NSDAP Germany vs. Imperial Japan Who would win in a war?

>>1585509
Anyone could beat Japan's ass.

The only reason they conquered so much shit was the distance disadvantage the Allies had.

They lost pretty much every battle against the Americans.

>>1585518
>Anyone
Didn't Japan have the strongest navy after the US and Britain?

I dunno, what are they fighting over? Geography is 70% of the battle

>>1585518
The early successes were pretty impressive given what they were working with tho

Neither could invade each other, Japan had too strong of a navy and Germany had too strong of an army.
>>1585557
They could mop up the British navy, mostly thanks to better naval planes. The US destroyed them tho, thankfully

>>1585557
They were preparing for war so they had a strong navy at the onset of hostilities.

Britain (plus the commonwealth) and especially America outproduced and outmanned the shit out of them

File: 1464082224051.jpg (89KB, 454x596px)

89KB, 454x596px

>fighting on the continent

Germany. Japan only had real combat experience fighting incompetent Chinese armies, and their doctrine suffered badly because of it. They determined that tanks were not important because of their experiences in China, for example. The Wehrmacht would demolish them like the Americans did from Guadalcanal on.

>needing to perform an invasion
Japan. Germany did not have a navy strong enough to contest the IJN, let alone one that could support an invasion beachhead.

>>1585575
>They could mop up the British navy, mostly thanks to better naval planes.
British planes carried radar. Japanese planes didn't even have radio most of the time. Brits would simply attack at night until they sink enough of Jap botes.

>>1585518
>Anyone
Only Four powers (Germany America UK and the Soviets) could Certainly beat them
Rest is just speculation

>>1587035
French are borderline speculative imo. They were definitely stronger on ground than Japanese and while their fleet wasn't the biggest, it was still quite modern. They also didn't go full Mahan, unlike Japanese, so they were focused on securing trade routes, commerce raiding(they've had one of the biggest submarine fleets in the world as well) while the "big" navy was there to keep enemies in check, which would give them at least early advantage. I have no idea about their shipbuilding capabilities though, which is the most important thing here.

>>1587035
French could destroy them on land. Italians have a good chance if they mobilize their economy.

>>1587066
>They also didn't go full Mahan, unlike Japanese, so they were focused on securing trade routes, commerce raiding
You secure your trade routes by destroying the enemy navy. You destroy enemy commerce by destroying its navy. Countries that went "full Mahan," e.g. USA and UK, controlled the oceans. Countries that commerce raided, i.e. Germany, had to settle for 4:1 k/d ratio against merchant ships.

>>1587074
There's a difference between UK and US, both of which raided convoys as well as escorted them and between Japanese who tried to go from great battle to great battle and rarely concerned themselves with other tasks.

>>1587082
There is no difference. UK and US succeeded because they destroyed enemy navies, and Japan didn't because their navy was destroyed. Muh subs is a meme. If Japanese surface navy had won, their subs would've been the ones that sank all the transports.

>>1585509
Everyone else

>>1586510
This.

Due to the geo-strategic dispositions of the countries they were militarily entirely differently set up. Not to mention that they were at opposites end of the Earth.