the war.

Click to expand...

tyrodtom said:

The allies had a tremendous advantage when it comes to "teleporters" a lot of merchant ships, and always building more, in numbers both Germany and Japan could only dream about.
I just don't see how Japan can solve it's oil shortage without getting into a war with the USA or Britain. Would they invade and occupy the Dutch East Indies with no thought of the security of getting that oil back to Japan. No matter which route is chosen, Singapore or the Philippines is right in the perfect position to interfere with the supply routes, I doubt Japan would ignore that threat.

Click to expand...

Good point. From what I hear Germans and Italians were providing the Japanese with a fair amount of supply as well. Would it have made dent to Japan if that had stopped? Where did these two countries stand anyways as far as overall resources is concerned?

good amount of supply? hardly. They provided some technical expertise, which amounted to zero effect on Japanese military capability during the war, or if not zero, so low that it is not worth worrying about.

Where are you getting this dross from?

yyuusr said:

Never said he was a good strategist to be honest just don't think he was a bad one. I just don't believe you can conquer most of Europe by being a terrible military strategist. And he would have had to play his part in that.

Click to expand...

The part he played in that was to actually listen to his generals. The occupation of Denmark and Norway was planned and put forward by Adm. Raeder's staff. The plan that resulted in the defeat of France during May 1940 was a plan put forward by von Manstein. The plan did not originate with Hitler. The reluctant Hitler only adopted the plan after he was talked into it by another junior general -Rommel. I doubt here I need to go into details about some of Hitler's errors during the Battle of Britain. From the fall of 1940 on Hitler was committed to Barbarossa and stopped listening to his generals-taking the credit for the early victories to himself. The invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 has to be the greatest strategic blunder of all time. Once things didn't go according to his plan on the eastern front he increasingly disregarded the advice of his generals and admirals, and increasingly tried to micro-manage things himself. Stalingrad and Kursk was the result. From 1943 on his standing order was no retreat. This resulted in the needless destruction of the most experienced German forces on all fronts. Of course starting a war that could-and did- result in the almost complete destruction of Germany was itself a strategic blunder.


I agree that the Japanese leadership was just as bad. The German military leadership did have some oustanding leaders. The question is can they overcome Hitler's incompetence? During 1944, the British Secret Service decided to not kill Hitler because they considered his incompentence was shortning the war.

yyuusr said:

Good point. From what I hear Germans and Italians were providing the Japanese with a fair amount of supply as well. Would it have made dent to Japan if that had stopped? Where did these two countries stand anyways as far as overall resources is concerned?

Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that? Be advised that many participants on this site have an EXTENSIVE background in WW2 history and can back up claims with documented evidence. If one spouts off half truths and speculative guesses on this forum they are quickly called on it, so just a "heads up." For your information...

Hikoki:1946 Fun site

Japanese

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/e...rison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf&embedded=true

In the last document it shows that Germany was barely able to keep itself supplied so its quite evident they (or Italy) were NOT able to supply Japan with any substancial war material.