The difference is; the Bf 110 and Mossie are primarily fighters, and have adequate view to the rear. Their roles (in the incarnations seen in AH2) are as fighters. Certainly both offer better rear views than the F6F and P-39s. Attack is a secondary role for fighters.
Attack aircraft are certainly different, and their primary mission is not air to air combat. Look at the B-25s. You can select the H or a C model with solid nose. You can take a glass nosed B-25C or a Boston. How could your hope to differentiate between those when it comes to F3? Both are effective in ground attack.
What I do not yet understand is; what is driving this crusade? Who cares if an SBD or IL-2 pilot can use F3? They are still extremely vulnerable aircraft, lacking speed and vertical performance. This entire discussion resembles the whines about handicapped parking spaces.
Well firstly I have to confess that my view re the creation of proper attack classification, perks and use of the same within AH extends to an area greater than just the discussion regarding the inappropriate use of F3..........
IMO the AH Mossie/110G are primarily attack ac whilst they are also able to perform some fighter/interceptor functions. Yes I have seeen them perform very adequately as fighters in the hands of some.
One of your points above poses the question of how we would differentiate between a bomber such as the B-25C or the Boston or the same ac when used in an attack role. Internationally the definition is blurred but actually with AH's game play role it can be more clearly defined in ways that would even out inconsistancies in game play.
My view would be that when chosen as Bomber its method of use is defined by enforced access to the F6 view for bomb release and access to the F3 view for defensive SA. Equally when chosen as a Bomber formations are enabled. The limited manouverability caused by formations IMO requires greater SA, and F3 is not an offensive view from this point as its clear that when in it bombs cannot be released (only in F6).
Actually the game play "win" here is the reduction of the effectiveness of low level ground/ship attacking formations (whether in suicide mode or not) releasing from the F3 view point. This stuff can of course be attempted from the F6 view but stuff can be put inplace to make rapid switching to F6 without calibration somewhat ineffective.
When choosing attack these attacker/bombers can be used differently. F6 is indeed dissabled, as would be F3 and bombs could only be released from the F1 pilot view. Pure Attack ac would be similarly configured as are fighter/attackers any way. So any aircraft in attack mode (whether it be Fighter/attacker, attacker or bomber attacker) would have no access to formations, f3 or f6 and require bomb release from the pilots position.
The game play win here is the ability to use such attacker/bombers in their attack role (dive bombing {single} Ju88's, B25's etc)whilst also not making fighters out of aircraft which historically had poor SA (Il2M3) via F3.
It then goes one step further when used in conjunction with an attack perk classification and a place in AH where certain ordinance is perked. Fighter pilots would not pay (place deposits on) heavy ordinance with fighter perks they would use attack perks.........the 37mm cannon on the Il2 would be paid for with attack perks not bomber perks (same for the mortar on the B25).
Attack is a confused classification within AH. A fighter in Attack mode wins perks differently and scores points differently yet has no attack perks to play with. Actually (and presently) the point would be that there is nothing to spend attack perks on. We could say much the same for bombers (ignoring the 234).
As I see this F3 discussion it would be a component of a general "clear up" which would only really work well in conjunction with other stuff however I do believe the net result would be benefisial to game play
