I think it's because you tend to say this anytime an RAF or USAAF paint scheme is talked about Krusty.
Those of us with a serious interest in the Allied birds see plenty of variation. Just the squadron codes being accurate in flight is good stuff. Flying a Spit with EB, DL or LO squadron codes has a significant historical value to me, even if it's on standard RAF day camo.
The first part of your comment is wrong. I haven't said anything remotely like that in years. When I did, it was for planes with all the slots filled, so adding a 99% identical duplicate and bumping out something more unique was illogical. Normally applied to P-51Ds with bare metal and tiny bits of color on the nose. However I would say this for any instance where it's true. Example: Somebody wanted a JG5 190A8, "Blue 9" -- I wasn't fast enough and somebody else pointed out there's already a JG5 190A8 "Blue 8" (the next plane in line) and I totally agreed and would have posted the response myself if fast enough.
For your second comment, I don't disagree. However, outside of the dedicated fans of a specific unit, nobody else is going to know the squad codes. They're going to look at the camo, or the accent markings, or whatever sets it apart from other skins.
Please note the original reply I made: "The skins lack variety." This is because there wasn't much variety. That's not a slight on Fenceer's skins. It's just a succinct, brief, accurate description of the situation. I suspect Fencer got sore because he thought I was insulting his work. Far from it. I was pointing out there were little to no camo variations. The only variation you can get is different stages of invasion stripes, so that's what we got.
Not a commentary on the quality of the skins at all, just a commentary that explains why we don't have more options: because there weren't many!
Fencer pretends he needs to "educate" me -- far from it. I know the reason why, but that's not the answer to the question. That's an explanation of the situation during WW2 that LED to the answer. It's a totally different clause in the metaphorical sentence, so to speak.
You can go into the background for WHY there weren't many variations all you want, but don't pretend you're correcting me or rebuking me, because it only explains another level of the issue. It doesn't change the short answer. Which is "there wasn't much variation." Same answer applies for the C-hog, P-38Gs, Ki67s, Lancasters, and many others. Explaining the backgrounds does nothing to negate the simple answer of "there wasn't much variety."
I will say sorry for my "stick" comment, but I did not appreciate his tone (I was provoked).
