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

[RCAFson]

The Spitfires were intercepting IJ aircraft that were flying well above the P-40's effective ceiling, and in some cases above the P-40's actual service ceiling. The "big wing" tactics employed by the Spits was the primary cause of the Spitfire's less than expected kill rates, IMHO. The failure to use the available drop tanks in their initial missions along with high altitude armament and CS prop issues were also contributing factors.

Some of the issues encountered with Allison engined fighters in the Pacific:

First priority naturally went to the defense of Allied bases, a burden which fell upon the fighter units at Moresby and Darwin. Over both points the enemy bombers usually came in at 22,000 feet and above, too high for satisfactory interception by P-40's, P-39's, or P-400's, the only fighters available to the AAF in the Southwest Pacific, and their limitations seriously affected Allied operations.(64) During July the P-39 had made contact with enemy bombers only four times in a series of nine raids despite a thirty-minute warning; in sixteen actual contacts it never once enjoyed an altitude advantage and the Zero invariably could outclimb and outmaneuver this fighter, which suffered the additional disadvantage of increased vulnerability because of the location of its motor behind the pilot. The P-40 was somewhat better, but it, too, was outperformed by the more nimble enemy fighters, particularly at high altitudes. Inferior performance of their planes lowered the morale of the pilots.(65) It was true that the Allied planes were more rugged and less inflammable, they could outdive the Zero, and if given warning to permit them to reach sufficient altitude they could achieve creditable scores, as they did on 30 July over Darwin when twenty-seven P-40's shot down six Zeros and two bombers at the cost of one P-40.(66) But pilots continued to be frustrated, as on 17 August, when for the seventy-eighth time enemy bombers struck Moresby in an attempt to disable their favorite target, Seven-Mile Airdrome. Although defending fighters had received adequate warning, they were unable to intercept.(67)
HyperWar: The Army Air Forces in WWII: Vol. IV--The Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan [Chapter 1]

 

[nuuumannn]

Regarding tactics, trials carried out using the Aleutian Zero against Allied fighters revealed their strengths against the Zero and subsequent analysis of Japanese intel offered an insight into how the Japanese countered Allied fighters. The Airacobra, which could outperform, but not out manoeuvre the Zero at low to medium altitude, and the P-40, often found themselves at a distinct disadvantage since the Japanese pilots learned to take advantage of their low speed manoeuvring by turning in toward a pursuing opponent, the P-39 generally being able to catch the Zero at low altitudes, by pushing his fighter into a steep climb, then quickly turning in and whilst the P-39/P-40 was establishing itself in the climb. The Zero was still able to manoeuvre since its stall speed was lower than either fighter. It was found that pursuing pilots concentrating on their gunsights would find themselves losing speed, at which point they were vulnerable to the Zero. In this condition, not even the Mustang or Corsair could better the Japanese fighter despite showing considerable advantages in level speed, climb and dive over the Zero.

 

[DVH]

As an earlier post stated, tactics.
The P40 was effective at being good in a dive, which was at the heart of Chennault's tactics of hit and run, which proved to be the only way to oppose the zero.
if the spitfire squadrons in Darwin had heeded this advice they would have fared batter. But based on European experience, they wrongly believed the spitfire to be an unmatched dogfighter, based on Luftwaffe confrontations.
There are countless examples of tactics being the key to success in wars, but this doesn't make the P40 a superior aircraft.
I have read accounts of a P40 being pitted againsed a Hurricane, and they fared equally. The Spitfire was certainly superior to the Hurricane. In the pacific, the short range nature of the Spitfire was unsuitable, but horses for courses.
The Spitfire evolved at a fast pace, you can't compare a mark one to a mark five, the P40 didn't benefit from this kind of investment. So it remained largely an old school aircraft.
To sum up, it was more tactics than hardware that was the key.
it should also be said that Chennault ultimately failed to defend china from Japan. That's not to downplay the P40, there was a much bigger picture, but all in all, there were better aircraft flying than the P40. The reason the spitfire is more celebrated is because it played a more important role in the war, it basically was key to keeping Britain free from invasion and also kept pace with every other fighter aircraft throughout the duration of the war, that was a monumental feat.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The P40 was effective at being good in a dive, which was at the heart of Chennault's tactics of hit and run, which proved to be the only way to oppose the zero.

Not entirely true! All you had to do was enter combat in the horizontal or diving vertical at airspeeds higher than the Zero's effective maneuvering speeds, something like 250 mph, (probably a little less) and stay within the energy egg at those higher speeds (Biff, chime in any time). the zero's ailerons became concrete at higher speeds.

FYI - the AVG NEVER fought the Zero!

 

[Shortround6]

FYI - the AVG NEVER fought the Zero!

That is true but Chennault may have, at least forces under his command since he was in charge of the Chinese airforce and not just the AVG.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That is true but Chennault may have, at least forces under his command since he was in charge of the Chinese airforce and not just the AVG.

Later in the war perhaps. During the time Chennault commanded the AVG there were no IJN units - the AVG fought IJAAF units in China and Vietnam. I don't believe Chennault ever commanded the entire CAF

 

[nuuumannn]

the zero's ailerons became concrete at higher speeds.

Yep, the Zero was too slow in such manoeuvres and Allied fighter pilots learned to take full advantage of this. The A6M3 in reality couldn't go much faster than 270 - 280kts for this reason. Saburo Sakai later recalled how the use of team work in the air and energy manoeuvres by American pilots put his fellow airmen at a distinct disadvantage. When Sakai ordered his men to concentrate on working as a team in the air and covering each other's backsides, his pilots returned frustrated and angry for two reasons; they didn't know what to do and they were never able to get into a firing position; such tactics went against their training.

 

[vinnye]

I have enjoyed this thread and have learned from reading through it.
I rate the P40 quite highly, it did well when it was used properly - the same is true of the Spitfire, F6 , F4U etc.
It is sad, but pretty accurate that had those pilots flying those Spitfires adopted the correct tactics, they would have had greater success and lasted longer!
The Big Wing was not in my opinion the correct use of the Spitfire outside of the ETO, and even then not the best use until the BoB had been won.
The best tactics have been discussed in earlier posts - get higher than your opponent, stay at fairly high speed and make short diving passes before returning to height again.

 

[Shortround6]

Later in the war perhaps. During the time Chennault commanded the AVG there were no IJN units - the AVG fought IJAAF units in China and Vietnam. I don't believe Chennault ever commanded the entire CAF

Sorry for the confusion, while not in charge of the Chinese air force before the AVG he was involved with training and observing and was an adviser to the Chinese air force, granted he spent a fair amount of time in the US organizing the AVG but since the Zero WAS used in China before the AVG became operational he may have had opportunities to observe/ receive reports on the Zero's performance/tactics and try to work out a counter to it before the AVG went into action. Or it may be that since many of the early Japanese fighters performed sort of the same ( maneuver fighters rather than speed fighters) the same general tactics may have been useable against most of the Japanese fighters. He may have had an opportunity to see/receive reports on how Russian supplied I-16s fared against Japanese planes.

 

[Shortround6]

The best tactics have been discussed in earlier posts - get higher than your opponent, stay at fairly high speed and make short diving passes before returning to height again.

Which is actually a tactic the Japanese Zero pilots used quite a bit, at least at the start of many combats. AS formations broke up and things turned to furballs the Japanese may have been much more willing to get into twisty fights to finish things up.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sorry for the confusion, while not in charge of the Chinese air force before the AVG he was involved with training and observing and was an adviser to the Chinese air force, granted he spent a fair amount of time in the US organizing the AVG but since the Zero WAS used in China before the AVG became operational he may have had opportunities to observe/ receive reports on the Zero's performance/tactics and try to work out a counter to it before the AVG went into action. Or it may be that since many of the early Japanese fighters performed sort of the same ( maneuver fighters rather than speed fighters) the same general tactics may have been useable against most of the Japanese fighters. He may have had an opportunity to see/receive reports on how Russian supplied I-16s fared against Japanese planes.

Agree...

 

[bobbysocks]

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.

are you saying that attacking from 3 to 5K behind and above... and diving through at a high rate of speed..pure hit and run tactics would not work on an A6M or Ki-43?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

The AVG fought the Ki 43 and did very well against it.

 

[VBF-13]

the zero's ailerons became concrete at higher speeds.

Just thinking how that happens, I'm thinking it's a trim-tab issue. Am I on the right track?

 

[Shortround6]

The AVG fought the Ki 43 and did very well against it.

That is right, they may have mis-identified them as Zeros, that doesn't mean they didn't shoot them down.

 

[N4521U]

I have to laff, out loud, evvvverrrry time one of these "what if" "it's better than" threads show up...........

 

[glennasher]

Nearly 70 years later, practically ALL threads are "what if" threads...................d:^)

 

[nuuumannn]

Just thinking how that happens, I'm thinking it's a trim-tab issue. Am I on the right track?

It was due to aerodynamic loading of the control surfaces; the Zero wasn't overly fast by late war standards and as it got faster, the control surfaces got heavier. Curtiss test pilot H. Lloyd Child stated that he thought the Zero's control harmonisation was poor, claiming that the ailerons were heavy by comparison to the other surfaces.

The Zero's ailerons had ground adjustable tabs only. The only flight surface with flight adjustable trim tabs was the elevators.

 

[CobberKane]

What do you classify as "better diving characteristics

"?

I couldn't find a direct comparison between the Spitfire V and the P-40, a Spit I was compared to the P-40s air cooled predecessor, the Hawk 75. From Wiki: "The Hawk was found to have lighter controls than the Spitfire at speeds over 300 mph (480 km/h), especially in diving attacks…"
And from Ray Hanna, who spent plenty of time in both types: "Where the P-40 excels and will throw out most other fighters is in diving, rolling manoeuvres".
As neither the Spitfire or Zero were renowned for diving and rolling, I'd guess he was including them in his category of 'most fighters'
A couple of general points. Several posts have refuted the assertion that the P-40 was superior to the Spitfire by comparing their performance figures. The Spitfire will always win this contest in the air, but to use its superior performance against the enemy in the PTO it would often need to take off and land from third rate fields and be kept operational in between. The Spitfire was known as a tricky aircraft to land and take off in, and it required highly skilled technicians to maintain it. The P-40 would withstand inordinate abuse and was far easier to keep airworthy. Also, in response to the view that comparing the two is a case of apples and oranges as the P-40 was a fighter bomber and the Spitfire a pure fighter, I've never differentiated to much between these categories as I can't think of a single fighter that wasn't also a fighter bomber as the need arose. I want my fighter to cover as many bases as possible and I still maintain the P-40 ticks more boxes. The Spitfire was undoubtedly much better as an interceptor, or it should have been given the right tactics, although the figures suggest it didn't shine even in this role in the PTO. But at all but the highest altitudes the P-40 made similarly effective use of the same tactics, plus it could take more punishment, plus it was better in ground attack, plus it was easier to fly from goat tracks, plus it was easier to keep in the air. Like the Hurricane in the BoB it was the right aircraft in the right place at the right time.

 

[Greyman]

I couldn't find a direct comparison between the Spitfire V and the P-40 ...

Yeah, closest thing I could find was this report on wwiiaircraftperformance:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf