Yes I'm curious too.
Joe, what's the crux of your opinion on the Pacific airwar comparing Commonwealth vs US results?
Were the P-40 Wildcat just better aircraft to fight the Japanese vs Spitfire Hurricane?
Or were the CW not as good as US? Inexperienced pilots? Poor training? Poor tactics?
Poor planning on choice of missions?
What was the reason for the disparity?
As in my longer post recently and others before, high losses compared to what?
First, forget RCAF's obfuscation. The original point I made to him was that the Spitfire did not prove itself superior to the P-40 in fighter combat defending Darwin. That's not a statement of the converse, than the P-40 *did* prove itself superior. And now having posted the results of each mission defending Darwin, you can see it was common for either P-40's or Spitfires to go after bombers escorted by Zeroes and suffer losses to the Zeroes without scoring any kills in return (though generally believing they had). Up to the summer of 1942 this sort of result was the rule for JNAF fighters v a variety of Allied fighter opposition. Other P-40 ops in period are not as directly comparable in situation but also not good results. For example 75sdn RAAF in first deployment in March-Apr '42 at Moresby downed 2 Zeroes in air combat for 16 P-40/Kittyhawk air combat losses to Zeroes (source: "Seek and Strike" by Wilson kodochosho*), though OTOH in the few combats in August 1942 75 and 76 Sdn downed 4 Zeroes for 5 Kittyhawks (same sources) and 49th FG in NG in Nov-Dec '42 downed 4 Zeroes for 3 P-40's (Hess kodochosho)
F4F's v Zero contests of course varied case to case to but overall trend was less variable around 1:1 with >100 kills on each side in 1942, in a variety of situations (G'canal defense high altitude, low altitude, carrier battles, F4F escorts v Zero CAP's over convoys in Solomins, etc without appearing to change wildly, numbers tended to be similar on each side).
So it's not so much why did Spitfires do worse as why did they achieve results typical of what most Allied units did ca spring-summer '42 rather than parity situation that began to appear in 2nd half '42 in many other cases. I think most of the specific possible explanations have been mentioned at one time or another, and few if any originally by me:
-Spit intolerant of primitive field conditions, not as rugged as the other types, exactly the Soviet complaint in finding the P-39 preferable for their purposes on their southern front in 1943
-Spit V just generally overrated, one mark of a fighter of which some versions were arguably the best fighter around in their time, at least for short range ops, Spit V not so much. In some circumstances it was perhaps more comparable in practical fighter combat capability to P-39/40 or F4F than the conventional wisdom would hold, with the first point in mind especially.
-F4F specifically turned better, certainly than the P-39/40. If you were going to instinctively turn, and be outturned by the Zero, the Zero would outturn the F4F by less.
-202nd AG experienced and previously generally successful unit, Spit wing not, as a unit anyway
-anti-Zero tactics on paper perhaps generally overrated as a factor in obtaining successful results v Zeroes; easier to say than do, not actually practiced yet by F4F units in 1942. In fact among F4F tactics were deliberate dog fighting (Joe Bauer to his men at G'canal ca. Oct 42 'if you see Zeroes, dogfight em', believing that the hit and run tactics of some of the Zero units then indicated deteriorating pilot quality so they should be closely engaged), and alternatively the 'pin cushion': just don't turn with Zero on tail but jink up and down and rely on the F4F to absorb hits from directly astern, a tough a/c, rapid roll at high speed was the main tactic later enshrined in manuals that was actually frequently used in 1942 in combat.
-not just 'training' in theory but whole personnel structure of 1942 Japanese v US v Brit/CW fighter forces differed. Brit/CW ca 42 tended to consist of some men experienced in real combat leading larger number of relatively poorly trained inexperienced men. The 1942 USAAF, desperately expanding, had a somewhat similar profile except even the experienced men had no combat experience. JNAF of '42 in contrast had an experience profile like a peactime force, with relatively more highly and mid experienced men, some (though fewer than is sometimes assumed) with combat experience in China, and their green pilots were more thoroughly trained than wartime type mass produced newbies of 1942 RAF or USAAF, not to mention their own later on. USN had a similar profile to JNAF except no combat experience. USN and USMC training systems were basically same but USMC had more low hour pilots in combat units in 1942 than USN did; greenest USN pilots on deployed carriers had more hours than greenest USMC at G'canal, and those carrier guys were often the spares and didn't always get to fly combat.
How this experience profile summary applies to 1943 is a little fuzzier. In general the Spit (and Hurricane) results in Far East in 1943 are more puzzling than the record in 1942.
I don't have a strong opinion on the weighting of those causes. My main problem in all frankness is with what I perceive as obviously situationally dependent arguments by people who have an obvious 'dog in the fight', either about what the results were in the first place, or often ridiculous theories that particular relatively minor variations in situation would cause not only huge changes in results but persistent ones. One side would decide to use a few 1k more feet altitude, and OK that's it...other side would go from achieving parity to getting whipped consistently for months, and so would any other unit. The JNAF could have ruled the Pacific all through '43 and beyond, with their super altitude capable Zero, if only they'd known!
People should try to be serious, objective and grown up, that's the only thing I have a really strong opinion about here.
*Wilson gives Japanese losses for some incidents per US comms intercepts of Japanese radio reports to higher Hq's, he got at US National Archives...they agree well with written Japanese records but latter are aviable for all engagements in that period.
Joe