Hello everybody. I would like to suggest one of the American reverse Lend-Lease aircraft: the reputable de Havilland Mosquito NF.30. This variant served with the USAAF’s 416th Night Fighter Squadron in Italy after replacing the unit’s Beaufighters, and it continued to operate until hostilities in Europe came to an end.
Sources
Mosquito N.F. Mk. 30 Aircraft Data Sheet (01/05/1944)
The de Havilland Mosquito by M. J. Hardy (1984)
Aircraft No. 139: Mosquito in Action Part 2 (1993)
I voted no as all Mosquitos in USAAF service scored actually just this single kill - in other words: No historic relevance.
At least that’s what this article claims:
Edit:
Some things for better understanding and for clarification:
We have 2 Mosquito night fighters implemented in wt (UK & SWE).
The US used 12 night fighter Mossies for the last 5 months of the war - and managed to score a single kill within this time.
The numbers used in total together with the pathetic combat record in the war (with the greatest number of manned aircraft of all time being available as targets) is the definition of being historically insignificant.
Regarding the suggestion and constructive feedback:
As written later in this thread: We have enough c+p garbage spread across the TT. The US has way more capable aircraft with an IC spawn, there is no need for an obviously useless aircraft (regarding irl effectiveness) in the US tree.
The idea of a poll is to vote - if people don’t like a vote of a specific pov they are free to start a discussion / exchange of opinion.
But - an exchange requires the actual willingness for a dialogue. And except from @Nostalgistic there was not a single serious attempt to deal with what i wrote: A (fighter) plane with single kill in ww 2 has zero historic relevance for the US tree.
Regarding the “other” feedback:
Even as it was rather funny to read some of them, they showed just two things: Lack of knowledge and helpless attempts to shift goal posts in order to transport own opinions unburdened by context.
So the whole idea to discuss the topic “historic relevance” of a ww 2 fighter aircraft by comparing it with a 5th gen fighter like the F-22 (like by @Cloudzy26160 , @Beeschurger ) just demonstrated their inability to understand the context of the discussion of a ww2 era aircraft.
That’s also why i laughed when i saw invented arguments like i would be against the implementation of aviation milestones just based on the fact that an aircraft has no combat record (or was ineffective) in its foreseen role.
There a lot of really remarkable aircraft not implemented in wt - but we have enough Mossie variants in wt; there is no need for another.
This might be relevant if we would talk about a night fighter variant.
But with some research you find out that the Museum decided to display a post war aircraft trying to look like a PR (Recon) version. So whilst i agree that the PR version was a fine aircraft - we talk about the night fighter version.
As above - i would not have an issue with a recon version.
There is a reason why “reverse Lend-Lease” is super rare - hardware from GB was not what political and military leaders wanted to see - and technically seen just components like radar or licence build engines are known.
Edit II:
There is nothing offensive in this post. Trying to suppress deviating opinions is actually a sign of weakness.
I believe all the F-22s in USAF service also have 1 air to air kill, and that was a weather balloon, so the F-22 has no historical relevance and should not be added either.
Mosquito NF.30 operated by USAAF was lesser known, way less than USAAF-operated Beaufighters, I believe, so I can argue this one qualifies. Since the gap is already filled because of the P-61 Black Widow is already presented in the tree, I can argue for this aircraft to be made as a premium, event, or BP reward, so the players can skip this over. This aircraft is already interesting enough for other players, given that it was an example of some super-rare American reverse Lend-Lease aircraft.
sure I can, if a plane needs a high kill record to be relevant, then it needs a high kill record to be relevant. Claiming one dose and one doesn’t simply because you want one in the game and the other not is simply hypecritical
Ok then. Tell me, how do you feel about the Focke-Wulf Ta 154 A-1, comparable to the Mosquito NF.30, in terms of the role? Last time I checked, it got no air victories at all, according to some sources.
Yeah. But: In this context this won’t change anything as gaijin spreads c+p vehicles across all trees.
Mate - don’t get me wrong: I like your proposals in general - but a fighter with a single kill is not really convincing.
In case we would have actual night fighters like the Defiant or the Blenheim implemented - be my guest.
Kill record is the most important result of a fighter - if you would split the MM between ww2 service with “impact” and ww2 service without a kill or being postwar we would have way more interesting matches.
No Spit F 22 & 24, no Bearcats, no F4U-4bs, no A7M2s , no Yak-3Us etc - you might get the point.
Don’t try to think for others.
WT earns money with jets - no question that the F-22 will be added.
WW 2 in itself was an event with fixed dates and more or less accurate combat results. A fighter in a target rich environment scoring one kill in total is not relevant.
Idc about Ta 154 as they are not creating fights Ta 154s vs Ta 154s. If you have friends playing SB you are aware of the identification “challenges”.
I despise the c+p slop - i can’t wait to see a German P-51B/C or other nonsense. Gaijin kills this game with this BS.
Which you seem to think should be applied to the Mozzie but not the F-22, which is hypercritical
I know it will, I’m pointing out how silly it is to argue a vehicle should not be added due to it’s kill record, especially when there a things in the game that where never armed, never mind used in combat.
There are plenty of arguments for not adding unnecessary copy paste to the TT’s but a vehicles combat record isn’t one of them.
I am still not convinced by this argument, my guy. We can list every other in-game vehicle with no or very few kills, not enough to be “historically relevant” for the game, according to you. Suddenly, we can see this as a very problematic topic to talk about.
How is this negative? I want to see those implemented as well, and I am genuine about it.
Nice job evading my original point. Respectfully, you shifted your argument from “it lacks historical relevance” to “I don’t want to see copy-paste vehicles fighting each other.” While that point can be valid, the blame ultimately falls on Gaijin’s executives and planning team, since vehicle additions are usually decided years in advance.
Sounds like a good and solid idea to me. You should make a suggestion for that proposal. I wouldn’t mind playing that kind of gamemode, but I don’t want other fighters to be effectively deleted from the game and removed from standard Air RB matches just because they achieved little to no combat records historically.
Absolutely not. That would cause far more damage to the game, especially for minor nations that rely on imported or domestic fighters with unimpressive combat records.
Reducing the historical relevance of a WWII fighter solely to whether it achieved an air kill is an extremely shallow way of looking at aviation history, sorry.
By that logic, large portions of civil engineering and aerospace history would suddenly become “irrelevant.” Ships, aircraft, and vehicles are often historically significant because of what they represented technologically, not just because of combat statistics. Something can be historically important because it was the fastest, the largest, the most advanced, the first of its kind, or because it introduced revolutionary engineering concepts.
A fighter does not suddenly lose historical value because it never shot another aircraft down. Otherwise you could have the fastest, most technologically advanced, and arguably most beautiful WWII fighter ever built, and according to your logic it would never deserve inclusion simply because it was never combat deployed.
By your logic, F-22 should also be considered historically irrelevant because it has no confirmed air-to-air kills. You want to argue that the F-22 is historically unimportant?
And if the response suddenly becomes “well modern aircraft are different,” then the argument stops being about historical relevance and starts becoming selective standards.
So either combat kills are the universal standard for historical relevance, in which case many iconic vehicles suddenly become “irrelevant,” including F-22, or historical relevance is broader than just kill counts.
+1! It’s rare to see a vehicle with these capabilities in USAAF service, thus it would be perfect to see in-game. It’s a night fighter capability which historically for that time period was pretty rare as well (although the P-61 comes close, but isn’t exactly the same).
Personally I like more major imported service planes more (like possibly a spitfire), but night fighters like these could be nice event/SQ/premium vehicles for the US in the far future (when there’s more domestic US stuff added by that point).
