Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the zero was not of extremely light constructions. it's true was outclassed in late '43 but all fighters that outclassed him were newest.
The Me 163B had been designed as a reconaisance aircraft interceptor, it was 'misused' to intercept bombers. The flaw in the Me 163B had already been ascertained as it was begining its first missions. It had too short an endurance, the pilots could intercept the bombers but needed a few more minutes to set up an ideal attack run. One solution was the New two chamber rocket which had a seperate boost and a smaller more efficient sustainer motor that significantly increased efficiency and range. The other was to increase the size of the aircraft to allow a higher proportion of fuel. The new designs were the Me 163C and Me 263 Ju 248.
Another international poll said Rickenbacker was the 2nd most important pilot in WW1 after Richhofenbut I don't think he was even in the top 10.
Zoomar i can use the flyboyj reply for the constructions question (and armour, ss are not construction). the zero first flight was 1939. was not totally obsolete in all '43, in '43 zero get also good results like in escort over darwin, take in the account that allied new fighters coming in '43 not full replace the oldest model in few days.
Zero was a long range carrier borne fighter, light, it's obvious a compromised design. The Spitfire not get good result v/s zero, the V over Darwin were mauled, late war seafire got nothing of exceptional v/s a "outclassed" plane. Also F4U early don't get one sided result, imho the trouble was not the Zero but the lower level of new japanese pilot (not that the slow speed of zero help, or the its small capacity in dive)
While I agree that the Zero was obsolete by '43, we must not forget that the Zero in expert hands was still capable, as demonstrated by Saburo Sakai over Iwo Jima in June of 1944.
I met Saburo Sakai in Scottsdale, Arizona, U.S.A. in the mid-1980's. He was very personable and a nice man. He got a ride in Bill Hane's P-51D at that time and was thrilled to not only fly in a Mustang, but also to fly in a piston fighter again. He enjoyed the day and had many good things to say, particularly that while the Japanese treated their captives harshly, they also did the same to their own people and soldiers. The times and attitudes were tending that way, and while it was not a good thing, that was the way things were at the time and he was a pilot who stuck to piloting as ordered. He never mistreated a subordinate, but DID handle normal disciplinary action for actual transgressions, and never HAD a prisoner of his own to treat well or badly ... he was a pilot, period.
In real life, he was a nice person , or at least he seemed that way at the time. I enjoyed his talk at the Doug Champlin Air Museum at Falcon Field, Mesa, Arizona.
I bought a print of him over Mount Fuji ina Zero, and he personally autographed it. Still have it. Neat guy!
I have read other accounts about Mr. Sakai which agree with you and I don't doubt that he, personally, did not abuse prisoners.
I was stationed in Japan in the late '60's and found the Japanese (of the war generation) were very reluctant to speak of their experiences during the war.
I spent several years stationed in Germany and found them to be much more forthcoming. I once stumbled into a small bar in Mannheim which was a hang out for Africa Corps Vets. After some initial awkwardness they actually welcomed us.
One funny thing though, I talked to many Germans (military and civilian) who lived through the war and was amazed that none of the veterans I spoke to (in the US section of Germany) had opposed the Americans - they all fought the Russians or Brits.
Even more amazing was when I spent some time in Dusseldorf (in the Brit. Zone) I was told by Brit. Soldiers that none of "their" Germans
fought the Brits - they all fought the Russians or Americans!
I haven't voted, nor will I, since, without flying (and fighting) in all of them (an impossibility,) how can anyone make a reasoned judgement? For the U.K., I'd put the likeliest candidates as the Manchester and Botha, which caused more trouble for their own side than the enemy.
Who rated the Manchester as even a good/reasonable aircraft . It was shrapnel from day oneI haven't voted, nor will I, since, without flying (and fighting) in all of them (an impossibility,) how can anyone make a reasoned judgement? For the U.K., I'd put the likeliest candidates as the Manchester and Botha, which caused more trouble for their own side than the enemy.