Help! Invasion Blues...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Help! Invasion Blues...

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Help! Invasion Blues...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Help! Invasion Blues... - 7/29/2003 9:10:51 AM

Chertiozhnik

Posts: 11
Joined: 7/29/2003
Status: offline

How do you invade a heavily defended place like Shortland Island? In my campaign game vs. AI, it is held by 3 Japanese infantry units, 3 engineer units, and 3 others (base, coastal guns).

Despite bombing the airbase for two months and killing one or two hundred of the occupants every day, minesweeping the place before the invasion, and sending in shore bombardment (so that the defenders should be pretty short of supplies and possessed of 1000 yard stares) I can't get a foothold.

Landing the HQ and three infantry regiments of the 2nd Marine division, with fast transports bringing in engineers and supplies from Tulagi, doesn't work. The troops land in small units against fire and on the third day a Japanese shock attack at 18-to-1 wipes out those on the beach, leaving most of the invaders still on the ships.

How can I either suppress the coastal guns (I have warships in with my transports for good measure) or get the troops onto the beach far faster so they can resist the shock attack?

Japanese air power isn't a factor, they have nothing working within range.

Post #: 1

- 7/29/2003 10:23:21 AM

bilbow

Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline

In essence, overwhelming force. A allied division will probably not get even 1 to 1 odds if facing three japanese regiments. You need at least 2 to 1 to take the base, even when the fortifications have been reduced to 0 with engineers.

Sooooo, I'd invade with at least 3 complete divisions plus extra engineers. Beforehand, I'd run many nights of bombarment missions to reduce the shore batteries. Port air attacks will also reduce the batteries.

Then there is the alternative- don't invade. Bypass it. Do you really need Shortlands anyway?

Hope this helps

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 2

- 7/29/2003 10:29:39 AM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

To start, you will need much more than you are taking. You will need to take the 1st Marine, 2nd Marine, and one of the Army Divisions( 43rd ?). Use all of the 1500 load AKs as you can( AKs unload faster than APs). Bombard for three or four days straight and Bomb with all of your medium bombers and fighter bombers. Then go in and see if you can take it.

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 3

and... - 7/29/2003 7:29:37 PM

Christof

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline

...include some CA's and CL's in your invasion TF's. As the shore batteries open up, your warships return fire and might silence those shore guns after the first salvo.

I found this approach worl far better than any pre-invasion bombardment mission.

Cheers,
Christof

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 4

- 7/29/2003 8:33:56 PM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

First, is Shortlands really worth the effort ? I understand that you have the air superiority, so you also rule the waves. You could easily surround Shortlands by landing at Buka or Buin, build your base here and bomb Shortlands until there is no more supplies, then let the garnison die of hunger.

But if you really want to take the island, you should

1) bomb the port with medium and heavy bomber, disabling coastal defense guns
during the same time, bomb the island with BB and sweep the sea off the island with MSW and DMS (including your own offensive minefields)
At least one week

1bis) at the same time, you could take a dot just some hexes away and land troops and supplies that will then be brought to the beachhead by your barges and APD.

2) some days before the landing, switch the bombing to ground attacks, to reduce the number of troops you face (even if you will ever hit the same regiment)
All bombings against airfield and port hit only ENG, AA and CD units. Only ground attack hit INF.

3) when you land, you should land as many troops as possible at the same time. So use many boats with smaller capacity, APD, LCI, LST, 1500-ton AK (AK unload faster than AP). If you have three Japanese regiments in the Island and fort 9, you need three divisions. Send all INF and HQ units (eventually ARM) in the first wave. No ENG and no AA required yet, so your grunts will unload faster. Having their HQ with them will increase their performance. Land supplies at the same time.
To reduce the effect of coastal guns, put one CA and several DD in every convoy you send to the island.
At the same time send as most FB as you can on ground attack, they can disable very quickly ground units

4) once the beachhead is well established, with more Allied troops than IJN on the island, bring the support troops like combat engineers. Bombard the garnison with artillery and then attack.

So if you have time, my advice is to take and build to max size Munda, Buin and Buka before attacking Shortlands.

If you want to attack Rabaul, it's easier to land on the hex south of it all your troops, then give most of them orders to march to the base. They will arrive the same day or the day after, so you have no chance to be slaugthered on the beach.

Another base worth a high score and usually less defended is Wewak. Fully built, it is over 2000 points

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 5

- 7/30/2003 2:05:01 AM

Micah Goodman

Posts: 197
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline

Do smaller TF�s unload quicker than larger ones? In other words if you have one TF with 6 ships will it unload faster than one with say eight ships?

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 6

- 7/30/2003 2:46:16 AM

Jocko

Posts: 6
Joined: 6/27/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

Smaller or larger task forces do not unload faster. But, if you have, say, 6 1500 capacity AK's or AP's loading a very large LCU, they would unload much faster than 3 3000 capacity AK's or AP's.

Also, I belive AK's load and unload supplies faster and AP's load and unload troops faster.

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 7

Thank you for the advice... - 7/31/2003 4:19:03 AM

Chertiozhnik

Posts: 11
Joined: 7/29/2003
Status: offline

Looks like I was on the right lines but need a lot more force to do the job (I tried to economise to avoid taking every AP out of the sea lanes and letting my garrisons starve).

Good ideas about bombing the port to destroy coastal guns, using more smaller APs to get quicker landings, putting CAs into the landing TFs... Shortland Island is history. I hope. And Wewak.

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 8

- 7/31/2003 7:09:10 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

The game seems to model this process well, as the best course of action is the historical one.

Bypass it.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 9

Shortland Ho - 8/4/2003 6:26:54 AM

Chertiozhnik

Posts: 11
Joined: 7/29/2003
Status: offline

I wanted Shortland because it looks like a huge base. I'm hoping I can put everything I want on the East side of the map there and simplify the logistics (I'm trying to run about six bases in the area - horrors), keep Rabaul bombed flat, defend the Solomons and have a springboard north.

It would allow my B-17s at Lae to switch targets from Rabaul to Kavieng and flatten the only other Japanese airbase south of Truk, leaving the Admiralty Islands open for the Australians.

Bypassing left me with a lot of resources dedicated to just keeping the place neutralised, so I went in after all.

Port bombing killed off his coastal guns so the landings were effective, but the place has now absorbed pretty well every US soldier in SOPAC, the transport/supply situation got critical... it's good fun but I'm thinking the three-month battle won't be worth it after all.

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 10

- 8/4/2003 4:52:55 PM

Matt Erickson

Posts: 234
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: santa barbra, calif
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jocko
[B]Smaller or larger task forces do not unload faster. But, if you have, say, 6 1500 capacity AK's or AP's loading a very large LCU, they would unload much faster than 3 3000 capacity AK's or AP's.

Also, I belive AK's load and unload supplies faster and AP's load and unload troops faster. [/B][/QUOTE] ....I beg to differ barges disgorge that vary same TURN...they are you quinessintial LC'S...soo you wanna get thier now use yer landing craft.

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 11

Don't forget intelligence - 8/5/2003 12:56:30 AM

Mundy

Posts: 2869
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline

I've been burned trying to retake Lunga. Repeated arial recon (2-3 weeks worth) never gave me a number of enemy troops. I wound up landing 20,000 troops only to find 30,000 there. I guess learning patience helps. I've had problems trying to plan in terms of months rather than days or weeks

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 12

Re: Don't forget intelligence - 8/5/2003 2:32:29 AM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mundy
[B]........ I've had problems trying to plan in terms of months rather than days or weeks [/B][/QUOTE]

I find that many times I am a bit short sighted too. Everything seems in order initially because I plan something but then forget to look on down the line.:( Some of my problem may be the long interval between turns. What I plan for a two week period in the game often takes two weeks or more of RL to execute and my mind just can't seem to go beyond that. Strange.

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to Chertiozhnik)

Post #: 13