Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

[Mike Scholl]

Really nice photos and links Brady. 

[WITPPL]

Time, time TIME!

I am quite sure that a ship shelling would swicht to a BEACH shelling as enemy reach them. Which gives even less time to sink ships.

So we would have two phases here.

[:)]

[castor troy]

Very nice pics Brady and they all show landings at what I would call a "non hostile beach". I want to again point out that it´s not just the CD guns working or not working. What surely isn´t working is the beach defense because if I put a dozen divisions into a hex to defend it and have the abstracted assumption that they of course would defend the beach with all kind of weapons, ranging from a rifle up to 150mm artillery, then I wonder how an enemy division can land on the beach and only suffers three dozen disabled from accidents. That´s my main issue.

Ok, there is no real life example of a major invasion against real CD gun installations like Singapore or Pearl Harbour for example. For me, this isn´t just semantics, for me this is the prove that those installations (any real CD gun installations) worked as better guys than me in charge of the troops in WWII decided that it´s not good to assault them with an amphibious invasion.

But we do have a prove that MGs, mortars and some artillery firing on the beach IS working. D-day? Tarawa? The biggest invasion ever against a spot in the Atlantikwall (the word was more frightening and hope giving than the line reall was anyway) and it was a blood bath IMO. And not a cakewalk or something that was sure before the invasion that it will be no problem. There´s the need of actual troops defending against an invasion and not only this IMO not working CD gun routine.

Theory and not been possible in real life due to lack of units: the invasion of the Normandy could have failed easily if the German actually had a couple of combat divisions near the beach, which they of course didn´t have and there was just no possibility to have them. So take out the Soviet Union (no war between the Nazis and the SU), the Nazis overrun the rest as they did in real life. Then wait for 44 and D-day. D-day goes off and the landing sites aren´t defended by what they were in real life but some first line divisions with all their equipment they are supposed to have. D-day would not be shredded by two or three dozen medium - big calibre CD guns firing at the ships (if they would they would do damage too of course). The invasion would have been shredded by MGs, mortars and lots of divisional artillery. And it would be shredded on the landing sites and not on the open sea 15km off the beach.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The Soviets had overwhelming strength in airpower and artillery in 1945; comparing any river crossing with an amphibious landing is pointless; they aren't anything like each other.

At Tarawa, the Marines found that the first wave of amtracks were unable to bring in the second wave due to damage and loss to the first wave's vehicles.  Fewer and fewer vehicles were available for successive waves, making each one take longer to get to shore.  The same would have happened with any forced assault against a heavily defended beach for the Japanese.

The Soviets used amtracks (lend-lease equipment provided by the US) for river crossings in(to) Manchuria during their Autumn Storm campaign in 1945.[:'(]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Please name me the landings which prove otherwise if you disagree. One single landing against a major pre-war Coast Defense Installation like Oahu or Manila Bay or Singapore or Toulon or Tokyo Bay or San Francisco or Cherbourg or Vladivostok. Some were taken..., but always by an army landing a long way off and marching overland. That was true as far back as 1854 in the Crimea.

1942 - Corregidor Island [;)]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Very nice pics Brady and they all show landings at what I would call a "non hostile beach". I want to again point out that it´s not just the CD guns working or not working. What surely isn´t working is the beach defense because if I put a dozen divisions into a hex to defend it and have the abstracted assumption that they of course would defend the beach with all kind of weapons, ranging from a rifle up to 150mm artillery, then I wonder how an enemy division can land on the beach and only suffers three dozen disabled from accidents. That´s my main issue.

That's the same as it ever was...go try War in the Pacific. You can do the same thing...all landings other that atolls are "unopposed".

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Very nice pics Brady and they all show landings at what I would call a "non hostile beach". I want to again point out that it´s not just the CD guns working or not working. What surely isn´t working is the beach defense because if I put a dozen divisions into a hex to defend it and have the abstracted assumption that they of course would defend the beach with all kind of weapons, ranging from a rifle up to 150mm artillery, then I wonder how an enemy division can land on the beach and only suffers three dozen disabled from accidents. That´s my main issue.

That's the same as it ever was...go try War in the Pacific. You can do the same thing...all landings other that atolls are "unopposed".

no they aren´t. Remember WITP and those "coastal guns firing 2.319 shots"? We´ve always been told that those shots are not all coming from the CD guns but most of those shots coming from 80mm mortars upwards that were fired onto the beach as most can´t fire at ships. And then you could see 2000 casualties from the landing with very high disruption. That´s a whole different thing in AE now, there are only those "accidents" anymore. When I first saw those "accidents" I´ve thought wow, what a great new detail. Just to find out the rest of the "firing on the invasion" isn´t there at all anymore, changing my mind into: heck, what a damn crap. Please, noone take this offensive...

So either there was deliberete lying for years on the forum about WITP or it has changed.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Very nice pics Brady and they all show landings at what I would call a "non hostile beach". I want to again point out that it´s not just the CD guns working or not working. What surely isn´t working is the beach defense because if I put a dozen divisions into a hex to defend it and have the abstracted assumption that they of course would defend the beach with all kind of weapons, ranging from a rifle up to 150mm artillery, then I wonder how an enemy division can land on the beach and only suffers three dozen disabled from accidents. That´s my main issue.

That's the same as it ever was...go try War in the Pacific. You can do the same thing...all landings other that atolls are "unopposed".

no they aren´t. Remember WITP and those "coastal guns firing 2.319 shots"? We´ve always been told that those shots are not all coming from the CD guns but most of those shots coming from 80mm mortars upwards that were fired onto the beach as most can´t fire at ships. And then you could see 2000 casualties from the landing with very high disruption. That´s a whole different thing in AE now, there are only those "accidents" anymore. When I first saw those "accidents" I´ve thought wow, what a great new detail. Just to find out the rest of the "firing on the invasion" isn´t there at all anymore, changing my mind into: heck, what a damn crap. Please, noone take this offensive...

So either there was deliberete lying for years on the forum about WITP or it has changed.

You know what... you're right... I just went back and checked and that is the case...[:(]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Please name me the landings which prove otherwise if you disagree. One single landing against a major pre-war Coast Defense Installation like Oahu or Manila Bay or Singapore or Toulon or Tokyo Bay or San Francisco or Cherbourg or Vladivostok. Some were taken..., but always by an army landing a long way off and marching overland. That was true as far back as 1854 in the Crimea.

1942 - Corregidor Island [;)]

Very good, Spider..., you win a cookie! Of course it was only a piece of the CD Installation and had been cut off and under siege and air bombardment for 5 months. And it can't be invaded seperetly in WITP-AE, plus the landings were made from Bataan, but you are technically correct.

Please also note that no sizable ship of the IJN ever got in range of the CD guns during those 5 months (smart move on their part). So what penninsula are you going to launch the daihatsu's from to land on Oahu? One thing Brady's pictures show for sure is that the Japanese weren't launching them from "over the horizon". [&:][:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: treespider




That's the same as it ever was...go try War in the Pacific. You can do the same thing...all landings other that atolls are "unopposed".

no they aren´t. Remember WITP and those "coastal guns firing 2.319 shots"? We´ve always been told that those shots are not all coming from the CD guns but most of those shots coming from 80mm mortars upwards that were fired onto the beach as most can´t fire at ships. And then you could see 2000 casualties from the landing with very high disruption. That´s a whole different thing in AE now, there are only those "accidents" anymore. When I first saw those "accidents" I´ve thought wow, what a great new detail. Just to find out the rest of the "firing on the invasion" isn´t there at all anymore, changing my mind into: heck, what a damn crap. Please, noone take this offensive...

So either there was deliberete lying for years on the forum about WITP or it has changed.

You know what... you're right... I just went back and checked and that is the case...[:(]

do we agree now or are you joking at me now and this is just a sarcastic answer? [&:]

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

So it would seem likely that the Japanese landing craft available for the PH operation in early 42 would have overwhelmingly been rated at only slightly over half of the troop capacity you are assuming.

Slows things down considerably, eh? [;)]

I was going strictly by the game's rated capacity and cargo lifting calculations, which is 120 capacity which would be 120 men. Obviously they've done some averaging or something to reduce the number of barge types in-game.

[Terminus]

We also did it to annoy the fanboys. Mission accomplished.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

6) Fact: in the history of Amphibious warfare, no invasion was ever turned back by CD defenses.

Gee. How about Gallipoli? Arguably that one fits.

But here's one for certain. Sabine Pass, Texas, 1863. CD shot up an amphibious force that withdrew after losing several gunboats and lots of troops. So, what you say is not a fact unless you qualify it somehow, like saying "large-scale" invasion, or maybe "in the 1940's."

And, the reason why people feared an invasion of PH after the attack was because they did not know what the enemy capabiltilies were. This game is supposed to model "actual" capabilities, not "feared" or "rumored" capabilities. I, for one, do not think the Japanese could put 75K fully armed men with all TO&E ashore in a single day, even if it was for a peacetime parade at the civilian Honolulu Port. Maybe I'm wrong.

But here's why I think the original point has some validity. In reality, there might have been a chance that the IJN could do what happened here. But, it would be a less than 50-50 chance. I think it would be remote because of what I stated above, but lets say, for the sake of argument, that it's 50-50. In the game, I suspect that 75K will be unloaded everytime. That, I think is the point. Not that it could not ever happen IRL, but that it's guaranteed to happen because of the game mechanics.

Now, you guys continue your argument.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: TheElf

6) Fact: in the history of Amphibious warfare, no invasion was ever turned back by CD defenses.

Gee. How about Gallipoli? Arguably that one fits.

Not quite. It was the attempt to "force" the straits with naval units alone that was turned back by the Turkish guns and mines. The invasion came later, and was an attempt to take the defenses from behind.

[oldman45]

I think I would have a bigger problem with the results, if the defenders were aware of the invasion in advance, but it was pointed out the ships showed up and off loaded and the defenders really were asleep at the switch. One of Brady's pics does show all those transports sitting just off shore, now that would be called a target rich environment. [;)]

As previously written, there may not be a simple fix here, but to run out and make major changes would be bad and until we see the effects of a US led invasion with APA/AKA/LST's it would be dangerous to monkey with it.

Also, I think its fair to say the large caliber guns will be dueling with the combat ships, while the naval mortars and smaller guns would be attacking the transports. The guns supporting the local troops would engage the landing craft and troops on the beach. So unless there is a way to break down the phases even more I don't really see a solution. A fix could make defended beaches almost impossible for the Japanese to take and force the player to use the "attack them where the ain't" method. BTW wasn't that what they did historically?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think I would have a bigger problem with the results, if the defenders were aware of the invasion in advance, but it was pointed out the ships showed up and off loaded and the defenders really were asleep at the switch. One of Brady's pics does show all those transports sitting just off shore, now that would be called a target rich environment. [;)]

As previously written, there may not be a simple fix here, but to run out and make major changes would be bad and until we see the effects of a US led invasion with APA/AKA/LST's it would be dangerous to monkey with it.

Also, I think its fair to say the large caliber guns will be dueling with the combat ships, while the naval mortars and smaller guns would be attacking the transports. The guns supporting the local troops would engage the landing craft and troops on the beach. So unless there is a way to break down the phases even more I don't really see a solution. A fix could make defended beaches almost impossible for the Japanese to take and force the player to use the "attack them where the ain't" method. BTW wasn't that what they did historically?

Does some have detailed line-of-departure date for various amphibious invasions in the Pacific?

[Brady]

It should be noted that the Picks above are all from Invashion points that have been secured, The Japanese almost always landed at Night so thier are more or less no pictures of them going ashore.

As evidanced in the links the standard procedure for the Japanese was to find a relatively undefended streach of Beach and land their men at Night, then those men would secure the area, and then proceaed to their objectives inland, and landing would contune around the clock untill the transports were unloaded.

Generaly all the Fighteing Force went ashore in the First wave or two, folow on landings were suport troops and suplys. Which is what you are seeing in the Photos.

..............

From What I gathered from the Ospery Fortress Series on Oahu, the problem they had in Late 41 and Early 42 was that their was no real defense for the CD guns themselfs, other than the Troops on the Island, and the Guns were all mostly close to the Shore.

As noted above Any plane to atack Ohau would of included a means by which to render the Guns usless or simply to avoid them.

One Interesting thing to consider is just how many Guns were planed to be added (and many were) to Ohau, and most of those added were placed to cover the Beachs to the North, NE and east side of the Island whear their were very few guns or non present.

They also added some beach defenses that were totaly absent at the Beging of the war.

................

Dihatsu's Unloading, Note the Bow Ramp Down on the Closet Dihatsu and the further one it is being Raised/Lowered...:

[Panther Bait]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

But here's one for certain. Sabine Pass, Texas, 1863. CD shot up an amphibious force that withdrew after losing several gunboats and lots of troops. So, what you say is not a fact unless you qualify it somehow, like saying "large-scale" invasion, or maybe "in the 1940's."

While I'm more on the side of the "this attack is completely impossible in real life" point of view here. The Second Battle of Sabine Pass was an attack up a river not a beach invasion. While it points out the advantages of pre-plotted artillery fire on ships, that is a much easier thing to do on a river where the ships have little room to maneuver versus 5+ miles off-shore as has been debated in this thread.

Mike

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think I would have a bigger problem with the results, if the defenders were aware of the invasion in advance, but it was pointed out the ships showed up and off loaded and the defenders really were asleep at the switch. One of Brady's pics does show all those transports sitting just off shore, now that would be called a target rich environment. [;)]

As previously written, there may not be a simple fix here, but to run out and make major changes would be bad and until we see the effects of a US led invasion with APA/AKA/LST's it would be dangerous to monkey with it.

Also, I think its fair to say the large caliber guns will be dueling with the combat ships, while the naval mortars and smaller guns would be attacking the transports. The guns supporting the local troops would engage the landing craft and troops on the beach. So unless there is a way to break down the phases even more I don't really see a solution. A fix could make defended beaches almost impossible for the Japanese to take and force the player to use the "attack them where the ain't" method. BTW wasn't that what they did historically?

Does some have detailed line-of-departure date for various amphibious invasions in the Pacific?

For the Allies or the Japanese, Don? Photographs certainly imply a large difference in practice between the two..., though some of that could be do to lack of opposition to the early war Japanese landings (which seem to have been planned to "hit 'em where they ain't" whenever possible---an option not often open to the Allies).

When you look at overhead photos of a US landing, you see orderly ranks of AKA's and APA's formed up miles off shore, with waves of landing craft circling to be ready to land in waves. Japanese procedure looks much more improvised and disorderly and done from as close in as possible (suitable for an unopposed landing..., but not against a proper defense.).

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

D-day goes off and the landing sites aren´t defended by what they were in real life but some first line divisions with all their equipment they are supposed to have. D-day would not be shredded by two or three dozen medium - big calibre CD guns firing at the ships (if they would they would do damage too of course). The invasion would have been shredded by MGs, mortars and lots of divisional artillery. And it would be shredded on the landing sites and not on the open sea 15km off the beach.

Given that the Allies had total air supremacy over, in front of, near, and behind the landing breaches I think these divisions would have been chewed to hamburger if they'd been near enough to affect the landings. Even the troops in fixed emplacements were gone the first day.

Also, look at total day-1 casualties on Omaha beach, by far the worst. Even with anti-personnel emplacements--mines, wire, barriers, pillboxes--and years fro the Germans to prepare and train, they amounted to about 2400. Thirty-four thousand got ashore able to fight.