Heavily Produced WW2 Aircraft Missing in AH2

[Karnak]

Not exactly.

See, the USSR naming nomenclature is different. The Yak - is just a design bureau (+/- a firm like Grumman or Vought) now the number changes the major variant.

In same way you can call Grumman F4F Wildcat, Grumman F6F Hellcat in soviet naming as Grumman-4 and Grumman-6 - when the Grumman 6 is development of Grumman 4.

No.  Just because the Soviet Union used a different naming system doesn't change the actual relationship of the aircraft.  The Yak-3 is a development of the Yak-1  It is not an entirely new design as the F6F is compared to the F4F.

Also take a look on LaGG-3 and La-5 - they are very different - also they share same basic design they have entirely different engine also they were designed by different bureaus.

On the other hand A-36 and P-51 which are basically the same plane with small modifications.

The La-5 is the LaGG-3 with a new engine.  From the firewall back they are extremely similar.  The design bureau was the same one too, just a different name. The "La" part of "LaGG" is the same "La" as the "La" in "La-5".  The P-51A to P-51B is only superficially less of a change because its shape didn't change as much due to going from an inline engine to an inline engine as compared to the LaGG-3 going from an inline engine to a radial engine.  The Ki-61-II to Ki-100 is another example where an airframe was re-engined.  All three examples are still the same base aircraft, regardless of the choice to change names or not.  A more radical change was the complete redesign of the Spitfire's wings which was originally going to be called something else, but the RAF ended up just calling in a Spitfire F.20.  The Spitfire F.20 has much less in common with the Spitfire Mk XVI than the La-5 has with the LaGG-3.  Another example is the N1K1, N1K1-J and N1K2-J, all of which would be considered completely different aircraft under the Italian, Russian or Japanese Army systems, yet going by the base name with no consideration they are all the same.

In any case it is easy to talk what is variant and what isn't - it would be endless discussion with no correct solution.

Not at all.  It is pretty obvious which aircraft are developments of other aircraft.  It is unreasonable to punish the Americans, British, Germans and Japanese Navy for being more prone naming aircraft as new marks of older aircraft compared to the Italian, Russian and Japanese Army's tendency to rename such as completely new aircraft.  So, actual consistency would mean that either missing significant marks of existing aircraft ought to be considered or that the Yak-1, LaGG-5 and C.200 ought to be removed due to simply being versions of aircraft already in AH, which they are.  A discussion of three aircraft is not endless.

[SmokinLoon]

I've vouched for the Wellington, Pe-2, and the Yak-1/MiG-3 for quite awhile now.  ESPECIALLY the Wellington.   

[artik]

Not at all.  It is pretty obvious which aircraft are developments of other aircraft...

If so:

- Is Ta-152 is different from 190s? It is actually based on Dora
- Is 190A and 190D are different - just installed inline engine?
- So maybe we need to split 190As and 190D/Ta152 instead Fw190/Ta152 or all are the same?
- Is La-7 and La-9 same or different aircraft one all metal other all wooden - but it still continues La-7... So if LaGG-3 is same as La-7 than LaGG-3 and La-9 are the same?
- Now if Yak-1 and Yak-9/3 are the same than the same should be Yak-15, it is just an engine refit.

Where do you split the Spitfire versions between Spit 1 and Spit F.20? They all evolve from one to another.

Bottom line - it is endless discussion.

What is probably more correctly is to split some of the "variants" that passed though entire WW2 being a one plane but actually doing a major leap.

The only planes that I can think by your definition are "the same" are Spitfires, 109s, Yaks, 109s.

Note USAF tended to replace lines than upgrade existing variants: P-40 and F4F were removed by the middle of the war. The P-38 entered the European theater but left till the end of 1944 and were replaced with P-51D.

If you bring me data about major variants of Spitfire & 109 I think it would be better to split them - but all major variants are already in the AH on the other hand. If you have information about 109 or Spit major variant that was produced >1000 and not in AH I'll gladly add it. But again - it isn't back and white - there are lots of grays.

[Saxman]

Take a look on the list: 5 out of 47 are US planes, and none of the missing major variants are fighters.

The F4F-3 WAS a major variant. If there was a Wildcat flown by the Marines in 1942, it was most likely either a -3 or -3A. Marine squadrons didn't start getting the -4 in significant numbers until after Guadalcanal, so the -3s saw very heavy combat in 1942.

Not having the F4F-3 is a lot like not having the Spitfire Mk.I

[artik]

The F4F-3 WAS a major variant. If there was a Wildcat flown by the Marines in 1942, it was most likely either a -3 or -3A. Marine squadrons didn't start getting the -4 in significant numbers until after Guadalcanal, so the -3s saw very heavy combat in 1942.

Not having the F4F-3 is a lot like not having the Spitfire Mk.I

Not exactly - F4F-4 and -3 are very similar and replaceable in any SEA events. They have very close performance - also the earlier -3 variant was marginally better. On the other hand if you take Spit 1 and Spit 5 - it is entirely different story.

Also once again - there are many options to "Join/Dis-join" variants and tell we have it or not.

I collected some data - it looks interesting whether you believe it or think some stuff is misrepresented - I don't claim 100% accuracy.

However, what is clear - US planes are best represented in all branches in AH2 while some non-US are poorly represented like USSR fighters & bombers and UK bombers (less knowledge about Japanese)

[Megalodon]

However, what is clear - US planes are best represented in all branches in AH2 while some non-US are poorly represented like USSR fighters & bombers and UK bombers

 Like the French and others 

 None,

[bortas1]

  gees artik you must have been really bored to do all that.

[Widewing]

Not exactly - F4F-4 and -3 are very similar and replaceable in any SEA events. They have very close performance - also the earlier -3 variant was marginally better. On the other hand if you take Spit 1 and Spit 5 - it is entirely different story.

There are very significant differences between the F4F-3 and F4F-4. The -3 didn't have folding wings, and had just four guns. These factors, along with the fleet wide removal of flotation gear, led to much less weight (440 lb, or 8%). Max speed for the -3 was 335 mph. The -4 could manage only 320 mph. Rate of climb for the -3 was 3,300 ft/min at sea level. The -4 could do not better than 2,500 ft/min. In any SEA events, the FM-2 would be a better substitute for the F4F-3 than the F4F-4 would be.

[Saxman]

There are very significant differences between the F4F-3 and F4F-4. The -3 didn't have folding wings, and had just four guns. These factors, along with the fleet wide removal of flotation gear, led to much less weight (440 lb, or 8%). Max speed for the -3 was 335 mph. The -4 could manage only 320 mph. Rate of climb for the -3 was 3,300 ft/min at sea level. The -4 could do not better than 2,500 ft/min. In any SEA events, the FM-2 would be a better substitute for the F4F-3 than the F4F-4 would be.

That's exactly why I'd want to see the F4F-3 added when the Wildcats get remodeled.

[hlbly]

Yak-1 and LaGG-3 are both just as much subtypes as the F6F-3 and Seafire Mk III are.

The Lagg-3 is very far from a sub type. No more than the La-7 is a sub type of La-5. The Lagg-3 had an inline engine that was under powered for the airframe. It never offered any effective resistance to the Luftwaffe.Rather than some of the planes that would be hanger queens. I would prefer lower yet numerically significant fighters . The Raiden and De-520 come to mind as examples of planes that would see use.

[R 105]

  Here are a few more planes made in large quantity and not in the game. 1.Italy-S.M.79-1 bomber. 2.Germany JU-52 transport. 3.Germany HS-123 ground attack.

[bozon]

I don't know about this silly subtype/new model argument... To me, Artik's list proves one thing beyond doubt - we absolutely need the Bristol Beaufighter!.

...even if Karnak and Widewing say it is a subtype of the Beaufort, that we don't have.

[artik]

Rather than some of the planes that would be hanger queens. I would prefer lower yet numerically significant fighters . The Raiden and De-520 come to mind as examples of planes that would see use.

See, at LW MA LaGG-3, MiG-3 and Yak-1 would be hangar queens, however they are needed for historical events.

The Raiden and De-520 are both produced less than 1,000 so not entered the list

 Here are a few more planes made in large quantity and not in the game. 1.Italy-S.M.79-1 bomber. 2.Germany JU-52 transport. 3.Germany HS-123 ground attack.

- SM-79 - actually included in the list
- Ju-52 - transport and utility - not included in general
- Hs-123 - only around 250 were produced (below the threshold)

[artik]

I don't know about this silly subtype/new model argument... To me, Artik's list proves one thing beyond doubt - we absolutely need the Bristol Beaufighter!.

+1

[Karnak]

The Lagg-3 is very far from a sub type. No more than the La-7 is a sub type of La-5. The Lagg-3 had an inline engine that was under powered for the airframe. It never offered any effective resistance to the Luftwaffe.Rather than some of the planes that would be hanger queens. I would prefer lower yet numerically significant fighters . The Raiden and De-520 come to mind as examples of planes that would see use.

And yet he left the N1K1-J off of his list despite it being far more different from the N1K2-J than the LaGG-5 is from an La-5FN.  He is letting simplistic naming scheme differences override actual engineering differences.