Transfer to SE Asia and other ????

[buzzz123]

I read somewhere that units (air and LCU?) in West Coast will somehow 'teleport' to SE Asia if transferred to SE Asia command. Is this true? And if so, how long does it take?

Also, does staggering bomber altitudes make any difference against CAP (not talking about bombing accuracy or effectiveness - just v CAP)? ie. are 100 B25s at 15,000 likely to suffer same losses as 20 at 8,000, 20 at 12,000, 20 at 14,000, 20 at 16,000, 20 at 20,000???

[wdolson]

As to the first question:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1073575&mpage=1&key=west%2Ccoast%2Cteleport&#1073649

I'm not sure about the second one.

[buzzz123]

Thanks for response.
It sounds reasonable for units i change to SE Asia command .But what about units that start in West Coast ports already assigned to SE Asia. Will they ever 'teleport'? They certainly have not disappeared from the bases they started in.

[wdolson]

I believe the only units that start the in the US assigned to SE Asia are air units.  They don't get automatically transferred.  I don't recall seeing any land units in the US with a SE Asia headquarters.

Bill

[buzzz123]

so it only works for land units?
 
To be honest i wouldnt want to waste the 60 days to 'teleport' air units anyway. i can fly them through Nth Pac and China in 3!!
 
Thanks for your help.
 
Any advice on the other question (re. CAP)?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: buzzz123

so it only works for land units?

To be honest i wouldnt want to waste the 60 days to 'teleport' air units anyway. i can fly them through Nth Pac and China in 3!!

Thanks for your help.

Any advice on the other question (re. CAP)?

I don't think most aircraft had the legs to do this.[;)]

[buzzz123]

Can always count on a cheerful response from you to brighten our day Ron!!
 
I was thinking bombers i guess. Fly Anchorage - somewhere in Russia/China - on to Sth East Asia.
 
Obviously would take longer for short range birds.
 
 

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: buzzz123
Also, does staggering bomber altitudes make any difference against CAP (not talking about bombing accuracy or effectiveness - just v CAP)? ie. are 100 B25s at 15,000 likely to suffer same losses as 20 at 8,000, 20 at 12,000, 20 at 14,000, 20 at 16,000, 20 at 20,000???

I don't know about the game mechanics, but historically bombers tried not to spilt up. They wanted to fly in as tight a formation as possible to consolidate their derensive fire.

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: buzzz123
Also, does staggering bomber altitudes make any difference against CAP (not talking about bombing accuracy or effectiveness - just v CAP)? ie. are 100 B25s at 15,000 likely to suffer same losses as 20 at 8,000, 20 at 12,000, 20 at 14,000, 20 at 16,000, 20 at 20,000???

I don't know about the game mechanics, but historically bombers tried not to spilt up. They wanted to fly in as tight a formation as possible to consolidate their derensive fire.

So far I have never been sure that any game by Gary G is taking in account formation fire....

[Dino]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: buzzz123

so it only works for land units?

To be honest i wouldnt want to waste the 60 days to 'teleport' air units anyway. i can fly them through Nth Pac and China in 3!!

Thanks for your help.

Any advice on the other question (re. CAP)?

I don't think most aircraft had the legs to do this.[;)]

Actually, most (if not all) AC groups assigned to SEAC can take this route...including P40B's.

As for the other question, I guess it would depend on CAP settings...also, higher bombers altitude should mean that smaller number of CAP fighters will engage since only a fragment is actually in the air and the rest need to climb up to join the fight.

[goodboyladdie]

Isn't use of that route a bit gamey if you use a Soviet base before they are at war with Japan? If you were in deep s**t and had lost the Pacific convoy routes, I am sure it can be argued that Uncle Joe could have been persauded to help out (keeping his allies in the war was important after all), but otherwise I do not think it would have been able to happen...

[Nikademus]

Its "gamey" in that the USSR was very touchy about it's neutrality with the Japanese (for the time being) They would not have allowed it.

[rokohn]

IIFC one of the Doolittle B25s had to fly to Russia because of fuel concerns.  The crew and craft were interned.  It took quite a while for the crew to get back to the the states, the plane was never returned.  It would be quite gamey to transfer through Russia.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: rokohn

IIFC one of the Doolittle B25s had to fly to Russia because of fuel concerns. The crew and craft were interned. It took quite a while for the crew to get back to the the states, the plane was never returned. It would be quite gamey to transfer through Russia.

Though in the real world Nome was a major base with a significant number of US made aircraft getting ferried to the USSR for their fight with Hitler.

I do agree that the USSR would never had allowed aircraft destined for the war against Japan to pass through their territory. Stalin did not want a two front war.

Bill

[Dino]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I don't think most aircraft had the legs to do this.[;)]

My apolgies for missing the tense...

[Drex]

I agree that it would be gamey to travel through a neutral Russia. but if Japan attacked Russia, would they have let us through then? I have a game where Russia is in the war and now I am fighting US plane formations. could this be construed as Lend-lease squadrons? I know russia would never allow US troops on their soil.

[pauk]

there is nothing wrong with using US planes if Japan attacked Russia.

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: pauk

there is nothing wrong with using US planes if Japan attacked Russia.

Agreed. In 1941, RAF aircraft were based in USSR (in Murmansk area) and Royal Navy ships were also used from Soviet ports during all the war. Also a French air unit served in USSR from 1943 to 1945. And the shuttle raids saw hundred of US heavy bombers land in Soviet airfields, and operate from there.

[buzzz123]

Agreed. In 1941, RAF aircraft were based in USSR (in Murmansk area) and Royal Navy ships were also used from Soviet ports during all the war. Also a French air unit served in USSR from 1943 to 1945. And the shuttle raids saw hundred of US heavy bombers land in Soviet airfields, and operate from there.

Big Joe had no problem with western allies using Russian bases v Germany but was much more sensitive v Japan. I would say it is gamey to use Russian bases for transfers before Russia joins war, but no problem after.

My BIGGER issue with transfers is the fact that a unit can fly, transfer, and fly again next day. This is ok if it is a fighter unit transferring from Cairns to POM or something. But what about a B29 unit - starts the day in Anchorage and flies a port strike against Kiska (lets say 10-15 hours round trip??), it then transfers to Darwin (lets say 30-40 hours flying time??!!), and then next morning flies against Soerbaja (another 10-15 hour round trip). Next day the squadron can transfer back to Anchorage, and the game goes on. WHAT THE.......

Or a Betty - starts in Rangoon, flies 2 anti shipping strikes one day, then transfers to Tarawa, and next morning flies 2 more anti shipping strikes. Only about 80 hours flying time in those 2 days.

Talk about teleporting units!!