The V-12 in the front of the Fw-190 (with enough of the lead time, the Jumo 211/213 being the candidates) enables it to carry, for example, 3 cannons of identical ballistics (2 in wing roots, one as a motorkannone). No cowl MGs here, of course; less barrel openings chutes means also less drag. Once the USAAF steps up the daylignt bombing campaign, the MK-108 can replace the central weapon (so we arrive into weapon layout of the Ta-152H) - 20mm cannons can hit the escorts, while 30mm can hurt the bombers.
One cannot but wonder just how bad a mistake it was not to install the DB-603 on the Fw-190s in 1943, both from performance and weapon flexibility viewpoints.
Now we might take a look at how the Jumo 211 compares with BMW 801C and the restricted 801D (a situation before Oct 1942). The BMWs were, at least on paper, very powerful machines. They were, also, troublesome items, taking a lot of effort from ground crews to keep the Fw-190s operative. The Jumos beat them in that category. Comparing the drag of the late Fw-190s, the V-12 engined D-9 comes easily ahead of the radial siblings - meaning that a D-9 is faster than the A-8/A-9 on same HP. The intake part of the engine played the part, too; the exhaust thrust being easier to harvest from the Jumo 213, because of shorter exhausts?
Anyway, I've put together a chart that depicts the Jumo 211F/-J, BMW-801C (both Notlesitung and Steig Kampfleistung), and the restricted 801D (Notleistung; St Kmpf leistung being similar to the 801C). The BMW offers, on St. Kmpf, more power, cca 16% more vs. the 211F, but only 8% more vs. the 211J. Not enough to overcome the radial's drag, let alone when the ram effect and easier gain of the exhaust thrust are calculated in?
added: if I'm not mistaken, the Jumo 211F supercharger was operated by the automatic device ("autom. Schaltgetriebe", as noted above the graph)?