Variants

[Saxman]

This has come up before but....

While we need more NEW aircraft to fill in many gaps (German bombers, Allied tanks, Russia, Italy and Japan in general) there's a couple gaps within the existing plane set that are glaring as well.

I am NOT listing new planes here. I'm strictly listing gaps in the variant lineup of existing planes. Most of you will think "Well so what?" However all of these would be invaluable to scenarios, snapshots, special events and FSO. In some cases variants that are ill-suited to the situation are being substituted because there's nothing else available. I'm also NOT saying that additional variants of already existing aircraft are more important than filling in other glaring gaps in the plane set (He-111, pretty much anything from Japan, etc). However there ARE holes that especially in the SEA would be welcomed with open arms.

Fw-190A3/4 -- Our A5 is really not quite adequate for substituting in many early war situations.

Ju-88 -- Our 88 is an earlier ship. There's a number of later variants, including several fighter/bomber-killers (Ju-88G, etc) that are missing

Ju-87 -- As has been noted, there's quite a few missing variants of the Stuka, including the cannon-armed tank-buster everyone is pining for.

A6M3 -- It's been asked for. Repeatedly. Right now we go from the early-war A6M2 to the later A6M5. There's no real mid-war Zero variant. By comparison, the Spit, 109, P-38, (the H and J are generally similar enough that the J can substitute) Jug, and F4U are covered all the way from entry into service through the end of the war.

F6F-3 -- The same can be said of the Hellcat. The F6F-5 falls into the same category as the F4U-1A: VERY borderline for the Mid War arena. Additionally, the F6F-5 is inappropriate for scenarios from introduction in 1943 to 1944.

B-17D/E/F -- We have NO B-17 appropriate for a PTO scenario as the B-17G wasn't deployed outside of Europe. The B-17G may be the most representative type, but it leaves the Americans without a heavy bomber for the Early War arena. Additionally, in scenarios there's no B-17 appropriate for the Pacific Theater or periods in Europe up to 1942. Additionally, due to the moratorium by HTC on skinning B-17Fs for our G we're missing a lot of famous skins like Memphis Belle. Besides, how often have the EARLIEST B-17s (C/D, etc) appeared in a sim?

B-24 -- Once again, there's no American heavy bomber for the EWA, and the B-24J--except if assumed to be a PB4Y-1 (B-24D custom modified with a nose turret for the Navy)--is inappropriate for scenario setups (such as the Tunisia campaign c1942 currently running in FSO) earlier than 1943.

Lancaster -- Once again, the Mk.III we have is technically incorrect for anything earlier than Mid-war (I know we have her in EWA in-game, but from what I can find the Mk.III is a 1943 bird at LEAST).

Mosquito -- Where to begin? Our Mosquito is a mid-war fighter variant. We're missing any representation of the bomber variants altogether, and none of the earlier or later models of the fighter model.

Seafire -- The rare exception to the Spit lineup. We're missing both the initial Mk.I, and the Mk.III (ironically the first "true" navalized Spitfire variant) and later models.

P-51 -- Ok. We could PROBABLY use the P-51A/A-36. I don't like the thought of Runstangs with 20mm cannon any more than the rest of you, but there is a small gap at the beginning of the P-51's service that the superior high-altitude performance of B/C we have is inappropriate for replacing the Allison Pony.

P-40 -- We're seriously lacking the later end of the P-40 lineup. I won't be able to convince ANYBODY the P-40N would be a valuable addition to the stable in the Mains, but the P-40E is just not appropriate for some of the later PTO setups, (1943ish and beyond) where these later Warhawks figured prominently.

M4 Sherman -- Allied tankers are excited to finally have a white star painted on their turrets. Unfortunately the Sherman Firefly isn't even exactly representative. A number of variants, both early models and later developments like the Easy 8 would be very welcome to fill in the Western Allied tank sets.

Tanks in general -- Really, there could stand to be more earlier or later variants of ANY of the tanks in the lineup.

I'm sure there's others that you all can help me with. But when you get right down to it, there's a SURPRISING number of rather significant holes in the variants of our existing set.

[SmokinLoon]

Oh, you are correct on somany accounts.   

The single Mossi variant is the biggest travesty in the game!  Ditto for the P40N not being in the line up.  The early war B24/B17 request is interesting.  I'm not sure what the differences in bomb loads or engine performce would be between the variants we already have and the early variants requested... but g'pa said his bumbing runs never took anything but 250lb bombs for jap shipping and airfields (he flew an early-mid war B24, not sure what exact variant).   

I'm not sure if I agree with the need for the F6F-3, P51, or Fw190A3 request though.  The gaps in performace is small enough that the change needed for scenarios would be not hardly felt.  Ditto for another A6M variant.  I'm not sure if the performance envelope between the A6M variants requested and the two already existing in the AH2 game warrent another zeke.  Oh, and we dont need any more stinkin' Spitfires for the moment.   

You forgot the Sea Hurricane and Sea Mossi.   

Regarding tanks... for the moment the BIG gap is a legit tank destroyer.   The M18 would fit the bill perfectly.  We already have 5 tanks and 1 light armored car.  The US Sherman w/ the 75mm would make the T34's turret look like a Tiger.     

I completely understand teh want/need for having as many aircraft properly represented as possible, but if the difference between the variants (think P40E vs P40K) then making due with what we have is making best use of HC's time and resources. 

[Saxman]

Loon,

Actually the P-51A DOES have a pretty significant difference in performance over the B/C. The Allison engine was hopeless above about 10-15k, with performance falling off significantly. This made the 51A useless as a high-altitude bomber escort.

I think there's enough differences between the F6F-3 and -5 to justify the addition. The -3 was slower to start with. She also lacked the ordinance options of the -5, but I believe is also somewhat lighter (for comparison, a lot of arguments were originally made against adding the F4U-1A as being "too similar" to the existing Birdcage or 1D. It wasn't until after that the flaw of that argument was made clear).

The A6M3 had superior performance over the A6M2. I believe she also marked the first step towards toughening the ship up, thought not to the extent of the A6M5. Many A6M3s were also clip-winged, which would increase the rate of roll (much the same manner as the Spit XVI vs Spit IX, which are otherwise similar in performance, excluding armament). She'd be an intermediary between the 2 and 5, and more competitive with the mid-war American Iron.

Also, I deliberately left out the M18 tank destroyed because this is a NEW vehicle, not a variant of the existing one (thus the theme of my post). The Sea Hurri could conceivable fall under this heading as well.

[Anaxogoras]

Let me add:

109E-7, 109F-2, 109G-6/AS (or G14/AS), 109G-10

N1K1

P-51C (why not?)

P-47C

P-38H

Yak-9D

Good post.

[Noir]

good post and I'll give it a and a O on the KBSmeter range

I don't know why we didn't get those variants to start with....they just remodeled the F6F-5 why didn't we get the F6F-3 at the same time ? lack of testing data ? or just plain lazy.

[BoSoxFan]

P-51C (why not?)

Because the P-51B and P-51C are the same exact plane. The only difference being that the B was produced in Inglewood, California and the C in Dallas, Texas.

[Saxman]

Let me add:

109E-7, 109F-2, 109G-6/AS (or G14/AS), 109G-10

N1K1

P-51C (why not?)

P-47C

P-38H

Yak-9D

Good post.

The reason I left the 109s out is that the stable is pretty representative from the beginning to the end of the war as it is. You can run a scenario from more or less any point in the war and you have a 109 that can legitimately be used without substitution.

Regarding the N1K1: First, do you mean the N1K1 floatplane, or the N1K1-J (first land-based variant)? I left the N1K1-J out because after some quick research there really wasn't that much of a delay between the introduction of the N1K1-J, and the development of the N1K2. And as rare as the N1K2 was, the N1K1-J was even less common as a result.

As for the Pony C: What BoSox said. Maybe if HTC renamed the P-51B to P-51B/C people would stop asking....

[SmokinLoon]

Loon,

Actually the P-51A DOES have a pretty significant difference in performance over the B/C. The Allison engine was hopeless above about 10-15k, with performance falling off significantly. This made the 51A useless as a high-altitude bomber escort.

I think there's enough differences between the F6F-3 and -5 to justify the addition. The -3 was slower to start with. She also lacked the ordinance options of the -5, but I believe is also somewhat lighter (for comparison, a lot of arguments were originally made against adding the F4U-1A as being "too similar" to the existing Birdcage or 1D. It wasn't until after that the flaw of that argument was made clear).

The A6M3 had superior performance over the A6M2. I believe she also marked the first step towards toughening the ship up, thought not to the extent of the A6M5. Many A6M3s were also clip-winged, which would increase the rate of roll (much the same manner as the Spit XVI vs Spit IX, which are otherwise similar in performance, excluding armament). She'd be an intermediary between the 2 and 5, and more competitive with the mid-war American Iron.

Also, I deliberately left out the M18 tank destroyed because this is a NEW vehicle, not a variant of the existing one (thus the theme of my post). The Sea Hurri could conceivable fall under this heading as well.

I'm thinking the P51B can substitute well for any other pony variant 'cept than the P51D.  Outside of the 20mm, of course.   

If the biggest difference between the F6F-5 and F6F-3 is a wee bit a speed and ord options... then a secenario that had the F6F-3 can be had by restricting ord mandating drop tanks. 

Yeah, your right regarding the M18 Hellcat being "new".  Alright then... I'll go with the M10 Wolverine.  It uses the M4 Sherman chassis, so with only minor cosmetic changes and some adjusted gun stats (US 76mm vs US 75mm) we'd have another variant instead of a completely new addition. 

Oh... and I'll vouch for the Boston Mk IV.  Think of it as a A20 but without the forward firing .303 British MG's, the addition of an enclosed powered rear turret, and WITH a legit bomb sight.  It would be a devistating medium bomber.  Talk about an EASY variant to add, this would be it.   

     

[Anaxogoras]

Because the P-51B and P-51C are the same exact plane. The only difference being that the B was produced in Inglewood, California and the C in Dallas, Texas.

Oh!

The reason I left the 109s out is that the stable is pretty representative from the beginning to the end of the war as it is. You can run a scenario from more or less any point in the war and you have a 109 that can legitimately be used without substitution.

I sincerely disagree!  That's as silly a thing to say about the 109 as what I said about the P-51C.

The 109E-7 is an important transitional aircraft between the E and F series.  It could carry a drop tank or a bomb (our E-4 cannot) and also had a better performing DB601N instead of a DB601A.  There's lots of scenarios that we could run where the E-4 would be too old but the 109F-4 hadn't entered service yet.

The 109F-2 is nearly identical to the F-4 but with a 15mm hub cannon and the DB601N instead of the more powerful DB601E.  It would be super easy to add, and would allow us to diversify the strength of 109s in early war scenarios.

109G-6/AS is a high altitude version of the Gustav, and entered service in early '44.  At the moment we have no 109G for high altitude work, as the G-14 is hardly better than the G-6 above ~22k ft (and the G-14 didn't enter service until July of '44).  This one is a big must for scenarios because it was the preferred aircraft of the time for engaging fighter escort while 190s engaged American bombers.

109G-10 is the fastest Gustav, but not quite as much of a speed demon as the 109K-4.  Any late '44 or 45 scenario would benefit from the G-10 because it would solve the problem of deciding between all 109s being K-4's, which is bad, or having lots of 109s be G-14s, which is also bad (especially if the scenario will have high altitude fights).  With the G-10, some 109s can be K-4s, some can be G-10s, some can be G-6/AS, and some can be G-14s, and we will have a much more realistic spread in the capabilities of the 109 series.


--------------------

I meant the N1K1-J, and in fact, more were made than the N1K2-J.  If we had the aircraft, in any scenario 50% of Georges could be N1K1s.

Sometimes wikipedia is good and sometimes it's not.  They have a little less than 500 N1K2-Js being produced, and over 1000 N1K1-Js.  The N1K2-J's monthly production numbers did not reach more than 10 until November 1944.

[Saxman]

Loon,

As I said before. TWICE: The P-51A with its Allison engine DOES NOT have the high-altitude performance of the Merlin-equipped P-51B. It would be like trying to fly 20k bomber escort missions with the P-39. The P-51B is NOT a legitimate substitute for that specifically because the Merlin was added to FIX this shortcoming.

[Anaxogoras]

Fwiw, I wouldn't mind seeing more Spitfire variants as I know they were about as diverse as the 109.

[BoSoxFan]

I'm thinking the P51B can substitute well for any other pony variant 'cept than the P51D.  Outside of the 20mm, of course.   
     

As Saxman has said the P-51A is a whole different aircraft then the B/C model. It had an Allison engine. The same engine that's in the P-40s. So think of it as a kind of frankenstein plane. It looked like a P-51, preformed like a P-40, and had the firepower like a Hurri IIC.

[SmokinLoon]

Loon,

As I said before. TWICE: The P-51A with its Allison engine DOES NOT have the high-altitude performance of the Merlin-equipped P-51B. It would be like trying to fly 20k bomber escort missions with the P-39. The P-51B is NOT a legitimate substitute for that specifically because the Merlin was added to FIX this shortcoming.

*pokes the rat in the cage with a stick*   

The P51B is close enough to the P51A for the %90 of altitudes fighters play their game at.   

[Saxman]

Ever flown FSO?

You need a 25k cruising altitude just to ensure co-alt start in most fights. The P-51A's performance difference would have a BIG impact in historical play, and this was part of the point of this list: Gaps that may not be so noticeable in the Mains, but are glaring once you get into the SEA and start playing with period matchups.

On THIS list the real major hole is the lack of an American heavy bomber in the EWA due to only having one variant each of the 17 and 24, and the fact that our Lancaster isn't technically appropriate for that arena, either.

[Motherland]

The Lancaster is the ONLY heavy bomber in the early war arena. To be honest the lack of an American heavy bomber in the arena isn't really a big deal, as all other countries with the exception of the UK have no heavy bombers in any arena.
Not to say I wouldn't like to shoot at an earlier version of the B17 or B24.

I think the biggest whole in our planeset, as far as variants go, by far, is the lack of a large number of Yak variants. The Yak1-9 series was the most produced fighter of the war and served from the opening of Operation Barbarossa to the fall of Berlin, yet we're missing most of it's variants, and really only have variants suitable for mid/late-1943 onward.