Page 6 of 6
RE: Tidbits of Information on Australian Ports
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:25 am
by Tristanjohn
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: eMonticello
I found these tidbits of information in the US Army in WW2 Series,
The Technical Service, The Transportation Corps: Operations Overseas.
Port Operations
* Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville, and Cairns did not have a regularly assigned USA port organization, all port operations were conducted locally.
Ports
* Sydney - April 1942
- There were 177 ship berths of which 44 were connected to railways and included cranes. The port could accomodate 81 ocean going vessels at one time and 10-15 at anchor.
* Brisbane - 1942
- There were 50 marginal wharves with 28 berths, of which 14 were connected to railways. In March 1943, several cranes were added. Storage space was widely scattered and there was a constant danger of congestion at the port.
* Townsville
- This port was smaller than Brisbane and poorly equipped. No new piers were built during the war. There was an anchorage for 75 vessels from 2-6 miles off-shore. There were two piers for large ships and 6 berths connected to the railways. Cargo discharge was conducted by local longshoremen and was considered to be slow and inefficient. Townsville was considered a stop-over point and in Sept 43 had as many as 36 ships waiting to head to New Guinea.
* Cairns
- This port was used when Townsville exceeded its capacity. It had anchorage for 7 ocean-going vessels at one time.
Ship-related tidbits
- 61 American, British, and Dutch ships took refuge in Australia in late 1941-early 1942.
- When War Shipping Adminstration (WSA) ships moved into theater, they were often hijacked by theater commanders and used for theater operations.
- China Navigation Company (British) and Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij (KPM - Royal Packet Navigation Co)(Dutch) were two companies that operated in this region.
http://www.timetableimages.com/maritime/index.htm
- Supplies to India were shared by ships whose origination ports were located in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean.
Makes one wonder where the port size figures in the game came from.
Really.
Of course one of my big beefs is the way Noumea can be somehow turned into another Boston almost overnight. Then again, as the war progressed the Navy (actually the army sorted out Noumea's problems) found one way after another to make "ports" literally in the middle of nowhere.
Still, there's no getting around the fact that you need actual space for ships to be moored. The data supplied for Cairns above is telling in this respect. [:D]
Seriously, though, one might well spend as much time as went into the entire
WitP project just looking deeply into the logistics side of it and trying to wrestle with all that effectively. And I wish they had. Afterall, that's pretty much what the war was about from the Allied side of it: a giant complex problem in logistics. Not to take anything away from the people who did the actual fighting, but without the movement of mountains of myriad supply across many thousands of miles of ocean nothing would have happened at all.
RE: Tidbits of Information on Australian Ports
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:22 am
by eMonticello
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Makes one wonder where the port size figures in the game came from.
I'll hazard a guess that the values were selected to help the AI.
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Of course one of my big beefs is the way Noumea can be somehow turned into another Boston almost overnight. Then again, as the war progressed the Navy (actually the army sorted out Noumea's problems) found one way after another to make "ports" literally in the middle of nowhere.
Unfortunately, the harbor at Noumea was considered inadequate for large-scale support of operations in the South Pacific and the Army was forced to use Auckland as the major supply center. This situation didn't improve until the base at Espiritu Santo was fully operational in Feb 1943.
Gropman, Alan.
The Big 'L': American Logistics in World War II. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1997.
RE: Tidbits of Information on Australian Ports
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:20 am
by Andrew Brown
Unfortunately, the harbor at Noumea was considered inadequate for large-scale support of operations in the South Pacific and the Army was forced to use Auckland as the major supply center. This situation didn't improve until the base at Espiritu Santo was fully operational in Feb 1943.
eMonticello - this information, and the information you provided on Australian ports, is very interesting and very useful. I have tried to modify some of the base values on the game based mainly on research and suggestions by others on these forums, and I am always interested in more of this type of infornmation.
RE: Tidbits of Information on Australian Ports
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:23 pm
by eMonticello
I'll create a bibliography on PTO logistics later today. In the meantime,
The Big 'L' is available via pdf at
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Book_titles.htm
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 6:57 pm
by CobraAus
another good site I found full of detail all nations both air and naval details + OOB and logistics
http://navalhistory.flixco.info
Cobra Aus
Designer's Notes
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:07 pm
by bstarr
Don,
You may already plan on doing this, but . . . You know what would really be interesting? If you were to include "Designer's notes" with the finished mod. I know back when I was a cardboard counter pusher I used to love to read the designer's notes at the end of the rules. It gives a good insight into why choices were made and what the rules are supposed to reflect. In this case it would be more along the lines of what was included, what wasn't, and why.
bs
ps. and maybe Andrew could also include a separate piece on his map mod.
RE: Designer's Notes
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:38 pm
by Bradley7735
Hi Don,
Can you let us know if the new feature for patch 1.5 of some allied divebombers using AP bombs will work in the CHS mod?
I assume if you an Pry got together, you would know which numbered device to put the AP bomb into, and the coding change would then work with your Mod.
Anyway, that's one 1.5 fix I'd like to see work in your mod.
Thanks, Brad
RE: Designer's Notes
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:03 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
Hi Don,
Can you let us know if the new feature for patch 1.5 of some allied divebombers using AP bombs will work in the CHS mod?
I assume if you an Pry got together, you would know which numbered device to put the AP bomb into, and the coding change would then work with your Mod.
Anyway, that's one 1.5 fix I'd like to see work in your mod.
Thanks, Brad
We're aware of this one and will be sure it works with the mod. We may have to shuffle our added devices a little - we'll see when we can get our hands on 1.5.
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - General
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:31 am
by Halsey
I was curious as to how the Russian forces will be handled.
Will they start active, so that ground forces can be redeployed?
Air units on non-offensive missions?
Scenario Number??
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:45 pm
by Don Bowen
It's about time to decide on a "permanent" scenario number for CHS. Something that won't conflict with any of the other moded scenarios out there.
We've been using 55 and one suggestion is to add 100 to get 155. Or, since the scenario is based on Scenario 15, adding 100 to get 115.
I'm actually going to keep my personal copy in slot 26 as I do not have the attention span to page down more than one time to find it!
Thoughts??
RE: Scenario Number??
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:50 pm
by CobraAus
since the scenario is based on Scenario 15, adding 100 to get 115.
115 sounds good
Cobra Aus
RE: Scenario Number??
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:25 pm
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: CobraAus
since the scenario is based on Scenario 15, adding 100 to get 115.
115 sounds good
Cobra Aus
Not 115 please. I already have a scenario 115 in my map mod package. When I convert an official scenario I add 100 to the number, so the official scenarios, when converted to my map (eventually) will have numbers 101 to 116.
I would like to keep to my convention of using scenario numbers above 100 for scenarions adapted for using my map, so I guess 155 is as good as anything else. Or how about 144 (a "gross' scenario)?
RE: Scenario Number??
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:42 pm
by bstarr
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
It's about time to decide on a "permanent" scenario number for CHS. Something that won't conflict with any of the other moded scenarios out there.
We've been using 55 and one suggestion is to add 100 to get 155. Or, since the scenario is based on Scenario 15, adding 100 to get 115.
I'm actually going to keep my personal copy in slot 26 as I do not have the attention span to page down more than one time to find it!
Thoughts??
how about 41. As in 1941. [;)]
RE: Scenario Number??
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:14 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: CobraAus
since the scenario is based on Scenario 15, adding 100 to get 115.
115 sounds good
Cobra Aus
Not 115 please. I already have a scenario 115 in my map mod package. When I convert an official scenario I add 100 to the number, so the official scenarios, when converted to my map (eventually) will have numbers 101 to 116.
I would like to keep to my convention of using scenario numbers above 100 for scenarions adapted for using my map, so I guess 155 is as good as anything else. Or how about 144 (a "gross' scenario)?
Good point Andrew but lousy suggestion on "144".
155 - going once, going twice ...
RE: Scenario Number??
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:24 am
by Ron Saueracker
How about the very last slot. Easy to queue (just rip down until scroll slams to a halt). Besides, after this puppy is out, why would anyone else want to do another? None will follow. Sans Pareil![:D]