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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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:

 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
DVH said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
the zero's ailerons became concrete at higher speeds.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
vinnye said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Agree...
 
davebender said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

How good a plane was the P-40, really?
20 21 22
Replies
424
Views
22K
Just Schmidt
J
H
Why was the Barracuda so much slower than the Avenger?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
6K
EwenS
E
P-51 escort operations in the PTO prior to the capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa?
Replies
2
Views
632
BarnOwlLover
S
Were the 15*69B cartridge a better option for early WWII fighters
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
tomo pauk
S
Why no Fw 190H but the Ta 152H?
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register