Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190 (1 Viewer)

[Elvis]

Someone smarter than me will reply soon, but I thought I read somewhere the P40E Allison air intake was up high out of the worst dust? Wasn't the Spitfire air intake down lower where dust was worst?

Not necessarily "smarter", but I do know a picture says 1000 words....

Allison V-1710-39

Merlin V-1650-7

Hope that helps.


Elvis

 

[Old Wizard]

 

[Wawny]

It may be listed earlier in this thread, I haven't read the whole thing, but have you seen the mock combat between a P40E and Spitfire V with the tropical air filter? This is copied and pasted. Again, if someone told me this I would have not believed it until I read this account.

The tests were conducted over 3rd to 5th of November 1942, at the No.2 Operational Training Unit in Mildura - a very hot dry open locale in western Victoria. Oversighting the tests was Wing Cmdr. Peter Jeffrey; the actual test pilots beng:
Flying the P-40E - Flt. Lt. Arthur and Flt.Lt. Jackson.
Flying the Spitfire Mk.Vc - Flt. Lt. Foster and Flt Lt. Wawn.
All pilots involved were experienced combat pilots, with Arthur, Jeffrey, Foster and Jackson all being aces - Foster (9) flying Spitfires over Europe, Arthur (8) and Jeffrey's (6) flying P-40's in the Western Desert and Jackson (5) flying the P-40 against the Japanese over Port Moresby, New Guinea.

The results of the tests were as follows:

1. The Spitfire was fitted with a Volkes Filter

2. As the Spitfire was fitted with VHF, and the P-40 with HF, no R/T between them could be used.

3. The Spitfire tested suffered from negitive 'G' cutout, a typical Spitfire trait.

4. The Tests were carried out at heights between ground level and 20,000ft.

5. Results:
a) Spitfire had the greater rate of climb at all heights - the difference becoming greater as height increased above 13,000ft.
b) Spitfire is far more manoeuvrable at all heights.
c) Kittyhawk is faster in level speed from 0 to 16,000ft. Above 16,000ft Spitfire is faster and again the difference becomes greater as height increases. Estimated speed advantage of Kittyhawk up to 16,000ft: 0ft - 15mph; 12,000ft - 20 to 25mph; 16,000ft - 5 to 10mph.
d) Kittyhawk accelerates, both in dive and on increase of throttle on the level, far more quickly than the Spitfire.

6) Combat 1 - commenced at 13,000ft (equal height) and lasted for 5 to 7 minutes, in which time the fight was practically a stalemate. At the end of this period height was reduced to 4,000ft when the Kittyhawk pilots decided he had nothing to gain by staying and so broke off by diving away. Thus, in combat up to 16,000ft, the Kittyhawk has the distinct advantage in that the pilot can commence the fight and discontinue it at will. In such a combat the Kittyhawks tactics are to hit and run, and then come again.

7) Combat 2 - commenced at 20,000ft (equal height) and lasted less than 2 minutes. Spitfire quickly gained dominate position on the tail of the Kittyhawk and couldn't be shaken. Kittyhawk pilot broke off by diving away.

8) Combat 3 - Commenced at 16,000ft (height advantage to Kittyhawk) an lasted 14 minutes. Kittyhawk made repeated dive and zoom attacks with the Spitfire alternatively breaking hard to avoid and climbing for advantage where possible. Fight reduced to 9,000ft with neither pilot gaining a decisive advantage.

9) Combat 4 - Commence at 16,000ft (height advantage to Spitfire) and lasted 11 minutes. Spitfire pounced on Kittyhawk and attempted to gain a position on tail. Kittyhawk used speed advantage in first level flight and then shallow dive to gain separation and then climb for advantage. Spitfire countered by climbing hard. Gaining advantage Spitfire used climb and dive tactics to force the Kittyhawk to make repeated diving breaks to avoid. At 7,000ft Kittyhawk used superior roll rate to scissor behind the Spitfire, who countered with steep climb. Kittyhawk then used speed advantage to again gain separation and fight was broken off.

10) Visions - the vision in the Spitfire with the hood closed is better than the Kittyhawk, but it is a definte disadvantage that the hood cannot be opened at speeds above 160mph particulary when searching up-sun.

11) The flying characteristics of the Spitfire make it more suitable for Operations:
a) it is easier to fly.
b) Take-off run is much shorter and so could be operated from smaller landing grounds. Note - ithe Spitfire does not handle hard dirt strips as well as the Kittyhawk.
c) Mixture and boost are automatically controlled.
d) It is not necessary, as it is in the Kittyhawk, to alter rudder and elevator trims over great speed changes.

All these facts greatly reduce the pilot's problems and so increase his fighting efficiency.

The report concluded by recommending that as the large Volkes air filter on the Spitfire cost 20-30mph in top speed, it should be removed inoperational service - or at least an alternative found. Also mentioned was the effect of the Spitfires rough paint finish on performance but the general feeling of the report was that the Spitfire was perahps the better fighter, especially at altitude.

The report also mentioned being surprised at just how well the Kittyhawk managed to hold it's own against the Spitfire in combat, concluding that in combat against an opponet it highlights the importance of using one's aircraft strengths to advantage.

Hi
Interesting reading here. Bardie Wawn was my father (died 1990). He was credited with ~4 3/4 so just under 'Ace' by definition. He had many probables noted.
FYI, he was involved in trials at Eagle Farm, Brisbane against a Japanese 'Hap' Zero Mk 2 fighter. Quite an intense trial by all accounts.
Interesting to note that when he landed, it was discovered that he'd put a 9 deg bend in the tail of his Spitfire.
Dad was also involved in the trialling of the original Cotton 'G' suit, designed by Professor Cotton, Sydney.

 

[Wawny]

Hi
Interesting reading here. Bardie Wawn was my father (died 1990). He was credited with ~4 3/4 so just under 'Ace' by definition. He had many probables noted.
FYI, he was involved in trials at Eagle Farm, Brisbane against a Japanese 'Hap' Zero Mk 2 fighter. Quite an intense trial by all accounts.
Interesting to note that when he landed, it was discovered that he'd put a 9 deg bend in the tail of his Spitfire.
Dad was also involved in the trialling of the original Cotton 'G' suit, designed by Professor Cotton, Sydney.

He also flew Kittyhawks in 76 Sq RAAF in Milne Bay during the Battle for Australia 1942

 

[grampi]

"However going into a Dogfight with the Zero was stupid,"

Ya, I have to agree on that, Zero was a superior dogfighter, probably the best dogfither.

Depends on your definition of "dogfighting". If you mean using tactics that favor the Zero, i.e. slow speed maneuvering, turning , etc, then yes, I agree, the Zero was the best at that. But why would any pilot flying a plane that is faster in both level flight and in a dive, and zoom climbs better, has better armourment, and is more sturdily built (which most fighters of that time were) get into a slow speed tangle with a Zero? There was absolutely no reason to do that. Why wouldn't a pilot always use his speed and fire power advantage against a Zero? That would be like Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard fighting again, but this time Hagler insists that Leonard can only stand in the middle of the ring and fight him toe to toe...he can't use his superior boxing skills, he must fight Hagler's fight...that would be totally stupid on Leonard's part...same goes for fighting against the Zero...you fight using YOUR tactics, not his....

 

[GregP]

If you can ...

The other guy is trying his best to make you do the opposite of what you want to do, and sometimes he may be better than you.

Against Saburo Sakai, most would have been outmatched.

 

[BiffF15]

Depends on your definition of "dogfighting". If you mean using tactics that favor the Zero, i.e. slow speed maneuvering, turning , etc, then yes, I agree, the Zero was the best at that. But why would any pilot flying a plane that is faster in both level flight and in a dive, and zoom climbs better, has better armourment, and is more sturdily built (which most fighters of that time were) get into a slow speed tangle with a Zero? There was absolutely no reason to do that. Why wouldn't a pilot always use his speed and fire power advantage against a Zero? That would be like Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard fighting again, but this time Hagler insists that Leonard can only stand in the middle of the ring and fight him toe to toe...he can't use his superior boxing skills, he must fight Hagler's fight...that would be totally stupid on Leonard's part...same goes for fighting against the Zero...you fight using YOUR tactics, not his....

Grampi,

I think hindsight can be a wonderful thing. In reality I don't think our guys were trained properly in theory or hands on. They were part of a military exploding in size but not experience, using less than optimum equipment, fighting giants (Zeros) far from home. They learned eventually but it took time, effort, and lives.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[stona]

If you can ...

The other guy is trying his best to make you do the opposite of what you want to do, and sometimes he may be better than you.

Yep. The most important factor was most often the human at the controls.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Cosmotabis]

"the spit's got the zero beat........."

I believed Zero actually outclassed Spitfire in early Pacific war, due to its superior dog fight and its unbelieved long range capability.

"The British fared no better than the Americans did. The RAF squadrons stationed in Malaya were flying the American Brewster Buffalo; a short barrel shaped fighter that was outmoded before it reached the front. Aware of its lack of performance the British had banished the fighter to Burma, away from combat with the superior German Bf-109. The general impression was that the Japanese had nothing but outdated biplanes that would not be a match for the Brewster fighter. When the British Buffaloes came in contact with the A6M they were sliced to ribbons.

To reduce their losses the RAF decided to replace the outmatched Buffalo with the more formidable Hawker Hurricane, famed for its decisive role in the Battle of Britain. Unfortunately, its pilots also found that fighting a Zeke on its terms was practically hara-kiri. Finally, the British threw their best at the Japanese, the fabled Supermarine Spitfire. To the Allies dismay, this fighter also could not compare with the incredibly nimble Zero. In only two engagements, Zeros downed 17 of 27 while losing 2 of their own.

It seemed the A6M was an unstoppable juggernaut. It soon gained the reputation of being invincible. Everywhere it was encountered, the Zero vanquished its enemies."

-http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm

The Zero was an excellent dogfighter in the early stages of the war and arguably one of the most important planes at the outbreak of the war in the Pacific theatre.
By the end of the war, the US P-51D Mustang, and later models of the UK Supermarine Spitfire are good examples of planes that had been developed and improved throughout the course of the war and far outclassed the Zero, which had been virtually unchanged from its first appearance.

At the beginning of the war there was one fighter that was markedly superior to the Zero and the Oscar (the Japanese army fighter that was similar to the Zero)
That was the P-38 Lighting.
The superiority of the Zero/Oscar over others was in these areas
Acceleration
Climb
Initial dive speed
Turn rate under 250 mph
stall speed
pilot knowledge
PILOT KNOWLEDGE
This was critical. The Japanese knew everything the Germans knew. All the data from the European war was transmitted to the Japanese by the Germans. The Japanese knew exactly what every allied type could do and many US types were used by the British. The P-40 and the Wildcat were used by the British. They had used the information to plan fighter tactics.
The British and US knew essentially nothing about the Zero/Oscar except for Clair Chenault's reports which they apparently ignored.
LIMITATION OF TURN RATE
What was not known was that over 250 mph the Zero's turn rate dropped off and it became increasingly hard to turn due to the size f it's flaps so that an aircraft that kept the fight above 270 mph was in fact able to turn with or inside a Zero.
Until this fact was known the Zero and Oscar were very deadly in any turning engagement. They could and did usually dominate any other allied aircraft in a turning fight.
ACCELERATION
The light weight of the aircraft enabled it to have such a great acceleration and climb and initial dive that it could simply accelerate away on the flat or in a dive or climb away from almost all allied types when it found itself in an unfavorable situation.
STALL SPEED
In a climb or hard turning engagement the Zero or Oscar will stall at a slower speed than all allied types and can keep turning or climbing until the allied fighter stalls out and goes into an uncontrollable spin. The Zero then kills it.
THE ASPIRIN FOR THE HEADACHE
Only one allied fighter could counter it consistently in the first year of the war. No not a Spitfire at all. The P-38 Lightning. The Mark 5 Spitfire was no better it was slower in acceleration and climb and unable to match the turn rate below 260 MPH.
P-38 simply massacred these Japanese fighters from day one. While individual pilots may have tried to turn in with a Zero and lost the P-38 pilots were taught never to do it in general tactical doctrine. The P-38 was not designed as a turning fighter in the first instance though it could turn well. It was designed to be the fastest the highest flying and the best accelerating climbing and diving fighter. The pilots knew what they were and and used it. It turned out to be a combination tat was just out of the Zero's price range.
The P-38 was really the first time the US air force decided to build a fighter that was technologically superior to everyone else. In the mid 30's Britain Germany Japan France Italy and the Soviets were putting out design requirements for future short range fighters with short ranges and top speeds of 300 mph. The US Army Air Force decided on a high altitude long range interceptor with a top speed of 400 mph and had to be agile as well.
This really pushed the envelope of the possible but it was done. The aircraft had big teething issues in Europe due to the cold temperatures and no cockpit heating and the low octane rating of the fuel causing really bad engine reliability rates. The aircraft suffered more crashes due to engine failures than enemy action. The two engines did not help at first because the pilots could not handle the high performance aircraft going from 300 hp trainer to a 2,400 hp twin engine monster.
The other big problem was the aircraft was so fast in a dive the air broke the sound barrier over the control surfaces that the flaps failed to work and the P-38s dived into the ground and nobody knew why. The pilots were terrified of the aircraft until all this got sorted out but it took a year to 18 months for all the issues to totally be resolved in Europe. The problem of trying to get cutting edge new aircraft into service in the middle of battles in a new environment.
But in the warmer Pacific with high octane fuel the thing was a beast.
Later in the war when the Japanese fighters high speed turn limitations were known P-38 pilots did use more turning in engagements but did it at speeds over 300 mph and held a turning advantage over the Japanese aircraft at those speeds.
But they did not need to. The P-38 was an energy fighter. Boom and Zoom that type of fighter was called. The best there was at the time and they climbed higher and harder and dived faster. They could sit at higher altitude and decide when to fall on a Zero and the centrally mounted firepower meant they had a massive firepower advantage over a wing mounted gun fighter. They had a higher power to weight ratio could out accelerate and out climb a Zero and they were 100 mph faster in level flight and had an altitude advantage.
The surviving Japanese ace who's name I keep looking up and then forget wrote in his memoirs how he hated those P-38's and the helpless feeling of struggling to try to get up to their altitude and then seeing one just lazily peel off and plummet down and a Zero/Oscar or bomber would explode and the American would just keep going down like a rocket through the formation and then when clear climb away safely to altitude and then hang above them again like a vulture choosing another prey.
The only saving element for the Japanese was that the P-38's were quite limited in numbers and many were being sent to Europe. By far the most Army fighters were the P-39 and P-40.
The SW Pacific Air Force commander (New Guinea) Gen Kenny wrote the command in the USA requesting every P-38 that was available to be sent urgently. However the bombers needed them in Europe. So he got what he got but they were doing a 10 to 1 victory rate even at the beginning of the war when the Zero was at it's best.
The story of both the Zero and the P-38 separately and together back before radar missiles and stealth was to have a dominant envelope and to only fight in that envelope.
The Zero was in medium to low speed turning fights the P-38 was in high speed climb and dive attacks. In the wash up it proved climb and dive was superior. The air had a 3rd and 4th dimension pilots have to deal with, the vertical and the vector of acceleration. High speed and altitude are king in the air. It allows a pilot the option to attack or to just avoid combat if the offs are against him. A slower aircraft with lower ceiling has to take what comes. This is bad juju.
Back in WW1 this lesson was learned and highly agile fighters were being defeated by more powerful fighters that could climb dive and maintain airspeed better. Even back then the race was for more powerful engines and air frames that could cope with the power rather than tighter turns. Overall the war was won by the faster higher flying fighters even if battles might be won by better turning fighters.
The triplane fighters the Sopwith Triplane and the Focker Triplane were amazingly tight turning aircaft but were discontinued because of the drag imposing limits on their speed. The turning radius was useless if they could not catch a Se5a or a Focker Dv and it left them behind by 60 mph.
The amazing Sopwith Camel was a second string fighter after it's year in the sun because the less maneuverable in a flat turn Se5a was 50 mph faster and the Camel was used for trench strafing as it simply could not catch the new German fighters.
The Japanese knew these things too but they were hampered by their engine tech and they built a great set of fighters within the engine they had and taught their airmen how to use it.
The US had a good idea with their plans but cost cutting by congress changed their plans and the P-39 and the P-40 were built without the turbochargers on their engines they were designed to have. This showed up badly when they were pushed into the higher altitude fighter role because the P-38 had early teething and production problems being a very advanced design and so was not available in numbers. It was supposed to cover the other aircraft but lagged in availability.
The p-39′s and P-40′s did okay but it would have been interesting to see them with their designed turbochargers fitted and how that would have affected the fight.
Once the US and Britain and the Soviets began mass producing fighters with engines with 1,800 and then up to 2,600 hp twin supercharged monster engines coming into service the Zero and Oscar were decidedly second rate by mid 1943. They received upgrades but their upgraded engines were only 1130 hp and the fuel was low octane and they didn't even make their full power.
However if a new allied pilot was too aggressive and wanted a kill badly he might follow a Zero or Oscar wily old ace into a slow turning fight and nothing would save them then. So the aircraft remained dangerous if not treated with respect.
The Japanese built some very good fighters that were equal to the later allied fighters with very powerful engines but they could not build enough and had little fuel and not enough pilots as their training was also hampered by the oil shortage.

You stated opinion but not the facts.

Please original text in the link below,
Was the Japanese 'Zero' plane the best fighter plane during WWII overall? - Quora

How the US's Wildcat fighter plane held the line against the fearsome Japanese Zero during World War II

 

[tomo pauk]

<a truckload of popcorn appears in front of my house>

 

[fubar57]

Have some of mine Tomo....

 

[Admiral Beez]

The FW 190A would probably have torn the Zero to shreds.

Searched for some vids of these two. A bit of R/C fun...

 

[Clayton Magnet]

At the beginning of the war there was one fighter that was markedly superior to the Zero and the Oscar (the Japanese army fighter that was similar to the Zero)
That was the P-38 Lighting.

The "beginning of the war" was in 1939. The P-38 didn't see operational service for another 2.5 years.
And these are facts, not opinions

 

[Admiral Beez]

The "beginning of the war" was in 1939. The P-38 didn't see operational service for another 2.5 years.
And these are facts, not opinions

Forget the P-38, in September 1939 at the "beginning of the war" neither the Zero or Oscar were in service. The Zero was introduced in the summer of 1940, the Oscar not until the autumn of 1941, several months after the superior Fw 190 and the much faster and heavily armed Typhoon. If the latter can keep its tail on, the Japanese won't see it coming.

Perhaps he means the beginning of the Asian war? But to Chinese people, that's 1937.

 

[IdahoRenegade]

IMO this thread is greatly understating the biggest advantage the Zero had over the Spit. Range. The Zero had the ability to take the fight to Commonwealth airfields-while the Spit meant that Japanese air bases were safe from attack. Now, I'm neither a pilot and lack the knowledge of many on this forum, but this seems to me like a rather significant advantage. The ability to attack the enemies airfields, while yours are immune from attack, seems as if it would be a pretty major benefit. The Zero had the ability to go on the offense, while the Spitfire was a point-defense fighter. A very good point defense fighter however. Granted, when you don't need to worry about carrying a large fuel load or managing drag to extend range, it's a lot easier to build a capable fighter for that mission.

Concerning combat against the Zero, I suspect Spitfire pilots had been trained as maneuver pilots-dogfighters, which the Spit excelled at vs German fighters. But when faced with the Zero that out-performed the Spit in this particular realm, there was a learning curve. Basically pilots had to relearn much of what they had been trained for, and forced to learn "boom and zoom" tactics....the same as every other fighter that tackled the Zero. Now this is supposition-but given that they were primarily a point-defense fighter, and were forced to react to the enemy instead of dictating terms of engagement, I would guess (and would like input) that they were often in a position where they were down on energy with respect to the enemy. Specifically they would be climbing from lower altitude to an engagement altitude-and under those conditions, unable to "boom and zoom". The undeniable advantage of short-range fighter? If you are shot down-and manage to bail out-it's far better to do so over your airfield than over enemy territory.

 

[Elvis]

I think the Spitfire's lack of range could've been solved by the naval variant, The Seafire.
This would literally put the Spit on an aircraft carrier, where it could be brought within range of the Japanese bases.
I agree on the notion of British pilots "relearning" how to dogfight, in order to combat the Zero.
...I just wonder if they would've adopted the "Boom & Zoom" tactics that the Americans developed...or would they have figured something else out......

 

[pinsog]

The problem with the Spitfire V that fought those Zero's is they had no performance advantage. Below 20,000 feet they were actually a bit slower, climb was slightly in favor of the Spitfire but not enough to matter, and the Spitfire couldn't even dive away from the Zero because it accelerated too slowly in a dive. Most all US aircraft, even those generally outperformed by the Zero had some sort of escape plan, the P39 and P40 could both roll over and dive away (the P39 can't take many hits due to engine location) the Spitfire simply had no escape plan. I would rather fight a Zero in an Me109, they can 'bunt' into a dive and breakaway from a Zero at will.

 

[Conslaw]

The Zero was an excellent dogfighter in the early stages of the war and arguably one of the most important planes at the outbreak of the war in the Pacific theatre.
By the end of the war, the US P-51D Mustang, and later models of the UK Supermarine Spitfire are good examples of planes that had been developed and improved throughout the course of the war and far outclassed the Zero, which had been virtually unchanged from its first appearance.

At the beginning of the war there was one fighter that was markedly superior to the Zero and the Oscar (the Japanese army fighter that was similar to the Zero)
That was the P-38 Lighting.
The superiority of the Zero/Oscar over others was in these areas
Acceleration
Climb
Initial dive speed
Turn rate under 250 mph
stall speed
pilot knowledge
PILOT KNOWLEDGE
This was critical. The Japanese knew everything the Germans knew. All the data from the European war was transmitted to the Japanese by the Germans. The Japanese knew exactly what every allied type could do and many US types were used by the British. The P-40 and the Wildcat were used by the British. They had used the information to plan fighter tactics.
The British and US knew essentially nothing about the Zero/Oscar except for Clair Chenault's reports which they apparently ignored.
LIMITATION OF TURN RATE
What was not known was that over 250 mph the Zero's turn rate dropped off and it became increasingly hard to turn due to the size f it's flaps so that an aircraft that kept the fight above 270 mph was in fact able to turn with or inside a Zero.
Until this fact was known the Zero and Oscar were very deadly in any turning engagement. They could and did usually dominate any other allied aircraft in a turning fight.
ACCELERATION
The light weight of the aircraft enabled it to have such a great acceleration and climb and initial dive that it could simply accelerate away on the flat or in a dive or climb away from almost all allied types when it found itself in an unfavorable situation.
STALL SPEED
In a climb or hard turning engagement the Zero or Oscar will stall at a slower speed than all allied types and can keep turning or climbing until the allied fighter stalls out and goes into an uncontrollable spin. The Zero then kills it.
THE ASPIRIN FOR THE HEADACHE
Only one allied fighter could counter it consistently in the first year of the war. No not a Spitfire at all. The P-38 Lightning. The Mark 5 Spitfire was no better it was slower in acceleration and climb and unable to match the turn rate below 260 MPH.
P-38 simply massacred these Japanese fighters from day one. While individual pilots may have tried to turn in with a Zero and lost the P-38 pilots were taught never to do it in general tactical doctrine. The P-38 was not designed as a turning fighter in the first instance though it could turn well. It was designed to be the fastest the highest flying and the best accelerating climbing and diving fighter. The pilots knew what they were and and used it. It turned out to be a combination tat was just out of the Zero's price range.
The P-38 was really the first time the US air force decided to build a fighter that was technologically superior to everyone else. In the mid 30's Britain Germany Japan France Italy and the Soviets were putting out design requirements for future short range fighters with short ranges and top speeds of 300 mph. The US Army Air Force decided on a high altitude long range interceptor with a top speed of 400 mph and had to be agile as well.
This really pushed the envelope of the possible but it was done. The aircraft had big teething issues in Europe due to the cold temperatures and no cockpit heating and the low octane rating of the fuel causing really bad engine reliability rates. The aircraft suffered more crashes due to engine failures than enemy action. The two engines did not help at first because the pilots could not handle the high performance aircraft going from 300 hp trainer to a 2,400 hp twin engine monster.
The other big problem was the aircraft was so fast in a dive the air broke the sound barrier over the control surfaces that the flaps failed to work and the P-38s dived into the ground and nobody knew why. The pilots were terrified of the aircraft until all this got sorted out but it took a year to 18 months for all the issues to totally be resolved in Europe. The problem of trying to get cutting edge new aircraft into service in the middle of battles in a new environment.
But in the warmer Pacific with high octane fuel the thing was a beast.
Later in the war when the Japanese fighters high speed turn limitations were known P-38 pilots did use more turning in engagements but did it at speeds over 300 mph and held a turning advantage over the Japanese aircraft at those speeds.
But they did not need to. The P-38 was an energy fighter. Boom and Zoom that type of fighter was called. The best there was at the time and they climbed higher and harder and dived faster. They could sit at higher altitude and decide when to fall on a Zero and the centrally mounted firepower meant they had a massive firepower advantage over a wing mounted gun fighter. They had a higher power to weight ratio could out accelerate and out climb a Zero and they were 100 mph faster in level flight and had an altitude advantage.
The surviving Japanese ace who's name I keep looking up and then forget wrote in his memoirs how he hated those P-38's and the helpless feeling of struggling to try to get up to their altitude and then seeing one just lazily peel off and plummet down and a Zero/Oscar or bomber would explode and the American would just keep going down like a rocket through the formation and then when clear climb away safely to altitude and then hang above them again like a vulture choosing another prey.
The only saving element for the Japanese was that the P-38's were quite limited in numbers and many were being sent to Europe. By far the most Army fighters were the P-39 and P-40.
The SW Pacific Air Force commander (New Guinea) Gen Kenny wrote the command in the USA requesting every P-38 that was available to be sent urgently. However the bombers needed them in Europe. So he got what he got but they were doing a 10 to 1 victory rate even at the beginning of the war when the Zero was at it's best.
The story of both the Zero and the P-38 separately and together back before radar missiles and stealth was to have a dominant envelope and to only fight in that envelope.
The Zero was in medium to low speed turning fights the P-38 was in high speed climb and dive attacks. In the wash up it proved climb and dive was superior. The air had a 3rd and 4th dimension pilots have to deal with, the vertical and the vector of acceleration. High speed and altitude are king in the air. It allows a pilot the option to attack or to just avoid combat if the offs are against him. A slower aircraft with lower ceiling has to take what comes. This is bad juju.
Back in WW1 this lesson was learned and highly agile fighters were being defeated by more powerful fighters that could climb dive and maintain airspeed better. Even back then the race was for more powerful engines and air frames that could cope with the power rather than tighter turns. Overall the war was won by the faster higher flying fighters even if battles might be won by better turning fighters.
The triplane fighters the Sopwith Triplane and the Focker Triplane were amazingly tight turning aircaft but were discontinued because of the drag imposing limits on their speed. The turning radius was useless if they could not catch a Se5a or a Focker Dv and it left them behind by 60 mph.
The amazing Sopwith Camel was a second string fighter after it's year in the sun because the less maneuverable in a flat turn Se5a was 50 mph faster and the Camel was used for trench strafing as it simply could not catch the new German fighters.
The Japanese knew these things too but they were hampered by their engine tech and they built a great set of fighters within the engine they had and taught their airmen how to use it.
The US had a good idea with their plans but cost cutting by congress changed their plans and the P-39 and the P-40 were built without the turbochargers on their engines they were designed to have. This showed up badly when they were pushed into the higher altitude fighter role because the P-38 had early teething and production problems being a very advanced design and so was not available in numbers. It was supposed to cover the other aircraft but lagged in availability.
The p-39′s and P-40′s did okay but it would have been interesting to see them with their designed turbochargers fitted and how that would have affected the fight.
Once the US and Britain and the Soviets began mass producing fighters with engines with 1,800 and then up to 2,600 hp twin supercharged monster engines coming into service the Zero and Oscar were decidedly second rate by mid 1943. They received upgrades but their upgraded engines were only 1130 hp and the fuel was low octane and they didn't even make their full power.
However if a new allied pilot was too aggressive and wanted a kill badly he might follow a Zero or Oscar wily old ace into a slow turning fight and nothing would save them then. So the aircraft remained dangerous if not treated with respect.
The Japanese built some very good fighters that were equal to the later allied fighters with very powerful engines but they could not build enough and had little fuel and not enough pilots as their training was also hampered by the oil shortage.

You stated opinion but not the facts.

Please original text in the link below,
Was the Japanese 'Zero' plane the best fighter plane during WWII overall? - Quora

How the US's Wildcat fighter plane held the line against the fearsome Japanese Zero during World War II

By the summer of 1942, the P-38 was in operation in the Aleutians and Iceland. Even thought the P-38 was in theory available at the beginning of the war, as a practical matter, it wasn't available in combat zones as a fighter until Fall 1942. According to General Kenney's autobiography, "Air War in the Pacific", the first P-38s delivered to the Southwest Pacific theater were not ready for deployment when they were received. They were grounded or kept out of combat for several months while defects were being remedied. I don't have the book in front of me, but IIRC it was October or November 1942 that they flew the first combat missions. The first P-38s to reach Guadalcanal were ready November 1942, just too late for most of the crucial battles. Against the Germans, P-38s arrived in England, ran a few work-up missions, then were diverted to North Africa. P-38s started combat in North Africa also in November 1942.

 

[PAT303]

The problem with the Spitfire V that fought those Zero's is they had no performance advantage. Below 20,000 feet they were actually a bit slower, climb was slightly in favor of the Spitfire but not enough to matter, and the Spitfire couldn't even dive away from the Zero because it accelerated too slowly in a dive. Most all US aircraft, even those generally outperformed by the Zero had some sort of escape plan, the P39 and P40 could both roll over and dive away (the P39 can't take many hits due to engine location) the Spitfire simply had no escape plan. I would rather fight a Zero in an Me109, they can 'bunt' into a dive and breakaway from a Zero at will.

You base that on the fight over Darwin, had the RAAF been supplied with brand new MkV's with 16 psi rated Merlin 45's the Zero's equality would have been non existent, Mk 11 Spits would have been even better in my opinion, being more maneuverable and the 303's putting out more lead per sec firing time.

 

[PAT303]

IMO this thread is greatly understating the biggest advantage the Zero had over the Spit. Range. The Zero had the ability to take the fight to Commonwealth airfields-while the Spit meant that Japanese air bases were safe from attack.

You need to remember that the Zero's range came from flying very slow over open ocean, combined with no armour, radio, self sealing tanks and weak guns, they were good planes early on in the war but were proved to have glass jaws very quickly.