History (and related interesting facts)

There is no "garbage". Even the most PC, revisionistic, masochistic estimates still make the Wildcat trading at least  1:1 with the Zero in air combat. In terms of aircraft destroyed ! In terms of pilots killed it's a clear win for the Wildcat.


But you apply "better" as in better low speed maneuverability, and better low speed climb and climb angle, and better range, to understand a generally better combat plane. I'm trying to throw some lights on matters. The Wildcat was better at high altitude, much faster in a dive, had better high speed maneuverability, was much stronger and better protected, and had an excellent radio. And despite your fixation with the cannon, I also happen to think the Wildcat had the better armament. The typical case was rather that it was the Zero that blew up in a fireball after a few .50 rounds.
How these different sets of advantages ultimately measure up is of course very hard to analyse or judge. But you can look at the actual combat contest. Which is why I make my case simple, by just saying: Look at how it turned out.  While the Americans were rightly in awe of the apparent performance of the Zero and rightly very worried, it's still a fact that Japanese air superiority was neutralized from the moment the Zero met up with the P-40 and Wildcat. And, anecdotally, there was this air battle where 16 Zeros of an elite unit clashed with 6 Wildcats of an elite unit. In the end the tally was one Wildcat lost and three Zeros lost. Hardly outclassed.


Planes should IMO be judged according to how well they serve their purpose. For combat planes in a war, that purpose is ultimately helping to win the war. Having moderate combat damage resulting in a returning plane that can be patched up or used for spare parts, and a returning, alive, more experienced pilot, beats a fatal fireball by a pretty massive margin. Also, you can't just focus on the pros and ignore the cons. The Zero's performance was bought with some pretty hefty sacrifices. The design concept of the Zero was lowest possible weight, never mind survivability, high speed flying qualities or equipment.  "Better"? If that really was the case, why wasn't the concept copied? Everybody else did the exact opposite, more and more as the war progressed, building heavier, stronger, better equipped combat planes. 

I'm not saying the Wildcat was the better plane. Not exactly. I'm leaving it open. In "which plane is now the best", I asked you to consider all angles. There's no doubt that the Zero's properties were crucial for the early Japanese expansion. But handsome is as handsome does. 15,553 Wildcat sorties with only 202 combat losses, and only 49 operational losses is pretty good. The F-4U flew 64,000 sorties, but had 1086 operational losses (and 538 combat losses, most to anti-aircraft).

I will add though that arguably the biggest factor in the Allies overcoming the Zero was not better planes, 

Thing is, being better at dogfighting is pretty irrelevant if your opponent never lets you get into a dogfight....

Which thankfully wasn't the topic of conversation, battlefield unit effectiveness isn't really an aspect when you compare plane to plane.

Now if we were going over specific battles or or campaigns, sure that line of reasoning would follow I suppose but its really utterly irrelevant to the point here.

The Germans were the great pioneers in infantry camouflage during that time

I enjoyed the Roman Republic, but they massacred a lot of Northern tribes even before they became a tyrannical empire. Not sure whether I should like or hate. Maybe both.. I dunno.

I'm sure that was pleasant.

Neat pictures though, you have actual military documents, all I have are old journals, guns and clothing items and a few medals, you should be grateful for actual documentation, I was lucky to stumble on to a picture of my grandfather(on my mother's side) with good old Frode Halle and a handful of other old pictures and that's all I have for actual military service related stuff. My german ancestors thankfully have much better documentation and records, but even that falls short of more then just a few service transcripts and that assorted bullshit. Not many back then were concerned with record keeping towards the end of the war, quite the opposite, the SS made a point of destroying member registries for post war activities and operations, not that helped a lot but it further eroded already shoddy record keeping.

All the same though its cool to have a link to history isn't it?

Hmm so your great grandfather was stationed in Norway then?