Talk:Focke-Wulf Fw 190 operational history

North Africa and the Mediterranean

The Fockewulf was also deployed to North Africa in 1942. After the end of that campaign the fighter continued to see action from bases in Sicily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.224.23 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One question: there are certain contradictions in the eveluation of the FW 190 in Britain and the US and the Soviet Union on the other hand. This could be mentioned in the article. If the FW 190 was so inferior to russian aircradt, how could their pilots achiebe so many kills on the Eastern front? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.238.208 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A contradiction indeed. If Luftwaffe were as good as they claimed on paper, how come that in reality they've lost and ultimately, failed to deliver on the task assigned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.29.68.253 (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This question has nothing to do with the Fw 190, and or the tactical/technological standards of the fighter force. Their equipment was first class, as was tactics. Please stick to asking questions about the Fw 190 only. Strategically, logistically, intelligence-wise and in production terms, the Germans were bad, and never got it right. But this is not the page for those subjects. Dapi89 (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Their equipment was first class, as was tactics." - Please account for the fact that Germans were defeated and forced to capitulate. Per definition, losers can only have inferior tactics and hardware.

That is mot true. A force can have both superior equipment and tactics, and still be defeated by a force that heavily outnumbers it, or because they are not given resupply, or even because the enemy employs better strategy, or because they cannot sustain attrition, or a disease strikes their ranks down. There are numerous documented cases of this in history. 64.223.166.179 (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Eastern Front

The nazi Germany lost the war and surrendered, did it not? Whether Fw 190 was inferior or whether it had nice roll or fancy kommandogerat is not even an issue here. One should look at the bigger picture. There was a reason that Germans lost air superiority from 1943, were forced to use Fw190 in the "wrong way" on the Eastern front, etc. It all happened to them because they never really understood the warfare, they lost the war to USSR for a reason - because they failed to outperform it in pretty much everything, from planning to military production, to weapon design philosophy. In this regard, the Soviet experience should be really appreciated and more widely presented. If the Soviet vets, on too many occasions, reflect that Bf109 was considered a more potent adversary than Fw, or that "if a Fw190 pilot was not good enough, he was quickly toast" - well, learn to leave with simple facts of life. Those veterans are in the best position to know, after all they are the ones who bested the Luftwaffe. And we should listen and learn from winners, not losers, should we. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.154.24 (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, can you please start a new section by clicking on the "new section" tab at the top; it is not wiki etiquette to break up or just interject other unrelated threads. I've separated them now, but for future discussion, please do so. Second; it sounds to me like you have not understood the purpose of what "an operational history" is. Roll rate, performance etc etc, is integral to its assessment. Third; With regard to the Fw 190 used in an incorrect way; that is not correct. The P-47, Spitfire, P-51, Bf 109 were all used as Jabo aircraft. The Allies had plenty of specialised strike machines, yet they continued to use fighters to do the job. So using a fighter in a fighter-bomber role is not 'wrong'. Fourth; I understand more than most the fundamental reasons why the Germans lose at war; non-existent strategy; appalling 'intelligence', non-existent logistical doctrine (did you know the Bundeswehr still does not have a logistical doctrine? Two wars of unification, and two world wars, and they still haven’t learned). Yet this has nothing to do with the Fw 190. Fifth; as has already been eluded to; Soviet accounts need to be treated with caution. They are worthy of inclusion, but to create a balanced perspective, a more honest account is one that provided Soviet, German and Western Allied views. One should not be dominant over the other, least of all the Soviet view. Regards Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fw 190 perfromance

I've posted the reasons of the supossed inferiority of the Fw 190 not considerated by the claims of Soviet pilots: most units being in the fighter bomber role and many of their pilots not having the proper or even any air combat training being converted from former Stuka and bomber units.

I guess someone here is trying to advocate this myth created by the Russians.

I'm changing the article again to a impartial view, and hope it didn't get alteted again to a exclusive and wrong soviet view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.132.3 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No you're not. You have removed several citations from reliable sources - this is vandalism. The article is clear; this the view of Soviet pilots only. It’s an opinion not absolute fact. Accusations of bad faith editing are also not acceptable. Know one is trying to do anything. Wikipedia's core values include neutrality. We don't tolerate nonsense fan boy bilge, nor do we accept detractors and agenda drivers. Dapi89 (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So we need to have only the soviet view of the story. Why don't you let my german view as well therefore?

The plane was most used in the ground attack role, and there were many pilots with virtually none air combat experience transferred from attack aviation units flying it. I don't have any source right now but this is a fact that you can check out.

The plane had an armamment heavier than most soviet fighters, light controls at high speed and consequently better high speed maneuverability, a pioneer engine computer that did all the adjusts of pitch and mixture, considerably more robust contruction allowing it to pull a lot of high g loads couple with the light controls and escape from any soviet fighter in a high speed dive.

Now you gonna tell me I am a fanboy and we should have only the soviet view of the subject and not considerate what I mentioned?

Check out what the 'fanboys' in this video said about this supossed inferior plane according to the soviets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vO9NKJNjiw&feature=search

I will provide the proper sources and we gonna an impartial view here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.216.253 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening. The article is impartial. Do not remove sources information again. Dapi89 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is impartial really?

Show only a soviet inferior view about the plane and not mention the reasons for this is impartiallity for you?

Don't worry, I will not remove anything, just gonna provide a GERMAN view that can inform the people why the soviets considerate the plane inferior, because in fact it wasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.132.3 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a battleground for "my plane is better than your plane". The Soviet opinion is worth inclusion as an opinion only. If you are desperate for German opinion re: performance, you can ask for one. This article is nowhere near completed. In actual fact the entire thing is a mess. If will be expanded. When it is completed, it will be impartial. Dapi89 (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is not "my plane is better than your plane", but show a impartial view.

I already told you the reasons for the Soviets considerate that: the plane was not inferior but actually superior than the Bf 109 at low and medium altitude in the case of the most numerous A model, just were most of the Eastern Front air combat took place. This is indiscutible when viewed alone, but when viewed as most planes being fighter bombers and that many pilots didn't have air combat experience makes totally sense, and that's why the Soviets have this opinion. Still a lot of Jabo pilots manage to achive large scores. And the the pure fighter units like the JG-54 inflicted very heavy losses on the Russians. Just check Rall's mention in the video I've posted above.

I think we should have a Soviet view here, surely, but we need to have a German view too, justifying why such claims. People need to know the problem was not with a real inferiority of the Focke Wulf, but actually with the way it was used.

I don't have any favouritism by the Fw or the Lufwtwaffe, neighter want to put down the VVS. I'm just an aviation fan that don't want this myth and others like the never existent order of avoid air combat with the Yak-3 keep getting people uninformed by a non existent superiority the Russians claim to have. The late war Soviet and German planes were evenly matched with advantages and disadvantages and what determinate the sucess was the way they were used (i.d. pilot).

Have you actually read this article? The German view is included. Most parts have yet to be written. You might find the "German view" section most interesting. Dapi89 (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the article and was glad you put a German and Soviet view sections, but again you have put the Soviet view in a part of the text saying the Yak-3 and the La-7 outclassed the Fw 190 because they were faster. Understand that in aviation EVERYTHING is relative, and numbers alone don't mean nothing. The speed question was just despicable, and the same can be said of the Fw 190, as at medium altitude it was a little more faster than the Soviet fighters. You do not mentioned the use of the Focke Wulf with the correct tactics, the high speed control, the excellent aileron response which could do high g turns that would rip apart the wings of a Yak-3, the better dive speed and all the other things I mentioned above and probably others, isn't?

Mate, I don't have any favouritism by the LW, but understand something, as a private pilot and someone who has contact with many military pilots, incluind WWII veterans, I know of what I'm talking about, and we can't say a fighter is better because their numbers are better. You have to see the whole thing, as it was in WWII and always will be, the correct use of the aircraft (the pilot), the numbers of his Air force and from their enemies, the ground crew, the logistics and anything else, which means it was something really complex than just the aircraft itself that gonna determinate if she will be really better. And the most important, the combat situation which was usually the decisive factor. The pilots were really worried with it, not with the numbers of their planes and their enemies, as generally WWII aircraft were more or less on pair. So the aircraft is just a detail. Still in thecnical terms the Fw 190 was on pair with the latest Soviet machines, as we can see by this small text:

"Peter Düttmann (II./JG 52, Knight's Cross holder) rememberes his first encounter with a Yak-3 in such a way, that he was surprised that it could follow his 109 in a zoomclimb. He still downed the aircraft (because the soviet pilot made a mistake) and simply adapted his tactics so that he entered combats with Yaks at a higher speed than before."

Therefore understand, I know you are a nice aviation fan, but what you are trying to put here is simple not truth. The Soviets can think this, but you can't put this as a fact because it simple isn't. Stop of view planes as numbers and we gonna have a nice article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.132.3 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of that post made no sense. It doesn't seem you know what you are trying to say, so neither do I.

I'm not interested in what you claim to know - so lines like "I know what I'm talking about" holds absolutely no water here. We rely on reliable sources, from those that are published. So far you have offered nothing but opinion, which means nothing to Wikipedia.

Most of your complaints are unfounded. I have included information on sensitive aileron control, and I don't have a citation to, as you say "which could do high g turns that would rip apart the wings of a Yak-3". Another example of self-indulgent opinion.

The Duttmann quote is useless. One experience by one pilot is irrelevant.

we can't say a fighter is better because their numbers are better. You have to see the whole thing - what? I have never made such an absurd assertion. You mistake me for an ignorant buffoon.

I'd appreciate it if you would not evaluate me or my contributions, you seem under qualified. Dapi89 (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

FW190 @ Reno Air Race 2010

Yes, a FW 190 entered the 2010 air race in Reno! So, which one is it? The only info I have is a # (werk #??) on the tail: 980574.
See: http://www.pbase.com/marauder61/image/128509112/original
and
http://reports.airrace.org/2010/Unlimited.Race.14.Report.html
--Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone sent me the #, N190RF, info here: http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N190RF.html. Adding to article. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Military Aviation Museum?

Does anybody know if the Fw-190 that belongs to the Military Aviation Museum is a real warbird or is it a replica? It's not listed in the survivors list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptomblin (talk • contribs) 22:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Pulk Zerstorer

 "The A-6/R6 was fitted with twin heavy calibre Werfer-Granate 21 (BR 21) unguided, air-to-air rockets, fired from single underwing tubular launchers (one per wing panel). The increased modifications, in particular heavy firepower, made the Fw 190 a potent bomber-killer. The A-7 evolved in November 1943. Two synchronized 13mm (.51 caliber) MG 131 machine guns replaced the twin cowl-mount synchronized 7.92mm (.318 cal) MG 17 machine guns. The A-7/R variants could carry two 30mm MK 108s as well as BR 21 rockets. This increased its potency as a Pulk-Zerstörer (Bomber Formation Destroyer)."

Everything I have ever read has stated that it is the Werfer-Granate 21 outfitted aircraft uniquely which are called "Pulk-Zerstorer", and it is not a name for any heavy armed bomber-destroyer. Pulk means formation, and it refers to the blast of the heavy rocket causing bombers to take evasive action and break up the formation so regular gun-armed fighters can more easily swoop in and pick them off. It is not the Fw 190 itself that is called the Pulk-Zerstorer (which means Formation Destroyer, meaning it is for destroying formation, NOT for destroying bomber formations. There is an important difference in emphasis there), and the caliber of the guns fitted had nothing to do with how effective the WG 21 was at disrupting formations. ANY plane carrying the WG was a Pulk-Zerstorer, the guns were only for actually shooting the planes down.

64.223.166.179 (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons category

@GraemeLeggett: Re [1], the link to commons:Category:Focke-Wulf Fw 190 matches Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger, not this article. Are there images on commons that relate to the operational history, such that it would be worth creating a commons category for them? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Every image of an FW.190 is related to its operational usage. Matching of articles to commons is not a one-to-one relationship. The move of the Fw190 article recently probably adds to the confusion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: Are you sure? The 'drawings', 'models' and 'museum aircraft' subcategories probably aren't related. 'in British service' and 'in United States service' seem to be, but there's an obvious missing country there... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The images directly in the cat are though, eg this. Commons is a right mess in lots of places, so I think dropping a reader of en:wiki off at place they can find pics (I think I can trust them not to pick obviously wrong sub folders) is best in this case. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Or ... we could improve Commons? Would a Commons category matching this article's topic improve things? I'm happy to help if so. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)