Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I know. We should have a decent baseline understanding of where we are to have a productive discussion about where to go from here.

[WITPPL]

I am a total ignorant here but it seems to me that making a mess (unloading in an amphibious assault) takes much less time than proper, orderly unload at ports.

Just by the nature of those two different actions.

[WITPPL]

Any comments on this second landing results from You fellows here?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

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.

I use port attack, both as softening up and during invasions. I know that's how you're supposed to address CD, and the same in WITP. But in my experience, port attacks mostly result in port damage and port supply degredation, and not much CD damage. Occassionally I get a "1 gun disabled" line in the attack print out, but usually just port damage (which I have to repair once I own the place.)

Is this historic? Probably yes. CD was cammoed from air attack and piers weren't. The way to get CD was the way it was done on D-Day. Get close and shoot the gunners dead with your rifle.

[Canoerebel]

There was an interesting occurrence during the Iwo Jima invasion.
 
A day before the invasion a handful of small Allied craft (LCIs, I think) carrying underwater demolition teams approached the beach.  The Japanese commander thought it was "the real thing."  His big CD guns opened fire and roughed up some of the Allied craft, but in doing so revealed their positions.  These guns were thus knocked out before the real invasion (fortunately for the Allied assault wave).  The Japanese gun emplacements that didn't reveal themselves were barely even touched by days of naval and aerial bombardment.

[John Lansford]

The 2nd day of PH invasion AAR's indicates "batteries" firing at individual ships, barges even, all the way up to 14" and 16" guns.  I could see the 5" and 155mm guns firing at incoming assault boats, but 14" guns?  16" guns?  They would be better served firing at the transports or the warships providing naval support for the troops on shore.
 
I agree with Herman; if the defense guns are suppressed, they should only fire back at the warships firing at them, and if they aren't, they can fire at whatever they want.  No sane navy would send patrol boats or DD's to duel with battleship sized shore based weapons; that's why BB's were in invasion fleets, to knock out heavy guns that outranged smaller ships' weapons.
 
As for what constitutes a "fortress", that's easy.   Look at the LCU names; any of them that say "fort" or "fortress" is a fixed installation and has the sophisticated, built-in, dedicated coast defense system, complete with preregistered firing locations, dug in positions, fire control systems, and lots of ammo.  The others with just "CD" or "coastal defense artillery" are the mobile LCU's and don't get the benefit that the fixed LCU does. 

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The 2nd day of PH invasion AAR's indicates "batteries" firing at individual ships, barges even, all the way up to 14" and 16" guns.  I could see the 5" and 155mm guns firing at incoming assault boats, but 14" guns?  16" guns?  They would be better served firing at the transports or the warships providing naval support for the troops on shore.

I agree with this in general. However, all of the innards of the routines are not displayed to us in the messages. Even the best CD's can only shoot at what they can see, so if certain ships are obscured by smoke they can't be effectively targeted. Likewise, if smoke obscures certain directions from the CD gun directors (smoke close to the directors), then whole areas will be invisible to the guns.

So, while I agree in general with what you wrote, we do still want the routines to have enough randomness that such things can and will occur whatever we can best figure out is a reasonable amount of the time (given the particular circumstances).

[John Lansford]

On Oahu at the least, unless the whole island was covered in smoke the rangefinders would have been able to see ships lying off shore.  IIRC they had them along the entire island perimeter and were tied together so they could feed data to any of the fixed defense guns.  Oh, btw, landing on the northern shore of Oahu in wintertime is not something a sane commander would even consider, much less attempt.  The most considered possible were some small raiding parties, which was why the Army only located fairly light CD guns on that side of the island.
 
Bullwinkle,
 
Are you forgetting the CD guns on Tarawa and Iwo Jima?  In both battles the ships knocked out the big CD guns threatening the ships offshore, sometimes using pointblank direct fire from their largest guns.  The smaller guns firing on the incoming troops weren't "CD" guns, but the usual weapons a defensive force employs and would have to be taken out by the troops.  Even at Normandy many of the guns capable of firing on the ships were destroyed by naval gunfire; the ones that fired at infantry on the beach were where naval gunfire couldn't hit them and had to be taken out by the troops themselves.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: castor troy

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.

I use port attack, both as softening up and during invasions. I know that's how you're supposed to address CD, and the same in WITP. But in my experience, port attacks mostly result in port damage and port supply degredation, and not much CD damage. Occassionally I get a "1 gun disabled" line in the attack print out, but usually just port damage (which I have to repair once I own the place.)

Is this historic? Probably yes. CD was cammoed from air attack and piers weren't. The way to get CD was the way it was done on D-Day. Get close and shoot the gunners dead with your rifle.

it´s not the question about destroying the CD guns, port or airfield attacks really take a toll on the base forces, you will soon start seeing diruptions of 80+ and that´s the main issue that makes them ineffective. Over time and prolonged attacks you of course destroy them but this will take time. A lot of time when thinking about enough supplies at the base and an unlimited CD gun supply when talking about the Japanese due to their "armament points". No unlimited supply for the Allied though as they´ve got fixed replacement rates.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The 2nd day of PH invasion AAR's indicates "batteries" firing at individual ships, barges even, all the way up to 14" and 16" guns.  I could see the 5" and 155mm guns firing at incoming assault boats, but 14" guns?  16" guns?  They would be better served firing at the transports or the warships providing naval support for the troops on shore.

I agree with Herman; if the defense guns are suppressed, they should only fire back at the warships firing at them, and if they aren't, they can fire at whatever they want.  No sane navy would send patrol boats or DD's to duel with battleship sized shore based weapons; that's why BB's were in invasion fleets, to knock out heavy guns that outranged smaller ships' weapons.

As for what constitutes a "fortress", that's easy.   Look at the LCU names; any of them that say "fort" or "fortress" is a fixed installation and has the sophisticated, built-in, dedicated coast defense system, complete with preregistered firing locations, dug in positions, fire control systems, and lots of ammo.  The others with just "CD" or "coastal defense artillery" are the mobile LCU's and don't get the benefit that the fixed LCU does. 

Couple of problems with these ideas.

1) The Oahu CD is one LCU with, I think, the max number of kinds of devices spannning a huge range of size and capability. Other CD units (go look; they're easily sortable) don't even have any guns. (Look at Mombassa, Bangalore, Aden.) (Yeah, I know Bangalore is land-locked, but so is Dehli, and it has a "CD" unit, also with no big guns. Go figure.) Others have a few, like three, 6-in guns, but I doubt the sophisticated FC systems you keep referring to. These would include the majority of the Aussie ports.

Splitting targets on the fly by device within one firing LCU--possible in the code? I don't know. As I said before, ships aren't LCUs. If that makes a difference in the code I don't know.

2) Range, again. Many of the guns in the CD designations are 155mm and smaller. The game doesn't seem to be able to stratify targets by range. Again, only a very small minority of CD devices in the universe of CD TOE are 14- and 16-inchers. Most are essentially artillery pieces that are not fixed emplacements, and don't have 15 mile ranges.

3) "Sane" navies, like the USN, DID send DDs into ranges of weapons that could kill them. USN DD skippers went in to 1000 yards of Omaha beach to relieve the first wave, even though they could see obstacles that would rip out their keels. They routinely did the same in the PTO, as well as DMSes, DEs, etc. Sacrifice in battle is what separates winners from losers, and besides, it's a lot harder to hit a maneuvering ship--that's trying to kill YOU--than you seem to envision in your antiseptic descriptions of CD FC operations.

4) Using the game's description of "fortress" is a non-starter. The Commonwealth seemed to love to slap that moniker on anything that didn't move. Again, go look in the game at what has "Fort" or "Fortress" as a title. OK? Now, look at what doesn't. San Francisco? Los Angeles? Oh, and of import to this thread--OAHU! Not a fortress!

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

There was an interesting occurrence during the Iwo Jima invasion.

A day before the invasion a handful of small Allied craft (LCIs, I think) carrying underwater demolition teams approached the beach.  The Japanese commander thought it was "the real thing."  His big CD guns opened fire and roughed up some of the Allied craft, but in doing so revealed their positions.  These guns were thus knocked out before the real invasion (fortunately for the Allied assault wave).  The Japanese gun emplacements that didn't reveal themselves were barely even touched by days of naval and aerial bombardment.

UH, wait one! We've been told over and over in this thread that BBs simply CAN'T knock out big CD guns, because CD guns are magically protected, bore-sighted, on reverse slopes, with integrated FC systems with miles-long bases, in caves, manned by genies . . . [:)]

[sfbaytf]

We have island/atoll stacking limits, and port limits. Aside from the CD issue we need beach landing size/capacity limits-a number that takes into account the number and size of potential invasion sites and other factors such as reefs and water conditions.
 
Local weather would also be appropriate. If the weather offshore is stormy with high winds and waves then landings should be impossible or suffer heavy losses and disruption.
 
Yes, we're a tough crowd that's impossible to please...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Bullwinkle,

Are you forgetting the CD guns on Tarawa and Iwo Jima?  In both battles the ships knocked out the big CD guns threatening the ships offshore, sometimes using pointblank direct fire from their largest guns.  The smaller guns firing on the incoming troops weren't "CD" guns, but the usual weapons a defensive force employs and would have to be taken out by the troops.  Even at Normandy many of the guns capable of firing on the ships were destroyed by naval gunfire; the ones that fired at infantry on the beach were where naval gunfire couldn't hit them and had to be taken out by the troops themselves.

And I'm saying that, in the game, the TOEs don't work that way. Look at Oahu's; all mixed together. You're looking for a major game mechanic change whereby we have "CD1" TOEs that fire at ships with Big Guns, and a "CD2" TOE tier that contain 155-ish Small Guns, and bombard the beach. Major code, plus, again, major balance issues of casualties and disruptions. We already have troops arrive on the beach disrupted. If that needs to be increased (and I don't think it should be, for both the Allies' speed of advance, and also the Japanese first-six-months necessary speed of advance) it ought to be easier to do than adding in a whole new tier of TOEs and another attack routine that needs to feed existing downstream variables.

[Bullwinkle58]

(Never Mind.)

[WITPPL]

1st vs 2nd Pearl Landing.

Take a look at numbers of guns firing: its down from 360+ to 14 pieces. There were no bombardments or air strikes between these landings.

Does a size of an invasion TF matters?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

1st vs 2nd Pearl Landing.

Take a look at numbers of guns firing: its down from 360+ to 14 pieces. There were no bombardments or air strikes between these landings.

Does a size of an invasion TF matters?

yeah, as mentioned earlier, the more ships there are the more shots fired. Ever has been in WITP like this and it´s obviously the same in AE.

[John Lansford]

Bullwinkle,
 
I was pointing out that there are valid examples where warships destroyed what AE would call "CD guns", which you were claiming had to be taken out by infantry on the ground.  Clearly not accurate given both Tarawa and Iwo Jima.  Most CD guns didn't tend to fire at the men on the beach, just at the ships offshore and those approaching the beach.
 
ISTM that the words "Fort" and "Fortress" in AE denote fixed, defendable positions that may or may not have large guns and would provide the defenders a bonus if attacked.  As for the smaller # of guns at some of the Aussie ports, so what if they got a bonus?  Would 3 6" guns be able to stop a large invasion force?  No, but they'd inflict damage on that force and that's the point.  Right now, CD units appear to be neutered to the point of pointlessness.  If the most heavily defended port in the game can be invaded without inflicting heavy losses on the attacking force (without naval or aerial bombardment, even), then what's the point of using the Marine Defense Units which have far less capability?  Better to just transport infantry units and let them dig in to fight the invaders once they reached the beach.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Bullwinkle,

I was pointing out that there are valid examples where warships destroyed what AE would call "CD guns", which you were claiming had to be taken out by infantry on the ground. Clearly not accurate given both Tarawa and Iwo Jima. Most CD guns didn't tend to fire at the men on the beach, just at the ships offshore and those approaching the beach.

I didn't say they HAD to be, only that they usually were. Some things havne't changed for centuries. Forts were usually taken by marine infantry landed up the coast who assaulted from the land side.

ISTM that the words "Fort" and "Fortress" in AE denote fixed, defendable positions that may or may not have large guns and would provide the defenders a bonus if attacked.

 

I don't know if that's what "CD" in the list means. Maybe it's just a sortable field in the DB there for utility. Maybe it calls sub-routines when this LCU is attacked. Don't know. But by crawling into the CD lisitngs I see there is no, none, nada consistency about what "Fort" or "fortress" in the name of the LCU denotes. Again, go look. There are some really odd ducks. I don't doubt that Andy and the OOB crew are correct that the facilities bore those names historically. I'm saying that, as a trigger to call some sort of new sub-routine, as a signal that the attacker is dealing with an integrated sea-facing SOTA defense and had better bring the pain, these designations don't work. And that the "World's Most Highly Defended Island", Oahu, IS NOT a fort or fortress in the DB.

As for the smaller # of guns at some of the Aussie ports, so what if they got a bonus?

 

I thnk the burden is on those who want to change the model to justify it. Why should they? Why are three 6-in guns worthy of any bonus, and an artillery LCU I hauled 1000 miles to Cairns not worthy? Why should Dehli get a "CD bonus" when it clearly isn't defending a coast?

Would 3 6" guns be able to stop a large invasion force? No, but they'd inflict damage on that force and that's the point.

And my point is that right now, they do.

Right now, CD units appear to be neutered to the point of pointlessness. If the most heavily defended port in the game can be invaded without inflicting heavy losses on the attacking force (without naval or aerial bombardment, even), then what's the point of using the Marine Defense Units which have far less capability?

And you're right back where this started a over a week ago.

[John Lansford]

RE: the 2nd invasion wave.
 
Is there any way to tell if your infantry units have reduced the # of CD guns still capable of firing?  If you've not conducted any attacks, I don't see why there aren't a similar number of guns from the 1st wave still firing at the ships offshore.  It may be as Castor Troy has mentioned, if you have fewer men unloading from fewer ships then you get fewer guns firing at them.
 
Bullwinkle,
 
The point I'm making is there are a certain category of units called "forts" or "fortresses" that have fixed guns in CD roles, and I'd expect they would have more advanced FC systems than the more mobile units have.  If it were possible to give those units with CD guns a firing bonus against invaders, it might help reduce the problem we're seeing right now.  If you disagree with this, then what is YOUR suggestion to try and fix this?

[WITPPL]

No, there were no fighting at all, one round of bombardment on a first day IIRC.
If it is true that smaller invasions trigger less guns then we have another problem and a field for a possible exploits here.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

RE: the 2nd invasion wave.

Is there any way to tell if your infantry units have reduced the # of CD guns still capable of firing?  If you've not conducted any attacks, I don't see why there aren't a similar number of guns from the 1st wave still firing at the ships offshore.  It may be as Castor Troy has mentioned, if you have fewer men unloading from fewer ships then you get fewer guns firing at them.

Bullwinkle,

The point I'm making is there are a certain category of units called "forts" or "fortresses" that have fixed guns in CD roles, and I'd expect they would have more advanced FC systems than the more mobile units have.  If it were possible to give those units with CD guns a firing bonus against invaders, it might help reduce the problem we're seeing right now.  If you disagree with this, then what is YOUR suggestion to try and fix this?