Transport aircraft

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Transport aircraft

      Support 11
      1.  
        No I don't think this will work (8) 73%
      2.  
        Yes I think this is a good idea (3) 27%
      Hi

      I'm currently playing a game in which I'm the UK fighting a war in Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Which I have quickly discovered is a logistical nightmare! Troops not only have to travel for days by boat but they also have to travel through the Mederterainian Sea which is full of enemy ships.

      My suggestion to the developers is that they add transport aircraft. I think they should have similar a range and cost of tactical bombers and be able to carry the following:

      Lvl1: (mech or motorised) Infantry and commandoes

      Lvl2: Anti tank, anti air and arty

      Lvl3: Light tank, tank destroyer, SP anti air, SP arty

      Lvl4: Rocket (incl nuke), interceptor (even though it weighs less an aircraft would take up a lot of room)

      Lvl5: Medium tank

      Lvl6: Heavy tank


      Another potential dynamic is the ability to only land on an AC when half full e.g a lvl4 transport could only land while carrying the load equivalent to a lvl 3. Or maybe we should just have refuelling aircraft?


      Interested in your constructive feedback or support :)

    • Transport aircraft were not able to transport units of strategic size in this period, especially over these distances. Some examples: British troops in Egypt had to be reinforced by sea passing Cape of Good Hope (one of the reasons Australian and New Zealand troops were used extensively in the theatre); almost all American troops transporting to Britain preparing for the Normandy invasion were transported by ship; Goebbels' Luftwaffe wasn't even able to SUPPLY the Stalingrad pocket (let alone transport troops to and fro). This is an idea which doesn't suit the era.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • I'd be fine with this if it could only move Militia and Infantry. Tanks are just a big no-no because of the time period. Also, They shouldn't be another unit in the game, Perhaps when you try to move from province to province w/ airfields the troops get into planes and fly there. And, Transporting Interceptors? Even that is relatively unheard of in the modern day. C-5 Galaxies can transport them, but only in pieces, and it takes up a lot of space. Medium Tanks, No not enough room in a C-47/Ju-52. The Interceptors would just fly there. H-Heavy Tanks? W-Why? They are too heavy for a C-47 or a Ju-52. Nor is there enough room. I mean, The militaries really used trains, trucks, boats, and Mk. I Feet. (Meaning they marched there)
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

    • Yup, The C-5 Galaxy (Sorry for my US Bias) can only carry 2 Abrams tanks into the fight. I believe the C-17 can barely carry a bradley/striker. Boats are the superior transporter, You'd need a crap ton of planes to transport enough M1 Abrams for them to have a noticeable effect on a large offensive, as well as lots of them to carry the mechanized infantry vehicles. The C-130 can't carry those but can carry some HMMWVs. If anything, Those aircraft can transport a crap ton of HMMWVs. Keep this in mind when suggesting airlift capabilities, Airlifting is tactical, very small amounts of things. Airlifting is also extremely expensive, and requires many months of planning. The only transport aircraft that make a noticable difference on the Strategic scale are the C-130s and the C-17s because that is what the Airborne uses. Even that is difficult to pull off with our modern aircraft that we have.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Transport aircraft were not able to transport units of strategic size in this period, especially over these distances. Some examples: British troops in Egypt had to be reinforced by sea passing Cape of Good Hope (one of the reasons Australian and New Zealand troops were used extensively in the theatre); almost all American troops transporting to Britain preparing for the Normandy invasion were transported by ship; Goebbels' Luftwaffe wasn't even able to SUPPLY the Stalingrad pocket (let alone transport troops to and fro). This is an idea which doesn't suit the era.
      I think @K.Rokossovski 's comment above about covers it.

      The C-47 Dakota (militarized DC-3) was the premier transport plane of the era. While there were other, larger transport aircraft, the C-47 was by far the most numerous. The USAAF and RAF had by far the largest fleets of air transport aircraft. The C-47 could carry roughly 3 crew and 28 fully-equipped troops; it would thus require over 500 C-47s to deliver all of the infantrymen of a standard-size division, and that's before we begin to add the required tow planes for gliders that were typically used to deliver those divisions' support troops, jeeps, artillery pieces and other heavier equipment. Delivering the one British and two American airborne divisions on D-Day required almost the entire available air transport combined capacity of the USAAF and RAF that was available in the European Theater of Operations. There was no mass-produced transport plane of the WW2 era which was capable of delivering even a light tank, halftrack, heavy truck or larger artillery pieces (e.g., 155 mm), let alone a full-size medium tank or heavier armor.

      Bottom line: Roko is right. Adding heavy lift transport planes would be inappropriate for a war game based on WW2, and that would be equally true through the mid-1950s. As I have said before, even in the year 2018, there are only two or three countries that could deliver a full division by air transport within 24 hours, and probably only one that could deliver a full armor division.

    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      Hehehe, That one country is the USA. Even though the Air Force doesn't have enough pilots to fly them and has way too many planes.
      Last I heard, the USAF was offering low six-figure signing bonuses for trained pilots to sign up for another 5-year commitment, and I'm pretty certain that the Navy and Marine Corps offer similar incentives. Given that it requires several years and costs several million dollars to train a U.S. military pilot, offering an experienced, fully-trained pilot $100,000+ to re-up makes perfect sense. The Air Force Reserve also makes allowances for part-time jet jockeys to fly for the USAF or Air National Guard while also working as commercial airline pilots. We have gone from having more pilots than we could ever use in the early '90s (during the post-Cold War draw-down) to where the U.S. military and American commercial airlines are currently experiencing a pilot shortage.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Transport aircraft were not able to transport units of strategic size in this period, especially over these distances. Some examples: British troops in Egypt had to be reinforced by sea passing Cape of Good Hope (one of the reasons Australian and New Zealand troops were used extensively in the theatre); almost all American troops transporting to Britain preparing for the Normandy invasion were transported by ship; Goebbels' Luftwaffe wasn't even able to SUPPLY the Stalingrad pocket (let alone transport troops to and fro). This is an idea which doesn't suit the era.
      I agree with your point. However nuclear rockets and attack helicopters were not around either.

    • @NZSAS, if you don't reach Saudi Arabia through the Mediterranean, you will probably get worse by transport via air .. ;)

      However, I think, transport planes for CoW could be in principle possible (they can not hurt), eg if strategic bombers level 5 or 6 has already been researched.
      But I think also, just infantry/militia/commandos (and maybe later [possibly with a higher level of the planes] also anti tank, anti air and artillery) should be transportable, but no self-propelled units.
      Would revive the usefulness of some units in the later game, especially on big maps.

      Air transport Me 323 Gigant 1943 in action

      But personally I never needed air transports, so I vote neutral :saint:

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Restrisiko ().

    • NZSAS wrote:

      However nuclear rockets and attack helicopters were not around either.
      In case you missed it, the community coordinator's announcement about new units, etc., was an April Fools' Day joke. (Or at least an attempted joke.) No helicopters will be added to the game anytime soon, and, God willing, they never will be. Attack helicopters were really an innovation of the 1960s, and squadrons of transport helicopters capable of transporting a couple of companies or a battalion were not really available until the Vietnam War.

      Rockets armed with nuclear warheads were certainly not available during 1939-45, and neither ballistic missile technology nor atomic warhead design were advanced enough to mate the two into an operational weapons delivery system until at least the early 1950s, arguably later. Delivering a nuclear weapon in 1945 presented three primary problems: weight, range and accuracy. Early warheads weighed at least four or five tons, and the V-2 could deliver about 1/5 of that, with a range of about 200 miles. Also, the V-2, as the only operation ballistic missile of the war, simply did not have the accuracy to target individual combat units in the field. Of course, 1945-era atomic warheads thrown at cities only needed to land within a mile or two of their intended target.

      But, yes, I agree with you: a game based on WW2 technology and tactics would be better off without anachronisms like missiles with atomic warheads and nuclear-power submarines and capital ships.

    • NZSAS wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Transport aircraft were not able to transport units of strategic size in this period, especially over these distances. Some examples: British troops in Egypt had to be reinforced by sea passing Cape of Good Hope (one of the reasons Australian and New Zealand troops were used extensively in the theatre); almost all American troops transporting to Britain preparing for the Normandy invasion were transported by ship; Goebbels' Luftwaffe wasn't even able to SUPPLY the Stalingrad pocket (let alone transport troops to and fro). This is an idea which doesn't suit the era.
      I agree with your point. However nuclear rockets and attack helicopters were not around either.
      I agree with the nuclear rockets, however there were WW2 helicopters such as Flettner FI 265 (Experimental), Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 Drache (Transport Helicopter) , Flettner FI 282 Kolibri (Scout Helicopter), and the Focke-Wulf Fw 61 /Fa 61 (Experimental). These were all used by the Nazis from 1939 to 1945.

    • Demolition AMF wrote:

      I agree with the nuclear rockets, however there were WW2 helicopters such as Flettner FI 265 (Experimental), Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 Drache (Transport Helicopter) , Flettner FI 282 Kolibri (Scout Helicopter), and the Focke-Wulf Fw 61 /Fa 61 (Experimental). These were all used by the Nazis from 1939 to 1945.
      Cough
      Too few in numbers to really do much of anything, plus they had like, a 200 pound weight limit, which is barely an infantry squad.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"