All of the arguments opposing the use of drop tanks and small loads of internal fuel would be valid IF we were flying long range combat missions as found in the ETO, SWPA and to some extent, the MTO.
However, the MA is far more representative of the Eastern Front than any other theater. Here most combat took place below 10,000 feet, over the battlefields and was fought by short-range fighters.
One glaring exception is that most American fighters, even the relatively short ranging models, were designed for greater range. Thus, they have significantly greater fuel capacity. This comes with a substantial weight penalty.
To insist that aircraft fly with at least 75% internal fuel before being able to load drop tanks is insisting that these aircraft be handicapped should they be bounced shortly after takeoff.
I rarely fly any aircraft with more than 75% fuel. A typical sortie for me would be an F6F with 75%, or just 50% depending upon the distance. Likewise, I'll fly a P-38G with 75%, or 50% with a single drop tank and one 1,000 lb bomb. My usual method is to use the drop tank for takeoff and climb out, pitching it when I reach cruise altitude (usually 10,000 feet). Now I have enough fuel to reach the target, fight for a while and still get back, if need be. Taking 75% would have the exact same result as it will burn off nearly 25% for takeoff and climbout. The difference is if I encounter enemy aircraft before I reach altitude, I can dump the bomb and tank and be at a weight that allows me to get good performance. Either way, when I reach my destination, my aircraft's weight is just about the same.
Most aircraft preclude taking bombs and drop tanks. You either take bombs or drop tanks, not both. Exceptions are the late model Jugs, the later F4Us and the P-38s. Most American planes allow for drop tanks and rockets, although rockets have very limited use, being suitable for soft targets only.
Regardless of arguments, the fact remains that the MA is not representative of history. If you want historical accuracy, then fly TOD when it comes online.
As it stands now, any load-out option available will be used. And why not? This is not an historical arena, HTC has reiterated that many times. In TOD your load-out will be determined by the mission and you will not be able to alter it.
If someone insists on historical accuracy in the MA, you either implement it across the board, or don't even bother. That would mean no dive-bombing buffs. No CVs being sunk by strafing, limited 3 gun La-7s, etc and so on. You can't have it both ways, you sure as hell can't have it just because you prefer to fly one certain type of aircraft. If historical accuracy were a goal for the MA, why would we need TOD?
Each arena has its own purpose. The MA was never intended to be a historical arena, it was intended to be an air combat GAME utilizing WWII aircraft. For more immersive, historical play; we have scenarios, events and snapshots. However, the MA is a free-for-all, as it was intended, and it will remain that way. The MA is all about choices. You make your choices and you will live or die by them.
My regards,
Widewing
