Rearm at ports and v-bases

[Banshee7]

Nope.

That's not near as big as the "nopes" you used to post 


Can someone explain to me why a rearm pad at a Vbase or Port even make sense?

-1

#S#



Josh

[Traveler]

That's not near as big as the "nopes" you used to post 


Can someone explain to me why a rearm pad at a Vbase or Port even make sense?

-1

#S#



Josh

I could see it at a Port if a landing strip was provided.  A port would already have the necessary aviation supplies to support a CV group.  So Aviation fule would be in storage tanks and the Ords necessary would be stockpiled.   I dont see the same for a Vehicle field.  Unless they plan to add a runway to a VH as well.  But I woulnd't allow aircraft to up from either a port or VH.  Only rearm.

[Hazard69]

Id rather have rearm pads at vbases and ports that only rearm vehicles. 

[matt]

If a storch can take off from a vbase with fuel and ammo what gives.................

[Karnak]

If a storch can take off from a vbase with fuel and ammo what gives.................

The Storch doesn't use the kind of fuel used in high performance combat aircraft.  It also doesn't use ammunition specialized for aircraft such as MG151/20 ammo, MK103 ammo, MK 108 ammo, Ho-5 ammo or Hispano ammo.

[SmokinLoon]

If a storch can take off from a vbase with fuel and ammo what gives.................

I see where you're going with that... but the Storch is a completely different situation than any other aircraft in AH.

The Storch was literally hauled around by truck and railroad.  It moved with the front lines, it ate, slept, was refueled, was repaired, etc, right along side the infantry.  It worked hand in hand with the infantry, it was *meant* to be there and hence them being right with the front lines.  Plus, we're talking about a piece of equipment with a very low key maintenance requirement. It didnt take special fuel, it didnt take special skills to maintain, and it didnt have specific guns and ammo unique to the Luftwaffe. 

[Tilt]

I see where you're going with that... but the Storch is a completely different situation than any other aircraft in AH.

The Storch was literally hauled around by truck and railroad.  It moved with the front lines, it ate, slept, was refueled, was repaired, etc, right along side the infantry.  It worked hand in hand with the infantry, it was *meant* to be there and hence them being right with the front lines.  Plus, we're talking about a piece of equipment with a very low key maintenance requirement. It didnt take special fuel, it didnt take special skills to maintain, and it didnt have specific guns and ammo unique to the Luftwaffe. 

Agreed the Storch is an infantry weapon................and was fueld and equipped from infantry logistics............ like comparing some modern day infantry based helicoptor support logistics to the needs of advances strike/ interceptor ac.

But the concept of airfields "moving" with the front line was very common on the eastern front.........particularly VVS air fields housing such as Il2m3 /yak/ Lavochkin type air craft. The Luftwaffe was also foced to do this during the collapse of Stalingrad and latterly during Manstiens "moving pocket" retreat........... not as many as the VVS but by then they (the LW) were (in numbers) some what the lesser.  Both sides did this during Kursk to reduce the time between airfield and battle zone. There are several recorded instances of "temporary airfields" set up by no more than several Ju52's landing fuel and cannon ordinance along side a suitable strip of land.

Even the RAF did this in Normandy during the battle for Caen (or shortly after).

So whilst this is not a permanent re arm pad it is fuel and ammo "ac supplies" delivered from an airfield such that a landed and stationary plane can be rearmed (bullets and rockets), refueled and returned rapidly to the front.

[Bruv119]

In the current format I would say no because it sounds like a score derived wish to enable bomb tarding of GV attacks.

[Nutzoid]

NO NO NO NO.

Vehicle bases are land based, call them "army".  Air fields are geared more for aircraft, call them air force.  The army is not going to have the specialized fuel, mechanics, armorers, etc, especially on the front lines.  Air fields can and did have security details from the army protecting it.  There are no run ways for a P51D to land at a v-base.

This request is %100 a gamey luxury request and I %100 vote no.  Leave some of the simulation in the game and manage your fuel and ammo.        

Ever hear of the USAAF?

Nutz

[waystin2]

In the current format I would say no because it sounds like a score derived wish to enable bomb tarding of GV attacks.

No problem with bombing GV's.  Folks just need to hump them in from the carrier or closest airfield.  Based on the OP though, you are probably right on this one Bruv.

[SmokinLoon]

Id rather have rearm pads at vbases and ports that only rearm vehicles. 

that is what ground vehicle supplies are for.  Aircraft do not have that option.   

[SmokinLoon]

Ever hear of the USAAF?

Nutz

of course, you silly goof!  I'll well aware of the WWII (and prior) US Army/USAAF command structure, supply, and their interwoven dependance.    

However, please do not assume that just because the two branches were under the same command that each unit within each branch had standardized parts, fuel, guns, uniforms, comms systems, tires, mechanics, training, or even secret handshake.  We're still talking about two very different entities.

[BaldEagl]

... it sounds like a score derived wish to enable bomb tarding of GV attacks.

Precisely

-1

[Nutzoid]

of course, you silly goof!  I'll well aware of the WWII (and prior) US Army/USAAF command structure, supply, and their interwoven dependence.    

However, please do not assume that just because the two branches were under the same command that each unit within each branch had standardized parts, fuel, guns, uniforms, comms systems, tires, mechanics, training, or even secret handshake.  We're still talking about two very different entities.

You might want to revisit your history books. Of course each "entity' had different missions, but rest assured, it was all ARMY. The Air Corps didn't become a separate branch (US AirForce) until 1947.

I assume nothing. Having been in the US Army I'm fully aware of the difference between MOS's and what each require as far as accomplishing their respective missions. You're statement makes it sound as if there was the Army and then there was the Air Force. I'm mearly pointing out that it was all US Army.
I do agree however that the Air Corp was decidedly unique in it's mission, just as in to days Army, the Airborne and say Armor branches are very different, they are still very much Army. "You silly goof"  

[SmokinLoon]

You might want to revisit your history books. Of course each "entity' had different missions, but rest assured, it was all ARMY. The Air Corps didn't become a separate branch (US AirForce) until 1947.

I assume nothing. Having been in the US Army I'm fully aware of the difference between MOS's and what each require as far as accomplishing their respective missions. You're statement makes it sound as if there was the Army and then there was the Air Force. I'm mearly pointing out that it was all US Army.
I do agree however that the Air Corp was decidedly unique in it's mission, just as in to days Army, the Airborne and say Armor branches are very different, they are still very much Army. "You silly goof"  

You can put your purse away, no need to swing.  We're on the same page.  Everything you've mentioned I was/am already well aware of.