Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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'.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?
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 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?
Japan had the lead in direct-injection radial engines. Germany's DB 605 was a marvel.
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
In terms of naval strike, carrier aviation, and torpedo bombing the Luftwaffe lagged behind Japan considerably
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.A zero would have made mincemeat against an Me 110 at any time in the war, plus it stil had greater range and endurance.
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".