I'd rather slam a drawer on my manhood!
Riley,
We're in danger of thread creep here, however I don't doubt German technological capabilities regarding aircraft design in WWII (although the Me410 wasn't a nightfighter). However, their wider technological weaknesses were directly as a result of their tactical emphasis.
As far as their EW efforts regarding the night bomber offensive, their initial capabilities were hampered by the almost complete absence of a defensive radar network and, more importantly a C2 system (although the few Freya and Wurzberg radars they did possess were arguably more capable than the British Chain Home). A large reason that they hadn't invested in a defensive C2 system was because they were tactically focused upon offensive land ops.
Where we did have and retain a lead was in airborne EW technology such as AI radars, H2S, Gee and Oboe which rapidly eclipsed the German Knickebein system of beams. This was because we had focused upon the defensive use of emerging technology and specifically it's ue in nightfighters. Although the Luftwaffe subsequently exploited our active sysems via Flensberg and Naxos, our window and a huge variety of radar and comms jamming systems gradually crippled their capabilities as the war progressed, especially with the introduction of 100 Gp. Immediately post war, the RAF flew a complex series of trials named 'Post Mortem' against the almost intact Luftwaffe AD system in Denmark jointly manned by RAF and Luftwaffe operators. The results were mute testament to our technological superiority in offensive EW.
Clearly, the night defences remained a significant factor almost to the end, however technologically we led in terms of offensive airborne EW, radar and navigation capabilities. The fact that they lagged because of pre-war focus upon the Luftwaffe being a tactical support arm for the Army was cited by both Galland and Speer as a key factor in this technological failure.
Anyway, we digress...
Regards,
MM