An WW2 debate that is sure to become off topic and irrelevant!

Screw it, I'm going to address every one of your last points from our previous argument. You state and quote from Japanese admiral "Gentlemen, we've kicked a rabid dog". I suppose this one admiral influences the decisions and opinions of the entire Japanese army and government, hmm? During the course of ww2, the U.S. Navy contained 88 small escort Fleet carriers, and 22 aircraft carriers, and many were carried over from the 20's and 30's. Still short 20 of the 137 you said, however. Are we using wikipedia as a resource again? I thought we agreed to not. Probably the greatest Naval aircraft to combat the zero was the F6F Hellcat. The Zero was superior to it in most ways. The Zero, depending on the variant, had two 20mm cannons, and 4 7.7mm machine guns. The F6F, depending on the variant, had between 4-6 12.7mm machine guns, overall the advantage in firepower goes to the Zero. The engine was superior, and the F6F's bulkiness made it slower and an easier target to hit. So we can agree that the Zero was superior to the Hellcat. This would grant the Japanese 1on1 air superiority, but the american war machine could pump out tanks and aircraft faster then you writing your name. Ok, some RAF pilots were veterans of WW1, fair enough. The same is the with the Luftwaffe. You claim that the treaty of Versaille cut the german military into pieces. Flying clubs were commissioned for the exact purpose of training recruits and veterans who to fly the new aircraft, and shooting them down. They never did quite stop. What makes you think that the Spitfire was superior to the Bf 109? And perhaps you forgot the Germans had Radar as well. You'r arguments on the nationality of the pilots of the Luftwaffe is completely ludicrous and un-researched, for the same reasons listed above. The Japanese did not fight bravely, they fought tenaciously. Japanese P.O.W's were the lowest out of every other nation, because they would fight the death, evidence of this has been recorded on just about every island the marines landed on. You say the British had heavy artillery batteries. What a coincidence! So did the germans. You claim that the Churchill was faster then the Panther, Tiger, Panzer 1 through 4, and just about every recon vehicle the germans had to offer? That's simply ridiculous, the Churchill had a top speed of 15 mph, let's do a quick comparison. The Tiger had a top speed of 26 mph, the Panther had a top speed of 29 mph, the Panzer 1 had a top speed of 31 mph, and the Panzer IV had a top speed of 26 mph. Everyone faster then the Churchill. The max speed of the Sherman was 30 mph, faster then some of the german tanks, but not all. So you're point over allied tank speed superiority is invalid. Also, I would love to know how you measure a tank engines noise. To put it bluntly, tank engines are noisy, it really doesn't count for anything saying some are quieter then others. Where does your 25 to 1 comparison come from? You can't make a pint by flashing numbers in my face without sources. So, It appears I've successfully countered your counters, made a few points on top of that. Sources, WW2 reference reference guide, WW2 aircraft resource, Military resource: World war 2. I would supply links but I don't know how. Darn technology!