# Best German Fighter of WWII



## Zniperguy114 (Apr 17, 2010)

The two most famous fighters of the third reich are the Messerschmitt BF-109 and the Focke-Wulf 190. So now I pose a simple question - which do think to be better and why?


----------



## -Owl- (Apr 17, 2010)

It was the Luftwaffe's main fighter. Bf-109

My favourite version of it was the G-14. In real life and in IL2.


----------



## Bug_racer (Apr 17, 2010)

This is like having 2 children and asking to decide between them !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> The two most famous fighters of the third reich are the Messerschmitt BF-109 and the Focke-Wulf 190. So now I pose a simple question - which do think to be better and why?



Does this include all models?


----------



## Njaco (Apr 17, 2010)

Tons of threads like this here but my personal favorite is the Fw 190. Beside the personal taste of how it looks I think it edges the Bf 109 because I believe radials were able to take damage and still keep ticking. One of the attributes of the P-47 although that alone doesn't make it better than say - the P-51. Same with the Fw 190. Both great machines but that ability to take the damage tips the scales for me.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 18, 2010)

I've voted for the Fw190, for the damage-absorbing and aesthetic reasons Njaco has already covered, but also because of it's versatility and incredible armament-carrying capacity. Certain variants were able to carry 2x30mm or 4x20mm cannon _in addition_to thier standard armament, which was already respectable. It was also, IMHO, a more effective Jabo than the 109E variants, performing better and carrying a heavier payload.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 18, 2010)

Fw-190 for sure. Wide track landing gear made a huge difference. 

MM


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 18, 2010)

109 for me any aircraft that saw service for so long has to be a great aircraft. I know it isnt rated as the easiest aircraft to handle on the ground but once in the air it was the daddy. I will admit the 190 was probably the better ground pounder and bomber killer but as a fighter the 109 was the choice of most experten.


----------



## Timppa (Apr 18, 2010)

Fw-190.
Generally they held the following advantages:
- Excellent control harmony and lightness
- Phenomenal roll rate
- Firepower
- Cockpit visibility
- Ruggedness
- Easy take-off and landing characteristics

Bf-109 held the following advantages over any contemporary Fw:
- Better climb rate and acceleration
- Better turn rate
- It did not need the C3 fuel
- It was much cheaper to produce .


----------



## timshatz (Apr 18, 2010)

Liked the 190, easier to fly. But would've rather been in combat in a 109. Everyone who's flown both seems to lean in that direction. Rapier vs broadsword.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 18, 2010)

109 was all-engine plane; when the Daimler-Benz were at top, it was on top.
190 have had only one issue: lack of power above certain altitude, putting it into disadvantage vs. Anglo-American high fliers. Unfortunately for Luftwaffe, that issue was ended up being a major one, in crucial time. 

Tough choice


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2010)

I think overall I am going to have to go with the Bf 109 here. Any aircraft that can start production so many years before the war and still be competitive until the very end has to have something going for it. The other reason why I will have to go with the 109 is I believe it had the overall better performance at the altitudes that it was most needed. That was where the the bombers were flying. Besides all the highest aces flew the 109 anyhow didn't they? 

Fw 190 was a great aircraft thought. I guess it depends on at what conditions and what altitudes you want to compare them at.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 18, 2010)

Fw 190 for me: Safer on take-off and landing. Better controls, visibility and armament. Bf 109 became a plane for experts of sorts in the second half of the war, Fw 190 was a true allrounder. Only real problem was high altitude performance. Unfortunately that turned out to be extremely crucial.


----------



## davebender (Apr 18, 2010)

German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
0 Fw-190 fighter aircraft were produced during 1938. (The Spanish Civil War counts.)
0 Fw-190 fighter aircraft were produced during 1939.
0 Fw-190 fighter aircraft were produced during 1940.
228 Fw-190 fighter aircraft were produced during 1941.
Without the Me-109 fighter aircraft Germany would have lost WWII during 1939 to 1940.

The Fw-190 was a superior aircraft from 1944 onward. But then so were the Me-262, He-162, Do-335 etc. Being in service when it's needed most is what counts.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 18, 2010)

Moot point. Without the Bf 109 they would've had the He 112.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 18, 2010)

I think we need to agree on how the comparison is being made. The original question is which aircraft was _better_? This renders the availability dates a moot point anyway - it's about which plane _performed better_, in which case I stick with the 190 for the reasons already given


----------



## davparlr (Apr 18, 2010)

Tough question. The Bf-109 was certainly a better high altitude performer than the Fw-190, but the 190 had a 60% load carrying advantage. I think I would go with the 190 due to load but the 190 needed a better supercharger before the D-9 came out, which was too late.


----------



## davebender (Apr 18, 2010)

In that case the Ta-152 version of the Fw-190 wins hands down. However it's a rather ridiculous comparison.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 19, 2010)

Hi,

the 190 is the better airframe, but miss a good engine for the job to be done when it appeared in big numbers.

As such the 109 was the better fighter till the end of war, while the 190 was a better attacker.
Only in 1942 the FW190 realy did shine, when the war was not in that high alt and the oponents missed a low level engine.

Btw, the Ta152 is not a FW190, its a new family, same like the Me309 etc. New wings, much different fuselage, etc.

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## claidemore (Apr 19, 2010)

Knegel: Most people consider the Ta152 to be simply a late variant of the FW190, the final evolution of the design if you will. RLM changed the naming conventions to use the designers initials ,Ta, for Kurt Tank. Fuselage was lengthened, wingspan was lengthened (identical wing, just longer afaik), different variant of same engine, Jumo 213E for the Ta152 and Jumo 213A for the Dora. 

My vote would have to go to the FW190 series. It was more versatile than the 109, did not require the pilot to be an 'experten' to achieve good results with it, it was a more modern design, it evolved into what was arguably the ultimate piston engined fighter, it had sufficient high alt performance with the Doras and Ta152. It was tougher, packed a bigger punch, carried a heavier load, had better visibility than the 109,had some significant advantages in it's manufacturing and assembly process over the 109. 

I know the 109 shot down more planes and people love to say that ' most' of the highest ranking aces flew the 109, but I don't believe for one second that those aces would have had any less success if they had flown the 190 instead. Indeed six of the 15 over 200 kill aces flew FW190s for most or part of their careers, including Otto Kittel and Walter Nowotny.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 19, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> Btw, the Ta152 is not a FW190, its a new family, same like the Me309 etc. New wings, much different fuselage, etc.
> ...



You have a good point but the same can be said about the P-51H and possibly about Spitfire XIV.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 19, 2010)

davebender said:


> German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 0 Fw-190 fighter aircraft were produced during 1938. (The Spanish Civil War counts.)
> 0 Fw-190 fighter aircraft were produced during 1939.
> 0 Fw-190 fighter aircraft were produced during 1940.
> ...



Against whom would've they lose?

Not against Poland, against Norway it played nothing, the Belgian Dutch air forces were taken out by surprise by greater numbers while being on the airports, with their airports captured by German ground forces.
French air force was a competitor on the paper, but they (the top brass) blew it. They've flown under 1 (one) sortie per plane per day, Germans triple that number. Effectively Germans have had 3 times the air force of French. Eventually German ground forces have captured the airfields in Northern France, and bombed many others, while the French have little or no way to make early warning, not the speed, firepower numbers to do stem the tide.
The RAF did not devoted Spitfires over continent, leaving early Hurricanes to defend NW France rest of Belgium. Without numbers early warning, not enough by a long shot.

My point being, that if Germans decided to go all-Bf-110 (in half of numbers of Bf-109 produced), or He-112/100, the things would've unfolded exactly as they did. It was doctrine, tactics, numbers experience that counted, not some silver bullet.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 19, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> My point being, that if Germans decided to go all-Bf-110 (in half of numbers of Bf-109 produced), or He-112/100, the things would've unfolded exactly as they did. It was doctrine, tactics, numbers experience that counted, not some silver bullet.



Excellent point we sometimes forget its tactics and men not machinesthat win and lose battles.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 19, 2010)

davparlr said:


> You have a good point but the same can be said about the P-51H and possibly about Spitfire XIV.



Hi,

the Ta152C and specialy H was extreme different to the 190D9 and even D12.

Sure, they are from the same developer and they are the result of the knowledge about the 190´s, but they so far away from them. The fuselage, tail, cockpit position is much different, the wings as well. 
The P51H was not that much different to the P51D and the SPit14 had still the same wings, appart from structural changings.

The Ta152 is much more far away from the 190D9 than the 109E from the 109F for example and thats already a big step.

Also the Fockewulf internal designation changed, what is a clear sign of a new type. Otherwise it would have been the Ta190E etc, same like the Bf109K got to be the Me109K.

The 109G was a extreme good all around interceptor, while the 190D´s performence lost much by its engine power loss above even 1500m altitude and later by its ealy extreme wingload.
The 190D9 with the late engine(Sonmdernot + Bodenlader) was probably a extreme good fighter, but this plane came very late. 

There was a reason why the 109´s mainly got used for the topcover units.

But anyway, imho no plane of that time could combine manouverability, extreme firepower, very good climb ratio, very good speed and range and all this in all altitudes at same time. 
As such the 109F/G and FW190A was a perfect combination, unfortunatelly they didnt used the advantages of both planes in combination, or at least much to seldom.


Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## Knegel (Apr 19, 2010)

Knegel said:


> while the 190A´s performence ......................................
> Greetings,
> 
> Knegel



Typo


----------



## riacrato (Apr 19, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> the Ta152C and specialy H was extreme different to the 190D9 and even D12.
> 
> ...


Knegel, sorry but I have to disagree. Many of the Ta 152 changes were used in Fw 190 A, C or D prototypes and the designation Fw 190 was still used. Only the shift of the cockpit for cog purposes gave it a more radical new look. In fact the *Fw 190 V30* (internal Focke-Wulf designation) is pretty much identical to the pre-series Ta 152 H-0. In fact, I think most of the Ta 152 H prototypes kept the Fw designation

And it _is _true, that the wing was essentially an elongated A-8 wing. In this regard it is not so much different than the Spitfire. The Ta 152 is by all means a member of the Fw 190 family.

You say the Bf 109 Emil is much closer to the Friedrich than the Ta 152 is to the Fw 190. I'd be interested to see your proof for that, because I think actually as far as parts commonality is concerned that is not the case. Either way, the Bf 109 C and D are also far from the K, still noone doubts they are Messerschmitts.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2010)

I lump the Fw190D variants into the 190 and clearly go that direction. Bigger, more options and flexibility re: mission and range.

Fw 190A vs all variants of the 109 and it is a tougher call. The 190A only 'suffered in air to air performance because it was forced to defend agianst the only high altitude bombers and escorts in the world - a mission never contemplated when in preliminary design to Reich specs. 

Like wise the 109 was designed as a pure fighter and remained a top one through the end of the war.

Another way to look at the picture is to force each Allied air force to choose one or the other - for their own doctrine. The Fw190 should win.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2010)

riacrato said:


> And it _is _true, that the wing was essentially an elongated A-8 wing. In this regard it is not so much different than the Spitfire. The Ta 152 is by all means a member of the Fw 190 family.



Another thing to look at is the commonality of the assembly tooling between the Ta 152 and Fw 190 family. That would be a great indicator of how close the two aircraft are structurally. I would not call the differences between latter model Fw 190s and Ta 152 "extreme" by any means, in fact I bet there's a lot of common parts between the two, especially below the surface. They are certainly from the same family if not from the same production line.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 19, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Same could be said of the Bf 109E and the Bf 109G - doesn't make them different 'families'.


----------



## Kurfürst (Apr 19, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> the 190 is the better airframe, but miss a good engine for the job to be done when it appeared in big numbers.



I would say it would be more accurate to say it was heavier airframe with more potential/versatality, but the price that had to be paid for this and a radial power plant was that it required more power to haul around, and was more sensitive to power changes. In contrast the 109 was a very purpose designed airframe, the smallest and lightest possible, meaning that it made much better use of every horsepower available to it. Its simply down to the airframe. Put the same engine in the two airframes, and the 109 will make better use of it - a workhorse may be far more ideal in a great number of practical roles, but its foolish to except it to beat 'throughbreds' at their own game at the Ascot... Kurt Tank did a bloody good job getting close to beating them at that, though!

Its a bit of a myth to blame the FW 190s relatively modest performance at altitude to the BMW 801, as actually the 801 had no different chacteristic in this regard than the DB 605A or even DB 603A, a rated alttiude of ca 6 km and similar output drop off above that. The other is that the Jumo 213 was a "poor" engine compared to the DB 603: actually their output was almost a perfect match.. neither the Jumo 213A in the Dora presented much improved altitude power output - the Dora's increase in performance was mostly down to reduced drag from using an inline engine in place of a radial...


----------



## Mustang Driver (Apr 19, 2010)

So which fighter is the best changes depending on the situation. What altitude are they at? Is one plane at a higher altitude than the other? Will the pilot try to engage his opponent in a turn fight? What armament is each fighter equipped with (Bf-109s with the add-on underwing cannons suffered reductions in speed and turn radius) and is their aircraft equipped with some form of boost like the German MW50? These are all things that you have to consider. For the sake of just choosing one, the Bf 109 for me.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 20, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst,
in general I agree with your assessment. But some things to consider: The Fw 190 aerodynamic design philosophy was imo not much different than that of the Fw 190: keep the fuselage and wing dimensions as small as possible. But they relaxed these features for various reasons later on in the development. Other features like the landing gear and the spars however were built much stronger than those of the Bf 109 on purpose. Still the Fw 190 is nimble when compared to some of the Allied contemporaries. It certainly is no P-47 or even Typhoon. In the end the Fw 190 philosophy was imo the more future-proof, the weight increase that comes with development led to a lot of redesigns in all possible areas with the Bf 109.


----------



## zoomar (Apr 20, 2010)

The question is what was the "best", not greatest or most famous German fighter. The Fw-190 was clearly a better and more modern airplane than the 109. When introduced, the Fw-190A-3 was better than the Bf-109E and 109F. Later A models were better all-round fighters than the 109G. The Fw-190D might just possibly have been the best all-round fighter of the entire war. The 109 was a remarkable plane amenable to continued modernization, and the Luftwaffe was really lucky they chose it rather than the He-112. Bf-109s could do some things better than the Fw-190, especially at higher altitudes, but the Fw190 was just hitting its stride when the Bf-109 started to show its age.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2010)

Again people it really comes down to the conditions. The Fw 190 was an overall better airframe and aircraft, but it was outclassed by the Bf 109 at the altitudes where it mattered most (at least the A variants). That is where the bomber streams were located.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 20, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Again people it really comes down to the conditions. The Fw 190 was an overall better airframe and aircraft, but it was outclassed by the Bf 109 at the altitudes where it mattered most (at least the A variants). That is where the bomber streams were located.



True. But the tanks, troops, transport, towns and everthing else that has to be either destroyed or taken in order to win the war were on the ground, where the FW190 was as good as anything. It all depends on how much weight you put on strategic bombing vs the tactical air war. The two worked hand in hand, strategic offensive reduced Germanys tactical capabilities, but the war still had to be won low down. You can't win a war from 30,000 ft. 

The Dora 190's had sufficient altitude performance to deal with B17s and B24's, and were produced specifically with that purpose in mind. However the situation was such that they ended up being used primarily against fighters at medium and low altitude.

Much pride is taken with the ability of the 8th AF to 'take the war to Berlin', yet it was the Soviets (who had no strategic capability but huge tactical ability) who ended up taking the city. 

The Focke Wulf might not have had the high alt performance of the 109, but it could be used in many more roles, including fighter vs fighter, bomber interception, ground attack and night fighter. It was a much more versatile plane, ergo a 'better' one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2010)

The Dora was only supposed to be a stopgap until the Ta 152 came online.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 20, 2010)

claidemore said:


> True. But the tanks, troops, transport, towns and everthing else that has to be either destroyed or taken in order to win the war were on the ground, where the FW190 was as good as anything. It all depends on how much weight you put on strategic bombing vs the tactical air war. The two worked hand in hand, strategic offensive reduced Germanys tactical capabilities, but the war still had to be won low down. You can't win a war from 30,000 ft.
> 
> The Dora 190's had sufficient altitude performance to deal with B17s and B24's, and were produced specifically with that purpose in mind. However the situation was such that they ended up being used primarily against fighters at medium and low altitude.
> 
> ...



Claidmore's thoghts dovetail with mine very closely. When a high altitude fighter with heavy armament and able to fight with Mustangs was needed the Fw 190D-9 was developed which was as capable as the latest 109K's.. when a fighter bomber was required to provide close air support and still fight well in the weeds the Fw 190A was superb. When a medium altitude, medium range air superiority fighter was required the 190A and 190D were as easily capable as the 109 against the Spit (or Mustang)..

It had greater capacity for mission changes and adaptable to virtually every tactical assignment except long range escort or catching Mosquitos.


----------



## Erich (Apr 20, 2010)

side notation the Dora 9 did not have the armaments package to deal with US heavy bombers on a whole like the Fw 190A-8 and sub-variants with arms deliveries.

The Ta 152H was indeed a different A/C though we would call it an extension of later Fw Dora designs in effect it was not, and this is according to documents collected such as AIR 40/209


----------



## claidemore (Apr 20, 2010)

Erich: Below are two quotes from two different articles on wiki, (I know, I know), but what are your thoughts on them? 


> A meeting was called at the Messerschmitt Augsburg factories, where it was decided to continue development of the high-altitude Fw 190s as the Ra-2 and Ra-3, as well as to develop a new version of the 109 as the Messerschmitt Me 155, later known as the Blohm Voss BV 155. After renaming, The Ra-3 would become the Focke-Wulf Ta 152.





> and Focke-Wulf with the Fw 190 Raffat-1, or Ra-1, (fighter), Ra-2 (high-altitude fighter) and Ra-3 (ground-attack aircraft), which developed into the Fw 190 V20 (Ta 152A), V30 (Ta 152H) and V21 (Ta 152B) prototypes, all based on the then successful Fw 190D-9 but with varying degrees of improvement.



For me this shows that the Ta152 was a developement of the 190.


----------



## Gixxerman (Apr 21, 2010)

For piston engined fighters surely the ultimate was the final Ta design (the Ta 153)?
I rarely see much info on this plane - the Focke-Wulf Ta 153 (GH+KV) - but my understanding is that this was KT's ultimate goal for the type and it at least made it into a flying prototype - the V32?

After this I imagine that the jets and things like the Ta 183 take over his drawing board completely. 

For jets that made it to the air I would think the Me 262C was pretty much the one you'd want to be in (except on landing with the skies crawling with allied fights).

As ever the mission dictates 'best' but they'd be my picks.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 22, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Erich: Below are two quotes from two different articles on wiki, (I know, I know), but what are your thoughts on them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The La-7 also was developed from the Lagg-3, still it was a new plane type, cause the differents was extreme.


----------



## billswagger (Apr 22, 2010)

I think the 109 was the better plane.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 22, 2010)

Knegel said:


> The La-7 also was developed from the Lagg-3, still it was a new plane type, cause the differents was extreme.



Good point!  
Biggest difference initially was the change of engine in the La5. Using the Lavochkin planes as the gauge would mean that the Dora series was a new plane as well (new engine) despite the fact that they still used the '190' in the name. 
I would submit that the Soviet naming system where the inititals of the designers were used is different from the German one where the company name was used. The LaGG 3 was named after S.A.Lavochkin, V.P.Gorbunov and M.I.Goudkov. The three designers split, all three worked on fitting the Shvetsov radial to the LaGG 3 airframe, and ultimately Lavochkins plane was selected for production. 

Because RLM changed their naming system the plane that would have been called FW190R3 was called Ta 152H. 

We're arguing semantics in any case. The point here is the argument that the FW190 was a better plane than the 109 because it was developed into the Ta 152. 

Messerschmitts insistence on sticking to his original design philosopy of the smallest possible airframe mounted on the biggest available engine and the 'advanced' thin, LE slat wing made more powerful armament difficult. 
As a weapons delivery system the 190 beats the 109 hands down, and ultimately the job of the fighter is to deliver ordnance, whether against other fighters, bombers or ground targets.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2010)

Erich said:


> side notation the Dora 9 did not have the armaments package to deal with US heavy bombers on a whole like the Fw 190A-8 and sub-variants with arms deliveries.
> 
> The Ta 152H was indeed a different A/C though we would call it an extension of later Fw Dora designs in effect it was not, and this is according to documents collected such as AIR 40/209



E ~ true on 190D-9 'package' but it had the same wing as the A and 4x20mm are still a powerful B-17 killer.. should still roll with a 51 and the reduction in climb and top speed would be less but not (IMO) a serious issue for most air to air combat between equal pilots.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2010)

billswagger said:


> I think the 109 was the better plane.



Bill - the Me 109K was a marginally better interceptor of fighters than a Fw 190D. The BoB might have had a different outcome with Fw 190A and longer legs to escort LW bombers in daylight, and much longer for fighter sweeps.

The 109E failed as an escort simply becuase of range (IMO). It had zero capability of providing target escort to Ju88 or Do217 or He111 at their normal ranges whereas the Fw 190 could have upgraded internal fuel to make target escort work. In all other roles but fighter/fighter interceptor role at high altitude, the Fw 190A was a better choice.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 22, 2010)

Think there were only 2 x 20mm on D-9, total...


----------



## Erich (Apr 22, 2010)

the Ta 152H-1 had a single 3cm through the prop and two 2cm in the inner wings/ what I have in my data files on the model both H-O and H-1 and a couple other variants I will release later in a volume. if we want to call the Ta anything it would be known as a tarded late war Dora. longer narrow wing span cockpit sitting way back on the fuselage and broad tail as standard a huge in-line engine with monster air-intake scoop.

yes you can pretty much call the LW fighter force at will for 1946 but in essence it would of been more Ta's flying above Me 262A's.........you get the picture guys


----------



## Erich (Apr 22, 2010)

the Ta 152H-1 had a single 3cm through the prop and two 2cm in the inner wings/ what I have in my data files on the model both H-O and H-1 and a couple other variants I will release later in a volume. if we want to call the Ta anything it would be known as a tarded late war Dora. longer narrow wing span cockpit sitting way back on the fuselage and broad tail as standard a huge in-line engine with monster air-intake scoop.

yes you can pretty much call the LW fighter force at will for 1946 but in essence it would of been more Ta's flying above Me 262A's.........you get the picture guys


----------



## Kurfürst (Apr 22, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Bill - the Me 109K was a marginally better interceptor of fighters than a Fw 190D. The BoB might have had a different outcome with Fw 190A and longer legs to escort LW bombers in daylight, and much longer for fighter sweeps. The 109E failed as an escort simply becuase of range (IMO). It had zero capability of providing target escort to Ju88 or Do217 or He111 at their normal ranges whereas the Fw 190 could have upgraded internal fuel to make target escort work.



Yes, but its pretty unrealistic, considering that the 190A was not truely operations-worthy until late 42/early 1943 due to engine development problems. The very reason why the first 190s were deployed in France (ie. friendly turf) was that engine reliabilty was not sufficient to fly over hostile territory (desert, sea, russia)!
What they would have really needed (realistically), was the droptanked E-7 a couple of months earlier and retrofitting the others with that capability, or with a bit of optimism, widespread use of the 109F that was indeed in production by the summer of 1940 and had a range equal to the FW 190A.



> In all other roles but fighter/fighter interceptor role at high altitude, the Fw 190A was a better choice.



They pretty much operated at their strenghts - 109s for high altitude fighter and photorecce units, 190s for medium altitude fighters and Jabo units. In any case, you cant build a fighter that is the best for all purposes - and while greater versatality of an airframe is great from the production point of view, tactically and operationally its a bit overrated imho. Units typically perform the same operational profile, and success depends on weather they get the right training and equipment for that task, not on which plane they fly.
A high altitude 109 staffel operating against high flying enemy photo recce aircraft will hardly miss the greater payload, since they rarely if ever do jabo missions (neither does the crew have the training or experience for such missions, much overlooked imho!). Similarly, no 190 _Schlachtgeschwader_ would complain about great high altitude performance.Its about using the right tools for the right task.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 25, 2010)

Kurfurst - good points about BoB, and still no question (in my mind) that a 109K was a better high altitude interceptor than a 190D.. having said that IMO the 190 was the airframe with the best mission expansion capability for all the reasons discussed above.


----------

