More advanced aircraft during WW2? Germany or Japan?

[machine shop tom]

Germany's main aviation fuel still was 87 octane B4 almost from start to finish. If Germany had had the need for longer ranges, different engines would've been produced and the well-known engines probably wouldn't exist in the forms they did.



As for the original question: Look at how many technology transfer attempts from Germany to Japan were there as opposed to the other way around?

Now some may explain that by lack of interest due to overconfidence or racism (certainly partially true), but of the top of my head I can't think of too many technologies from Japan at the time that were worth copying.

While not airplane-related, Japananese submarine technology was the equal to Germany's and the Allies and in some ways were superior. Also, the Long Lance torpedo put all others to shame in reliability and effectiveness.

tom

 

[riacrato]

I meant aviation related of course. With the status the navy held in Japan, it's not surprising they had some quality technology there, but it's not my expertise.

 

[timshatz]

While I'll agree with the German Air Industry being superior to the Japanese in the late 1930s and to the middle of 1940s, I think the Japanese did more with less than the Germans. You have to keep in mind that Japanese industry was on the same level as Italy in regards to GDP at the start of WW2. Yet the produced a range of excellent aircraft, an excellent battlefleet and very competent army.

Granted, there were a lot of gaps (armor forces, rifle and light machine guns, AAA arraingements, ect) but they did an amazing job with a relatively small industrial base.

 

[Njaco]

Might this be an answer within a question:

What did each country import to the other in terms of war technology? I believe that Germany was importing engines, planes, even submarines for the Japanese to check out. Might say alot about who was more advanced.

 

[JoeB]

I am quite sure you would have seen Luftwaffe aircraft with greater ranges. But then the resulting aircraft would have had poorer performance, speed and climb, or sacrificed protection. You don't get something for nothing. would the resulting Luftwaffe aircraft performed significantly better than the Japanese aircraft?

Moreover there's the issue of choosing a concept for longer ranged fighters. As it was the Germans tended to go for the wrong concept: twin engine fighters which proved too vulnerable to singles. So again I don't see much validity in comparing theoretical long range single engine German fighters to the Zero, that's really just assuming what you want to conclude, for those whose gut feel is 'German much better'.

Joe

 

[davebender]

I wonder if the Luftwaffe would use diesel engines for long range maritime attack aircraft?

I am thinking along the lines of tandem diesel engine pods on the Do-26 seaplane. Only this would be a land based aircraft like the Do-217. Rather then being powered by a pair of BMW801 radial engines, each wing would contain a pod with a pair of 880 hp Jumo 205D diesel engines. Total hp will be about the same.

 

[parsifal]

While I'll agree with the German Air Industry being superior to the Japanese in the late 1930s and to the middle of 1940s, I think the Japanese did more with less than the Germans. You have to keep in mind that Japanese industry was on the same level as Italy in regards to GDP at the start of WW2. Yet the produced a range of excellent aircraft, an excellent battlefleet and very competent army.

Granted, there were a lot of gaps (armor forces, rifle and light machine guns, AAA arraingements, ect) but they did an amazing job with a relatively small industrial base.

I agree with the basic point you are making here, and apologize for nitpicking, but Japans share of the world GDP was about 4 or 5 times that of Italy. I dont know if that tranlates to to military outpu, but economically, Italy was responsible or controlled about 1% of world GDP. Japan controlled about 4-5%.

France controlled about 3%. Canada controlled about 1.5%. The US controlled about 35% from memory. Britain (excluding the commonwealth about 10%, Germany roughly 20%. The Russians were difficult to quatify, but were about 15% of the world economy. Between them, Britain, Germany, Russia, the US and Japan controlled something like 80% of world GDP, with Canada and the Commonwealth controlling about 4-6% in total. Only 14-15% of the world GDP was outside these major power blocs

Ahilst aas an overall effort one is drawan inexorably to the conclusion that German technology outclassed that of Japan, viewed as a percentage of world GDP I think the reverse is true. Whilst not an issue of technology, the production outputs is very telling about who was putting greater effort into their aereronautics industry, as a percentage of their toatal miliatary effort. With ostensibly access to more than 20% of the world economy (if you include the conquered territories of europe, the Germans were able to build something like 35000 aircraft in 1944. Pretty impre4ssive, I agree. But in that same time frame the Japanese pushed out something like 16000 airframes. You could argue that germany was diverting more resource to ther land forces and was being bombed to the stone age, but the Japanese awere pouring vast amount of their military capital into building ships, and were being strangled by a crippling blockade. Who was in the worse position....I dont know.

 

[DonL]

Comparing the LW to the Japanese Airforce is to compare apples with beans.

As machine shop tom described both lacked in good strategic bombers.
And Japanese airforce has developed carrier aircraft as the only advanced point to the LW

In all other categories the german Aircrafts are superior.
If you want range, which mission or sortie couldn't be fight or better fight by japanese aircraft compare to a FW 187, ME 110 and JU 88 in 1941?

I am quite sure you would have seen Luftwaffe aircraft with greater ranges. But then the resulting aircraft would have had poorer performance, speed and climb, or sacrificed protection. You don't get something for nothing. would the resulting Luftwaffe aircraft performed significantly better than the Japanese aircraft?

I disagree! The developed prototyps like the FW 187 had no poorer performance in speed or climb if anything than better compare to the Me 109 or FW 190 and a range of 1500km as one example.

Japan had the lead in direct-injection radial engines. Germany's DB 605 was a marvel.

And what is about the BMW 801with direct-injektion,which radial engine of the Japanese ist better?
And beside to the DB 601/605 are the Jumo 212, 213 and the DB 603.
To my knowledge Japan had no inline engine state of the art the whole war.

 

[parsifal]

In all other categories the german Aircrafts are superior.
If you want range, which mission or sortie couldn't be fight or better fight by japanese aircraft compare to a FW 187, ME 110 and JU 88 in 1941?

In terms of naval strike, carrier aviation, and torpedo bombing the Luftwaffe lagged behind Japan considerably. Ju 88s did not carry torpedoes until 1942, and whilst far more durable lacked the range to be effective in the Pacific. If it had been Ju88s based at Rabaul, they would not have had the range to hit targets in Moresby and Cooktown. German seaplanes, whilst very good, were not as good as the latest Japanese aircraft, and would not have been able to deliver accurate fleet recon as the Japanese were able to do until the very end of the war.

Dont know much about the FW187, as it was not an operational type. A zero would have made mincemeat against an Me 110 at any time in the war, plus it stil had greater range and endurance.

I disagree! The developed prototyps like the FW 187 had no poorer performance in speed or climb if anything than better compare to the Me 109 or FW 190 and a range of 1500km as one example.


Still a prototype that was not adopted. But to look at the range you are quoting....1500 km, this is still small in the Pacific context. You have not stated if this is an operational range, a ferry range, or something else. A Zero had a ferry range in excess of 3000 miles, thats about 4800 km. Its operational range was about 1200 miles, or about 1900 km

 

[Vincenzo]

I agree with the basic point you are making here, and apologize for nitpicking, but Japans share of the world GDP was about 4 or 5 times that of Italy. I dont know if that tranlates to to military outpu, but economically, Italy was responsible or controlled about 1% of world GDP. Japan controlled about 4-5%.

France controlled about 3%. Canada controlled about 1.5%. The US controlled about 35% from memory. Britain (excluding the commonwealth about 10%, Germany roughly 20%. The Russians were difficult to quatify, but were about 15% of the world economy. Between them, Britain, Germany, Russia, the US and Japan controlled something like 80% of world GDP, with Canada and the Commonwealth controlling about 4-6% in total. Only 14-15% of the world GDP was outside these major power blocs

here some on gdp in WWII Allied and Axis GDP

 

[DonL]

For the FW 187

Luftwaffe Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site - Focke Wulf Fw 187
Focke-Wulf 187 archive file
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fw_187

There are enough informations.
The 1500km are with inline fuel and no drop tanks.
To my kowledge the Zero had 1580km with inline fuel.

In terms of naval strike, carrier aviation, and torpedo bombing the Luftwaffe lagged behind Japan considerably

And what was the operation purpose of the LW?
If the major operation purpose is in terms of naval strike, carrier aviation, and torpedo bombing, than a JU 88 had carried a torpedo with the first prototype. Beside to this a ME 110 or FW 187 can also carrie a torpedo or bombs.

A zero would have made mincemeat against an Me 110 at any time in the war, plus it stil had greater range and endurance.

If the ME 110 would be a fighter than i agree, but as a bomber or a torpedobomber it was very fast and the fighter mission is for the FW 187.

Sorry but i could not see any advanced technologie compare to the german LW at Japanese Aircrafts.

 

[timshatz]

Ahilst aas an overall effort one is drawan inexorably to the conclusion that German technology outclassed that of Japan, viewed as a percentage of world GDP I think the reverse is true. Whilst not an issue of technology, the production outputs is very telling about who was putting greater effort into their aereronautics industry, as a percentage of their toatal miliatary effort. With ostensibly access to more than 20% of the world economy (if you include the conquered territories of europe, the Germans were able to build something like 35000 aircraft in 1944. Pretty impre4ssive, I agree. But in that same time frame the Japanese pushed out something like 16000 airframes. You could argue that germany was diverting more resource to ther land forces and was being bombed to the stone age, but the Japanese awere pouring vast amount of their military capital into building ships, and were being strangled by a crippling blockade. Who was in the worse position....I dont know.

Parisfal, all the info I've seen (and Vincenzo's post confirms) that the Japanese economy was a lot closer to Italy's or (or maybe France based on V's post) than that of any other major combatant. Can you post where you got your numbers from 'cause all the data I've seen shows Japan at that lower level rather than 3x to 4x Italy.

That being said (and it really is a point of symantics), I agree with your premise about putting resources in the important places. Germany was a continental power, Japan was an island nation. Different strategic viewpoint and goals. Armor thickness is far more important to a continental power than aircraft range. Also, Japan had to fight a naval war, Germany did not. So ships and airframes are more important than anti-tank guns, sub machine guns, mechinized infantry, ect.

Who was in a worse position? No idea either. But given the forces arrayed against both of them and their base of industry, a better way to put it might've been "You just can't get there from here".

 

[machine shop tom]

The FW-187 is pretty moot unless we also include promising Japanese designs that were also not used operationally (other than the 3 examples that enede up in Norway).

tom

 

[davebender]

If we include naval aircraft there is another huge difference between 1930s Germany and Japan.

The Japanese Navy fully supported maritime airpower. Admiral Raeder (CiC of the German Navy) did not. Consequently the German Navy began the war with no maritime aircraft to speak of besides seaplanes for recon. 1939 Germany didn't have effective torpedoes (either aerial or submarine) nor did they have an adequate stockpile of aerial mines. The situation did not change significantly until control of German maritime airpower was transferred from Admiral Raeder to the Luftwaffe. A good discussion of the issue at the below site.

German Torpedo Bombers? What Were they? - WW2 in Color History Forum

 

[timshatz]

Good point Dave, the Luftwaffe was a land force, not designed or though of with Naval implications. Similar to the RAF/Fleet Air Arm relationship, the Naval air services were the poorer stepchild of the two.

I often wondered how well the plan for putting Ju87 and Me109s on their carrier would have faired. I think the problems the Brits had with the Seafire would've been multiplied with the sea version of the 109.

 

[parsifal]

well I am at a loss as to how the range and capabilities of the FW 187 could be so dogmatically claimed. The aircraft is very intersting, and did show great potential in my opinion, but it remained very much a prototype with none of those completed with their final powerplants or even aiframe structure finalised. I dont think that any definitive number as to the range of the type, or indeed its final performance can be clearly stated at all to be honest, because it remained very much a prototype. Several of the sources I looked at said that it was designed not as a Zerstorer, but as a longer ranged fighter, with one source stating that

"When it was test-flown, it outsped the Messerschmitt Me109B by 50mph, (80km/h) despite the fact that it was almost double the weight and had twice the range!
The V1 prototype had a cramped cockpit, although not as much so as the 109. It was superbly maneuverable, making it immensly superior to the slow Bf 110."

If this is correct, the type did not have anything like the range of the zero. Even if it was eight times the operational range of the Bf 109B it would still have a lesser range than an A6M Model 21.

I dont think it all valid to try to compare an incomplete prototype, for which the final design and powerplant were never tested, and for which reliable range figures dont seem to exist, to an aircraft that entered service and deployed in the thousands in the service of its country

Another source had this to say about the type

"The first prototype Fw 187 V1 (D-AANA) was ready to fly in spring 1937, and was powered by two 680 hp Jumo 210Da engines. Even with these low powered engines the aircraft attained 326 mph (525 kmh) at 13,123 ft (4,000 m), a full 50 mph (80 kmh) faster than the latest Bf-109B-2 production single-seat fighters.

The aircraft was lost on May 14, 1938 during a low level high speed pass at the test facility in Bremen. The pilot was believed to have pulled up to sharply at the end of the pass, the aircraft stalled, and spun into the ground.

The second prototype Fw 187 V2 was flying by summer of 1937 and it was destined to be the last single seat version. Earnst Udet had replaced von Richtofen by this point in time, and while Udet was a visionary in some respects, he was a total conventionalist when it came to fighter planes. Two engined fighter planes were less maneuverable than single seat fighters so all further development of the Fw 187 was to be as a "Zerstorer" (destroyer) having two or three seats and heavy armaments for attack and defence. History later showed that this category, (Bf-110 day fighters) to be totally out classed by modern monoplane single seat fighters in daylight encounters...

The third prototype Fw 187 was radically altered, but to save weight and dimensional changes the extra position was as a radio operator with no defensive guns. This third Fw 187 V3 (D-ORHP) flew in spring 1938 and had a short troubled career. It suffered a starboard engine fire during one of the initial test flights culminating in a landing that damaged both main landing gear.

The next two prototypes Fw 187 V4 (D-OSNP) V5 (D-OTGN), completed summer and autumn 1938 respectively, were built as two seaters. Both airframes were powered by Jumo 210Da engines and while both received sufficiently favorable flight test results, the top speed achieved was less than expected.

The next prototype Fw 187 V6 (CI-NY) was able to utilize two 1000 hp Daimler-Benz DB 600A liquid cooled engines and was outfitted with surface evaporation cooling to reduce the drag of coolant radiators. While Kurt Tank had a very fast airplane, clocked at 394.4 mph (635 kmh) in level flight, this cooling system was found to be problematic and the aircraft skin was prone to buckling and distortion.

The initial batch of three pre-production Fw 187 A-0 fighters were completed in the summer of 1939 with a rear facing radio/gunner position, and had 700 hp Jumo 210Ga engines. The armament consisted of two 0.787 in (20 mm) MG FF cannons and four 0.312 in (7.92 mm) MG 17 machine guns. The Luftwaffe had by this point decided that the rear defensive gun position of the aircraft was inadequate and unsuited for combat purposes. All three aircraft were returned to Focke-Wulf."

I dont profess to know much about the FW 187, I am sure that the supporters of this aircraft will rush to correct my misreading of the potentialities of their pet aircraft, but I also can see dodgy research and claims when they are made, and this appears to be one of those occasions

 

[davebender]

If Admiral Raeder had been serious about CV based naval airpower I would expect purpose built CV aircraft. Not standard land based aircraft that have been hastily modified.

Personally I think the He-112B fighter and He-118 attack aircraft are good candidates for CV use due to low stall speed. The German Navy could have funded both programs after these aircraft were rejected for land based use. They would be fully compatible with CV service as the German Navy would be writing the specifications and funding the programs.

 

[parsifal]

If the major operation purpose is in terms of naval strike, carrier aviation, and torpedo bombing, than a JU 88 had carried a torpedo with the first prototype. Beside to this a ME 110 or FW 187 can also carrie a torpedo or bombs.

Ah, the Germans did not have an effective air launched torpedo bomber until October 1941, and that was initially the He 111. At the time the Ju88 was being designed and tested, they deid not even have an effective aerial torpedo. .

Me 110s aand FW 187s never carried torpedoes

 

[parsifal]

Parisfal, all the info I've seen (and Vincenzo's post confirms) that the Japanese economy was a lot closer to Italy's or (or maybe France based on V's post) than that of any other major combatant. Can you post where you got your numbers from 'cause all the data I've seen shows Japan at that lower level rather than 3x to 4x Italy.

That being said (and it really is a point of symantics), I agree with your premise about putting resources in the important places. Germany was a continental power, Japan was an island nation. Different strategic viewpoint and goals. Armor thickness is far more important to a continental power than aircraft range. Also, Japan had to fight a naval war, Germany did not. So ships and airframes are more important than anti-tank guns, sub machine guns, mechinized infantry, ect.

Who was in a worse position? No idea either. But given the forces arrayed against both of them and their base of industry, a better way to put it might've been "You just can't get there from here".

My source is Overy, who wrote a book dealing with the economics of the war some years ago. I lent it to a "friend" who never returned it, so I am working from memory. Even if the Japanese economy is closer to Frances , its still going to be at least three times greater than the italian economy. The Italian economy was in bad shape even in 1939, with low levels of strategic reserves, low levels of cash reserves, old and worn out toolmaking capabilities....all the product of suffering years of League economic sanctions. Under Mussolini its economic potential was dropping dramatically in the latter part of the '30's. The Japanese were also in a similar plight, but not quite as dire.....they were still trading with the US in 1939, and had a much larger and more economically feasible empire that actually produced raw materials for them unlike the Italian empire which never turned a profit for the Italians, and did not produce anything of significance for them

 

[Vincenzo]

i'm not full agree also the french economy it's not good, and lira was, at time, a strongest value of franc (french). You give too importance at sanction they are not on vital source and only for 8 months, and there are many breaks, and Germany don't take it. as the all the GDP comparison they are strong influenced from structure of prices and level of "monetary" of society, idk japan situation but maybe possible that money was less widespread in japan that in italy (already low in cpmparison with US) and france.
imho the gdp simple comparison are not good today and near useless for '30s