If you mean 'our war' then I apologise and think that you have some good points.
Indeed I do mean our war and the AT fleet are, for the most part, very much in the thick of it.
As for my ambiguity, I don't think I was either. The story I heard was the Army wanted a direct flight and were disinterested in the arguments about reduced payload. I wasn't there so can't say if this is true or not (nb. this is a rumour forum), but I can believe that, rightly or wrongly, the Army vote beat the RAF one when it came to practicalities of the operation of aircraft versus a 4-ish more hour journey to HERRICK. With the exception of RIPs,
AFAIK, capacity is
generally not the issue, although this could simply be a result of users evolving their troop flow around the seats they're given. (I'm ever the optimist)
I still believe the Army, for the most part, lack an understanding of the scarcity of AT assets and I don't imagine many of them consider payload limitations, not least because majority of the RAF know nothing about them either! Add to that their primary task of fighting and supporting fighting and I can see why they may care little about all but the most emotive aspects of RAF performance - getting home - in the same way that I have interest in the performance of ships and tanks.
I suspected you and mgd had got the wrong end of the stick and I accept your gracious apology.