Why aren't the A6M also at high altitude, and the German Radios that would be included with German built Zeros, and unlike the Me-109, the A6M has good visibility from the Cockpit.
Radial engines respond faster to power changes than is possible with liquid cooled, so that's another advantage
Thread starter stipulated this in post #9 (my bold):
Specific mission profile for A6M2 force is low altitude intercept/dogfighting, hunter/killer fighter extermination in SE England, no high altitude combat, no bomber escorting, just pure fighter v fighter combat.
Greg 'Pappy' Boyington says otherwise about what engine will be responding faster to power charges. From 'Baa Baa ...' book, pg. 30, his experience with early V-1710-powered P-40 (no automatic boost control yet there) in Burma, when he tried a 3-point landing against the advice and bounced as result:
So I slammed the throttle on, making a go-around. In my nervousness I had put on so many inches of mercury so quickly that the glass coverning the manifold pressure gauge cracked into thousand pieces. After I had landed in the proper manner on second try, I was informed in no uncertain words:
"You can't slam the throttle around like you did in those God-damn Navy air-cooled engines"
The A6M5 had all that,plus more, bigger guns with more ammo, and lost roughly 300 miles of range. Even with that long range, that Big Wing has to watch out for fighter sweep from Norwegian bases
A6M5c (model 52c) had all of that. It lost, among other things, 24 km/h vs. the ordinary A6M5 (model 52) - 541 vs. 565 km/h.