Yes, in my opinion (nothing more just my silly opinion) there are anomalies in the plane/ vehicle set. "Anomaly," I believe, comes from the Greek "a-nomos." The privitive Greek "a" (like "a-gnositic {don't know} or "a-theist" {not theist}) is here combined with the Greek term for "law" (nomos). So it means that rules, or maxims of rational conduct are not being followed and the "anomalous" instances are the particulars that violate the rule or law. What law? Well, if it were my game (I know it isn't) I would prioritize the planes and vehicles that played the largest role in the actual conflict we are simulating. So, if you were constrained to limit the game to 10 planes total, the P-40E would be in and, the me-262 would be out. What are some anomalies? Well, how many combat kills did the Ta-152 have? I haven't looked it up. The only anecdote I know of is of Kurt tank running away from two ponies in a prototype. I do know the D-520 and the yak-3 had many more. I suspect the Swordfish had many more ship sinkings than the Ju-88. I imagine the "normal" Sherman played a larger role than the firefly which was simply 1 tank in 4 in British and Canadian units (Poles too, I guess). Please don't fasten on to any particular example as a way to refute my overall point (details hazy but point stands). Of course THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS AT PLAY, i.e., by choosing the firefly you give the Sherman a chance---so people may choose it.
So from my historical perspective (there are other equally valid perspectives) some odd choices have been made and some glaring omissions too.
Not a biggee just why I said "anomalies".
Too late, I have already been called a "blowhard'---pompous @** remains to be hurled.
