First of all, i didnt say the Spitfire was inferior to Zero
But in some ways the Spitfire was inferior to the Zero, like in a Turning dogfight at 300mph
But unlike the Zero, the Spitfire wouldnt fall apart almost immediately after being hit by a good spray of 50.cal's
Also the Zero's maneuverability would suffer somewhere between 15,000-20,000ft, the Spitfires wouldnt !
In a classic Dogfight, I would rather be in a Zero than in a Spitfire
But if the enemy pilot knows and utilizes the Hit and Run tactics supurbly, then I would much rather be sitting in a Spitfire
One of the more noticable weaknesses of the early Zero's, was that its engine would cut out in a dive. However later on when the A6M3 arrived this weakness had been corrected, along with other weaknesses such as pilots protection. But the Zero nomatter what model, would still fall apart relatively quickly if hit by a good spray of 50.cal's
Overall taking tactics into consideration, the Spitfire is the superior aircraft, as long as it didnt get into a Turn and burn dogfight with the Zero at an altitude below 16,000ft
We won airsuperiorty over the Japanees because we refused to play their game, and completely changed the rules of the game to our advantage.
We beat the Zero by completely changing the rules of the game. Sure if we would have continued to dogfight the damn thing, all of our fighters would have been blown out of the sky. But we learned quickly enough not to play their game. No Zero pilot could afford to make even one mistake. He would not survive it for the most part! Naval and Marine Corps history is full of instances where Grumman "Cats" or Vought Corsairs returned to their carriers or fields shot full of holes and with the armor plate dented from numerous slugs. No Zero pilot ever returned in that condition.
After the thach weave tactic was utilized by U.S. and RAAF pilots, the Zero's days were severely numbered, and it was this tactic that rendered the Zero almost obsolete