Quote:
Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman
It was the reason the Harrier could beat the Mirage. On paper the Mirage had all the advantages but when you take into account the harrier's unique characteristics the Argentines couldn't compete.
|
I think if the Harrier was that good, then a whole lot more would be in service. I think it's far more likely that the Harrier's success in the Falklands was due to the Argentines playing into it's strengths and not exploiting it's weaknesses.
Much the same was the case with the Zero early in the war in the Pacific. Allied pilots tried to dogfight it like any other fighter and suffered for t. The two main keys to dealing with the Zero were to not try to out-turn it* or to out-climb it. It's weaknesses? It had virtually no protection for the pilot or fuel tanks (most Allied fighters were better protected). It was slower than many Allied land-based fighters in level flight (the P-40 was 20-30 mph faster, depending on models being compared) and couldn't keep up with them in a dive (the P-40 could out-dive the Zero by about 125 mph).
The Zero was successful during most of 1942 not because it was the best plane, but because Allied pilots played into it's strengths and often failed to exploit it's weaknesses. I think much the same can be said of the Harrier vs Mirage.
* At low speeds, anyway. As the Zero's speed decreased, it's turning ability declined, until at around 350 mph when a P-40 could out-turn it.