Quote:
|
Civettone, if the Germans had been more on the ball the DB603 powered Fw could have been flying operationally in 1943. A better a/c than the 109s flying at the time.
|
Morai, about a year ago I posted the same opinion at the Luftwaffe Experten board. I just couldn't understand that Tank wasn't given the go-ahead on the Fw 190C. He was ordered to focus on the Dora with the Jumo 213 engine. The answer I was given then was because the DB 603 was already reserved for the Me 410, He 177 and Do 217. The Jumo 213 had a similar performance but wasn't yet "spoken for. And although the DB 603 had been around for a while the engine had so many problems that even the Me 410 wasn't fully operational till the end of the year.
I don't know if this can be the full story because I am still uncertain if that's all there's to it. Tank had the Fw 190D flying in 1943 but it took until October 1944 for mass production, and even then the engine was still troublesome and didn't have the MW 50 installation. This is all beyond my comprehension as the Jumo 213 was already a year operational on the Ju 188 by that time. Was the Jumo engine the cause of the Fw 190D appearing (too) late? Or would something similar have happened with the Fw 190C?
I personally think the problems of the Fw 190C were less dramatic than with the Jumo 213, and the Fw 190C could have been operational half a year earlier. But this would be my personal opinion as it is not based on historical evidence.
If also Tank is to blame for the slow development of the Fw 190D - perhaps already working too much on the Ta 152 and the Flitzer project ? - then I would have gone for the Fiat G.56.
But again ... the whole story is clouded and none of the experts I know have the answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wespe Secondly, any contemporary literature will state that the best German fighter was the Fw. So if you think it was the 109, well then that is your opinion based on nothing. |
You remind me of the way I was some years ago. I had strong opinions and my personal favourite aircraft whose honour I defended vigorously. But I learned the hard way - many guys knowing much more than I did - and who forced me to adopt a more critical view on data presented to me and on my own beliefs. Since then, my opinion on history and specific aircraft has changed significantly. There was a time that I was convinced the Bf 109G was difficult to fly, slow, lightly armed, not manoeuvrable and in the end too fragile to house a 2000 HP engine. I couldn't understand why the Germans didn't go for the Fw 190 which is presented as the better fighter on most internet sites and in many contemporary publications.
Not only has my view broadened on what is the
best fighter, now including reliability, production costs, agility, fuel consumption, adaptability, etc, I also have come to realize that aircraft are often difficult to compare. And maybe thinking about training hours, logistics, and spare parts isn't much fun to think about, they are essential elements in judging the capability of a fighter&pilot weapon combination.
Looking at all the elements it's my personal opinion that the Bf 109 was slightly better than the Fw 190. But even granting that the Fw 190 was better than the Bf 109, one cannot dismiss the rational arguments of the war industry. The Americans and Russians grasped this from day 1 and built weapons in mass production. These weapons didn't have to be the best. If you could build twice as many as the enemy, they can be twice as bad. The Russians added poor leadership, tactics and training to the equation which resulted in staggering losses, but the Americans had the total system in check from production to logistics to training to spare parts to tactical deployment.
Do you know who the man in my avatar is? He was the only man in his branch who understood the importance of a 'system in check'. Just too bad he had a drug addict as his direct superior officer.
Kris