You’re absolutely right in saying that the Spitfire LF Mk IX was superior in many aspects to the Anton series of the 190 — I never said otherwise. But I think you may have misunderstood my point.
What I’m mainly referring to is the punishing drag model applied to the 190s, both the Doras and the Antons.
As for the Spitfire Mk V, I really don’t have much issue fighting them — even when flying the early 190s like the A-1. It’s not that hard to manage a 1v1 and either win or at least disengage and reposition.
But what I’m trying to say is that from BR 4.7 onwards, where we start seeing early Griffon 61 Spits, the performance gap becomes far too wide compared to historical reality. Historically, the Mk IX and its variants were indeed designed to counter the 190s after the Mk V proved inferior — but as even test pilot reports show, the early Mk IXs weren’t that superior at all.
In-game, no matter what you do, you can’t shake or reverse a fight between the 190 A-4/A-5 and a 4.7 BR Mk IX. The 190s suffer from an extreme amount of drag, can’t hold energy, and can’t even capitalize on their real advantages — like initial acceleration and roll rate. It’s not just about player skill — the Mk IX is practically unbeatable in this matchup.
I’m not basing this on assumptions, but on historical documents, pilot accounts, and real combat dynamics from WWII. The way War Thunder portrays the Spitfire Mk IX vs the 190s goes far beyond what any realistic depiction would suggest.
The only viable scenario for a 190 to win is having at least double the energy, and even then, you’re stuck in endless boom-and-zoom runs, praying not to lose initiative.
Obviously, the Spitfire out-turns any 190 ever made — and that’s fine — but the sustained turn rates and the way the 190 bleeds energy instantly is just way overdone. Meanwhile, the Spitfire can turn over and over again, regain enough altitude to force a scissors, or do a sharp 180° and somehow still catch you — as if it lost no energy at all.
Where’s the acceleration of the 190? In a scenario where the Spit does such a hard turn while the 190 just runs straight, the Spit should lose a lot more energy and not be able to catch up so fast.
But the game punishes the 190 with this drag model, ignores its historical acceleration, and portrays the Spitfire as some miracle aircraft that can just turn forever and dominate every situation.
Every time I end up in a scissors with a Spitfire — whether I’m flying a D9, D13, D12, A5, A4 — it’s impossible to reverse it. Even if I make the Spit overshoot repeatedly and manage my throttle well, I can never catch it — unless it’s a very inexperienced player and I land a lucky deflection shot.
So that’s the point here: the 190’s flight model needs to be improved. Better acceleration, less drag during sustained turns and rolls, better rudder authority in vertical maneuvers…
It’s hard to accept that an aircraft so iconic and so successful during WWII is represented as being this overwhelmingly inferior to its rival.
I’m not usually the type to compare games, but I also play IL-2 Sturmovik, and there the 190 behaves very differently. War Thunder claims to offer a “simulator” mode, but some aspects are treated like pure arcade. Once again, some features are overemphasized while others are completely neglected.
