It would be "nonsense" except I don't care a whit if people disagree with me on issues of personal opinion (for example, I'm not sure there is a God but I never argue this point with others and couldn't care if they believe God exists nor not) and in any event this isn't about my views on the subject but rather the collective existing body of academic knowledge on the subject readily and equally accessible to anyone with the interest.IronDuke wrote:Your post betrays your singular biggest problem which is your insistence that anyone who contradicts you must be either stupid or lying in support of another agenda. This is nonsense but does mean it is impossible to debate with you.
It more than "occurred" to me, it in fact was what prompted me to arrive at the "dirt stupid" conclusion.The most telling line is "From that I just naturally deduce that these people are either dirt-stupid and/or entertain some agenda other than the pursuit of truth for it's own sake." There is no indication here that the third possibility (which does "naturally" occur to the rest of us) that others may have read the same facts and drawn another (perhaps better) conclusion has so much as occured to you.
Then you must be dirt stupid, too.My direct answer to your direct question, therefore ("Which do you think it is?") is "neither" because I don't accept there are only two possible answers.
Enjoy.
You're babbling.Even here you've not felt able to pay Mdiehl an unqualified compliment for his views where they agree with your own. You have qualified it by saying "in the case of the zero issue at least has his facts in order". Once again, we are drawn to assume that elsewhere, you have taken exception to his views, but unable to accept disagreement you have decided his contrary argument is caused by him not having his facts in order, not that he has merely interpreted the same facts differently.
My views of Mdiehl and his work are totally inconsequential to this argument re "Zero" supremacy. Also, my qualifier re Mdiehl's fact with regard to the "Zero" discussion only wanted to address that issue and nothing more. Anything you choose to read between the lines is on you.
Is that so? Then stand prepared to learn something: my facts are in order, too, and I never write frivolously, at least not as a rule and never thus far in the Matrix forum.My experience of Mdiehl is that, whilst I think his arguments could sometimes be more sympathetically worded, facts are not an issue, he doesn't turn up without them.
This, in essence, is why it is not unknown for your threads to lose sight of the debate and become a tad fractious.
In point of fact, and as I understand him, Mdiehl tends to limit the sharing of his "insight" apparently for the reason he feels this will allow him to better "reach" the general audience in this forum. That is, he is senstive to the notion that by "rubbing" you people the wrong way with a more direct presentation such as mine his message (which he holds to have greater value over any personal feelings he might entertain on some other score) will end up completely ignored in spite of its accurate character. And so he "peddles it softly."
To this extent he "dumbs it down" to the forum's mean level.
Now my experience is this "soft shoe" approach doesn't work here any more or better than the same teaching philosophy works in grade school, but what do I know? No matter, Mdiehl is free to proceed as he best sees fit. As am I.
Through February of 1943 that might or might not represent a fair (workable) kill ratio. It certainly would respresent a kill ratio more in line with historical "truth" than what the UV model suggests.Returning to the topic in hand, MikeB20 and Frag have made valid points. For myself, I would only say that elsewhere on these forums Mdiehl has suggested that an exchange rate of around 1.1 in dogfights between the Zero and Wildcat is not wildly out of tune with history. Everything else I say, therefore, accepts this starting point as I'm happy to accept his facts are in order.
Your reasoning is fallacious overall; it also fails to take into account certain relative factors such as the respective ordnance hitting values (the difference in mass of the projectiles in question was significant) of "Zero" and Wildcat guns, amount of ammunition on board, rate of fire, actual hit frequencies, plus the vast disparity which existed between these two planes' build qualities, not only in terms of how much of the plane could be shot away and still fly home but with the gas tanks in mind as well.Now, since the armour and armament of the Wildcat was heavier than the zero, logic suggests that far more Wildcats survived hits from a Zero than Zeros survived hits from a Wildcat during combat manouevres. (I don't want to get into a discussion about what constitutes Dogfighting). Therefore, to achieve a kill ratio of roughly comparable proportions suggests (not proves, merely suggests, this is a debate after all) that Zeros must have hit more Wildcats than Wildcats hit Zeros since Wildcats would have survived such hits more often.
I don't, by the way, pretend to have answers to all those questions implied, just wanted to point out there's a lot going on in an air battle which determines kill ratios.
Regarding final surviability I agree. The Japanese were at a distinct disadvantage because of the long trip home. They were at an equal disadvantage (though less absolute in nature) with regard to endurance over target in the lower Solomons--again, this is why they hurried to build the strip on Munda.Mike's point about Homebase distances over Guadalcanal further accentuates this point.
It didn't help any.Whether this was down to Pilot skill or aircraft handling characteristics, I don't know for sure. I tend to agree with those that suggest that the loss of the early war Japanese pilots must have had an effect on the kill ratios.
Not much better. They were already becoming exhausted from constant flying just over Guadacanal. Imagine the same pilots flying virtually the same airplanes another year down the war road.That is not the same as suggesting those pilots would have won air superiority armed with the later generation Japanese planes, merely that they would have given a better account of themselves.
I'm glad you appended this last note of intent.My apologies in advance if my comments sound as if they are attempting to excuse the actions of the wartime AXIS leadership. That is not my intention.
I don't believe the so-called "fanboys" (at least I don't wish to believe it) are in any sense pro-Axis but rather enamored with the prospect of "ruling the skies" with their precious "Zeroes" in the Pacific and "trampling under the treads of their prized panzers" crazy Ivan over the Russian steppes and so on. It's immature behavior but not anything that necessarily suggests Axis sympathy per se.
What I do object to is that this same element tends to congregate on forums such as this in round numbers and just drown out other, less stringent and more studied voice, to the ultimate detriment of product. To that extent I hold these types to be part of the recreational-software developmental problem.
Anyway, in general your post seems well meant and you're mainly polite in manner so thanks.
