"Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

"Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

"Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned s... - 6/4/2021 11:51:01 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Somewhat funny thread title perhaps to get some attention... what I mean not commissioned are non navy crewed and not trained xAP. The X means that these are regular civil ships drafted to help the war effort (but often armed and the guns crewed by trained people to use them). But they are not "AMPHIB" !

Now it is said the APA/AKA ships are the most important for the Allies, as they can unload fast. BUT it seems the same is possible with the "X" ships. Even if unload rates ARE much lower like written in the manual.

The US landed at Shortlands without APA/AKA ships and put 2 divs and a TK battalion ashore in 1 turn it seems... also my 2 coast art units seemed no to do much, yes they hit 3-4 xAPs hard, but how many does the US alone have? Even Liberty ships can be converted to xAP asfaik.

I may post the combat report later for analyzing, here again my 2 issues: a) The speed of unloading b) lack of resistance by my CD - yes a bit disrupted (40/50% or so) but guns in shape.

So what is the deal that the APA/AKA ships are so important if you can land 2 divisions with other ships too in 1 turn?

This also calls in question the (alledged) seriousness of the end of the so called amphib bonus for the IJN, seems not to matter much, or can only Allies do the Blitzkrieg with "X" ships? Yes, there were also LSTs and LCIs but their load is low for such a mass of troops.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/4/2021 12:40:31 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 12:08:34 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

Symon talked here about a house-rule for AP/APA/AK/AKA-only landings. Post #27.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3742111

As for xAKL/xAK, even a low durability xAKL (durability 5), can soak up an ungodly amount of CD fire. In my game against Jap AI, two Jap xAKL acted as sponges in Jap invasion of Balikpapan and soaked 75mm-120mm fire from Dutch CD guns, while other xAK and xAP unloaded an SNLF unit. If you want to kill xAKL/xAK/xAP on landing use mines, torpedoes and 250kg SAP bombs. The 250kg GP bombs seem to give less floatation damage to an xAKL, so damaged ships still stick around more. In one IJN Kate attack, my USN xAKL soaked 7-8 250kg GP bombs before finally sinking.

If I were to invade an island with xAKs as Allies, I would use the biggest xAKs with highest durability value, just to soak up as much CD fire as possible. Don't know if Japs have xAKs to spare for this gamey tactics.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 6/4/2021 12:41:01 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 2

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 12:36:39 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Thanks for link, here the quote from "Symon" (one of the "devs"!):

"The second is only AP/AK, APA/AKA vessels may conduct amphibious invasions; xAP/xAKs are NOT invited. Obviously this requires some tweaking of IJN ships after the freebie period. They must have a certain mix of xAK-t ships and AK ships. They must have a one-to-one relation of AK ships to their special �shipping engineer� units. That was how they did it. But it requires those special Babes LCUs, so it�s not that applicable to a standard GC game.
BTW, xAPs were used as �transport� ships to get troops (often sans weapons) from point to point. They were NOT, simply NOT, amphib vessels. And if they weren�t, what would one think of an xAK? Can you say doo doo?"

I had seen this before already with the US invading Tulagi/Lunga also fastly in 1 turn btw. But there was not much in CD and less troops than now at Shortlands. The distances in these areas are quite low ofc. It is only 2 hexes from US held territory to Shortlands and only some more from major bases (bigger ports) eg at Tulagi. In fact I picked up "heavy radio com" at Tulagi 2-3 times in the 2 turns before - so suspecting the landings might now happen, but still surprised by speed and lack of defense.

Clearly my opponent is better in navy things and knows some tricks, his surface ships also perform better even if outnumbered...

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/4/2021 12:43:12 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 3

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 12:38:39 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

BTW, US forces made some mistakes in their training landings at Koro in 1942 prior to the Guadalacanal landings.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2009/august/what-went-wrong-koro

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 4

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 12:55:42 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

@Yaab: You are right these small cheap ships for some reason can "soak up" loads of hits but only if at landings it seems. In the middle of the ocean easy to sink. 4-5 xAPs soaked up most of my CD fire apparently.EDIT, perhaps it is assumed they just beach themselves and so do not sink easily but burn out (?)

I have also mines there, but they just do nothing (not sure how many were left as the tenders were sunk longer ago and also some were swept even if in this case the CD hit the sweepers hard, they still managed to sweep fine).

IJN mines were mostly a waste of time/effort for me so far. I know Type4 mine is rubbish the other types however a bit better (93+88), they "should" hit something once in a while

Especially vs. landings, as it was explained to me that mines would mainly protect the port and beaches, as for my earlier complaint they did not hit SF and bombarding fleets at all. But they also hit zero vs. landing ships.

EDIT, for your question of IJN "has to spare" xAKs?? YES! They have a 100 or more doing nothing at the moment and I guess Allies have 200 or so "in reserve". Which is one of my main issues with current game: Too many transports, IJN players who care and micromanage can minimize their losses of such ships, while Allies do not need to care much as they have so many anyways. Which was at least for 42 and most of 43 not the case in "real life" xAKs mattered in reality and were not in abundance

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/4/2021 1:06:15 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 5

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 2:05:40 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

A very unique and specific set of circumstances and interesting...I would caution differentiating between 'gamey' and 'historic' 'realistic' as is often done.

--

If the game engine allows it and there is an available counter measures tool within the game - then gamey is in the eye of the beholder. Mentioned here are invasions of Shortlands / Lunga perhaps other non Atol islands. Besides Costal Defense Artillery - a goodly sized squadron of Dive Bombers / Torpedo Bombers and a Naval Task force of Cruisers / Destroyers are highly likely available to the player to counter such a Blitz...

So I am unsure its fair to accuse an innovative player of being gamey - using an available tactic when the other player failed to consider counter measures.

I recall a longwinded conversation on the successful Japanese invasion of Portland some months / years ago. Destroyed CVE production forward essentially changing the game. There ARE USArmy infantry divisions in the USA to secure all important ports.

--

Historic ? Realistic ? Here of course it is clearly a different story. Would a whole swath of merchant marine sailors and captains just volunteer to land an invasion - danger be damned ? "Dont worry boys its for the greater good on the D Day invasion schedule".

This is more symptomatic of players willingness to 'throw away electron lives' / 'electron ships' on a cost benefit basis to further their plans without any real consequences available in the game engine. No Morale checks on the merchant fleet. No defections. No 'strikes' or refusals to participate. No cost to Victory points etc.

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 6

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 2:10:01 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

EDIT, for your question of IJN "has to spare" xAKs?? YES! They have a 100 or more doing nothing at the moment and I guess Allies have 200 or so "in reserve". Which is one of my main issues with current game: Too many transports, IJN players who care and micromanage can minimize their losses of such ships, while Allies do not need to care much as they have so many anyways. Which was at least for 42 and most of 43 not the case in "real life" xAKs mattered in reality and were not in abundance

Go with DaBabes then! One of the main differences in the mod compared to vanilla is the reduced cargo capacity. Ships carry less cargo/troops and if you haven't built up a port or have special naval engineers at the base loading/unloading literally takes forever (as it should).

_____________________________

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 7

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 2:20:28 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

This is more symptomatic of players willingness to 'throw away electron lives' / 'electron ships' on a cost benefit basis to further their plans without any real consequences available in the game engine. No Morale checks on the merchant fleet. No defections. No 'strikes' or refusals to participate. No cost to Victory points etc.

Yep, it occured to me to. While I was watching Jap xAKL stoically take shell after shell from the Balikpapen BF, it dawned on me that xAK/xAP in offensive amphibious TF sort of fight to the death. You have level bomber quitting missions in face of CAP, you have LCU surrendering in battle, yet merchies in this games are samurais and kamikazes. Second, does AI even create escort TF with ships, which got damaged during offensive amphibious landings? Damaged ships just seem to be welded to their target hexes. No captain calls it quits, no Morale checks for them either. Weird. There should be some penalty for using merchant fleet in offensive aphibious action other then just a slower unload rate.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 6/4/2021 2:22:15 PM >

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 8

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 3:10:34 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Go with DaBabes then! One of the main differences in the mod compared to vanilla is the reduced cargo capacity. Ships carry less cargo/troops and if you haven't built up a port or have special naval engineers at the base loading/unloading literally takes forever (as it should).

I know Babes and played it in the past for a while, but it seems to have more small ships (which add some micromanagement) also in your own AAR it was pointed out by someone that DBB was created before some kind of patch/fix came out and therefore might be "obsolete" (this is only what I read I do not know if it is true tho)

@Maclaan5: I never said anything about "GAMEY" just to be clear. You came up with that, neither Yaab or me. Just to avoid missunderstandings. My post is to question and understand the issue..not to accuse someone who uses the tactic...

You said: "This is more symptomatic of players willingness to 'throw away electron lives' / 'electron ships' on a cost benefit basis to further their plans without any real consequences available in the game engine. No Morale checks on the merchant fleet. No defections. No 'strikes' or refusals to participate. No cost to Victory points etc."

... is true, however in war times it may be that merchant sailors were also fine to sacrifice their lives for their sides benefit. I am not sure if eg. sailors of Atlantic convois "refused" or went on "strike"..

However a "national morale" system would be good to include in AE when your own side takes high losses NAT MORALE drops which then might effect things like how effective the production is or when it drops even further an anti war movement might arrise. Also frontline troops may lose morale if 100000s of their peers are killed or a dozen CVs are sunk. Question is how good such high losses may be kept secret from most troops and at home...

There is a quote, to the effect that if a dozen men are send to certain death to have a chance to safe a 100 others it might be justified. Eg. the "forlorn hope" in sieges or men in "Strafbattalions" send to clear mines etc. I use such tactics all the time myself sending SCs and older PBs out to "hunt" subs which they have no chance to combat in ocean hexes. But they provide recon and may waste torps from subs, clearly an inhuman tactic I use here

Another good example: The rearguard in withdrawals... these are tasked to delay the enemy enough so your main force can escape destruction or even only "withdraw in good order" But it is a high risk job

Edit, I believe there were strikes of dock/port workers in Australia and/or New Zealand in WW2.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/4/2021 3:42:15 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 9

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 4:54:14 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Here the CR relating to the landing, hoping to get some more opinions;

Night Naval bombardment of Shortlands at 109,131 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

168 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
CL Santa Fe, Shell hits 1
CL Columbia
DD Nizam
DD Arunta, Shell hits 1
DD Caldwell
DD Bancroft

Japanese ground losses:
19 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 9 (1 destroyed, 8 disabled)

Runway hits 10
Port hits 8
Port supply hits 1

OS2U-3 Kingfisher acting as spotter for CL Santa Fe
CL Santa Fe firing at Wake Coastal Gun Battalion
Wake Coastal Gun Battalion firing at CL Santa Fe
CL Columbia firing at Shortlands
DD Nizam firing at Combined 8th SNLF
Combined 8th SNLF firing at DD Nizam
Wake Coastal Gun Battalion firing at DD Arunta
DD Arunta firing at Wake Coastal Gun Battalion
Combined 8th SNLF firing at DD Caldwell
DD Caldwell firing at Combined 8th SNLF
DD Bancroft firing at Wake Coastal Gun Battalion
Wake Coastal Gun Battalion firing at DD Bancroft

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Shortlands at 109,131 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

170 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
CA Indianapolis
DD Jupiter
DD Stronghold
DD Selfridge, Shell hits 1
DD Sterett
DD Anderson
DD Sims, Shell hits 1
DD Frankford

CA Indianapolis firing at Wake Coastal Gun Battalion
Wake Coastal Gun Battalion firing at CA Indianapolis
DD Jupiter firing at Combined 8th SNLF
Combined 8th SNLF firing at DD Jupiter
DD Stronghold firing at Wake Coastal Gun Battalion
Wake Coastal Gun Battalion firing at DD Stronghold
Combined 8th SNLF firing at DD Selfridge
DD Selfridge firing at Combined 8th SNLF
DD Sterett firing at 16th/A Division
DD Anderson firing at Combined 8th SNLF
Combined 8th SNLF firing at DD Anderson
Wake Coastal Gun Battalion firing at DD Sims
DD Sims firing at Wake Coastal Gun Battalion
DD Frankford firing at Combined 8th SNLF
Combined 8th SNLF firing at DD Frankford

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Shortlands (109,131)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

470 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Andrew D. White, Shell hits 57, heavy fires, heavy damage
AM Freemantle
SC-644
LST-29
LST-34
LST-31
LST-338
LST-32

Allied ground losses:
122 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 37 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
20cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
20cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
SC-644 firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
AM Freemantle firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
AM Freemantle firing to suppress enemy battery at 3,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 5,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 1,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Shortlands (109,131)

TF 151 troops unloading over beach at Shortlands, 109,131

Allied ground losses:
24 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

13 troops of a USA 43 Rifle Squad lost from landing craft during unload of 37th Infantry Div /19
13 troops of a USA 43 Rifle Squad accidentally lost during unload of 37th Infantry Div /21
13 troops of a USA 43 Rifle Squad lost overboard during unload of 37th Infantry Div /23

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Shortlands (109,131)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

456 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP James Buchanan, Shell hits 8, heavy fires
AM Heed
SC-750
LST-481
LST-479
LST-482
LST-480

Allied ground losses:
121 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 21 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

AM Heed firing to suppress enemy battery at 11,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP James Buchanan at 11,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP James Buchanan at 11,000 yards
AM Heed firing to suppress enemy battery at 11,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP James Buchanan at 11,000 yards
AM Heed firing to suppress enemy battery at 11,000 yards
AM Heed firing to suppress enemy battery at 11,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP James Buchanan at 11,000 yards
AM Heed firing to suppress enemy battery at 11,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP James Buchanan at 11,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP James Buchanan at 11,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP James Buchanan at 11,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP James Buchanan at 11,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP James Buchanan at 11,000 yards
20cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP James Buchanan at 11,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP James Buchanan at 11,000 yards
SC-750 fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 4,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 2,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Shortlands (109,131)

TF 160 troops unloading over beach at Shortlands, 109,131

Allied ground losses:
27 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

13 troops of a USA 43 Rifle Squad lost in surf during unload of 24th Infantry Div
13 troops of a USA 43 Rifle Squad lost from landing craft during unload of 24th Infantry Div /12
13 troops of a USA 43 Rifle Squad lost from landing craft during unload of 24th Infantry Div /18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Shortlands (109,131) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

9 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
LCT-139, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCT-65, Shell hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCT-58, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage
LCT-64, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
LCT-61
LCT-63, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

Wake Coastal Gun Battalion firing at LCT-139
Massive explosion on LCT-139
20cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging LCT-65 at 8,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging LCT-58 at 8,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging LCT-64 at 8,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging LCT-58 at 8,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging LCT-58 at 8,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging LCT-58 at 8,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging LCT-61 at 8,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging LCT-63 at 8,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging LCT-65 at 8,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging LCT-58 at 8,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging LCT-58 at 8,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging LCT-63 at 8,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging LCT-58 at 8,000 yards
20cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging LCT-58 at 8,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging LCT-63 at 8,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging LCT-58 at 8,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging LCT-65 at 8,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging LCT-61 at 8,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Shortlands (109,131)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

230 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Andrew D. White, Shell hits 14, heavy fires, heavy damage
AM Freemantle
LST-29
LST-31
LST-32
LST-34
LST-338

Allied ground losses:
88 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 36 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

20cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
20cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Andrew D. White at 3,000 yards
AM Freemantle fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 2,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Shortlands (109,131)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

444 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Loch Ranza, Shell hits 29, heavy fires, heavy damage
YMS-218
AM Kiwi
SC-739
YMS-138
LCI-218
LCI-217
LCI-327
LCI-219
LCI-332

Allied ground losses:
82 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 23 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
AM Kiwi firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
AM Kiwi firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
SC-739 firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
20cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
AM Kiwi firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
AM Kiwi firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
AM Kiwi firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
AM Kiwi firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
SC-739 firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
SC-739 firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
SC-739 firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
SC-739 firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
SC-739 firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
SC-739 firing to suppress enemy battery at 6,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Loch Ranza at 6,000 yards
SC-739 fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 5,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 2,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Shortlands (109,131)

TF 177 troops unloading over beach at Shortlands, 109,131

Day Time Surface Combat, near Shortlands at 109,131, Range 24,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CMc Yachiyo Maru

Allied Ships
AM Freemantle
SC-644
LST-29
LST-31
LST-32
LST-34
LST-338
LST-340
LST-341
LST-344
LST-353
LST-452
LST-457
LST-461
LST-462
LST-465
LST-466
LST-467
xAP Andrew D. White, and is sunk
xAP Francisco Coronado
xAP Frederick J. Turner
xAP George Chaffey
xAP George S. Boutwell
xAP George Westinghouse
xAP Henry Dearborn
xAP Henry J. Raymond
xAP James B. McPherson

Allied ground losses:
132 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 20 destroyed, 40 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 18 (11 destroyed, 7 disabled)

Japanese Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Allied TF begins to get underway
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions: 18,000 yards
Range closes to 26,000 yards...
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range increases to 24,000 yards...
Range increases to 25,000 yards...
Range closes to 24,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 24,000 yards
Range increases to 26,000 yards...
Range closes to 25,000 yards...
Range closes to 24,000 yards...
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 22,000 yards...
Range increases to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 22,000 yards...
Range closes to 21,000 yards...
Range closes to 18,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 18,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 18,000 yards
Both TF attempt to withdraw!
Range increases to 24,000 yards...
LST-467 , LST-466 , LST-465 ,
LST-462 , LST-461 , LST-457 ,
LST-452 , LST-353 , LST-344 ,
LST-341 , LST-340 , LST-338 ,
LST-34 , LST-32 , LST-31 ,
LST-29 , xAP James B. McPherson , xAP Henry J. Raymond screened from combat
- escorted by SC-644 , AM Freemantle
Range increases to 29,000 yards
LST-467 , LST-466 , LST-465 ,
LST-462 , LST-461 , LST-457 ,
LST-452 , LST-353 , LST-344 ,
LST-341 , LST-340 screened from combat
Both Task Forces evade combat

Invasion Support action off Shortlands (109,131)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

276 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Francisco Coronado, Shell hits 19, on fire, heavy damage
LST-465
LST-457
LST-353
LST-34
LST-29
LST-466
AM Freemantle
LST-32
LST-31

Allied ground losses:
94 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 9 (2 destroyed, 7 disabled)

14cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Francisco Coronado at 7,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Francisco Coronado at 7,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Francisco Coronado at 7,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Francisco Coronado at 7,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Francisco Coronado at 7,000 yards
20cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Francisco Coronado at 7,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Francisco Coronado at 7,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Francisco Coronado at 7,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Francisco Coronado at 7,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Francisco Coronado at 7,000 yards
12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Francisco Coronado at 7,000 yards
LST-465 fired at enemy troops
LST-457 fired at enemy troops
LST-353 fired at enemy troops
LST-34 fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 1,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Shortlands (109,131)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

284 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAP Tak Sang, Shell hits 21, heavy fires
AM Kiwi
LCI-217
LCI-327
YMS-218
SC-739
LCI-218
LCI-219
LST-16

Allied ground losses:
94 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 27 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 7 (1 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

12cm/45 10YT DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Tak Sang at 5,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Tak Sang at 5,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Tak Sang at 5,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Tak Sang at 5,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Tak Sang at 5,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Battery engaging xAP Tak Sang at 5,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Tak Sang at 5,000 yards
8cm/40 T88 DP Gun Battery engaging xAP Tak Sang at 5,000 yards
AM Kiwi fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 1,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Shortlands (109,131)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 9590 troops, 286 guns, 78 vehicles, Assault Value = 466

Defending force 15351 troops, 422 guns, 323 vehicles, Assault Value = 771

Japanese ground losses:
35 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
38 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Assaulting units:
Maizuru 1st SNLF
16th/B Division
9th Armored Car Co
16th/A Division
16th/C Division
1st Air Defense AA Bn /4
45th Field AA Battalion
Wake Coastal Gun Battalion
11th Air Defense AA Regiment
2nd Ind.AA Gun Co
28th Field AA Machinecannon Company
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st JNAF AF Unit
4th Base Force /3
15th Air Defense AA Regiment
18th JAAF AF Bn
8th JNAF AF Unit
50th JAAF AF Bn
12th Air Defense AA Regiment
44th Field AA Battalion
14th Army
4th Shipping Engineer Regiment
Combined 8th SNLF /1

Defending units:
37th Infantry Div /1
1st USMC Corps Tank Battalion
24th Infantry Div /6
I US Amphib Corps
10th Marine Def Bn /5

And HERE a link to the game this is from:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4175198&mpage=6

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/4/2021 5:05:09 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 10

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 6:25:20 PM

fcooke

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline

I think there is 1) a natural tendency for armed forces to go after the largest target available and hit it until it well and truly 'dead', so by putting a big ship in among the little ones, she is going to catch the heat, and if gunners still see it they keep shooting. This is one reason putting BBs or CAs in your invasion forces works so well - they might take a lot of hits, but not much damage since they have good armor. And many of the US xAPs were BIG - ex Ocean liners often over 20k tons - it would take a lot of hits to put them down. I doubt it is modeled but AP shells would likely go right through them. But to actively use them as shell magnets does seem a bit gamey. On the 'overkill' thing I will reference CVL Shoho at Coral Sea. USN pilots kept hitting her well after she was done. Might be the only time Devastators hit a warship. She might have taken more pounds of explosives than the four IJN CVs at Midway combined. It's a good thing Dick Best avoided the 'keep attacking the target that isn't dead yet - Kaga' since he and his two wingman after Akagi and his single bomb finished her - thank you armed fueled planes.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 11

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 8:15:55 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

@fcooke: Funny you mention Midway just on the other browser tab I am watching a review for the movie and someone says that the movie is more about Dick Best then historical events. However if he has the best dick it might be justified

Guess I am just dissappointed my defense did not better, I have 2 good arty units plus some organic arty in the division there (plus all the CD and DP guns), I expected the 15cm hows to rain down shells on the landing sites and the heavy mortars too if in range, but seems our guys were asleep

The land units were in alomost perfect shape btw. ofc the CD, Eng and AA units suffered quite a bit from the bombardements by air and sea before...the inf and art units however were not hit much plus in forts/terrain.

Alone 24 x 15cm should cause havoc on troops "storming a beach" from mostly civilian ships plus all the 75mm in the division not even counting the mortars, AT and CD/DP guns (which were disrupted) even the AA should join in imho no reason not to shoot at troops trying to take your base with AA in range. I do not complain about tanks getting ashore as they had LSTs which were designed for the task.
LST and the like however "beach themselves" so to speak to a degree and are thus stationary while the tanks/vehicles roll off an so present perfect targets - not one sunk.

Edit, as for the AA and DP YES they were disrupted a lot BUT they still shot at planes succesfully...so could do so also at ground/ship targets.

Perhaps the general in charge had the stupid idea to "let them come in and land in peace" to reveal his real might later when the enemy is entrenched and gets more and more re-inforced? Need to have a word with him and perhaps refer to what Rommel might say about his "strategy"

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/4/2021 8:40:41 PM >

(in reply to fcooke)

Post #: 12

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 9:08:40 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

At the end of the day, both sides can use xAP/xAK for amphibious operations. It brings with it significant downsides already mentioned, and overall requires a bit more effort. Significantly more ships as well, which offers Japan opportunity. More ships = bigger task forces = more chance for collisions and a good payday for the enterprising IJN commander.

quote:

Guess I am just dissappointed my defense did not better, I have 2 good arty units plus some organic arty in the division there (plus all the CD and DP guns), I expected the 15cm hows to rain down shells on the landing sites and the heavy mortars too if in range, but seems our guys were asleep

That's what you see in the "Defensive Guns firing at approaching troops in landing craft" messages. You got decent results there.

Worth considering how comparatively light even 15cm guns are in the context of naval firepower, where even the small combatants will routinely have guns of 3 inches or bigger.

quote:

The land units were in alomost perfect shape btw. ofc the CD, Eng and AA units suffered quite a bit from the bombardements by air and sea before...the inf and art units however were not hit much plus in forts/terrain.

Well, you can't have it both ways. CD's function is to keep enemy ships away. They were successful at limiting the damage from the night CA/CL bombardments, and I think the losses you inflicted on the other ships seem reasonable with what you'd expect from the Wake CD unit.

There's a lot that goes under the hood with CD gun effectiveness, but you'll see a significant difference between the mobile CD gun units (which typically have guns no larger than 20cm) and the larger, static units with battleship grade guns.

Even more so if those guns are deployed guarding straits.

quote:

Alone 24 x 15cm should cause havoc on troops "storming a beach" from mostly civilian ships plus all the 75mm in the division not even counting the mortars, AT and CD/DP guns (which were disrupted) even the AA should join in imho no reason not to shoot at troops trying to take your base with AA in range. I do not complain about tanks getting ashore as they had LSTs which were designed for the task.
LST and the like however "beach themselves" so to speak to a degree and are thus stationary while the tanks/vehicles roll off an so present perfect targets - not one sunk.

No, because those 15cm guns, and the guns in the units need to be contending with counter-battery fire from the ships off shore.

AA can and does join in on the party when it comes to invasion support actions.

There's a lot of factors at play here.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 13

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 11:09:19 PM

fcooke

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

@fcooke: Funny you mention Midway just on the other browser tab I am watching a review for the movie and someone says that the movie is more about Dick Best then historical events. However if he has the best dick it might be justified

Guess I am just dissappointed my defense did not better, I have 2 good arty units plus some organic arty in the division there (plus all the CD and DP guns), I expected the 15cm hows to rain down shells on the landing sites and the heavy mortars too if in range, but seems our guys were asleep The land units were in alomost perfect shape btw. ofc the CD, Eng and AA units suffered quite a bit from the bombardements by air and sea before...the inf and art units however were not hit much plus in forts/terrain.

Alone 24 x 15cm should cause havoc on troops "storming a beach" from mostly civilian ships plus all the 75mm in the division not even counting the mortars, AT and CD/DP guns (which were disrupted) even the AA should join in imho no reason not to shoot at troops trying to take your base with AA in range. I do not complain about tanks getting ashore as they had LSTs which were designed for the task.
LST and the like however "beach themselves" so to speak to a degree and are thus stationary while the tanks/vehicles roll off an so present perfect targets - not one sunk.

Edit, as for the AA and DP YES they were disrupted a lot BUT they still shot at planes succesfully...so could do so also at ground/ship targets.

Perhaps the general in charge had the stupid idea to "let them come in and land in peace" to reveal his real might later when the enemy is entrenched and gets more and more re-inforced? Need to have a word with him and perhaps refer to what Rommel might say about his "strategy"

Weird. A couple of days ago was one of my old manager's dad's passing anniversary, and my old manager has a picture box filled with memorabilia from his dad's service time in Korea. Some stuff you expect, dog tag, rifleman's badge, Korean campaign medal, a few medals I could not identify, but then a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. I mentioned Bronze Stars don't grow on trees and there must be a story - waiting for a reply. Then one of friends mentioned that his dad was killed on the drive for the bridge at Remagen. I had just watched the movie the night before. Chilling.

On your D - what did your fort levels look like?

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 14

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/4/2021 11:45:10 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

The Japanese also have an accuracy problem from lack or radar in the first half of the game. An air search radar in the BF does not necessarily translate to getting accurate info to the coastal or DP guns. There must be some kind of fire control connection and spotting of the fall of shot for corrections. My experiences with Japanese guns is they miss a lot until they finally get the range on a decent sized ship and then they keep firing at that one long after it is in burning up/sinking condition.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 15

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/5/2021 12:05:19 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

@mind-messing:
"good payday for the enterprising IJN commander."

Commanders like Tanaka for example, who gets surprised now the 2nd time with his cruiser force by some Flechters and gets some of his DDs shot up and scores 2 meager hits in return?
I am done with this guy - he will be send to command a baseforce like in reality

I know Fletchers are godlike, but my forces were 2 x as big, I also know Allied SS radar play a major role but I thought high night exp would counter that. Allied ships arriving in 43 still have low night exp.. I should not think

"You got decent results there."

Very "decent" = disabling a few combat squads and some more non combat ones. But 771 AV have landed, that is lot.

"No, because those 15cm guns, and the guns in the units need to be contending with counter-battery fire from the ships off shore."

Yes if there were actually ships to content with in the invasion fleet I have not seen even a DD, much less a cruiser or BB in the fleets. This is just an insult landing at such a major base with good troops and arty without heavy combat ships only LST rable and holiday cruise ships. One has to wonder why the Allies developed so many special landing craft... judging from these events using banana freighters and ex-luxury liners is enough for the task.You also posted an interesting link in Castors AAR about the Iwo landings, a good read. Shows how much is involved in such an opposed landing at a fortified place

Yeah I am tongue in cheek (but only a bit)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/5/2021 12:23:57 AM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 16

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/5/2021 12:16:31 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

@fcooke: Do you know the concept of syncronicity as coined by CG Jung? If not, read about it. I experience that a lot also with numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Forts are 5.

@BBfanboy: True fire control might be an issue, but IIRC also the Dutch CD units do not have SS radar and they certainly can deal a lot of damage to several ships even if weaker than the CD units I have here. Eg. I remember having a bigger fleet blundering due to error in the Soarabaya hex more than half of the fleet was wiped out by guns and mines.

Edit, to be fair, previous bombardements disrupted the Shortland CDs quite a lot. However they still were combat effective.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/5/2021 12:29:01 AM >

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 17

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/5/2021 12:28:58 AM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The Japanese also have an accuracy problem from lack or radar in the first half of the game. An air search radar in the BF does not necessarily translate to getting accurate info to the coastal or DP guns. There must be some kind of fire control connection and spotting of the fall of shot for corrections. My experiences with Japanese guns is they miss a lot until they finally get the range on a decent sized ship and then they keep firing at that one long after it is in burning up/sinking condition.

That's not how radar impacts detection levels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

@mind-messing:
"good payday for the enterprising IJN commander."

Commanders like Tanaka for example, who gets surprised now the 2nd time with his cruiser force by some Flechters and gets some of his DDs shot up and scores 2 meager hits in return?
I am done with this guy - he will be send to command a baseforce like in reality
I know Fletchers are godlike, but my forces were 2 x as big, I also know Allied SS radar play a major role but I thought high night exp would counter that. I should not think

Size of the task force isn't the only variable that influences surface engagements, and may even be counter-productive.

You may want to dig out Nemo121's thoughts on surface combat composition as I've found that setup effective.

quote:

"You got decent results there."

Very "decent" = disabling a few combat squads and some more non combat ones

In sum, you disabled more than 100 squads over the invasion process (and that doesn't count those from the surface engagement) and in return you suffered little from either the preliminary bombardment missions or the invasion support fire.

Of significantly more importance is the fact that you can't "see" the impact on Allied fatigue/morale.

Just because the body count isn't in the thousands doesn't mean you got a bad result.

quote:

Yes if there were actually ships to content with in the invasion fleet I have not seen even a DD, much less a cruiser or BB in the fleets. This is just an insult landing at such a major base with good troops and arty without heavy combat ships only LST rable and holiday cruise ships. One has to wonder why the Allies developed so many special landing craft... judging from these events using banana freighters and ex-luxury liners is enough for the task.You also posted an interesting link in Castors AAR about the Iwo landings, a good read. Shows how much is involved in such an opposed landing at a fortified place

Shortlands is not an atoll, and with no forced shock attack it is significantly easier to invade with non-specialised ships.

With a non-atoll invasion, it's significantly easier.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 18

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/5/2021 12:37:46 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Probably you are right...re SF combats I read a lot about them too I believe my composition was good. I rather suspect now that bad weather and low moonlight is better for the Allies now - even if it is said it would be better for the IJN. Seems radar and fast ships reverses this.Plus bad luck-dice rolls. I have no further ships to waste vs. inferior Allied fleets (as most know IJN gets a bunch of DDs and a meager 3 weak light cruisers as reinforcements, plus if ones choses Musashi if one wants to spend the shipyard points on her rather than on DDs or CVs).

Well Guadalcanal, Normandy, Sizily etc. were also not atolls and still these were MEGA operations to have them succeed...but most know that I hope

Well in the end I am to blame for it: I thought I would have more time to react before a lot of AV gets shore. knowing the Allies in this game lost "some" APs (I mean the navy ones not civilian ones) and do not get the APA/AKA ships in masses mid 43 already.

But as shown these ships are not as important as many claim. Like they say hit these ships rather than enemy CVs, but if xAP can serve simmilar good from which Allies have tons there is no reason to put such an importance on the LSD/APA/AKA/AP type ships, except they have better AA guns and may be a bit faster. Ofc sinking anything with important troops on board is valid enough regardless what ships carry these troops/tanks.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/5/2021 12:48:43 AM >

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 19

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/5/2021 1:47:43 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

@fcooke: Do you know the concept of syncronisity as coined by CG Jung? If not, read about it. I experience that a lot also with numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Forts are 5.

@BBfanboy: True fire control might be an issue, but IIRC also the Dutch CD units do not have SS radar and they certainly can deal a lot of damage to several ships even if weaker than the CD units I have here. Eg. I remember having a bigger fleet blundering due to error in the Soerabaja hex more than half of the fleet was wiped out by guns and mines.

Edit, to be fair, previous bombardments disrupted the Shortland CDs quite a lot. However they still were combat effective.

What I was getting at is that the Japanese artillery accuracy is lower in the database because they lacked those capabilities.
As for the Dutch, I think Soerabaja has a true naval fortress with optical rangefinders dispersed for triangulation but coordinated through a control center for accurate fire. That would be reflected in their CD gun accuracy.
And of course, ships slowed by mine hits are much easier targets.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 20

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/5/2021 12:23:02 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Probably you are right...re SF combats I read a lot about them too I believe my composition was good. I rather suspect now that bad weather and low moonlight is better for the Allies now - even if it is said it would be better for the IJN. Seems radar and fast ships reverses this.Plus bad luck-dice rolls. I have no further ships to waste vs. inferior Allied fleets (as most know IJN gets a bunch of DDs and a meager 3 weak light cruisers as reinforcements, plus if ones choses Musashi if one wants to spend the shipyard points on her rather than on DDs or CVs).

Speed and manoeuvrability is a big factor, as is radar. If the IJN can't get sufficient DL via night naval search, then they'll really struggle in night engagements given the influence of radar.

quote:

Well Guadalcanal, Normandy, Sizily etc. were also not atolls and still these were MEGA operations to have them succeed...but most know that I hope

Worth considering what the game is trying to represent with amphibious invasions on atolls versus regular hexes: with atolls it's trying to represent cases where the geography is such that the attacking troops effectively need to land right on top of all the defending troops.

That wasn't the case in Guadalcanal, Normandy, or Sicily, where the geography allowed for more dispersed landing options away from enemy defensive concentrations (f.e the difference between the landings on Utah and Omaha).

quote:

Well in the end I am to blame for it: I thought I would have more time to react before a lot of AV gets shore. knowing the Allies in this game lost "some" APs (I mean the navy ones not civilian ones) and do not get the APA/AKA ships in masses mid 43 already.

As has always been the case, much easier to stop an amphibious invasion when it's still at sea.

quote:

But as shown these ships are not as important as many claim. Like they say hit these ships rather than enemy CVs, but if xAP can serve simmilar good from which Allies have tons there is no reason to put such an importance on the LSD/APA/AKA/AP type ships, except they have better AA guns and may be a bit faster. Ofc sinking anything with important troops on board is valid enough regardless what ships carry these troops/tanks.

The last point is an important one to realise. xAP/xAK ships are at a significant disadvantage in any combat situation because of low crew experience, generally poor quality leadership and token armament.

Yes, quantity has a quality all of it's own, but using these ships instead of the dedicated amphib type vessels has considerable risks involved.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 21

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/5/2021 1:26:06 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Re, the issue about "X" ships making Blitzkireg landings I was correct as confirmed even by the dev Symon (link above). However it will not be changed so we need to live with it. Or impose a house rule.

Re, night search this seems often to occure AFTER night SF battles are fought so seems to have no impact on D/L for a battle that occures before the night search phase

Re, D/L I wonder is D/L tracked for individual ships (outside of a battle) eg, if a recon plane gets 9/10 D/L on ships in port than a TF is formed from these ships will they still have the 9/10 D/L on them. Which in turn makes them vulnerable in battle occuring right after ?

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 22

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/5/2021 2:21:24 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Re, the issue about "X" ships making Blitzkireg landings I was correct as confirmed even by the dev Symon (link above). However it will not be changed so we need to live with it. Or impose a house rule.

Correct.

Thinking about it from a whole-game perspective, it's a challenge to properly represent the early IJ amphibious operations where xAP/xAK type ships featured heavily without later allowing the Allied significantly enhanced capabilities.

As said previously, using these ships in amphibious operations is not always desirable.

For your other questions, see s.10 of the manual, with particular reference to MDL levels.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 23

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/5/2021 2:28:20 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Re, the issue about "X" ships making Blitzkireg landings I was correct as confirmed even by the dev Symon (link above). However it will not be changed so we need to live with it. Or impose a house rule.

Re, night search this seems often to occure AFTER night SF battles are fought so seems to have no impact on D/L for a battle that occures before the night search phase

Re, D/L I wonder is D/L tracked for individual ships (outside of a battle) eg, if a recon plane gets 9/10 D/L on ships in port than a TF is formed from these ships will they still have the 9/10 D/L on them. Which in turn makes them vulnerable in battle occuring right after ?

It would be a good hr to limit amphibious landings to amphibious shipping, the problem in the game will be that one or two failed operations means no amphib landings for the next 12 months at least. xAP and xAK work the same in the game as amphib shipping, the only difference is their load/unload speed but you make up with numbers. That's the old story about the game and reality, in the game these ships work perfectly fine and in real life, these ships wouldn't work at all. As you've said, never going to be changed.

Found it a good idea to have the xAK(t) that came with AE, while those ships aren't really comparable to real amphib shipping anyways you at least have to spend some time in the yard to convert them.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 24

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/5/2021 2:36:29 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

@fcooke: Do you know the concept of syncronisity as coined by CG Jung? If not, read about it. I experience that a lot also with numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Forts are 5.

@BBfanboy: True fire control might be an issue, but IIRC also the Dutch CD units do not have SS radar and they certainly can deal a lot of damage to several ships even if weaker than the CD units I have here. Eg. I remember having a bigger fleet blundering due to error in the Soerabaja hex more than half of the fleet was wiped out by guns and mines.

Edit, to be fair, previous bombardments disrupted the Shortland CDs quite a lot. However they still were combat effective.

What I was getting at is that the Japanese artillery accuracy is lower in the database because they lacked those capabilities.
As for the Dutch, I think Soerabaja has a true naval fortress with optical rangefinders dispersed for triangulation but coordinated through a control center for accurate fire. That would be reflected in their CD gun accuracy.
And of course, ships slowed by mine hits are much easier targets.

CD gunfire has always been a bit wonky in the game, going all back to WITP and I doubt anything has been changed in AE. Even after a decade, players are still afraid of big style CD like Singapore, Corregidor or the big ones on Japan and it's like

when a Japanese player starts naval bombardments with BBs in early Dec 41 at Singapore. The real threat there would be the mines, not the big guns. Questionable if any fleet would have ever attempted something like this in real life.

Have seen too many invasions in hexes with big CD units that have not been reduced earlier and literally nothing happens. On the other hand you get each and every minesweeper blown out of the water by even more or less destroyed CD units. These same units do nothing against static, unloading freighters and transports though. That's why I call it wonky.

In WITP I once tested landing at Singapore, two out of three times the CD gunfire wrecked havoc on lightly escorted amphib convoys. The third time they did literally nothing at all. Then I was putting six BBs and halve a dozen cruisers into the amphib TF and I didn't lose a single freighter landing several divs right into Singapore using the amphib bonus. Also non of the BBs or cruisers was sunk by Singapore's CD but a couple of them needed 1-3 months of yard time.

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 25

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/7/2021 6:10:11 AM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

I think that in RL no commander would object to using xAK for unloading supplies in an amphibious TF. You just unload at a slower rate from a ship that has a weaker complement of surface/AA guns compared to AK ships. On the other hand, unloading troops from xAPs could raise some eyebrows. Actually, it would be nice to have a PP cost for doing this like 10 PPs for an xAP loaded with troops for amphibious assault or something.

Other thing is adding empty xAK/xAP to such TFs just to draw CD fire to those ships. I dont think in RL, a land-based fire director would fire on ships that are visibly not unloading anything, treating them as a bait. The whole thing would require some testing to check if the code targets biggest ships in a TF or ships that actively unload troops/supplies during assault.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 26

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/7/2021 11:40:01 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers.

Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them.

Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 27

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/7/2021 11:50:26 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

That makes sense Hans. There is a scene in "Mr. Roberts" when, after being strafed by a Japanese fighter a crew member has to go into the hold to find a fuel drum that was holed and leaking gasoline. The entire hold was filled with barrels to within a couple of feet of the hold's top. That small ship was also a naval vessel, not an xAKL.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 28

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/7/2021 12:13:56 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers.

Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them.

Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves.

Very good post!

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 29

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commission... - 6/7/2021 12:45:43 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I favor the Babes scenario with reduced cargo, et al capacities. As mentioned in another thread, I self limit by not loading fuel into cargo spaces (don't use "load fuel" except if ship on has fuel capacity like AO or TK, use "load supply" instead). In that thread I didn't mention that I also self limit by not using xAK/xAP/etc in any amphib TF, not just for invasions. That limits the movement of stuff too.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 30