Transporting Air Units via Sea

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
Tophat
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 5:07 am
Location: Cleveland,Ohio

Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by Tophat »

Ok,
Is anyone having a problem with this? I tried placing some P-39's on AK's and then AP's for transport to Oz............couldn't do it.To tired to play around more with it tonight,just wondering if this has croppedup with anyone else.
Situation.........its the Big campaign,December 12th and a Pbem game at that.The p-39 ftr group has been broken down into squadrons.Same problem is going to cropup with sending B25's and A-20's over the big blue.Well atleast my B17's can Ferry over.
Drongo
Posts: 1391
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Melb. Oztralia

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by Drongo »

You can load a/c onto AK's but not AP's.

The problem sounds like the P-39s belong to a restricted HQ. Is their HQ West Coast? If so, you'll have to change it to something like SW Pacific.
Have no fear,
drink more beer.
User avatar
captskillet
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:21 pm
Location: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by captskillet »

That p-39 group is restricted to West Coast you must reassign them and pay the PP cost
"Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

Image
Tophat
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 5:07 am
Location: Cleveland,Ohio

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by Tophat »

You are 100% correct about them being in a restricted HQ,thought I had changed them to SW Pacific.......
User avatar
siRkid
Posts: 4177
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Orland FL

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by siRkid »

Nice to know it works as designed.[:D]
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

Image
User avatar
vonmoltke
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:38 pm
Location: Bloomfield, NJ
Contact:

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by vonmoltke »

Quick question on this subject: when transporting crated aircraft, will the damaged aircraft in a group also be loaded?
This space reserved for future expansion
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by Mr.Frag »

Quick question on this subject: when transporting crated aircraft, will the damaged aircraft in a group also be loaded?

The entire group loads as 1 entity.
User avatar
PeteG662
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:01 pm

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by PeteG662 »

and the entire group will be deposited at the destination in a repair only state......
Salient
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 10:14 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by Salient »

Sorry for digging this one up...

I'm transporting a bomber group from Brisbane to Noumea using only 1 AK. This seems a bit odd to me, lots of big planes on one ship, is this correct?

Thanks.
It's better to follow your intuition than a truck, except in Belgium while wanna go to England
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by mogami »

Hi, You cannot load restricted airgroups onto an AK but you can load them on CV.
The CV (It can be a CVL or CVE) has to be in the same hex and in a TF.
You can even overload the CV since it is not going to be doing flight ops while at sea.
Then you unload into a new base hex.

Carrier capable groups can load and fly from CV even if they belong to restricted HQ.

Early in war when I am afraid of Japanese I use CV as ferrys so my groups arrive PH undamaged.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
2ndACR
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:32 am
Location: Irving,Tx

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by 2ndACR »

I would divide the unit into 3 parts and put them on 3 different ships.

Nothing sucks more than to have that single ship eat a few torpedos and sink taking all those planes down with it.
Salient
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 10:14 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by Salient »

Thanks for the answers guys! [:)]

Good tip about dividing them, now if I only could remember to give the Transport an escort before they are halfway their destination [:D]
It's better to follow your intuition than a truck, except in Belgium while wanna go to England
User avatar
eMonticello
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:35 am

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by eMonticello »

Here's a mini-"Name This". Hint, it is NOT an AK and it also could carry PT-Boats to the theater of operations. After enough guesses, I'll post a "wider" shot.

Also, Mogami has a good suggestion ... you should consider using aircraft carriers to transport them to the front as well. Historically, I believe CVs were limited to ferrying MAGs, while CVEs would ferry both Army FGs as well as MAGs. Historically, heavy bombers would ferry to the front on their own.
ORIGINAL: Drongo
You can load a/c onto AK's but not AP's.

Image
Attachments
skeletondeck.gif
skeletondeck.gif (12.76 KiB) Viewed 592 times

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson
bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by bradfordkay »

My guess... an LST?
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
eMonticello
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:35 am

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by eMonticello »

The P-47 is about 36 ft long and, based on the photo, this stowage configuration requires a ship with a beam of 50-60 ft. The P-47 wingspan is 40 ft, although the photo suggests that the P-47 is occupying about 25ft. Eight P-47s would require at least 170-200 ft of deck space. An LST has a beam of 50 ft (tight fit, but doable) and a length of 328 ft. However, only about 120-150 ft is truly usable topside. So... close, but it would require a ship that is at least 400-500 ft long.

Image
Attachments
encyclopedia-LST.jpg
encyclopedia-LST.jpg (32.01 KiB) Viewed 591 times

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson
User avatar
eMonticello
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:35 am

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by eMonticello »

Because of the high demand for AKs in 1943, the Navy improvised by introducing skeleton decks for the most common of tankers, the T-2. The decks were built 9ft above the ship's deck to protect the cargo from the sea. After the war, these ships became the first-generation of container ships.

Image
Attachments
t2tanker.jpg
t2tanker.jpg (28.02 KiB) Viewed 591 times

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson
User avatar
tsimmonds
Posts: 5490
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: astride Mason and Dixon's Line

RE: Transporting Air Units via Sea

Post by tsimmonds »

Kewl!
Fear the kitten!
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”