Mustang vs. FW 190

Mustang vs. FW 190. Which do you reckon was the best of the two, both for air to air, and air to ground attacks? I personally think the Mustang was better in a ground attack role, than the 190.

 

Depends on the Fw 190. An Fw 190F or G was as good as any ground attack aircraft you could get your hands on during WWII. The Fw 190D was conceived as an interceptor and is more comparable to the Mustang, but not as well suited for ground attacks. Depends on the Mustang as well. The Allison-engined Mustangs performed better at lower levels than the Merlin-engined Mustangs did, but were completely unsuitable as escorts for long range bombers.

I guess an Allison-engined Mustang was better in the ground attack role than the Fw 190D, but I'm not so sure it would be better suited than an Fw 190F or G.

 

In addition to Skua's comments, the Mustang was a little fragile for the ground attack role. It did have a dedicated ground-attack variet, the A-36 (I think) which was pretty good.

Personally I would prefer the Fw-190 - tougher and can carry more - unless there was a P-47 on offer...

 

You'd rather take a water cooled engine, which can be taken out by a single bullet in the coolant system, down to the bush opposed to an engine which will carry its pilot back to the base even with cylinders being shot out by enemy fire?

 

Allison powered Mustang acctually had more economic engine on low levels and same huge range, but rapidly lost power on higher alt's. basicly problem was in compressor not the engine.
All Mustangs were ill suited for ground attack work as their glycol cooler was a big and voulnerable target. That's why after D-day all Mustangs in 2.TAF were quickly replaced by Lightnings and Jugs.

BMW powered 190's had the same problem as Allison Mustangs. They were used for bomber interceptors and were ussualy protected ny Bf-109's.

 

Are you sure you mean the 2.TAF ? This was a RAF formation, and it never used either the P-38 or P-47.

 

I think of the Mustang as an interceptor, and a heavier aircraft like the P47 Thunderbolt or P38 Lightning going around bombing things. I think the Fw 190 might be better at causing ground devastation.

 

mea culpa, mea maxima culpa
9.th AF

 

but why to risk a mustang if you have the p-47 capable to get pounded and still get home?
in line engines very delicate for that roll, fw 190 a-g, aircooled engine same like the p-47
now if you change the 190 d for a ta 152 c that will be a better comparison
both bids with in line enignes capable of high altitud, toward the end of ww2 some pilots of ta 152 became aces!!!!
but remember that the difference will be in the pilot!!!!

 

I think only one became ace in the Ta-152 by scoring 5 to 8 kills...I don't remember the name right now nor the exact score...I should check though...

 

I forgot about the P 47. It surely was better in a ground attack role than the Mustang!

 

Feldwebel Joseph Keil scored five kills and Oberfeldwebel Willi Reschke three (the only two pilots, who comes to my mind while thinking of the Ta-152), both of the Stabschwarm, JG301.

Joseph Keil




http://luftwaffe.cz/keil.html

Regards,
Che.

 

For top 10 USAF fighter aces in ETO, 7 flew Thunderbolts and only 3 flew Mustangs. Can we say as well that the jug is even better at air combat than the Mustang?

 

Probably not - the P-47 was in action longer than the P-51.

 

Hubsu:
I think it safe to say few--if any--planes could take the punishment a P-47 Thunderbolt could... and still bring it's pilot safely home.

The experience of Robert S. Johnson comes to mind.

Tim

 

You got that right, Ricky. However, no bad plane can rack such a high number of aces with only being "a long time in the service" . Can you elaborate on what stats made the Juggernaut so great at shooting down enemy planes? I have no idea. I do know, that the massive armament it had wasn't it.

Hoosier, at least one plane comes to my mind that was notably hard to shoot down. It had an inclined engine and was watercooled. Incidentally, the "easiest" way to bring it down was to hit it in the radiator

 

Stuka? Only thing that comes to mind with a big rad......

Varients aside weren't the P-51 and FW-190 more or less evenly matched at any altitude? Or would the BF-109 be closer?

 

Watercooled inline engine and hard to shoot down, wouldn't be the Il-2M Stormovik by any chance?

 

sure ..hartmann said it was easy to drop a sturmovic ..just shoot the oil cooler ...its only the size of a youth size football ...peice of cake !! ..if you are hartmann ,perhaps

 

Hi Hubsu, I didn't mean to imply that the P-47 was a bad plane (it was not!) but just to point out that we can't call it better than the P-51 just because it shot down more enemy planes, for the reason given.

The P-47 was a good fighter - fast & heavy (an excellent 'boom & zoom' fighter), well-protected, and with an adequate armament given its opposition.

The P-51 was a bit more fragile, but a better dogfighter.

Personally I would take the P-51 for fighter, and the P-47 for fighter-bomber.