they all there good sides and bad sides 

But another thing, at the start of the war, the Japanese pilots were some of the most skilled pilots in the world, flying some of the best planes in the world.  The Zero was more than a match to anything the Americans could put up against it.  The Kate was a stable level bombing and torpedo platform, dropping arguably one of the best, if not the best torpedo in the war and the Val was a stable dive bombing platform.

However, as those who have studied this stuff know, the Japanese had serious flaws in their doctrine.  Their fixation on the attack led them to build aircraft that sacrificed defensive technologies to favor attack technologies.  The Betty bomber was nicknamed the "Flying Zippo" because the Japanese didn't consider it important to use armor and self-sealing fuel tanks in their planes.

The Zero was a nimble plane, but you just needed to get a few good shots in, and it was done for.  It's airframe was light and there was no armor for the pilot and no self sealing fuel tanks.  Contrast that to the F4 Wildcat.  It had a very rugged airframe, self sealing fuel tanks and armor for the pilot.  In his book, Samurai, Saburo Sakai mentioned how he worked over a Wildcat over Guadalcanal really bad.  He saw how pathetic the pilot looked and spared him.  If my memory serves me correctly, that was a Navy Wildcat and the pilot's name was Pugh.  But that was a testement to the ruggedness of the Wildcat.  If you drew smoke from a Zero over Guadalcanal, there stood a very good chance it wasn't making it back to Rabaul.

You have to remember that most of the US tactics were from RAF experience (particularly from Eagle Sqn. pilots who went directly into the USAAF), you have to remember that most of the RAF experience came from watching the Germans.
You can't say anyone is better than the other without appearing to be an ignoramous. No-one had better tactics, they just went with what they had and adapted accordingly...
But the Soviets weren't all that hot, by the time of Korea they'd learnt all the lessons of WWII

I think the discussion of tactics can be expanded into a general discussion of diverging doctrines and conduct during the war.  For example, originally, when the Japanese conquerored a land, they attempted to implement a policy of "Asia for asians".  But unfortunately, it ended up descending into a practice of brutality.  Now, this brutality toward various islanders was just an extension of brutality within the ranks of the Japanese Army.  Officers routinely brutalized conscripts for some of the most minor offenses.  Such matter of course gives a degree of explaination for events such as tThe Bataan Death March and the Rape of Nanking.  But I digress...

Given this condition, we have an atmosphere created by the Japanese where the various islanders hated their Japanese occupiers.  So they did what they could, such as harbor and aide Australian and British coast watchers.  Call this, Henderson's early warning system.  Cactus almost always had over an hour's early warnings of "bogies heading yours".  They had a chance of getting up to altitude and setting up the best position to bounce the Japanese formations.

Also, considering the previous discussion of how the Japanese treated the natives, they never had such help.  And if they tried to set up an early warning system, it was almost always set up in hostile territory.  So the Japanese were almost always surprised when Mitchells suddenly showed up dropping parafrags overhead, etc.

This was one of many self-imposed disadvantages the Japanese set up for themself.

Dcunning30 I'am surprise how much you know about the Pacific war. Not every one knows that much detail about that war. I think the Pacific war is one of the most interesting war in Modern history.

I"am not saying that its more intresting than the European Theater. To me they are both facinating.

One thing that I want to bring out is for all of us to keep in mind is that not every thing officialy written in history books is the obsolute truth.

That apllies even more to the Pacific war than the European since it was our personal war. This war was the most vicous and personal, racist war in American history.

We had necesaty to feel superial to this non European challenger at any cost.

In the End thru the many sacrificies and bravery of our men we where able to beat Imperial Japan.

By down playing our enemy ability in the Pacific we have only demean the effort and sacrificest of our men had to endure to acomplish VJ day.

James007

And another thing, Japan had absolutely no business going to war with the US.  This is the stuff of a whole new discussion, but read this link.  I think it will astonish you.

This guy shares my facination with the Pacific War, and I can't hold a candle to him. His name is John Toland.  His level of knowlege is scary.  I once got into a debate with him about Midway, and he spanked me pretty bad.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Dccunning you brought up a great subject. Due to the hostility and brutality of the Axis power toward the inhabitans of the occupied contries.

They lost what ever little support they may have received from them.

Humanity always forget that you get more out of people with carrots than with a stick.

As for the best tatics it all depended in what area you meant. You have to take this subject in different levels.

If its Naval you have to give to credit where credit is due. Imperial Japan naval aviators early in the war were probably the best in training and skill in history.

As the war pregress we improved to a very high level of expertice.

Our tatics and leadership where the best in the World.

If you are talking about land tatical warfare. The Germans where the best in the World at the begning of the war. They where the first truely modern Airforce in the World as we understand it today.

We improve our tatical ability throughout the war and by the ending of the war our tatical techniques was even better than the Germans.

Our ability to cordinate ground attacks where nothing short of outstanding.

Long range Bombing is something  most people give us the credit fro being the best throughout the war.

In reality the Japanese where the first true long range Bombers expert at the begining of the war.

Their Bombing ability was most explicified during the long Raids to Chunking in the Chinese arial campaign of 1940.

Thats only one of many examples of our enemy not getting the due credit they deserved.

As the war developed we improved our tactical and stragestic capabilities to the highest level of any airforce.

Thank God we still hold that tradition.

The RAF was also pioneer in arial combat with very high competent officer and doctrines.

The RAF also had very good eqipment and skill pilots. They had only one big weakness. The Airforce was a bit too regimental and it lacked the flexibilties of changing tatics quickly enough to the conditions of a ever changing airwar.

They where also a bit consevative in the use of proper engagement rules.

They are many times that they would refuse to engage the enemy because they did not have the proper tatical advantage. They would go into a defensive formation instead of attacking the enemy.

This does not take from them any merits on their skill and courage against a powerful enemy when the World needed them the most.

The Russians are very hard to evaluate. Their history of this period is mingle with the most sofisticated desinformation machine in history.

All I can say at this point is  that they where very brave and fought very hard. We all owe them alot.

Individualy many of them where as good as any other of the best in the World.

Collectively they where never as skill or as well train as their conterpart in the West or Japan at their peak.

This is only a opinion.

James007