Maneuverability vs Speed

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Yeah no, the Lee Enfield wasn't a bohemoth with five round magazine, it's a very robust, reliable, very quick firing, very quick reloading rifle, I have three of them and use them for culling Camels, an introduced pest were I live as well as competition shooting. Having owned and shot many if not all WW1 WW2 rifles from around the world I'd suggest calling the SMLE anything but a riflemans rifle wrong, the Arisaka on the other hand is a clumsy ill fitting rifle much like the Cacarno, I'd go as far as saying having carried both that the designers of them had never handled a rifle before. The Mauser, I also have three is without question the greatest turn bolt design there is, so good in fact almost everything made today is a version of it.

I don't mean it was a bad rifle, none of them were - Enfield, Springfield 1903, Mauser k98, MAS-36... even the Mosin-Nagant. I have shot all of these weapons myself and owned more than one of them. But they were all pretty simple bolt action rifles with 5 round internal magazines. They weren't very sophisticated, or particularly miles ahead of the Japanese Type 99. These were all basically refinements of WW1 trench warfare rifles.

Other weapons like the M1 Garand, SVT-38, M1 Carbine, Gewehr 41 and 43 were far more impressive, the various submachineguns (Sten, Thompson, PPsh, Mp-40) were much more effective inside cities and at close quarters, the Us BAR, the Soviet DP, Japanese Type 99, and the British / Czech Bren were varying degrees of useful as heavy assault rifles or light machine guns (though none as good as MG 42 IMO), and eventually the Sturmgewehr kind of lit the way forward to the Ak-47 and modern assault rifles.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Garand only had eight and couldn't be topped up so against a mauser or enfield that could be as required I can't see any great advantage it had except for wasting lots of rounds unnecessary as soldiers wouldn't have attacked with less than eight in the mag so either fired them off or dumped them.

The advantage of the Garand wasn't so much the 3 more rounds as the semi-automatic rate of fire, which was very useful when at close range or when trying to suppress enemy positions compared to any bolt action rifle. It was basically the same as most of the other bolt action military rifles except in that very helpful respect. A platoon of infantry shooting M1 Garands as fast as they could was quite intimidating.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Admittedly, I was intending on primarily discussion the obsession the Japanese had with maneuverability, evident in some of their designs, in particular, the wings. I probably should have named this topic "Wing Area, Maneuverability, and Speed" or similar, or have discussed wing loading and wing area more in my opening post. This would have provided a clue for what part of "maneuverability" I'm focusing on, which is turn-rate, and to a somewhat lesser extent, roll-rate. This is part of a bigger discussion on the significance of turn-fighting and whether or not turn-fighters like the Zero truly were as advanced, and perhaps, as crushingly superior, as people across the internet seemingly consider them to have been, especially in their prime.

Like I mentioned, climb and dive can also be part of maneuverability (which you could group together as 'vertical turning' per the Soviets). This was particularly important for the A6M.

I think the Japanese emphasis on maneuverability was not as delusional as has been suggested. They were lagging a bit in engine development (though I would argue, they did catch up) and they had enormous distances to contend with, without an immediate need for winning an intensive air superiority fight over a battlefield (as they had the Chinese and Soviets beaten in air to air combat) nor to defend their homeland from strikes. Excellent maneuverability + superb training gave them a pronounced edge in early air combat which was almost unparraleled (Germans early victories over the Soviet VVS were similar). But the Japanese were winning these victories over better trained and equipped US and British forces.

In part, I would argue they were making the same bet that the Germans were - on an overwhelming, annihilating victory in war conducted over the short term, rather than a long term war of attrition which they knew they couldn't win against enemies like the US and USSR. They turned out to have made a strategic mistake here, but given that they wanted to fight (which was, in both cases, in large part down to a delusional ideology by the national leaders, and in itself a strategic error) this was really their only strategy.

Which brings us to the fact that the top early war Japanese fighters - A6M and the oft forgotten Ki-43, were clearly quite well suited to winning crushing victories over the short term. They were able to dominate most Allied fighters in the early days of the war, including Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-40s, P-39s, F2A and Wildcats. It was only with adjustments to strategy that a few of these types (Wildcats, P-40s, and eventually Spitfires) were able to basically hold their own. No Allied types, except maybe the P-38 was really overwhelmingly successful against the first-line Japanese fighters until well into 1943.

It took quite a while for Allied pilots to work out the 'best practices' for contending with Japanese fighters, and it was done gradually and at great cost in lives lost. The Japanese armed forces did not field as many aircraft as the Germans did but they proved to be extremely formidable. I don't think many Allied pilots took Japanese fighters lightly. Even P-38, Hellcat and Corsair aces were being killed right to the end of the war.

Late-war Japanese aircraft were beset with constant issues with their engines, and there was also the problem of oil leakage.

I think almost all of the late war high HP aircraft had a fair number of development issues. F4U certainly did. P-38 definitely did. Look at the Soviet Vk-106 engine. Shall we talk about the Typhoon? How many new engine types in the US, UK, and Germany were heavily delayed or cancelled?

I think the Japanese had similar teething issues, exacerbated by the fact that they didn't standardize their parts (though this was also the case with some British and most Soviet aircraft as well) and the strategic problems they had vis a vis supply and then bombing of their homeland.

Constant bombing, a problem exacerbated by seemingly feeble anti-air defenses and issues with intercepting relatively quick, high-flying B-29s, would certainly have not helped.

This is certainly true, but it was quite a late development. But I think you are conflating aircraft design issues with production, supply and maintenance which are different matters.

The US were also experimenting with technologies such as night vision equipment for foot soldiers, with some success.

Really? Successful night vision for infantry in WW2? That would be news to me. They were still having trouble getting this to work in Vietnam. Do you have a source for that?

Their battleships also had more advanced fire control systems onboard than those of the Japanese, like Yamamoto's floating hotel the Yamato. Also, good workmanship, unless it involved some novel manufacturing equipment/process, isn't inherently innovative.

The US had radar controlled guns which proved useful in a couple of battles, but the Japanese came out on top in most of the surface combat through the end of 1943. There was nothing second rate about Japanese warships. They were superior to every navy in the world except the USN, and the USN only barely got an edge over them, and only gradually.

The Japanese exploited American and (distracted) British incompetence and weakness to have advanced so rapidly.

Couldn't you say the same thing for the Germans? Or almost any successful army? I'm fine with making this point so long as it's made consistently.

MacArthur failing to do anything to stop the Bombing of Pearl Harbor, dithering on striking Japanese Taiwan, and there is also the case of inadequate British preparation to counter an invasion through the Malay Peninsula, the guns in Singapore being an infamous example of this... The French strategy seemed to be more competent, at least in theory; their lack of consideration for a tank offensive through the Ardennes appeared to be more sensible, and the German plan was extremely risky and daring anyways. Meanwhile, a non-negligible part of the Japanese element of surprise was down to misinterpretation, if not outright dismissal, of radar readings. The Japanese also had plenty of their own nonsensical decisions that boggle the mind and could make one question their authenticity, such as the supposed refusal to adopt radar because active radar equipment could have increased the chances of being detected. Adequately-equipped, motivated and trained soldiers could also inflict costly tolls on the Japanese even early in the war, from what I've heard. Also, the P-40 took quite the toll on the IJAAF in China.

The early P-40 success was largely against second tier fighters (like Ki-27) and by the time they were facing Ki-43 they had improved P-40s with much improved tactics. The speed / diving advantage in particular became more pronounced, which was largely a factor of Ki-43 development going very slowly, but newer types like Ki-44 and Ki-61 were more challenging.

In turn-fights, probably. World-class? Maybe if the F6F was world-class. It wasn't an unimpressive aircraft, to say the least.

I think the F6F was indeed world class. It compares well to any fighter of it's era, and more than held it's own when they did face German fighters.

When I see the world-class in reference to late-war aviation, images of the Ta-152, Sea Fury,

Ta 152, F8F, Sea Fury, P-47N fought how many engagements in WW2?

P-51D, F8F, Hornet, P-47N and La-7 come to mind. Pacific-class? Until 1945, that is. The Ki-83 and Ki-64 could maybe have been world-class had they debuted in 1944, if they managed to achieve specifications.

As far as aircraft actually fielded in combat in some numbers, N1K1, Ki-84, J2M and Ki-44 were certainly world class.

Estimates for the J7W1 suggest an uncomfortably slow climb-rate, dimming its prospects somewhat, but with testing coming to end with the war's conclusion, it's hard to say with any confidence. The J7W1 prototype that did fly did not exceed 300kph in speed. The J8M was 50-150kph slower than contemporary Western designs, depending on which source you refer to, and the Kikka was slower than than advanced Japanese prop designs like the Ki-64 and even the Ki-83! It's high altitude performance seemed good, but its rate of climb is horrific, worse than I thought. This slow bird of predators could easily keep up with a B-29, if it was allowed to get up that high, but come a soaring P-51D, F-82 or F-80 and [insert maniacal laughter and blood-curdling screaming here].

Fair points, but J7, Kikka etc. were experimental aircraft which never got through development during the war - much some of the others you mentioned up above. Luckily for us the Japanese ability to complete these designs was interrupted and degraded.

They didn't lag in level speed? Where's the >660kph (military power, altitude ~10km) Japanese fighter in late 1943? Where's the >900kph Japanese jet fighter in late 1944 / early 1945? Where's the radar-equipped anti-air defense network (in 1944-45) to protect the home islands? Where's the Japanese long-ranged ballistic missile in 1945?

I don't think 660 kph fighters were very typical anywhere in late 1943. The US and British were still fielding aircraft in Italy (Spit V and P-40F) with top speeds in the 600 kph range, as were the Soviets (Yak 9, Yak -1B, La 5) and Italians (MC 205) in 1943. Meanwhile The fastest Japanese fighters like J2M and Ki-84 were able to reach 640 kph. So I really don't see the wide disparity.

Even the fastest short range fighters, like the Spitfire Mk 9, Fw 190 and Bf 109G which did manage 660 kph were not necessarily invulnerable to slower types, as we can see from the combat histories. The F4U, P-51, P47 and later model P-38s, and later Tempest and Griffon engined Spitfires were all fairly rare and new in 1943.

I think eventually, the Japanese production and maintenance of their fastest designs fell behind significantly against the onset of newer Allied types, but that was really more in 1944, and by then the tide of the war had already turned.


I think a lot of the criticism of the Japanese aircraft and other kit is due to hindsight and the fact that we know who won the war. I don't think it was so obvious in 1942 or 1943 who was going to win.

 

[ThomasP]

The Enfield had a 10-round magazine, though it was loaded using two 5-round clips, vs the M1 Garand's 8-round magazine fed with a single 8-round clip.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Germans had an edge in IR technology (followed by the U.S.), but infrared battlefield tech was just too new to see any practical, widespread use during the war.

Here's a good article about it:

Illuminating War: The Advent of Night Vision During World War II | Hankering for History

Throughout periods of war, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the ongoing War on Terror, there have always been impressive technological advancements.

hankeringforhistory.com

 

[tomo pauk]

Which brings us to the fact that the top early war Japanese fighters - A6M and the oft forgotten Ki-43, were clearly quite well suited to winning crushing victories over the short term. They were able to dominate most Allied fighters in the early days of the war, including Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-40s, P-39s, F2A and Wildcats. It was only with adjustments to strategy that a few of these types (Wildcats, P-40s, and eventually Spitfires) were able to basically hold their own. No Allied types, except maybe the P-38 was really overwhelmingly successful against the first-line Japanese fighters until well into 1943.

Were the Spitfires, Wildcats and P-40s really dominated by japanese fighters in he early days? Were there any Spitfires in the early days for Japanese to fight at all?
Was the P-38 really that dominating inn 1942 and 43 in Pacific?

Really? Successful night vision for infantry in WW2? That would be news to me. They were still having trouble getting this to work in Vietnam. Do you have a source for that?

Here.

Ta 152, F8F, Sea Fury, P-47N fought how many engagements in WW2?

P-47N ww2 service, FWIW.
Granted, the 1st three mentioned there fought no air battle in ww2.

I don't think 660 kph fighters were very typical anywhere in late 1943. The US and British were still fielding aircraft in Italy (Spit V and P-40F) with top speeds in the 600 kph range, as were the Soviets (Yak 9, Yak -1B, La 5) and Italians (MC 205) in 1943. Meanwhile The fastest Japanese fighters like J2M and Ki-84 were able to reach 640 kph. So I really don't see the wide disparity.

There was no Ki-84 in a meanigful service in 1943 (total of 24 produced in 1943). J2M was slow if we look at japanese sources, barely topping 600 km/h. Why the TAIC credits it with a far better speed is anyone's guess.
MC.205 was doing 400+mph/~650 km/h, the 1944 Soviet fighters like Yak-3 and La-7 were in the same category, ditto for La-5FN from 1943. Anglo-American fighters in frontline service were at 640-700+ km/h in 1944 for the most part.

 

[SaparotRob]

The advantage of the Garand wasn't so much the 3 more rounds as the semi-automatic rate of fire, which was very useful when at close range or when trying to suppress enemy positions compared to any bolt action rifle. It was basically the same as most of the other bolt action military rifles except in that very helpful respect. A platoon of infantry shooting M1 Garands as fast as they could was quite intimidating.

Based on discussions with Dad, the whole lot of 'em would rather be shooting M-1 carbines. Them Garands was heavy.

 

[Gary Cain]

The Garand only had eight and couldn't be topped up so against a mauser or enfield that could be as required I can't see any great advantage it had except for wasting lots of rounds unnecessary as soldiers wouldn't have attacked with less than eight in the mag so either fired them off or dumped them.

The great advantage is the ability to take a second shot, with the same sight picture, while maintaining the cheek weld on the stock, at the same target, within a second.

The Mauser operator must remove hand from trigger, operate the bolt, reacquire the target, reacquire the sight picture, and then he gets to shoot again. And that is only if he is an expert who can do that while not removing his cheek from the stock. Most can't. So add another two seconds to his follow up shot.

So, the Garand operator gets a follow up shot in a second, while the Mauser man doesn't get one for at least 4 seconds, possibly as many as six.

Which is better?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Were the Spitfires, Wildcats and P-40s really dominated by japanese fighters in he early days?

Initially, yes. Java, Philippines, Darwin, Wake Island, Coral Sea. Then the USAAF and USN and USMC unit leadership kind of recovered started holding their own, but just barely. I'd say it wasn't until the end of 1942 that they started pulling ahead a little bit, if you look at the actual combat losses. It pretty much remained even overall until well into 1943, it's just that the Japanese couldn't endue 'even'.

Were there any Spitfires in the early days for Japanese to fight at all?

Not until Darwin in 1943

Was the P-38 really that dominating inn 1942 and 43 in Pacific?

In terms of ratios, I think it's the only aircraft you can say had a real (verified as opposed to optimistic / claims) advantage, but there were very few of them flying. Partly this was due to just a couple of very good pilots like Bong and McGuire.

Here.

It seems like it's actual success is limited, or the interpretation controversial. But I admit I am surprised it existed at all.

P-47N ww2 service, FWIW.
Granted, the 1st three mentioned there fought no air battle in ww2.

My point is they didn't have a lot of these in combat, they weren't really significant in the war.. or ever, since they weren't used postwar really.

There was no Ki-84 in a meanigful service in 1943 (total of 24 produced in 1943). J2M was slow if we look at japanese sources, barely topping 600 km/h. Why the TAIC credits it with a far better speed is anyone's guess.

Interesting. What was the real speed of J2M then?

MC.205 was doing 400+mph/~650 km/h, the 1944 Soviet fighters like Yak-3 and La-7 were in the same category, ditto for La-5FN from 1943. Anglo-American fighters in frontline service were at 640-700+ km/h in 1944 for the most part.

In 1944, I'd say the Allied pulled ahead, clearly, and the Germans were still at least holding their own with production aircraft in terms of performance. This though is probably more attributable to the effects of strategic bombing and destruction of the Japanese merchant navy, and by 1944 the war was well past the tipping point, IMO.

Mc 205 was a good fighter, though they were losing them to Spit V and P-40F in 1943 so obviously the 20-30 mph speed advantage wasn't enough to be decisive.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Based on discussions with Dad, the whole lot of 'em would rather be shooting M-1 carbines. Them Garands was heavy.

That's true - and having been in the military myself, for infantry, you spend a lot more time carrying your rifle than shooting it. But when the shooting does start, I think Garand was better, depending on the circumstances.

 

[tomo pauk]

Initially, yes. Java, Philippines, Darwin. Then the unit leadership kind of recovered started holding their own, but just barely. I'd say it wasn't until the end of 1942 that they started pulling ahead a bit, if you look at the actual combat losses .

What was the kill/loss ratio of P-40s and Wildcats over Java and/or Darwin in the early days?

Not until Darwin in 1943

So there was no Spitfires in the early days for the Japanese to dominate them.

Interesting. What was the real speed of J2M then?

Shinpachi - can you help, please?

In 1944, I'd say the Allied pulled ahead, clearly, and the Germans were still at least holding their own with production aircraft in terms of performance. This though is probably more attributable to the effects of strategic bombing and destruction of the Japanese merchant navy, and by 1944 the war was well past the tipping point, IMO.

Anglo-Americans went a good deal with two stages of supercharging for their fighters, leaving Japanese behind by some time in 2nd half of 1943. Bombing and blockade just sealed the deal.

Mc 205 was a good fighter, though they were losing them to Spit V and P-40F in 1943 so obviously the 20-30 mph speed advantage wasn't enough to be decisive.

Would that be MC.202 or 205?

 

[Gary Cain]

That's true - and having been in the military myself, for infantry, you spend a lot more time carrying your rifle than shooting it. But when the shooting does start, I think Garand was better, depending on the circumstances.

German paratroopers I have talked to loved the M1 carbine and would carry that in preference to almost everything else.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

German paratroopers I have talked to loved the M1 carbine and would carry that in preference to almost everything else.

It certainly had it's merits. Light, fast shooting and fairly large removable magazine. Heavy is also even worse for a paratrooper (assuming they make a combat jump, which is not something they all necessarily did)

 

[Gary Cain]

It certainly had it's merits. Light, fast shooting and fairly large removable magazine. Heavy is also even worse for a paratrooper (assuming they make a combat jump, which is not something they all necessarily did)

They also liked, in addition to the points you made, the small firing signature, and the ability to carry a LOT of ammunition.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

They also liked, in addition to the points you made, the small firing signature, and the ability to carry a LOT of ammunition.

Kind of the M-16 / M4 concept

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

What was the kill/loss ratio of P-40s and Wildcats over Java and/or Darwin in the early days?

Java and Philippines, P-40s got slaughtered. One unit, 49th FG, under very good leadership, roughly held their own at Darwin (equal losses, though the Japanese lost more bombers and the US more fighters). New Guinea with the Aussies 75 sqn, were outnumbered and got 'reduced' down to nothing in brutal fighting, but losses were close to even. Later on the Aussies gradually pulled ahead, it seems. P-39s didn't do quite as well, maybe lost about 2-1, though they did maybe a bit better than you would think. Definitely better than the F2A. Early combat encounters with Wildcats mostly went slightly in favor of the Japanese I'd say at first. F2A got pretty much wrecked. Coral Sea i think was slightly in favor of the Japanese. Solomons / Guadalcanal was slightly in favor of the USN / Wildcats but it was still very close. The spread of Thach Weave seemed to make a difference, but gradually. Most of the naval / carrier engagements through the end of 1942 and into early 1943 were pretty even in air to air combat losses. We counted a bunch of these up in another thread a couple of months ago.

So there was no Spitfires in the early days for the Japanese to dominate them.

True. I was thinking of Darwin in 1943, which not early war but is within the period we were discussing, though the British also got harshly abused in Ceylon prior to that, no Spitfires were present.

Shinpachi - can you help, please?

Anglo-Americans went a good deal with two stages of supercharging for their fighters, leaving Japanese behind by some time in 2nd half of 1943. Bombing and blockade just sealed the deal.

Seems like they were still having a lot of trouble with the turbos still in 1943. The P-51 was the true kind of miracle in that sense with the British designed two stage engine. The US navy two stage engines were good but they didn't give the same altitude performance? Certainly the F4U ended up very fast. The F6F not quite as much but I don't agree with the assessment of some that it's less than 400 mph speed made it inferior.

Would that be MC.202 or 205?

Both, but you can see clearly in Shores that Spitfire Mk Vs and P-40s were shooting down MC 205s and doing pretty well against them, though that could reflect a variety of factors. They were also not around in high numbers (many C.202 units had a few C.205s with them) so it could be anomalous. These same units were also routinely shooting down Bf 109G-4 and G-6 in the same battles.

The tiny number of G.55s the Italians got into action seem to have done a little better, though I think (?) they were a bit slower.



More generally re: speed vs. maneuverability, I think it's a different balance between theaters where there is heavy ground fighting going on, so you want to control the air space over a battlefield that might be close to the airfield, vs. the Pacific or China where the distances remain vast and the fight must be quick, intense and decisive (as the outcome can decide the fate of capital ships, or vital troop transports etc.)

I think 'maneuverability', depending how we define it precisely, actually matters more when escorting or attacking bombers than in a fighter sweep air superiority mission.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It's not my favorite plane but the P-51 really seems to be the stand out design for the second half of the war, aside from the jets. Good high altitude performance, but pretty good down low as well. Excellent range, very good speed and overall performance, and decent maneuverability and armament. Seemingly pretty good on the maintenance level too.

It had the range of the Japanese fighters but the performance of the best European (mostly short range) fighters, and was pretty good across a wide range of missions.

The Me 262 is the other obvious stand out. Seems to be the only jet fighter that was more or less fully viable during the war, though maybe Meteor and P-80 qualify, I gather they were not quite ready but could be wrong.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

German paratroopers I have talked to loved the M1 carbine and would carry that in preference to almost everything else.

There was a former falschirmjaeger guy who ran one of the ranges we used to go to in Swabia. He had been at Crete and a bunch of other battles. He was a hard core old guy with academic fencing scars on his face and kind of scary gray eyes. He had a hell of a 'game face', he would look at you like he was sizing you up. He was mostly quiet, but sometimes they would get him talking, and he used to talk rather gleefully about taking out "Tommies" and "Amis" during the war, and how our guys would run away etc. He preferred all the German kit and said ours was junk. Excellent shot. I found it amusing how all the guys loved to hear his stories even though he was talking about killing our grandparents etc., and he often called us various nicknames and insults. But they ate it up. Some of the Bundeswehr guys didn't like him though.

When I was out there, they still used to sometimes find old German WW2 stuff in crates in the lakes, packed in cosmoline. I was told that they took some old guns to this guy to try to get them working again, though I never got to see any of them first-hand.

 

[Gary Cain]

There was a former falschirmjaeger guy who ran one of the ranges we used to go to in Swabia. He had been at Crete and a bunch of other battles. He was a hard core old guy with academic fencing scars on his face and kind of scary gray eyes. He had a hell of a 'game face', he would look at you like he was sizing you up. He was mostly quiet, but sometimes they would get him talking, and he used to talk rather gleefully about taking out "Tommies" and "Amis" during the war, and how our guys would run away etc. He preferred all the German kit and said ours was junk. Excellent shot. I found it amusing how all the guys loved to hear his stories even though he was talking about killing our grandparents etc., and he often called us various nicknames and insults. But they ate it up. Some of the Bundeswehr guys didn't like him though.

When I was out there, they still used to sometimes find old German WW2 stuff in crates in the lakes, packed in cosmoline. I was told that they took some old guns to this guy to try to get them working again, though I never got to see any of them first-hand.

Sounds a little bit like Bernard Kucher.

 

[tomo pauk]

Java and Philippines, P-40s got slaughtered. One unit, 49th FG, under very good leadership, roughly held their own at Darwin (equal losses, though the Japanese lost more bombers and the US more fighters). New Guinea with the Aussies 75 sqn, were outnumbered and got 'reduced' down to nothing in brutal fighting, but losses were close to even. Later on the Aussies gradually pulled ahead, it seems. P-39s didn't do quite as well, maybe lost about 2-1, though they did maybe a bit better than you would think. Definitely better than the F2A. Early combat encounters with Wildcats mostly went slightly in favor of the Japanese I'd say at first. F2A got pretty much wrecked. Coral Sea i think was slightly in favor of the Japanese. Solomons / Guadalcanal was slightly in favor of the USN / Wildcats but it was still very close. The spread of Thach Weave seemed to make a difference, but gradually. Most of the naval / carrier engagements through the end of 1942 and into early 1943 were pretty even in air to air combat losses. We counted a bunch of these up in another thread a couple of months ago.

As you can see, neither P-40s nor Wildcats were 'dominated' by Japanese fighters, at least not until the Japanese were able to outnumber these heavily.

Seems like they were still having a lot of trouble with the turbos still in 1943. The P-51 was the true kind of miracle in that sense with the British designed two stage engine. The US navy two stage engines were good but they didn't give the same altitude performance? Certainly the F4U ended up very fast. The F6F not quite as much but I don't agree with the assessment of some that it's less than 400 mph speed made it inferior.

Two-stage R-2800s were not perfect, but were more than match for what Japanese were able to deploy. They managed to push big and heavy fighters towards useful performance figures.
Turboes on P-47 worked as advertised; granted the P-38 again was not perfect (but was with less problems than when operated under high and very cold NW European conditions).