DaBigBabes A: Valentine III tanks

[Yaab]

It seems DaBigBabes changed the load cost of Valentine III tanks. In stock, the cost was 13, now it is 9. Manual p. 152 says "Devices up to a load cost of 9 may be moved by air between two bases."

Does that mean Valentine III is airlifatble? English is not may native langauge and "up to a load cost of 9" is confusing to me. Does it say 8 or 9 is the threshold? If 9 is the threshold, does that mean Valentines were transported by air in WWII?

[DuckofTindalos]

They most assuredly were not. This sounds like a design oversight in the scenario.

The Valentine weighed 16 tons. The Allied air-transportable "tanks" like the Tetrarch weighed less than half.

[Symon]

Yes, it was a typo. I know that liddle kiddles will game this unmercifully.

But don't. Play right, play righteous.

[Yaab]

You read my mind. I was planning to air-transport Valentine-equipped units from Ledo to Tsuyung after the fall of Burma.

By the way, Stuart tanks (devices 1080,1081, 1176 and 1177) are also elligible for air travel. Their load cost is 9.

[PaxMondo]

I suspect the LC was set based upon the cannon size, and they overlooked the fact setting it low would enable air lift. Completely unintended. As John notes, have to remember to play those correctly.

[Yaab]

Can I amend it via the Editor? Should I put the original stock values for Valentines/Stuarts or just change them from 9 to 10? Any downsides of that?

[dwg]

Increasing load cost will affect shipping costs, but just nudging them up to 10 shouldn't be too large a change. Alternatively just leave them as they are and just don't use the ability to transport them by air.

The only Allied air-transportable tanks were the M-22 Locust and the Tetrarch, both could be carried by the British Hamilcar glider, while the US could only transport the Locust by carrying the turret inside a C-54 and the hull underneath the fuselage - obviously this wasn't a practical way to transport them into combat. Use of both was very limited. The UK formed 3 independent Tetrarch squadrons - A, B and C Special Services Squadrons, initially for amphibious use, used C Sqn for the amphibious landings in Madagascar, after which it remained in-theatre for a while before being withdrawn to the UK, where subsequently it was used to form an armoured squadron for 6th Airborne Division which landed at D-Day, and which then was expanded to form an armoured regiment that took part in the Rhine Crossing. The Tetrarchs were replaced by Locusts before the Rhine operation, but then that decision was reversed and ultimately a mixture of Locusts, close-support Tetrarchs and Tetrarchs with the 2-Pdr fitted with the Littlejohn squeezebore adaptor were used. US usage was even more limited, with 1 company and 1 battalion formed on Locust and never deployed operationally.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Can I amend it via the Editor? Should I put the original stock values for Valentines/Stuarts or just change them from 9 to 10? Any downsides of that?

Yes, you can, but why? As T says the Valentine was 16 tons, the Stuart was 13, etc ... Load cost is a function of weight, but also a function of form factor. Small tanks may have a LC less than a longer, wider, taller, tank with the same weight. The Valentine number could be part of the form factor algorithm.

The whole thing is for ship transport calculations.

Just don't go carting tanks around with airplanes.