Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Rider on August 05, 2009, 08:42:36 AM
-
I would like to see different type v-bases just like we do air fields. A large v-base could have a dirt strip with a rearm pad. You could also make the rearm facility a target to take away that capability.
I noticed alot of good fites last night but they all seemed to be a long way from any air field but close to a v-base. It would have been nice to have been able to rearm at a v-base to get back into the fite. I wouldn't enable aircraft at v-bases just rearm pads.
Scenerio: five minutes of flying - run into buff - 30 seconds of firing - five more minutes of flying to rtb. Result: ten minutes of flying for not much of a real fite.
I realize 5 minutes isn't a long time but it's like 5 minutes of watching water boil.
Flame away,
Rider
-
I say yes to it all it can do is help.
-
Seems to gravitate far to close towards the "Quake" type mentality....
-
I do think this is well thought out. The larger V-base would be the only one with the re-arm pad. In order to kill the rearm facility, you would have to kill a specific hanger, all of the fuel bunkers and ord bunkers (you could even add some, if it is to be larger than the current one we have). Add more acks to the large V-base as well.
The medium V-base could stay the same as it is now.
the small V-base could have 2 ammo bunkers, 2 VH's, 1 ack and 2 manned acks.
-
Like this? The background grass looks weird because I cant change it until the new TE comes out, but its a custom vbase that I'm putting on one of my maps.
(http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/24/1013733/sgvbase091.jpg)
-
Currently, the ord bunkers on the V-bases serve no function. It would finally give them meaning if you made it kill ord bunkers=kill rearm capability.
-
Currently, the ord bunkers on the V-bases serve no function.
They do if you're trying to kill a CV attacking the base with a PT boat, or attacking with a 251 with rockets.
-
Currently, the ord bunkers on the V-bases serve no function. It would finally give them meaning if you made it kill ord bunkers=kill rearm capability.
It effects torpedoes and rockets on PT boats.....it has some but not a lot of function.
-
Currently, the ord bunkers on the V-bases serve no function. It would finally give them meaning if you made it kill ord bunkers=kill rearm capability.
Try to put out supplies when the ord bunkers are destroyed. :furious
-
Try to put out supplies when the ord bunkers are destroyed. :furious
Don't you mean barracks?
-
yea i think this is a real good idea! :aok
-
So basically we want small Air bases with extra VHs and no town....? What exactly is the point?
I definitely do not want the zerglings having shorter hops with less weight, you also have to consider the mass NOE hordling mishuns coming from these forward bases.
You have to consider -flight- time when playing a -flight- game. The consideration of time and distance and the vulnerabilities while you're traveling are inherent parts of air combat.
Want to spend less time flying to the target? Stay alive longer when you get there.
Want big Vehicle bases with air strips? Don't give them bombs and re-arm pads.
-
It effects torpedoes and rockets on PT boats.....it has some but not a lot of function.
Oops, forgot about PT boats.
-
So basically we want small Air bases with extra VHs and no town....? What exactly is the point?
I definitely do not want the zerglings having shorter hops with less weight, you also have to consider the mass NOE hordling mishuns coming from these forward bases.
You have to consider -flight- time when playing a -flight- game. The consideration of time and distance and the vulnerabilities while you're traveling are inherent parts of air combat.
Want to spend less time flying to the target? Stay alive longer when you get there.
Want big Vehicle bases with air strips? Don't give them bombs and re-arm pads.
His idea and my follow up had nothign to do with spawnable Fighters and bombers.
-
Good Idea
-
Good idea :salute
-
So basically we want small Air bases with extra VHs and no town....? What exactly is the point?
I definitely do not want the zerglings having shorter hops with less weight, you also have to consider the mass NOE hordling mishuns coming from these forward bases.
You have to consider -flight- time when playing a -flight- game. The consideration of time and distance and the vulnerabilities while you're traveling are inherent parts of air combat.
Want to spend less time flying to the target? Stay alive longer when you get there.
Want big Vehicle bases with air strips? Don't give them bombs and re-arm pads.
If you read his post he stated that the fighters would not be enabled.
-
new and or different is good! +1
-
So basically we want small Air bases with extra VHs and no town....? What exactly is the point?
I definitely do not want the zerglings having shorter hops with less weight, you also have to consider the mass NOE hordling mishuns coming from these forward bases.
You have to consider -flight- time when playing a -flight- game. The consideration of time and distance and the vulnerabilities while you're traveling are inherent parts of air combat.
Want to spend less time flying to the target? Stay alive longer when you get there.
Want big Vehicle bases with air strips? Don't give them bombs and re-arm pads.
Read the post before you flame. It's not a small air base, I said don't have planes available, just a rearm pad. I also didn't say anything about dieing, I was talking about returning to base for fuel and ammo.
As I said in my post (if you read it) you would still have to launch from the rear field, the large v-base would simply be a rearm point.
If you're going to flame at least try to come across as somewhat inteligent and read the post so you have your facts straight.
Rider
-
Having re-read your post, taking into consideration every sentence I may have missed the first read through, I still can't see it helping anything. You don't want re-arm pads any closer to areas that are designed to instigate GV combat, it would ruin more fun than it would ever breed and make it overall worse on the tank guys. Nor would it be good to have shortcuts to bombs between bases, there is a reason you have to travel for them.
No where in my first post did I include any insult, subtle or otherwise. But now I will.
For your own sake, and everyone involved, get your e-feelings off your e-shoulder before someone breaks them with their mean forum text. It would also be prudent to use your spell checker before questioning another poster's intelligence.
-
Much better post. You read the post and based your opinion on what was said, kudos to you. OK, you got me, I dropped an "L" in intelLigent. Kudos to you again.
Now to the point. My idea was to add a new aspect to the game to change things up a bit and IMO enhance game play at the same time. This game tries to balance realism with entertainment. IMO my suggestion helps with that balance. FOLs were real in WWII. There were muster points in WWII. Your post stated that you had to take into consideration flight times. Flight times in WWII were usually hours for one sortie which may or may not have resulted in actual combat. If this game reflected that the player base would be about 4 I would imagine.
Situations and tactics evolved during WWII. I think the same should be true for AH.
To answer your "Want to spend less time flying to the target? Stay alive longer when you get there." I say, don't want someone utilizing a FOL rearm point,? Kill them before they get there. Or take out the rearm point for that matter. My original post mentions that capability.
As far as e-feelings go, trust me, you couldn't hurt my feelings.
Rider
Edited to correct a couple of spelling errors, don't want to get dinged for that again.
-
Well I love the idea. Speaking from a personal point of view. Im a tank hunter so the more tanks put into the sights of my IL2 the better.
As it stands I pretty much leave VH bases alone. Most of all VH base vs VH base armor fights. Thats out of consideration for the tank drivers. That and I very rarely carry ords anymore cause I dont like what they do to the flight/dive characteristics of IL2s.
All that would change if we put these kinda bases in the middle of tank country. Just allowing re'arming might balance the scales. Might! its a much better idea then allowing active fighter and bomber hangars. Lets add to it by adding the rule no heavy 4 engined bombers can use the re'arm pads.
Actually most GV base vs GV base fights have some kind of CAP fighter presence anyways. Many have a lot of fighter activity and the presence of enemy fighters already puts a crimp in anti-Tank air operations consisting of slow IL2s and heavily loaded Jabos and attack planes.
One of these in a sector might not be a bad idea.
-
Flight times in WWII were usually hours for one sortie which may or may not have resulted in actual combat. If this game reflected that the player base would be about 4 I would imagine.
Exactly. Our flights are usually less than 25 minutes to target, and that's with a pretty substantial climb out. Not taking into account the incredibly short hops from our CVs that pull into land. Your 5 hour flight is scaled down to 20 minutes and has a promise of combat, it doesn't need to be less.
Most bases are attacked with an advantage in numbers. The attackers -always- have the overall energy advantage as most defenders will just be upping. It would be practically impossible to run down every P47 that runs to the re arm pad. GVs would be threatened even more, and it would probably ruin all our GV valleys that try to limit air activity. It would be a pain to have the same A20 dropping the same eight bombs on me every 8 minutes, and I don't even tank.
It's not hard at all to stretch fuel and ammo in this game, and taking out the entire capability of a small air base can be done with only six planes. Shorter hops to re arm wouldn't be fun.
OK, you got me, I dropped an "L" in intelLigent. Kudos to you again.
I was referring to dieing.
-
I like the idea of 2 sizes for vBases....... Add a small strip where "light" fighter can land, rearm and take off......... AWESOME.
That 2nd thing about 5 minutes here 5 minutes back......................... ...... Now you're just sounding a little lazy and it takes away from the fruitful thoughts at the beginning of your post.
-
I agree that the large v-base should only be able to be utilized by fighters. Afterall a small strip something like I described would not have been used by larger bombers in WWII. To prevent it from being abused and used for heavy bombers just make the strip very short and put obstructions such as small mounds or trees that would make it impossible for a bomber to get off the ground. Or maybe it could be written into the code that only fighter/attack aircraft could utilize the rearm pad.
Truth be told I think most people are going to die in the fight and have to launch from an airfield anyway. I don't believe you would have "hordes" coming from the v-base, you wouldn't be able to spawn an aircraft there but only rearm one.
Let's look at it from another point of view. Currently people use v-bases all the time to land their kills. Wouldn't that be more along the lines of ditching your plane? Afterall it's a ditch if you land 1k short of an airfield or even on the grass in the middle of an airfield for the matter. If you can "land" at a v-base how much of a stretch would it be to take on fuel and ammo and take off again?
To olskool2, ok more kudos to you for "dieing." However spell check wouldn't catch that as you suggested, "dieing" is an actual word, granted not the correct one for my usage
Rider
-
if we had the cub, or some kind of scout plane i would love to have it at a V base,unarmed looking for the enemy !
-
Stuka`s rearmed in the field often.
-
V-base with runway = airfield.
No aircraft enabled = no need for aircraft supplies/mechanics/armorers.
Did I miss anything?
wrongway
-
Like this? The background grass looks weird because I cant change it until the new TE comes out, but its a custom vbase that I'm putting on one of my maps.
(http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/24/1013733/sgvbase091.jpg)
That looks cool but do you need the FH and BH to enable them?
-
That looks cool but do you need the FH and BH to enable them?
No.
Let me try and explain this without screwing up.
If there are no FH/BHs on a gv base and the CM enables planes to fly from there then there will be no way to stop planes from upping form that field. You could level that whole base and since there were no FH/BH there to kill the game thinks that they are still up making that base almost impossible to capture. I put that single FH and BH there so when someone wanted to take that base there was a way to 'disable' planes from upping. That's another reason why I put them so close together because seeing it is a GV base those planes that can up form there are a privilege and if you want to keep then there you need to defend it.
-
Fighters I can understand....but bombers from a supposed vehicle base? No!
-
The only 'bombers' that will be enabled on those fields are Ju87s, IL-2s, and maybe A20s. If I have any say about it anything with drones will only be enabled at airfields.
-
A v-base is a v-base, an airfield is an airfield, a port is a port. So I gotta give this one a...
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/waystin2/nope_logo2.gif)
-
A v-base is a v-base, an airfield is an airfield, a port is a port. So I gotta give this one a...
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/waystin2/nope_logo2.gif)
Then lets disable GVs from airfields and ports.
-
Then lets disable GVs from airfields and ports.
It's a nifty idea Larry. The design work you have done is quite cool. Unfortunately since I have gotten into my 40's, change drives me nuts. Vehicles have always been available at airfields and ports. Airplanes are usually only available at airfields, CV's and special ports as far as I can remember. May not be the best reasoning, but it is my opinion on the subject.
:salute
-
No.
Let me try and explain this without screwing up.
If there are no FH/BHs on a gv base and the CM enables planes to fly from there then there will be no way to stop planes from upping form that field. You could level that whole base and since there were no FH/BH there to kill the game thinks that they are still up making that base almost impossible to capture. I put that single FH and BH there so when someone wanted to take that base there was a way to 'disable' planes from upping. That's another reason why I put them so close together because seeing it is a GV base those planes that can up form there are a privilege and if you want to keep then there you need to defend it.
If it were used in the MA Skuzzy would probably disable fighters and bombers, anyway, right?
-
I doubt it would even be allowed in the MA.......if it was it would be a first.
-
Just to clear things up a bit as I think a couple people don't understand. I'm just speaking of a small air strip (not an air field) with a rearm pad. No planes enabled, you can't launch from said large v-base.
An air strip does not an air field make. As has already been mentioned, vehicles are available at air fields and ports. On some maps aircraft are available at some ports.
As I mentioned earlier, you can already land and end a fighter sortie at a v-base. It wouldn't be a stretch to take on fuel and ammo and take off again.
I wouldn't put that capability at every v-base, only select large v-bases. It would also add some strategic value to those type v-bases as well. I think it would promote some good ground wars.
Rider
-
Just to clear things up a bit as I think a couple people don't understand. I'm just speaking of a small air strip (not an air field) with a rearm pad. No planes enabled, you can't launch from said large v-base.
V-base with runway = airfield.
No aircraft enabled = no need for aircraft supplies/mechanics/armorers.
-
No.
Let me try and explain this without screwing up.
If there are no FH/BHs on a gv base and the CM enables planes to fly from there then there will be no way to stop planes from upping form that field. You could level that whole base and since there were no FH/BH there to kill the game thinks that they are still up making that base almost impossible to capture. I put that single FH and BH there so when someone wanted to take that base there was a way to 'disable' planes from upping. That's another reason why I put them so close together because seeing it is a GV base those planes that can up form there are a privilege and if you want to keep then there you need to defend it.
ah good point
-
Just to clear things up a bit as I think a couple people don't understand. I'm just speaking of a small air strip (not an air field) with a rearm pad. No planes enabled, you can't launch from said large v-base.
Quote from: AWwrgwy on August 06, 2009, 10:51:39 PM
V-base with runway = airfield.
No aircraft enabled = no need for aircraft supplies/mechanics/armorers.
V-bases already have the facilities to store fuel and ammo for vehicles, some of that could be used for aircraft.
Mechanic/armorers, I'm not talking about repairing aircraft. When was the last time your aircraft got repaired on a rearm pad? As someone who has done many ICTs on A-10 aircraft it's not a difficult process. I'm not a fuels or ammo specialist. My specialty was electronics in the backshop. I was taught how to put fuel on the A-10, how to check and add oil, and what to do and not do when loading munitions on an aircraft. Not that difficult and doesn't require specialists. V-bases obviously already have mechanics to fuel and load vehicles, they could easily be "trained" to do the same for aircraft.
If you put an air strip at a v-base it doesn't make it an airfield. I have a game on my business computer, that doesn't make it a gaming rig. I have a vegetable garden at my home, that doesn't make it a farm.
I lived in Europe for a number of years. Straight roads are rare there however you see a number of roads that were intentionally made long and straight for the purpose of being used as airstrips but they aren't lined with aircraft hangers, fuel depots, or ammo bunkers. Makeshift air strips and FOLs were a fact of life in WWII and they were routinely utilized. Isn't that part of the criteria for having something added to AH? Tactics and abilities should evolve in AH just as they did in WWII.
Too often folks here simply write something off simply because it doesn't suit their style of play. Realism apparently doesn't factor into it. "Well I don't like this and I wouldn't use it and it would make things harder for me so we shouldn't do it." Fact is it's not all about you (for the record "you" isn't referring to anybody specific). How about you adapt instead, it will only serve to make you better.
Rider
-
Good idea I like it. It would add more depth to the game but at the same time its not a huge change. Its not like everybody and their mother is gonna be upping from these fields, its just a convenient yet risky way to get back in the fight.
-
V-bases already have the facilities to store fuel and ammo for vehicles, some of that could be used for aircraft.
Mechanic/armorers, I'm not talking about repairing aircraft. When was the last time your aircraft got repaired on a rearm pad? As someone who has done many ICTs on A-10 aircraft it's not a difficult process. I'm not a fuels or ammo specialist. My specialty was electronics in the backshop. I was taught how to put fuel on the A-10, how to check and add oil, and what to do and not do when loading munitions on an aircraft. Not that difficult and doesn't require specialists. V-bases obviously already have mechanics to fuel and load vehicles, they could easily be "trained" to do the same for aircraft.
There are no mechanics/armorers at v-bases. The gv crews service their own vehicles using dropped vehicle supplies.
If you put an air strip at a v-base it doesn't make it an airfield. I have a game on my business computer, that doesn't make it a gaming rig. I have a vegetable garden at my home, that doesn't make it a farm.
Airstrip.... Intended for aircraft to land on. Do you sell your vegetables you grow?
I lived in Europe for a number of years. Straight roads are rare there however you see a number of roads that were intentionally made long and straight for the purpose of being used as airstrips but they aren't lined with aircraft hangers, fuel depots, or ammo bunkers. Makeshift air strips and FOLs were a fact of life in WWII and they were routinely utilized. Isn't that part of the criteria for having something added to AH? Tactics and abilities should evolve in AH just as they did in WWII.
Did I misunderstand? You do not intend aircraft to be refueled or rearmed from the airstrips you want on a Vehicle Base?
Historically, an aircraft that diverted to a field on the continent instead of returning to its home field sat there, often for days. The pilot often hitched a ride back home on a transport rather than wait.
I don't know if the field couldn't spare the time or resources to repair or rearm but certainly it wasn't going to take off and go back into combat at any rate.
Too often folks here simply write something off simply because it doesn't suit their style of play. Realism apparently doesn't factor into it. "Well I don't like this and I wouldn't use it and it would make things harder for me so we shouldn't do it." Fact is it's not all about you (for the record "you" isn't referring to anybody specific). How about you adapt instead, it will only serve to make you better.
Rider
Obviously if someone sees "issues" then they shouldn't say anything. I'm sticking with Airstrip = Airfield.
wrongway
-
There are no mechanics/armorers at v-bases. The gv crews service their own vehicles using dropped vehicle supplies.
Airstrip.... Intended for aircraft to land on. Do you sell your vegetables you grow?
Historically, an aircraft that diverted to a field on the continent instead of returning to its home field sat there, often for days. The pilot often hitched a ride back home on a transport rather than wait.
wrongway
To say there aren't mechanics/armorers at v-bases is just ludicrous. You obviously don't know anything about the military or military operations. Sure, a good crew can service their own rides and often did. Vehicle crews consist of specialists assigned to man a specific station and knew enough to perform basic maintenance. But there were "professionals" at the post that were dedicated to maintenance. Personally I think the way resupplying vehicles in AH is a bit unrealistic but that's the way it is. I mean one minute you're turreted and someone drops supplies and magically your tank is like new again. And you think it's a stretch to get fuel and ammo at a v-base.
No, I don't sell vegetables. According to your logic if I sell a tomato then I own a farm. OK, maybe you're on to something there. I won't be on AH today because I have a tomato to sell. Then I can claim my residence as a farm and qualify for all sorts of subsidies from Uncle Sam.
Military aircraft still divert to this day. Aircraft typically only divert if there is a problem. They only sit as long as it takes to get parts and mechanics to fix it. And that is only the case for places not equipped to handle a problem with that aircraft. Said V-bases would be equipped to handle a gas and go. If you need your flaps fixed, that aint gonna happen. If you need a new rudder, that aint gonna happen. Leaking oil, tough luck. If you need more than fuel and ammo then a large v-base isn't for you. Just as in a race, if your car needs more than gas and tires you might as well drive right by the pit and go straight to the garage cause it aint gonna happen in the pit.
I was in the AF for 21 years. We operate from FOLs all the time. Given a suitable airstrip you can probably setup an FOL. Let's think about this for a minute, what would you need to rearm? Fuel, a large v-base has fuel for vehicles. Is it a stretch to think they could have fuel for aircraft? Ammo, they store ammo for vehicles. Is it a stretch to think they could have ammo for aircraft? Someone to put the fuel and ammo on the aircraft. Is it a stretch to think the same guys that put fuel and ammo on vehicles could also be smart enough to do the same for vehicles with wings? I've participated in many ICTs and believe me, it isn't rocket science (pardon the pun).
A big factor to consider if a pilot can go back into combat is time. If a pilot launches from an airfield and flies four hours to his objective, spends and hour at his objective and another four hours to return to base he's going to be spent. If however, he can refuel and take on more ammo an hour away from the objective he can get back to the fight. For the sake of entertainment, hours consist of minutes in AH and we can fly dozens of sorties. But that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't try to simulate the real thing.
Airstrip = airfield. Some Wal-Marts have bays to change oil and tires. Do you think of Wal-Mart as a garage? I don't, I think of it as a department store that can do an oil change. If I need a new motor it aint gonna happen there, I'm going to take it to a garage. But hey, if you're right and I'm wrong I'm going to be a farmer.
Rider
-
I was in the AF for 21 years. We operate from FOLs all the time. Given a suitable airstrip you can probably setup an FOL. Let's think about this for a minute, what would you need to rearm? Fuel, a large v-base has fuel for vehicles. Is it a stretch to think they could have fuel for aircraft? Ammo, they store ammo for vehicles. Is it a stretch to think they could have ammo for aircraft? Someone to put the fuel and ammo on the aircraft. Is it a stretch to think the same guys that put fuel and ammo on vehicles could also be smart enough to do the same for vehicles with wings? I've participated in many ICTs and believe me, it isn't rocket science (pardon the pun).
I like the idea a lot, and could see it creating some serious action.
But in IMO it's best to just modify the standard V-base.
Add the landing strip with the re-arm pads at the ends. On each side of the strip have 1 fuel, and 1 ammo bunker (2 each) total, tied to the re-arms.
If the fuel sheds are porked you could still take ammo, and if the ammo bunkers are porked, you can still take fuel. If both are down, you're SOL.
Re-arming is limited to only fuel, and primary/secondary weapons, and not ordnance.
-
To say there aren't mechanics/armorers at v-bases is just ludicrous. You obviously don't know anything about the military or military operations. Sure, a good crew can service their own rides and often did. Vehicle crews consist of specialists assigned to man a specific station and knew enough to perform basic maintenance. But there were "professionals" at the post that were dedicated to maintenance. Personally I think the way resupplying vehicles in AH is a bit unrealistic but that's the way it is. I mean one minute you're turreted and someone drops supplies and magically your tank is like new again. And you think it's a stretch to get fuel and ammo at a v-base.
No, I don't sell vegetables. According to your logic if I sell a tomato then I own a farm. OK, maybe you're on to something there. I won't be on AH today because I have a tomato to sell. Then I can claim my residence as a farm and qualify for all sorts of subsidies from Uncle Sam.
Military aircraft still divert to this day. Aircraft typically only divert if there is a problem. They only sit as long as it takes to get parts and mechanics to fix it. And that is only the case for places not equipped to handle a problem with that aircraft. Said V-bases would be equipped to handle a gas and go. If you need your flaps fixed, that aint gonna happen. If you need a new rudder, that aint gonna happen. Leaking oil, tough luck. If you need more than fuel and ammo then a large v-base isn't for you. Just as in a race, if your car needs more than gas and tires you might as well drive right by the pit and go straight to the garage cause it aint gonna happen in the pit.
I was in the AF for 21 years. We operate from FOLs all the time. Given a suitable airstrip you can probably setup an FOL. Let's think about this for a minute, what would you need to rearm? Fuel, a large v-base has fuel for vehicles. Is it a stretch to think they could have fuel for aircraft? Ammo, they store ammo for vehicles. Is it a stretch to think they could have ammo for aircraft? Someone to put the fuel and ammo on the aircraft. Is it a stretch to think the same guys that put fuel and ammo on vehicles could also be smart enough to do the same for vehicles with wings? I've participated in many ICTs and believe me, it isn't rocket science (pardon the pun).
A big factor to consider if a pilot can go back into combat is time. If a pilot launches from an airfield and flies four hours to his objective, spends and hour at his objective and another four hours to return to base he's going to be spent. If however, he can refuel and take on more ammo an hour away from the objective he can get back to the fight. For the sake of entertainment, hours consist of minutes in AH and we can fly dozens of sorties. But that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't try to simulate the real thing.
Airstrip = airfield. Some Wal-Marts have bays to change oil and tires. Do you think of Wal-Mart as a garage? I don't, I think of it as a department store that can do an oil change. If I need a new motor it aint gonna happen there, I'm going to take it to a garage. But hey, if you're right and I'm wrong I'm going to be a farmer.
Rider
OK. So an A-10 is going to drop down and land next to the 1st Armored division, out of the blue (literally ;)) and said armored division will have on hand, out of standard procedure, the proper ammunition, bombs, rockets, and fuel to service the A-10?
Same A-10 finds a nice straight length of road and lands and out of the woods pops the armorers and fuelers to service the aircraft. How did they get there? Have they always been there? If the lands there, unannounced, next Tuesday will they still be there? Were they there two weeks ago?
I think you may get my point.
How many English based fighters or bombers took off from their home fields, fought in combat, then rearmed somewhere in France and went back to fight?
Basically, what you are asking for is an airfield with no town (and no aircraft.)
wrongway
-
A-10 runs on Sheep Gas and Squirrel Farts...
:noid
-
snip
What you said really isn't the same thing as back then.
Back then tanks and planes used gasoline. They might have had different octane levels but gas is gas. Pretty much the same thing for ammunition. For U.S. rides the main weapon was the M2 50cal. I would think you can take a belt from any old M4, M3, M8, jeep, etc. and put it into your plane. Same goes for german rides with the exception for maybe the 30mm but who knows. IIRC the M4 callope uses the same 5" rockets that most U.S planes use so they would be available. Bombs on the other hand are the only real problem.
-
Same goes for german rides with the exception for maybe the 30mm but who knows.
Not really. Only 7.92mm ammo was identical. Ground troops didn't use 13mm MG ammo (until very late in the war some MG131 were used in very limited numbers as impovised HMG's), the 20mm flak ammo was completely different from the much lighter MG FF & MG 151/20 rounds.
-
How many English based fighters or bombers took off from their home fields, fought in combat, then rearmed somewhere in France and went back to fight?
I believe that Spitfires(222 Squadron) were re fueled and re armed (by a servicing Commando Squadron) at forward fields in Normandy as early as June 10th 44 whilst still properly based in England.
I would welcome a GV field based spotter plane as a light weight STOL ac such as
Polikarpov U-2, Fieseler Fi 156 Storch or an Auster/Grasshopper/Cub varient. Just as an "airfield" carries one VH so a GV field could carry one FH with only such ac enabled.
-
Not really. Only 7.92mm ammo was identical. Ground troops didn't use 13mm MG ammo (until very late in the war some MG131 were used in very limited numbers as impovised HMG's), the 20mm flak ammo was completely different from the much lighter MG FF & MG 151/20 rounds.
IIRC there was some MGFF portable flack cannons.
-
IIRC there was some MGFF portable flack cannons.
Extremely rare improvised stop-gap measure, only used by Luftwaffe rear-are & airfield defense units. MGFF makes a horrible ack gun.
-
SDK-251s depend on v-Base ord bunkers.
-
Sounds like a good idea. It would look like a hasty dozer job and be really short, maybe with a tent for the Forward Area Rearm/refueling Point troops that made all of this possible (they have to live somewhere). In the Army a site like this is known as a FARP and can be co-located w/ an armored unit FARP or Forward Operating Base. In any case, it makes tactical sense to me.
-
I believe that Spitfires(222 Squadron) were re fueled and re armed (by a servicing Commando Squadron) at forward fields in Normandy as early as June 10th 44 whilst still properly based in England.
So they took off from home in England, flew around Continental Yurp shooting at stuff, landed in Normandy for fuel and ammo, took off and shot up more of Yurp, then RTB'd home to England, correct?
Or, .efluffied in Normandy, then, later returned to England?
wrongway