audimrfy

transport planes and why they are not a supply unit

23 posts in this topic

It would allow for para re-supply operations and for providing supply to isolated units - I'm in favour of this.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see how long you could keep a cut-off town going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, audimrfy said:

Supply of ammo not boots

Originally did some resupply by plane, can be done.

Later on, getting an infantry FRU out made the transport plane powerful, particularly for cross-channel operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No nation had a WWII capability to air-supply even just enough small arms ammo and food for a medium sized defense...no artillery or tank shells, no truck or tank fuel, no mortar shells which cripples real world defense...except USA, and that only 1944-45 with months of advance planning and preparation. 

Stalingrad could not be sufficiently air supplied and was smashed. Arnhem could not be sufficiently air supplied and was smashed. 

That capability didn't exist in the real world. Maybe in comic books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stalingrad was obviously a force too large to resup from the air. Arnehm the airdrop areas were already captured, so hardly a failure of capacity, just delivery, working radios would have solved that.

Kokoda trail Aussies used air supply to greatly enhance delivery of supply.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jwilly said:

No nation had a WWII capability to air-supply even just enough small arms ammo and food for a medium sized defense...no artillery or tank shells, no truck or tank fuel, no mortar shells which cripples real world defense...except USA, and that only 1944-45 with months of advance planning and preparation. 

Stalingrad could not be sufficiently air supplied and was smashed. Arnhem could not be sufficiently air supplied and was smashed. 

That capability didn't exist in the real world. Maybe in comic books.

Yet just a few years later the US sustained an entire city mostly on C-47s.

 

The Germans actually did it earlier, just not 260,000+. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demyansk_Pocket

 

So, might want to rethink your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omg

i want to use ju52 with engineers for fb/bridge missions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Yet just a few years later the US sustained an entire city mostly on C-47s.

 

The Germans actually did it earlier, just not 260,000+. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demyansk_Pocket

 

So, might want to rethink your position.

True but that was during peacetime... not wartime.

Regarding air resupply it was a question of numbers, but also a question of plane capacity. The airplanes back then could only hold so much, and airfields at that time could only land so many planes at a certain throughput. I think that Stalingrad was actually a good example of this were a major limiting factor to resupply wasn't necessarily planes (though this was true as well), but actually turnaround time between landing, unloading, refueling, and leaving again. Only so much you can do without modern heavy lift planes and palettization that we have today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

someone describe how transport planes being able to refill ammo would be exploited in this game

because the only thing that I could see would be a C47/Ju52 flying across the frontline with engineers making landings at FBs, which would actually be an improvement over them never being spawned

the hit to some roleplayer's immersion is well worth some kind of emergent or niche gameplay, like landing a plane on a hill to resupply guns or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Yet just a few years later the US sustained an entire city mostly on C-47s.

As I noted, USA was the only possessor of such a capability, starting in 1944 and building from there. Britain's late war capabiity was basically an adjunct of that of USA.

Quote

 

The Germans actually did it earlier, just not 260,000+. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demyansk_Pocket

 

They weren't airdropping supplies...they had two good airfields within the pocket. That was key...the JU 52 could lift something more than two tons in cold dry weather if it could land on pavement, but much less if the load had to be airdropped.

They were hardly opposed at all by the SU air force which was still weak in 1942 and occupied elsewhere, yet they still lost 1/2 a year's entire German production of transports and medium bombers in two months.

They committed all their transports from that part of the front plus most of the medium bombers from that part of the front, and were sometimes able to get supplies into the pocket on the ground, and they were minimally attacked by SU ground forces resulting in less pressure for more munitions, but the supply situation in the pocket was still so continuously dire that by the time the pocket was abandoned, two thirds of the men were dead, wounded or too sick to fight effectively if fighting had been needed...and the airlift effort didn't even try to move POL or artillery ammo, so all of those assets were rapidly useless and were eventually abandoned.

Quote

So, might want to rethink your position.

Nope. Demyansk was another failure. The Germans didn't have an air supply capability. They were hopelessly foolish to think they did.

They barely had an air-drop/air-landing capability for paratroops. They should have caught on to that after the Netherlands fiasco. Instead it took Crete for them to learn.

And, the French never had that capability during WWII.

And, the British didn't either until USA gifted them a large allocation of our transport production toward the end of the war. But, the game doesn't go that far chronologically yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No nation had a WWII capability to air-supply even just enough small arms ammo and food for a medium sized defense

Thats what you said .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China was supplied by CNAC and HUMP Pilots almost exclusively until Stillwell got the Ledo road up and going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, aismov said:

True but that was during peacetime... not wartime.

Regarding air resupply it was a question of numbers, but also a question of plane capacity. The airplanes back then could only hold so much, and airfields at that time could only land so many planes at a certain throughput. I think that Stalingrad was actually a good example of this were a major limiting factor to resupply wasn't necessarily planes (though this was true as well), but actually turnaround time between landing, unloading, refueling, and leaving again. Only so much you can do without modern heavy lift planes and palettization that we have today.

Berlin example yes, pocket no.  Read it, thinking they could do it for Stalingrad off the cuff was a little more understandable for me, although a quick check with a competent staff should have scotched it.

Another major aerial resupply was when the Allies landed in North Africa.  Tunis air field was the site of a very serious aerial reinforcement, including C130-type planes.  Germany lost those planes pronto as they were very vulnerable and strategic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flax

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_323

 

I'd say limit air resup to fuel and ammo, any unit resup would be individual infantry riding in.

 

One of the things that would give more of a sense of 'cutoff' is if you have a cutoff load of fuel and ammo.  With loadouts, that might be an option that could be hardcoded, in which case simply dropping ammo canisters or landing transport planes and refuel/arm like a truck would be desirable to keep people armed.  Shutting down ammo functions of trucks, truck-dropped ammo boxes or FMS/FRU would be another effect where an air resup for ammo might be necessary to keep cutoff forces fighting.

 

Ammo canisters would also be good for para troops, their version of the ammo box.

Edited by Kilemall
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Air drop: if anything, small arms ammo only. No fuel, no cannon shells.

Planes land at an airfield: fuel, a few cannon shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jwilly said:

As I noted, USA was the only possessor of such a capability, starting in 1944 and building from there. Britain's late war capabiity was basically an adjunct of that of USA.

They weren't airdropping supplies...they had two good airfields within the pocket. That was key...the JU 52 could lift something more than two tons in cold dry weather if it could land on pavement, but much less if the load had to be airdropped.

They were hardly opposed at all by the SU air force which was still weak in 1942 and occupied elsewhere, yet they still lost 1/2 a year's entire German production of transports and medium bombers in two months.

They committed all their transports from that part of the front plus most of the medium bombers from that part of the front, and were sometimes able to get supplies into the pocket on the ground, and they were minimally attacked by SU ground forces resulting in less pressure for more munitions, but the supply situation in the pocket was still so continuously dire that by the time the pocket was abandoned, two thirds of the men were dead, wounded or too sick to fight effectively if fighting had been needed...and the airlift effort didn't even try to move POL or artillery ammo, so all of those assets were rapidly useless and were eventually abandoned.

Nope. Demyansk was another failure. The Germans didn't have an air supply capability. They were hopelessly foolish to think they did.

They barely had an air-drop/air-landing capability for paratroops. They should have caught on to that after the Netherlands fiasco. Instead it took Crete for them to learn.

And, the French never had that capability during WWII.

And, the British didn't either until USA gifted them a large allocation of our transport production toward the end of the war. But, the game doesn't go that far chronologically yet.

I would agree that air resupply shouldn't enable any resupply tickets whatsoever to be filled.  The natural loss of heavy equipment in a pocket and no replacements already covers that reality of a cutoff.

 

Ammo and fuel though, DID happen, with smaller units.

 

Airdropped canisters should strictly be small arms ammo box, different from the normal one as it wouldn't rearm tanks/guns.  Tanks/guns only get in-field rearm with either parking next to a plane, or despawning RTB successfully indicating a safe trip back to a limited logistics base.  MIA/RES, it's gone. 

 

As a countervailing consequence of cutoff and the airdrop/resup option, you'd have

* No truck/ammo box/FMS resupply in the field in cutoff areas.

* All units get 50% ammo/fuel/satchels/rockets, rifles lose resup packs, ammo bearer only gets one.

* Any resupply is only infantry flown/driven in, obviously no FMS.

 

The other thing I would use the transport resup for is adhoc airfields.  Air forces land their transports in an open area or off a road, fighters and bombers land and taxi up to them, they refuel and rearm, and take off.

There are only so many straight enough roads and/or smooth ground plains to function in this manner, and with rough field landing a LOT of planes are going to go KIA/MIA.

Would produce another level of content, with fighter sweeps searching those double EWS for an adhoc airfield away from expected towns and locations for a fruitful AA free strafing.  Smart commanders could make it LOOK like an adhoc AF is in play, and lure such sweeps to their doom.

Edited by Kilemall
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that cutoff pockets especially with loadouts could have a lot of extra design work go into them that can make some interesting fights and expand gameplay roles to transport pilots/trucker types. But like others have said it should be done realistic, if not in exact design due to this being a game, but at least in spirit. So as others have said limit it to things like small arms ammo, etc. And require the plane to physically land (or adjust supply numbers to make air attrition a real thing).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jwilly said:

Air drop: if anything, small arms ammo only. No fuel, no cannon shells.

Planes land at an airfield: fuel, a few cannon shells.

If trucks can supply ground units with ammo so should Transport aircrafts. These aircrafts can load the same or even more than a truck. Our trucks carry a rather small load. The Opel Blitz could load about 3300 kg (3.3 ton). A Bedford took about 3000 kg. The Laffly took just 800 kg it seems (I have no good source here).

A Junker 52 could carry 3900 kg, some sources claims 4400 kg.

Douglas C-47 had/has a cargo load between 2700 kg to 3500 kg depending on who you ask or messure.

Same principle –> same function.

 

What I also want to see is Transport ships to give supply. If it's possible should also Destroyers and Fairmile's be able to supply all ground units (but not each other). Not sure such a mechanism is possible.

Edited by Sparre
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sparre said:

What I also want to see is Transport ships to give supply. If it's possible should also Destroyers and Fairmile's be able to supply all ground units (but not each other). Not sure such a mechanism is possible.

Hmm I could see a couple there-

Open slot, cargo ship can drop cargo boxes on the beach, functions as an ammo box.

Secondly, a spawn point or maybe adhoc garrison all it's own.  In other words, a vehicle drives up to the cargo ship to be loaded, it's loaded in, but instead of the player staying in it they despawn and the vehicle is effectively 'resupplied' to the ship.

Given the size of the ship and the cargo holds, a capacity of 12. 

Then the ship goes to wherever it's going, mission is made off of it like it's a garrison/brigade or better yet an FB, people spawn what is loaded in the hold and not necessarily the original driver, and tada! we have trucks that can lay FMS on and resupply, and enough tanks to make the trip worthwhile.  Plus, if the ship is sunk the supply is appropriately lost- losing 4 trucks and 8 tanks with one sinking could hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 7:35 AM, downtown said:

China was supplied by CNAC and HUMP Pilots almost exclusively until Stillwell got the Ledo road up and going.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.