History (and related interesting facts)

Angola was a shit hole when I was there, I presume that hadn't changed since his day. Bands of roving thieves and militia everywhere, plus they are all fucking communists.

Did he try to get accepted at one of the military schools?

Generally you want to go into the service in ranking officership rather then with the rank and file if you have designs for one day ya know, being a commanding officer of some merit.

Then again I suppose things were different back in wars where you got battlefield promotions.

Ah, well that isn't to say he couldn't have done that he just would have never flown a fighter.

They need plenty of folks in the air who aren't the fucking geniuses with the bodies of greek gods that are fighter pilots to fly tankers, fuel and supply planes, even back then.

I personally get why you want the best of the best flying planes that worth more money then most will see in two lifetimes together but all the same it sort of restricts how many folks you have to fly em. No glory in that though is there? Not that you get much glory in war in general, its just some stupid civvie concept that's beaten out of your skull your first week in basic.

That gun is ugly as sin.

Vids on the chiefs of staff of the Italian and Austro-Hungarian militaries in the Great War, Luigi Cadorna and Conrad Von Hotzendorf respectively.

While that is a good way to put it, in terms of making the message coming across, I actually don't agree with it verbatim.


The reason the Zero did so well, initially, was that it was completely superior to the planes it met in the early years.
I-15, I-16, F2A, Hawk 75 were designs relying on the exact same concepts of air combat as the Zero. The Zero just did everything so much better, and had a colossal range and endurance to top it off. There is no tactics that can make you win against the Zero in those planes.

Regarding the P-40, it is a better combat plane than the Zero. Because it can dictate the fight with its better speed, diving and zoom, and there is nothing the Zero can do about it. There exists no winning tactic for the Zero. There exists a losing tactic for the P-40, but that doesn't make the Zero a better combat plane.

The situation is somewhat similar for the F4F vs Zero, though it's a more complex case, and relies more on mutual support.
The overall ability of the Wildcat was very good - it didn't have any flaws. It could have been better, but it didn't have any direct flaws. The Zero did have flaws.
So the tactics didn't cover up for own flaws, so much as exploit the Zero's flaws, which were its speed restrictions, poor diving ability and poor maneuverability at high speed.

Which all had the same cause - fragile construction. Which brings us to the fact that an american pilot could always rely on that he had a solid advantage going front to front, guns blazing. The Japanese pilot - it didn't matter how much he had practised aerobatics - faced a 70-90% risk of losing and dying. Normally they died, because they were fed up on this Bushido/Samurai superiority shit - or they could turn desperately away and still be at a disadvantage. Throw in that the Zero wasn't equipped with a radio, so there was no concerted cooperation in an air battle.

Which brings us to how spitefully little it took for an experienced, well trained, Japanese pilot to die. How many American pilots returned - to live and fight another day, more experienced - with combat damage that regularly turned a Zero into a fireball? Or found their way home because of their radio? - An awful lot of them!

The americans did this exact evaluation several times during WW2: More self-sealing tanks and armor or more maneuverability and climb rate? They always arrived at more self-sealing tanks and armor. Hands down, it wasn't even a contest. The waste of human capital would be disastrous. Just as it was for Japan.

That is how you win a war and that is why the F4F Wildcat was a better combat plane than the Zero. Even if I have never spelled it out, explicitly, until now.

Interesting video about 12th-10th centuries BC dark age and Sea People.

The Zero had a never-exceed-speed of 660 km/h. The Zero got unmaneuverable at high speeds, and it started to degrade already at 380 km/h. Those things count and the Wildcat was much, much better at those things. The Wildcat also had better performance at high altitude and a higher ceiling.

No, it's about how to value combat planes. This discussion started because I said USA had better planes. I wasn't thinking specifically about the Wildcat then, more probably about the Hellcat. But the Wildcat will do if pressed, with a bit of effort, same as in the war. The discussion is clearly something else for you, since you fling around such emotionally charged things like "hunk of dog shit that isn't even fit to fly in its shadow to put it bluntly". That's your problem. I responded to Phrox.

That is mostly correct.

If the combat is one vs. one, and it starts at fairly low altitude, the Wildcat is in a world of trouble.

The proper tactic for the F4F pilot in that case is to immediately head straight at the Zero. If the Zero breaks away, head into the opposite direction to to preserve distance, Immelman and head directly at the Zero again. But it's a difficult task ahead, trying to keep speed up and keeping enough separation, not losing altitude.

...But luckily it wasn't one on one duels and the Wildcats usually had enough altitude to disengage and also usually tried to fight with the advantage of altitude.

James Rolfe covers the the first couple of "Wizard of Oz" books and various film adaptations since then (like the '39 Wizard of Oz and the '85 Return to Oz).