This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Take this anecdote with a pinch of salt for two reasons.
1: We don’t entirely know the skill level of the Tempest pilot nor all of the parameters in which the fight took place.
2: Evidence suggests prior to this a TA-152 was already shot down by a Tempest.
Speaking from an SB perspective the 190 will have zero problem dealing with the Mk V Spitfires. The only advantage the Mk V has is what it had in reality which is turning performance. The 190A easily out runs and out zoom climbs the Spitfire as it should. In fact the A flight model is far too forgiving compared to historical accounts.
If you’re comparing it to an F Mk IX then things get a lot more even as it did in reality. But still the 190 out rolls, out dives and I’d wager it out zoom climbs the Spitfire. If any 190 decided to get into a turning fight with a Spitfire it’s dead… as was the case in reality.
No, they weren’t.
You’re comparing a later 150 octane LF IX to an earlier 190A. That Spitfire would absolutely mulch the A and outperform it pretty much across the board. The top of the line 190 that Spitfire would be facing would be the Dora.
The LF IX was a specialised low altitude hot rod with a climb rate of around 5000ft/m off memory matched to a highly manoeuvrable airframe. The issue in WT is that the BR is too low for the LF IX. In SB it’s 5.0 when it could even be 6.0.
2 Likes
This is nice for SB pilots, but unfortunately SB is a niche mode; Air RB has a way lower skill ceiling and is dominated by non-pilots using mouse aim.
I fly exclusively with a HOTAS and SFC (instructor off, auto-trimm on) in Air RB and see that mouse aim support helps Spit pilots way more than 190 pilots as the rather strange FM of Spits (imho very unique) is clearly tamed by MnK.
Your example of having the upper hand in a 190 against anything lower than a Mk IX Spit is true - but just to a certain degree.
-
The issue is a matter of the game set-up within Air RB - isolated 1 vs 1s are rare, you have to create them by yourself. And - you need way more skill in a 190 than in a Spit to make them work.
-
So in order to beat a Spit (or other rat planes like A6Ms or I-16s) you need an alt advantage which becomes complicated if you enemy has similar climb rate and your engine is nerfed by gaijin. So it takes ages to outclimb Spits and thx to the overheating nerf you can’t play the long game; your engine wear kills your performance advantage after 15-18 minutes as you have a red flashing engine at 83° C - which was “white” before.
-
Zoom climbing away from a Spit requires a large energy advantage upfront your initial attack as the bloody 3rd person mouse aim allows them to hit you (depending on speed) up to 1 - 1.4 km.
-
The agility advantage of 190s as described in both articles is imho non existent, as soon as you get slower than ~350 kmph you wobble through the air. From my pov just a fraction of Air RB players is actually able to use the superior 190 roll to “out-roll” enemies in order to reverse attacking aircraft.
The skill level of any allied pilot at this stage of the war (April '45) was on average 400 hours. So no excuse regarding the Tempest kill.
Reschke was not an exceptional pilot and had claimed around 20 kills (mainly B-17s) and ended the war with 46-70 (depending on source) combat sorties. The imho only remarkable action in his career was downing a B-17 by ramming (07-07-44).
And?
This correct. If a 190 D-12 or 13 manages to “ninja-climb” above 7 km he should be able to energy trap every LF Mk IX trying to pitch up thx to poor high alt performance.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
I lowkey wonder if this is an issue with the INSTRUCTOR and not the flight models.
This is a fairly generally applicable observation to a lot of aircraft.
I tried my Mustang Mk Ia in Air RB rather than air SB because I couldnt find lobbies and… it’s an entirely different beast. It bleeds energy way faster, it can’t pull as reliably and it flops and wobbles around like a dead fish drunk on vodka out of water in the middle of the desert.
G.55 is similarly different between ARB and ASB. In ARB, I see people remark G.55s have terrible energy retention in loops and bleed a ton of energy. While definitely true in ASB, I don’t experience this nearly as much as I have seen in ARB tutorial/review videos.
What I do observe in ASB is how the G.55 has incredible gyroscopic precession effects where pulling back on the stick YEETS the aircraft’s nose off to the right and puts you into some serious slip requiring constant babysitting of the rudder to avoid bleeding speed when making sudden pitch up/pitch down inputs.
I do not fly Fw190s enough to comment on them directly, but I can cite videos of ASB content creators who do not make any complaints about drag or rudder issues.
Like, he doesn’t say it’s amazing or anything but his complaints are distinct from those you are making (engine performance).
This makes me think the Fw190s experience the same issues as I did with the Mustang MkIa and G.55 where instructor does not know how to properly manage the rudder causing tons of drag from slipping.
This discussion is strictly about SB. RB and AB don’t matter to me — I only play SB
In that case I don’t know why your statements of fw190s contradict squishface’s videos.
Another thing… RB and AB have a completely different dynamic. You get third-person view, which makes it way easier to predict enemy movements, plus you have aim assist, stalls and spins are much harder to trigger, and maneuvers can be done much more instantly because there’s a flight instructor constantly compensating for you.
Bringing an RB experience into an SB discussion is totally irrelevant, because in SB you have full manual control over the aircraft — there’s no computer helping you correct your mistakes or overinputs."
I am talking about SB.
I assumed you were talking about air RB because your statements were directly contradicting Squishface’s video on the Fw190 where he describes its main advantage is in Energy retention but bad energy generation.
You complained of rudder and turn energy loss, which corresponded with my experiences trying to play RB again after mostly flying SB and finding planes I love in SB feel like dead fish in RB.
Watch the videos I’ve linked.
One discusses 1 vs 1 duelling with sim controls…
One discusses SB EC matches.
Edit: And I can assure he uses Fw190s quite regularly in SB. I have ran into him before and got clowned on.
Edit2:
Direct timestamped quote on its energy retention (for doras):
I take it positively for two reasons, first: Willi said in the interview that he never had any difficulty fighting Tempests. Second: the United Kingdom never made available the comparison data between the Tempest and the H1, something that Germany published the data it had with captured Tempest, and the data it has on the H1 showed that it was superior to the Tempest
This post is about SB so the anecdotes about RB aren’t really relevant. That said the issue sounds more to do with the somewhat hand holding/arcade nature of the instructor and less necessarily the performance of the aircraft. The only work around would be to over and unhistorically buff the 190’s (unless instructor is causing issues) or unhistorically nerf the Spitfires. Both are terrible solutions in my opinion but again… I don’t play RB.
The 190’s did actually have a more lively FM a few years ago but people cried because it also made the flight model “unstable” so Gaijin gave us this over stable FM that we have today. It even correctly tightened up in turns like the Spitfires currently do but the masses screamed and you get what you have today.
It’s too quick to judge the Tempest pilot’s abilities when we don’t know how actually capable he was. Training is one thing but actual experience is something else entirely. Potentially 20 bomber kills is nothing to scoff at considering the dire situation Germany was in at that point.
Off memory didn’t the Ta-152’s bounce the Tempests as well?
The point I’m making is that people are hinting at Ta-152 superiority because it shot down a Tempest and yet on that exact same day a Tempest shot down the Ta-152 as well… basically it’s a silly point to make to claim which aircraft was better.
In game it is the same in my experience. If the 190 is caught with its pants down against a Mk IX it’s in deep trouble, that said you can always dive away and extend. The Mk IX whilst faster still isn’t that fast and an Anton will hold energy far better. The only issue is the LF IX which shouldn’t be 5.0 at all.
The Anton can always disengage and then re-engage.
Boom and zoom is more or less the game the 190 is meant to play. The wing loading is too high to be a solid turn fighter and RAF accounts on average never state that the 190 out turned them but would dive on them and finish by climbing with a “roll off the top”.
If you lose the initiative then disengage, as an occasional Spitfire pilot having a smart 190 that runs when it should is the single most frustrating thing on the planet. Because I know if I chase someone I don’t see will one shot my tail clean off and if I go defensive you’ll just circle back and attack again.
I think you’re talking about the LF IX not the F Mk IX… the 190’s have no issue running from the F although it puts up a much better fight. In regards to sustained turns in SB the points I’d make are:
1: The Spitfire retains energy very well due to a very low wing loading, the 190’s high wing loading bleeds energy faster.
2: The Spitfire has good energy retention in turns but most don’t know how to fly it correctly and allow it to skid all over the place throwing its energy away faster than anything else in the game. So whilst yes it’s clearly good it’s also extremely challenging to fly, the 190 in comparison is on rails which it absolutely shouldn’t be.
I’d advise some caution on buffing the 190 compared to reality…
The 190A was a superb little aircraft but its heyday was against the Mk V spitfire which it very handily outperforms in game. By the time the Mk IX came out you’ll find quite a few RAF pilot accounts that state that the Mk IX had reached parity with the 190A. It had better high altitude performance, comfortably turned inside of the 190 and outclimbed the 190. Isn’t a Spitfire IX pilot quoted for saying something along the lines of “I could practically see the shock in the 190 pilot’s face as he looked around and saw my Spitfire climbing up to meet him”.
The over emphasizing argument goes both ways. You may feel the 190 is under powered in regards to agility (which I agree) but it’s also too stable with a too gentle stall. The lack of drag with takeoff flaps constantly deployed is questionable as well.
On the flipside the Spitfire is agile but its instability and torque effects feel somewhat overdone from what I’ve read. The early models also melt their engines.
Well, I just watched the last video you sent me — and honestly, it only reinforces what I’ve been saying all along. In the video, the player points out multiple times how most planes outclass the Fw 190 when it comes to energy retention, even in scissors.
At one point he says something like: “If you’re flying a 190 and someone knows what they’re doing with the rudder, they’ll eventually line up a shot on you.”
In another part he says: “5.7 BR planes in general are way more capable than you, and they’ll force you to drain all your energy, because they retain theirs much better.”
It feels like you still didn’t quite get what I was trying to explain, even though I’ve said it a few times. I’m not here saying the Fw 190 should be the best plane in the game, or the most agile, or the one that turns better than anything else. What I’m saying is: the flight model applied to the Fw 190 has way too much drag.
Simple moves like wide turns, even when using barely any elevator input, will cost you all your energy advantage — while other planes (especially the Spitfire Mk IX and later) can just snap into a 180° turn and still chase you even if you’re flying away in a straight line.
As for the P-51s — I was never talking about them. I actually think they’re balanced opponents, and dogfights with them feel fair on both sides.
But when it comes to the Spitfire Mk IX (and later variants) — let me give you an example. You’re flying an Fw 190 D-9, you have a bit of altitude advantage. You dive in for a boom and zoom. The Spit has less energy than you, so he pulls into a tight turn to evade. You follow for maybe a second, realize you won’t get the shot, so you pass and climb out in a straight line. The Spitfire somehow pulls a full 180°, gets on your six, and still has enough energy left to take shots at you or at least shut down your attempt to bait him into an energy trap.
Ask any serious SB player — this isn’t something I’m making up. It happens all the time.
What’s my point here? Am I saying the Fw 190 should climb better than the Mk IX? No. What I’m saying is that the drag model on all Fw 190s is overdone. Even a Mk IX with the Merlin 61 engine would realistically never be able to catch a 190 in a climb after pulling a tight 180° like that. That’s just unrealistic and over the top.
Sure, the Mk IX was better than the 190 in some ways — no doubt — but in War Thunder, the way acceleration and drag are modeled on the 190 makes it feel completely non-competitive and disconnected from reality.
Where’s the drag the Spit should’ve experienced in that tight turn?
And if that situation already feels like this… now imagine going into a scissors. I swear, even my 80-year-old grandma could win a scissors fight against an Fw 190 if she was flying a Spitfire Mk IX with two days of training.