View Full Version : Transport Helo range
There is probably a very simple solution to this but I can't find it :mad:
I am working on a 10 km/hex scenario and the transport helos are supposed to have a range of 200 km. No matter what kind of helos I use (medium or heavy) the range is stuck to 12 or 13,which is low.
I changed proficiencies, supplies,of the unit, army and force to see if the movement range changes etc. to no avail. What am I missing. (I am sure the solution i's right in front of me i just can't see it)
Any help would be appreciated
There is probably a very simple solution to this but I can't find it :mad:
I am working on a 10 km/hex scenario and the transport helos are supposed to have a range of 200 km. No matter what kind of helos I use (medium or heavy) the range is stuck to 12 or 13,which is low.
I changed proficiencies, supplies,of the unit, army and force to see if the movement range changes etc. to no avail. What am I missing. (I am sure the solution i's right in front of me i just can't see it)
Any help would be appreciated
Are you part way through your turn?
There is probably a very simple solution to this but I can't find it :mad:
I am working on a 10 km/hex scenario and the transport helos are supposed to have a range of 200 km. No matter what kind of helos I use (medium or heavy) the range is stuck to 12 or 13,which is low.
I changed proficiencies, supplies,of the unit, army and force to see if the movement range changes etc. to no avail. What am I missing. (I am sure the solution i's right in front of me i just can't see it)
Any help would be appreciated
Are you referring to the movement range of the transport helo units? That is different than the transport range of the assets assigned to the unit. What you should do is actually try loading a unit on to some helos and seeing how far it can actually move.
Are you part way through your turn?
I understood him to be designing a scenario, not playing one, since he said he's "working on a 10 km/hex scenario".
I could be wrong though, since it hasn't happened this month yet, and I'm behind quota...:laugh:
Are you referring to the movement range of the transport helo units? That is different than the transport range of the assets assigned to the unit. What you should do is actually try loading a unit on to some helos and seeing how far it can actually move.
Sorry I should have been more clear:
I am designing (not playing) a scenario and I am referring to the movement range of the helos. With a 10 km/hex (the scenario scale) they should be able to move ~ 20 hexes (200 km range). The range in the editor is shown as 12 or 13 (about 120 to 130 km) and that's about how much they move when I play test the scenario.
I can not figure out what else affects the movement range of helos other than proficiency, supply, and readiness.
Sorry I should have been more clear:
I am designing (not playing) a scenario and I am referring to the movement range of the helos. With a 10 km/hex (the scenario scale) they should be able to move ~ 20 hexes (200 km range). The range in the editor is shown as 12 or 13 (about 120 to 130 km) and that's about how much they move when I play test the scenario.
I can not figure out what else affects the movement range of helos other than proficiency, supply, and readiness.
Well, nothing else affects it.
The 200km you speak of is the range a unit must be within to embark on transport helis.
Airmobile Movement
This is the movement of helicopter and airmobile-capable land units while embarked on helicopters. In order to use airmobile movement, your unit must either be a helicopter unit itself or it must begin its turn with 200 km of helicopter transport units with enough combined airmobile transport capacity to lift the entire unit.
But you could tweak around with BioEd. Uncheck "Helicopter movement" and check "low altitude aircraft" in the second tab. Though that might not bring the desired results.. I think "Refuel in flight" might not work with "helicopter movement", but it could be worth a try.
Btw, what defines aircraft movement ranges? Is it related with the combat radius or just determined with low/high altitude aircraft?
I am curious - which/what kind of scenario are you designing?
Sorry I should have been more clear:
I am designing (not playing) a scenario and I am referring to the movement range of the helos. With a 10 km/hex (the scenario scale) they should be able to move ~ 20 hexes (200 km range). The range in the editor is shown as 12 or 13 (about 120 to 130 km) and that's about how much they move when I play test the scenario.
I can not figure out what else affects the movement range of helos other than proficiency, supply, and readiness.
Okay...however, again, the movement range is not 200 Km. Their transport range is. The movement range is based on how far the assumed ground-based assets (repair crews, fuel trucks, etc.) of the unit can relocate within a turn and so are restricted or enhanced by the movement bias setting, as are any other ground unit.
If you need to be able to move the units further, then what you might try doing is putting the helo assets into a different unit, that has a fair amount of motorized transport so that the movement rate of the unit is based on those pieces. That will boost the movement rate, though depending on the hex/turn length scale, they still may be slower than 200 Km per turn.
Ts...always this cross-posting.
As James said. There are a few scenarios out there which have transport helos incooperated into higher headquarters.
Thanks!
The current helo units I am using are composed just of transport helos. (commando, airborne and air mobile units can be transported by them).
I will add motorized assets and hopefully that should increase their movement range. I just want them to be able to move (relocate) faster than they do right now.
I understand their transport range will remain the same.
I am working on an updated and expanded TOAW III version of my Aegean 2004 scenario btw.
thank you for the replies
Thanks!
The current helo units I am using are composed just of transport helos. (commando, airborne and air mobile units can be transported by them).
I will add motorized assets and hopefully that should increase their movement range. I just want them to be able to move (relocate) faster than they do right now.
I understand their transport range will remain the same.
I am working on an updated and expanded TOAW III version of my Aegean 2004 scenario btw.
thank you for the replies
Another side benefit to putting your transport helo assets into non-helo units, along with other equipment, is that it will lessen the severity of the units being intercepted in movement by enemy AS assets. By putting them into an HQ, along with some AA equipment, et cetera, the helicopters are better protected.
Don Maddox
17 Aug 07, 15:00
Another side benefit to putting your transport helo assets into non-helo units, along with other equipment, is that it will lessen the severity of the units being intercepted in movement by enemy AS assets. By putting them into an HQ, along with some AA equipment, et cetera, the helicopters are better protected.
Quite an ahistorical compromise to fool the game engine, don't you think?
Seems pretty gamey - I don't use airmobile units till AS has been established :)
Quite an ahistorical compromise to fool the game engine, don't you think?
Seems pretty gamey - I don't use airmobile units till AS has been established :)
You misunderstand. This is not to protect them while they are transporting units, but to protect them while moving their base of operations from one point to another in the friendly rear. We still have some poorly thought out code, leftover from CoW and earlier, to rework in order to get helicopter units in TOAW III working as they should. This goes for both transport and attack helicopters, but the problem is much more serious with transport helicopters. They are exceedingly frail when in a unit all by themselves.
You misunderstand. This is not to protect them while they are transporting units, but to protect them while moving their base of operations from one point to another in the friendly rear. We still have some poorly thought out code, leftover from CoW and earlier, to rework in order to get helicopter units in TOAW III working as they should. This goes for both transport and attack helicopters, but the problem is much more serious with transport helicopters. They are exceedingly frail when in a unit all by themselves.
Should'nt they be quite vulnerable while moving from point to point - granted
attack helos should be able to protect themselves?
Should'nt they be quite vulnerable while moving from point to point - granted
attack helos should be able to protect themselves?
I don't think they should be any more vulnerable than other friendly units moving behind their own lines. If substantial enemy interdiction and accompaning air superiority assets are roaming friendly rear areas, then yes, they will still be hit, but not all out of proportion to the rest of the ground based forces as they are now.
I don't think they should be any more vulnerable than other friendly units moving behind their own lines. If substantial enemy interdiction and accompaning air superiority assets are roaming friendly rear areas, then yes, they will still be hit, but not all out of proportion to the rest of the ground based forces as they are now.
The logic of this is escaping me - would'nt be the first time:paperbag: Helicopters of ANY type are vulnerable to fast movers - are you comparing the movement of an infantry battalion on the ground to the helicopters
of a airmobile battalion moving forward to pick up troops?
The logic of this is escaping me - would'nt be the first time:paperbag: Helicopters of ANY type are vulnerable to fast movers - are you comparing the movement of an infantry battalion on the ground to the helicopters
of a airmobile battalion moving forward to pick up troops?
No. No. No.
I'm comparing the relocation of Airmobile Transport Company A's base of operations from Boston to Montpelier to be as safe from or subject to interdiction and interception by the evil Royal Canadian Air Force as 4th Battalion HQ as it moves along the road from Boston to Montpelier.
Now, when 4th Battalion's Airmobile Company boards these transport helos, and flies over Montreal to insert behind the perfidious Canucks, then it should be less protected by friendly AA assets and more subject to interception or interdiction by the RCAF.
The problem, as the program is now, is that the pure helo units are being treated as a pseudo-air unit and a psuedo-ground unit with incongruous and inconsistent effects, when it comes to being intercepted or interdicted during normal, behind friendly lines, repositioning of its base of operations. By combining the transport helo assets into HQ or other ground-based iconned units, you can get around some of the odd effects of that interdiction, yet still have the loaded transport helos subject to interception by enemy air assets when they are performing missions.
Think of it this way...when was the last time a bomber, or any other air unit got intercepted in TOAW when it relocated its base behind friendly lines? Or across a map chock full of enemy controlled hexes, for that matter? For consistency's sake, I'm saying that until the whole code base for helicopter units is revised, the best workaround for the problem of relocating helicopter units when they are NOT performing missions, is to put the helo assets within ground units.
Don Maddox
17 Aug 07, 19:33
Okay, thanks for the explanation.
I don't think they should be any more vulnerable than other friendly units moving behind their own lines. If substantial enemy interdiction and accompaning air superiority assets are roaming friendly rear areas, then yes, they will still be hit, but not all out of proportion to the rest of the ground based forces as they are now.
Agreed. And I would add that assault helicopter units are capable of rapidly deploying large infantry units and support equipment all over the battlefield with relatively light losses. In fact, the number of times that helicopters have been engaged by CAP is very few and far between.
I'm basing that on a variety of wars within the last 25 years or so. The point I am making is that modern avaiation/air cavalry units have conducted many large scale air assaults behind enemy lines without losing significant numbers of aircraft, even when the enemy is equipped with formidable ground AAA defenses. It requires a lot of planning and suppression of AAA, but it can be done.
In it's current form, TOAW doesn't really allow for air assault operations without crippling the aviation assets in the process. The range of such operations is very limited and half the helicopeters seem to get destroyed no matter what.
TOAW doesn't seem to make much of a distinction (if any) between Vietnam-era helicopters such as the UH-1 and more modern assault helicopters like the UH-60L. These more modern aircraft can carry a lot more, move much faster, are more survivable, and are equipped with limited resources to help them avoid enemy threats.
Okay, thanks for the explanation.
Agreed. And I would add that assault helicopter units are capable of rapidly deploying large infantry units and support equipment all over the battlefield with relatively light losses. In fact, the number of times that helicopters have been engaged by CAP is very few and far between.
I'm basing that on a variety of wars within the last 25 years or so. The point I am making is that modern avaiation/air cavalry units have conducted many large scale air assaults behind enemy lines without losing significant numbers of aircraft, even when the enemy is equipped with formidable ground AAA defenses. It requires a lot of planning and suppression of AAA, but it can be done.
In it's current form, TOAW doesn't really allow for air assault operations without crippling the aviation assets in the process. The range of such operations is very limited and half the helicopeters seem to get destroyed no matter what.
TOAW doesn't seem to make much of a distinction (if any) between Vietnam-era helicopters such as the UH-1 and more modern assault helicopters like the UH-60L. These more modern aircraft can carry a lot more, move much faster, are more survivable, and are equipped with limited resources to help them avoid enemy threats.
This makes some sense - I'm struggling w/this - in a modern equipment scen-
why would anyone use airmobile tactics? Your soldiers are so vulnerable -
are they the new hangar queens?
ZSU 23's don't even need radar to cause a problem - never mind various hand held missiles?
Are we as Americans so spoiled by our Air Force's AS - can we handle a airmobile assault ie
say oil platforms in Iran?
Bob Cross
17 Aug 07, 21:27
Agreed. And I would add that assault helicopter units are capable of rapidly deploying large infantry units and support equipment all over the battlefield with relatively light losses. In fact, the number of times that helicopters have been engaged by CAP is very few and far between.
I'm basing that on a variety of wars within the last 25 years or so. The point I am making is that modern avaiation/air cavalry units have conducted many large scale air assaults behind enemy lines without losing significant numbers of aircraft, even when the enemy is equipped with formidable ground AAA defenses. It requires a lot of planning and suppression of AAA, but it can be done.
In it's current form, TOAW doesn't really allow for air assault operations without crippling the aviation assets in the process. The range of such operations is very limited and half the helicopeters seem to get destroyed no matter what.
TOAW doesn't seem to make much of a distinction (if any) between Vietnam-era helicopters such as the UH-1 and more modern assault helicopters like the UH-60L. These more modern aircraft can carry a lot more, move much faster, are more survivable, and are equipped with limited resources to help them avoid enemy threats.
This is sort of the reason we didn't get helicopter problems fixed this last update cycle: Lack of real knowledge about just how vulnerable helicopters really are to fixed-wing craft, and lack of any historical knowledge of any wars in which both sides had large helicopter and fixed-wing assets.
Ralph actually asked me for an historical example of helicopters being used by any force that didn't have air superiority and I couldn't give one. Most of the historical example wars where any force is employing helicopters the other side is completely outclassed in the sky (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). The only real case of both sides having strong assets would be the NATO-WP thing. And that, of course, never made it past hypothetical.
Just trying to gauge it as a thought experiment, I can envision how helicopters could be anywhere from dead-meat to invulnerable to jets. They're very slow and fragile on the one hand, while very manuverable and able to use the ground features to hide in on the other hand.
I don't know if this is the right forum for it, but we really need to hear from folks that have real expertise in this area.
This is sort of the reason we didn't get helicopter problems fixed this last update cycle: Lack of real knowledge about just how vulnerable helicopters really are to fixed-wing craft, and lack of any historical knowledge of any wars in which both sides had large helicopter and fixed-wing assets.
Ralph actually asked me for an historical example of helicopters being used by any force that didn't have air superiority and I couldn't give one. Most of the historical example wars where any force is employing helicopters the other side is completely outclassed in the sky (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). The only real case of both sides having strong assets would be the NATO-WP thing. And that, of course, never made it past hypothetical.
Just trying to gauge it as a thought experiment, I can envision how helicopters could be anywhere from dead-meat to invulnerable to jets. They're very slow and fragile on the one hand, while very manuverable and able to use the ground features to hide in on the other hand.
I don't know if this is the right forum for it, but we really need to hear from folks that have real expertise in this area.
I'm not an expert - not even remotely close - but would'nt ECM/ECCM
enter into this discussion?
Don Maddox
17 Aug 07, 23:21
This is sort of the reason we didn't get helicopter problems fixed this last update cycle: Lack of real knowledge about just how vulnerable helicopters really are to fixed-wing craft, and lack of any historical knowledge of any wars in which both sides had large helicopter and fixed-wing assets.
I understand. It's difficult to model air mobile operations at any level, however, operational level poses a set of challenges that are especially difficult to overcome.
Ralph actually asked me for an historical example of helicopters being used by any force that didn't have air superiority and I couldn't give one.
The fact is that most armies simply do not have anything like the US military’s helicopter fleet available to them, thus you aren't going to find much historical context for the employment of large-scale helicopter assault units. The Soviets did employ helicopters fairly frequently during their occupation of Afghanistan, but with mixed results.
Most of the historical example wars where any force is employing helicopters the other side is completely outclassed in the sky (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.).
My opinion (and this is just my opinion based on limited observations) is that, with few exceptions, a large operation of this nature would be very risky. In all probability, such a scenario would probably see one side attempt to gain local air superiority at least for the duration of the mission. Sending several brigades or more of infantry into hostile territory without local air superiority would be hazardous, to say the least. It might even prove more hazardous for the deployed infantry than the aviation assets tasked with the air assault itself. One can easily see the possibilities for spectacular results by successfully carrying out such bold maneuvers, however, the risk would not be inconsequential.
The only real case of both sides having strong assets would be the NATO-WP thing. And that, of course, never made it past hypothetical.
On a really large scale, yes. However, the British did insert some troops in the Falklands and the Russians did some of it in Afghanistan. I can't recall how much of this the Israelis have done. I believe most of their stuff was smaller and involved special ops assets. And then, of course, there is Vietnam.
Just trying to gauge it as a thought experiment, I can envision how helicopters could be anywhere from dead-meat to invulnerable to jets. They're very slow and fragile on the one hand, while very maneuverable and able to use the ground features to hide in on the other hand.
This is a very difficult question to answer, Bob, because there are so many variables. Doing a large scale air assault in a place like the mountainous Korean peninsula is one thing. Helicopters can make excellent use of the terrain there and the modern 2ID trains constantly on large-scale maneuvers of this sort. With the experience and training the 2/2/2 Aviation Battalion has, they can probably move at least a brigade overnight with reasonable casualties--provided the mission is well planned and has some air cover available. But in a place like Saudi Arabia it could be a very different story depending on the force mix of the enemy.
As I said earlier, a lot of this depends on the type of helicopters available for the mission. The modern US Army is able to deploy vast numbers of modern helicopters. It also can deploy "fat cows" (helicopters loaded with fuel that can operate as airmobile FARPs) to greatly extend the range of such operations.
Take a look at the XVIII Airborne Corps’ air assault into Iraq on the opening day of the ground assault of Operation Desert Storm. These forces jumped from inside Saudi Arabia deep into Iraq and established FOB Cobra within a single jump. Within about half a day a formidable forward operating base complete with AAA defenses, forward TOC, and a heavy FARP was established. This base had a complete air cavalry screen and the whole nine yards before dusk of that same day. Such an operation would hardly have been possible under different circumstances or with less capable helicopter assets.
Take a look at the Iraq map I made for CoW and look at where FOB Cobra would be. TOAW will simply not allow helicopter forces of any type to deploy that far and that fast.
On the other hand, take a look at the ill-fated attack on the Republican Guard by the 11 Attack Regiment during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The attack has been well documented elsewhere, but I will briefly mention it here. 11 Attack Helicopter Regiment (composed of three attack helicopter units of battalion strength and one AVIM support unit) attacked the Republican Guard south of Baghdad and was itself ambushed by a tremendous amount of ground fire. The result was not pretty, let me tell you.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040731-0920-armyhelicopters.html
The bottom line is that it is very difficult to model helicopter operations with any of the wargames currently on the market (although Decisive Action has an interesting take on it). In real life there is a difference between the aviation companies/troops that conduct these operations and the support companies and battalions that are tasked with maintenance. Heavy maintenance units like an AVIM are extremely vulnerable and are generally deployed in a location where they are unlikely to come under concentrated attack. However, JAMiAM is correct that some of these assets do follow the helicopters around if the operation is expected to last or the aviation assets will remain forward deployed.
I can't say I know exactly how TOAW should model helicopter assault operations, only that in its current form it seems too restrictive. The truth is that helicopter forces are probably capable of doing a lot more than TOAW allows, however, they could also risk very significant losses in some situations. How to model all of that? That's a good question.
This input may or may not be of any use, but I fear this will be a difficult problem to model well at the operational level. It also doesn't make it any easier that TOAW covers all nationalities and time periods.
Bob Cross
18 Aug 07, 11:37
On a really large scale, yes. However, the British did insert some troops in the Falklands and the Russians did some of it in Afghanistan. I can't recall how much of this the Israelis have done. I believe most of their stuff was smaller and involved special ops assets. And then, of course, there is Vietnam.
Thanks for the input, Don. And that was useful. But I'd really like to focus on the NATO-WP thing, because that's where the problem really crops up. Falklands, Afganistan, Israel, Vietnam, etc. all had one side out-classing the other in the sky. I don't see any problem with how TOAW handles AAA against helicopters. The problem comes when Air Superiority assets engage them.
In the NATO-WP situation, both sides had extensive Helicopter and Air Superiority assets. I assume they both expected to use them. But, as it stands now, in TOAW III, both side's helicopters have been extremely vulnerable, even deep behind their own lines (somewhat revised in the coming 3.2, of course - but to just what extent I'm not yet sure). There must have been some sort of concensus among NATO (or the WP, for that matter) as to how that would have tumbled out. Is there anyone out there that has any sort of inside info on that?
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.