RHS Airlift Theory

[el cid again]

RHS has added many types of air transport aircraft to both sides.
Some of these are very esoteric and rare planes - including even
a one off - Mac's personal B-17 - although I made it identical to
the later B-17 transport version - which was very limited production.
But Mac's plane starts the game in a 1 plane unit!

Transport flying boats are (with two exceptions, both Allied) simply
transport planes defined as float capable - which works - and makes them
honor the same rules as other transports. The exceptions - the Empire
Flying Boat and the Boeing 314 Clipper - are defined as patrol planes -
so they can fly patrol missions - because both did that - never mind they did
so with their peacetime, commercial crews. Fortunately, code treats a
patrol plane on a transport mission as if it were a transport - and all the usual
meanings of "normal range" and "extended range" no longer apply. So
when used as transports, they work the same. By not defining other flying boats
transport variants - notably Mavis and Emily - in this way, they can not be used
for patrol missions - which they were not.

Previously, in WITP days, RHS redefined the transfer range of transport aircraft downward, so the code fraction of extended range ended up correct. In AE, I have altered that in the opposite direction - defining range in terms of normal range. Since code thinks normal range is 33% of transfer range, and 50% of extended range, I define both in terms of normal range. Normal range is easier to determine and more stable than other ranges. You can always increase the transfer range by carrying more fuel - even more than the tanks will hold. Often special "ferry tanks" were installed only for that purpose, and if not - extra fuel in drums or cans was used when required. For extended range - there is a very slippery set of variables - trading payload for fuel - and there is no one hard and fast way to get a distance value. It all depends on how much payload you give up? The crude code algorithm is not horrible. Besides that, normal range is the ONLY one that matters for airborne assault. So getting it right really matters, and it got priority.

This is my second pass in AE. At first I did not understand the old transport code had not been changed. And all other kinds of planes work differently now in terms of ranges. The data entry person has control over what is normal range, and what is extended range, and the code honors the values it is given. Thus, when stock fails to use standard fractions as appropriate for different kinds of planes, we can plug in the standard values - and they work just fine. The way drop tanks work also is different. Technically drop tanks didn't exist in WITP days - the devices were not used. So the way I used them - based on the way they really work - included assigning them weight. In AE they are "weightless" - and although alarmed by that - I find it works fine. The basic algorithm - effect = added range in minutes at cruising speed - is crude - and not right either - but for most planes it is close and it surely is simple. I have learned how to deal with the exceptions (use the wrong size drop tank so everything works out right anyway). But transports didn't really change - except that now we have transports with "drop tanks" - or their RHS cousins - "bomb bay tanks" which are internal drop tanks.

Only the very smallest air transports are missing. Otherwise, air transports are present - even if small, obsolete or limited in performance. And they seem to matter, particularly for air minded players. You can move units without heavy devices - or the light elements of other units - faster than by land or sea. You can move supplies as well. Both these are the real key to airlift power. Just as maritime power is the ability to move cargo across the sea, so airlift power is the ability to move critical things very fast between friendly airports. This works to extended range. But here one needs to grasp a key difference between airmobile operations and airborne assault:
airmobile operations are ONE WAY flights - and get the FULL range of the plane (normal or extended) - and code IGNORES the limits programmed on the screen. Airborne assault, on the other hand, is a there and back again flight without landing - so you only get half of NORMAL range - exactly as printed on the screen. I define normal and extended range as 33% and 67% of transfer range. [Technically I define extended range as 200% of normal, and transfer as 300%, but it is the same thing expressed in a different way.] But the screen reports the FULL transfer range, and only half the normal and extended range - as that is what most planes really can fly. For non-transport missions, those are also hard limits - you cannot fly a mission other than transfer beyond extended range; you cannot fly a mission with full payload beyond the normal range reported on the screen. Transports will fly airlift missions to twice those ranges. But, as noted above, airborne assault only uses normal range, and it is as reported, not doubled.

Early in the war, the Allies scraped the bottom of the barrel to get all sorts of planes - and pressed many civil types into service. The CNAC DC-3, the Empire Flying Boat and the Boeing 314 Clippers are all examples, as well as many smaller types like the Lockheed Model 18. As well, LB-30s were converted to transport duties - and in the end most LB-30s were transports. These had a unique modification in the form of tanks for the bomb bays permitting truly astronomical ranges with payloads. By midwar the Allies get true four engine transports built as such (the C-54, the transport version of the B-24, and even a handful of transport B-17s, one of which starts the game). Yet none of these have the range of the LB-30 - lacking its special tanks - which are not ferry tanks - but regular tanks used when cargo is hauled. So if you use long range airlift, you may find you keep the LB-30 in service as long as possible, and wishing there were still more of them you could get. By late in the war, a tiny number of spectacular four engine transports appear - the Martin Mars. These occur at a very low rate of production - cut off by the end of the war. I let you get one every month - so if the war goes on - you get more. They are almost unbelievable planes with fantastic range and passenger counts like small battalions. There is a similar situation in Japan. There are only four G5Ms - all failed bomber conversions into transports - G5M2-L. These could be put into production if you wanted too - although it is doubtful they can be cost justified - requiring as many engines as 2 normal transports planes. There were upwards of 30 (minus attrition) early, failed gunship versions of a two engine bomber - turned into rather fabulous long range transports (which, like the LB-30, you will wish there were more of - but unlike the Allies - you can put it back into production if you wish). It has the unlikely designation of G6M-L2 - never mind the parent design was not a G6M!

In spite of this focus on long range planes above, the real value of air transports lies in the more numerous medium and short range kinds. Even a plane wholly unsuitable for air combat is useful to move cargo - if you put it in the right place. So you find even the obsolete Dragon in New Zealand and Australia is useful - flying only 89 knots! At least it does so for a very long time!

In offensive operations, a key concept, first evolved by the Japanese in the NEI, but probably taught in theory by their German instructors, is to use tiny packets of airborne to take distant airfields. Then follow up with airlanded other units - for example ground support units for aircraft and basic infantry security units. Now you have a port your ships can sail to with heavy stuff. Almost all the publicity is about the few opposed airlandings. But the real value of airmobile capabilities is using undefended points to cut enemy lines of communication, and the rapid acquisition of forward operating bases - anywhere the enemy is unwise enough to leave uncovered. This adds a new dimension to warfare - and it is rare one can defend everywhere. IN addition, airlift provides for rapid emergency supply, and for transfer of key (light) units between different places. Because of interior lines, the Japanese have a much better chance if they use the efficiency gains offered by airlift.

There is also a technical toy present - the Glider and tug combination. Lacking art on the Allied versions, and anyway they not being popular in the theater, only the Japanese one is present. It is fairly impressive in terms of lift - permitting even a sort of "airborne armor" in game terms. But it is very slow - and so prone to being lost it likely will never succeed except moving between friendly airbases - just as IRL. I prefer to build more, faster two engine planes - although in sheer cargo per engine terms - they are more efficient. And if you don't buy them, you probably cannot lift the only airborne armor unit that might fly in the game. [It mainly has tankettes - so it isn't much of an armored unit - but even its "real light tanks" are smaller than modern armored cars! They are, however, light enough to airlift.]

[dwg]

There is also a technical toy present - the Glider and tug combination. Lacking art on the Allied versions, and anyway they not being popular in the theater

The Chindits would beg to differ....

[m10bob]

I always enjoyed the RHS ideas, the experimentations, and inclusion of many rare units, (some of which made it into AE).
I n your comment, I think you mistakenly refer to the C 54 as the transport version of the B 24. Is that what you meant?
Having worked with you in past, I know you are very passionate about your interests, and I certainly will not fault you for that.
In spite of what some have said, (or written) about you, I know your intentions and ideas are positive and refreshing.

You contribute to the mix and have been a catalyst for much thought ref WITP.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: dwg

There is also a technical toy present - the Glider and tug combination. Lacking art on the Allied versions, and anyway they not being popular in the theater

The Chindits would beg to differ....

If you understand air art - I would love to add em.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I always enjoyed the RHS ideas, the experimentations, and inclusion of many rare units, (some of which made it into AE).
I n your comment, I think you mistakenly refer to the C 54 as the transport version of the B 24. Is that what you meant?
Having worked with you in past, I know you are very passionate about your interests, and I certainly will not fault you for that.
In spite of what some have said, (or written) about you, I know your intentions and ideas are positive and refreshing.

You contribute to the mix and have been a catalyst for much thought ref WITP.

No - it was a comparison. We have C-54s - which are DC-4s more or less - as well as two kinds of transport B-24s -
the LB-30 and the C-87 - and then there is the transport B-17 (CB-17 - along with one XB-108). We also have the C-98 -
USAF talk for a Boeing 314 Clipper. The PBM-3D transport version of the Mariner. The R5D (Navy talk for C-54).
The PB2Y-3R Coronado. And finally the Empire Flying Boat (S.23 variant, in QANTAS service). Lots of 4E options for the
Allies. Japan only gets 4 G5Ms, derived from the DC-4E - the prequil to the DC-4. Although it could build more it probably
isn't worth giving up 2 twin engine transports to get it.