What we need are some What If planes

[humble]

In all the time I played, I never lost a Mossie to a Bf110 either.  The closest I came was a pilot wound from the tail gun that I received while he ate quad 20mm.  I've only downed two fighters with the quad .303s, one was an La-7 that I shot up and it subsequently stalled out into the ground and the other was a Bf110G-2 that I took the wing off of.

I consider the Bf110 to be the weakest of the twin engined fighters for air-to-air combat.

This is one of the intriguing aspects of playing the game. The match up within the match up (pilot vs pilot) is often more important then the actual planes involved. I favor the A-20 over the mossie or 110 but all 3 are at a significant disadvantage vs a well flown single engine fighter if they do not engage from a position of initial advantage....simply the realities.

I cant recall ever losing an even fight ever to either a mossie or 110 in MA play. I don't see how any of this is relevant to the topic at hand. Just like the A-26 is a bit redundant so are both the 410 and 219. No question the 410 would be a better fit for scenarios then the 219.

A plane like the Tu-2 would provide a much better overall capability (8000lb+ bombload) and a 20mm armed Air to air/air to ground weapon with excellent wingloading and reasonable speed and fill a real need for FSO/scenarios...

[moot]

Stop that arguing!  This is a wishlist! 

Seriously - I don't think the A20 comes out on top.  The 110 and Mossie outdo it.  It's kinda close between the mossie and 110, but in the MA I'd say the mossie is a little more lethal (way more leading shots ability) and definitely more survivable.  I don't think the A20 stands as much of a chance of surviving vs well flown 1-engine fighters without initial advantage as the 110 and Mossie do.  And there too I think the mossie takes the cake more often than not.
They're all at a significant advantage, but a less general assessment puts the Mossie as clearly competitive, unlike the 110 and A20.  Respectively because of speed limit and bad ballistics, and sluggishness and large target area.

[Wmaker]

One plane also forgot from this "popular in the MAs" list of mine was definately the Il-10...

(Not accounting variants of the existing planes)

A-26
B-29A
Beaufighter Mk.X
B7A2
Firefly Mk.1
G.55
H8K2
He-162A
He-177A
Il-10
J2M3
Ju-188A-5
Ki-44-IIc
Ki-102b
Me410B
Meteor III
PB2Y-5
P-61A
P-63
Re.2005
Tu-2
Yak-3

So, there's still plenty of planes to add that could be popular in the MAs and saw at least limited combat/operations in WWII.

[moot]

Would you care to guess what order those'd be in, for historical need?

[Karnak]

Ki-102 saw some combat at Okinawa.  It would be fun to have the best Japanese twin fighter too.

[Wmaker]

Well, on top of my head

Significant (in somewhat that order):

B-29A
Beaufighter Mk.X
Yak-3
Me410B
Tu-2
Ki-44-IIc
Ju-188A-5
He-177A
Firefly Mk.1
J2M3
P-61A


In the middle (in somewhat that order):

PB2Y-5
H8K2
A-26

Insignificant (in somewhat that order):

Il-10
G.55
Re.2005
Ki-102b
B7A2
He-162A
P-63
Meteor III

Disclaimer (to everyone, not directed at moot): If "your" aircraft is below some a/c that you don't think it should be, no need to come bite my head off. There are many variables here and my listing is very much subjective ie. my own opinion, on top of my head.

[Wmaker]

Ki-102 saw some combat at Okinawa.  It would be fun to have the best Japanese twin fighter too.

Yeh, had that in my initial list, but then managed to cut paste the wrong iteration from my .txt...it's there now. It's combat was very very limited but it does "qualify", most of them were with held from combat to spare them to be used as platform for AtG-missle which was in development incase of the allied invasion. 57mm cannon would be cool. It's one of my personal favourites.

[moot]

That's interesting, thanks WMaker.  I didn't expect the G55, 2005, and Ki44 to rank that low.

[Wmaker]

I didn't expect the G55, 2005, and Ki44 to rank that low.

Only a handful of 2005's were made. G-55 fought a fairly short period of time and had a low production. Actually Ki-44 should be in the significant-category, I had some what a brain fart about it's production numbers...some IIc's were armed with 40mm "cannons" (more like lightened mortars), they were rare inside IIc production but IIs total production was a healty 1167 a/c (with small number of Ki-44-IIIs counted in).

[moot]

So the Italians didn't have any models competitive in the MA, that were historically significant?
Another thing I'm curious about : Why only the B model of the Me410?  From what I've read, the A could serve in mid-war arena, and be about as competitive (less gun options but the same performance otherwise).  It wouldn't take much work (basically the same) to add alongside the B, and would allow for all the historical ordnance loadouts to exist in the AH Me410 family - having only the B model looks like it exceeds the allowed number of loadout options for a single model in AH.

[Wmaker]

So the Italians didn't have any models competitive in the MA, that were historically significant?

Pretty much so.

[moot]

Sorry, edited the above post.

[Wmaker]

One more note regarding the KI-44-II, the ones armed with 4x20mm were built in rather small numbers (IIcs). IIa (4x12.7mm) was the most built II-variant...so that was my initial reason to but them so low on that list.

[Wmaker]

Well, my list was about "popular LWMA" rides so in there, B leaves the A somewhat redundant...I wasn't really thinking about MW. But yes, I'd like to see both variants, but I somehwat doubt that will happen.

[moot]

Yep, the issue is that the 410B would have to compromise its full range of possible loadouts to fit inside the AH hangar.  So having the A would accomodate these.
Do you know if there were any significant performance advantages over the A?  I haven't read about any yet.  If there weren't any, it seems reasonable that HTC would see the small extra work as worthwhile to allow the whole loadout range.