Three reasons why the P-40 was a better fighter in the PTO than the Spitfire

MikeGazdik said:

CobberKane, great post! This is something that has always been hard for me to understand. But some thinking of this had me wondering if: The Spitfire was a defensive fighter supreme. No questions asked. But even in Europe it's offensive ability was not the best due to range and lack of ordinance carrying ability.

Could it be that because when and if the P-40 was used offensively it was a little better than the Spitfire, coupled with the attributes that made the Spitfire great in Europe, turning and climbing, was nullified by the Japanese fighters? Whereas the P-40 could not climb or turn as well as the Spitfire, but because of the way it was used forced the enemy to fight in a way it was not best, made the P-40 better?

These thoughts are more questions than answers or statements because it still is odd to me, and I LOVE the P-40.

A second thought is the robustness as you pointed out. Including I would think that just by the layout of the landing gear and how low slung the Spitfire is, that the P-40 would be more tolerant of crappy airfields.
?

Click to expand...

^ Yeah I think that is mostly it

Experienced ETO/MTO pilots with new Spitfires thinking they are going to out turn the Zeke with this supreme legendary dogfighting machine

Big mistake I say. USN pilots wouldn't dare do the same trick with the Wildcat, and they where so much better for it

Plus the IJN was still a force in early 1943.They still had some crack fighter pilots and the Zeke's weaknesses was still not that well known
In fact didn't the P38/F4U still cop a hiding or two in early 43 like in the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre

Later in year I think the Pilot Losses and the Zero's weaknesses well known through out the Pacific, really killed the IJN

Thanks, Steve for the like.

Cobber, whilst the P-40 was more suited for combat in the Pacific, as I said, it was not the better fighter of the two. (to convert a word to italics, you highlight the word by dragging the mouse over it with your finger on the left button, once the word is highlighted, click on the I in italics in the bar above the text box you write your post in)

As for the Spitfire's performance against the Zero, yep, it was more manoeuvrable at low speed; there was nothing that wasn't, including the F4U, Mustang, F6F etc, but once the Spitfire VIII appeared, the Zero was no match in a fight except in manoeuvrability and range. The Spit VIII was faster in level speed, had a higher ceiling and faster climb rate than the A6M5, as for the P-40; like I said, it was outclassed by the Spitfire - and the Zero for that matter. But again, you are ignoring the fact that the Spitfire and the P-40 were used in differing roles and the factors against the RAAF over Darwin and the north were such that it didn't really matter what aircraft they had, the hardships were the same. One book I've read about the RAAF over Darwin states that apart from supply issues and a lack of replacement Merlins and a few issues with their guns, Spitfire serviceability rates were no worse than any other fighter in theatre.

The RAAF and USAAF used P-40Es in defence of the north before the Spitfires arrived; once they did, the P-40 units were moved into Papua New Guinea - on the offensive, leaving exclusively Spitfire squadrons defending the Australian north. Lets not forget that the Spitfire F.VCs of the three squadrons of No.1 'Churchill' Wing under the command of Caldwell, Australia's highest scoring ace of WW2 no less, were not coming up against the A6M5 over Darwin, but the A6M3, which had a shorter range and lower speeds overall than the A6M5. Also, lets look at the facts regarding the Wing's performance, air superiority over the Japanese over Darwin was gained after less than eight months from the arrival of the Wing in February 1943. By the end of that year Japanese attacks against Darwin ceased.

The last large enemy formation over Darwin was a Ki-46 escorted by no less than 20 Zeroes (obviously the Japanese were getting tired of their solo recon aircraft not returning) in early September, the Wing putting up 46 Spit VCs, the end result was estimated to be 7 - 4 to the RAAF before the Japanese fled the area. The use of the Spitfire VIII outside of Australia was largely as air defence of Allied bases, while the P-40s and Beaufighters went off on attacking sorties, its fast rate of climb and high speed at altitude, much superior to that of the P-40 were of considerable advantage and the Japanese had no answer to it.

I think this statement pretty well covers it.

"while the newly raised 79 Squadron, destined for service providing urgently needed 'high cover' for the RAAF's Kittyhawk squadrons in New Guinea."

From : Shortages of drop tanks, spares and Spitfires | Darwin Spitfires, the real battle for Australia - 452/A58 Spitfires spares aircraft

If the Kittyhawks "urgently needed 'high cover' " it is a little hard to argue that they were superior to the Spitfire providing that high cover.

While the Spitfire MK Vs had more than their share of problems operating over Darwin in 1943 the P-40s could NOT operate at the altitudes needed.

Shortround6 said:

While the Spitfire MK Vs had more than their share of problems operating over Darwin in 1943 the P-40s could NOT operate at the altitudes needed.

Click to expand...

Of course that brings up the question associated with the P-51/Spitfire debates, could the Spitfire operate at the ranges needed? And the answer is, it depends on the mission, sometimes yes, sometimes no. I think that, for the Pacific, for the most part, range was important. I think there are too many unknown variables to answer this issue, like aircraft availability compared to effectiveness. If you have squadron of P-40s and a squadron of Spitfires in Darwin in 1943, which squadron would have the most flying hours? If the Spitfire was more effective, how many less Spitfires would be needed to be flying, etc.?

If I was three thousand feet above a Zero and about to commence a diving attack I would rather be in the P-40; better diving characteristics, plenty of ammo.

The problem would have been gaining that 3,000 foot altitude advantage in a P-40 in time. Poor ceiling and climb rate was the curse of single stage/speed Allison powered fighters and the worst of them all(climb rate) was the P-40E.

Duane

Good thread - a lot is being said about performance but now we're eluding to IMO was the real reason why the P-40 was a better fighter in the PTO;

Tactics, tactics, tactics.....

Range and external load capability are the only attributes the P-40 truly had over the Spit. The Spit was superior from the deck up to the Ceiling of the P-40, faster, climb faster, turn better, accelerate better, but not roll better than P-40 with standard wing.

In low to medium speed the P-40 was inferior to standard wing Spit but crossed over in medium speeds and was much better at high speed.

Both were better than the Zero except (Perhaps) at low end.

I would disagree that "not being able to take on the zero at it's own game" was truly important if tactics were communicated properly. The importance of understanding the limits of your own craft versus adversary is survival factor for the good fighter pilot. The other aircraft that could not take the Zero in its element (low/medium speed maneuver combat) include all the Allied fighters that fought in WWII.

FLYBOYJ said:

Good thread - a lot is being said about performance but now we're eluding to IMO was the real reason why the P-40 was a better fighter in the PTO;

Tactics, tactics, tactics.....

Click to expand...

Absolutely - Tactics and mission - not performance. Tactics evolve to emphasize strengths and avoidance of circumstances leading to inferior 'survival quotients'..

FLYBOYJ said:

Good thread - a lot is being said about performance but now we're eluding to IMO was the real reason why the P-40 was a better fighter in the PTO;

Tactics, tactics, tactics.....

Click to expand...

Everything else being equal, you didn't get upstairs on the Zero, you were a loser. They were just that good.

Tactics are the key, mind you having extra performance never did anyone any harm. As I understood it the key was to keep your speed up, stay close to or above 250 and the Zero loses its big advantage, agility.

VBF-13 said:

Everything else being equal, you didn't get upstairs on the Zero, you were a loser. They were just that good.

Click to expand...

And if your airspeed was kept up - remember at higher speeds the Zero's strengths were negated and they became nothing more than clay pigeons.

drgondog said:

Absolutely - Tactics and mission - not performance. Tactics evolve to emphasize strengths and avoidance of circumstances leading to inferior 'survival quotients'..

Click to expand...

If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.

Sun Tzu

Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.
Sun Tzu

I used this or a variation of it more times than I can count. It won me a LOT of Cokes for the debrief. The greatest enemy sometimes lies within, and I would encourage / prod him to come out and play...

Cheers,
Biff

Seems to me the history of the early war in the PTO (late-41 thru early-43) suggests the sheer numbers of P-40s available, coupled with allied command's determination and willingness to make whatever changes were required to achieve every possible advantage, permitted the outclassed P-40E's some measure of success. As interceptors over Darwin in mid to late '42 , both the USAAF and RAAF were apparently flying their P-40Es a few hundred lbs lower than max gross weight at take-off. Some USAAF pilots were resorting to removing guns, reducing both ammo and fuel load, while the RAAF appears to have been satisfied by reducing the fuel and ammo carried. Then of course, better tactics evolved after the initial drubbings during the winter of 42 and the now savvy veteran pilots were flying with healthy respect for the A6M's strengths and weaknesses as well as those of their own mount.

There's a flaw in that argument.

P-40 acceleration and climb were relatively slow. In a fair fight (i.e. no diving ambush out of the sun) A6M, Spitfire and quite a few other aircraft will use superior climb to gain an altitude advantage over P-40. That removes the P-40 dive advantage.

Glider said:

Tactics are the key, mind you having extra performance never did anyone any harm. As I understood it the key was to keep your speed up, stay close to or above 250 and the Zero loses its big advantage, agility.

Click to expand...

FLYBOYJ said:

And if your airspeed was kept up - remember at higher speeds the Zero's strengths were negated and they became nothing more than clay pigeons.

Click to expand...

That's the idea, to put it in a nut. When they can't stay with you, they can't fight you. The higher ceiling only bears in that it enables that tactical asset.

Step 1. Have an airplane that can get into the fight. (With too little range or too little altitude performance you don't even get in the ring)
Step 2. Have an airplane that has a least one or two advantages over it's opponent.
Step 3. Use tactics or plan that emphasis those advantages or at least negates some enemy advantages.

it was either in an interview with Tex Hill or some article/book on the AVG i read that Claire Chennault shared the tactic of how to deal with japanese fighters with either us or allied groups coming into the PTO. It was basically if dogfight with them you will lose. attack from above and dive out of range...and repeat. iirc they didnt adhere to that advice and learned the hard way.

Chennault was lucky in that most of his IJA opponents flew inferior aircraft. P-40 tactics that work well against Ki-27s don't work as well against A6M and Ki-43 fighter aircraft.

If you have squadron of P-40s and a squadron of Spitfires in Darwin in 1943, which squadron would have the most flying hours?

Click to expand...

It depends on when you are talking about; like I stated earlier, with the arrival of the Spitfires in February 1943, the P-40s were sent into Papua New Guinea on the offensive and the Spits were used exclusively as interceptors, taking over from the P-40 units, both USAAF and RAAF, and remained in that role until the war's end, so the Spitfire, of course.

Agree with all here on the benefit of tactics over performance, which, again brings us to an important issue as to the use of each aircraft. By the end of 1943 the Spitfire units being stationed in the Solomons were being used as interceptors, while the P-40s were primarily used as long range fighters/fighter bombers. The tactics in use by the Spitfires and P-40s were different in each combat situation since the P-40s were largely (but not always) meeting Japanese fighters defending their territory, whereas the Spitfires were meeting Japanese fighters on the attack. Both types were sensibly employed to make use of their respective strengths. There was an occasion known as the Officer's Revolt, when RAAF P-40 pilots got annoyed with their principally ground attack role as dictated by MacArthur over Rabaul, when the Australians were being expected to mop up any Japanese resistance, whilst the USAAF forces were being advanced forward.

The P-40 was by far and away the most numerous fighter the RAAF operated, with over 900 being employed. The Spitfire, however was in theatre in far smaller numbers than the P-40; in total, some 655 were operated by the RAAF, although over 100 of those never saw squadron service before the end of the war and a large portion were solely based in Australia throughout the war (in a front line role, excluding for training purposes).