Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I am not talking about aerodynamics. The principles of aerodynamics apply to any aircraft. What I am talking about is the performance stats and how an aircraft compares based on performance.
Click to expand...

Werent we talking about the P-38's ability to turn ? I was.
 
Whilst on the subject of the P38. Does anyone know why they were replaced in the ETO with what seems to be almost indecent haste. They were the first long range fighters in Europe but from what people are saying it looks as if they should have stayed.

Deralder, I agree with your 8,01 posting.

Lesof, Wars are won and lost by Mr and Mrs Average. If Mr and Mrs Average couldn't get one plane to turn inside another then in my view for comparison purposes it couldn't.
The logic is straightforward
If an exceptional pilot in his P38 could turn inside an average pilot in say a Spit, then it was down to the better skill of the better pilot.
If when flown by two average pilots, the Spit could turn inside the P38, then it is down to the better plane. As the vast majority of turning fights were between average pilots then the spit would wiin the vast majority of the fights.
Of course other factors come into play in particular altitude. If at altitude the P38 would be able to fight in the vertical diving and climbing. If caught on the deck he would be in trouble.
I promise to say no more on the subject apart from agreeing to disagree.
 
Ummm, yea, and we're inside the Spit vs. -109 thread....... LoL

The stuff wmaxt posted is another proof in point... If LGuy was still around, this woulda been cleared up awhile ago... I know that he posted a graph chart that showed a -38 with flaps outturning anything else in WWII...

Whatever........ Point is, it happened.... For WHATEVER reason, it happened... Skill, ignorance, equipment, luck, stupidity, or act of god...... One or all were accounted in this equation..... On paper it's one answer, in real life it's another.........

Point is, it happened.......

Back on Topic maybe???

The Fw-190 Series, IMO, was much more adaptable and combat effective than the Spitfire Series... More deadly, carried a bigger PUNCH, and overall, made more of an impact during WWII..........
 
Lesof, Back on the thread as promised

That the Fw190 was more adaptable, Agreed
That the FW190 was more combat effective, As a fighter it was a draw, but it could do other things so overall I will agree
That the Fw190 carried a bigger punch, Agreed
That the FW190 made more of an impact during WW2, Strongly disagree. To agree would be to ignore the service and impact that the Spitfire had before the 190 came into service. That you cannot ignore.
 
I believe you're both missing out the bomb and rocket carrying Spitfires. It wasn't strictly an interceptor, it could do ground attack duties.

I believe the Spitfire had more impact on the war. As, Glider said, it was in service longer than the Fw-190 and in that pre-190 era it was a great aid to both the RAF and VVS.

Also, why should we confine the Spitfire's service to NW Europe? What about it's actions over the Med, North Africa and the CBI.
The Spitfire Mk.VIII was a massive help over the CBI.
 
To agree would be to ignore the service and impact that the Spitfire had before the 190 came into service.
Click to expand...
I could never ignore the service/impact of the Spitfire against the -109s in the BOB.... The Hurricane would not have been able to stem the Luftwaffe alone...
However, with the -190 came alone so many different platforms, that the Luftwaffe didnt need to design or build other aircraft to fit other mission parameters....

The impact of this on the war effort was huge....... Once the Fw-190A came out over the skies of Northern France in the summer of 1941, the Allieds have tried to counter it and the different follow on versions...... Truely amazing how the design of One aircraft can change how the rest of the world designs theirs......

That to me is a GLOBAL Impact, and one worthy of my opinion..........
 
That's how technology advances though, les. Someone designs something and the enemy designs something else to counter it.

The British never had to redesign a new aircraft for the job that the Spitfire could do perfectly, it was developed upon. If the Fw-190 was a capable escort fighter with a long range, I would give it a real edge but in my opinion it was nothing over the Spitfire.
 
 
That's how technology advances though, les. Someone designs something and the enemy designs something else to counter it.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%... But...

The -190 had ground attack capabilities the Spit and the -109 didnt have... The -190 had the ability to tackle large box formations of bombers with heavily armored Butchers... I dont recall seeing many nightfighting Spitfires........

Point is, when i say impact, its meant as a strategy changer....... The Germans werent designing and making changes in their fighters to counter Allied advances...... (Mossie excused) They were more about keeping their advancememnts in technology ahead of the Allies.....

Always make ur opponent react to YOUR actions, not the other way around...... U win engagements by being the aggressor, not by reacting to the aggressors actions....
The British never had to redesign a new aircraft for the job that the Spitfire could do perfectly
Click to expand...
While this is true, they constantly made new Marks to keep up with the changing German machines.....
but in my opinion it was nothing over the Spitfire.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm.... Can u re-read what was said in the above posts... I think its pretty clear than the -190 accomplished more all around than the Spitfire did in WWII... Do u think the Spit contributed more than the -190 did in terms of Diversity??? The Spit was a fighter... Period... The -190 was so much more...

Not to deny the Spitfire its place in history, for it truely shows the strength and will of the British people......

Im rambling now so ill stop....
 
The Spitfire did perform ground attack duties though. It carried rockets and bombs.

The Spitfire probably could have been a nightfighter but why make it one when you already had the best in the Mosquito?
The Spitfire did a lot of bomber attacking in the early war years when the Fw-190 wasn't even in service.

On top of that, the Spitfire served in every thearte of the war. So it's worth in all different weather conditions were proven. Something the Fw-190 never had chance to do.
 
plan_D said:
On top of that, the Spitfire served in every thearte of the war. So it's worth in all different weather conditions were proven. Something the Fw-190 never had chance to do.
Click to expand...

Whats tougher than the Russian winter ?
 
Hmmmm... The Typhoon and the Hurricane were used for the ground attack role more so than the Spit was.... That engine didnt take to kindly to ground fire....
The Spitfire probably could have been a nightfighter but why make it one when you already had the best in the Mosquito?
Click to expand...
The Germans had several different planes that flew night missions... The more the merrier... The Mossie was the best, I will not agrue u there....
The Spitfire did a lot of bomber attacking in the early war years when the Fw-190 wasn't even in service.
Click to expand...
But did they specially produce a Mark to do these duties???

I'm not knockin the Spit, in any way shape or form... The SPit in all its Marks was a superb aircraft... I just feel overall, the -190 provided more for the Luftwaffe than the Spit did for the RAF....
 
plan_D said:
The Tropics of Burma.
Click to expand...

I'd say the Russian winter was alot tougher !

If your airplane can survive the Russian winter, well then it would most likely survive any WW2 scenario.
 
The Hurricane couldn't take a lot of ground fire to the engine either. What I am saying is; the Spitfire wasn't just a fighter.

It was an interceptor first and foremost but it was also a ground attack aircraft. Not to mention it was the most important PR plane of the ETO. The Pr.IX and Pr.XIX took more pictures of Europe than any other plane of the war.

Soren, I don't think you understand the stresses and strains the harsh tropical climate of South-East Asia can have an aircraft. And as I've already mentioned, the Spitfire survived the Russian winter too.
 
I did not forget that the Spit could and did carry bombs and rockets and I am sure that Les didn't either. However I am sure we both agree that the 190 was a better GA aircraft than the Spit with different versions and a larger payload.

As for other impacts you are correct to say that we didn't need a nightfighter Spit as the Mossie and don't forget the Beaufighter were the best at their respective times anywhere in the world in that role.

The 190 did things that the Spit didn't, but the Spit did things that the 190 didn't e.g. as a carrier plane. I know it had some fundamental flaws and wasn't the best carrier plane but the 190 wasn't the best nightfighter.
The Spit was also a far more effective PR plane with an excellent range and record in this role.

As for overall impact I would again call it a draw. The Spit obviously did things, great things before the 190 came into service. After the 190 was introduced the Spit did other things and served in all areas of combat while the 190 plowed its own furrow.
 
Great politically correct post glider.....
Not to mention it was the most important PR plane of the ETO.
Click to expand...
100% agreed........

While ur listing all the great qualities and multi-mission capabilities of the Spit, the -190 has more......

And I would say that the harsh tropical enviornment is ALMOST as bad as a Russian Winter.... Pretty damn close, but the Tropics didnt wear men down like the jungle did.. The heat and humidity did not actually break things off due to the cold.... It may have warped some things, and dehydrate some men, and the malaria, JESUS the malaria.......
 
i must say that this has made very interesting reading......

and overall i feel the spit had more of an impact on the war, not only did she serve for longer, but what would the RAF do without the spit?? what other fighter could replace it?? the luftwaffe could have coped without the -190, just about...........
 
The 190 was far better than the 109 and I think the Lufwaffe were very naive not to have it as their main frontline fighter. I dont think they could have coped with out it....
 
well CC they didn't really cope with it

and it was the weight of numbers and high level performance of the -109 that kept it as their main frontline fighter...........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Forum and Server Software Update :: Tonight 8pm EDT 6-25-18
Replies
2
Views
1K
Wurger
Server Update :: 10-30-17 - Post any issues
Replies
16
Views
3K
ARTESH
V
FW 190 Sturmbock info?
Replies
2
Views
4K
Maximowitz
  • Locked
Nazi hunters give low grades to 13 countries
Replies
4
Views
4K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
  • Locked
Dornier 17 to be restored
Replies
1
Views
2K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Menu
Log in
Register