The Longest Runway In India

[el cid again]

Warangal India, slot 1427 (since stock), hex 40/33. had "the longest runway
in pre-independence India" - at 6000 feet. This was not a military airfield, but
built by a local prince.

I interpret this to mean no other airfield in India should be as big or bigger.

Stock rates it as a level 1 runway with a build potential of 6. I think it should be rated
as a 6 with a build potential of 3 - so it may not exceed the value it has to this day.

[wdolson]

The airfield size in game is an abstraction which covers more than just the length of the runway. It covers how many runways, services available, dispersal locations, etc. Just because an airfield had a really long runway does not automatically make it a top tier airfield.

Muroc Dry Lake in California was the world's longest runway in the 1940s, it still is. When WW II started Muroc AFB was a backwater training base. It became a testing base during the war because of it's remote location it was a good place to keep secret aircraft under wraps. It was still somewhat primitive when Chuck Yeager was there in the late 1940s, though it would qualify as a level 10 base today.

Bill

[PaxMondo]

deleted.

[el cid again]

This is what I read and what, until now, I believed. However, two points:

the longest runway in India BOTH pre war and post war surely rates more than a 1 as in stock

the airfield ratings of numbers of stock locations is simply the actual runway length in thousands of feet.

It is true that the gigantic runway at "Muroc Airfield" (renamed in the 1950s) needs to be rated as a 10.

Before the US Army crash construction program to get ready for the war (already raging in Europe), the longest
runway in the world was at Oakland - at 7 thousand feet. [Amelia Airhart used it in her failed East to West
crossing of the Pacific - her plane crashed on takeoff.] I added Muroc to the location name -
and indeed rated it as a ten.

Lacking any published standard for airfield size, I have adopted a set of defined standards as follows:

1) The airfield build level is three less than the maximum allowed for a location;

2) For a single runway, the airfield size is the length of the runway in thousands of feet;

3) For multiple runways, the airfield size is the length of the longest runway in thousands of feet plus
one for each additional runway;

4) The length of the longest runway ever built for a location generally determines the potential size;

5) Because wide body developments funded runways not funded in the WW2 era, for extensively developed areas
the wartime maximum size is used instead of (4) above for such locations. This is a political restriction:
the political/economic will to build a bigger airfield did not exist although, theoretically, it could have.
If it did not exist at a major airfield under the pressure of war, I am limiting the size to what the wartime
funding did provide for.

The more important point is that stock data is unreliable for start of war airfields in particular, as well
as for potential builds. Major airfields built by both sides are entirely missing. For example, there are two
(one hex apart) in the Moluccas - one of which was vital to Japan until neutralized by bombing and too big to
be worth invading; the other was vital to the invasion of the Philippines. Neither location is on any map
I have seen except RHS. Airfield development, in PTO in general, was not great pre-war - so start of game
fields need to reflect what they really were. Potential builds have a bit more slop - but should never exceed
what is possible - and probably should have other limits as well.

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The airfield size in game is an abstraction which covers more than just the length of the runway. It covers how many runways, services available, dispersal locations, etc. Just because an airfield had a really long runway does not automatically make it a top tier airfield.

Muroc Dry Lake in California was the world's longest runway in the 1940s, it still is. When WW II started Muroc AFB was a backwater training base. It became a testing base during the war because of it's remote location it was a good place to keep secret aircraft under wraps. It was still somewhat primitive when Chuck Yeager was there in the late 1940s, though it would qualify as a level 10 base today.

Bill

[Yaab]

But, a level 2 airfield allows for offensive missions. Level 4 makes most level bombers fly with full bomb loads. Level 5 makes B-17 happy with its 8 x 500lb GP bomb capacity. Plus, each level of airfield allows for stationing more air groups without stacking penalties.

Since it is a civilian airfield, I would make it level 1 with potential 7. Thus you can develop it to level 10.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Lacking any published standard for airfield size, I have adopted a set of defined standards as follows:

1) The airfield build level is three less than the maximum allowed for a location;

2) For a single runway, the airfield size is the length of the runway in thousands of feet;

3) For multiple runways, the airfield size is the length of the longest runway in thousands of feet plus
one for each additional runway;

4) The length of the longest runway ever built for a location generally determines the potential size;

5) Because wide body developments funded runways not funded in the WW2 era, for extensively developed areas
the wartime maximum size is used instead of (4) above for such locations. This is a political restriction:
the political/economic will to build a bigger airfield did not exist although, theoretically, it could have.
If it did not exist at a major airfield under the pressure of war, I am limiting the size to what the wartime
funding did provide for.

The more important point is that stock data is unreliable for start of war airfields in particular, as well
as for potential builds. Major airfields built by both sides are entirely missing. For example, there are two
(one hex apart) in the Moluccas - one of which was vital to Japan until neutralized by bombing and too big to
be worth invading; the other was vital to the invasion of the Philippines. Neither location is on any map
I have seen except RHS. Airfield development, in PTO in general, was not great pre-war - so start of game
fields need to reflect what they really were. Potential builds have a bit more slop - but should never exceed
what is possible - and probably should have other limits as well.

I can guarantee your standard is not what the designers had in mind. Airfield size includes the shops, support, etc. that are inherent at built up bases. In many cases built up bases also had long, and/or multiple runways, so there is a loose correlation, but the base number is definitely not based on the size of the longest runways. Doing so will result in some bases being way larger than they should be.

It's your mod, you can do whatever you want with it. I'm just saying you're haring off into fiction with the above formula.

Bill

[JeffroK]

Cid,

Got your numbers right?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 402208.cms
6600 METRES,
according to the Times of India.

[JeffroK]

On further investigation I cant see that a 6600m runway was possible on the site, and most modern airports handling B747 etc are around 4-5000m.

Its probably 6600ft, and Times of India got it wrong.

[el cid again]

I am neither responsible for what designers had in mind, nor able to know the definitions
they used because they did not elect to publish them in the manual. To which add that one
needs to consider that, even if they had perfect standards, no one bothered to look up the
details for most locations. Vast numbers of important airfields are entirely missing from
the game, even in the 1945 scenario. And airfields of great development also are not
rated (see Muroc above in this thread). Some airfields are associated with aircraft companies,
both operating and manufacturing, and have maintenance capabilities very different from a mere
emergency landing strip - which I would indeed rate as a level 1. In general, in game terms,
in undeveloped operational areas, players are moving in virtually all the maintenance assets
by moving in base forces. Also, as a rule, many locations start with little or even zero
airfield and need to be built before they may be used. The point of this thread was to point out
that stock has VASTLY over-rated many airfields - not that it under rated them (although it did
some of that). If the longest runway in theater was 6,000 feet - and the longest in the world
was 7,000 feet - when the war began - we should not see a lot of level 10 airfields (except in
1945 scenarios). This makes for a better game - start with fewer and lesser developed airfields -
and then let players invest in both construction and moving in base forces to service them. Very
good simulation of how it was IRL.

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Lacking any published standard for airfield size, I have adopted a set of defined standards as follows:

1) The airfield build level is three less than the maximum allowed for a location;

2) For a single runway, the airfield size is the length of the runway in thousands of feet;

3) For multiple runways, the airfield size is the length of the longest runway in thousands of feet plus
one for each additional runway;

4) The length of the longest runway ever built for a location generally determines the potential size;

5) Because wide body developments funded runways not funded in the WW2 era, for extensively developed areas
the wartime maximum size is used instead of (4) above for such locations. This is a political restriction:
the political/economic will to build a bigger airfield did not exist although, theoretically, it could have.
If it did not exist at a major airfield under the pressure of war, I am limiting the size to what the wartime
funding did provide for.

The more important point is that stock data is unreliable for start of war airfields in particular, as well
as for potential builds. Major airfields built by both sides are entirely missing. For example, there are two
(one hex apart) in the Moluccas - one of which was vital to Japan until neutralized by bombing and too big to
be worth invading; the other was vital to the invasion of the Philippines. Neither location is on any map
I have seen except RHS. Airfield development, in PTO in general, was not great pre-war - so start of game
fields need to reflect what they really were. Potential builds have a bit more slop - but should never exceed
what is possible - and probably should have other limits as well.

I can guarantee your standard is not what the designers had in mind. Airfield size includes the shops, support, etc. that are inherent at built up bases. In many cases built up bases also had long, and/or multiple runways, so there is a loose correlation, but the base number is definitely not based on the size of the longest runways. Doing so will result in some bases being way larger than they should be.

It's your mod, you can do whatever you want with it. I'm just saying you're haring off into fiction with the above formula.

Bill

[m10bob]

Back in the days of stock WITP,(before the VAST improvements in AE), Winton Australia had an airfield of "0" IIRC, but IRL it was the HQ of Qantas airlines, with shops, ground facilities, and ground crew to flesh out the several civilian volunteer groups which went all over Northern Australia early in the war.

[BBfanboy]

No one seems to have mentioned it, but the primary restriction on the airfield after runway length is weight bearing capacity. I have heard of several instances where the engineers built a stronger runway to accommodate heavier aircraft landing but when they extended the tarmac to handle the larger aircraft they just laid some gravel and blacktopped it with asphalt (tarmac, in Britain). When aircraft were parked there on a hot day, they sank into the ground as the asphalt softened in the heat.
So airfield level in the game probably includes deeper gravel bases for the runways followed by PSP (perforated steel plate) followed by asphalt or concrete.
Building a long runway and clearing some trees for dispersal areas is not enough.