Why are there always LCU casualties during landings?

[TommyBoy84]

Just an odd curiousity of mine.... Why are there ALWAYS casualties among LCU's when landing on even an undefended, unoccupied base/beach?

When the Japanese go on their landing spree at the beginning of the big campaign, I always see losses of 200-400, even at completely unoccupied bases. What's up?

[cantona2]

There would have been casualties in any landings, accdients and so on though i assume the high numbers are FOW

[rogueusmc]

ORIGINAL: TommyBoy84

Just an odd curiousity of mine.... Why are there ALWAYS casualties among LCU's when landing on even an undefended, unoccupied base/beach?

When the Japanese go on their landing spree at the beginning of the big campaign, I always see losses of 200-400, even at completely unoccupied bases. What's up?

Ya ever rode a LC to a beach?...[:D]

[John Lansford]

Even in unopposed landings, mistakes and accidents happen.  No landing took place completely casualty free, although some of those reports appear inflated to me.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Even in unopposed landings, mistakes and accidents happen. No landing took place completely casualty free, although some of those reports appear inflated to me.

Even the most benign landing will produce injuries and deaths, for instance - landing craft drivers trained to land at a certain prominent landmark might steer towards it not knowing the local currents... the current sweeps them down the coast, so they correct their heading... eventually end up crosswise to the current and get swamped - and people drown. BTW, this is what happened to MOST of the DD tanks at Omaha Beach (mostly, they were not hit by enemy fire, but swamped in this fashion - as determined by archeological examination of the wrecks and computer simulation of the landings recently done).

However, MOST of the casualties in WITP are just organizational disruption (of which there is plenty) on the landing. Assuming there is no combat, this vanishes over the next few turns: i.e. -- no real injuries have taken place.

[Shark7]

200-400 does sound pretty high though.  Granted I usually take the unoccupied bases with small forcs like a NLF, but I generally only get 10-80 casualties on those landings.
 
Unit size does matter on the casualties from landing.

[rogueusmc]

Bigger the unit the more disruption...like Bob said, it's more disruption rather than folks actually getting hurt.

[Grell]

I agree with Rtrapasso, he seems to know what he's talking about.

Regards,

Grell

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Bigger the unit the more disruption...like Bob said, it's more disruption rather than folks actually getting hurt.

it´s not disruption it´s disablements. Disruption vanishes within a couple of turns, but it takes forever to see a unit back in action just because it get´s 50-90% disablements from the landing at an empty base.

[Historiker]

The US lost 313 men on Kiska...
Luckily, there weren't any Japs on this island to increase this number [:D]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Bigger the unit the more disruption...like Bob said, it's more disruption rather than folks actually getting hurt.

it´s not disruption it´s disablements. Disruption vanishes within a couple of turns, but it takes forever to see a unit back in action just because it get´s 50-90% disablements from the landing at an empty base.

i was speaking in the more generic sense of the term... however, usually i haven't seen the degree of disablements you describe... on the other hand, i haven't been conducting a great number of landings since 1.6xx (although that might change soon)... i'll have to keep an eye on this.

i suppose it MIGHT make sense in one way: i think of disablements as units lacking or having broken equipment, and this type of thing is likely to happen even in practice landings.

[Dino]

In the most recent landing I conducted, there was nowhere near that amount of disablements...Maybe the fact that the whole unit was loaded on barges helped.

Ah, yes...it was also 100% prepared for the landing location.

[Nomad]

Dino has the idea, a unit that is not prepped or only lightly prepped for the landing beach can suffer extensive casualties.

[Shark7]

Which is not always true either. I just landed a unit that wasn't fully prepped and suffered no casualties. Seems luck with the Die rolls also plays a part in this as well.

[Feinder]

My issue with folks always using Kiska as the "example" for un-opposed landings and (IMO high) number of casualties)
1. The US was still working out the bugs during invasion of Kiska . The US got much better at at as the war progroessed. It's like comparing a farm league to the Pennant race, and saying you're going to base the game on the farm league. It's the same level of stupidity that bases all bombardments in WtiP on a single shoot at Guadalcanal.
2. The casualties at Kiska were not just guys drowing in the surf as they disembarked and friendly fire. But they were as many because of booby-traps and disease, which if anything should NOT be included in the unloading casualites from the WitP engine.
3. In 1944 and 1945, the Allies were making successful landings with the same units, against garrisons (albeit depleted) with a turn-around of less than 30 days. Try doing THAT with the WitP engine and only 20+ prep points...

-F-

A breakdown of casualties from Wiki (so not a stellar reference, but it's a start). How many of these should be included in the disablements that would have created from teh WitP engine?

Allied casualties during the August invasion nevertheless numbered close to 200, all from friendly fire, booby traps set out by the Japanese to inflict damage on the invading allied forces, or disease. There were seventeen Americans and four Canadians killed from either friendly fire or booby traps, fifty more were wounded as a result of friendly fire or booby traps, and an additional 130 men came down with trench foot. The destroyer USS Abner Read hit a mine, resulting in 87 casualties.[

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: TommyBoy84

Just an odd curiousity of mine.... Why are there ALWAYS casualties among LCU's when landing on even an undefended, unoccupied base/beach?

When the Japanese go on their landing spree at the beginning of the big campaign, I always see losses of 200-400, even at completely unoccupied bases. What's up?

It was put in place to prevent players from using units over and over again to invade targets like in the Pacwar days as well as to encourage genuine preperation for targets. Its not perfect but it does help as a govenor on pace. Bear in mind the "casualties" are only disablements that can repair over time.

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Which is not always true either. I just landed a unit that wasn't fully prepped and suffered no casualties. Seems luck with the Die rolls also plays a part in this as well.

I did say that using unprepped units CAN suffer extensive casualties - I did not say that you would. In the case where you suffereed NO casualties, did you land at a base? Or did you land on a land hex with no base or dot base?