Speculate for $h!t$ and giggles...

[tater]

I agree about the quantity statement. I think that the US is often (in the ETO) accused of having loads of inferior stuff, and winning by "mass." I think this is a disservice. Military technology doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists in the context of doctrine. US technology during the war fit very well with US doctrine. Yeah, we had a lot of "stuff" at the sharp end, but that was a product of the "culture" of our military which put a premium on logistics, and where possible, expending "stuff" in place of men. The latter being a doctrine that any democracy should support, and which most autocracies could not care less about.

As an aside, the IJNAF is usually given false credit for having a technological lead in aircraft at the start of the war. The prowess of the Zero is grossly exaggerated, IMO. Read Lundsrom, and it's clear that the USN never suffered a negative kill ratio during any statistically meaningful stretch of combats. They were even, or even better from the very first engagement—flying the F4F. Jap air forces did very well at the start primarily due to mass. 50 Zeros meet a handful of operational planes over Malaya, and the outcome is a foregone conclusion, regardless of aircraft quality.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by tater

I agree about the quantity statement. I think that the US is often (in the ETO) accused of having loads of inferior stuff, and winning by "mass." I think this is a disservice. Military technology doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists in the context of doctrine. US technology during the war fit very well with US doctrine. Yeah, we had a lot of "stuff" at the sharp end, but that was a product of the "culture" of our military which put a premium on logistics, and where possible, expending "stuff" in place of men. The latter being a doctrine that any democracy should support, and which most autocracies could not care less about.

As an aside, the IJNAF is usually given false credit for having a technological lead in aircraft at the start of the war. The prowess of the Zero is grossly exaggerated, IMO. Read Lundsrom, and it's clear that the USN never suffered a negative kill ratio during any statistically meaningful stretch of combats. They were even, or even better from the very first engagement—flying the F4F. Jap air forces did very well at the start primarily due to mass. 50 Zeros meet a handful of operational planes over Malaya, and the outcome is a foregone conclusion, regardless of aircraft quality.

very true that the corsair was in ways better then the zero. however the corsair wasnt always available, especially at places like wake. they had wildcats go up against zeros and they were totally outgunned. The reason the zero was so ferocius was its maneuverability. when a plane can outmaneuver a zero, it was over. the zero had no armor. the hellcats and corsairs and my personal favorites the P51 Mustangs were quite capable of downing a zero easily. especially as the quality of pilots reduced as more of them were getting killed. but the japs developed much MUCH better planes, like the Ki-84 Frank and the J7W Shinden. both these fighters were WONDERFUL! Awesome fighters. the shinden didnt get to see action though. they also developed pretty good bombers too.