Factors in Amphibious Landings

Factors in Amphibious Landings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Hano -> Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/27/2021 8:55:44 AM)
I'm doing some island hopping and was trying to come up with a formula that works having been bloodily repulsed from some islands, as far as I can see the key factors are: Have an Amhibious Force HQ in an AGC with the force Ensure that your assault elements are in vessels that can unload them straight onto the beaches AP, APA, AKA, LST not XAP or AK Add Combat Engineers into the mix with your assault wave Do your prep in terms of planning - setting the island as a future objective and allowing the preperation to get to 100% Ensure the units are rested and fully up to strength with an "Assault" leader. How important in WIP terms are: Aircraft flying Ground Attack? Preparatory Bombardment by CA-BB? Experience? Are there other factors that I'm missing?

GetAssista -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/27/2021 9:39:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hano How important in WIP terms are: Aircraft flying Ground Attack? Preparatory Bombardment by CA-BB? Experience? Are there other factors that I'm missing? Quantity matters. If you can afford to bomb and bombard for weeks before you actually land, it will erode supply (best case scenario - to zero) and disable/destroy quite some devices. Alternatively, if you can do a massive bombing/bombardment the day before attack it will run up enemy units' disruption which decreases their effectiveness (a lot if disruption is high). But don't rely much on the latter, do some Head-to-head to get a feel of how things are. Cracking fortified atolls is a long game if you don't want massive casualties. Experience is always good Bring tanks

Hano -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/27/2021 9:46:40 AM)
Thanks for that... I had a few rude shocks, I hadnt really considered tanks but thats good advice. I normally try to get inf & CE ashore, then bring in more inf, HQ & Arty in second wave, but I've had my first wave almost wiped out a couple of times. Good point about disruption factor of bombardment/bombing I was purely looking at it from a killing the enemy point of view rather than disrupting him.

Uncivil Engineer -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/27/2021 10:31:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hano I'm doing some island hopping and was trying to come up with a formula that works having been bloodily repulsed from some islands, as far as I can see the key factors are: Have an Amhibious Force HQ in an AGC with the force Ensure that your assault elements are in vessels that can unload them straight onto the beaches AP, APA, AKA, LST not XAP or AK Add Combat Engineers into the mix with your assault wave Do your prep in terms of planning - setting the island as a future objective and allowing the preperation to get to 100% Ensure the units are rested and fully up to strength with an "Assault" leader. How important in WIP terms are: Aircraft flying Ground Attack? Preparatory Bombardment by CA-BB? Experience? Are there other factors that I'm missing? I would also have artillery and tanks in the first wave AND ships loaded ONLY with supply which will unload with the first assault troops. Otherwise, supply unloads last, which is not good. Air supremacy (or at least air superiority) is desirable; you want his planes on the ground and not attacking your amphib TF. Several days of bombardment by battleships is a good idea, but then surprise is not possible.

Hano -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/27/2021 10:49:24 AM)
Thanks folks, I really appreciate this, I will re-run my last disasterous attack but bring in what we have talked about and see how it comes out. Cheers H

GetAssista -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/27/2021 11:17:59 AM)
Ah, one more. A very important factor is to embed BB/CA caliber ships in an amphibious force itself. They suppress shore batteries and draw fire to themselves in the landing phase. And they are much more effective than bombardment TFs at hitting enemy land units, so if you lack ships and have to choose between bombardment and embedding - choose the latter. Other combat ships are ok to embed too, but they run higher risk of being seriously damaged by shore guns

RangerJoe -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/27/2021 12:27:50 PM)
If you have a base within range, put a Command HQ there with it preparing for the target. Load as much of a unit per ship as the ship can unload in one day, no multiple days of unloading the same unit if you can do it in one day.

CV10 -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/27/2021 1:49:01 PM)
Pre-invasion bombardment is crucial for atoll invasions. The damage and disruption they cause for the defender can make all the difference in the world for the attack force. I play as the Allies and my preference is for a a few bombardment TFs with a pair of old BBs each. Embedded CAs and BBs in the amphibious group are also critical, particularly if the target has a lot of artillery defending it. As others said, they draw enemy fire away from your troop transports and landing craft.

Macclan5 -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/27/2021 2:01:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hano I'm doing some island hopping and was trying to come up with a formula that works having been bloodily repulsed from some islands, as far as I can see the key factors are: Have an Amhibious Force HQ in an AGC with the force Ensure that your assault elements are in vessels that can unload them straight onto the beaches AP, APA, AKA, LST not XAP or AK Add Combat Engineers into the mix with your assault wave Do your prep in terms of planning - setting the island as a future objective and allowing the preperation to get to 100% Ensure the units are rested and fully up to strength with an "Assault" leader. How important in WIP terms are: Aircraft flying Ground Attack? Preparatory Bombardment by CA-BB? Experience? Very good post and welcome to the learning curve. As you progress you will also find that the enemy ( The Japanese ) plays defense stronger and stronger. Each base will have (perhaps) more coastal artillery, higher defensive fortification, etc etc If i.e. Tarawa comes of good... Guam is harder ... and Iwo Jima is a B%^&* [8D] 1) Recon Recon and then when you have Reconed enough - 3 more turns with good experienced Recon Pilots 2) Sub patrol interdiction all around the base. Try to ensure the AI is not sneaking in 'fast supply missions' or even more troops in there. 3) If you can - if you have established bases in close proximity - Shore and Air Bombard the target base. Reduce Port / Reduce Air field. Make the enemy base burn up supply repairing damage for multiple turns / days / weeks and even months. This is ironically somewhat easier in later war when you are well progressed and will have multiple bases to support i.e. the Mariana's to support target Iwo Jima or the Philippine's to support target Okinawa. Ironically it is often the early invasions that are somewhat tough as you may not have a well developed base with tons of supply / fuel / AE's in ports nearby. Its a long way from Wake or Entiwok to Guam for example 4) Minesweep Minesweep Minesweep the target (Bombard Bombard Bombard as well to cause disruption of the enemy with the landing) 5) Advice above. Tanks / Defensive Battalions / Artillery in early with the Infantry. Yes Combat Engineers are critical Yes 100% Prep and Unit experience is very important to minimize the loss / disablement of your troops. Consider ENG units with Naval Support for unloading Consider supply ships ladden nearby ready to unload Consider an Air Transport Mission nearby ready to unload some local CAP as soon as you have the airfield :) Congrats and welcome to the 'learning curve'

BBfanboy -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/27/2021 3:44:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hano Thanks for that... I had a few rude shocks, I hadnt really considered tanks but thats good advice. I normally try to get inf & CE ashore, then bring in more inf, HQ & Arty in second wave, but I've had my first wave almost wiped out a couple of times. Good point about disruption factor of bombardment/bombing I was purely looking at it from a killing the enemy point of view rather than disrupting him. This is a good time to mention the progression of damage to enemy units. Unless you have overwhelming power to destroy the enemy in one combat, the longer term grind looks like this: - first, combat will cause fatigue and perhaps morale drop in the enemy unit - next, fatigue and loss of a few men within each squad will cause disruption numbers to climb, possibly decreasing morale some more - next, loss of more men or wounding of some will result in disablement of some devices. These devices can be restored after some rest and replenishment, if the unit is allowed time with no combat - next, at about 50% disablements for all the devices in the slot, further combat tends to destroy more and more of the squads/devices. - finally, when almost all the devices are disabled the unit as a whole is ripe for destruction. Smaller units tend to reach this point much sooner than larger units. The progression above emphasizes how important it is to keep pressure on once you attack the enemy, so that they do not recover too much. Sustained bombardment of the enemy from air, sea and land arty is recommended if your own troops need to rest for a while. You can even consider swapping out your heavily disrupted units for fresh ones to limit your own losses while keeping pressure on. Use of APDs and other fast loading/unloading vessels is recommended for this. You can leave heavy equipment ashore until you bring back the rest of the unit or withdraw the equipment after you defeat the enemy. Equipment does not enter into the stacking limit of the Atoll.

HansBolter -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/27/2021 5:34:11 PM)
All ship types capable of being included in an Amphibious TF and capable of carrying land units unload over the beaches. Unloading over the beaches is not a function special to certain types of ships. APs, AKs, APAs and AKAs all have heavily increased unload rates over the beaches compared to xAPs and xAKs. That is why they are the preferred types for invasions where rapid unloading is required. Beaching craft unload everything in a single phase, making them highly desirable for invasions where rapid unloading is desirable. xAPs and xAKs are perfectly fine for invasions where rapid unloading is not a factor. Morale, Fatigue and Disruption are the Triumvirate of land combat. The effects of attacks on these factors are never reported to the player, but are extremely important. Multidimensional attacks that will suppress Morale and increase Fatigue and Disruption are ALWAYS key to the success of any land combat, including invasions.

Ian R -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/28/2021 12:35:36 PM)
No one has mentioned collecting everything in a hex a adjacent to the target, and then going in and unloading from 1 hex away, so that you get two unload phases before the shock attack. Ideally you organise something like this to form up one hex away - 1) your lead TF that everyone follows is your AGC carrying the prepped Amph force HQ, set to not unload. 2) Your bombardment SAG. 3) Your CVE TF(s). 4) Your assault landing TF. Note regarding the escorts taking shore fire - Fletchers are good in this role because they have some armor plate. 5) A separate supply force made up of combat loaded AKs. 6) A support force with AR, AE/AKE, AD, and AOs, that can anchor in the atoll as soon as it's secured and get to work. 7) A replenishment TF to service, at least, the CVEs. 8) An empty TF AP/AK that arrives empty and is tasked with lifting your marines straight off the atoll and heading back to pearl for R&R. 9) Your garrison and engineers/base force TF which will unload after the atoll is secured. The turn you issue the order 'land the landing force', you can manually set the orders for the assault TFs to make sure they do what they are supposed to. Things the jury is still out on - - Loading a corps HQ in your landing force, prepped for the target; - Loading a command HQ into an amph TF (set to not unload) and taking it with you, so that it is in command range, and in combat mode. ( Try this experiment: If you have a unit somewhere that is due for a TOE upgrade but is out of range of a command HQ (e.g. the Samoan Marine battalion is good for this), load a 9 range command HQ in combat mode on an amph TF and move it to a point within 18 hexes of the unit (set to rest/upgrade), to see if it triggers the TOE upgrade. The result with respect to that command function may not mirror the result with respect to another, different function.)

RangerJoe -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/28/2021 12:56:00 PM)
Actually, you should have at least ASW TF lead the way, possibly followed up with a minesweeping TF with ASW capability. Don't forget IJN minisubs.

Ian R -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/28/2021 1:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Actually, you should have at least ASW TF lead the way, possibly followed up with a minesweeping TF with ASW capability. Don't forget IJN minisubs. Agree, but didn't you send the DMS TF in weeks ago before you started the caricole of bombardment TFs?

RangerJoe -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (5/28/2021 4:10:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Actually, you should have at least ASW TF lead the way, possibly followed up with a minesweeping TF with ASW capability. Don't forget IJN minisubs. Agree, but didn't you send the DMS TF in weeks ago before you started the caricole of bombardment TFs? You should or at least embed some minesweepers with the bombardment forces but more minefields could be laid.

Hano -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/7/2021 5:46:28 PM)
Thanks for the pointers, I thought I had taken everything onboard and was landing at Iwo Jima in Aug 44 with 5+ divisions of marines, CE, Tanks, Arty and all of that good stuff. All my troops landed from AKA, APA or LST with a few other flavours of LSD etc, but not all got onto the beach on the first day, I had done a preparatory bombardment by five BB, this is what happened: Ground combat at Iwo-jima (108,77) Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 46916 troops, 594 guns, 171 vehicles, Assault Value = 1611 Defending force 63607 troops, 1422 guns, 1444 vehicles, Assault Value = 2842 Japanese ground losses: 5094 casualties reported Squads: 266 destroyed, 16 disabled Non Combat: 121 destroyed, 6 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 71 (67 destroyed, 4 disabled) Vehicles lost 11 (11 destroyed, 0 disabled) Units destroyed 1 Allied ground losses: 588 casualties reported Squads: 29 destroyed, 36 disabled Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 6 disabled Engineers: 3 destroyed, 4 disabled Guns lost 36 (15 destroyed, 21 disabled) Vehicles lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled) Assaulting units: 12th Ind.Mixed Regiment 42nd Naval Guard Unit 54th Naval Guard Unit 50th Ind.Mixed Brigade 23rd Division 6th Garrison Unit 109th Division 13th Ind.Mixed Regiment 11th Ind.Mixed Regiment Iwo-jima Naval Guard Unit 10th RF Gun Battalion 100th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion 9th RF Gun Battalion 4th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion 31st Army 12th Naval Construction Battalion 152nd AA Regiment 11th RF Gun Battalion 22nd JAAF AF Bn Defending units: 1st Marine Division 3rd USMC Tank Battalion 29th Marine Rgt /1 5th USMC Tank Battalion 131st Combat Engineer Regiment 102nd Combat Engineer Regiment 1st USMC Amphb Tank Battalion 3rd Marine Div /1 4th Marine Div /1 2nd Marine Division 2nd USMC Tank Bn /44 22nd Marine Regiment 2nd USMC Amphb Tank Battalion 5th Marine Div /32 11th USMC Field Artillery Battalion 8th USMC Field Artillery Battalion 1st USMC Field Artillery Battalion 9th USMC Field Artillery Battalion 2nd USMC Field Artillery Battalion 7th USMC Field Artillery Battalion USMC AirFMFPac /1 12th USMC Field Artillery Battalion 10th USMC Field Artillery Battalion 4th USMC Field Artillery Battalion III US Amphib Corps /1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Iwo-jima (108,77) Allied Shock attack Attacking force 62173 troops, 1411 guns, 1442 vehicles, Assault Value = 2776 Defending force 45828 troops, 610 guns, 204 vehicles, Assault Value = 1402 Allied adjusted assault: 1 Japanese adjusted defense: 3481 Allied assault odds: 1 to 3481 (fort level 6) Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), experience(-) Attacker: shock(+) Japanese ground losses: 505 casualties reported Squads: 31 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 57 destroyed, 12 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 12 (7 destroyed, 5 disabled) Vehicles lost 157 (157 destroyed, 0 disabled) Allied ground losses: 26501 casualties reported Squads: 2060 destroyed, 200 disabled Non Combat: 753 destroyed, 331 disabled Engineers: 564 destroyed, 25 disabled Guns lost 1090 (954 destroyed, 136 disabled) Vehicles lost 857 (808 destroyed, 49 disabled) Units destroyed 7 Assaulting units: 4th Marine Div /1 131st Combat Engineer Regiment 2nd USMC Amphb Tank Battalion 3rd USMC Tank Battalion 5th USMC Tank Battalion 3rd Marine Div /1 2nd Marine Division 22nd Marine Regiment 1st Marine Division 1st USMC Amphb Tank Battalion 2nd USMC Tank Bn /44 29th Marine Rgt /1 102nd Combat Engineer Regiment 5th Marine Div /32 1st USMC Field Artillery Battalion 7th USMC Field Artillery Battalion 8th USMC Field Artillery Battalion 9th USMC Field Artillery Battalion 4th USMC Field Artillery Battalion 10th USMC Field Artillery Battalion 11th USMC Field Artillery Battalion USMC AirFMFPac /1 2nd USMC Field Artillery Battalion 12th USMC Field Artillery Battalion III US Amphib Corps /1 Defending units: 54th Naval Guard Unit 11th Ind.Mixed Regiment 109th Division 23rd Division 42nd Naval Guard Unit 50th Ind.Mixed Brigade 13th Ind.Mixed Regiment 6th Garrison Unit Iwo-jima Naval Guard Unit 4th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion 152nd AA Regiment 9th RF Gun Battalion 11th RF Gun Battalion 100th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion 10th RF Gun Battalion 12th Naval Construction Battalion 31st Army 22nd JAAF AF Bn Next turn one of my marine divisions surrendered.... what went wrong????

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/7/2021 6:31:37 PM)
1. More pre-invasion recon 2. After #1 discovered how heavily defended Iwo is, change your strategy and bypass the island 3. However, if you really want it, keep it isolated and bombard and bomb it for weeks / months with everything including the kitchen sink - until lack of enemy AA fire indicates that the defenders are out of supplies - you want a "Combat modifiers Defender: supplies (-)" 4. Then land and bring all available combat engineers to tackle the forts and LOTS of supplies - like hundreds of thousands of tons - esp. if the landing force is overstacking Iwo Jima 5. Don't forget to sacrifice a virgin the day before the landing

Alfred -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/7/2021 6:35:09 PM)
The Combat Report shows a poor invasion set up. You won't get any more useful answers without providing screenshots of all the TFs involved, LCUs involved, and detection levels. Nor does it seem you degraded the defenders before landing. Alfred

Nomad -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/7/2021 6:46:16 PM)
To be honest, I don't think even screenshots will be enough. You will have to send your game files( the before the landing and the one of the landing ) to someone to analyze. That is probably the only way you will get a complete answer.

BBfanboy -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/7/2021 8:28:41 PM)
Part of the issue is that you have way overstacked the island. Stock Scenario 1 gives a stacking limit of 30,000. You can overstack at a cost in supplies, and I think some cost in casualties. Players who have overstacked to take Atolls report that over 2X the stacking limit supply usage goes very high and combat rolls suffer. Better to bring more firepower in terms of tanks and arty (which you had lots of) rather than masses of infantry. If you can hold off the initial attack by your troops (if the island is not an atoll) and just bombard for a few turns with your artillery that will help. Best solution is to grind the defenders and their supply down for a while. It took me over six months of bombing and bombardment to grind Truk supply and defences down to 0.

durnedwolf -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/8/2021 3:02:21 AM)
1. Exceptions: Amphibious TFs and Landing Craft TFs are presumed to have an amphibious assault Mission and have different unloading rules that are not bound by Port Size restrictions, but the exemption only applies for ships ( APA, AKA, and LCx/LSx) that have an �Amphibious Unload Bonus� capacity. Any TF can load, unload or refuel when not docked, but at a much slower rate. 2. Indications: The total tonnage of ships that may �Dock� at a Port is given in the Port Information Screen. The total tonnage that comprises a TF is given in the TF Information Screen. When the TF is larger than the allowable Port Dock Limit, a player should consider sub-dividing the TF into �Dockable� portions. 6.3.3.3.2.1 OVER THE BEACH (Pg127/128) This is for assault unloading over the beach. �� Beaching Craft. Beaching craft unload completely in one turn. �� Attack Amphibious Ships. (APA/AKA plus LSD, LSV and British equivalents)in Amphibious TFs, unload at a Rate of 3000 points per ship, per turn. �� Regular Transport Ships. (Commissioned Naval AP/AK) in Amphibious TFs, unload at a Rate of 600 points per ship per turn. �� Merchant Ships. (xAP/xAK) in Amphibious TFs, unload at a Rate of 250 points per ship per turn. �� Special Japanese early war bonus of 1200 for all AP/AK and xAP/xAK types. 6.3.3.3.2.2 FRIENDLY PORT (Pg 128) For Amphibious docked at and unloading in a friendly port of Size 4 or less, the unload rate is slightly different for Troops and Cargo. �� Beaching Craft. Troops unload at a Rate of 1000 points per ship per turn. Cargo unloads at a Rate of 750 points per ship per turn. �� Attack Amphibs. Troops unload at a Rate of 1000 points per ship per turn. Cargo unloads at a Rate of 750 points per ship per turn. �� Regular Amphibs. Troops unload at a Rate of 300 points per ship per turn. Cargo unloads at a Rate of 300 points per ship per turn. �� Merchant Ships. Troops unload at a Rate of 125 points per ship per turn. Cargo unloads at a Rate of 125 points per ship per turn. Amphibious TFs not docked at a friendly port unload at a different rate, depending on port size, amount of free dock space, and the types of ships in the TFs. Amphibious ship types, with attached landing craft, will unload faster than non-amphibious ships. Note the rate of points per turn. The morew ships you assign to the amphibious TF, the smaller each each ship's load. Enough ships in a TF and you can basically unload all of your troops on day one of the attack.

rustysi -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/8/2021 5:45:23 AM)
I don't recall what may have been said earlier. Did you have an amphibious HQ loaded on whatever ship it needs to be loaded on? I've only played the Japanese, and they don't have these, but the Allies do.

Hano -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/8/2021 9:31:51 AM)
Yes, I had an amphibious HQ in an AGC as well as a corps HQ that hit the beach with them, the five complete marine divisions were all up to strength and rested. I'm going to do some research looking back and checking some of the possible factors, some things that come to mind are: The length of time they were embarked The level of training Leaders level of photo reconnaissance Inability to put the whole force on the beach in one hit Bombardment duration Lack of preparatory bombing

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/8/2021 11:35:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hano Bombardment duration Lack of preparatory bombing Compare with RL: Starting on 15 June 1944, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army Air Forces began naval bombardments and air raids against Iwo Jima, which would become the longest and most intense in the Pacific Theater. They would contain a combination of naval artillery shellings and aerial bombings that went on for nine months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima Beginning on February 16, 1945, the pre-landing bombardments were conducted by Task Force 54, commanded by Rear Admiral Wiliam H.P. Blandy, USN. The six battleships in the force were USS Arkansas (BB-33), USS New York (BB-34), USS Texas (BB-35), USS Nevada (BB-36), USS Idaho (BB-42) and USS Tennessee (BB-34). The five cruisers were USS Pensacola (CA-24), USS Salt Lake City (CA-25), USS Chester (CA-27), USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37), and USS Vicksburg (CL-81). Despite the lack of time for support, visibility, and bombardment effectiveness, the warships worked closer to shore to concentrate on the landing beaches and adjacent heights. On D-Day, February 19, three more battleships were added. The battleships were USS North Carolina (BB-55), USS Washington (BB-56), and USS West Virginia (BB-48), along with three additional cruisers USS Indianapolis (CA-35), USS Santa Fe (CL-60), and USS Biloxi (Cl-80). With all the weapons materiel delivered, the naval-gunfire support greatly reduced the Japanese defeneses but many of the determined enemy survived and bitterly fought in the campaign which nearly lasted a month. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/explore/photography/wwii/wwii-pacific/iwo-jima/pre-landing-bombardment.html

RangerJoe -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/8/2021 1:08:21 PM)
With that many defenders there, bypass it and go somewhere that is not as heavily defended. Use Iwo Jima as a training ground for bombers and ships crews.

HansBolter -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/8/2021 3:11:50 PM)
The real issue here is the ability of the Japanese defender to station a force on an island that the historical Japanese could never have afforded to do. Solitaire play against an Ironman AI results in the same thing. The ironman AI over defends historical objectives to a degree that makes taking them impossible. I typically see 12-16 units defending Lunga in mid-42 and it just gets worse from there. You can take a 6,000 capacity atoll defended by a brigade plus by landing a full division plus artillery, tanks and combat engineers, but you must immediately reload the division after taking the objective or overstacking will cause it to suffer tremendously. You cannot hope to take an atoll, even a 30,000 capacity one that is overdefended, unless you isolate it, cut off and drain all supply and bomb and bombard it back into the stone age. All of this can take as long as six months to accomplish. I play with stacking limits everywhere, that the AI ignores, but I cannot. This means there are quite a few overdefended locales that plan to bypass. What is the strategic need in your game for you to take this insignificant fly speck of an island? Likely none, beyond historical nostalgia. If that is the case ditch the historical nostalgia because your opponent already did. BYPASS, BYPASS, BYPASS!!!

rustysi -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/8/2021 7:49:17 PM)
From the point of view of a Japanese player, I can tell you when places like this are so heavily defended someplace is that much worse off. So, hit 'em where they ain't.[8D]

Hano -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/9/2021 8:10:10 AM)
Thanks for the information and food for thought. My strategy has been to aim to split Japan from its conquered territories as early as possible taking the minimum amount of territory and aiming to reduce/eliminate the flow of supply by sea and eliminate the Japanese military�s ability to interfere with this. In practice this has meant that the British/Australians/Indians with US support have taken Thailand/Indochina, with the Japanese pushed back to South of Victoria Point and East of Haiphong, large airbases are being built so they can range over the Phillipine Sea . In the Pacific - New Guinea, the Solomons and Phillipines have been bypassed, with key bases held at Milne Bay, Rabaul, Truk, Guam, Wake Island and Marcus Island, the remaining areas largely Japanese held but with little movement between them and no supply, where there are significant airbases, they are raided daily to keep them degraded. The plan is to take Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Formosa to enable US forces in the PAO to link up with the Brits in SE Asia and enable secure supply, build up airbases to dominate the South China Sea and to base B29's on Formosa to raid the home islands use other aircraft and naval units, surface & submarine to enforce the blockade and degrade Japanese industry/military to prepare for a ground invasion of Japan. So far I�m in Aug 44, I have destroyed 8 CV & 5 CVL and 10 BB leaving only Yamato & Yamashiro, for the loss of one CV & 2 CVE plus seven BB although I have a couple being panel beaten as we speak.

Ian R -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/9/2021 8:49:37 AM)
quote: ... the Japanese pushed back to South of Victoria Point and East of Haiphong, large airbases are being built so they can range over the Phillipine Sea . The supply movement down the tracks from Moulmein, and across from Victoria Point, will not likely feed enough supply into Vietnam to support a B-29 campaign to bomb down the oil soyrces, & shut down the big airbases on the PI. You need to get down to at least Alor Star, which is only a small port, but it is on the railway and you can put hundreds of nav support in there. Likewise Georgetown, which can be built to a 6 level port, and has a primary road link to Taiping and the rail line. Really though, you need to push all the way to Singapore, which not only allows you to land massive supplies, interdict shipping to Palembang/Oosthaven, gets you a repair shipyard in a 9 port, and threatens the IJ hold on the NEI, but is also worth 2430 VP.

Hano -> RE: Factors in Amphibious Landings (7/9/2021 8:50:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: Hano Bombardment duration Lack of preparatory bombing Compare with RL: Starting on 15 June 1944, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army Air Forces began naval bombardments and air raids against Iwo Jima, which would become the longest and most intense in the Pacific Theater. They would contain a combination of naval artillery shellings and aerial bombings that went on for nine months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima Beginning on February 16, 1945, the pre-landing bombardments were conducted by Task Force 54, commanded by Rear Admiral Wiliam H.P. Blandy, USN. The six battleships in the force were USS Arkansas (BB-33), USS New York (BB-34), USS Texas (BB-35), USS Nevada (BB-36), USS Idaho (BB-42) and USS Tennessee (BB-34). The five cruisers were USS Pensacola (CA-24), USS Salt Lake City (CA-25), USS Chester (CA-27), USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37), and USS Vicksburg (CL-81). Despite the lack of time for support, visibility, and bombardment effectiveness, the warships worked closer to shore to concentrate on the landing beaches and adjacent heights. On D-Day, February 19, three more battleships were added. The battleships were USS North Carolina (BB-55), USS Washington (BB-56), and USS West Virginia (BB-48), along with three additional cruisers USS Indianapolis (CA-35), USS Santa Fe (CL-60), and USS Biloxi (Cl-80). With all the weapons materiel delivered, the naval-gunfire support greatly reduced the Japanese defeneses but many of the determined enemy survived and bitterly fought in the campaign which nearly lasted a month. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/explore/photography/wwii/wwii-pacific/iwo-jima/pre-landing-bombardment.html Its really interesting, I get very frustrated that we cant do this in WIP AE, if I'm bombarding IJ - in 24hrs I expend 90% of main armourment and have two days steaming to Guam to reload, realistically bombardment becomes a five day cycle making it impossible to maintain a constant naval bombarment. I'm not a naval officer, never have been, never will be, but I cant believe that the respective navies where incapable of replening Main Armourment at sea until 1945?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.421875