Ok, If B&Z is truly better way to fight and if speed is the dominate feature and let's say that Japanese were wrong for "holding on" to this failed stategy then the Brit's were/are also wrong right? Spits, Hurricanes are not B&Z or E-fighters.
Excellent question, 28sweep. One answer to that question is that the Spitfire was a very very capable plane in almost all aspects, not just in the horizontal plane, but also in the vertical. Compared with it's main rival - the Bf109 series - which is simular in many ways as to the fact that it was a plane designed in the 1930s and kept its 'originality' throughout the war by wide variety of evolution and adaptation, the Spit series were in fact not that inferior in BnZ performance.
The image of the Spitfire being a "TnB" plane is a popular misconception, because people compare the Spit5 or the Spit9 with late war monsters like the La-7, Bf109G-10, Yak-9U or the P-51D. When you compare it according to its adversaries of the same era - the SpitMkI to 109E-4, SpitMkV to 109F-4, and the SpitMkIX to the 190A-5 and the Bf109G-6 - you may well very notice that it is a close call. "BnZ" is a tactic that was to be carried out 'before' the battle began, not a tactic that could be applied after that. (The occasions we see in AH, ie. a Bf109G-10 comfortably gaining a huge altitude advantage even after it was bounced by a SpitMkIX, is only possible in AH conditions where a 1944 plane meets a 1942 plane) This is a bit different when we look at the Pacific theater. While the 109s and Spitfires were almost always closely matched in performance, the A6M5b which began service in 1943 was still doing only about 350~360mph, when USN Corsairs were breaking the 400mph.
Another reason is the two important attributes - speed and maneuverability - were not always mutually incompatible. While it is true in most cases that speed is more important than maneuverability, and strengthening the speed often came from the sacrifice of maneuverability, there were rare cases where speed and maneuverabilty didn't necessarily cancel each other out. The Spitfires were one of those rare cases where a plane could become faster and still retain much of its maneuverability. Therefore, the Spitfire cannot be called a 'mistake', rather, it was undoubtably an excellent choice. (If the RAF held on to the Hurricane as the main fighter for A2A purposes, THAT would have been a mistake)
Third reason is that the so called "BnZ" tactics were effective only in firmly disciplined situations. There would be many types of situations concerning air combat, and "BnZ" tactics can be utilized only when one side enters the combat area with a decisive alt advantage. In co-alt situations, the better maneuvering plane has the first immediate advantage. Since Spitfires of the ETO were not vastly inferior in speed or climb rates to their German adversaries of the same era, the maneuverabilty in this case became a huge advantage. Zekes, on the other hand, were vastly inferior in the speed category. The advantage in maneuverability was not enough to overcome the disadvantage in speed.
The reason "BnZ" is the wiser tactic, is because altitude advantage can put even the most inferior pilot in to an offensive. The most important factor is no doubt pilot skills, but this is something which is innate and cannot be objectively measured. (Besides, the super-aces, or elite squads are always a handful. 90% of pilots in all countries are in the same 'average' category) Therefore, deploying a tactic which predetermines the outcome before the battle even begins, is ofcourse, the best one there is.
Remember the old motto: "Provided two opponents are in simular skill level, the one with alt advantage may not be able to win, but at least he will never lose" .. and what can be more imortant than that in a war?
