Thank you Poursuivant for a very complete answer.

I guess a Hellcat and Lancaster are possibles then.

If it is not a taboo question, does DT have contact with Japancat who produced the modded Ki-44?

Another goodlooking mod is Ranwer's updated P11 cockpit which looks good. I don't know if DT has contact with him either.

With the B17 I meant A17 (Nomad) but I guess there aren't so many sources.

Some planes in games flayable:
- Fiat G-55
- MS406/410
- HS-123
- Ki-21
- B-17F/G
- Mosquito B IV
- Su-2
- S-328
- Swordfish

Since it's a Grumman product any further development on Hellcat variants is off limits.

Not a taboo question, but I don't know. Some modders don't like DT. Other modders appear to have lost interest in the game and have moved on.

That's a rare bird! Variants were used in combat by Netherlands and Iraq with minimal success. Other variants were ordered by Sweden, Argentina, Peru and other nations but never used in combat. Another variant was ordered by France but arrived too late, so the French order was taken over by the RAF and then the RCAF, which used it as a trainer.

I guess it could be used as a hack for similar hapless, single-engined attack bomber types, such as the CW-22 and A-27.

Since there are surviving A-17s, theoretically there is sufficient data to add the plane to the game. But, consider that if you're asking for someone to spend several hundred of hours building a 3d model, wouldn't you want the same effort to go into a more common plane, or at least one which more development potential or played a more critical role in the war?

Any chances to add at least one plane marked with "*"? It's important, because we're talking about IL-2 1946 :)

I think the Spitfire XIV and the Ki-44 would be top priority for me. The former as the RAF has no 1944-46 state of the art fighters and the Ki-44 as it is the biggest gap in the Japanese line-up.

I'll see if I can get in touch with Japancat

I have a request.
Get rid of the dates on the plane names. That way individuals will stop the misguided thinking that a plane that saw service in say 1943, was immediately obsolete and not used any more in 1944 or 45.

Lets take for instance the Hurricane Mk1. Labeled as 1938 in the game. This plane was the main British fighter in north Africa until slowly being replaced by the Tomahawks and then Kittyhawks in 1941-42. Quite capable of holding its own against Italian fighters such as Cr-42 (1939), Mc-200(1940-41), etc. Though a bit harder to fight against the 109E/Fs.

+100!!!

For German side, I'd add flyable Ju-88C6a (day fighter) variant.

This is a very, very easy fix that you might even be able to do yourself. All that is required is editing the appropriate ".ini" file.

While the year of introduction is useful info for mission builders and people using dogfight servers, it could be moved to the "view objects" screen.

Other than that, just assume that an aircraft might have remained in service long after it was introduced despite being progressively obsolete, like Brewster B-239 and Hurricane Mk. I in Finnish service.

But, if we're talking about upgrading the the "view object information" feature of the game there's lots that could be done.

* Reduce or remove the historical section. It's irrelevant for a particular plane model.

* Add a screenshot of the cockpit for aircraft, along with a numbered list of positions for relevant gauges.

* Add useful information that you'd want to know when fighting or flying a particular airplane - like best cornering speed, maximum manifold pressure, take-off manifold pressure, take-off and landing distances, amount of ammunition, location of vulnerable points, armor location, etc.

* Add useful information for mission builders, like month and year of introduction, month and year of withdrawal from active service, units which used the type, and total units produced.

The appropriate '.ini' files are not accessible in the stock game, I'm afraid. What you mean is probably the plane.properties BTW. ;)

As to the rest, TD would only need to create a form and a protocol how external data could be imported, and the rest could be done by the community. But honestly, the object viewer is far not as handy as good old AircraftViewer used to be.

I used to research each scenery, I used to build missions with apropriate aircraft, and always complained about the lack of some models in particular.
To the point of avoiding entering in some of them for the few actors available.

For example the Su-2. On 1941 it was used widely, much more than the famous il-2 on the eastern front.
The Do17, the He-112 for a romanian campaign.
The Pzl 24 for the balkans map. The Bf110c, the french bombers, and the D520.
Now for the frecnh campaign we got the Hawk-75, it was actually the major type on the french air force.

Easch scenery got someone missing, but it is becoming better and better.

Yes. plane.properties.

Not as available, but easier to update.

Agreed. There are certain maps and campaigns which just can't be done correctly without adding a number of "obscure" units to the game. That is, units which were used during a few campaigns and no place else.

Mostly, they concern early war scenarios. Off the top of my head "obscure" aircraft which would be needed for a particular theater are:

China 1939-41: Ki-10 "Perry", Ki-30 "Ann," Ki-32 "Mary", Ki-51 "Sonia," A4N, B4Y "Jean", B5N1 "Kate," G3M1 "Nell". Curtiss A-12 Shrike, Curtiss Hawk III, Curtiss Hawk 75M, Dewoitine D.510, Martin B-10 (139WC).

Poland 1939: PZL P.7, PZL.23 Karas, PZL.37 Los. BF-109D-1, Bf-109D-3, Do.17Z, He-111P, Hs.126.

France 1939-40: Br. 693 series, Curtiss Hawk H75A-1, D.520 series, DB-7B-3, F.220, Late' 298 series, LN.401 series, LeO.45 series, Glen Martin 167F, MB.150 series, MB.200 series, MS.406 series, Potez 630 series. Battle Mk. I, Lysander Mk. I. Bf-109E-1, DFS 230 glider, Do.17Z, Hs.126.

Battle of Britain 1940: Bf-109E-1, Do.17Z, He.115 series. Anson series, Defiant Mk. I, Hampden Mk.I, Hudson Mk. I, Oxford Mk.I, Sea Otter Mk.II, Spitfire Mk. I, Sunderland Mk.I.

North Africa/Mediterranean 1940-43: Bf-110D & E series, He-115 series. Ba.64, Br.20, CANT Z.501, Cr.32 (and probably other Italian types). Albacore series, Barracuda series, Baltimore series, Bombay Mk. I, Boston Mk. I, II, III, & IIIA, Havoc Mk. III, Liberator Mk. II/LB-30, Hurricane Mk. IID & IV, Kittyhawk Mk. II, IIA, & III, Lysander Mk. I, Maryland series, Mitchell Mk. I, Sea Gladiator series, Sea Hurricane series, Sea Otter Mk. II. B-25B Mitchell, P-38E, F, G & H models, P-40 F, G, K, L, & N models.

Battle for Greece 1941: PZL P.24F & G, Breguet 19. Ba.64, Br.20, CANT Z.501, Cr.32 series (and probably others).

Southwest Pacific (i.e., Malaysia, Philippines, Dutch East Indies, Australia) 1941-42: Ki-30 "Ann," Ki-32 "Mary", Ki-51 "Sonia," D3A1 Model 22 & D3A2 "Val," G3M2 "Nell", H6K "Mavis". Buffalo Mk. I Field Mod., Mohawk series, Wirraway series, Hudson series. Curtiss H75A-7, Martin B-10B and 139WH, Dornier Do.24. Beech 18, Consolidated LB-30, Consolidated PBY series, P-26A, P-35A, P-38E, F & G models.

CBI 1942-45: Ki-32 "Mary", Ki-51 "Sonia," Ki-44 "Tojo" series. Hurricane Mk. IID & IV, Vengeance series. B-25B, C-46 Commando, P-43A, P-40 F, G, K, L & N models.

SW Pacific 1943-45: As for 1941-42, but also Commonwealth Boomerang, Vultee Vengeance, B-26A, P-47C-10, P-38 G & H series.

Romania: He-112, JRS-79, PZL P.24E & F.

Hungary: Ca.309, MAGAV Heja (Re.2000 variant), Me-210, WM-21 Sólyom

Hungary had one of the weakest and smallest air forces among minor nations. Early-war planeset:

CR-32quater (76), CR-42 (60), Re.2000 (70);
Ju 86K-2 (66), Ca.135bis (36);
He-46E-2 (36), He-70K (18 ), WM-21 (altogether 128 until 1942);

Apart from these types used 'in numbers', there were some other obscure types in service, but typically with less than 6 planes each: Fw-58, Ca.101/3m, SM-75, FIAT G.12, He-111P, Do-215B-4, Ar-96.

Later in the war (after 1942) most of them were replaced with second-hand German equipment. (The licence-built Re.2000 version (200 built after 1942) was mainly used in second-line home defence.) The only flavour of the later-war Hungarian planeset was the home-manufactured Me-210Ca-1, which proved to be quite effective. But I think it was the same as with the Finnish: when you learnt surviving in a crap plane, you feel like a god in a mediocre one... :)

Yer-2 for Eastern Front.... Ar-2 as well...
Ah, wait, are we going in another circle again and again? ;)

P-40M is same as Kittyhawk Mk III
A-20C is same as Boston (not sure which Mk though)

I'm a bit confused about exactly what the RAF considered to be a Kittyhawk Mk. III. The RAF appeared to call both late production P-40L and early production P-40M variants by the name of Kittyhawk Mk. III.

I'm also not sure what, if any, British equipment was fitted on Lend-Lease aircraft. In game terms, if the Kittyhawk III has any differences to its cockpit, DM or FM from the P-40M or L, it has to be treated as a new plane. Otherwise, the ability to carry Soviet or British ordinance can just be treated as loadout variants to the basic US plane type.

The A-20C is a different bird from the early Boston series. There was extensive production of the precursor to the A-20, the DB-7, for both France and the UK prior to the Lend-Lease act in 1941. The aircraft in this series were built to French and later British standards. There was lots of French/British equipment fitted as at the factory, even though the planes were built in the US.

The Boston Mk. I is the British conversion of the French DB-7. The Boston Mk. II is either the British conversion of the French DB-7A, or a Boston Mk. I with improved engines. But, most Boston Mk.II were quickly turned into Havoc I night fighters.

The Boston Mk. III is either a converted French DB-73, or a DB-7B ordered directly by the RAF.

The original USAAF A-20 sort of corresponds to the DB-7B, but of course the USAAF wanted its own equipment installed, which necessitated the new variant.

The A-20B sort of corresponded to the DB-7A, with lighter armor than the DB-7B. But, it had American equipment rather than British.

The A-20C was the first attempt to create a "universal" version of the A-20 series which could be used by the US and all its allies.

Rivaled only by Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, which aren't even in the game!

Good write-up of what it would take to get a complete Hungarian order of battle.

Currently, we have the Bf-109, Bf-110, CR-42, FW-189, FW-190, He-111, Me-210, and Re.2000. That's a good selection of aircraft for a minor air force, but there's nothing there that you can't get by flying for the Luftwaffe or Regia Aeronautica. It would be fun and interesting if there was at least one "rare bird" which was unique to the Hungarian Air Force.

While it's utterly ridiculous to include it in the game, I've always had a soft spot for the WM.23 Ezust Nyil. Logically, it would make more sense to add the WM.21 Solyom or the Me-210C.

The Soviet "rare birds" which aren't in the game, but which were produced in decent numbers, and which saw some degree of combat action are: Antonov A-7, Be-4, Shavrov Sh-2, Scherbabov Shche-2, Yak-2, Yak-4, Yak-6, UT-1

we don't have good reffs for more famous plane like Su2 and others ...

For me it doesn't seem reasonable to have such a complete OOB. One obsolate plane is not much different than the other, and only those are worth the effort which were used in quantities by other nations as well (e.g. Cr-32, also used by Italy in the ground attack role). Having a WM-21 doesn't make much sense for me, all the more so as Hungarian aircrew preferred the He-46 to it. Obsolate bombers are more reasonable to have (as AI-only planes), for they remained in service for long as transports.

What do you think about jets like Gloster Meteor or even Republic XP-84 prototype? Is it possible to add some 1946-era planes? Meteor is even from '44 (f.3) or '45 (f.4)... Meteor can be used in intercepting v-1/ar-234 missions

No way, especially prototypes. Maybe after planes like Typhoon, Spit XIV, Tu-2, Ju-88C6, Me-410, or Ki-44 are added. These are far more important.

Yugoslavia is kind of in game. Not as a selectable country, but we do have some of the aircraft.
You have to substitute the BF-109E4 for the 109E3, (And download Yugoslav skins somewhere for it.
Also the IK-3 was added in 4.12 something. (It has the Yugoslav skin already)
And the Sm-79 also saw service with the Yugoslav air force( but this could have been the 2 engine version like Romania used, I am not sure.)

Isn't there a surviving Su-2 at the Museum of the Great Patriotic War, or, is it a replica?

If it's real, that would make it easier to get pictures of the cockpit and turret interior.

Your point about not having good reference materials is extremely important, and something most players forget.

It's not enough to just have a simple 3-view drawing, an artist's profile of the camouflage scheme, general data on dimensions, armament, and flight performance, and a few anecdotal pilot's reports.

Ideally, you want factory blueprints, pilot and mechanics manuals, plenty of flight testing reports with performance graphs, and access to a surviving example of the aircraft in factory-fresh condition.

It's even better if the flight test reports cover testing of the first production machines and tests of captured aircraft (likely to be in poorer shape and more typical of production aircraft in the field), not just tests of the prototype.

For rare aircraft - particularly early war aircraft - some or all of this data is missing. There are no surviving aircraft because they all got destroyed or were recycled to make new aircraft. Manuals and test reports got lost or were destroyed during the war or soon after.

The manufacturer of the aircraft has probably been out of business for 70 years, so nobody remembers how the plane was made, and production records and blueprints were lost long ago.

Aircrew who flew the obscure type were never very common to begin with, and many died during the war. In any case, they're all going to be dead now, and because they flew an obscure aircraft type, it's very likely that nobody thought to interview them about that plane while they were alive.

All that means that someone trying to model an obscure plane has to fill in the gaps himself and make some guesses about actual flight performance. It helps if you have an advanced degree in aeronautical engineering. :)

I think that "Luftwaffe 1946" is lowest priority, but the Gloster Meteor Mk. I was operational during WW2 and did useful work shooting down V-1s.

I'd still put it further back in the queue compared to many other planes, however.

The IK-3 is one of my favorite "rare birds" in the game.

Bf-109E-3 could easily be added to the game along with the E-1.

I can understand the decision to not include some of the "minor nations" in IL2, though. Mostly its because we don't have suitable maps and voice packs.
To some extent, it's because there doesn't appear to be that much of a fan base for IL2 in certain countries.

Argentinian's may like to have it as a 1946, because it saw a little action overe there on some political turmoils.

Meteor Mk.3 was used more extensively (v-1s AND combat flies over Germany in the last months of war) than Mk.1 (V-1), and look at the numbers. Since 8 may of 1945, there was only 20 Mk.1s and over 100 Mk.3s

d3a2 a6m2-22 ki43iii ki61tei and some g4m2 variants

Ki-46 Tei would be really useful I think. Most produced variant of this beautiful plane. It wouldnt be too hard to make, just the fuselage needs to be extended a little bit. This extension was already present on the Hei, so the model ingame is wrong.

Here is some useful info about the ww2 aircrafts :)
http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/full/tour-std.html

You're right. I had forgotten that a later mark made it into action before the war ended.

Sadly, the Meteor never encountered the Me-262 in combat. That's a dogfight mission I'd love to fly, although my money would be on the Me-262.

Why would you think that?

I'd bet on Me-262 as well under equal terms. Rate of climb is main advantage, IMHO. There were many discussions around this topic in past...

Yes! that would be nice! as the d3a1 becomes quickly obselete
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/1027/pics/65_75.jpg

Flayable Fiat G-55
 

These Fighter deserves be flyable, the best italian Fighter.
And maybe Flayable MS 506/508, some French planes.

The Me-262's swept wing design made it the superior aircraft at higher speeds. Top speed for the Me-262 is nearly 70 mph (~115 kph) faster than the Gloster Meteor Mk. III at at altitude and probably at sea level as well. That gives the Me-262 the advantage since it can choose to fight or run away. Huge advantage: Me-262.

At a glance, it also appears that the Me-262's "weight of fire" is vastly superior - 4 x 30 mm cannons vs. 4 x 20 mm cannons for the Meteor. But, both planes pack enough of a punch that victory will (usually) go to the pilot who draws first blood. Slight advantage: Me-262.

Range/Loiter Time is about 30% better for the Messerschmitt. That means more time to patrol and less chance of running short of fuel in a dogfight. Advantage: Me-262

But, looking more carefully at the numbers the Meteor has some significant advantages as well.

Wing-loading (i.e., manueverability) is 38.2 lb/sq ft for the Meteor, but a whopping 61 lb/sq ft for the Me-262. There are bombers with better performance. Unquestionably, the Meteor will be the more agile aircraft. Big advantage: Meteor.

Rate of Climb is slightly better in the Gloster Meteor, but only marginally so. Slight advantage: Meteor.

Maximum altitude is far higher for the Gloster Meteor: 46,000 ft vs. ~37,600 ft for the Me-262. That's a decisive advantage since the Meteor can choose when and where to engage by flying at altitudes well above the Me-262's service ceiling. It's also likely that the Meteor's comparative performance will be much better at high altitude. Big advantage: Meteor.

Hypothetically, Meteor pilots should fly their planes against the Me-262 like Zero pilots did against early war US aircraft - use altitude advantage set the terms of the engagement, then use maneuver fighting to get the kill. If they get into trouble, turn hard to break contact, try to extend range while the Me-262 is turning back into the fight, then use the slight climb advantage and superior service ceiling to get out of danger.

At low to medium altitudes where the Me-262 has the edge in speed, Meteor pilots will need to use team tactics to neutralize their opponent's advantage.

On the other side, Me-262 pilots should use their considerable speed advantage to refuse unequal fights. When the odds are on their side, they should use energy fighting tactics and team tactics at low to medium altitudes to get the kill. If they get into trouble, open the throttle and/or dive away.

So, both planes have some big advantages which allow the one to easily beat the other when fighting on their own terms. In that case, all things being equal, it comes down to pilot skill - in particular the ability to set up a fight on your terms and not get sucked into a fight where you're at a disadvantage.

this one :)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNYuq67uf4E

Given the year, the location, and the squadrons involved, that will probably be a P-40N-1-CU or P-40N-5-CU AKA Kittyhawk IV.

Not exactly pertinent to this topic, but please note the wing damage to two planes in the video. In the IL2 game, wing damage that severe would be fatal, yet the plane with the rear third of its port wing blown away was able to fly 200 miles and make a successful landing!

It would be really nice to have the MS.406 and 410 (Mörkö-version aswell maybe) upgraded to flyable status. A flyable French fighter is needed I think. And if not the MS, maybe the Dewoitine D.520 could be introduced.

A flyable Blenheim-version and Swordfish would also be very nice, aswell as/or the Wellington.

The Ar-196A-3 would be nice to see upgraded to flyable status, just as the B6N2.

Another Dream woul be to have the Short Sunderland introduced aswell, prefarely as a flyable.

Ah well...on can always dream!

Thanks for a great job so far TD! And thank you in advance for all future efforts you embark on aswell! :)

Given your user name, it's no surprise you have a fondness for the French!

I agree about the MS.406 and 410, since this was arguably the best Finnish early war fighter. There should be both Finnish and French cockpits. The Mörkö was only built as a prototype series, so isn't that important to have it flyable.

There was a D.520 in the works by a 3rd party modder, but I think that project failed. Despite that, the D.520 would be a nice addition to the game since in addition to being France's best fighter in 1940, it was used in combat by several Axis countries in the Middle East and on the Eastern Front.

+1 for your other suggestions. A flyable Blenheim would aid both the Finns and the early War British line-up, while a flyable Swordfish would be very useful for North African and Malta maps.

There is a gorgeous-looking Sunderland Mk I which has recently been released as a mod. Polygon count is probably way to high to ever allow it to be "official" and there might be other problems, but it sure looks great!

There are two modded D.520 versions (C1 and S) available in WAW#20. The one has no working cockpit instruments, but the other seemed to me fine when I briefly picked it up for a test flight. And the D.520 is a beautiful plane...

I think that the developer of the D.520 didn't want to play by TD's rules regarding polygon count and released at least one variant of the plane as a mod.

Sad, because it would be wonderful to have the D.520 as an "official" plane.

+1 for the retexturing/rebuilding of existing cockpits over bringing in yet moar planes. The new pits for the Polikarpovs are great. The 109s and MiG-3s in particular are long overdue for an interior makeover and, for latter, exterior makeover as well.

An unbelievable amount of planes is in the game already, many of which I still haven't flown despite more than a decade of playing the game. Would rather see what is already there be further refined than to cram in more stuff.

If anything is going to be added, what the game could really benefit from is more ship types, especially the conspicuously absent Pacific types.

XB-44/B-29D and C-54
 

What do you think about these 2 airplanes? b-29d flew in may 1945 and was known as b-50, and c-54 was in use from 1942

Four questions we should ask ourselves when requesting a particular plane:

1) Was a particular plane built in significant numbers during the WW2 era?

2) Did a particular plane see combat to any great degree during the WW2 era?

3) Was a particular plane critical to a particular country's war effort?

4) Could a particular plane's role be more or less filled in a given scenario by another plane currently in the IL2 line-up? (i.e., how "unique" is it?)

For the B-29D/B-50, the answers are No, No, No, and Yes, the B-29A.

For the C-54, the answers are Yes, No, No, and Yes, the C-47.

So, in both cases, while these aircraft are interesting and important in their own ways, they aren't good candidates to include - at least for a WW2 sim. OTOH, for a Korean War/Early Cold War sim, both of these planes would be very important.

Like it or not, there's a whole lot of very cool US hardware which should never be in IL-2, because it was never deployed in significant numbers outside the Continental US during WW2, and because by the time certain planes were introduced, the Western Allies had complete air superiority over the Axis powers.

Well, your test questions (which are very well chosen) point (with no shaking hand) to British heavies in ETO/MTO and to NG planes in PTO... ;)

B-29A is in game? I thought it was standard B-29, because it can easy lose it's wing during intercepting like B-29, B-29A had strenghtened and redesigned wing which are a lot stronger and endure. In the other hand, in-game model has four .50 HMGs in top-front turret, like B-29A. So, which plane is in game?

Technically, the game just calls the B-29 in the game the "B-29", so you're right.

B-29s were extensively modified as soon as they came off the production lines, or were modified in the field, so the 4-gun top turret could represent a later block of B-29 production.

One of the small changes to IL2 which might be easy to implement, would be to give more detailed model information for some of the US planes. For example, what exact model and production block is the P-47 originally released in Forgotten Battles, or the B-29 originally released with Pacific Fighters?

Yes. Unless you want to expand IL2 to whole new theaters/campaigns, in which case you'd almost need entirely new games because of all the new maps and units which would be needed.

Great idea! :)

My point is that what should be given first preference (in an ideal world) is beyond the scope of Il2 for one reason or another: NG planes because of the NG case, British heavies because they are 1) difficult to make, 2) involve night fighting (which some players enjoy, others don't). Here comes in what we could term the enjoyment factor, and in this respect I would vote for the second rank (seen historically), that is, flyable Blenheims and planes like the D.520.

Reading a book about the jabo staffel over britain, I was surprised by a picture of a prbsble Mustang P-51B with apparently 2 .50's under the nose.?

Obviously, any NG planes are dead to IL2. I can't see any way around it other than mods, or 1c/Ubisoft selling the IL2 franchise to another owner and then that new owner paying the "trademark trolls".

FWIW, some of the earliest British heavy bombers (Short Stirling) were used for daylight precision bombing raids, based on the mistaken doctrine that "the bomber will always get through.

Later marks of the Lancaster were also designed for daylight raids over Japan, and, of course, 617 "Dambuster" squadron used their specially modified Lancasters to make daylight raids using "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam" bombs.

So, it's not completely unrealistic to have RAF heavies flying in the daytime.

One additional criteria that I didn't mention is "ubiquitousness". That is, how many different countries used a particular plane, and how many different theaters was it used in?

By that criteria, the Blenheim really needs to be flyable - as a Finnish and UK/RAAF plane - because it was used during the war by Australia, Canada, Croatia, Finland, Greece, New Zealand, Romania, Turkey, UK, and Yugoslavia. And, it was used on every front. So, I'd put it at the top of my list of "planes to make flyable."

The D.520 is on my personal "top 5" wish list, although it really wasn't that important after the Battle of France. That said, it was used in limited numbers by Italy and a several minor Axis nations, and saw action on the Eastern Front (Bulgaria), Middle Eastern Front (Syria, Morocco), Italy, and Western Front (France). It was also the best French fighter, and second only to the MS.406/410 series in numbers, so meets the "critically important to the national war effort" and "built in large numbers" criteria.

Is the Spitfire Mk XVI or XIV possible for a future update?

Possible, yes. There are no legal restrictions on including it, and there's plenty of data on performance, cockpit arrangements, etc. should someone wish to make it.

Likely? Who knows. The Spit Mk XIV exists as a mod, but I don't know how good it is, and whether the modder who made it would be willing to share his work.

XVI makes no sense, its just a IX with Packard engine. Same performance.
On the other hand, XIV would be sweet! I really miss this beautiful plane.

Guns under the nose would make it a Mustang Mk I, so more like the P-51A (with different armament of course) rather than the P-51B as it had the Allison engine rather than the Merlin.

Tks on the insight.

FWIW, the Allison engine Mustangs which saw combat were:

Mustang Mk I - 2 x 0.50 cal BMG in nose, 4 x 0.30 cal BMG & 2 x .50 cal BMG in wings (mounted with .50 caliber between the .30 calibers in each wing). No bombs or drop tanks. 620 built, most sent to RAF.

Mustang Mk IA/P-51 Mustang - improved engine, 4 x 20 mm Hispano Mk II cannons in wings. 93 built, mostly used by RAF.

A-36 Apache/Invader/Mustang - improved engine, strengthened wing, dive flaps, 6 x .50 cal BMG - 2 in nose, 4 in wings, hard points for 2 x 500 lb. bombs, plumbing for 2 x 75 (later 85 gallon) drop tanks. Used in combat in the MTO (Morocco, Italy), and CBI Theater (Burma, China). 500 built.

Henschel Hs 123
Aichi D1A
Cant Z.1007 Alcione
Gloster Meteor
CAC Boomerang
Junkers Ju 388 night fighter
Piaggio P.108
flyable Tupolev Tu-2
:cool:

Hs-123 and Cant Z.1007bis already exist in the game.

Aichi D1A would be useful for Sino-Japanese war scenarios, but didn't see combat during the Pacific war. Since the Sino-Japanese war would basically require a whole new game, perhaps not such a good choice.

CAC Boomerang would be an good choice for SW Pacific scenarios and would help to round out the existing Order of Battle for the New Guinea maps. It was built in large numbers, was probably the best indigenous Australian design of the war, was a major part of the RAAF's campaign to drive the Japanese from New Guinea. It certainly fits into IL2's tactical air combat focus. It's only weakness as a candidate is that it wasn't used outside of the SW Pacific theater.

Ju-388 - As a bomber or night fighter is another interesting choice. But, it was built in small numbers, wasn't that widely used, and wasn't the most important night fighter in the Luftwaffe inventory. Given my choice for just one limited-production, late war, bad-ass, German nightfighter I'd go with the He-219, but the Ju-388 also has the same "cool factor." But, historically, the Ju-88C-6b, -R series, or G-6 would have been more common.

Piaggio P.108 - Another very cool "rare bird," but built in tiny numbers, used with very limited success, and not nearly as important to Italy's bomber force as the SM-79 and similar planes. Even so, it would help to round out Italy's Order of Battle.

Tu-2 - I'm surprised that this bomber hasn't gotten more love from the 1c or DT guys. It was an excellent design, built in large numbers, used for the entire duration of the war on all areas of the Eastern front. It was tough, fast, was well-liked by its crews, and apparently fun to fly. The only reason it stays in the shadows is because the Pe-2 was even more common, and was just as successful. Even so, I think that the Tu-2 would let me survive damage which would kill a Pe-2. Let's hope that this plane is on Sita's short list of projects.

unfurtunatly in my sight some other plane for now ...

My list:

German:
Bf-110C4, flyable
Bf-110F2, flyable
Ju-88C6 day fighter, flyable
Me-410, AI

UK:
Hurricane IA, 1940 version, flyable
Spitfire IA, flyable
Spitfire XIV, flyable
Typhoon IB, preferably flyable,

US:
P-47C, Flyable
P-38 early version, for example G. Flyable
B-26B Marauder, AI

Japan:
Ki-44-II, flyable
Ki-61-I Tei, flyable (+corrected Hei)

Soviet:
Tu-2, flyable

New planes
 

Seconded:grin::grin::grin:

That would fill in most of the really big holes in the mid- to late-war order of battle, without extending the game into theaters which would take new maps, objects, etc.


German:

Possibly add:
Bf-109E-1, flyable (natural opponent for the Spitfire Mk.I and Hurricane Mk.II)
Ju-88G-6 NF, flyable.

UK:
Definitely add:
Blenheim Mk. I &/or Mk. IV, flyable (Finnish & UK).

Possibly add:
early mark of Boston (A-20), AI (some also used by USSR)
Martin Maryland, AI
Early mark of Beaufighter, flyable - NF and/or strike fighter variant.
Any British heavy bomber, AI
Sea Gladiator
Sea Hurricane
Swordfish, flyable

USSR
possibly add:
A-20G with Soviet turret (like on SB-2).

US:
Definitely add:
One mid-war P-40 variant, for example, P-40M
possibly:
P-51 late variant, for example H, flyable.

Japan:
definitely add:
One late war IJA bomber, for example, Ki-67, preferably flyable.
One "mid war" version of G4M, flyable.
Early to mid-war IJA attack bomber/ground attack type, for example, Ki-51, preferably flyable.

Finland
Blenheim Mk. I & Mk. IV, flyable

France
Definitely add:
Curtiss H.75-A3, flyable
MS.406 & 410, flyable

possibly add:
D.520, ideally flyable (saw combat in MTO, used by Italy)
DB.7, AI (saw combat in MTO)
Martin M.167 (AKA Martin Maryland), AI
Potez 63 series, AI
LeO 451, AI

Italy
possibly add:
Ba.64

Poland
possibly add
PZL P.24 variant (used by Romania, Greece)

GBR:
1.Boulton Paul Defiant, AI
2.Blackburn Skua/Rock, AI
3.Walrus Mk1, Flyable
4.De Havilland DH 82 Tiger Moth, Flyable
5.Handley Page HP.52 Hampden, AI

GER:
1.Blohm Voss 138, AI
2.Henschel He 112, Flyable
3.Dornier Do 24, Flyable
4.Arado Ar 196, Flyable

Built in limited numbers, unsuccessful as a day fighter, and quickly withdrawn from service. As an AI plane, it would be unchallenging for any player who knows the trick of how to fight it. Fits into the "cool, but unimportant" category, along with planes like the Westland Whirlwind, He-100, or Me-163 (yes, it's in the game, but how often do you fly it?)

BUT, as a night fighter, it was very successful from 1940-41, so would be a useful add-on if IL2 were model the "Night Blitz" attacks by Germany over the UK in late 1940-early 1941.

Actually two planes. Both built in limited numbers early in the war and unsuccessful. Got their butts kicked over Norway and Dunkirk and soon withdrawn from service. Only useful as add-ons if IL2 were to ever expand to cover Invasion of Norway or Invasion of France scenarios.

+1. The quintessential RAF air-sea rescue plane. Very useful for MTO and Western Front ops, particularly if IL2 were to continue its focus on anti-shipping/maritime ops in the MTO. Also used by the RAAF, although mostly for coastal patrols well away from active war zones. Arguably, the PBN Nomad could substitute, but the "shagbat" was used earlier and in greater numbers by the RAF.

Fun to have, but unimportant when rounding out the order of battle for existing maps and combatants. This is because it was never intentionally used in a combat role and was seldom a target because the UK quickly reestablished air superiority over its home territory after the Battle of Britain. The R-5 civilian variant fills the bill for a basic trainer aircraft, so not really necessary in that role either. Many other popular Western Allied training and liaison aircraft also fit into the "cool, but never got near the combat zone" category. E.g., T-6/SNJ Texan/Harvard series, Lockheed Electra, Beech Model 18.


Possibly. Its role can currently be filled by the Blenheim or the Beaufort. But, were IL2 to branch into Western Front 1941-42 night bombing ops, it would be a natural, agile, opponent for the early Bf-110 night fighters.

+1. Germany needs a long-range flying boat, and the BV-138 was used on all fronts. Alternately, the He-115 could substitute, but it was built in smaller numbers (But, the He-115 was used by Finland, which is a point in that plane's favor.)

The Heinkel He-112 was use in limited numbers by Romania in the first few years of war on the Eastern Front, with moderate success. It's role is sort of filled by the IAR 80/81 series. The He-112 would be "nice to have" to give the Romanians another fighter option, but otherwise isn't that important.

This would be a good substitute for the BV-138 or He-115. It was built in about the same numbers as the BV-138, but had a longer service life. A point in its favor is that it was used in limited numbers by the KNIL, and later the Australians, making it a useful addition to early to mid-war Southwest Pacific scenarios.


+1. This plane was commonly used for short-range coastal patrols by Germany and Finland, and was also used for special ops insertion/extraction missions by the Finns. It would be a useful addition if IL2 continues its move into Eastern Front maritime ops.

These are my 4 pennies:

- Avro Lancaster
- Short Stirling
- Handley Page Halifax
- Gloster Meteor

And my 3 cents:

- B-24J
- B-17 F & G
- B-29

All flyable, if it's possible. :cool:
Or for AI, at least...

Obviously a fan of bomber ops!

If I had to narrow down the list of British heavies, I'd got with the Short Stirling for an early war heavy type, and the Lancaster B.I for late war ops.

You're in luck, all of these planes exist as AI in the game, as well as the B-17D, B-17E, and a gorgeous, flyable B-24D! :)

For US heavy bombers, the only omission is the B-17G "late block" production with "Cheyenne" tail turret. It would also be nice if the radio operator's gun could be added to the E and F models.

A minor omission that falls into the "nice to have, but not that important" category would be the Liberator II and LB-30 variants of the B-24. The Liberator II was used by the RAF in the Middle East and Burma in 1941-42.
The LB-30 was used alongside the B-17E during the Invasion of the Philippines and the Invasion of the Dutch East Indies. Thereafter, they played a role in the Defense of Australia, and the early battles around Guadalcanal.

Were IL2 to delve into early war ASW combat, the Liberator Mk. I Coastal Command version would be a good addition, although the Sunderland Mk. I played a similar role and was the more "iconic" and numerous aircraft.

I´m so impressed with TD B-24D that I have only one humble request:
Make the B24J-100-CF flyable.

TBD
TBF
TBM

Would be nice. Currently USN in game has no flyable torpedo bombers.

More P-40 variants

TBF and TBM are off-limits due to the NG Consent Decree. They will forever remain as AI-only planes. :(

A flyable TBD would give the US at least one flyable torpedo bomber, but it would be "interesting" to fly in combat.

The P-40N is the only big omission (P-40N-15-CU would be definitive), although the P-40K-10-CU and P-40L-5-CU fall into the "nice to have" category.

FWIW, all of these aircraft served on the Eastern Front, so would also help to fill in the gaps there. The P-40L mostly served in the MTO. The P-40K mostly served in the SW Pacific, and was extensively used by the RAAF, which would help fill in the the gaps in the Australian TOE.

P-40L would be "very nice to have" for MTO. A "hotrod" P-40, I'd love that.

Were IL2 to be focused on the MTO from 1941-44, the list of "must have" planes would be very different, and would probably include the P-40L and similar field mods.

While the number of planes deployed to the MTO was nowhere near those deployed on the Eastern Front, and the battles in North Africa and Italy were nowhere as big or as important as the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk, the period from 1941-43 was just as important to Western Allied tactical aviation as it was in Russia. During this time, the US and UK gradually gained air superiority over the Axis, and refined the tactical and strategic bombing techniques which gave them utter air superiority by late 1944.

Agree. Eastern ETO is basically complete, there's little to be done there, except updating some very old models (which would be a huge work BTW).

PTO, on the contrary, and sadly, will never be complete and well-balanced due to the NG issue.

What remains as a prospective field for improvement is MTO (perhaps with BoF and BoB added and proper attention paid to naval warfare). The Med was won by the Allied by gaining naval and aerial superiority almost hand in hand.

There are a few rare birds which could be added to the Eastern Front, and of course, more planes made flyable. Filling in the gaps for the Soviets: Yer-2, Ar-2, Be-4, Yak-6, UT-2, and more Pe-2, and I-16. For the Germans: He-112, He-50, He-46, DFS 230, a variety of medium bomber types, and filling in the gaps for the Hungarian and Romanian AF.

It depends. For late war US naval ops, we're screwed by NG. For US Army, Australian, Chinese, Dutch, Indian, New Zealand, and Royal Navy ops in the SW Pacific, CBI, Aleutians, and Japanese home islands, from 1941-45, and Sino-Japanese ops from 1937-41, there are entire theaters of war literally uncharted (as in, no maps for them) and dozens of planes which still aren't in the game.

Historically, the Japanese were dominant during the early war, and the allies dominated in the late war, but the individual planes used were more or less competitive. (e.g., Hurricane Mk. II vs. Ki-43, P-40N vs. Ki-44, P-51H vs. Ki-84)

Currently, this seems like the easiest area for IL2 to expand into, since many of the necessary maps already exist, and most of the planes required are already in the game. The only real weakness in the MTO order of battle is the lack of early- to mid-war UK aircraft, although there would be some French, German, Italian, and US aircraft which would be very nice to have.

Another promising area for the game would be Western Front Ops over the North Sea, English Channel, and Bay of Biscay from 1941-44. Many of the necessary maps, ships, and planes already exist. The only gaps are for the UK, and a very few necessary planes for the Germans.

Hi Sita!

May I ask, since there are no flyable British manufacured bomber in the stock game, are there any plans from TD to introduce any British bombers? Or make already present AI-ones like the Blenheim or the Wellington flyable?

Cheers and thanks for your and the rest of TD's great work!

The introduction of ai for ships would provide a major step forward in air v naval action. Currently all ships have a simple course set in missions from which they never deviate until sunk.

Ship formations should have a lead ship with all others positioning themselves relative to the lead depending on their defined role. (Battleline, screen, scout, etc).

Ships under attack should react (weaving, turning away from torpedoes, etc)

Ships should avoid collisions, such as sinking ships.

Smarter ship objects would make much more challenging targets for aircraft, so improve the game for pilots.

The stock game could do with a wider range of ships specific to the Med, maybe taking oob for operation pedestal as a theme, but that could be addressed later.

I'm agreed with you.

But for air-naval warfare, IMHO would be more important to fix de insane behaviour of the AI pilots when they attack with torpedoes.

When the previous waypoint to Gattack es reached, they change formation by default to 'Line Astern' and this action can't be reverted by the human flight leader: any order to switch to a different formation will be unheeded.

Actually the AI pilots release their torpedoes from a distance to the target of less than 1200 m, even against vessels with strong AAA, when the torpedoes might be released from a longer a safety distance becuase they have ranges greater than 5000 m.

A flight of big planes, like Bettys, He-111 or Ju-88, arranged in 'line astern' anf flying too low and too slow while they're approaching to their target, are easy prey for the AAA.

Therefore, the AI behaviour should be changed: the human flight leader should be able for to change the flight formation accordingly with his tactics at any moment. I.e.: 'line abreast' or 'echelon left/right' in open formation are better than 'line astern' becuase:

- The AAA must to disperse its fire instead of to concentrate it.

- Releasing all the flight's torpedoes at the same time than the human leaader like a salvo from a safe distance (not less than 3000 m), the probabilty of to hit the target would increase as well as the survival of most or all of the planes.

Making the Blenheim flyable would be easier than making the Wellington flyable, since it only had a crew of 3 - pilot, bombardier/navigator, and RTO/gunner.

There is a restored Blenheim Mk. IV at the RAF Museum in London, and a Mk. I at the Duxford Collection, in the UK. In Finland, there is an authentic Mk. IV at the Air Force Museum. Good pictures of the cockpit and crew stations would incredibly useful in helping 3d modelers.

Sadly, the Bristol Type B Mk I turret wouldn't really be that useful for other aircraft, since it was just used on the Blenheim series (as well as the Avro Anson, but that was never intentionally used in air combat).

That seems like a mistake, since typical torpedo attack doctrine was to attack in line abreast (or similar formation where the planes could release their torpedoes simultaneously), in order to "comb" the formation of ships they were attacking.

I also recall that torpedo bombers might attack by sections from different directions, so that the torpedo spreads would overlap.

That makes me think that there should be yet more "attack modifier" commands for AI:

* Attack on my command - AI only attacks when player does, or when player presses the appropriate key to launch a particular type of weapon).

* Attack at X distance (in meters) - AI only attacks when it gets within X meters of target.

* Begin attack from Y height (in meters) above/below target - AI only begins its attack when it gets to at least Y meters above/below the target. Setting the height to 0 means that the plane makes level attacks against aerial or elevated targets, or makes near ground level attacks vs. ground targets.

* Assume Station at Z o'clock relative to target - AI moves to assume position at Z bearing relative to the target.

good question ...

for now as far i know only one British bomber is in work ... it's Lanc... slowly goes forward .. ... huge project .. like B24 ...

about other bomber ... it's sad... but for now now any GB bombers in plans ( ....

we have only few modellers and in less than half programmers ....

plus it's always very difficult work with plane which foreign to you ..

Thank you for the info Sita! All your work is greatly appreciated! :D I support you guys all the way! Unfortunatly I have neither modeller nor programmer skills to help you guys out.

Best way of work is when some gent's take care about planes from their own regions ...

in that case planes made definitely with love and attention for details ... plus read Tech.info on foreign language is really difficult ... like it was with L2D ...

and for now we don't have any person from GB to take care about Blenheim ... but it is really needed plane ...

I understand your problem very well! :(

The Blenheim would be a great plane to have as a flyable. But also the Beaufort and Wellington would be very nice! But any Aircraft you guys manage to get flyable is a great addition to the game according to me!
Are there any plans to introduce any new map suitable for the Lancaster?

You boys do good work! Really good work!

3000m is too much, IMHO. I doubt that torpedo bombers achieved any hits at this distance in WWII, unless flying in large numbers. On the other hand, smarter AI behaviour would be nice to have. For example, earlier torpedo releases if target ships have high skill levels and therefore AAA fire is more precise.
Distances of less 1000m are reasonable against single ships, especially light armed.

The USN aerial warfare doctrine during the 40's determined, for attacks against armed vessels, that dive bombers should begin the attack, and then torpedo- bombers should finish it launching torpedoes against the damaged and weakened targets.

Of course, the number of involved a/c should be really big for to achieve targets.

But, in the other hand, think about a medium bomber, like He-111 or Ju-88 or a Betty, into the role as torpedo attacker.

Against unescorted convoys they could launch torpedoes from less than 1000 m.
But against heavily escorted convoys with a good and dense screen of destroyers and also light cruisers, those big birds flying at 30-50 m @SL and at 200 km/h would mean the loss of several expensive flights or squadrons in one only mission.

No navy or air force could support such degree of attrition: the standard training for bomber's pilots demanded 55 weeks at least. Plus several weeks for specific misions like this which we're talking about.

3000 m becomes a good and safe distance if a convoy is sailing at steady speed and heading. But when enemy planes were spotted, the fleets started maneouvers for to avoid hits... and the torpedo-bombers should approach and penetrate into the dangerous range of the AAA, for to launch their attack from a shorter distance.

Therefore, the USN doctrine (and probably all the main powers involved in the 2WW had similar doctrines) was right: the torpedo-bombers should attack after the dive bombers, in big number, and from different directions.

Asked for this since 2008

Good description of tactics.

One possible change to ship movement, which would them maneuver realistically, would be to make ships zig-zag (or, more accurately, S-turn) on a regular basis.

This could either be achieved by changing the default pattern for ship movement, or by allowing mission builders to specify a zig-zag movement pattern along the ship's course in the FMB.

This option could be used for other vehicles as well, so make them deviate from their overall path in a predictable manner. For example, trucks could swerve, and aircraft could "corkscrew".

I think that language fluency is more important than nationality. Any 3d modeler who is a native English-language speaker should be able to do a decent job with British-built aircraft.

Where nationality helps is access to preserved aircraft and high-quality reference materials.

The Beaufort would be a great asset to have as a flyable. It would fill the gap for a Commonwealth torpedo bomber for the early to mid war in the ETO, the MTO and the PTO.

The Swordfish would be a great aircraft aswell when it comes to torpedo bombers as a flyable.

And I really hope one day we will get to see the Wellington as a flyable aswell so there is atleast one British medium bomber. And I have the same hopes for the MS 406/410/Mörkö or the Dewotine 520 aswell.

Zig Zags were for anti torpedo tactics, anti dive bombers tactics, they turn hard all the time. You could see a confusion of circles while trying to evade bombs on a fleet under dive bomber attacks.

I prefer to be made not for mission builders, but as an automatic behaviour while under air attack.

Still, it is quite complex because it is very difficult to avoid bombing and that ships don't collide with themselves. Also some realistic movements must be added to ships. Nowadays, they just move as told, and as close as the mission builder asks.

My idea for "automatic zig-zag" option for ship movement in the FMB would be simpler than full AI for ships. All it would do is allow the mission builder to set a ship's course from Point A to Point B, and the "zig-zag" option would automatically turn that straight line movement into a series of S-curves by automatically plotting the additional waypoints needed.

You could use a simple sine wave function and plot new way points at maximum and minimum amplitude along a line described by the ship's baseline course. If the programmers wanted to get fancy, they could give options for amplitude and frequency to control width of each "curve" and frequency of course changes.

This would be realistic for "non-combat" movement by ships in a war zone, where zig-zagging was standard submarine defense.

For "emergency" movement against air attack, it would "good enough".

If you wanted to move into "pseudo AI" for ships, there are some simple "swarming" or "flocking" algorithms which could be used for basic station-keeping and collision avoidance, as long as ships are assumed to be in a convoy or some other formation and are programmed to keep a certain distance from other ships. These could be used to make a formation of ships all turn in the same direction when under attack.

Collision avoidance, especially realistic avoidance of shallow waters, and "intelligent" tactics vs. air attack, would require a lot more effort.

Realistic ship movement is way beyond IL2's ability, since it doesn't take factors such as hull draft, turning radius, acceleration, deceleration, heeling angle, waves, wind, etc. into effect when determining ship movement.

Zig zag would normally be done as a series of straight lines not curves. Each leg would be for a standard time, 10min I think.

There were different "standard" zig zags. Commodore would use signal flags to order the start, thereafter each ship could work to the clock, knowing what turn was next. On each "leg" they would follow a straight line.

You're correct, but since IL2 ships don't turn realistically (they instantly pivot around their Z axis), something resembling a sine wave path is needed to simulate a realistic turn. The long, straight "legs" you describe would be almost indistinguishable from a very relaxed sinusoidal path.

Obviously, not ideal in terms of absolute realism, and a crock when it comes to giving ships actual AI, but a potentially very simple hack (just 1 line of code for the movement pattern) for a programmer, which would make it slightly more challenging for players to hit moving ships.

I don't put the doctrine in question but I doubt that "3000m+" attacks could be successful, unless in rare circumstances as high ratio torpedoes/ships launched in good visibility and calm seas. I just don't understand how a pilot(navigator?) without possibility to measure distance accurately to a target could calculate angle of torpedo launch. Here my submariner's education revolts. :confused: I might be wrong, or I miss something.

This is exactly how ground units turn, and this has a lot of to do with how routes follow straight lines between two pivotal waypoints, no matter if ground or naval units are concerned. What TD could do (if they can do) is to change the code to support bezier curve calculations for waypoints. This would also enable realistically bent roads on maps, what has been long desired by the community.