Unloading times should be based on Landing craft and exits

[madmickey]

I have a hard time accepting the fact that a big 6000 unit AP ship will take 3 time to unload troop as a 2000 unit AP ship. For amphibious operation unloading time should be based on the amount of landing craft on the big ship. A 6000 unit ship will have a lot more landing craft than a 2000 unit ship. In addition ships unloading time should be bases on number of egress points. Big ships with many entrances and exits will be able to handle more troops per turn than a ship with less exits point.

[pasternakski]

Depends on what they're carrying. Even a simple infantry unit has a lot of different equipment (mortars, trucks, AT guns, and so on) and different sub-unit types (engineers with specialized gear, HQ sections with large amounts of office stuff, the famous "support" troops, otherwise known as "cooks, supply sergeants, MPs, and the like"). If it's just a matter of a bunch of guys walking on and off the ship, maybe you're right. If it's something more than that, I think that the smaller transport is more efficient in loading and offloading - a simple system is easier to work than a complex system, especially when you have to deal with complex elements.

One other thing - loading a big transport efficiently is vastly harder than loading a little sea jeep. What has to go on first? What has to come off first? Which ship spaces are best suited to priorities in loading and unloading? How many cranes does the ship have and how are they arranged? What size are the hatches in connection with the above considerations?

It must have been a great life being a cargo ship crew in WWII - so little time, so much to do. The game's transport and corgo ship loading and unloading system is marvelously complex, one of the best elements of WitP. It takes time and effort to master.

[madmickey]

In amphibious landing a big group AK ship is better to land troop faster, I do not think that was historically accurate

[Twotribes]

The AK and AP probably off load at the same rate, think it is the lowest available, on the chart in the rules. However, since an AK carries LESS troops then an AP it will off load its cargo of troops faster at the same rate.

[madmickey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The AK and AP probably off load at the same rate, think it is the lowest available, on the chart in the rules. However, since an AK carries LESS troops then an AP it will off load its cargo of troops faster at the same rate.

That is my point and I do not think that was historically accurate. An AK ship will carry less if any landing crafts. Since there is so many more AK ships than AP ship use AK ships even though I do not think it was done historically.

[Tankerace]

Also, remember AKs are attack transports.

The Job of an AP is to carry troops and supplies from a back area to a staging area.
The job of an AK is to carry aircraft from a back area to anywhere, and to carry troops from a staging area to the landing zone.

[Twotribes]

No, I thought AK are merchant marine type vessels, cargo ships, not troop ships. Optimized for carring cargo not troops, that would be why it takes so mnay more of them to carry a unit then AP or LC.

The only way of an AK is a landing barge or craft.

[BRZ]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Also, remember AKs are attack transports.

The Job of an AP is to carry troops and supplies from a back area to a staging area.
The job of an AK is to carry aircraft from a back area to anywhere, and to carry troops from a staging area to the landing zone.

But AP's have 50 points of amphib values (p. 99) in the manual.

[madmickey]

BRZ in discussion on the board it was pointed out that AK ship have an amphibious rating of 50%.

[Twotribes]

The AK will have available to it the same resources for off loading that an AP has, it is all abstracted. In reality Landing craft would have to be ferried to the site of the invasion and this abstrated with the amph assault unload number. AK need landing barges or landing craft just like an AP does, it is more likely to be able to accomadate carrying said barge or landing craft and more likely to have its own crane for lowering and picking up said craft.

[BRZ]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

BRZ in discussion on the board it was pointed out that AK ship have an amphibious rating of 50%.

Have the link? cause I do think that AK is better, but I was trying to stay with the manual.

[madmickey]

APA carried it landing craft.LCVP have very little endurance and they would slow down an invasion


"The group is the APA Historical Preservation Project, dedicated to saving as many as possible of the ``auxiliary fleet, personal complement, attack force'' ships that were built in huge numbers in Portland, Ore., near the end of the war.

These APAs were the Navy versions of the famed Victory Ships, the merchant vessels that risked sinking by enemy submarines to carry troops and supplies overseas. The APAs bristled with guns. Their payload was Marines.

Of 230 built, the Gage is the last originally configured attack transport, the group says. A few others still exist, but they've been significantly modified.

The 455-foot Gage, capable of carrying more than 500 crewmen, 1,500 troops and 2,900 tons of cargo, was launched in October 1944."

https://mscs.marad.dot.gov/clips/8-8-3-et.htm

[madmickey]

BRZ it was a few month ago, try a landing with AK ship loaded with troops.

[madmickey]

Mogami will you review this.

[Mr.Frag]

Hostile landings are conducted based on ship rates not port rates unless I am thinking of something else.

[madmickey]

Can reconfirm in next landing.
A smal AP ships unload at same rate of troop as a big one. But an large AP ship has more landing craft. In addition using AK ships for troop landing was not done. Those ships usually did not carry LCVP.