![]() |
|
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
IL2 for sure. Read all the first-person accounts of German wehrmacht soldiers all the way up to the end of the war and they say the IL2s were murderous. The stukas were really only effective early and desperately needed local air superiority to be effective. The FW's were basically modified from the fighter role and while effective at times in certain situations, were extremely limited in their loadouts and amounts of ordnance they could carry.
The IL2 was more effective. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Actually the Schlacht-Version of the Fw 190 flew much different missions than the Il-2 (due to the course of war). The Il-2 was an aircraft for direct frontline CAS, designed to operate and survive directly over the frontline. The Fw 190 in the Schlacht role, however, mostly operated against the soviet supply organisation, the truck columns with ammunition, fuel and other essential supplies as well as artillery posts and the likes. This was where they were most effective (comparable to the fighter-bombers of the 9th USAAF and 2nd TAF) and not in directly attacking enemy tanks and positions.
I don't think such a comparison can be made. Which is why I won't make a choice here. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() The StuKas were effective while they had air-superiority and against retreating targets, against infrastructure and fortified emplacements. When the IL2 was the best attacker, Germans were already on the run and Russia had the air superiority in most areas. |
![]() |
|
|