urbanhawk28 said:A fighter's true value lies in its agility rather than its armor. We saw this play out clearly during the development of combat aircraft throughout WWII; the design philosophy shifted toward prioritizing speed and raw firepower over heavy plating.
The armor was engineered specifically for bombers and ground attackers. In that regard, the Zero was ahead of its time.
Armor is a critical factor—it’s essentially the difference between a fighter disintegrating from a single 7.7mm round or actually walking away from several 20mm shell hits. There are even documented instances where fighters were downed at Pearl Harbor by small arms fire, like rifles or machine guns used by infantry. Take the P-47, for example; it was incredibly rugged, but it paid for that durability with maneuverability. Because of its size and heavy plating, it weighed in at around 7 tons. Meanwhile, the Zero had to be stationed on carriers, which meant it had to stay as light and agile as possible. You can find more details on the Zero over here...
Check out this breakdown of fighter aircraft: http://www.acepilots.com/planes/jap_fighters.html
urbanhawk28 said:Let’s skip the discussion about the outdated F2A Buffalo. It wasn't even featured prominently in the film—likely because it just doesn't look impressive enough on screen. While it might have had decent armor (the "A" designation suggests it was used as an attack aircraft), that didn't do much good when facing enemy fighter cannons or light anti-aircraft fire from the ground.
If I recall correctly, the F2A Buffalo was primarily a naval aircraft stationed on carriers—though, as I remember, they weren't present at Pearl Harbor during the attack. From what I know, it was quickly phased out in favor of the F4A Wildcat, the F4U Corsair, and eventually the F6 Hellcat.
urbanhawk28 said:Those planes might have been useful against the enemy bombers—especially the torpedo bombers, which were sitting ducks out there—but they were being guarded by Zeros.
To understand the scale of the struggle, you have to look at the sheer weight of the circumstances stacked against the Americans from the jump. It wasn't just a matter of equipment; it was a massive deficit in experience. Our pilots were essentially stepping onto the field with raw nerves and unproven skills, facing off against veteran flyers who already had years of combat under their belts from campaigns across China and Southeast Asia. They weren't just fighting an enemy; they were fighting a seasoned, battle-hardened machine while still trying to figure out how to fly in a war zone.
I might be off base here, but I find it hard to believe any pilot from central China would fly halfway around the world just to drop a single torpedo or bomb on Pearl Harbor. Besides, toward the end of the war, it was the veteran fighter pilots defending the USA, while the missions over the Pacific Ocean were mostly handed off to rookies and kamikazes.
urbanhawk28 said:👎 The data—American data, which suggests reality might have been even bleaker—indicates that we lost roughly ten times more aircraft than the USA did. If it weren't for the fact that their carriers were nowhere to be found, they might have wiped out our entire fleet. Apparently, the perceived threat from those carriers was enough to make them call off a third wave of attacks.
You can find the casualty reports for both sides regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor right here:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps.../18charts1.htm
On another note, I think we’ve drifted a bit too far into off-topic territory. This thread is meant to be about the movie, not a deep dive into military history or technical specs... And frankly, I’d rather not see this devolve into an endless argument.
🙄