RE: ideal amphibious tf?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: ideal amphibious tf?

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 >> The War Room >> RE: ideal amphibious tf?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/14/2012 11:59:41 PM

derhexer

Posts: 251
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline

Cannonfodder posts
"Derhexer, I guess you would want to have about twice the load capacity in APA/LSI(L)s to land your combat troops. I would include a few AKAs with just supplies before you hit the beaches.

Start them out as a separate taskforce to just load supplies (no troops) and merge them into the assault TF after fully loaded... All this well help you land most of the combat troops and enough supplies on the first day. Critical for invading Atolls!!! "

Good advice, Cannon. I've formed seperate TFs just for supplies and sent them following the Amphib force, but hadn't thought about incorporating some of those AKAs into the invasion force along with the LSTs, LCIs, etc.

Thanks

_____________________________

Chris
(Did you ever stop to think and forget to start?)

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 31

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 7:28:45 AM

kevin_hx

Posts: 156
Joined: 1/20/2008
From: China
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

...and then.. get them ashore!!

Nice game.
I played it eight years ago.

< Message edited by kevin_hx -- 5/15/2012 7:30:45 AM >

_____________________________

Welcome to visit my Naval blog

(in reply to jeffk3510)

Post #: 32

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 11:34:17 AM

mikkey

Posts: 3142
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Slovakia
Status: offline

thanks for useful tips, guys

_____________________________

(in reply to kevin_hx)

Post #: 33

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 2:19:53 PM

bush

Posts: 444
Joined: 10/30/2007
From: san jose, ca
Status: offline

Once you have the special amph shipping if you use 3xAPA + 1xAKA per Rgt I have never had an issue.

(in reply to mikkey)

Post #: 34

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 2:24:20 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

Someone else posted something important on Atolls that is frequently missed: Always finish D-1 about a hex from the Atoll if you can. You want to unload over 2 phases, not just one, when you Shock attack the next day. This means you have to arrive there at night. Make sure you do that.

I also like to embed a CL or two within the Amphib TF, to absorb CD fire, and help suppress CD guns. Old/slow CLs are ideal for this (like HMAS Adelaide or the Dutch CLs, or Omahas)

I also prefer to incorporate Supply-only ships into the Amphib TF, rather than having separate TFs

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 5/15/2012 2:26:11 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 35

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 2:53:54 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Someone else posted something important on Atolls that is frequently missed: Always finish D-1 about a hex from the Atoll if you can. You want to unload over 2 phases, not just one, when you Shock attack the next day. This means you have to arrive there at night. Make sure you do that.

I also like to embed a CL or two within the Amphib TF, to absorb CD fire, and help suppress CD guns. Old/slow CLs are ideal for this (like HMAS Adelaide or the Dutch CLs, or Omahas)

I also prefer to incorporate Supply-only ships into the Amphib TF, rather than having separate TFs

That little tibbit is maybe why some might prefer 2-turn games

I am a newbie .. but I have found that rather a hard and fast rule like embed a CL I find matching the platforms to the shore batteries to be effective. Especally as the Allies where those ol' pre-war BB's that survive Pearl Harbor not only make great shell sponges but the 14" shells are effective at supressing shore batteries. In my AAR I document where the batteries at Darwin first tear up the the IJN CL's and then begin to ravage the amphib ships because not enough supression of the 9.2" CD guns. These guns were more than a match for the IJ CL's and DD's. [The amphib bonus expired so I got 3 full days before the forts fell]. Similar batteries exists at Saipan (200mm short) & Chich-jima (280mm Howitzer). Even with ground bombing you might not be sure you got all the big guns so I use some ol' BB's to "supresses and sponge" One thing I thought of although in your feedback .. If they don't sink ..a CL recovers much faster from the damage than a BB.

A couple of reasons I can think of for seperating out the TF's is collisions and to get a good DD/platforms ratio if lots of submarines are in the area.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 36

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 6:08:33 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

bushpsu has it figured out. 1 AP or APA per battalion equivalent, so 3 per Regt, and an AK or AKA for the gear. Forming an amph TF always reserves some space for 1st phase (landing) supply. 3AP and 1AK was the standard early war USN Transport Squadron, rising to 3-4 APA and 1-2 AKA in '44/'45.

Additional supply in the assault TF is ok, but supply landed in the assault phase is lost (used up) at the end of the assault if you don't take the base/atoll/whatever in the first impulse. The supply auto-allocated to an amph TF is sufficient to support the assaulting units during the assault impulse, but you need back-up in case you don't win on day-1.

I like to do atoll/island assaults in pulses: assault TF, supply TF, follow-up (floating reserve) TF, supply TF, Infrastructure (Eng, AF units) TF, supply TF.

The sizes of the TFs will depend on what I'm assaulting and what it's defended by. It only takes one AK to supply a MarDiv for a day. Doesn't make sense to drop a gazillion tons of supply on the beach, when it will all be gone the next morning if you don't take the base. This is particularly important for atoll/small island assaults, where the troop stacking limit is 6,000.

Imagine hitting an atoll with an IJA Rgt (+) and an SNLF Bn in residence, with forts up the wazoo. That's going to take at least 2 Rgts (over 6,000 troops, right there) and probably more. So there goes your extra supply down the stacking limit violation rathole. I usually hit those places with 2 Marine Rgts and 2 Army Rgts, keeping a Rgt in floating reserve for each. I have several supply TFs lined up for daily supply service. Takes a while, but it worked for Spruance, so who am I to argue.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 37

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 6:18:11 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Having read all this with interest, I need to ask the following question

Is that too tough a cookie to crack in May 1942

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 38

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 7:12:58 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled
Having read all this with interest, I need to ask the following question

Is that too tough a cookie to crack in May 1942

Since we're mixing metaphors, it all depends on what your recipe has in the way of a hammer.

< Message edited by JWE -- 5/15/2012 7:13:48 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 39

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 7:26:23 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

This, plus most of my navy!

I'm guessing its a bit too tough

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 40

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 8:05:53 PM

jeffk3510

Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kevin_hx

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

...and then.. get them ashore!!

Nice game.
I played it eight years ago.

As did I.... just a screenshot I found. Haven't played it in years.

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to kevin_hx)

Post #: 41

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 9:59:47 PM

derhexer

Posts: 251
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline

Encircled posted about an amphib invasion to reatke Bake Island,
"Having read all this with interest, I need to ask the following question

Is that too tough a cookie to crack in May 1942 "

Depends on what the Allies have loaded, what the Japanese have on Baker Island and how long they've been there.

But, it is a good gamble for the Allies. If the Japanese can put long range bombers on Baker Island, they can do a good job of interdicting shipping between PH and the South Pacific, as well as use Baker to support taking Canton Island.

I'd move my carriers southeast of Baker. The Japanese can stage GM bombers out of the Marianas and these can devestate your carriers.

_____________________________

Chris
(Did you ever stop to think and forget to start?)

(in reply to jeffk3510)

Post #: 42

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 10:13:07 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled
This, plus most of my navy!

I'm guessing its a bit too tough

Dunno. Might could work. Give it a shot. It is only a game, after all. No medals (or executions) for success (or failure) except those given out by your peers.

I usually put in a couple days preparation bombardment by the biggest stuff I can get my hands on. If it's late enough in the war, I'll have some CVL/CVEs doing ground support. I divide my CV TFs so some AirGroups support the landing while others play goalkeeper a bit outside the box. A little bit of difference in patrol and react options.

Also have 2 SCTFs supporting the BBs and CVs. Those each have their own internal support, but SCTFs are good for reaction. Not often realized, but 2 SCTFs have 2 bites at the react apple, and if one goes, the other soon follows. So ...

A BB TF, couple of CV TFs, couple of SCTFs, an assault TF, a second-wave TF, phased supply TFs. All in one big week long operation. Just like how it was done, yeah?

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 43

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 10:15:57 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Got all that, except the second wave.

I've got enough units prepped, so I'll get one organised and go for it

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 44

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 10:22:02 PM

vettim89

Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

Baker island is a Vsmall atoll which means if the intel is accurate, the Japanese have already overstacked it. If true, supplies may already be an issue for the garrison. Smack it a couple of days with some Old BBs and it might fall. Operative word in that sentence is "might"

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 45

RE: ideal amphibious tf? - 5/15/2012 10:33:02 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline