As an old flight instructor once told me - "A plane is as only good as it's pilot," and I believe that applies to a certain point. In essence what were seeing here is a higher performing aircraft (that being the MC-202) being exploited by a less capable aircraft (the P-40). But keeping on the "apples to apples" scenario, does that include the -202 fighting in the vertical where the P-40 has the advantage in the dive or fighting in the horizontal where the -202 surely has the advantage? It seems that regardless of the advantages or limitations of your weapon, you're going to exploit those advantages to your benefit and it seems that's what was done in WW2 by the 325th and the AVG in the Pacific. It boils down to each pilot "suckering" the other into a disadvantage - Tactics, or having one pilot making a mistake - Skill, or just plain luck. This whole thing is 3 dimensional, both in the air and on the tactical blackboard....
Would agree with the first portion in particular. Air combat in general seems to even out over time unless one or more variables, including plane comparisons are majorly out of wack. Even the humble but nimble Cr-42 managed to score well initially despite it's archaic look and growing obsolecence. Stat comparisons can be disceiving, especially in light of incomplete or disputed sources.
For what it's worth....I discerned the following from Shores for the 1940-2 fighting:
P-40 (Commonwealth ---aka Tomahawk/Kittyhawk) vs. MC-200 Kills vs. each other.
42:2
ouch. This would on the surface suggest the P-40 runs rings around the MC-200, but from what i've read on the plane, it was decent if a bit no frills. Texts generally credit it with the ability to take on a Hurricane so given that a Hurr is not night and day inferior to a P40, the disperity might be explained from other comments made re: tactics and the variable state of Italian fighter pilot training. Records are spotty though so i'm sure this is not complete.
vs. the MC-202: (same: P40/202 kills vs each other)
23:35
On the surface, the 202 wins the kill contest. The ratio might be more....or even less because a major issue with the NA fighting was that the similarity in looks between it and the 109. It was suggested more than once in Shores' tombs that some combats credited with "109s" were in fact 202's. Specifically it was suggested in more than one place that kills credited to 109's were in fact 202's.
The only real criticism i've read about the 202 was it's armament was sub-par which combined with what is often described as a lack of killer instinct vs. the more kill minded German pilots. Some Italian pilots were credited with a real acrobatic ability but often failed to press home attacks. There was also the prevailing issue of pilot skill variability. Training according to author Chris Dunning was handled by the Gruppo C/O's vs. a set higher policy in the Regia Aeronautica so depending on which Gruppo you faced, you might get neophytes and/or pilots with inferior training or you might get experts who knew their craft. The Germans also tended to assign Italian air units to rear area duties due to integration issues and of course the ever present servicability issues that plauged the Italian AF,
Any questions on, oh, oil return lines?
