Spit V versus early FW 190

[lantern53]

Which is the better plane in BOS? I'm asking because JE Johnson in the book Wing Leader has a very definite opinion.

[DD_Arthur]

15 minutes ago, lantern53 said:

Which is the better plane in BOS? I'm asking because JE Johnson in the book Wing Leader has a very definite opinion.

 

I can tell you that in a squad coop with six breathers flying the '190 and seven breathers flying the Spitty and trying to escort A20's, the FW's will make mincemeat of the Spits.

[JG13_opcode]

The Spitfire V isn't fast enough to handle the 190A-3 unless you catch one at low energy, or at least that's my opinion from flying the Fw.  I have no data to back that up.

 

The Mark IX on the other hand can be quite formidable in skilled hands.

Edited July 5, 2020 by JG13_opcode

[Beazil]

7 minutes ago, JG13_opcode said:

The Spitfire V isn't fast enough to handle the 190A-3 unless you catch one at low energy, or at least that's my opinion ...

 

I can tell you four .303's and two hispanos have proven that to me many times over the years....

Edit: there's a good reason that was a standard armament.

Edited July 5, 2020 by JG51_Beazil

[=621=Samikatz]

The MkV was originally intended as a stop-gap towards a high alt interceptor, and as such is very sluggish at low altitude. Above 15000ft+ the performance gap narrows, and 190 pilots generally don't climb that high, so if you take the Vb, climb high!

[SJ_Butcher]

Historically the FW 190 when it appeared, it ate the Spitfire for breakfast

[lantern53]

Yes, Johnson said the early 190s were superior to the Spit V.

[ShamrockOneFive]

No question that the Fw190A-3 is the superior aircraft in most respects versus the Spitfire V. You can compete in the Spit V but he has more advantages at most altitudes except up at very high altitudes.

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

so if you take the Vb, climb high!

That is really not a good idea for any single stage supercharger plane facing one with two stages.

 

The Spit VB is inferior to the 190 in about every respect but turning circles at low to mid altitudes.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The 190 A-3 has a significant speed advantage over the Spit Mk V. The variants we have in the sim have more powerful engine settings from 1942 compared to the famous 1941 match up, but it more or less remains the same, well in this case the Spit gets an advantage in regards to climb rate.

[Bremspropeller]

Luftwaffe kill-claims shot up immediately when the 190 arrived in numbers. The airplane gave pilots a new level of confidence and the RAF realized a good deal cockyness with their opponents.

 

"Turning doesn't win battles..."

[=X51=VC_]

The Spit V in game handles nicely and can be fun, but because we have Eastern Front matchups it turns up in later war scenarios and face planes that outclass it. If you catch someone lower energy than you, or they are dumb enough to turn with you, then you're laughing (in British). But constantly getting bounced and watching things fly away into the distance as you struggle to keep up isn't fun most of the time. In the A-3, unless there are La-5FNs around, you're untouchable if flown right and it's arguably the best plane in the whole BoS to BoK time frame/matchup.

[Kurfurst]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Luftwaffe kill-claims shot up immediately when the 190 arrived in numbers.

 

Except that they did not.

 

To put it into perspective, Fighter Command flew 20 495 offensive day fighter sorties and lost 416 fighters (in addition to 108 daylight Bomber Command losses) in the process between July and December 1941.

 

On the opposing side of the Channel, Luftflotte 3 day fighters (chiefly equipped with 109Fs) lost only 98 fighters in the same period, an very favourable exchange ratio of 4–5 to 1.

 

In the course of the entire year of 1942 (January - December), when the Fw 190 was deployed in large numbers in the fast, the figures were as follows.

 

During 1942, RAF fighter command flew 43 339 daylight offensive fighter sorties, and lost 587 fighters (Bomber command lost 62 bombers in the daylight). In addition the then fledling USAAF 8th AAF lost 30 heavy, 2 Light/Medium bombers, and just 10 Fighters on offensive missions.

 

I am looking for LW losses in the West but it’s quite clear that they did not do better in 1942, when the 190 was introduced, than in the 2nd half of 1941, when the 109F was the mainstay fighter.

 

In the 2nd half of 1941, the RAF was losing, on avarage, 87 fighters and bombers on avarage per month on daylight offensive operations; in the course 1942, the RAF and the USAAF lost cc. 57 fighters and bombers on avarage in every month on offensive daylight operations. Allied losses, in fact, went down and not up when the Fw 190 was introduced, but there were probably a lot more reasons to that than the introduction of a new fighter plane.

 

The appearance of the 190 did not change the success rate of Western Luftwaffe fighter units in any meaningful way, however, it gave the RAF FC top brass a convinient excuse to stop and rethink operations that were never really working or achieving anything else at any time than to give the Germans easy pickings.

Edited July 5, 2020 by VO101Kurfurst

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

well in this case the Spit gets an advantage in regards to climb rate.

True that. Downside is that in real life this matters little, as opposing forces would encounter themselves at given altitude and the lower party would need rocket boosters to make up for the disadvantage.

 

When the RAF went over the Channel doing Rhubarb missions etc., the often did so at lower altitudes. The intercepting planes had all the time they needed to get vectored in to an advantagous position. It is in the zoom climb, where the 190 leaves the Spit V far behind, meaning it was straight forward maintaining the initiative in the fight. The Sput on the other hand was caught in the ropes, defending itself doing circles. Not a cool position to be in.

 

 

48 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

In the 2nd half of 1941, the RAF was losing, on avarage, 87 fighters and bombers on avarage per month on daylight offensive operations; in the course 1942, the RAF and the USAAF lost cc. 57 fighters and bombers on avarage in every month on offensive daylight operations. Allied losses, in fact, went down and not up when the Fw 190 was introduced, but there were probably a lot more reasons to that than the introduction of a new fighter plane.

Interesting. Do you have numbers on plane strenght/sorties flown? Without having exact knowledge there, could it be that most 109F were transferred east, while the 190 was not (or at least not in that magnitude, compared to overall numbers present) but the total number of available planes decreased? Is there a correlation between LW sorties flown and losses (on both sides)?

 

I'm asking because toward the end of 1941 and early 1942, the LW was distributed over different theaters like never before (and never again). They needed everything in the east and they needed everything in the Mediterranean, where Mussolinis little venture was just about to blow up in their faces. AFAIK, the numbers left in early 1942 in the West were really at a low mark. Is that so?

 

Regarding what the British thought of the new aircraft, I think individual experience weights in way more than actual loss numbers. Doing goofy stuff near Calais etc. was not only a very costly hobby, but also gave some Germans lots of practise to be even better hunters. Having high losses was not new. But I think facing a plane that very much takes advantage of what your aircraft is not good at left a bitter taste.

Edited July 5, 2020 by ZachariasX

[41Sqn_Skipper]

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

That is really not a good idea for any single stage supercharger plane facing one with two stages.

 

I'm pretty sure the Fw 190 only has a single-stage two-speed supercharger. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Having only one speed is not inferior to a two-speed configuration at a given altitude (regadless of low, medium or high altitude) as long the single-speed is optimized for that altitude.

 

Nevertheless, in general the Fw 190 is of course superior to the Spitfire V.

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[ZachariasX]

25 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

I'm pretty sure the Fw 190 only has a single-stage two-speed supercharger. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Correct.

 

26 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

Having only one speed is not inferior to a two-speed configuration at a given altitude (regadless of low, medium or high altitude) as long the single-speed is optimized for that altitude.

Yes. Problem is that with singe speed you have only one altitude where it fits, two speed gives you two altitudes and overall less deviation from optimal gearing. Also it reduces parasitic load on the shaft to drive the supercharger. You have nore net power on the shaft with two speeds. You want two speeds, given the option.

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

The appearance of the 190 did not change the success rate of Western Luftwaffe fighter units in any meaningful way, however, it gave the RAF FC top brass a convinient excuse to stop and rethink operations that were never really working or achieving anything else at any time than to give the Germans easy pickings.

 

That is hard to (dis)prove, because the introduction of the 190 happened during a downturn of operations due to the winter-season and the assiciated bad weather.

 

In 1941, II/JG 26 was completely equipped with the 190 in September and they had a better exchange-ratio till the end of the year than I/JG 26, which also were pretty much the high-scorers during summer (and continued flying Friedrichs till the end of the year, only completing transition to the 190 by April '42).

II Gruppe also showed more successes during November and December, which is mirrored by III Gruppe, which had transitioned in Nomember. Both Fw Gruppen had better exchange-ratios. The statistical base is slim, however, due to the low numbers.

 

With operations ramping up in 1942, the 190-Gruppen (II and III) seem to perform slightly better through to April (when I Gruppe completed transition), but again the sample-size is small.

Kills do improve dramaticly during April (most probably in conjuncture with a large increase of sorties flown by the RAF).

 

 

I Gruppe of Jagdgeschwader 2 started transition in May 1942 and finished during June. I Gruppe seemingly had several opportunities to score in late May, which the other Gruppen didn't have. Jule Meimberg at this time came back from his recovery-leave and is quoting Walther Oesau telling that the 190 brought an immediate increase in kill-claims:

Spoiler

"Es gäbe allerdings auch gute Nachrichten, und die hätten allesamt einen Namen: Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Der neue Jäger sei nach mancherlei Kinderkrankheiten bei uns und dem JG 26 voll eingeschlagen; Presteles I. Gruppe habe Mitte März in Le Bourget auf die Maschine umgerüstet; Assi Hahns III./JG 2 sei Anfang April gefolgt, und gerade eben habe die II. Gruppe ihre Messerschmitts gegen das neue Muster eingetauscht. Sofort seien die Abschußmeldungen nach oben geschnellt, vor allem im Kampf gegen die englische Spitfire V, die der Focke-Wulf in jeder Beziehung unterlegen sei, dem Kurvenkampf vielleicht ausgenomen. Endlich gäbe es bei Raufereien mit Feindjägern und Jagdvorstößen nach England wieder leichtere Siege."

- J. Meimberg - "Feindberührung" pg.199

Interestingly, Meimberg remembers him and Josef Heinzeller flying a late evening Freie Jagd over southern England on 19th May 42, where both shoot down a Spitfire each. Heinzeller has his aircraft damaged by other Spitfires and limps home his aircraft 120km across the Channel. Prien puts Heinzeller's limp back across the Channel onto a diffrent date: 16th June - according to the Verlustmeldung (less than 10%).

Seems to be a mistake on Meimberg's side here, as both his Abschusstabelle (kill around 9PM over England on 19th June (sic!)) and another pilot story in Eric Mombeek's JG 2 unit history put the kills by Meimberg and Heinzeller on 19th May during a daytime event in Staffel-strength.

 

II Gruppe completed transition in April, but apparently didn't fly too much (Erich Rudorffer, Staffelkapitän of 6./JG 2 only shows six (!) Feinflüge between mid March and mid August).

III Gruppe transitioned in May and due to a slight downturn in activity for the latter half of the month only started scoring in June, but score they did!

 

Appointing statistical data is very hard, due to the different areas JG 2 and JG 26 were based at and the according enemy activity. Also, up- and downturns of enemy operations seem to water the picture somewhat (especially for JG 26). With the appearance of the USAAF and Viermots leaning into France during the second half of 1942, the picture gets even more askew.

 

What is interesting, though it's an entirely subjective matter, is that both german pilots and their opponents seem to realize a certain gain in self-confidence by the Luftwaffe aviators - not least due to the new aircraft and it's capabilities.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Bremspropeller

[=621=Samikatz]

6 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

That is really not a good idea for any single stage supercharger plane facing one with two stages.

 

The Spit VB is inferior to the 190 in about every respect but turning circles at low to mid altitudes.

 

The VB is worse at nearly every altitude, but there are envelopes where it is "less worse". 12000ft - 16000ft seems to be the optimal fighting height, so cruising just above that seems wise to me. Climb rate above 10000ft is also Spitfire's favour, ever so slightly. I definitely wouldn't fight at low altitude if I can avoid it. Leave that to La-5s

 

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

The VB is worse at nearly every altitude,

The differences down low are less brutal and the Spit has enough power to be rather artistic. The more room you give the 190, the more option it has. Pigeons (some of the best fliers in animal wildlife) evade birds of prey by flying on the deck as well in case of danger. My advice reflected just a possible survival strategy. But you are right of course.

[Dr_Molem]

Starting at co-energy the Spit V cannot do anything against 190.

[Diggun]

52 minutes ago, Dr_Molem said:

Starting at co-energy the Spit V cannot do anything against 190.

As long as one goes by the numbers and factors in nothing to do with pilot skill. Which is, famously, how war operates. 

[=621=Samikatz]

Yeah, there were Spit V pilots in reality who survived many dogfights and took down several 190s, it's not impossible, you just have to be the better pilot and know when to cut your losses

 

I do think turn-rate is underrated outside of 1v1s. A good turn rate on the offensive lets you end the engagement quickly without having to reposition for more passes, and you can quickly turn a messy furball into an advantage if your side can get a few quick kills. Not always easy, but very rewarding to pull off

[CountZero]

Historicly it kick spits butt, and in game it does same, A3 is quite nimble airplane in game, its only strangly not so protective for pilot like 109s for example.

[=X51=VC_]

2 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

I do think turn-rate is underrated outside of 1v1s. A good turn rate on the offensive lets you end the engagement quickly without having to reposition for more passes, and you can quickly turn a messy furball into an advantage if your side can get a few quick kills. Not always easy, but very rewarding to pull off

 

That's not turn rate you need in that situation, it's high-speed responsiveness, mostly roll rate, which the 190 has in spades over the Spit. Actually using turn rate offensively is difficult due to G-loc. If you're bouncing someone at speed your turn rates are essentially the same and governed by G-tolerance more than aerodynamics, so if they break, being able to theoretically out-turn them doesn't mean much if you just black out trying to pull lead. The Spitfire's best turn rate is at < 300km/h. If the 190 is that slow that's his mistake.

[sevenless]

19 hours ago, lantern53 said:

Which is the better plane in BOS? I'm asking because JE Johnson in the book Wing Leader has a very definite opinion.

 

Different flightstyles are necessary to make maximum usage of each plane. However I personally prefer the Fw190-A3 and my reason is simple: 20mm ammo for the 151 cannons and if you like it, even more 20mm ammo for the FFs on top. Those 60 rounds for the Hispanos in the Mk.V don´t cut it for me. But that is only my own personal preference.

[Diggun]

Rightrightrightright. 

 

But what is demonstrably NOT true, as some in this thread seem to wish to imply, is that every time a 190 meets a vb at equal energy state the Spit is dead. Unfortunately, real life is messy and doesn't respect the numbers. Vb can and will surprise the unwary or cocksure luftwaffe pilot. 

[BraveSirRobin]

2 v 2 the 190s will crush the Spits (assuming the 190 pilots are not noobs).  1 v 1 the Spit driver has a chance if he can get the 190 to turn with him.

[TAIPAN_]

Listening to the Spit V pilot talk on the Netflix documentary today, he said when the 190 appeared it ran rings around them. Probably not literal rings, but real life tactics and teamwork being different to the game you can see why a faster, better armed, more robust plane would cause a big problem.

 

He also said the tables were turned when they got the IX, that 190s were never an issue after that.

[Bremspropeller]

9 minutes ago, Dan_Taipan said:

He also said the tables were turned when they got the IX, that 190s were never an issue after that.

 

The tables weren't turned. The airplanes were very much on par.

[=X51=VC_]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The tables weren't turned. The airplanes were very much on par.

 

Depends on altitude. The Spitfire IX keeps going way higher than the 190A. Western front dogfights weren't all on the deck like in game.

[PatrickAWlson]

4 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

 

Depends on altitude. The Spitfire IX keeps going way higher than the 190A. Western front dogfights weren't all on the deck like in game.

 

Depends on when and in what context.  In the end mission profile was not about fighters but rather about every other plane.  High altitude bombing and the need to intercept said bombers was IMHO the primary driver behind raising the altitude of fighter engagements. 

 

I would think that when the Spitfire IX first came out the mission profile would not generally be above 20K feet.  A bunch of Spitfires orbiting above 20K is just a waste of gas if nobody wants to play.  

 

Introduce heavy bombers and now the Germans have to come up.  I'm not sure how much Spitfires benefited.  They did not have the legs to cover to most targets and German fighters mostly waited until they turned around.  It was the longer legged fighters (especially P-51)  that forced the FW190 to come up and play at uncomfortable altitudes.

[357th_KW]

Western front air battles in 1942 were largely fought at altitude.  Some examples:
 

F/L Donald E. Kingaby DFC of 64 Squadron achieved the first kill in a Spitfire IX recording in his Combat Report for 30 July 1942:

        We sighted approx. 12 F.W. 190s two thousand feet below us at 19,000 ft just off Boulogne proceeding towards French coast. We dived down on them and I attacked a FW 190 from astern and below giving a very short burst , about ½ sec. from 300 yds. I was forced to break away as I was crowded out by other Spits. I broke down and right and caught another FW as he commenced to dive away. At 14,000 ft. approx. I gave a burst of cannon and M/G, 400 yds range, hitting E/A along fuselage. Pieces fell off and E/A continued in straight dive nearly vertical. I followed E/A down to 5,000 ft. over Boulogne and saw him hit the deck just outside of Boulogne and explode and burn up. Returned to base at 0 ft.

1 FW 190 Destroyed.

F/Lt W. V. Crawford-Compton D.F.C. (N.Z.) of 611 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 24 August 1942:

        While leading Blue Section, 611 Squadron I was flying at 26,000 feet behind the Beehive on the way out from the bombing of Le Trait. When West of Fauville I saw 3 F.W. 190's below me climbing up to the bombers, i.e. flying North on my port side. I turned behind them, warned my Section, and came up underneath the port 190. I started firing at about 300 yards and kept on until I had to break away to avoid a collision. During this time I observed strikes under the fuselage and flames appeared underneath the front cowling and spread along the fuselage. The enemy aircraft veered to port and dived slightly away. The two remaining F.W. 190s broke to the right and were joined by two more which I had not seen approaching. All four attacked me. By this time I was separated from Blue Section and I endeavoured to work my way to the coast. I tried doing steep climbing turns but as they had the advantage of height they were able to take their turn attacking me. I went into an aileron turn using lots of rudder and was chased about 30 or 40 miles across the Channel. The F.W. 190 were using self destroying ammunition which was bursting in front of and around me. As this aircraft was well on fire when I had to leave I am sure it was destroyed.

[Bremspropeller]

55 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

Depends on altitude. The Spitfire IX keeps going way higher than the 190A. Western front dogfights weren't all on the deck like in game.

 

Yes, and they weren't going on at 25000ft all the time, either.

 

JG 2 and JG 26 had special Höhenstaffeln with high-altitude 109s to deal with this problem.

[=X51=VC_]

7 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Yes, and they weren't going on at 25000ft all the time, either.

 

JG 2 and JG 26 had special Höhenstaffeln with high-altitude 109s to deal with this problem.

 

Very true as well. But what makes me suspect higher altitudes were a factor is that early Spitfire Mk.IXs were limited to +15 boost and would have been only a very marginal improvement on the Mk.Vs performance at low altitude, certainly not suddendly closing the speed gap to the 190. So if the contemporary reports say the introduction of the Mk.IX levelled the playing field or even tipped the scales in favour of the Spitfire, then we can only assume this means they were fighting in regimes where the Spitfire had the performance edge i.e. higher altitudes.

 

The Mk.IX also has a higher critical altitude in second supercharger gear than any 109 that would have been around in 1942.

[Bremspropeller]

4 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

So if the contemporary reports say the introduction of the Mk.IX levelled the playing field or even tipped the scales in favour of the Spitfire, then we can only assume this means they were fighting in regimes where the Spitfire had the performance edge i.e. higher altitudes.

 

I don't see too many german reports about the Spitfire tipping the scales.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Yes, and they weren't going on at 25000ft all the time, either

Actually, this was the norm. In 1943 and 1944, British planes would go to that altitude as soon as they got over the Channel. German planes (Fw-190 often) would be vectored in even above them if possible. Also, when stationed in Normandy just after D-Day, standard procedure for defending fighters was upon scramble was to climb all the way up above 25k ft and be vectored to intruders from that altitude. Clostermann gives ample examples of both while never mentioning low level business, unless he was performing unduly business.

 

While it is true that the Spit and the Fw-190 were evenly matched in terms of power and speed, climb and flight performance above 24k ft of the Spitfire is markedly superior then the Fw-190.

 

It is only later in war that the Germans didn't have the luxury of positioning themselves at these altitudes without attracting the company of many, many desperate Americans. They only did have the altitude advantage over (usually British) low level intruders later in war, as the Germans were listening to Allied comms and together with radar had some pretty good guesses at times where be action and discreetly assembled their forces there.

[Bremspropeller]

29 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Clostermann gives ample examples of both while never mentioning low level business, unless he was performing unduly business.

 

Clostermann isn't a reliable source. He's too much of a storyteller.

 

Even IF the majority of fights took place at high altitude - there's little evidence of the RAF gaining upper hand (as claimed) in the german narratives.

 

[PatrickAWlson]

@KW_1979 In the first case the action is at or below 20K which seems about right.  In the second the Germans were pulled up by bombers.  Honestly a little surprised at bombing from 26K feet in 1942 so that is interesting.

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

Even IF the majority of fights took place at high altitude - there's little evidence of the RAF gaining upper hand (as claimed) in the german narratives.

Regardless of Clostermanns reliability, the Spit flies far better in the thinner air. Low wing loading and a better supercharger helps. The Anton also shows handling deficits at high altitude. It‘s still a great attacker though.

 

I don‘t really think that the German narratives are really a good account regarding the finer aspects of comperative aircraft performance. The ones that actually provided narratives are usually far better combat pilots than the average Allied pilot. They were successful with the material at hand. At least the few that were left to tell us. Dortenmann was an exeptional pilot. Yet despite good aircraft and his abilities, he couldn‘t do as Hartmann did. He had to be much more selective in picking his scores. In times where they were nothing but trashed at the hands of the Allies, I am not aware him ever complaining about his aircraft. Did he?

 

But it seems clear that the notion about the Spit9 being better has to be seen from the British side after almost two years of being on the receiving side. The Spit gives you way more options turning a fight than the 190 gives you. They surely were happy about that.

[357th_KW]

Some of the first USAAF B-17 ops in Europe were in coordination with the Dieppe raid.  RAF offensive operations prior to the entry of the USAAF had generally focused around small formations of Bostons, Blenheims or even Hurricanes as the attacking force.  They typically flew pretty high - German flak was strong and with radar coverage you were bound to be intercepted.  Coming in low just made you an even juicier target for Bf109Fs and Fw190As, both of which possessed an advantage in performance over the Spit V.  As an example, during RAF Circus raids in April of 1942, two Luftwaffe claims for Spits that have altitudes listed show 6800m and 8000m (pulling this from Tony Woods' documents).  The whole goal of these RAF raids in 41 and 42 was to draw the Luftwaffe into combat and try to reduce pressure on other fronts - the RAF just didn't have a capability to do any serious damage with daylight attacks.  And so the raids were primarily flown to keep bombers losses low and hopefully put fighters in a position to score.  Of course the Luftwaffe with their higher performance fighters, radar control, and no great incentive to sacrifice themselves over raids with just a handful of light bombers, used the opportunity to exact a heavy toll from Fighter Command.