That has nothing to do with it... The wings were designed to hold a number of possible weapons. That doesn't mean these experimental gunpods were put into production just because they COULD be mounted... Doesn't matter what kind of clever adapters they could have rigged up, or if they jammed the ammo racks into the empty gun cavity inside the wing or what-have-you. The guns were still found unsuited for combat and the systems were dropped like hot rocks.
As for the 190D series, they did in fact have the same mounting points and framework as the 190A series. However, doctrine and emphasis on performance dictated these were never used. The same goes for the 109K series and wing gondolas, bomb racks, WGR tubes, etc. The same goes for the Ta152H and the 175 rpg instead of 250 rpg-- the ammo bins were identical they just loaded them to a lesser number to save weight and improve performance.
You might as well ask why P-47Ns never carried more than 267 rpg (if that much -- often stripped down and far less) when they technically had the capacity for much more? The answer is: That's not what they ever did. The orders and the doctrine was dictated to the pilots: "Fly it this way, period. This is your ammo limit. End of orders. Now follow the orders."
So, yes... The 190D wing was the same, but no it wasn't utilized the same way. You see a couple rare D-11 or D-13 models with outboard Mk108 30mm guns, but overall the move was towards a hub-mounted gun instead of the outboard wing positions. You see the same trend with Ta152C models and other designs as well.
When the 152 series was planned to take over fighter duties, the slower 190F line was to be replaced with in-line 190D series jabos... These would have centerline racks, wing racks, rocket rails, etc... However it was just talk and nothing came of it. It shows the capabilities were all still there, they just were disregarded to keep the planes competitive against ever-powerful-enemies.
Don't mistake me too much, I'm being casual losse-minded/lipped with my thoughts, not trying to go into any debate or sitr any pots. I was deliberatley speculating on why it clearly wasn't done when it could very easily have been. You helped clarify (and reminded me) a lot about why things never materialized that way for the D-series.
Your post also touched on my dream/desire that we should have at least as many A-series 190s in the line-up/representation, someday, as P-47D series currently... they're very different - but also have many coincidences I feel, more than many other comparable aircraft from opposing countries, almost like Kurt Tank had a twin brother he never knew about, wisked away to russia at birth, whom later became one the jug's conceivers at Republic.... but anywho, speaking of random thoughts.
I do have a couple more serious questions since things seem to be going that way now, though;
1 - Speaking of the many ideas thrown onto the wall: one that I'm honestly unclear if it stuck or not - the single centerline-mounted Werfer-Granate 21 mortar rocket. The single wing-mounts made it, why not the third centerline?
2 - What recorded incidents, if anyone knows of (even vaguely would help), that the D-9 used its ETC rack for a 250kg and/or 500kg bomb?...
It could... but as we're pointing out in this conversation in regards to many other things.... I have never (yet, always learning, pretty sure it's out there but I've overlooked it, etc.) seen a D-9 utilise it for anything but a drop tank by any account.
