re: #155 Quoth the raven, Covfefe.

The P-40 got a bad rap because its lack of dual-stage superchargers meant it couldn’t climb up to the altitude of the Bf 109 and FW-190, and so made a poor showing in Northern Europe. In the Pacific, it was sturdy and serviceable, albeit outclassed in maneuverability by the Zero; but the Zero couldn’t out-dive the P-40, and high-speed running passes were a favorite tactic of Allied fighter pilots over the islands. In Africa, the P-40 was the superior fighter until later editions of the Bf 109 and Spitfire eventually made it obsolete, and even then its durability was such that it persisted in the ground-attack role until the growing prevalence of the P-51 in the European sector freed up some P-47s to bring the rain.

Modern evidence is showing that the P-40 could out maneuver the Zero - the danger was if you let yourself slow down. The Zero’s control forces became very heavy over 250 while the P-40’s was good through out it’s flight envelope. The best tactic was what modern pilots call a “low yo-you” where you use the energy of a decent to turn inside your enemy. As long as you kept your exit speed high enough (which is why they abused the engines by pushing them as high as 75” when the manual said 44” for maximum continuous flying O_o ) you could, in fact, out turn a Zero and quite a few pilots did.