The Fw-190 was a very capable ground attack aircraft, the A models were virtually unstoppable on low level "tip and run" raids over England until the Brits sorted out the problems with the Typhoon. As others have mentioned there were up armoured, up fuelled F and G models that came later which specialised in the role. Sure, it didn't have the load carrying capacity of the P-47, but it had other advantages as a ground attacker. As a smaller aircraft it was cheaper to produce in terms of materials needed, it is hard to compare in financial terms due to coming from different countries, but if it is considered roughly comparable to the P-51 then it would have cost around $50,000 US to build at the end of the war compared to $83,000 for a P-47. The fact that the Germans could produce three of them for two P-47's offsets the load disadvantage

somewhat. It's smaller size and outstanding low level performance would have also meant that it was likely to be a harder target for ground fire and it's cannon armament would have been more effective against targets like tanks. Just like in the air to air arena it had it's strengths and weaknesses in ground attack compared to the P-47. I reckon it balances out.

 

As for its ability to operate as a long range bomber escort, it could have been modified to do this if this was required. The G model long range intruder had more than a 1000 mile range with two drop tanks and a bomb. I can imagine a long range escort version with three tanks having an even longer range. It just wasn't needed but it isn't valid to critisise it upon that basis.

 

I'll have to agree to disagree with your analysis on why it wasn't a good bomber destroyer. Comparing it with the JU-88 is comparing apples and oranges, the later was a night fighter. Comparing like with like, i.e. day fighters, its armament was perfectly adequate. I also disagree that poor A2A performance due to the problems with pilot quality, maintenance and numbers late in the War should be cast as a reflection on the aircraft.

 

Again though, the real point is that in late 1941 the Fw-190 could do most of what the P-47 could do in early 1943, in fact it was considerably better in most respects to the early P-47's which had a fair few problems ... rate of climb being a notable one. If we don't consider the introduction date of the fighter then we may as well just go to the end of the War and pick the best all round fighter in operation then. I personally don't see the validity in this approach, it is like these Eurocanard supporters who hail the capabilities of aircraft compared to F-teens when they have only managed to come into service 25 years later. Keep in mind that the pace of development in WW2 was a lot faster, hence the compressed timeframes to prove themselves to be considered the best.

The point about the 190's A2A is that when loaded with underwing pans for MK108, MK103 or 4XMG151 it slowed down which is true.  Those dedicated zerstorers needed escort.

 

If you like the 190, what do you think of the Corsair?  It's basically an American 190 but carrier capable.

I think that it would be better to specify the best fighter for before 1939, then 39-40 and so on.

 

We cannot denie that "best all around" is verry subjective, german would definitively favor bomber interseptor role over close air support and opposite for allies.

 

We would face the same problem with "best all around" fighter of modern days.

Didn't need to be Up-ANYTHINGED...to do the jobs it did...I hear about, the FW-190 could be made to carry...or could be modified to...

The basic P-47 could:

1)   Shoot down FW-190's

2)   Deliver A2G ordnance

3)   Shoot down bombers, albeit medium ones

4)   Fly to Berlin.

 

It didn't have to be modified to carry 30mm cannon, and lose it's pure A2A capacity...or it could fly 1000 miles, with A BOMB,...out of the box, so to speak, you could take a P-47 and do many things.  Again, that's why I'd rate it the best ALL-AROUND fighter....it's not a bomber, so you can't complain too much about payload.  It's a FIGHTER, and whilst it wasn't the best INTERCEPTOR (Spitfire/FW-190/Typhoon/Tempest ???), nor necessarily the best Long-Range Escort (P-51 ???), nor the best Ground-Attack Bird (Typhoon/Tempest/Beaufighter ??) it , unlike these other aircraft, all these roles pretty much without any additions. 

 

I understand that the a/c went thru A Models to N models...but the basic airframe could do all the above roles, whereas the Spitfire could NEVER serve as a long-range escort, nor could the Bf-109, and the Spitfire was limited in A2G as was the P-51 due to in-line engines, as I keep saying the P-47 platform could do ALL these missions.  That would seem fairly conclusive about the ALL-AROUND fighter...even if it did not achieve a dominance in any one field.

 

And yes, I'd make the F-4U the best all-around in the Pacific...again because it may not be the P-38 in range, speed or firepower, or the P-400 in the ability to barge bust, but the Corsair could:

1)   Fight A6M's...

2)   Fight Betty's

3)   Attack ground targets

4)   Attack ground and sea targets (with the Tiny Tim)

5)   Night Fight;

6)   And do Photo-Reconnaissance.

 

In each of those areas there are a/c that excel, beyond the F-4U, but they do not provide coverage in the other areas.  In short, if you could only have ONE airframe on your carrier or air base, it would be the F-4U.  Just if I could only have one airframe in Europe, I'd prefer it to be the P-47.

I would rate the P-47 as THE best ground attack aircraft of the war.

 

1.  Good cockpit vision

2.  Adequate load

3.  Adequate range

4.  Tough airframe and no glycol lines to leak from golden BB's.

5.  Once the load is gone it can deal with whatever is out there A2A

I contest the notion that any non specialised fighter was better than the specialised ground attack types in operation during WW2. Apart from the usual range/payload requirments a good ground attack type needed to be well armoured against ground fire and to have at least one cannon, preferably at least 30mm, with which to destroy tanks. Air to air performance was a secondary consideration, in theatres like the Eastern Front where there was a serious air threat ground attack missions needed to be escorted if the they weren't to dump their bombs every other mission when bounced. That is why specialised types  evolved in the East. The Allied fighter bombers in the West were only effective as "multi-roles" because the Luftwaffe was so completely overwhelmed that most missions got through without interception, and because they didn't have enough enemy aircraft to keep them occupied in the air to air fight.

 

This is why ground attack capability is a secondary consideration when judging the best fighter. A fighter's job is to shoot down enemy aircraft. I believe there is a quote out there to that effect from a famous ace, I just can't think of whom right now.