P40 Vs all other fighters in Europe

[FLYBOYJ]

Were the seat still hot? And if so, what does the civilian world do for mx on them?

These seats were hot and at this time this operator was able to get his hands on cartridges that were still within shelf life. Some operators will deactivate the seat or fly with expired cartridges with the hope that "someone" (either the A&P signing off the inspection or FAA) will look the other way. This bird came from Canada and IIRC had older MB seats where you had to physically unbuckle yourself after you punched out.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

To match the situation because for some bizarre reason certain RAF heads (yes, you, Portal) refused to acknowledge the need for escort fighters, the RAF went to full-time night offensives, although they did fly daylight raids with escorts, no less, into occupied territories.

I think the RAF's decisions about bombing strategy was rational considering what fighters they had to hand. Leaving aside the lucky break that the Merlin Mustang gave the USAAF, would the RAE have come up with a long-range daylight escort quickly enough to matter? Doubtful -- and the USAAF only got lucky by the pairing of a fine airframe with an import-design engine.

Under those circumstances, the switch to night-bombing makes some sense, especially once the boffins got to work to improve accuracy.

Developing indigenous fighters to escort Lancs on daylight ops would probably be a big ask for the British industry of the time, methinks.

I'm not well-read on the matter so I definitely appreciate any corrections offered. But it seems to me that Brit aircraft production was already pretty stretched.

 

[nuuumannn]

Leaving aside the lucky break that the Merlin Mustang gave the USAAF, would the RAE have come up with a long-range daylight escort quickly enough to matter? Doubtful -- and the USAAF only got lucky by the pairing of a fine airframe with an import-design engine.

Discussion surrounding escort fighters within the Air Ministry began before the outbreak of war and were raised following analyses of the Spanish Civil War - I'm sure this was not the first mention of it in the between-the-wars RAF either. C-in-C Bomber Command Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt raised the issue in 1938/1939, so it was certainly not solely a wartime discussion point. Development of a long range escort could have been done on existing airframes - there was investigation of the possibility of converting the Spitfire into a long range escort and Supermarine test pilot Jeffrey Quill flew a Spitfire fitted with long range tanks on a cross-country flight that equated to the distance between the UK and Berlin. That the fuel left over was insufficient to enable combat was a notable point, but it did demonstrate that the Spitfire could be ferried across long distances, if not be specially modified as a dedicated long range escort fighter.

I'm not well-read on the matter so I definitely appreciate any corrections offered. But it seems to me that Brit aircraft production was already pretty stretched.

It was, but where needs must. If the RAF had a requirement for it, it would have happened. The Spitfire is an example where modifications on the production line kept the aircraft current throughout the war in the face of ever-increasing speeds and altitudes, so such a thing was possible, just not acceptable. Chief-of-Air Staff Charles Portal was dead set against escort fighters, that alone is going to hamper any development, rather than production interruption. Griffon engined Spitfires had auxiliary tanks installed to compensate for a higher fuel consumption compared to Merlin engined varieties, so modifying the aircraft could have been done if there was a desire to do so.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Food to chew on. Do you have any easy-to-hand sources where I might do further reading on Portal and his apparent obstinacy?

 

[nuuumannn]

Do you have any easy-to-hand sources where I might do further reading on Portal and his apparent obstinacy?

The book The Right of the Line by John Terraine is a good starting point on the RAF's wartime history and the author questions Portal's stance against evidence, which is compelling in hindsight.

Amazon product ASIN 1848841922
Bomber Command by Max Hastings talks about Ludlow-Hewitt and mentions his battle to reform the pre-war Bomber Command, including his stance that escort fighters were needed, but doesn't detail Portal's obstinacy on that subject so much, although he is mentioned within on numerous subjects, specifically over his disagreements with Harris.

Amazon product ASIN 0760345201
I have both these in my library. I don't know for certain but I'm sure there is a biography of Portal in print that goes into the issue.

 

[Shortround6]

Some of what hindered long range British fighters in 1938-39 was the belief that constant speed propellers were closely allied with devil worship, witchcraft, human sacrifice and Scottish cuisine.

With the crap propellers (fixed pitch or two speed) the planes had long take offs with light fuel loads, poor climb and other performance penalties. By the time this was getting fixed (summer of 19) the British were running behind.
Even if Portal had been accidentally run over by a bus, several times, it still would have taken time to make the bomber escort work. Perhaps as soon as 1941, but 1942 could have seen escorts at least over western Germany.

 

[nuuumannn]

Even if Portal had been accidentally run over by a bus, several times, it still would have taken time to make the bomber escort work. Perhaps as soon as 1941, but 1942 could have seen escorts at least over western Germany.

This is certainly true. The British tendency to slap a big bit of log on the front of their fighters in the late 30s certainly hindered their development, even if bombers and fighter prototypes - the Gloster monoplane fighter and the Boulton Paul Defiant for example were fitted from the outset with variable pitch props. The first two-position props were fitted to RAF fighters before the outbreak of war but Britain was still behind in that aspect.

That doesn't mean that had the impetus been there, then such a thing wouldn't have been attempted. Britain had access to VP props. That some members of the RAF stuck to old habits is certainly true and definitely hindered progress, but Britain is certainly not unique in the fighter escort respect; no one else before 1942 had true long range single-seat fighter escorts apart from the Japanese, not even the Americans and the USAAC had the idea of flying its bombers on unescorted daylight raids even after the British warned them against the idea.

It's also worth mentioning that until the USAAF receives B-17Es and Fs, the most numerous bomber in service is the B-18 Bolo, coupled with the P-36 and P-40C and D models means the USAAC is utterly unprepared for combat in Europe before 1942.

 

[Schweik]

They all thought the twin engine heavy fighters would end up being the escorts (if such were needed). But most of those didn't work out. The only one that ever qualified as an escort was the P-38

 

[Schweik]

You would be surprised how fast the human body can adapt. The F-15 F16 both have 9G limits, and you routinely pull 5-7 without dog fighting. Moving your head around works up until about 7, then you want to make sure it's aligned before going further. Talking, flying, tactics, running the radar, shooting all becomes second nature.

G tolerance is interesting. Most folks have about a 4G resting, or when they start to experience graying out. Marathoners will have lower, body builder types higher. We did the centrifuge while at Lead In Fighter Training (LIFT) at Holloman AFB. One of the guys in my class had a 6.5G resting tolerance. He had played football for Texas A&M. The techs were all amazed.

Interestingly, several of the top P-40 aces whose interviews I've read, and some other Allied aces I've read about as well, had some kind of sports background that contributed to a high G tolerance. Nicky Barr, a 10 victory Australian Kittyhawk Ace had been a rugby player and a boxer, and he attributed this to being able to tolerate high G turns. This is one of his comments:

"I would evade being shot at accurately by pulling so much g-force...that you could feel the blood leaving the head and coming down over your eyes... And you would fly like that for as long as you could, knowing that if anyone was trying to get on your tail they were going through the same bleary vision that you had and you might get away....I had deliberately decided that any deficiency the Kittyhawk had was offset by aggression. And I'd done a little bit of boxing – I beat much better opponents simply by going for [them]. And I decided to use that in the air. And it paid off."

Reading between the lines a little, one of the Kittyhawks advantages was, assuming you pulled the stick hard enough, it could out turn most of the Axis fighters and even in some cases, Japanese fighters (at high speed). So high G turns were part of a survival strategy. A lot of these pilots had so little training on type that they didn't know this was the case until they tried it out. Clive Caldwell made a point of forcing new pilots to go through some high G turns to prove to themselves that the aircraft (and they as pilot) could endure them.

Greg Boyington had been a fairly serious collegiate wrestler and he credited that. Both talked about bearing down and tightening their neck so they wouldn't pass out.

As you no doubt know most WW2 fighters could manage 5-6 G turns, but the pilots being in upright seats without G suits, they routinely passed out during such maneuvers. Being asleep while going 250 mph with enemy aircraft are around (not to mention the ground) is not so conducive to survival. But it's amazing how often and routinely a lot of pilots seem to have gone through that. Dive bomber pilots often passed out during pull out too, if only for a moment.

 

[nuuumannn]

They all thought the twin engine heavy fighters would end up being the escorts

Yes, that's entirely circumstantial of course, the single-seat fighter was believed to not have sufficient range for bomber escort, even though during the Spanish Civil War both sides employed whatever single-seaters they had for bomber escort duties, and the Luftwaffe certainly had the right idea employing Bf 109s over Britain escorting its bombers, which were far more proficient than the Bf 110 Zerstorer in the role, the latter being conceived as a long range fighter/reconnaissance/light bomber.

Perception changes with experience and the Japanese, of all people were the first to employ long range fighters off the bat, which no one else was doing at the time, because of the ranges their aircraft needed to cover traversing their territory in China and the Korean peninsula, before their entry into WW2.

 

[nuuumannn]

nterestingly, several of the top P-40 aces whose interviews I've read, and some other Allied aces I've read about as well, had some kind of sports background that contributed to a high G tolerance.

Most of the Kiwi fighter pilots were farmers that dabbled in playing rugby, so being an outdoorsy type was an advantage. Fisken, the highest scoring RNZAF P-40 ace was a farmer.

 

[Schweik]

It's also worth mentioning that until the USAAF receives B-17Es and Fs, the most numerous bomber in service is the B-18 Bolo, coupled with the P-36 and P-40C and D models means the USAAC is utterly unprepared for combat in Europe before 1942.

While that may be partially true for aircraft already in the existing units, the US were producing a lot of aircraft which probably were ready for combat in Europe - many of which were ordered by the French and ended up being used by the British, mostly before 1942 and a few just in the early part of that year. And quite a few of the aircraft already deployed were quite capable.

These include the P-36 which you mentioned, which for all it's flaws turned out to be the most effective Allied fighter in the Battle of France (I believe Hawk-75 units even did better than Hurricane units); the P-40D and E which were in use by the British in 1941 and became their main air superiority fighter in the Med in early 1942; the DB-7/ Boston / A-20 series of bombers, which being capable of 340 mph was one of the fastest bombers in the world in 1941, which also did well for the French and became one of the primary bomber types for the British in North Africa; the Martin 167 Maryland (available in 1940), another fast (300 mph) bomber which did very well for the French in the Battle of France (with an unusually low 4% loss rate), and was again put into heavy use by the British (South Africans) as a bomber in the Western Desert, and (mainly as a recon plane) from Malta, from where it was used to conduct the recon flight before the famous raid on Taranto; the Martin 187 Baltimore another fast bomber and a bit more capable (better armed & with heavier bomb load) than the Maryland, which showed up in early 1942 (but already at the OTU's in 1941); the Lockheed Hudson and (later in 1942) Ventura, which proved their merit mainly in the maritime role, though I'd say as a day-time bomber certainly the Venture and even the Hudson compared pretty well to most other bombers of that vintage.

The P-36 and early P-40 variants lacked the altitude performance to dominate Bf 109s and were not as effective as Spitfire Vs, but they did much better than Hurricanes (including the II variants) in North Africa, and they did much better than most Soviet fighters in 1941 and early 42 on the Russian Front. They also held their own in the Pacific and in China. The three main US bomber types used by the British in North Africa - Boston, Maryland and Baltimore, were far superior to any extant British bombers in terms of surviving combat missions, if not bomb load, and thus were able to operate against the enemy during daytime. The early DB-7 series had very short range (it's main flaw) but this was substantially improved with each new variant. I would say those three bomber types were undoubtedly in the top 5 for Tactical bombers in the world in 1941, rivaled only by the Ju-88, G4M, and Pe-2*. They would be exceeded only by the Mosquito.

I would also say that US Navy aircraft already deployed in 1941, notably F4F-3 (first used in combat at Wake Island in Dec 1941), SBD-3 (first combat action in Dec 1941, sinking the Japanese sub I-70), and TBF Avenger which came later in 1942, were certainly world class in their respective niches. The F4F-3 was I think hands down the best Allied naval fighter in 1941 or 1942, and was only rivaled by the Zero. The SBD was certainly the best dive bomber available and far exceeded the Skua etc.. I would say the same about the TBF, though the earlier TBD was probably inferior to a Swordfish.

Finally, the B-24 Liberator was delivered to it's first units in 1941. This aircraft was fast, flew high, was well armed and carried a fairly heavy bomb load out to a long range. It proved to be quite capable both as a daytime Operational bomber (notably in North Africa after Torch, used against Axis airfields) and of course, played it's role in the Strategic bombing. It was also extremely useful in the Maritime role as we know.

*By contrast, I don't think the Blenheim, the main British tactical bomber at that time, was in the running.

 

[Schweik]

Most of the Kiwi fighter pilots were farmers that dabbled in playing rugby, so being an outdoorsy type was an advantage. Fisken, the highest scoring RNZAF P-40 ace was a farmer.

It shows some of the hidden advantages of martial arts and war-like sports for soldiers, even in the modern era.

 

[nuuumannn]

While that may be partially true for aircraft already in the existing units, the US were producing a lot of aircraft which probably were ready for combat in Europe - many of which were ordered by the French and ended up being used by the British, mostly before 1942 and a few just in the early part of that year. And quite a few of the aircraft already deployed were quite capable.

Only for the British and French though. Before the British and French Purchasing Commissions, the US military machine was not geared up for mass production on the same scale that it eventually became. The US certainly didn't hit the ground running. It took time and the impetus of war in Europe for firms to get to a production standard that we are familiar with in common perception. It took Boeing a year to build around 40 B-17s, for example.

US aircraft were by and large good aircraft, but warfare was changing and many failed to make the cut, aircraft such as the Vought Chesapeake and Bell Airacobra were deemed unsuitable for British needs and it is interesting that in 1939, apart from the Catalina for Britain and Hawk 75 and DB-7 for France, the aircraft that saw the largest usage by the British and French were aircraft designed specifically for British orders, such as the Lockheed Hudson and Martin 167.

About the Hawk 75, yes, the British tested it in January 1940 and praised it, noting that it was more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire and Hurricane and had lighter controls, the pilot found it exceptionally easy and pleasant to fly, it had docile stall characteristics, but an order was not forthcoming as it couldn't match the Spitfire's performance and altitude. The Mohawks the RAF received were ex-French order aircraft that had to be modified from French standard, such as reverse working power levers, pull back for power instead of the more familiar Balls-to-the-wall, for example.

The Tomahawk/Kittyhawk was also praised for its handling and behaviour but again, its performance was lacking compared to the Spitfire. In the Kittyhawk I the test pilots praised it as having the best gunnery characteristics of US fighters they had tested. The Kittyhawk and Tomahawk were ordered in large numbers through the British Purchasing Commission as we know.

It is worth noting that between the Spitfire and Bf 109, European air forces had the best fighters in the world at the time, at the outbreak of the war the Bf 109 Emil edged out the Spitfire Mk.I and could arguably be described as the best fighter in the world.

Yes, the B-24, or LB-30 was a good long range aircraft, but it had poor defensive armament and it is worth noting that the first Liberator variant armed with power turrets was the British only Liberator Mk.II that was fitted with Boulton Paul turrets. The USA didn't have production gun turrets until the British supplied US firms with technology. Examples of turrets went to the USA and the likes of Sperry, Emerson and Martin benefitted from British expertise in this field.

My point in mentioning these things is to put British aircraft and decision making into context. The British found themselves in a war they were not prepared for. Some things they got right, some they got wrong, but the reality was that there was no other air force that could have done any better than what the British did between 1939 and late 1941. British bombers were among the best and most capable in the world at the time compared to their contemporaries yet there is much criticism of the likes of the Whitley and Wellington for example, yet the Whitley V in service in 1939 was faster than, had a greater bomb load and could carry it over a greater distance and was better defended than the USAAC's standard bomber the B-18. The USAAC/F was armed with less capable aircraft and had no modern combat experience compared to what was going on in Europe.

 

[Schweik]

Only for the British and French though. Before the British and French Purchasing Commissions, the US military machine was not geared up for mass production on the same scale that it eventually became. The US certainly didn't hit the ground running. It took time and the impetus of war in Europe for firms to get to a production standard that we are familiar with in common perception. It took Boeing a year to build around 40 B-17s, for example.

None of the Allies were really ready for the war. Britain got into it earlier but was also in a steep learning curve, not just with constant speed propellers but also things like assembly-line production standards (as opposed to 'bespoke'), self sealing fuel tanks, fuel capacity, fighter and bomber tactics etc.

US aircraft were by and large good aircraft, but warfare was changing and many failed to make the cut, aircraft such as the Vought Chesapeake and Bell Airacobra were deemed unsuitable for British needs and it is interesting that in 1939, apart from the Catalina for Britain and Hawk 75 and DB-7 for France, the aircraft that saw the largest usage by the British and French were aircraft designed specifically for British orders, such as the Lockheed Hudson and Martin 167.

Martin 167 was I believe for a French order, which the British took over. Same for the 187 which was a much more important bomber for the British.

About the Hawk 75, yes, the British tested it in January 1940 and praised it, noting that it was more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire and Hurricane and had lighter controls, the pilot found it exceptionally easy and pleasant to fly, it had docile stall characteristics, but an order was not forthcoming as it couldn't match the Spitfire's performance and altitude. The Mohawks the RAF received were ex-French order aircraft that had to be modified from French standard, such as reverse working power levers, pull back for power instead of the more familiar Balls-to-the-wall, for example.

Yes I'm aware. But those same Hawk 75s held their own quite well against the Bf 109 and Bf 110 in the Battle of France.

The Tomahawk/Kittyhawk was also praised for its handling and behaviour but again, its performance was lacking compared to the Spitfire. In the Kittyhawk I the test pilots praised it as having the best gunnery characteristics of US fighters they had tested. The Kittyhawk and Tomahawk were ordered in large numbers through the British Purchasing Commission as we know.

It is worth noting that between the Spitfire and Bf 109, European air forces had the best fighters in the world at the time, at the outbreak of the war the Bf 109 Emil edged out the Spitfire Mk.I and could arguably be described as the best fighter in the world.

In many ways, perhaps that is true, but it also had some limitations - especially range. The Emil was the first 109 variant being used in the Western Desert in 1941 and due to problems (losses) in combat with Tomahawks they rushed it's replacement with the 109F.

Yes, the B-24, or LB-30 was a good long range aircraft, but it had poor defensive armament and it is worth noting that the first Liberator variant armed with power turrets was the British only Liberator Mk.II that was fitted with Boulton Paul turrets. The USA didn't have production gun turrets until the British supplied US firms with technology. Examples of turrets went to the USA and the likes of Sperry, Emerson and Martin benefitted from British expertise in this field.

My point in mentioning these things is to put British aircraft and decision making into context. The British found themselves in a war they were not prepared for. Some things they got right, some they got wrong, but the reality was that there was no other air force that could have done any better than what the British did between 1939 and late 1941. British bombers were among the best and most capable in the world at the time compared to their contemporaries yet there is much criticism of the likes of the Whitley and Wellington for example, yet the Whitley V in service in 1939 was faster than, had a greater bomb load and could carry it over a greater distance and was better defended than the USAAC's standard bomber the B-18. The USAAC/F was armed with less capable aircraft and had no modern combat experience compared to what was going on in Europe.

1933 Martin B-10 left, 1934 Handley Page Heyford right

The first modern bomber aircraft in the 30's to really turn heads was arguably the incredibly ugly but rather fast (for the time) Martin B-10 of 1933, and it was partly on the strength of the performance of that aircraft that the French put in those large orders for Martin 167s.

The Whitley (230 mph) may have seemed impressive for a moment, but it did not prove capable of enduring combat where enemy fighters might be about. Same for the somewhat more ambitious but still slow (247 mph) and lightly armed Hampden. The less said about the Harrow or the Bombay the better. The Wellington was a much better design and retained a niche through the war, but was still very slow (235 mph) and was rarely used in daylight tactical strikes (even though it was available in North Africa). The Blenheim of course was serviceable and was used as a tactical bomber, but suffered appalling losses for little gain. The Beaufort proved fairly effective in the maritime strike role.

But compared to these, the Boston, Maryland and Baltimore were a generation ahead in terms of facing the dangers of modern war in 1941-42. Far superior.

The B-24 may have benefited from some British technology, (I don't know the history of the turret development) but regardless, it proved to be a highly capable design which was used effectively against the enemy through the end of the war, which is not something you can say for the Hampden, Whitley, Bombay, or Harrow. Same for the B-17, which was already active in 1941. It needed a lot more improvement but it already had a role, and just became more and more effective as the war went on (regardless of what you think of the Strategic Bombing Campaign, of which I am a skeptic).

The P-36 proved capable against German fighters in France, and the P40C/D/E models were considered (by the British) better than the Hurricane and though inferior to the Spitfire V, not so much so that they couldn't face Bf 109s. They were at least on par with the best Russian, Italian and Japanese planes of 1941. That puts US military aircraft roughly on par with the rest of the world I'd say overall. The US had better bombers and slightly inferior fighters to the British and the Germans. Maybe you could say the Japanese too. They were probably a bit better than the Soviet and Italian aircraft of that time.

And as good as the Spitfire was it had some serious flaws, especially it's range. Same was true for the 109 of course. In the Western Desert tactics and training were the main difference IMO.

As I previously mentioned, the US Navy F4F and SBD of course proved extremely capable and were the best naval fighter and strike aircraft available to the Allies in 1941. The F4F was slightly inferior to the Japanese Zero but the SBD was arguably superior to the D3A.

Yes the US had the P-39, Buffalo, TBD Devastator, Vought Vindicator, and Brewster Buccaneer ... but the British had the Battle, the Skua, the Fulmar, the Defiant, the Roc, etc. i.e. all nations in WW2 had some dud designs and some yeoman designs, and a few wild successes.

You are right that in many ways, the US was ill-prepared for War. I think that is true of all the Allies because in the wake of the horrors of WW I, nobody really thought the Axis powers would fling themselves into a new massive conflict so soon, and many of the leadership in the US had convinced themselves that they would stay out of it. The aircraft on-hand however were actually pretty good. The US also had a thriving and quite sophisticated civilian aircraft industry which proved readily adaptable to military purposes.

It's also true that many of the best designs had been somewhat ignored by the USAAC and were actually selected for production by the French, and later the British, but these aircraft were on-hand and the War Dept knew they were available. For example they had put in a small order the Boston to keep the design alive. For this reason, and because of clearly (for their time) very good aircraft like the F4F, SBD, P-40, A-20, B-17 and B-24 I would say that the claim that "the USAAC is utterly unprepared for combat in Europe before 1942." is rather exaggerated.

 

[nuuumannn]

You are right that in many ways, the US was ill-prepared for War. I think that is true of all the Allies because in the wake of the horrors of WW I, nobody really thought the Axis powers would fling themselves into a new massive conflict so soon, and many of the leadership in the US had convinced themselves that they would stay out of it. The aircraft on-hand however were actually pretty good. The US also had a thriving and quite sophisticated civilian aircraft industry which proved readily adaptable to military purposes.

This is very true and I won't pick on each of the points you made regarding individual aircraft as I'm sure your research is good and others will pick at it if they find flaws, but suffice to say, context is the key to comparing individual aircraft. Some were better than others at one thing or another, but placing these aircraft in the context of how they were used at the time, rather than looking at them with loaded perceptions as we do changes how we see them, for example, my comment about the Bf 109 is accurate in context. The Bf 109 was the best fighter in the world not because of its individual characteristics - it had awkward undercarriage that caused ground loops, it couldn't manoeuvre with dog fighters, it had poor range etc, but put it against the backdrop of what the Nazis used it for in the first couple of years of war and it reigns supreme.

The Blackburn Skua, even the Air Ministry believed it was bordering on being obsolete when it first entered service in 1937, but put it against a German light cruiser in a harbour in Norway and you have a deadly ship-killing machine.

 

[Shortround6]

Without the distractions and as actually built you had the P-40s starting to arrive in May of 1940 at the Factory. All 11 of them.

The US had placed the over 500 order in April of 1939.
The US allowed the French thus the British to "jump the queue" First French aircraft flew in June of 1940. The French had ordered 230 P-40s in October of 1939.
The first 100 Tomahawks got the British got (starting Sept of 1940) from the French (with French instruments and the reverse throttles) were mostly used as trainer and even a few instructional airframes as the British didn't think they were combat worthy. They did not have self sealing tanks or armor or BP glass.
The US took a lot of their over 500 P-40s from the first order in dribs and drabs so it certainly looks, if you look at the numbers delivered, as if the US was very slow when preparing for war. Curtiss built 481 H75/P-36s in 1940 and 778 P-40s in 1940. The US only took 200 P-40s in 1940 and in fact didn't take any P-40Bs until March of 1941. The last of the original order was completed May 20th 1941. Please note that another 773 P-40s were built from Jan through May of 1941.
Some of the early P-40s were NOT up world standards, but of course world standards were changing every few months.

How many versions of DB601s did the 109E go through?
Changes to armor or protection?
Changes to the armament?

What were the world standards for the French fighters?
Or Russian.
In 1940 the Bulk of the Japanese fighters had fixed landing gear.

The Germans did well, in part, because they figured out the "fingers four" a lot sooner that just about anybody else did.

 

[nuuumannn]

In 1940 the Bulk of the Japanese fighters had fixed landing gear.

The Germans did well, in part, because they figured out the "fingers four" a lot sooner that just about anybody else did.

This is the point. The context within which each operated.

The US manufacturers identified that building for foreign needs kept them in business because the US military simply wasn't ordering in nearly as large numbers as foreigners were before the US entered the war. Why wouldn't they? Before the BPC ordered Hudsons from Lockheed, how many military aircraft was that firm building? What was its production rate? Look at how many US types the Brits and French investigated and ordered; manufacturers were falling over themselves for contracts and understandably so. Many of the aircraft were unsuited for the European conditions, but that didn't mean the Brits and French weren't about to take them and test them. Even the woeful Curtiss Sea Mew was evaluated in Britain for service.

Despite the Japanese aircraft having fixed landing gear, how effective in theatre were they? Very, in fact. The Ki-27 and A5M were formidable fighters against the opposition they were expecting and the Germans figuring out the Finger Four again highlights the context within the environment the Bf 109 was operating. The Germans figured their tactics out in Spain and that conflict prepared them for what they were about to embark on.

 

[wuzak]

And as good as the Spitfire was it had some serious flaws, especially it's range. Same was true for the 109 of course. In the Western Desert tactics and training were the main difference IMO.

The P-40 wasn't exactly a long range champion!

 

[Schweik]

The Germans did well, in part, because they figured out the "fingers four" a lot sooner that just about anybody else did.

I think THIS. The Germans were expecting the war to happen when it did, because they started it. Their core cadre of pilots were very well trained, some bloodied in the Spanish Civil War, and they were using finger four and other sophisticated tactics they had carefully worked out. They had radios in their aircraft (that worked) and fought in a disciplined manner led by veteran pilots.

Meanwhile I don't know about England but I know US and Australian pilots were so new to their P-40s in late 1941 and early 1942 they were crashing in about 20% of their landings. They weren't used to 1,000 hp engines or retractable landing gear. The Allies were scrambling to get everyone trained and to develop suitable tactics, which took a while to disseminate.

Was the Emil really better than a Spitfire? In several ways it was more sophisticated, it had fuel injection and leading edge slats, combat flaps and a hydromatic / barometric controlled supercharger. But the Spitfire was so beautifully streamlined in spite of having 4' wider wingspan and a 40% greater wing area (with resulting superiority in turn performance) was actually faster than the Emil. I think the Spit I and the Emil were roughly equivalent. Which was better Spit or 109 went back and forth through the war with all the different variants, but they were always pretty close.

The Japanese similarly had a big early advantage because so many of their pilots had combat experience in China and because they had worked out the optimal tactics for their aircraft. And yes their aircraft were excellent. But we all here know that aircraft, especially fighter design is a bit of a paper / scissors / rock thing. You gain one advantage at the expense of another. Bf 109 wasn't perfect, neither was the Zero. A lof of their early successes can be chalked up (IMO to being more prepared for war in the early part of it, and this flip flopped and Allied training swiftly caught up, and Axis pilots suffered from attrition. As we know.