There was also the issue of Allied Intelligence's initial inability to distinguish between one Japanese aircraft type and another, which tended to frustrate those at the front line's attempts at assessing their enemy.
This discussion of Corsair versus Zero is a very uneven and certainly loaded one - ridiculously so and smacks of patriotic intent in its suggestion. Because although both types met each other in combat they were both so very different in philosophy and execution that comparison is extremely difficult. Conceived before the war in a different age and without the benefit of military hindsight the F4U designers possessed when conceiving their new fighter, the A6M was a compromise between old ideals and new technologies, but executed with a panache not normally associated with an Asian nation - Japan, of course was Asia's first superpower and was consequently very proud of this achievement. When introduced into service to replace the A5M from the same design team - itself an ultra-modern design when first unveiled in the early 1930s, the Type '0' Carrier Fighter symbolised the rebirth of an ancient Empire that was rapidly becoming a powerhouse on the world stage, but with a foot firmly in the past with its emulation of the earlier aircraft's manoeuvrability. Its spiritual, if not technological equal was the Hawker Hurricane- itself a potent symbol of military might that bridged the gap between old and new, but also a child of the business of military expansionism; the Hurricane was subject to the biggest order for military aircraft in British history up to that time, before the war broke out.
The Corsair was everything the Zero was not. It was big, powerful and American in ideal and two aircraft that carried out the same role could not be any more different than these two machines. The Americans were not so circumspect in the Corsair's concept; it meant business, like the American approach to the war; there was no room for spiritual overtones and symbolism - the Japanese always accused the Americans of being Spiritually lazy, but if anyone understood the capitalistic approach to the war and the benefits that came with that, it was the Americans and the F4U evolved into what it was as a result of this. Unlike the Zero, the F4U was uncompromising, brutal almost, and supremely business like.
So a comparison between the Zero and F4U can be compared with the titanic struggle between two polar opposite Empires at war, one old and wisened and the other young and courageous. Ultimately the fight becomes one of idealism, but what emerges in the midst is a battle of intellect; tenacity and blind faith with only go so far in this fight, as both the British, the Germans and the Americans all learned in WW2, but the Japanese failed to do so. Their failing, a lack of anticipation of how their enemies would react to their own global posturing cost them dearly; as the former three waged a war of countermeasures and one-upmanship in Europe, the Japanese clung desperately to romantic ideals that offered no satisfactory conclusion for them. And that was the fate of the Mitsubishi Zero at the hands of the United States Navy equipped with the F4U Corsair (and other types, need it be said).
Zero versus F4U = Japan versus the United States?