RE: Amphibious Assault

RE: Amphibious Assault (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Amphibious Assault (3/4/2011 8:27:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty_01 Even more historically obscure was the German amphibious assault on these same Islands in October of 1917. The Germans apparently mustered a rather sizable invasion force consisting of about 25,000 soldiers along with a rather significant chunk of the High Seas Fleet. well, they needed em because they advanced. in 1917 their fleet was larger as anything in the baltic. So this is nothing we can compare. But the germans could do landings... they just had no use for it in 1941 in the baltic. But they should have the possibility to land troops - esp. if they have no russian force in a hex. Supply can be done by air.... so, why not? Not in the first 10 weeks, later on? yes. But in normal games, in this stage it makes no sense. So - it should be allowed but it is not significant for the gameplay

marty_01 -> RE: Amphibious Assault (3/4/2011 1:25:42 PM)
quote: But they should have the possibility to land troops - esp. if they have no russian force in a hex. Supply can be done by air.... so, why not? Not in the first 10 weeks, later on? yes. But in normal games, in this stage it makes no sense. So - it should be allowed but it is not significant for the gameplay I don't disagree. If I had my druthers my tendency would be to give the Germans a small amphib lift capability in the Baltic -- maybe a regiment, but certainly not more than a division. I'd also restrict use of the amphib capability near Leningrad -- ala standard German Naval transport. This to simulate both the Soviet Baltic Fleet and its potential to sortie against any amphibious operations close to Leningrad, as well as to simulate the heavy Soviet coastal defense works in this area of the Baltic. The lack of German amphibious capability in the Baltic is not at all crucial to the game -- nor does the lack of the capability detract in any way from my personal playing experience. But it might be a fun layer to add to the playing options provided to players, and the capability – albeit a small one -- can certainly be justified from a historical perspective.

Zort -> RE: Amphibious Assault (3/4/2011 2:18:53 PM)
I agree the germans should have some amphib lift capability, would be supplied by sea more likely then by air.The threat of some type of amphib assault should be there IMO. I can't find my link but once Kalinn fell most of the soviet surface flt in the baltic was destroyed, just submarines able to sortie. Also I remember reading that the area just outside leningrad was very heavily mined by both sides. Remember the soviet navy was divided between the Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific. They also lost about 33% of all their ships. Total soviet navy: 4 battleships, 7 cruisers 59 destroyer-leaders and squadron-destroyers 218 submarines, 269 torpedo boats, 22 patrol vessels, 88 minesweepers, 77 submarine-hunters,

PyleDriver -> RE: Amphibious Assault (3/4/2011 3:56:48 PM)
In the game the Gulf of Finland is considered Soviet controled until Leningrad falls...Zort on your post was that the Baltic fleet or the whole Soviet navy?

GFelz -> RE: Amphibious Assault (3/4/2011 4:59:01 PM)
This has turned into a very interesting discussion. I am looking forward to see how the mechanics of invasion and shore support etc would be covered in future titles.

LiquidSky -> RE: Amphibious Assault (3/4/2011 5:05:11 PM)
Isnt the German fleet rather preoccupied with convoy raiding during the summer of 1941?

Caranorn -> RE: Amphibious Assault (3/4/2011 5:43:16 PM)
After Norway and the cancelation of Sealion the German Navy as far as I recall wasn't all that concerned with ampibious operations. The catastropic casualties taken during the Norway invasion precluded the use of those old tactics. For Norway (iirc) the means to bring troops to shore was by transportation of light troops on cruisers and destroyers, heavier equipment on a small number of hastily assembled civilian cargo ships, all directly into defended (mines, torpedoes, shore artillery) ports. This system led to the loss of at least two cruisers and a large number of destroyers crippling the German surface navy for the rest of the war. Assets for an alternative assault system were established for Sealion, but left in North Sea ports after the cancellation of that operation (barges existed, though not comparable to those used by the Western Allies in 42, 43 and 44, , amphibious tanks §units disbanded iirc) also minesweepers, patrol boats of varyious tonnage and types, a number of destroyers). Those assets could not be transferred to the Baltic on a whim if at all. Accordingly I think a medium to long distance invasion by a substantial force was entirely out of the question for the German Navy in 1941... P.S.: I don't recall whether the plans for an invasion of Sweden by Germany involved amphibious invasion, most likely not.

Mike Parker -> RE: Amphibious Assault (3/4/2011 6:08:01 PM)
Caranorn, The invasion of Sweden (or rather the veiled threat of it) was almost entirely from the rather substantial ground forces in Norway. I am sure some shore bombardment might have been used, but I am almost positive the operational plans had the relatively safer maritime component just ship replacement units into Norway while the forces in place invaded. Interestingly enough iirc the Swedish Govt. while taking it very seriously also made it plain they were prepard for such eventuality and would fight. As for any purported Baltic Sea amphibious operations, while I agree the fiasco especially the loss of the Blucher to Norwegian shore batteries had made the Kreigsmarine and OKH rather gun shy of amphibious operations, I am also equally certain that the operational cabability to do the same sort of thing done in Norway existed in 41 and well into 43. Now getting high command to say anything but "Nein nein nein!" to the idea is another issue, I believe enough CA/CL and DD as well as TR's and smaller patrol craft existed to pull off landing similar in size to Norway, which in a week timeframe would be 1 or 2 Infantry divisions. We allow German paratroopers to be used do we not? I have never done it in game myself but I believe it could be done i.e. the game mechanics exist to allow it. High command had soured on paradrops (from the debacle in Crete) as much as they had soured on amphibious operations (from the Norway operation). So if we allow one (i.e. paratroops) we should allow the other. I could be wrong on the capability I know alot of Kriegsmarine assets were kept in Bergen, Brest, and Wilhelmshaven but I cannot believe the Baltic Sea Squadron was not outfitted with enough assets to pull off a divisional landing over a week which is what is required to allow a landing in WITE, although some of you Naval OOB experts could chime in here if you know more than I.

Zort -> RE: Amphibious Assault (3/5/2011 12:01:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PyleDriver In the game the Gulf of Finland is considered Soviet controled until Leningrad falls...Zort on your post was that the Baltic fleet or the whole Soviet navy? That is the entire Soviet Flt. Can not find the link that shows losses but will continue to look. Got to remember to bookmark my references. And I forgot the Arctic flt is part of the total numbers. References don't all agree. Found this for the Baltic soviet flt composition as of 1939(about the same for 41): 2 battleships 2 cruisers 21 destroyers and torpedo boats 52 submarines 41 motor topedo boats 13 minelayers, minesweepers and auxiliaries 2 escort and patrol boats.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375