What in the world is Strategic OpMode in roads?

[cantona2]

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

FWIW, there are major roads for strategic use on Suva [although I'd rather march] and out of Imphal also in the DEI I believe.

Regarding Imphal, I think we can confirm that strategic movement work on roads on India (I checked that in Kohima), although I'm not sure the rationale for that, given that India was not particularly motorized during WW2. I can't test it in Burma, as all bases that have major roads in Burma also have railways, so I can't check if strategic movement is due to roads or railways.

Regarding Suva, that is a port, and one can put the units in strategic mode in any port, whether there are roads/railways or not. You tested that strategic mode works on roads in Suva?

Yes Strat Move by Road in India works. India wasn't particualry motorized but the British Army fully was, though I don't know if this was true of the Indian Army too.

[Dili]

British Army fully

I doubt about that, not even US was fully motorised. US Infantry Divisions had 1/3 of transport only.

[cantona2]

I think it was, at least the BEF was mostly if not all motorized when it landed in France. Ironic that it was encircled by a Wehrmacht largely on foot!

[Rob Brennan UK]

ORIGINAL: cantona2

I think it was, at least the BEF was mostly if not all motorized when it landed in France. Ironic that it was encircled by a Wehrmacht largely on foot!

not when it left however [;)], Britain had to really ramp up all sorts of production to re equip the BEF and i seriously doubt it had much spare soft transport for the far east untill about 44 ?

[bradfordkay]

"The reason why it can only be done on movement between from base to base, and only when the rail/road connection is free of enemy troops, is because no sane commander would
strap his most powerful assets to civilian vehicles when there is even the remote possibility that he suddently has to use them in combat. "

Of course, legend has it that the French did just that at the Battle of the Marne in WWI. The devil, of course, is in the details...

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: fbs


Regarding Suva, that is a port, and one can put the units in strategic mode in any port, whether there are roads/railways or not. You tested that strategic mode works on roads in Suva?

Here's a stitched picture showing they'll move by road but I'd rather march to save time packing and unpacking since it's such a short distance.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: fbs


Regarding Suva, that is a port, and one can put the units in strategic mode in any port, whether there are roads/railways or not. You tested that strategic mode works on roads in Suva?

Here's a stitched picture showing they'll move by road but I'd rather march to save time packing and unpacking since it's such a short distance.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh... RD+ = strategic movement on road.

Brilliant. I never noticed that.

Thank you!

[Klahn]

ORIGINAL: Dili

British Army fully

I doubt about that, not even US was fully motorised. US Infantry Divisions had 1/3 of transport only.

A 1941 US "foot" infantry division had a truck for every 8.3 men. I would say this was close to fully motorised. The US didn't use the term "motorised" to refer to an infantry division with vehicle transport. Pretty much all infantry had vehicle transport. In US usage, "motorised" meant an infantry division with an attached tank brigade.

TOE for US infantry division in 1941:

15,245 men
117 mortars
116 towed guns
1,834 trucks

[Smeulders]

Whether or not an LCU can use strategic movement over roads is determined by their nationality, not the location. If I'm correct, the Chinese and Commonwealth units can not use strategic road movement.

[Dili]

A 1941 US "foot" infantry division had a truck for every 8.3 men. I would say this was close to fully motorised.

Nopes. US Army for example tried motorization with 4th Division, but there were not enough resources -including to transport by sea- Commanders preferred to have a vehicle pool at corps level.

[xj900uk]

I have tried moving units via strategic movement on major road (the grey ones) in Burma but the game tells me it can't be done. Anyone else experience this problem?
I presume you can only use road Strategic movement in certain areas - mainland US and Australia seem to be two but are their any others?

[LoBaron]

Its only possible in US, Australia and a couple of US occupied territories IIRC.
Fidji and Noumea? Not sure.

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: Dili

British Army fully

I doubt about that, not even US was fully motorised. US Infantry Divisions had 1/3 of transport only.

Actually cantona2 is correct. At the start of WWII the British army was the only army in the World that was fully motorised. Not just the BEF, the whole army. To a great extent this was due to the relatively small size of the British army compared to other nations. The US had a much large army, for example, and so it was much harder (or impossible tbh) to fully motorise it.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

I have tried moving units via strategic movement on major road (the grey ones) in Burma but the game tells me it can't be done. Anyone else experience this problem?
I presume you can only use road Strategic movement in certain areas - mainland US and Australia seem to be two but are their any others?

I have no problems to use Strat Mode on roads in Burma. Your problem is probably that units you try to move that way are not eligible for Strat road move. Brits can, Commonwealth troops cannot, Japanese cannot, for example.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Shouldn't be better to link that to motorised support instead of a blunt hardcode to only one side?

I read in a book that during the invasion of the Philippines, the U.S. employed local bus companies to transport troops to Bataan. So non-motorized units can move fast even without embedded trucks. I think this is the one that is being simulated (partly). But if you want to be accurate it depends on the country providing the transport and not the nationality of the Unit.

The act of contracting civilians to help transport needs to be done in cities.

Shouldn't the Japanese be able to acquire civilian assets for transports (if not forcefully) as well? The bikes they used during the Malayan campaign are from civilians. So isn't this a type of strat movement by road?

[oldman45]

Dili, didn't the Army have transportation battalions that were at divisional level that they used when they wanted to make a route move?

[chrisol]

Does Strat mode make any difference to air transport of troops ?

Let's say I'm trying to evacuate a base early from the allied side, but only have some rather small planes to do it with... does it make a difference if the troops are in Strat, or is it as well to keep them in Combat mode in case they are assaulted before I'm able to get them out ?

Thanks
Chris

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: chrisol

Does Strat mode make any difference to air transport of troops ?

Let's say I'm trying to evacuate a base early from the allied side, but only have some rather small planes to do it with... does it make a difference if the troops are in Strat, or is it as well to keep them in Combat mode in case they are assaulted before I'm able to get them out ?

Thanks
Chris

No difference.

[Curty]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"The reason why it can only be done on movement between from base to base, and only when the rail/road connection is free of enemy troops, is because no sane commander would
strap his most powerful assets to civilian vehicles when there is even the remote possibility that he suddently has to use them in combat. "

Of course, legend has it that the French did just that at the Battle of the Marne in WWI. The devil, of course, is in the details...

Didn't they requisition every Taxi in Paris to do that, or was that Verdun?

[chrisol]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
No difference.

Short, direct and answers the question perfectly... in the best tradition of this forum !
Many thanks
Chris