|
mdiehl -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 2:03:40 AM)
|
[:D]
Would too many heads explode in complete confusion if I mount a defense of the Zero?
It wasn't an aircraft that would win a long war. It was an aircraft that gave the Japanese the ability to extend air superiority to some pretty distant places during the "expansion period" from Dec 1941 through April 1942. You don't need to shoot down enemy fighters to be effective, you merely need to provide good cover for your own operations (so that enemy bombers can't show up) and be able to strategically isolate enemy forward bases (so that you can grind them down by whatever means). If the Japanese had fielded a.c. like the ones the Allies used, their ability to strategically isolate places like Indonesia, the Philippines, and lower Burma (with Ki-43s) would have been greatly reduced. I think their losses to grinding attrition would have been far more damaging from the outset.
Not to mention that raids like Pearl Harbor and Darwin would have been far less likely. Kido Butai did not use the zero's surplus combat radius (as compared with American a.c.) against American TFs largely because the farther you have to fly the less likely you are to find your target. But when your target is fixed and immobile, like a port or an airfield, that range makes a big difference. Had KB to sail closer to Hawaii, its odds of detection would have been far greater, and the odds of taking the US Pacfleet (and more importantly, Ford and Hickam fields) by surprise that much lower.
At least that's how I see it.
For a nation that started the war with inadequate shipping to meet production goals and also provide logistical support, the Zero was a pretty good choice because it economized materials and fuel, while providing great strategic offensive flexibility. The one thing it did not economise on was pilots, but Japan wasn't going to win a long war anyhow, not even with any of the a.c. that they deployed later in the war.
|
|
|
|
