I know in the AA42 and Revised you can’t. If you can’t, why not. seems reasonable to allow.
No.
It is in fact not reasonable at all.
Sahara’s huge, hot and sandy. It’s insane to fly over it, just accept that.
… or go and try it out :-D
No plane or man had ever passed this desert without crashing. Its worse than the Bermuda Triangle. As soon as people put one step into it they die immediately.
Thats why the rule was made and the game is very realistic.
:mrgreen:
Although it covers most of North Africa, the Sahara is now home to only 1.5 million people. The main groups of people who call the desert their home are Arabs, Berbers and Tuaregs.
The Arab people came out of the Middle East during the spread of Islam in the 7th century AD. They spread into Africa, attempting to convert the nomadic tribes that had lived there for centuries. Islamic beliefs took hold quickly, thanks to the swift and mighty missionary effort, and remains the region’s dominant religion even today. 99% of Saharan people are Muslims.
Considering in the real war, there were no battles south of the Sahara there would have never been a reason for a fighter to launch an attack across the Sahara from North Africa. So based on any historical fact of a fighter never crossing it during the war as reason to denounce the idea of it being reasonable that it could in fact cross in to me unreasonable.
Also, considering the advances fighters made in WW2, the fact that it had never been done is a kin to rationalzing that 1.) Japan ships cannot cross into the Mediterranean to help Germany, and 2.) A bomber once it gets longe range aircraft, cannot use that extra space because it has never been able to do it in the past.
I am not an expert in the technical abilities of the aircraft at the time. I do understand however that German troops could not pass through the Sahara without probabbly dying and vehicles would likely breakdown if they tried.
But whether or not a fighter had the ability to fly over it safely, considering how high above they ground they are, is a perfectly rational question. With the basic understanding, (not and expert one) of the development of aircraft, from the first “Lindy Hop” across the atlantic in the 20’s, to the solo flights of Amelia Earhart, to the advances of longrange aircraft by the end of the war, it is not clear to me at all why fighters could not “obviously” fly over the Sahara.
Considering in the real war, there were no battles south of the Sahara there would have never been a reason for a fighter to launch an attack across the Sahara from North Africa. So based on any historical fact of a fighter never crossing it during the war as reason to denounce the idea of it being reasonable that it could in fact cross in to me unreasonable.
Also, considering the advances fighters made in WW2, the fact that it had never been done is a kin to rationalzing that 1.) Japan ships cannot cross into the Mediterranean to help Germany, and 2.) A bomber once it gets longe range aircraft, cannot use that extra space because it has never been able to do it in the past.
I am not an expert in the technical abilities of the aircraft at the time. I do understand however that German troops could not pass through the Sahara without probabbly dying and vehicles would likely breakdown if they tried.
But whether or not a fighter had the ability to fly over it safely, considering how high above they ground they are, is a perfectly rational question. With the basic understanding, (not and expert one) of the development of aircraft, from the first “Lindy Hop” across the atlantic in the 20’s, to the solo flights of Amelia Earhart, to the advances of longrange aircraft by the end of the war, it is not clear to me at all why fighters could not “obviously” fly over the Sahara.
I think it’s more for gameplay reasons than historical reasons
Yes it is more for game play than reality.Id allow planes to fly over, no land units if your looking to house rule it.
to the solo flights of Amelia Earhart
Bad example there boss :) she didn’t quite make the last one.
Perfect example. Bad examples are ones where you can point to an example that supports your thesis where the conditions are either unknown or the conditions and variables are just right.
Amelia Earharts sucesses and ultimate failure show what aircrafts were capable and not capable of. For example, her first hop across the atlantic, making her the first female or “The Female Charles Lindberg” was at first seen as luck and, “the conditions were just right”. The idea of course that the only a man could operate under harsh conditions ect… But her following frequest flights were designed to test the abilities of her aircraft as well as her ability to fly it as a female. She flew across good weather and unexpected bad weather and showed that if a female could do it, it was safe for everyone. Which is why the airlines loved her, supported her, and paid her lots of money to be in the public. She herself could not afford her own planes or the repairs. Her final failure gives a realism of what she did, that it was real, and not faked.
My house rule says yes. If you can fly over the Pacific and Atlantic, then why not the Sahara.
My house rule says yes. If you can fly over the Pacific and Atlantic, then why not the Sahara.
With losing 2 extra movement spaces flying over?
The planes were subject to sand damage, and massive overheating.
Don’t know if you know or not, but there are not alot of clouds in the desert, and if you didn’t fly upside down, you’d probably cook to death through the glass in your cockpit anyways.
Worse, at the time, there weren’t many places to land the aircraft south of that either.
The planes were VERY susceptable to weather effects. Sandstorms/high winds. Items that are REPLETE in endless deserts.
Again, I am not an expert on aircraft capability. I only know of various aircrafts and some of there fights and actual flights. Stuff from the Histroy channel and stuff. Also some videos on specific aircrafts.
1.) HEAT The Sahara is not any hotter than many other regions that run along the tropic of cancer which is the hottest region in general across the globe due to the angle in which the sun rays hits it during the Northern Hemispheres summer, or the tropic of capicorn during the Southern Hemispheres summer. As a vetern of Iraq, I will tell you that I was in a maximum of 140 degree heat with kevalar, body armor thicker and heavier than anything in world war 2 and sat in an all metal humvee. I am sure the aircraft of the day had air conditioning due to the fragile instruments. If it didn’t, there are many other regions just as hot that does not have unpassable regions.
2.) I have a lot of experience having to due a lot of maintanence of equipement due to sand. But sandstorms on the the ground. They cover some sky, but common, “have I heard”, how about you obviously have not heard. Sand storms are not as bad 20,000 feet or so in the air. Again, I have no idea at this point how high the normal fighters of the day flew but the premise of my discussion was to find out something new from someone I may be overlooking, not something off the top of your head that seems to make some sense.
The planes were subject to sand damage, and massive overheating.
Don’t know if you know or not, but there are not alot of clouds in the desert, and if you didn’t fly upside down, you’d probably cook to death through the glass in your cockpit anyways.
Worse, at the time, there weren’t many places to land the aircraft south of that either.
The planes were VERY susceptable to weather effects. Sandstorms/high winds. Items that are REPLETE in endless deserts.
I flew in Beechcraft King Airs in SWA for a year. It’s not that big of an issue. I was more nervous flying over the North Atlantic than over a desert.
I flew in Beechcraft King Airs in SWA for a year. It’s not that big of an issue. I was more nervous flying over the North Atlantic than over a desert.
Impossible. Larry Harris has forbidden all flights over this area. It is a known fact that certain death occurs if anybody alive enters this area. Thats why the rule was invented.
I am assuming IL is injecting some sort of humor.
I have seen and been in the midst of sand storms in Iraq. They look menacing from afar and can engulf you much like what appears in the 911 videos after the collapse. But I have never seen on go so high that planes cannot fly over them. Again I have no idea how high these planes of the day actually flew except through my perception of videos I have seen, but my sense is that they could easliy fly over them.
In terms of nowhere to land south of that, well in the rules of the game, planes can do percisely just that, is land just south of the Sahara???. I can see no being able to land in the Sahara, but we are talking about flying over it.
OK so which sea zone is the Bermuda Triangle in? I think all ships and planes that pass through it must roll a die. Roll a one and it must stop its movement because it’s disoriented. On the next turn if it rolls another one then it’s removed from play, lost forever……
OOOoooOOooOOOooooo…spooky…;)
1.5 million people live in this desert so all claims about it being “impassible” are bogus. That has not been the case before say about 1800, but in modern times people live and water wells exist. Planes can fly over as higher altitudes and they did. The game just prohibits it because LH just wants to just brush the terrain under a rug forgotten and ignore it and just prohibit it so the travel path follows the historical one. It is a simple remedy that makes it so you don’t have another rule to deal with it.
Yes planes at low altitude might have problems if they flew in a sandstorm, but that is easily avoided and military forces don’t really fight in sandstorms, so they rarely would need any air support either.
About the impassible part as far as ground units go, I imagine the historical pass did not cross the Sahara due to its terrain being to hard to fight in.
With my experience in Iraq, I can say that vehicle maintenance and weapon maintenance was horrific. As long as we cleaned out air filters and cleaned our weapons daily it did not hamper the mission. Of course if we ever had to do battle just after a sand storm, who knows. I was part of the second wave and spoke to soldiers who indeed had to fight in sand storms. It was difficult.
I can only imagine the Sahara being much worse and vehicles being more prone to breaking down in those days, so I imagine both sides just decided not to fight in the Sahara or try to out flank each other by traveling through it.
I think it’s just that way for simplicity.
