Allied airborne operations in the early game

medck

Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Location
Alabama
The Allied airlift capacity in the early game is 500. Soviet parachute infantry weigh around 2500 so even splitting them into 3 sub-units does not provide enough to make a usable force. Any suggestions on using allied airborne forces or is it just for lifting small HQs around the map?

I'd say I'm in agreement with the 500 weight limit since it doesn't make sense for the allies to be lifting big airborne units around or having a major airborne invasion on a egular basis, but if you're going to give them the small 500 weight limit, it would make sense to make the units that can engage in those operations small enough so that they can carry them out -- for example, instead of putting all that capacity into a large Soviet parachute infantry corps, have it divided into 5 parts each with a weight of between 400-500. That's not much of apunch (which would be realistic), but at least the capacity is there.
 

medck

Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Location
Alabama
Allied airborne capacity will increase during the game.
Thanks for that information; I hadn't realized that. Does the same hold true for sea and rail movement? Do you happen to know what the "schedule" of increases is? I seem to recall there was an Excel chart or some such thing for EA that listed things like that, but I can't seem to find it.
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
Rail transport will not change but sea cap will also increase.

From scenario briefing (a helpful nasty thing...):

Sea/Air lift changes
Axis Sea Transport starts at 4,000
Axis Sea Transport rises to 6,000 after a successful Battle of Britain Option (after a brief 8,500 bonus for two turns)
Axis Sea Transport rises to 6,000 after the capture of Gibraltar
Axis Sea Transport falls to 1,000 about one year after the US enters the war
Axis Air Transport starts at 3,000
Axis Air Transport falls to 2,000 about six months after the US enters the war
Axis Air Transport falls to 1,000 about a year after the US enters the war
Allied Sea Transport starts at 5,000
Allied Sea Transport rises to 10,500 six to nine months after the US enters the war
Allied Sea Transport falls to 25,000 after the completion of 'Overlord' (which provides a brief 50,000)
Allied Air Transport starts at 500
Allied Air Transport rises to 1,500 about a year after the US enters the war
Allied Air transport rises to 6,000 towards the end of the war
Allied Air Transport goes to 5,000 after the 'Overlord' Option (which provides a brief 9,500)
 

medck

Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Location
Alabama
thanks -- I did a search of "air lift" in my briefing, not sure why I didn't use the proper "Air Transport" -- ascrew loose somewhere in not reading the full briefing....my bad

Still, my original question of why the Allies have 500 air transport points prior to US entry remains -- such a figure seem unusable for more than a year. It's more than a year after the start before the UK special Forces (Oct 1940) and Special Ops (available May 1941) arrive, but that's about it. Those too large Soviet units I mentioned are still there and unusable.

Not that the allies would necessarily be in a position to make great use of anything, but small Soviet actions might be nice, that is to say, ti would be nice if the Soviet units could be broken down to a size to be dropped (say 500) or if the air transport limit were large enough to drop a broken down soviet parachute group (say 820).

Of course, the Soviets could breakdown their parachutists, take losses just under 50% and then be able to use the smaller units...
 
Last edited:

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
The unique remarkable use of Russian parachute units i can recall was at Kanev - (after mid 43), Brigade size. Western allies started sizeable airborne operations (about the same size in Sicily - after mid 43).
If the real professionals didn't do it before why should you in EA?

Sorry so be such a PITA but if you take a serious look at the EA schedule above you'll verify it perfectly matchs the airborne logistic and training capacity of each army at a given time of the war.

Germans could organise (also small) "airborne shows" earlier (Holland, Crete and some special units in East) and that's also respected in EA design.
 
Last edited:

medck

Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Location
Alabama
The unique remarkable use of Russian parachute units i can recall was at Kanev - (after mid 43), Brigade size. Western allies started sizeable airborne operations (about the same size in Sicily - after mid 43).
If the real professionals didn't do it before why should you in EA?

Sorry so be such a PITA but if you take a serious look at the EA schedule above you'll verify it perfectly matchs the airborne logistic and training capacity of each army at a given time of the war.

Germans could organise (also small) "airborne shows" earlier (Holland, Crete and some special units in East) and that's also respected in EA design.
I don't think we disagree about the level of logistics -- 500 airlift is appropriate in my view. But, if the Allies just can't do it, then why give them 500 air transport capacity in 1939-42? 500 is pretty small and I imagine the Allies could do some small "airborne show" if they were on some local offensive. I think it would be pretty minor. My argument is the Russians, rather than the Western allies, have the logistics and organization of these units, yet the unit size is too big for them to be used. Breakdown the units and let them do a small airborne show too. They might want to use it to speed an attack on the Baltics/East Europe as they did in real life. But there would, of course, be some risk of their units getting evaporated, which is why the Russians would need to be careful about doing that. I'm not arguing for a 1939 Market Garden or even an Operation Mercury, more like an 1939/40 Soviet version of Eben Emael.

IRL, the Russians were at the forefront of airborne experimentation and, in fact, did use airborne troops to speed the occupation of Bessarabia in 1940, seizing several cities, and an entire airborne corps (14,000 men -- on par with Operation Mercury) was dropped behind Army Group Center at Vyaz'ma as part of a failed attempt at encirclement in 1941-2.

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/glantz.pdf [pages 29-30].

So the Allied professionals did, in fact, do this. That the Russians didn't do it more has a lot to do with the scale of their defeats in the early stages of Barbarossa where airborne corps were used as ground infantry and the Soviet air force was eviscerated. But even with that level of defeat, they still managed to use them in an airborne role. If the Germans in EA achieve similar success, the skies won't be safe for airborne troops to sortie in and there will be demand for them as infantry. But if the Germans are less successful and the Soviet air force more formidable, well, that is an option on a small scale that the Soviets should have.
 
Last edited:

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
I respect your ideas if even i still think EA it's pretty realistic on this issue. Can't help you much more on this.
 

medck

Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Location
Alabama
I respect your ideas if even i still think EA it's pretty realistic on this issue. Can't help you much more on this.
Don't get me wrong; I think it's a small thing and if a solution of smaller Soviet airborne untis leads to massive and regular Soviet paradrops then the cure is worse than the "problem". I'd guess, though, that given the scale of the Eastern front and the light armament of Soviet airborne units (and their less than 500 weight) that any use by the USSR before 1942/3 or so would be either against weak opposition (Rumanians/Baltics/Iran? in 1940) or be snuffed out by the Germans. Which would be historically accurate.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
The scenario's broadly a corps level one. A lot of the smaller units are chrome to add a bit of interest and historicity. However given the immense importance of supply in TOAW I didn't want a lot of tiny Soviet - or any other - airborne units descending unrealistically way behind the Axis fronts and buggering their supply lines for a few critical turns. Not to get into a lengthy historical debate, but the two examples you mention of early war Soviet airborne landings were both unopposed - neither the Balts nor the Rumanians fought back, or at least not on a scale worth recognising in a scenario of this size. They were more of a demonstration of what could be done in theory. You could equally mention the (unopposed) advance of the Soviet mechanised units into the same areas as a terrible warning to the Germans of what would happen in the first few months of Barbarossa.

I could have introduced the 500 Allied airlift only when the small British special forces appear but, as you say, it can't be used anyway and it means there's less danger of further complicating an already too complex Event List
 
Top