armored warfare in the PTO during WW2

tater · 04-25-10, 03:10 PM

The Zero is as grossly over rated in popular history as Admiral Yamamoto, or General Patton are.

It was a fine aircraft against lesser air forces (in quality or numbers), but it was effectively the ultimate plane for the wrong war. It was like a ww1 plane on steroids.

It NEVER sustained a positive kill ratio vs the USN/USMC, for example, not over any period of time long enough to include a decent number of engagements (read both of Lundstrom's excellent First Team books for details of virtually every single encounter for the first year of the war). The rest of the world was already moving to higher wing-loading, faster planes—"energy" fighters, not turn and burn.

04-25-10, 03:10 PM	#13
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	The Zero is as grossly over rated in popular history as Admiral Yamamoto, or General Patton are. It was a fine aircraft against lesser air forces (in quality or numbers), but it was effectively the ultimate plane for the wrong war. It was like a ww1 plane on steroids. It NEVER sustained a positive kill ratio vs the USN/USMC, for example, not over any period of time long enough to include a decent number of engagements (read both of Lundstrom's excellent First Team books for details of virtually every single encounter for the first year of the war). The rest of the world was already moving to higher wing-loading, faster planes—"energy" fighters, not turn and burn.