Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I'm also all for keeping in mind the law of unintended consequences. Certainly I'm of the opinion that well-established CD systems should be death on invasion fleets.

I think its worth revising how effective we think it should be invasions against heavy guns are few and far between .

The Dieppe raid and Dday faced heavy guns , these guns were not that effective versuses the landings as has been mentioned most large guns had AP shells. In most cases the landings got to the beaches where the really problems happened.

Tarawa landings are interesting since the bombardment created casualties equal to half the island yet did not supress most guns. While the 8" gun fired on ships the 37mm infantry guns , mortars and Machine guns/ 20 mm cannons did most of the damage.

In the 2nd Wake landings the damaged ships just beached themselves and unloaded the cargo.

So the effect on landings would not really kill that many though disruption effects were huge ( ie similar to Tarawa where the reef naturally created it and forced a lot of wading) . ie i cant see even the heaviest CD fire kill more than 10% of a large landing. Though i can see a disorganised , demoralized mess on the beach.

One thing we probably fail to measure is landing against any sort of fortifications without armour /air support is an issue as the pill boxes are hard to take out.

Another thing is all opposed landings should do automatic shock attacks. That way heavy disruption results in massive casualties by the defenders and locations poorly defended but with CD guns are easily overrun.

The problem is that you aren't talking about established Coast Defense Systems. Yes, there was artillery on the coast in Normandy..., but it was emplaced simply to drop shells along the beach. True Coast Defense Artillery is tied into a sophisticated naval-style Fire Control System.

Most Pacific islands had some guns mounted to use direct fire under local control against naval targets..., but when you are talking about Oahu or Singapore or the Tsushima Straits the Fire Control systems could bring down accurate directed fire on moving targets the guns themselves could not see.

The basic difference is between guns that could fire on Higgins Boats and Diahatsus along the beach---and guns that could sink the transports before they could put those boats in the water.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



As it stands now, without an HR, were I playing Japan it would be stupid not to eat the dessert that's offered on 12/8.

Or simply play with the "Historical Start"...[:)]

That just delays things one day. The ports vulnerable to this include Hong Kong, Bataan, Singapore, Davao, Pearl Harbor, the US West Coast, Port Moresby, Batavia, Soerabaya, Darwin, Truk, etc.--it has to be fixed. The most realistic way I know of is inserting a beach approach phase between the ship-to-shore duel and the assault (which involves just a comparison of AV strengths and no casualties). During the beach approach unsuppressed coast defence artillery and beach defences get to chew on the landing force. Suppression is determined based on whether the escort/bombardment force or the coast defence artillery took higher percentage casualties. Note that the coast defence artillery has about four times the firepower of an equivalent number of guns on ships.

this would be great. A phase for the beach assault which is completely missing now.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I'm also all for keeping in mind the law of unintended consequences. Certainly I'm of the opinion that well-established CD systems should be death on invasion fleets.

I think its worth revising how effective we think it should be invasions against heavy guns are few and far between .

The Dieppe raid and Dday faced heavy guns , these guns were not that effective versuses the landings as has been mentioned most large guns had AP shells. In most cases the landings got to the beaches where the really problems happened.

Tarawa landings are interesting since the bombardment created casualties equal to half the island yet did not supress most guns. While the 8" gun fired on ships the 37mm infantry guns , mortars and Machine guns/ 20 mm cannons did most of the damage.

In the 2nd Wake landings the damaged ships just beached themselves and unloaded the cargo.

So the effect on landings would not really kill that many though disruption effects were huge ( ie similar to Tarawa where the reef naturally created it and forced a lot of wading) . ie i cant see even the heaviest CD fire kill more than 10% of a large landing. Though i can see a disorganised , demoralized mess on the beach.

One thing we probably fail to measure is landing against any sort of fortifications without armour /air support is an issue as the pill boxes are hard to take out.

Another thing is all opposed landings should do automatic shock attacks. That way heavy disruption results in massive casualties by the defenders and locations poorly defended but with CD guns are easily overrun.

The problem is that you aren't talking about established Coast Defense Systems. Yes, there was artillery on the coast in Normandy..., but it was emplaced simply to drop shells along the beach. True Coast Defense Artillery is tied into a sophisticated naval-style Fire Control System.

Most Pacific islands had some guns mounted to use direct fire under local control against naval targets..., but when you are talking about Oahu or Singapore or the Tsushima Straits the Fire Control systems could bring down accurate directed fire on moving targets the guns themselves could not see.

The basic difference is between guns that could fire on Higgins Boats and Diahatsus along the beach---and guns that could sink the transports before they could put those boats in the water.

and both things aren´t really happening. The transports aren´t shot to pieces by heavy CD due to the PBs acting as shell sponges and the landing crafts/boats and the troops landing onto the beach aren´t shot at either. Not by the CD guns, not by the defending troops. And to be honest, the real problem I see is that you land your couple of divisions into the face of the enemy and you have them in a state that would be the same as unloading in a friendly port, only suffering from accidents. A dozen MGs in a well prepared position cause real trouble against the enemy when landing in front of them, add in divisional artillery, mortars etc. But all this isn´t happening anymore in AE (it was in WITP when people complained about 3000 shots fired against an invasion even though 2.950 shots were actually fired onto the beach and the shots ranged from a 80mm mortar to a 150mm howitzer). I don´t care as much about a dozen transports sunk as I do about the enemy troops landing in 100% perfect condition against a strong enemy position.

[jimh009]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


BULLwinkle. It's obvious you've never played this start, as the "historical" start starts with the "historical" attack on PH. Any "Free BB's" left after that are purely do to luck...

I've restarted the 12/7 Scenario three times, all between Patch I and II. I've never come close to losing only two BBs. I hear it's possible, but I've never seen it.

Well...it just happened to me.

In my last historical start game playing the AI, only two BB's were sunk, despite three freaking days of attacks by the Japanese. Allies got a bit lucky on the 2nd and 3rd days, though - as a few merchant ships I forgot about stumbled into KB's range - and KB pounced on them. But the Allied CAP on day two also really ripped into the Japanese torpedo bombers, too - which really helped keep down losses on the day 2 and day 3 strikes.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and both things aren´t really happening. The transports aren´t shot to pieces by heavy CD due to the PBs acting as shell sponges and the landing crafts/boats and the troops landing onto the beach aren´t shot at either. Not by the CD guns, not by the defending troops. And to be honest, the real problem I see is that you land your couple of divisions into the face of the enemy and you have them in a state that would be the same as unloading in a friendly port, only suffering from accidents. A dozen MGs in a well prepared position cause real trouble against the enemy when landing in front of them, add in divisional artillery, mortars etc. But all this isn´t happening anymore in AE (it was in WITP when people complained about 3000 shots fired against an invasion even though 2.950 shots were actually fired onto the beach and the shots ranged from a 80mm mortar to a 150mm howitzer). I don´t care as much about a dozen transports sunk as I do about the enemy troops landing in 100% perfect condition against a strong enemy position.

I agree the PBs is an issue ( both for taking hits and supressing arty) , but i think the views of the CDs blasting the transports to oblivian is also wrong ( esp with large caliber using AP) in addition any ship badly holed would just beach. DDs however could be quite effective supressing guns but i doubt PBs would be.

And as you point out and i for Tarawa its not the large guns but the small guns / divisional artillary which most units have .. The Japanese thought the 20mm cannon was one of their best guns against invasion ( and the marines hated the 37mm ) and when comming in an LST i wouldnt like a 20mm cannon firing at me i would preffer a 15" gun. 105mm divisional battery firing on a beach when landing would be devistating.

Agree the biggest issue is disruption under fire and the fact that you cant sit on a beach you MUST make a shock attack. ( unless you have like 5* the AV)

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl



The problem is that you aren't talking about established Coast Defense Systems. Yes, there was artillery on the coast in Normandy..., but it was emplaced simply to drop shells along the beach. True Coast Defense Artillery is tied into a sophisticated naval-style Fire Control System.

Most Pacific islands had some guns mounted to use direct fire under local control against naval targets..., but when you are talking about Oahu or Singapore or the Tsushima Straits the Fire Control systems could bring down accurate directed fire on moving targets the guns themselves could not see.

The basic difference is between guns that could fire on Higgins Boats and Diahatsus along the beach---and guns that could sink the transports before they could put those boats in the water.

The spread of 16" guns is still going to be 100 yards or more compared to 200 yards at least for a BB which is still significant. The Normandy guns did have quite a good accuracy and hits some BBs ( I dont think they fired much on the beach) , another point is how effective is firecontrol anyway here. On a ship your dealing with roll , the ship moving coordinating , the salvo but for CD guns you know the range and the angle the only issue is predicting how the target will evade/ move which i dont think any WWII FC system takes into account and which target you fire on which is of some benefit but a radio can do this ok eg "fire on the first battleship" . Also CD guns have lower traverse and elevation rates ( because they are not needed) . STill even if you are 10* as accurate as a Battleship that is still not great as BBs mount 8-12* the guns , and if like Rodney it takes 17 Salvos ( you dont get great crews on CD guns) to get a hit your not going to hit many ships before your out of ammo ( I dont know PH but most had limited stores else they become vulnerable to a magazine hit) .
. Anyway this OT as these guns will only really engage large capital ships and save their mostly AP ammo for them

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


The problem is that you aren't talking about established Coast Defense Systems. Yes, there was artillery on the coast in Normandy..., but it was emplaced simply to drop shells along the beach. True Coast Defense Artillery is tied into a sophisticated naval-style Fire Control System.

Most Pacific islands had some guns mounted to use direct fire under local control against naval targets..., but when you are talking about Oahu or Singapore or the Tsushima Straits the Fire Control systems could bring down accurate directed fire on moving targets the guns themselves could not see.

The basic difference is between guns that could fire on Higgins Boats and Diahatsus along the beach---and guns that could sink the transports before they could put those boats in the water.

All well and good, in theory. Now look at the TOE of the Oahu CD unit in the game. Very few of the tubes are in centrally-directed, no-seeum anti-ship roles. Most are anti-personnel weapons intermixed with the 14- and 16-inchers.

I wish the game had an Allied CD routine and a Japanese CD routine, but it doesn't. "Fixing" the routine to stop rare, early-war Japanese exploits can't be allowed to "break" the dozens of Allied landings essential to playing the game later on.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Bullwinkle58,

Another fine post which is on the mark.  If I may, a few brief comments which I think are consistent with your several posts made in the last week (perhaps part of the silent majority awakening).

(1)  AE is neither a similation nor a tactical game, points which I fear too many on this forum overlook when they propose "remedial" action.

(2)  Ahistorical actions will always lead to ahistorical outcomes.  How people expect to accurately determine what should be the "correct" and only outcome, particularly when they are discussing a situation which never occurred in real life, simply amazes me.

(3)  In AE, unless a land hexside which borders the sea/ocean is specifically marked as impassible, any amphibious landing is possible.  For game purposes such a hexside assumes that you have 40 nautical miles/46 statute miles of beach to land on.  In the real world this is just nonsense.  No notice is taken of cliffs, mangrove swamps, tidal conditions etc (remember AE is not a simulation)

(4)  In AE there are aggregate port and pierside (including individual ship docking) tonnage limits which apply to your own ships.  There are troop and cargo unloading rates which impact upon your turnaround times in your own owned ports.  There are however no such limits on an enemy invasion force.  Consequently at a size 10 owned port I am limited to an aggregate tonnage of 196,000 tons docked, with a daily cargo unload of 176,000 tons and a daily troop unload rate which is only a fraction of that achievable by beach craft or attack amphibious craft in an Amphious TF were I to invade an enemy owned sized 10 port.

(5)  In AE it is assumed that there is sufficient room on land to accommodate every man, tank, can of coke etc without the need to build a 70 storey skyscrapper.  Sure there are now some supply disadvantages (note not absolute limits) on atolls/small/medium sized islands attached to over stacking, but you can still invade Tarawa with 500,000 men and associated tanks/artillery.  Good thing AE isn't a simulation because no way is there the grond space to accommodate all that personel/equipment.

To put this into context, consider landing on Norfolk Island.  According to AE, this location has a port SPS of 0, zero, nada, zilch.  Quite rightly so.  Even today it's pier facilities are basically non existent due to geological, mother nature reasons.  You won't find any suitable invasion beaches to land on either.  Yet nothing would prevent the total unload on day 1 of a 500,000 man invasion force carried on a fleet of 400 plus ships (equating to much more than our 196,000 tonnage limit at a size 10 port).  Where would all these ships anchor?  Come to think of it, the men would not need a beach to land on, they could simply walk across from one deck to another until they hit terra firma.

To me, if this thread has highlighted anything which the developers might consider, it is the tonnage limit discrepancies between amphibious unloading and regular stevedoring of task forces.  Look at post #200 on page 7 - although WITPPL has not provided the total tonnage of his Task Forces 99, 122 and 281 I would humbly suggest that they far exceeded the Pearl Harbor Allied unload rates.  If there had been some commensurate tonnage limits, then maybe WITPPL would have been able to unload only one of those Task Forces, with the others having to come in on consecutive days and being in turn again subjected to CD fire.  I rather suspect that on days 2 and 3 there might not be too many PBs etc left to shield the transports from CD fire.

Alfred 

Continuing our Mutual Admiration Society [:)] thanks for your thoughts. These are things I had not considered. I applauded the atoll rules and the unload limits in AE, but hadn't really considered how, maybe, some aspects of WITP were actually better, such as the auto-shock-attacks.

It seems to me--and this was brought up somewhere in this thread and quickly overrun--that the main issue with the OP's results is not a CD issue, it's an unload issue, as you expand upon above. If unloading took the time it should for a massive op against constrained beachhead real estate, the current CD system would have plenty of time to chew. First and second waves at places like Saipan and Tarawa got ashore in 1-2 days, with heavy casualties. But the Saipan op took over a month. However, for that to really be "fair" that shock attack ought to over-target the CD units rather than the regular LCUs back from the beach, in cover and hasty or prepared defenses. I don't think the combat routines can do this. Everything in the hex is considered to be at the same range from the attacker as every other. In RL taking out the CD units would be a primary mission of the first assault waves (see the D-Day vertical assault on those (missing) guns), but the game's code doesn't allow for this degree of granularity.

Early in this thread I went and researched various combat diaries for AKAs. One I found, USS Virgo, showed that during the Okinawa op she took SIX WEEKS to complete the combat offload, and sustained shore fire damage at several points in that period. Did not sink, and the damage didn't stop operations, but she was hit.

[morganbj]

Again, the problem may be with the amphib bonus in hexes that are heavily defended.  (I'm assumning that the amphib bonus itself is the appropriate way to model the Japanese "blitzkrieg" in the early war.)  Why not just reduce the amphib bonus dependent on the number/type of CD available?  (I'd use throw weight as the variable.)  The longer that the unloading occurrs, the more likely that the invaders will take casualties, because from my experience, ships seem to take far more damage than the CD guns.  Just a thought.
 

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Again, the problem may be with the amphib bonus in hexes that are heavily defended.  (I'm assumning that the amphib bonus itself is the appropriate way to model the Japanese "blitzkrieg" in the early war.)  Why not just reduce the amphib bonus dependent on the number/type of CD available?  (I'd use throw weight as the variable.)  The longer that the unloading occurrs, the more likely that the invaders will take casualties, because from my experience, ships seem to take far more damage than the CD guns.  Just a thought.

the amphib bonus makes this flawed routine worse, therefore I guess later on it won´t be as bad as it is early on. It won´t be good but not as bad. I´m only guessing as I´ve not seen any evidence for it yet, I think that at least the "casualties" from unloading will go up and perhaps so is the disruption as soon as the amphib bonus runs out. But with the amphib bonus it´s just completely off. A not working CD routine at all (no it´s not working, no matter if there are 500 shots fired and 5 PBs sinking the following day) and a not existing firing at the landing troops at all anymore. Can´t be much worse I guess. And to really highlight the flaws, the amphib bonus kicks in, making invasions of heavily defended spots a cakewalk, storming ashore is just as easy as moving in overland, not much difference.

Forget the whole CD guns for a moment and only think about a couple hundred artillery pieces, from medium mortars to heavy artillery. Let´s say two divisions are defending, sitting behind more than just a couple of foxholes, with their artillery aiming at the landing beaches and NOT on the AKs/APs unloading the troops. So none of the ships would get hit but the landing troops would get heavily mauled for sure. D-day could not have been stopped by CD guns but I don´t want to think of lots of undamaged artillery in prepared positions with ample ammo doing barrage fire on the four beaches for the whole 6th June. How many troops would have been landed there? How would the invasion divs have looked like? Surely not at 99/100 with only 15 disruption. Even with facing more or less "only" MGs and mortars, I doubt you will find any D-day veteran calling the landing a cakewalk. And the Nazis didn´t have a hundred medium to heavy artillery tubes unleashing their fire onto the beaches. Even if they had, with the AE invasion routines, those tubes would just not open fire on the invasion to completely maul it. It would cause 400-500 casualties at the end of the day during the auto bombardment. But by then the invaders is treated as sitting in it´s position already, just like at any continental place. The fight is won or lost on the beach during an invasion and not because of sinking the unloading ships with CD gunfire. Gallipoli anyone? Even if it was a different war...

attacking a spot that is heavily defended (no matter if CD guns there or not, only talking about inf units) is a mess and everytime it happened in real life that saw an invasion with heavy resistance it was a blood bath. If the resistance is knocked out before or there is none anyway, no problem with an "easy" landing. Heck, noone would call D-day a cakewalk but just think about what the German really had there. And then compare it to a part of the Eastern front for example. The Normandy defenses were NOT what someone would call a at all costs heavily defended place, it was the weakest spot and that´s the reason why the Allied invaded there. And it still was no cakewalk.

Take 30km of the Eastern front of Heeresgruppe Mitte and put them into an area of an amphibious assault. No CD guns but IMO something I would call heavy resistance. Have fun... in AE, no damage to the invasion.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Again, the problem may be with the amphib bonus in hexes that are heavily defended.  (I'm assumning that the amphib bonus itself is the appropriate way to model the Japanese "blitzkrieg" in the early war.)  Why not just reduce the amphib bonus dependent on the number/type of CD available?  (I'd use throw weight as the variable.)  The longer that the unloading occurrs, the more likely that the invaders will take casualties, because from my experience, ships seem to take far more damage than the CD guns.  Just a thought.

I'm not sure it's simply the amphib bonus, although that certianly exacerabates the results. I think it's the built-in unload assumptions whereby spreading the assault troops over many, many hulls allows the human player to artificially land more on the first phase than dense loading fewer ships would allow. The funnel is unlimited on the sea side, and there is no small end constraint on the shore side. If I'm willing to invest 300 xAPs and xAKs in the operation, each one gets to unload its small contingent of troops on the first phase, regardless of whether, as Alfred shows with the Norfolk I. example, those craft could ever really get onto sand simultaneously. I think that's how the code works, for both sides in all eras. The amhib bonus just gives a temporary increase in the idea, making small TFs more efficient than otherwise, but not really helping huge, ahistorical TFs such as those in the OP's data. They don't need the help. As always, if I"m wrong, somebody say so.

Making this offload-rate versus landing-rate work differently in terms of base size might be a pretty big code rip out and re-write. I don't know, but I suspect so. I'm not sure it's the best use of the dev's time right now.

[witpqs]

Perhaps I am wrong about this, but IIRC the terrain type is taken into account when landing over the beach. Meaning mountains and swamps, for example, are not treated as flat sand. It's possible that further adjustments might help.

BTW, amphibious TF's do unload faster at heavily congested friendly ports because they get to use their landing craft.

[herwin]

What I was suggesting was a marginal change to the current code: first determine who won the ship versus shore gun duel, allowing for the relative advantage of CD artillery. If the duel goes to the ships, the landing force can land as currently. If the duel goes the other way, the landing force gets chewed on. I was positing that the duels in the late war invasions after Tarawa went to the ships. This can probably be checked (and the relative advantage of CDA calibrated) by looking at those invasions.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl



The problem is that you aren't talking about established Coast Defense Systems. Yes, there was artillery on the coast in Normandy..., but it was emplaced simply to drop shells along the beach. True Coast Defense Artillery is tied into a sophisticated naval-style Fire Control System.

Most Pacific islands had some guns mounted to use direct fire under local control against naval targets..., but when you are talking about Oahu or Singapore or the Tsushima Straits the Fire Control systems could bring down accurate directed fire on moving targets the guns themselves could not see.

The basic difference is between guns that could fire on Higgins Boats and Diahatsus along the beach---and guns that could sink the transports before they could put those boats in the water.

The spread of 16" guns is still going to be 100 yards or more compared to 200 yards at least for a BB which is still significant. The Normandy guns did have quite a good accuracy and hits some BBs NO..., THEY DIDN'T. THAT OCCURRED LATER WHEN US BB'S ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE THE COAST DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS AROUND THE PORT OF CHERBOURG TO SUPPORT VII CORPS ASSULT. AND THEY WERE DRIVEN OFF QUITE QUICKLY.( I dont think they fired much on the beach) , another point is how effective is firecontrol anyway here. On a ship your dealing with roll , the ship moving coordinating , the salvo but for CD guns you know the range and the angle the only issue is predicting how the target will evade/ move which i dont think any WWII FC system takes into account and which target you fire on which is of some benefit but a radio can do this ok eg "fire on the first battleship" . Also CD guns have lower traverse and elevation rates ( because they are not needed) . STill even if you are 10* as accurate as a Battleship that is still not great as BBs mount 8-12* the guns , and if like Rodney it takes 17 Salvos ( you dont get great crews on CD guns) to get a hit your not going to hit many ships before your out of ammo ( I dont know PH but most had limited stores else they become vulnerable to a magazine hit) .
. Anyway this OT as these guns will only really engage large capital ships and save their mostly AP ammo for them

I get the feeling you don't understand CD fire control at all. It's an integrated system (something of a cross between that of a BB and the US Army's FDC. Major difference between a CD installation and a BB is in range determination. On a BB, the range finder has a "base" of as much as 100 feet..., while a shore based installation can have a "base" of several miles. The longer the range to be determined, the more the size of the "base" matters.

The more accurate the determination of the range and the bearing, the more accurate the "plot" of the targets course and speed. The more accurate the "plot", the more accurate the firing data given to the guns. Additionally, long-established fixed CD installations have "tables" of corrections for everything from tide states to wind conditions to current temperature/humidity.

This means that these installations not only have a very good idea of where the target will be at the end of the 20-60 seconds the shell is in flight..., they are also much more capable of dropping their shells exactly on that spot.
They also have the very real benefit of being a much smaller target than a ship. Even with a BB caliber weapon, it takes virtually a direct hit on the gun itself to knock it out..., whereas any hit on a ship degrades it's capabilities, and you can sink one without ever hitting it's guns.

The difficulty of knocking out a CD installation was shown in the Philippines. The Japanese bombed and shelled the Manilla Bay installations for 4 months..., and knocked out only 2 of the guns.

There were very valid reasons why all navies gave these installations a wide berth during wars. They were very dangerous opponents. The game has made them into a joke..., and that's just plain wrong.

[Marty A]

I was just going to say that better for landing ships to turn back without chewed up but upon further think no. better for landing to get shot. if player come in with no prior work on beach airplane and ship bombing just run in and land then get what deserve. everything else about game suppose to work like real why not this?

[WITPPL]

Second Landing at Pearl:
Look at the numbers of guns shooting.
There were no bombings nor bombardments of any kind from my side.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Feb 02, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Pearl Harbor

4 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
LB-110
LB-108, Shell hits 4, heavy damage
LB-104, Shell hits 4, heavy damage
LB-107, Shell hits 3, heavy damage



804th Engineer Aviation Battalion firing at LB-110
3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LB-108 at 6,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LB-104 at 6,000 yards
6in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LB-108 at 6,000 yards
155mm M1A1 GPF Coastal Battery engaging LB-104 at 6,000 yards
8in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LB-104 at 6,000 yards
12in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LB-108 at 6,000 yards
14in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LB-107 at 6,000 yards
16in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LB-104 at 6,000 yards
8in Railroad Gun Coastal Battery engaging LB-107 at 6,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LB-107 at 6,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging LB-107 at 6,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Pearl Harbor - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

18 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
CL Katori
xAK India Maru, Shell hits 1
CL Kashima, heavy damage
xAK Brisbane Maru, Shell hits 1



CL Katori firing at 4th Marine Defense Battalion
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK India Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Brisbane Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Brisbane Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Pearl Harbor

TF 24 troops unloading over beach at Pearl Harbor, 180,107


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Pearl Harbor
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

36 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
CL Katori
xAK India Maru
CL Kashima, heavy damage
xAK Brisbane Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire
xAK Victoria Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage



CL Katori firing at 804th Engineer Aviation Battalion
3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK India Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Brisbane Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Brisbane Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
155mm M1918 GPF Coastal Battery engaging xAK Victoria Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Pearl Harbor
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft

14 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAK Brisbane Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL Kashima, heavy damage



3in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Brisbane Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards
5in CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Brisbane Maru at 12,000 yards
CL Kashima fires to suppress enemy guns at 12,000 yards

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Perhaps I am wrong about this, but IIRC the terrain type is taken into account when landing over the beach. Meaning mountains and swamps, for example, are not treated as flat sand. It's possible that further adjustments might help.

BTW, amphibious TF's do unload faster at heavily congested friendly ports because they get to use their landing craft.

I wasn't specifically speaking to the terrain type "sand", but rather just "land." Forgive me for artistic license. I just meant "room."

I haven't been to many of the invasion beaches in the PTO, but I lived on Oahu, spent six weeks on Guam, three days on Saipan, landed on Rota for an hour, and flew over Tinian at 1000 feet. On Guam and Saipan, where I spent full afternoons at the invasion beaches, I can say that there is not physically enough space, room, sand, etc. to get 300 transports worth of anything ashore in 12-hours, CD or no CD, landing craft or motor whale boats. These are pretty small beaches. both in width and depth.

On your last point, I think Alfred's main point was not that it can be faster to to combine piers with lighters, but that there is an AE constraint on pier unloading, but essentially unlimited capacity to land amphibiously, if the player is willing to tie up hundreds of transports at a time. That primitive unloading out of landing craft can achieve results impossible to get at modern, well-stevedoored ports with cranes, trucks, paved roads, warehouses, etc.

[castor troy]

lol, and how many casualties due to "accidents"? 300? With 10 troops dead and 2 guns destroyed?

[WITPPL]

I can not answer at the moment in the open forum (If You ask me).

ORIGINAL: castor troy

lol, and how many casualties due to "accidents"? 300? With 10 troops dead and 2 guns destroyed?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: herwin

What I was suggesting was a marginal change to the current code: first determine who won the ship versus shore gun duel, allowing for the relative advantage of CD artillery. If the duel goes to the ships, the landing force can land as currently. If the duel goes the other way, the landing force gets chewed on. I was positing that the duels in the late war invasions after Tarawa went to the ships. This can probably be checked (and the relative advantage of CDA calibrated) by looking at those invasions.

This might have some merit, but if I understand you correclty, not after the first 12-hour phase. After that the troops are ashore, or nearly so, and the ships are unloading supplies. And, as I said above, the game doesn't allow the troops ashore to specifically over-target CD, which they would do if it were chewing up their only way home. CD gets to respond until the entire defense garrison is eliminated, or the CD runs out of supply, or is device-disabled in turn with the infantry and armor LCUs in the attack resolution queue.

This proposal also ignores the historical record of Allied island invasions where few transports unloaded assault troops while under sustained shore fire.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: herwin

What I was suggesting was a marginal change to the current code: first determine who won the ship versus shore gun duel, allowing for the relative advantage of CD artillery. If the duel goes to the ships, the landing force can land as currently. If the duel goes the other way, the landing force gets chewed on. I was positing that the duels in the late war invasions after Tarawa went to the ships. This can probably be checked (and the relative advantage of CDA calibrated) by looking at those invasions.

This might have some merit, but if I understand you correclty, not after the first 12-hour phase. After that the troops are ashore, or nearly so, and the ships are unloading supplies. And, as I said above, the game doesn't allow the troops ashore to specifically over-target CD, which they would do if it were chewing up their only way home. CD gets to respond until the entire defense garrison is eliminated, or the CD runs out of supply, or is device-disabled in turn with the infantry and armor LCUs in the attack resolution queue.

This proposal also ignores the historical record of Allied island invasions where few transports unloaded assault troops while under sustained shore fire.

the troops might be ashore but not their artillery and other heavy stuff within the first 12 hours. And while landed troops don´t take on the CD, there is a routine that let´s you hit the CD: PORT ATTACK. That´s the way you were supposed (at least in WITP) to take out the CD. Ground attacks to take out the defending LCUs. Put everything toghether and you have a knocked out CD (or heavily disrupted) and heavily disrupted LCUs. Both together would have meant that you can land without getting chewed up if the "preparation" for your invasion was good enough. If not, it went bad. Throw in some random factor. This all went overboard in AE.