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: