Replies

The biggest problem we had with zeros early on was with our tactics not with our planes. The US pilots often made the mistake of playing to the zeros strengths and getting into low speed turning fights. When we fought based on our strengths many of our planes at the start of the war were more than a match for the zero.

Take the P40 for example, it had a superb kill ratio against the zero when flown properly. Here is a good take on this subject:

P-40 vs. Zero

I just read an interesting article about the P-40, and some of it was written by a 14th. Air Force pilot who said a few things I had not heard before. The standard diving attack was mentioned, and was said to be effective, as the Flying Tigers proved earlier. This pilot said maintaining an airspeed of over 250 m.p.h. was the best way to even up the fight between a 40 and a Zero or Oscar. The Zero's agility of course was legendary at low speeds, but above 250 those large ailerons became a liability, and a roll at high speeds was extremely difficult due to the stick forces. A 40 would out-roll a Zero at high speeds, and a good 40 pilot could use this to great effect if the Zero pilot fell for it. Another factor mentioned was that for every successive Zero model, the contemporary 40 version was faster. A6M2 vs. P-40C, A6M3 vs. P-40E and F, A6M5 vs. P-40N. In each case, the pilot said the 40 had at least a 30 m.p.h. speed advantage. So, the 40 pilot could always break the engagement off. The P-40 of course had an even greater advantage in diving speeds, with well over 400 m.p.h. attainable with no risk of damage to the robust airframe. Early Zero's couldn't hit 350 without the risk of damage. The 14th. Air Force pilot also indicated that himself and many of his fellow pilots preferred the 40 to the P-51, as the high altitude capabilities of the 51 were not a factor in their theater. Seems like the more I read about the old P-40, the more I find out that it truly was by no means a second rate fighter. Most Japanese pilots had a great deal of respect for a competent pilot in a 40, but I have wondered what opinion the Luftwaffe pilots had of the Tomahawk.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/p40.htm

You’ll like this article. He recounts an instance in Italy where 22 P-40s encountered 40 109s. Half the German force was shot down for a loss of one. Checkertails.
The Russians also had great success with the P-40 and P-39.
The P-40 was also great in North Africa.

The key to P-40 success was that the fight needed to happen below 16,000 ft. This was Africa, Pacific, and Russian front, but not in Europe where it was unable to compete.

Hans-Joachim Marseille (Luftwaffe) went after 16 (P-40’s) at once and got 6, 3 of which were piloted by allied aces. He was a prodigy though, his best day was 17 kills in 3 sorties, always in the Me-109.

It’s an interesting speculation as to whether or not he would have neared or bested Eric Hartmann if he hadn’t died while parachuting out of a mechanical failure in September of 42. He had 158 or so kills then and Hartmann ended the war with 352. I read once that Hartmann got some harsh Russian treatment when he jokingly related how Marseille actually had more than him because they “counted 1 western front aircraft kill as equal to 3 Russian”.