I would like to apologize straight away, but this is a holy war... GA aircraft.
 

I'm currently working on a responce to one book which was published in Russian, and I think that I need your help in identifying the origins of the mistakes made by author.:rolleyes:

To be 'effective' a plane would have to achieve its goals. I guess the 'effect' that was trying to be obtained was winning the war.

So the 2 possible answeres would be the Il2 and any soviet aircraft.

This doesn't have anything to do with the abilities of the individual aircraft, just realizing their goal!

[Then throught the use of pure logic Skoshi then went on to prove 1 = 2, black is equal to white and that god did not exist. At which point the universe ...................]

IL-2.
When it comes to attacking ground targets, it's gotta be IL-2 for me in that selection of planes.

You read to many "[ENTER PLANE NAME HERE] won the war!"-Threads. :grin:

The mission of a ground-attack-fighter is not to win a war but to destroy a ground-target. So the logic way to approach this would be to compare numbers of planes against numbers of ground-units destroyed compared to losses.

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.

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.

Just that I get your argument straight: You take survivours accounts to say what attack plane was the most efficient? ;)

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.

Your probably right. My "Life coach" has told me not too but it's like waving a honey pot in front of Pooh Bear!

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.

Yeah, that list needs the Hawker Typhoon, and the P47.

I know what you mean. I think my most noteable effect to benefit my team during ground attacks is the distraction of the enemy-fighters, when I turn into a meteor with a nice firery trail until I hit a nice place for a crater. :grin:

One under the belly and 4 under the wing for 5 on the F.

The IL2 as a single unit being effective is quite debatable. In the numbers they were produced in any plane would be effective. The thousand plus Spitfires IX's at any time in the 2nd TAF used as ground attack aircraft were very effective.

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.

Unluckily, comparison in the book was made between these four airplanes, with a little bit of Hs129 mentioning

It does not, because there were no Typhoons or P47s on the EF

I voted for the Fw-190, mainly because of it's greater flexibility plus the higher bombload and ability to defend itself.

Even the ground attack versions were still good fighters but could also be used as dive bomber/fighter bomber with a decent bombload. Especially it could carry heavy bombs other than the Il-2. Planes like the Sturmovik might be perfectly adapted to their niche but you need specialized planes for each mission, while good fighter bombers can be used in almost any role where they are currently needed most. You can achieve more with less planes, concentrate production and supply chain on less different types. A more efficient contribution to the war effort.

I disagree with that idea, it's an accountant's view, but if you don't have considerable air superiority, it means making targets out of otherwise servicable fighters.
No offence intended, but why limit the question to only the Eastern Front? Even so, there were, apparently, lend lease P47s sent to Russia, and they are modelled in IL2 Forgotten Battles.

effective: n adjective, producing a desired or intended result.

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).

Because, as I written in the initial post I'm making an article about one book, which describes SU and Ge ground attack airplanes. And I have to say that so far the people on the forum had shown more common sence or knowlege of history then the authors.
P47s were never used as GA airplanes on EF, and I'm not talking about a game, but about RL.

Wasn't The 190 the official successor of the stuka ?

HS 129 and Ju 88P-1 replaced the Stuka where possible.

FW190 was more a fighter/bomber

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.

Especially if you don't have considerable air superiority fighter bombers are superior to specialized ground attack aircraft. A Ju-87 or Il-2 is just an easy target for enemy fighters, with or without bombs. The Fw-190 can still defend itself once the pilot drops his bombload, at least a fighter's higher speed gives him a better chance to escape if attacked. And it can still be used as a fighter if necessary. During the late Crimean campaign Fw-190 pilots from the ground attack wing SG-2 claimed more than 200 soviet aircraft shot down.

I agree, but the question concerns aircrafts that have been intensively used as GA aircraft, not only aircraft which have been built specifically for this purpose.
So I would keep Fw-190 and soviet fighters in the list.