So that would be the air bases with Bf109s and Macchi 202s? You did pause to check the range limitations of both those types, right? Oh, no you didn't. The Bf109F/Gs had to be kept close to the battlefront because they were just as short-legged as the Spitfire.
Their job was to protect the German troops from the Allied aircraft, specifically it was to shoot down bombers and fighter-bombers, and more rarely to escort Stukas and other Tactical bombers when the latter were attacking front-line Allied positions (which the Luftwaffe pilots said they hated doing). This required them to be in range of the
front lines. Not to be within range of the Allied airbases which they rarely were. Again, this isn't new and I did not come up with this idea, the issue about the Spitfire's range is well known and has been for a long time. The role of the P-40's as escorts is also pretty well established. I'll quote a passage from a German ace on this subject later.
Bobby Gibbes explained that the altitude advantage of the P-40F lasted exactly one mission. The Bf109s were surprised to find Kittyhawks over 25,000 feet, but the next day they just flew 2000 feet higher and the Kittyhawk IIs could do nothing about it. Given that the Typhoon also had much better range than the Spitfire the point is moot. The Typhoon would have done the escort job just as well if not better than the P-40F, especially as it was faster.
The Bf 109s could always attack from above - quite often they attacked Spitfire V's from above as well. What the DAF pilots needed to change was their Tactics in response to being bounced. The Germans could always use their attack from up high, but if they were limited to only attacking that way, it made it hard to get at the bombers and as the Allies finally adopted effective defensive tactics such as what I've already described upthread (both recently upthread and quite a way back many pages...) the Luftwaffe were less likely to get fighter kills that way either.
The P-40F/L much higher performance ceiling meant that it took longer for Bf 109s to get above them and they couldn't safely fight them (without taking casualties) from there on down to Sea Level. For some reason, prior to mid 1942, RAF were often flying missions including fighter sweeps as low as 6,000 -7,000 feet. Bobby Gibbes has also commented on this as did many of the other DAF and Luftwaffe Aces. When the Merlin engined units came into the Theater, both US and British / Commonwealth, they were able to take a much heavier toll on the German fighters. In most cases without any top cover.
But Typhoons were used as fighters in the Channel Theatre when the P-40F was rejected for that theatre. I have pointed this out numerous times and you are still avoiding that point. You seem to be under the misconception that the P-40F was used in the Desert instead of the Typhoon by choice, whereas history shows the P-40F was replaced as soon as it could be by better aircraft, either Spitfires or Thunderbolts.
We have also discussed this, I certainly haven't avoided the topic, it's just already been hashed out (and then some). You'll have to forgive me if you come in on page 70 of a long running Thread and start bringing up things that were already debunked several times, and I don't spend a ton of effort digging up all the facts that had previously been posted.
Every WW2 combat aircraft had it's strengths and weaknesses. Some were Strategically significant, some Operational or Tactical in implications. Certain aircraft were generalists within a certain subset of conditions, others were suitable for more niche roles. The Spitfire for example was basically an interceptor. The P-51B on out was ideal as an escort fighter. And so on.
In my opinion the Typhoon had much more of a niche role - being very fast at low level like the P-51A, it was better at attacking or performing recon against an "integrated air defense network" - as in static targets, heavy AA integrated with a communications network, and eventually, radar. The Spitfire was already ideal (or the best available) for defense of the Home Islands which is why the newer types in particular (when they became available) were so jealously hoarded there.
The P-40 was a generalist, within certain limits. It was no good at high altitude and wasn't ideal as an interceptor, but remained suitable for a wide variety of conditions in many different Theaters from it's first introduction to combat through the end of the war. It shot down a lot of enemy aircraft during that time, and blew up a lot of enemy ground troops, tanks, bridges, railcars and shipping. It was used in the Med, in the Pacific from Alaska to Australia, in the CBI, and in Russia mostly as a fighter but also as a fighter bomber. In the Med, the conditions changed from the early days with the Tomahawk in 1941 to the introduction of the Merlin engined variants in mid to late 1942. But generally speaking it was used as an air superiority fighter through that entire period.
In Australia, even though it really wasn't good for the job, it had a better record as an interceptor than the Spit V did, for whatever combination of reasons.
See above. Wasn't a new strategy and the 109s' bases were inside the range of Spitfires.
Actually, in most cases they were not. The battle-lines fluctuated a lot during the war so sometimes Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica bases were close enough for Spitfires to join strike missions, but most often they were too far away.
Try reading through the thread before you make a misguided attempt to pwn it.
Which is not to say the Typhoon could have done a better job. Considering it was faster, had just as good range, had heavier armament, was as tough if not tougher, and could out-climb the P-40F, I'd say it is patently obvious that the Typhoon would have done a better job.
The fact that you think the outcomes of air combat would be obvious 76 years ago seems a bit dubious to me...