AP/AK for troop movements

[tbridges]

In an effort to be realistic, I'm considering a self-imposed house rule (Allies vs AI, Nik Mod) requiring all troop movements to use APs only. AKs would be used for supplies only.

Does anyone else do this? I know troops can be loaded on AKs, but is it considered gamey to use anything other than APs to move troops?

[Nomad]

I willl move units from a major base to another major base using AKs. I do not use them for Amphip Assault duties. Mostly I use AKs for supplies and APs for Troops.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: tbridges

In an effort to be realistic, I'm considering a self-imposed house rule (Allies vs AI, Nik Mod) requiring all troop movements to use APs only. AKs would be used for supplies only.

Does anyone else do this? I know troops can be loaded on AKs, but is it considered gamey to use anything other than APs to move troops?

I also usually use AKs for supplies and APs for troops. However the Allies have so few APs that you almost can't help but use some AKs to get your troops to their destinations. I don't think it's that gamey. AKs are pretty severly restricted in the amount of troops they can carry compared to an AP.

[FeurerKrieg]

This is what I do as well. At times I will put some AK's in an amphib force, but they are carrying either Armor or Supplies.

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I willl move units from a major base to another major base using AKs. I do not use them for Amphip Assault duties. Mostly I use AKs for supplies and APs for Troops.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: tbridges

In an effort to be realistic, I'm considering a self-imposed house rule (Allies vs AI, Nik Mod) requiring all troop movements to use APs only. AKs would be used for supplies only.

Does anyone else do this? I know troops can be loaded on AKs, but is it considered gamey to use anything other than APs to move troops?

Oddly, this is ahistorical - for Japan. Japan PREFERRED AKs for troops - and forced civil shippers to use APs!!! Strange but true. See The Japanese Merchant Marine and World War II.

[saj42]

IRL AKs did have accommodations for personnel.
I use a similar self imposed house rule and don't put infantry units on AKs. I put ARM, ARTY, ENGR and BF units on AKs (the accommodation being for vehicle/gun crews and support personnel).

I once put a Marine Div on AKs - needed 70 of them IIRC[X(][X(][X(] never again

[Nomad]

When I said I didn't put AKs into amphib assault task forces, I meant as troop carriers. I do use them for supplies.

[ny59giants]

For troop movements, I will place troops on AK's, but large divisions go on AP's (USMC Division is about 19k for AP's and 100k for AK's). I am a little paranoid, so I usually follow a rule of 1.5x to 2x the required amount for shipping. The Allied, especially the Americans, have plenty of supply, and just need to get it to where I'm going.
All major LCU's get escorts while most supply/fuel TF's go their own way (5 ships per TF max).

To help with the shortage of AP's, I send the Dutch ones back to Oz quickly and use AK's in the SRA early in the war.

[Mike Solli]

I'm pretty much the same as the guys above. The only times I use AKs in an assault force is to carry supply and to carry armor.

[Ron Saueracker]

Nothing like having ocean liners to move divisions. Aquitania, Mount Vernon, Empress of Australia, Dutchess of Bedford etc are all coming in real handy. Anyone who uses these same ships as assault APAs should be shot however.[8D]

[tbridges]

ORIGINAL: Tallyho!

I use a similar self imposed house rule and don't put infantry units on AKs. I put ARM, ARTY, ENGR and BF units on AKs (the accommodation being for vehicle/gun crews and support personnel).

Excellent idea, Tallyho. This sounds like a good way to go.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: tbridges

In an effort to be realistic, I'm considering a self-imposed house rule (Allies vs AI, Nik Mod) requiring all troop movements to use APs only. AKs would be used for supplies only.

Does anyone else do this? I know troops can be loaded on AKs, but is it considered gamey to use anything other than APs to move troops?

The Navy did use AKs to move troops, but not for combat landings. The game models the considerations fairly accurately.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Nothing like having ocean liners to move divisions. Aquitania, Mount Vernon, Empress of Australia, Dutchess of Bedford etc are all coming in real handy. Anyone who uses these same ships as assault APAs should be shot however.[8D]

Not much room for heavy equipment.

[aletoledo]

after the initial couple of months, I find that I have more than enough APs to conduct whatever operations I need to using solely APs. even more I like to use 750 capacity APs as much as possible because of their loading/unloading times.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Nothing like having ocean liners to move divisions. Aquitania, Mount Vernon, Empress of Australia, Dutchess of Bedford etc are all coming in real handy. Anyone who uses these same ships as assault APAs should be shot however.[8D]

Not much room for heavy equipment.

And the ship-to-shore transition from them is a b1tch.[;)]

[tsimmonds]

even more I like to use 750 capacity APs as much as possible because of their loading/unloading times.

All APs are capable of unloading quickly; just don't put more stuff on them than can be unloaded in one day.....

[JWE]

Seems like most everyone is right on the mark. The Navy did use both types. As an example, the composition of the Transport Group, US Amphibious Forces South Pacific (PHIBFORSOPAC) as of Jan. 1, 1943 included a mix of APAs and AKAs in each of four TRANSDIVs (there were two additional TRANSDIVs populated with a total of 10 APDs).

TRANSDIV 2 had APAs Pres.Jackson, Pres.Hayes, Pres.Adams, and AKA Algorab.
TRANSDIV 8 had APAs Am.Legion, G.Clymer, Cres.City, and AKAs Libra & Alchiba
TRANSDIV 10 had APAs H.Liggett, J.Penn, and AKAs Alhena & Formalhaut
TRANSDIV 14 had APAs H.T.Allen, Fuller, McCawley, and AKA Titania

The typical TRANSDIV was organized to provide a "full" regimental lift capability; this would include various "pieces of parts" i.e., attachments (Engs, HQs, Sp.Weaps Bn, etc) in addition to weapons and a "ten units of fire" assault support package. The "standard" load-out was about a battalion per AP plus assorted "other" troops, for between about 1000 to 1500 troops per vessel.

In the absence of sufficient APs, AKs were sometimes used. Transdiv-C of Group X-Ray, during Watchtower, embarked the 5/11th Marines, 11th Marines HQ & Service Btty., 1 MarDiv Spec.Weap.Bn., and about half of 3d Def.Bn. (admittedly short of heavy AA and CD guns), on a single AP (AP-27, later APA-14, Hunter Liggett) along with three AKs, Formalhaut, Alchiba & Betelgeuse. The Liggett had a troop capacity of 12-1500 and carried her own lightering.

BTW, IMHO it is good to find oneself short of lift. The Navy was always bitchin about lack of lift and had to be careful with its employment and very concerned about potential loss. Hope the info helps develop your amphib capabilities.

Ciao.

JWE

[mc3744]

I must admit that I never really took the historical issue into consideration [:'(]
I assumed the game limitations did.

I prefer APs because I need less of them, if I don't have enough (and I never have enough [;)]) I use AKs.
For transport duties as well as for landings.
Can't say I'm too happy about the performance [:D]