... and it describes comparative tests done of a captured Fw-190A-6 against a P-47D by the USAAC in late1943 in Italy.

 

The Fw-190 was found to have better acceleration and would transition quickly into the climb and the dive. It could also hang on it's prop and outturn the P-47 at speeds of below 250mph.

 

The P-47 would overtake the Fw-190A in the dive after about 7000 feet, could outturn it at high altitude and could outclimb it by 500fpm after the first 1500feet of the climb. I found the last point somewhat surprising as I have read elsewhere that the P-47 was poor in the climb until it was fitted with the paddle bladed prop in early 1944.

 

What this means is that below 20,000 feet when the fight started the Fw-190A had an advantage due to it's better responsiveness in the vertical and in acceleration. I have also read that it was a particularily quick aircraft to get into the roll because of the design of the ailerion control system. This is significant as one would expect that if the P-47 was bounced by the 190, it would have a hard time getting away and if the Fw-190 was bounced, it could buy time for the pilot or his comrades do something to counter the P-47. However, if the fight persisted the P-47 was at an advantage unless the Fw-190 managed to survive long enough for the fight to become low and slow, at which point it could use it's superior manouverability.

 

For the missions performed the two were fairly evenly matched, each with strengths and weaknesses. Remember that until the advent of the P-51B there wasn't an allied fighter that could provide a credible long-range bomber escort into Germany, so the two types would have met at lower altitudes on a more regular basis. I would really only say that the Fw-190 was outclassed for many of the missions it performed for the period between October 1943 with the advent of the P-51B and autumn 1944 with the introduction of the Fw-190D-9, which was as good as any of the Allied types. With the introduction of the Ta-152 in early 1945 the 190 family again took the lead, though it was too late in the War to make a difference. .

As to the ball turret and it's gunner who survived missing a toe to frost bite, the shell hit the face of his armored glass just an inch or two from his gun sight near the middle, OR by the right edge. It's hard to tell. But none of that is important, what IS important is that the shell failed to perforate the glass and injure the gunner enough to make him a casualty. If you had gone to the site linked to in the prior post, you would have known that and seen dozens of pics, all showing much the same lack of serious effect!

In artillery, caliber or calibre^{[nb 1]} is the diameter of a barrel, or by extension a relative measure of the length. link />

Note that the word caliber is DIMENSIONLESS by itself and requires a type of unit to be appended to the number to mean anything! Does 14 caliber mean a 14"( the " symbol denoting the units in this case!) or .14" a micro-caliber varmint round? The fraise 14 by itself is meaningless with out further context!

I actually think you are fairly well read on these topics, but when you come up with utter, utter rubbish like that to try and defend an undefendable patriotic position you just make a fool of yourself and stop people from taking any notice of what you say. It's a dumb thing to do. 

I agree with you that below 20,000 ft the FW-190A models were very capable aircraft. If you were in a P-47 you wanted to keep your speed up and not get sucked into a low level low speed dogfight where they could chew you up. The problem with the A Models were that at high altitude the P-47's and 51's were much better performing. The FW-190D's and TA-152's were designed to be very capable at high altitude and were every bit as as good or even better than the 47's and 51's...but too few and too late. The bulk of the Luftwaffe had to face the 8th AF in 190A's and 109G's which were just not as good. They just didn't have the performance to dictate the terms of the fight.

I really like the P-38 but it just didn't do as well in Europe as in the PTO. Poor Cockpit heating and German planes that were close to it's performance meant that it had a harder time playing to its strengths. Much easier vs Zeros, Oscars, and Tonys where it had a much better speed, climb, and dive advantage. The P-38 did well in Africa and the Med but you didn't have to worry about your cockpit glass frosting over blocking vision because the heater was inadequate...that had to increase your pucker factor.