Air Transport Operational Losses

[Yaab]

The base has 0 troops and no LI/HI industry, which can generate the supplies. Also, the base is not adjacent to a land hex.

At start, Ulleungdo had 170 supplies. The stocks jumped to 205 supplies after the air transport mission had delivered the goodies.

[LoBaron]

I have a theory but it is just that - a theory. Michael fixed the problem of TR landing @ an airfield with more than 50% rwy damage so that they do not suffer op losses (because they 'drop the supplies now' but did not - or was not able to - change the messaging, and maybe also not the impact on mission max range.

But as I pointed out, this is only a theory supported by the little empirical data I see. Only Michael can confirm if this is correct or not.

[Yaab]

Since those missions do not show up during AIR TRANSPORT PHASE, can they still be intercepted by enemy fighters over the receiving base?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Since those missions do not show up during AIR TRANSPORT PHASE, can they still be intercepted by enemy fighters over the receiving base?

Combined with Barb's posts in the tech forum about things suddenly not showing up on the air combat screens and reports, it appears that this is a recent bug that suppresses the usual display but everything else take's place as if you could see it - so I am guessing yes, fighter intercepts should still occur.

[atkaparking]

A while back, a poster related an actual air transfer incident, wherein 36 US fighter planes flew from Noumea or points thereabouts, to Lunga(?) The post articulated the fate of each individual plane; only a handful of pilots and even fewer planes survived. If someone has the link or post, I promise to print it out this time and never complain about loss rates again.

I, for one, would welcome historical loss rates. It rewards planning and makes players really want to evaluate the risk versus the severity of emergency before assigning long-range missions and transfers. Ship transfer of air units takes on new importance, as well as the attendant ASW/sub ops to target these ships.

[Yaab]

Do you mean this unlucky event?

(from Jim Sullivan, Corsair in Action (Squadron/Signal, 1977), page 14; a more detailed account is in Barrett Tillman’s Corsair)

“On January 25, 1944, after successfully launching all 24 of its Corsairs from the USS Kalinin Bay the day before, VMF-422 landed at Hawkins Field on Tarawa Atoll. On the morning of January 25, 23 of the 24 planes departed for the 700-mile trip to Funafuti, with a stop-over planned for Nanomea, a distance of 463 miles from Tarawa.

“The squadron lifted off at 0930 in fair weather. The flight was uneventful for a little over two hours until just 15 minutes out of Nanomea, [when] rain squalls covered them up. Dropping down to 200 feet, Maj. MacLaughlin, the C.O., passed the word for the flight to stay on him. Several sharp turns in the soup resulted in everyone being lost. Nevertheless, all but 3 pilots were able to stay together for a while longer.

"Of these three pilots who got separated form the others, one flew on all the way to Funafuti non-stop and landed safely there with 80 gallons of fuel left. One was never heard form again and the third managed to land on Niutao Island, where he was found by friendly natives.

“The remaining 20 pilots and planes continued on coming into the clear over Nui Island, about halfway between Nanomea and Funafuti. Two more dropped out in the water with one surviving. Now there were 18. After hitting another squall, two more were lost, including MacLaughlin. Now there were 16. Shortly, it became 15, as more more went in.

“Running short of fuel, it was decided that they would all ditch together while they could. Before they got into the water, two more strayed off from the others, leaving 13 that ditched together. After two days in the water, a PBY spotted them but was damaged in the water landing, and the whole lot had to be picked up by the USS Hobby.

“The cost in human life was enormous: 6 pilots lost their lives and of the 23 F4Us that left Hawkins field, 22 of them were destroyed.”

[jmalter]

ORIGINAL: atkaparking
I, for one, would welcome historical loss rates.

I tend to agree w/ you, the game does not model historic training/ops loss rates. But my attitude falls into the "be careful what you wish for" category.

If historical loss rates were introduced to the game, it'd become unplayable. Airframe & pilot losses in groups assigned to Training would be unsustainable - add in historic ops-loss rates to front-line airgroups & the WitP:AE air-war grinds to a halt.

[Yaab]

Well, it could be made as an option on the options screen - Realistic Training Losses.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: jmalter

ORIGINAL: atkaparking
I, for one, would welcome historical loss rates.

I tend to agree w/ you, the game does not model historic training/ops loss rates. But my attitude falls into the "be careful what you wish for" category.

If historical loss rates were introduced to the game, it'd become unplayable. Airframe & pilot losses in groups assigned to Training would be unsustainable - add in historic ops-loss rates to front-line airgroups & the WitP:AE air-war grinds to a halt.

Well, on the IJ side it is modeled by the HI cost every month for pilots in training ... it basically costs ~2 aircraft per pilot to get them trained. [;)]

[Panther Bait]

Realistic ops losses would force players to put a hold on overly high sortie rates for a lot of their equipment, especially 2- and 4-engine bombers. No more daily bombing raids in China by the entire IJAAF bomber force, and the same thing for the US/UK bombers.

Training ops losses could be somewhat mitigated by adding actual training aircraft, like the AT-6, to the OOB, or by drastically reducing ops losses at huge bases (e.g., level 9 air fields) as a fix to excessive losses in training squadrons.

Mike