![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
View Poll Results: Which of four GA airplanes were in your opinion more effective? Whats your basis? | |||
Il-2 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
14 | 58.33% |
Ju-87 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 8.33% |
Fw-190 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
8 | 33.33% |
Any soviet fighter |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 4.17% |
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
All I know is that ANY plane seams to be less effective when I in the virtual cockpit. Of course I do attract more small arms fire away from my team mates! That can only be a good thing! ![]() Should we really have the 190 on the list? Didn't they only have a single hardpoint for ground attack weapons? That would be extremely limiting as a gound-attack aircraft. Even though its high speed would be a positive survival trait. It wouldn't be able to loiter around the battle field enguaging multiple targets. Keep it as a fighter I say. Last edited by Skoshi Tiger; 09-19-2008 at 12:10 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Given the number of losses the IL2 suffered was it really the most effective ground attack aircraft pound for pound? I would say given the numbers produced vs losses there are allot more effective aircraft than the IL2. If I was charged with going to blow a ground target up I'd pick at least a dozen different aircraft before I'd choose the IL2. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
i am the only one that voted for the stuka so far ![]() the stuka was purpose built to be a ground attack aircraft with a specific objective in that strategy, the pinpoint bombing of ground targets. as such it was extremely effective and without it the fast moving sweeps that the german armored units did would have been much less effective, maybe even impossible. but the stuka was dependent on air cover by its own german airforce, and without air dominance it was extremely vulnerable, such as during BoB when the english pilots had "stuka parties" which was like shooting fish in a barrel. since your question asks about GA in the plural, you'd have to include the il2. again purpose built as a GA aircraft, but rather then pinpoint bombing its role was as a more general GA aircraft that was aimed at dealing with armoured vehicles or enemy targets that had light AA protection. with its very heavy defensive armor and several large caliber tank-killing forward firing guns, resulting in a "flying tank" aircraft that was good at both tasks. but being slow and heavy, it was also very dependent on appropriate aircover, and without it it wouldnt have lasted long. many of the high scoring german aces on the eastern front obtained their high scores by shooting down vulnerable aircraft like the il2 (until it got a rear gunner in its later versions, and by which time aerial forces btw germany and russia were fairly equal) both those aircraft were good at what they were intended for, but had a somewhat different purpose. so if you ask "which is more effective", you'd have to specify as what because air to ground has different aspects, and each of those aircraft was good/better/best at some of those functions. the modern version of the il2 is probably something like the A-10, and the modern version of the stuka is probably a laser guided bomb that can fly down the chimney of a specific building ![]() both the FW-190 and "any soviet fighter" are excluded from this question because they were not the major planes used in a GA role and were not built for that purpose (obviously variants existed that had that capability, and modifications were made at certain times so they could be used in a air to ground role). Last edited by zapatista; 09-20-2008 at 06:39 AM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
HS 129 and Ju 88P-1 replaced the Stuka where possible.
FW190 was more a fighter/bomber Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 09-20-2008 at 09:48 AM. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
iirc i think the FW-190 was specifically developed as a high/med altitude fighter with additional bomber interceptor functions.
when the 190 was first released it was significantly superior to the then existing spitfires models as a single seat fighter , and it took the brits 6 to 9 months to catchup by further evolving the spitfire. when both 109's and 190's would combine to intercept allied bomber formations, the 190's would mainly attack the bombers themselves, while the 109's would try and deal with the fighter escorts. whatever function the 190 did in ground attack function, it was mostly as an afterthought because the plane was fairly sturdy. others here might have more detail on its role, but thats how i understood it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
So I would keep Fw-190 and soviet fighters in the list. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|