[GuerraCivil]

One interesting but somewhat little handled detail is to evaluate the performance of Allied P-40 units vs. Zero. The P-40 B Tomahawk saw actually very little action against IJNAF as most available Tomahawks of USAAF Far East Air Force were destroyed on the ground. Flying Tigers did quite well vs. Oscars of IJAAF but Oscar in my opinion was in many respects inferior plane compared to Zero. The IJAAF would have probably made it better with denavalized version of Zero.

The P-40 E Kittyhawk/Warhawk saw more action vs. Zeros of IJNAF but I do not know if there are any reliable combat analysis available - my impression is both sides overclaimed drastically their exploits - both sides won the most of air combats if we are to believe their claims. The comparison of loss records of both sides will probably give more reliable picture how the Allied P-40 units actually fared against Zeros of IJNAF.

Of the first Japanese air raid against Darwin on 19.2.1942 I have read that Zeros shot down ten defending P-40 E´s of USAAF without air combat losses of their own. However I have also read that P-40 pilots learned their lessons and avoided the dogfights with Zeros - that they instead tried to employ Kittyhawk/Warharwk quite a same way as the Flying Tigers did with Tomahawks. I would not be surprised if the combat statistics would show the gradual improvemet of tactics and combat skills of P-40 pilots when pitted against Zeros.

The advice of experinced USAAF P-40 pilots seems to have been ignored by Clive Caldwell when he first tried to build interception tactics with Spitfires against IJNAF raids. As a consequence the Spitfire pilots got dragged too often in dogfights - they lost the speed advantage of Spit and their plane was less nimble than Zero in turning fight. Thus the performance of Spits vs. Zeros was not so impressive when defending Darwin.

The technical performance of the plane is a important asset, but I think that it goes to tactics and combat skills which ultimately decide the combat. The combat pilots with better tactics and skills can win an enemy with technically superior equipment if the technical difference is not too big. The Zero was in many respects better plane than Wildcat but I think that the tactics of US Navy pilots proved to be better in the long run. The Wildcat pilots had also the advantage of better radio equipment which helped the co-operation in air - the Zero pilots over Guadalcanal flew often without radios as the Japanese radio equipment was unreliable and considered for good reason just a extra weight.

The IJAAF pilots made it initially quite well with the obsolete Ki-27 against Brewster Buffalos, Hurricanes and even P-40´s. The initial success of Ki-27 pilots is a good example how better training and more improved skills can compensate the disadvantage of inferior equipment. Only when Allied catched up and found the right tactics, the outdated Ki-27 became a serious handicap for the IJAAF pilots.