Sorry to burst your bubble the Zero was a modern NAVAL fighter. In China the japanese operated Ki-27 and Ki-43 fighters which were actually inferior designs compared with the P-40(C).
On 23 Dec. 1941 15 P-40s of 3d Sqdn. AVG (the 'Hell's Angels') reported they engaged "54 Mitsubishi twin-engine bombers,
8 Zeros, & 12 Nakajima Type-97 fighters" attempting to bomb Rangoon.
(The Nakajima Type-97 was the same as the Ki-27.) The RAF was responsible for after-action reports in Burma, where this action took place. The RAF confirmed the size & composition of the Japanese force. The RAF also confirmed 25 a/c shot down by the AVG & 7 by the RAF. The AVG lost 3 a/c & 2 pilots that day compared to RAF losses of 11 a/c & 5 pilots.
On 25 Dec. "60 Mitsubishi twin-engine bombers, escorted by 32 fighters of indeterminate types" attempted to bomb Rangoon. They were intercepted by 12 P-40s of 3d Sqdn. AVG & 15 Brewster Buffalos of the RAF. After the action pilots reported engaging both
Zeros & Nakajima Type-97 fighters, although numbers of each weren't available. At least 1 Zero was shot down by an AVG pilot. The RAF after-action report indicated 36 total Japanese a/c confirmed destroyed
(19 AVG, 7 RAF, 10 shared or indeterminate) against AVG losses of 2 a/c & 0 pilots & RAF losses of 9 a/c & 6 pilots.
On 20 March 1942 "44 Mitsubishi twin-engine bombers escorted by 20
Zeros" attacked Magwe, in N. Burma. They were intercepted by an unknown number of P-40s of 3d Sqdn. AVG & RAF Hurricanes
(accounts differ, & since Magwe was destroyed as an active base in this raid records are fragmentary).
(Reports are taken from Duane Schultz "The Maverick War", 1987 St. Martin's Press.)
At first glance, it appears that the AVG was in action against a mixture of Ki-27s & Zeros. Upon reflection, however, I find that the Ki-43 was referred to as the "Army Zero" because it was an almost identical airframe. The AVG & RAF reports of Zeros escorting bombers in Burma & China therefore may well have therefore referred to the Ki-43, & not to the Mitsubishi A-6/M, so I thank you for the correction, if not for the condescending manner in which you offered it.
J. R. Rossi, in "AFG: American Volunteer Group, The Flying Tigers", 1998 says that compared to the A-6/M Zero, "Japanese Army aircraft such as the Nakajima Ki-27 and Ki-43 were similarly maneuverable". Other authorities refer to the Ki-43 as "modern, fast, & highly maneuverable".
Ki-43
empty weight 1910kg
loaded weight 2590kg
max t/o weight 2925kg
cruise 440km/h
max 530km/h
range 1760km
armament 2 fixed forward-firing 12.7mm MG.
A-6/M
empty weight 1680kg
loaded weight 2410kg
cruise 333km/h
max 533km/h
range 3105km
armament 2 fixed forward-firing 7.7mm MG + 2 fixed forward-firing 20mm.
Comparing these 2 a/c, we find that they're similarly light & maneuverable, compared to the much heavier P-40...
P-40/B
empty weight 2535kg
loaded weight 3323kg
cruise ~400-445km/h
max 566km/h
range 1200km
armament 4 fixed forward-firing .30-cal. MG + 2 fixed forward-firing 12.7mm.
My description of AVG tactics was accurate, the context in which I used it was appropriate, & the reference to the Zero fighter was very much a side-issue. The fact remains that von Richthofen's tactics were far ahead of their time, Goering was an idiot for departing from them, & they were successfully copied by later combat leaders like Galland & Chennault.
BTW, until re-equipped with a few P-40/E replacement a/c towards the end of its combat tour, the AVG flew exclusively
P-40/Bs, & not P-40/Cs as stated in your post. Sorry to pop your bubble.
--Thegn.