I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!!

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!!

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 12:41:26 AM

Cpt.Buckmaster

Posts: 65
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Status: offline

Ready for yet *ANOTHER* invasion synopsis, guys?

It is the summer of 1942.

While trying to supply and transport my forces in the Coral Sea area, I have become annoyed with the presence of the Japanese at Kwajalein and have decided to borrow their island group so my supply TFs will no longer have to busy themselves with silly waypoint vectors.

After reading through the advice and ideas of dozens of fine people on these here forums, I intended to make my Kwajalein Operation an experiment of sorts. I figured I'd use a dozen of my largest APs (I've saved my smaller ones for campaigns in the SoPac and SWPac), suppliment them with AKs, and attempt to protect them as well as possible just to see if they could survive the ordeal.

In the interests of trying to keep the costal battery damage somewhat tolerable (yes yes, that age-old WITP inaccurate problem), I first thought I'd try the idea of hitting the beaches with a handful of separate transport TFs instead of one large one (I believe I got that idea from derek. Cheers, fella!) so I loaded up 3 army Divs, 1RCT, 2 Arty divs, 1 Tank btn, and 2 Eng groups onto three TFs consisting of around 4-5 large APs, 6 CAs, and a few AKs for supplies and leftover troops apiece (of course I had some DD ASW groups following each of them, but I left them out of the group itself so they wouldn't all immediately sink after merely sighting the island, as this game would lend you to think was historically accurate!

)

Now, I've reluctantly kept all of my CVs out of harm's way for the most part, so I was able to assemble a nice force of Sara, Lex, Big E, Hornet, and my beloved Yorktown. I smacked every targetable part of Kwajalein for almost two weeks. I also bombarded with a half dozen battleships for a few days leading up to D-Day.

After all of that, I finally brought my 3 transport TFs stuffed with my fat transports over and started the landings. At first, things went well since each TF was stacked nicely with CAs. Just in case it had an impact, I also left my BB group in the hex. Only one or two APs were taking hits at a time. HOWEVER, after the several turns of sustained "two-a-days" it took to unload all the stuff, I was left with half of my APs sunk and the other half had damage reports of something akin to "83 67 21."

SO, in conclusion, after setting off to see if my APs could actually live to fight another day (and when I say 'another day', I don't mean after 452 days in the Frisco drydock!

), all of my efforts failed. I've read on here that APs have good amphib values and whatnot compared to other ships, but I tried to play that angle to the fullest and it still took 5 or 6 days to unload those big bastards (I assume the 4000 cap APs wouldn't be much better). THEREFORE, from now on, I shall never let my APs see a landing beach again and I'm going to start throwing much more expendable AKs at the much bigger landings that come in the future. I don't care if it takes 100 AKs to get a marine division aboard Munda... my APs are now on strict convoy duty!

_____________________________

"In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard!"-Theodore Roosevelt

Post #: 1

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 12:42:07 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

The AK's will take even longer to unload...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 2

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 12:51:01 AM

AirGriff

Posts: 701
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

I believe you should actually be using smaller 2k AP's. They unload faster, but you'll need more of them. Use the 6k AP's for transporting troops from the US West Coast to preliminary bases. Amphib assaults with AK's isn't a good idea. They're slow sailers and slow to unload.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 3

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 12:52:02 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

since each TF was stacked nicely with CAs

By this, do you mean the CAs were in the transport TF, or they were just in the same hex?? Putting CAs in the actual transport TF is supposed to provide fire support and cut down on hits to the APs.

Also, someone once advocating making the whole TF an "escort" TF, and putting BBs in there. He claimed they (the APs/AKs) would unload (don't know if the last part is true).

Last, were the BBs bombarding and planes attacking as the troops landed? This also seems to make a difference (usually rather large difference.)

EDIT:

Last again - if you just load the transports part way (and use more, assuming you have them) you can unload an entire division in less than 1 turn (well, Pompack did it to me, anyway!!

)

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 4

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 12:52:53 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

You can get APs to unload faster if you use more than is required to ship your unit. For instance, if your division needs 18,000 worth of AP tonnage to load use 36,000 or 54,000 and they will unload that much faster.

Historically APs shouldn't really TAKE damage since most carried smaller assault craft that took the troops to shore and were able to stay well out of range of shore guns.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 5

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 12:59:47 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

I should also state that even though I put units in their own separate task force I also invaded with LST/LCI and unloaded in one turn.

I also spent at least a week pounding the *expletive deleted* out of the invasion beach with 9 battleships and 8 heavy cruisers, 12-15 CV, 9 CVL and 10+ CVEs.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 6

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 1:16:58 AM

Cpt.Buckmaster

Posts: 65
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The AK's will take even longer to unload...

You're right, but I was thinking of spreading the force out as thin as I can 'per ship.' I'd like to go into an operation not caring how many stupid AKs I lose as opposed to sweating the APs.

_____________________________

"In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard!"-Theodore Roosevelt

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 7

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 1:19:46 AM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

Had they unloaded their troops before they took damage or where they unloading supplies at the time? Transports usually get the troops unloaded in 1-2 turns but supplies take longer.

I usually set my transports to "Do not unload" after the troops are ashore and unload the rest of the supplies when the base is captured.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 8

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 1:19:58 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

The more ships you use the better. Look at page 98 (I think) of the manual. It gives unload rates.

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 9

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 1:20:02 AM

Cpt.Buckmaster

Posts: 65
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

since each TF was stacked nicely with CAs

By this, do you mean the CAs were in the transport TF, or they were just in the same hex?? Putting CAs in the actual transport TF is supposed to provide fire support and cut down on hits to the APs.

Yup! I put the CAs into the groups. They each literally were something like CA CA CA CA CA CA AP AP AP AP AP AK AK AK AK apiece.

quote:

Also, someone once advocating making the whole TF an "escort" TF, and putting BBs in there. He claimed they (the APs/AKs) would unload (don't know if the last part is true).

Really!?? Hmmmmm! That's so crazy it just might work!

quote:

Last, were the BBs bombarding and planes attacking as the troops landed? This also seems to make a difference (usually rather large difference.)

The initial landings were at night with bombard, the rest were with A/S during the day.

_____________________________

"In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard!"-Theodore Roosevelt

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 10

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 1:21:18 AM

Cpt.Buckmaster

Posts: 65
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck
Historically APs shouldn't really TAKE damage since most carried smaller assault craft that took the troops to shore and were able to stay well out of range of shore guns.

Indeed! Damn I hate that! lol

_____________________________

"In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard!"-Theodore Roosevelt

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 11

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 1:23:05 AM

Cpt.Buckmaster

Posts: 65
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

I should also state that even though I put units in their own separate task force I also invaded with LST/LCI and unloaded in one turn.

I also spent at least a week pounding the *expletive deleted* out of the invasion beach with 9 battleships and 8 heavy cruisers, 12-15 CV, 9 CVL and 10+ CVEs.

I would imagine so... but that's prolly a Saipan landing in 1944, this was a much more lightly defended Kwajalein in 1942.

When it's my turn to overwhelm in '44, I'll be following that model for sure!!

_____________________________

"In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard!"-Theodore Roosevelt

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 12

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 1:30:31 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt.Buckmaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The AK's will take even longer to unload...

You're right, but I was thinking of spreading the force out as thin as I can 'per ship.' I'd like to go into an operation not caring how many stupid AKs I lose as opposed to sweating the APs.

I sweat all ships except PT boats which I really don't use. AKs move supplies and troops between rear area bases so even a single AK ship hurts.

Instead of "accepting" ship losses (think of ALL those poor cyber-sailors your so callously sending to their deaths

) try whatever you can to keep ship losses to a minimum.

Sounds to me like instead of only "a few days" of shore bombardment prior to the invasion I'd have bombarded more. I have all my transport ships, carriers (CV,CVL and CVE), cargo ships, etc in a staging area one hex off of my target and just park them there until my battleships reduce the "guns" I can see down to a very low value. I think for my Saipan invasion I had my ships parked offshore for about 10 days before I sent them ashore - and this was after a previous shore/air bombardment while I waited for my transports to get from Hawaii to Kwajalein to form-up my invasion force.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 13

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 1:32:09 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt.Buckmaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

I should also state that even though I put units in their own separate task force I also invaded with LST/LCI and unloaded in one turn.

I also spent at least a week pounding the *expletive deleted* out of the invasion beach with 9 battleships and 8 heavy cruisers, 12-15 CV, 9 CVL and 10+ CVEs.

I would imagine so... but that's prolly a Saipan landing in 1944, this was a much more lightly defended Kwajalein in 1942.

When it's my turn to overwhelm in '44, I'll be following that model for sure!!

1942 is your answer there. Until you can project air power wherever you want via carriers do not attempt any amphibious invasion outside the range of land-based air unless forced to.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 14

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 1:44:10 AM

Cpt.Buckmaster

Posts: 65
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck
1942 is your answer there. Until you can project air power wherever you want via carriers do not attempt any amphibious invasion outside the range of land-based air unless forced to.

You're right about that, but this is going to be the extent of my central pacific conquest until late 1943 at the earliest.

PLUS, 5 CVs wasn't something to shake a stick at!

From now on, it's SWPac action with plenty of LBA. I can't waste my CVs time on landings for now anyways since I've gonna try and bait portions of the KB into some battles in a couple months.

Regarding the "easier" AK losses I was referring to (and the poor cyber sailors within

), I meant in relation to using my nice 4k or 6k APs. Normally I would form my invasion group differently, but in this case I was just trying an experiment to see if I could protect them with almost a 1CA to AP ratio (along with other things).

_____________________________

"In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard!"-Theodore Roosevelt

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 15

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 2:20:15 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

Are you playing the AI or a PBEM opponent?

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 16

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 2:33:14 AM

Cpt.Buckmaster

Posts: 65
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Status: offline

The inferior, yet always "read to play when you are and doesn't disappear after Sept 1942" AI.

_____________________________

"In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard!"-Theodore Roosevelt

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 17

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 2:36:05 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

Then make use of your land based air against the Japanese AI.

For some reason the Jap AI decided to shore bombard and air strike Port Moresby and all I had to fight back was about 100 medium and heavy bombers. I set them all to 1000 feet and naval attack and sent the Japanese back to base ... minus a couple of their carriers

This is a tactic admittedly only good for the AI.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 18

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 2:42:41 AM

Cpt.Buckmaster

Posts: 65
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Status: offline

Wow... that little operation must be hard coded into the damned thing cause the same thing happened in my game, except the AI used the baby KB and tried to run the channel afterwards.

I think I hit the Zuiho with like 18 f'n bombs and 2 torps, but the thing has yet to show up sunk on the intel reports so it must've somehow made it back to port!

_____________________________

"In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard!"-Theodore Roosevelt

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 19

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 8:13:21 AM

Cpt.Buckmaster

Posts: 65
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Status: offline

Those bastards!!! Look what I found!!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard!"-Theodore Roosevelt

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 20

RE: I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!! - 10/27/2005 12:27:35 PM

Honda

Posts: 953
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Karlovac, Croatia
Status: offline

Since it's an AI game I don't think the problem was in the inasion preparation/execution. It wasn't the best not the worst. I think it's most likely one of AI's Base Forces mutated and started recieving tons of CD guns. Wouldn't be the first time...

_____________________________

AAR of my game vs Raver on my clan forum in croatian language (despite the language differences, no Ravers allowed)

(in reply to Cpt.Buckmaster)

Post #: 21

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> I Renounce Thee, Assault Transport!!

Page: [1]