The B.S. Power of CD

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Early war operations were carried out without landing craft and ships. The Japanese didn't have any kind of amphibious vehicle and landed thier troops in whle boats. Early landing craft were available to the US for the Guadalcanal operation, but I think a lot of troops still came ashore in other craft.

All successful early war landings were virtually unopposed. The few times the Japanese ran into any real resistance, they were clobbered.

I think the problem you want to address can be solved with a new ship type, the APA. The difference between APs and APAs would be the types of boats they carry. APs would unload slower at invasion beaches and troops would land more disrupted than APAs. Some APs that were afloat at the beginning of the war can upgrade to APAs when the landing craft begame available in the real world.

This would make landings with APs very risky and would serve as a bottleneck for operations as you describe without huge modifications. It might be a largish change for WITP, but it could be done. It could be done with a new type of device for ships, which would be landing craft.

Bill

That's a damn good idea. Probably not as good as implementing landing craft in some way, but it's also probably a lot easier to accomplish in code. And a lot easier for a player to manage. Maybe add an AKA class to the game as well...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hi Guys. 

I stopped posting onto this because I have been so furious.  Total result of the Pago-Pago Operation:  one Inf Brigade from China destroyed, 1 Engineering Regiment destroyed, 2 Artillery Regiments destroyed, 2 small Construction Battalions destroyed, 75% of the 56th Infantry Division destroyed.  I evaced the remainder so it can rebuild for about a year or so.  To this add a total of 2 PG, 3 MSW, 9 AK, and about 12 AP SUNK.

Those are the specifics.
John

while I didn´t suffer as many ground losses (probably only pure luck on my side), I can feel your pain John! Swift´s Midway defenders at least did the same (if not worse) to my ships, even though I did half a dozen BB or CA bombardments, had a full KB strike and had always CAs in my invasion TF - with the only result that a CA hit a mine... [8|]

as so often in the game, it just all comes down to die rolls...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Early war operations were carried out without landing craft and ships.  The Japanese didn't have any kind of amphibious vehicle and landed thier troops in whle boats.  Early landing craft were available to the US for the Guadalcanal operation, but I think a lot of troops still came ashore in other craft.ey

They had some landing craft though not enough to be used en mass around the SRA. The majority were developed starting in 42-45. This is why I think a "bonus" period would be needed for early war Japan since, while less "abstract" than the current system, its still abstract enough that exceptions need to be covered. When the "bonus" period expires then the Japanese will find planning an amphib operation in the face of resistance far tougher because of a lack of large numbers of landing craft. Hence the idea would work the same for both sides at this point with the Allies gradually getting a larger and larger credit to their "pool" of landing craft points, but not so many that they too [The Allies] can just invade any point on the map that isn't unoccuped.

All successful early war landings were virtually unopposed.  The few times the Japanese ran into any real resistance, they were clobbered.

All early war landings that were opposed tend to get "clobbered" to some degree, hence the need for a way to better represent that and hence the policy for choosing landing sights where the enemy isnt' (true for both Assault as well as Amphip operation) That was basic doctrine and policy for the IJN/IJA. My point in stressing the difference (again) was to highlight the fact that both unopposed amphibious ops and amphibious assault require a solid operational skill and policy to pull off. One can be good at one without having a large capability for the other. This brings us back to the "bonus" required via the LC points idea. The abtractness of the game map makes a true "unopposed" landing less possible so there needs to be an exception period where the largely landing craft bereft Japanese can land at the sites they need to get the job done without undue casaulties. To guard against across the map tactics, certain targets (like Pearl Harbor previously mentioned) would result in the sucking away of the LC or Amphib points to the degree that both types of operations (historical SRA and outer map "What ifs") can't be done at the same time.

I think the problem you want to address can be solved with a new ship type, the APA.  The difference between APs and APAs would be the types of boats they carry.  APs would unload slower at invasion beaches and troops would land more disrupted than APAs.  Some APs that were afloat at the beginning of the war can upgrade to APAs when the landing craft begame available in the real world.

This would help. The only problem I see with it is that the landing craft themselves remain too abstracted and combined with the player's detail control of all warship and merchant types represented directly on the map, those "APA's" can be recycled over and over again to mount ops quickly. But it would be an improvement. The game already has something like that in the Amphibious Command ship but due to the abstraction effect, their impact in the game is not all that great in my opinion. I'd be afraid that the APA concept would result in a similar dilution of effect in regards to curbing unchecked amphibious op/assault missions.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I think the problem you want to address can be solved with a new ship type, the APA. The difference between APs and APAs would be the types of boats they carry. APs would unload slower at invasion beaches and troops would land more disrupted than APAs. Some APs that were afloat at the beginning of the war can upgrade to APAs when the landing craft begame available in the real world.

This would help. The only problem I see with it is that the landing craft themselves remain too abstracted and combined with the player's detail control of all warship and merchant types represented directly on the map, those "APA's" can be recycled over and over again to mount ops quickly. But it would be an improvement. The game already has something like that in the Amphibious Command ship but due to the abstraction effect, their impact in the game is not all that great in my opinion. I'd be afraid that the APA concept would result in a similar dilution of effect in regards to curbing unchecked amphibious op/assault missions.

wdolson also suggested that APAs carry landing crafts as devices, without them troops would not profit from using an APA instead of an AP. If these devices could become damaged/destroyed during landings you could effectively control the amount of invasions a player can conduct by limiting their replacement rate in the industry pool. The only problem would be the fixed replacement rate for these landing crafts throughout the war.

IMO a great idea! Sadly, it's probably something for WITP II.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

wdolson also suggested that APAs carry landing crafts as devices, without them troops would not profit from using an APA instead of an AP. If these devices could become damaged/destroyed during landings you could effectively control the amount of invasions a player can conduct by limiting their replacement rate in the industry pool. The only problem would be the fixed replacement rate for these landing crafts throughout the war.

IMO a great idea! Sadly, it's probably something for WITP II.

Anything that more directly "represents" the actual landing craft, be they part of a ship, or tracked in a "pool" (similar to how PacWar tracked merchant resource replacements) would be an improvement. My point was that the landing craft need to be less abstractly represented. Technically one can already consider LC to be represented by various AK and AP types and their different load/unload rates. It helps but it's not enough IMO.

[trollelite]

Bullshit Jap CD gun, and superman power of Allies gun, as usual. You are damned the day you command Japs so just live with it!!...[:D]

[Feinder]

[8|]
 
-F-

[wneumann]

In my PBEM, Pillager took out Pago Pago with little difficulty. I had 7 Marine CD there with the base force but no FA regiment. May have hit 1-2 of his AP or AK but that was it. Not a huge shore bombardment there either.

The only other factor I can think of is supply. My supply on Pago Pago was very low. On the other hand, your opponent may be running a fire sale on artillery shells.

I did notice with Marine CD rgts in WitP is that they do have a bit of firepower. 155mm guns (8 of them), plus 55 AA guns of various calibers, at least 40 Marine INF squads, and a handful of tanks. At full strength, a base assault value of around 45. Can't see it doing that much to a Jap division, let alone what Pillager landed on Pago Pago which was a good deal less than a division.

The rest of the story.... I had a sub pass through Pago Pago just before Pillager took the place. The sub picked up a little bit of 7 Marine CD on the way out and brought it back to San Francisco. The "Ghost Brigade of Pago Pago" now lives on at full TOE and ready to appear again on an atoll near you.

[Sardaukar]

Basicly, trying to land against CD and Field Artillery without suppressing them is going to get you hurt. Anyone seen how it looks when artillery regiment is firing at same target area knows what sort of power they have. 42 155mm pieces is lot of punishment.

Next time, add some CAs or BBs to invasion that can stop CD and arty mauling your ships and troops ashore.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Next time, add some CAs or BBs to invasion that can stop CD and arty mauling your ships and troops ashore.

in theory... 4 or 5 BB/CA bombardments in December 41 against my PBEM opponent Swift at Midway, CAs in the invasion TF, even a full strike of KB against the port and the ground unit itself... result? the invasion still got creamed...

this against a understrenght base force and marine CD unit with surely not thousands of supply points...

a landing at Pago Pago just two turns ago against a USN base force with no CAs in the invasion TF nor any pre invasion bombardments and not a single ship is hit...

it´s just all about die rolls! If you see a super effective CD fire then it was because of the die roll and it has 90% nothing to do with your pre invasion bombardments. I´ve seen it just too often - either CD fire is killing your ships or does nothing...

it´s all about the dices! [:D]

[hosho]

[/quote]

I'm not the data guru that others here are, but I can tell ya Germany had some of the best direct fire weapons of the war.

However the U.S. had the edge in indirect fire, stemming all the way back to the end of the Civil War and leading all the way through today
[/quote]

what gave the edge to U.S. was absolute air supremacy then and today! you can`t group your artillery when enemy bombers and assault aircrafts are around ( and germans couldn`t use their artillery effectively ). so imho U.S. didn`t have the edge over german artillery when we take only "guns" into considearation. of course this is only academical .......

[moses]

This means that a total of 5,000 troops have nearly wiped out 35,000 soldiers. Talk about CRAP... [:@][:@][:@]

5000 troops in a really good defensive position can really stuff a large force. And you don't get a much better position then when a bunch of troops are dribbling across the water in small boats.

Without a whole lot of air and bombardment support, a slaughter should be the expected result.

You mention AK/AP losses but no damage to any other ships. So I'm guessing that there were no significant bombardment ships in your transport fleet. Also I see no mention of a naval or air bombardment.

So it would appear that 15-20 big troop and cargo ships dropped anchor half a mile offshore and began loading troops and supplies onto wooden boats. Under those conditions 3 or 4 well placed guns should be all that is needed. This is a dream come true for those gunners.

[John 3rd]

Greg!

Haven't heard from you with the emails I have been sending you...hope you are well!

The first convoy didn't have an escort organic to it.  I had an escort TF traveling with it instead.  The second life had several cruisers and DDs with it.  Didn't help any either.  I ended up losing about 20 ships total with another 20 damaged.

The troops loss is the major problem.  Luckily I evacuated about 8,000 troops from the Infantry Division and it will rebuild...

[Sheytan]

The Red Army regarded artillery as the King of battle. No army in modern history massed as many guns as the Red Army did in the post 1943 campaigns. The germans may have engineered some interesting guns, but the resources used to build very large siege and railway guns would have been better used building mobile field artillery. IMO however the german 88mm gun was the best fieldpiece of WW2.

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Well, the Russians had some pretty good indirect fire stuff too, some of it was lend-lease but a large portion was of their own making.

Chez

[Bogo Mil]

I think the key at Pago Pago could have been the Japanese air superiority. Do one or two "port attacks" by all KB-bombers in preparation of the assault, and these 155mm guns are almost completely gone. Without defending infantery, the atoll probably falls in the first attack.

To improve the game mechanics in a future game, I think there should be a flotilla structure for small boats (PT, barges, landing craft, ...) comparable to the aircraft squadrons. The boats would be produced in factories like planes are produced now, the flottillas can draw new craft from the pool in large ports (I think at least size 6, maybe 8 or even 10), and some ships (e.g. APA) can carry such boat flotillas around.


My 2 cents about the comparision of the armies: I think the Americans are the kings of logistics. It is incredible, how well they could and can coordinate supply streams, how many sorties their aircraft can fly (from CVs as well as from airfields), how fast they can build/repair airstrips/roads etc. pp.
The Russians had very bad organisation, especially at the beginning of the war. For instance, for the first year, most Russian artillery units were not trained to do indirect fire. Russians combat forces were generally low on supplies and the lack of competent support troops was crippled them. They improved a lot during the war, but never came close to American standards.
On the other hand, the Russians certainly had the most cost effective weapons of the world. The T-34 was weaker than a German Panther, but with the same amount of labour as needed for 1 Panther, they built almost 3 T-34 (and Russian factories usually didn't have as modern tools as the German ones). You can find more examples in aircraft, guns etc. pp. The Russians built quite crude and simple stuff, which wins every comparision if you take the production cost into account (many authors irgnore these).

[Feltan]

It isn't just the U.S. hardware that makes a difference, it is the process for calling in indirect fire.

Most countries used a "point-of-reference" system for calling in arty, and concentration of fire was difficult because you needed a spotter for every firing battalion. The Russians used this sytem, and had a heavy reliance on pre-planned fires -- they made up for the inefficiency by having lots of tubes or rockets.

The U.S. used, and uses, a more elaborate and sophisticated mapping concept in conjuction with a Fire Direction Center (FDC). Multiple battalions of arty can be coordinated on a single target by one lone spotter -- and then rapidly shift fire.

I won't argue direct fire weapons or tanks or infantry -- but the U.S. had/has the best Field Artillery in the world hands down.

Regards,
Feltan

[Mark VII]

There is one word that will explain why this unsupported Jap invasion got stopped in its tracks.[:D]

MARINES!

The Marines of the defense battalion were dug-in, in-depth starting at the edge of the beach with their heads up since there was no naval or air bombardment. The Marines were just waiting. They waited and waited and the waves of Jap barges got closer and closer. Fingers were twitching near triggers but they knew the plan so they waited. They even waited as the Jap soldiers from the first wave started jumping in the water 50 yards off the beach. All this time the Jap invasion transports were edging in since it seemed the silly Americans were asleep so lets get closer so we can unload quicker.

Just as the first Japanese soldiers emerged from the water, the order was given. COMMENCE FIRING! FIRE AT WILL! Since they waited, all the Marine weapons were now in range and able to fire. After two minutes the Japanese first wave ceased to exist except for a few individuals trying to hide behind their dead or dying buddies. The water at the edge of the beach was quickly turning red! The Jap second and third waves were nearing their drop-off points but they still did not realise the magnitude of the fire storm they were about to enter.

About this time a Marine Captain ordered his heavy CD guns to open fire on the enemy transports that were only 4000yards off shore. The crew of Battery Two were quickly rewarded with the sight of one of the transports just blowing up. At least a hundred Japanese soldiers were blown into the air, twirling like Autumn leaves as they fell into the bluegreen ocean.

It was now time to let the Army puke's who were hiding in the middle of the island to join the party. The Captain nodded to his Gunny. The Sgt picked up a phone and said "they landed right were we thought they would, your indirect anti-beach guns may commence firing, I will call with corrections as needed. Your guns assigned to the anti-ship mission may also open fire. The Jap transports have been sucked into point blank range. Good hunting!"

Well, you all know the rest of the story. The defenders were well supplied and thus had plenty of ammo. Since there was no heavy fire coming in from the Japs, they just kept firing and firing and the Japs just kept dying. The American guns needed water poured on them because the weapons were becoming red hot from the near constant firing. The Japs just kept coming and coming only to be mowed down time after time. (remember a new Shock Attack with each new landing) Maybe 5% of each wave would make it to the beach alive. With no heavy fire support the invasion was doomed and could not get more than a hundred yards off the beach.

A Japanese Private who was trying to dig a hole in the soft sand of the beach was heard to say "who ever planned this fiasco should be shot"! Five minutes later, as reinforcements arrived, the next Banzai charge was ordered and the Private started running up the body covered beach. He had run only 10 yards and was killed instantly by a 30cal Rifle slug thru the heart. Remember those Marines. Especially when not harassed by heavy fire, Marines don't miss!

[John 3rd]

I was shocked to see my old Thread move back up to the top of the line here!

[Sheytan]

Id have to disagree with the assertion that the Red army artillery arm was not versed in the use of indirect fire. The Red army offensive to break the Mannerhiem line in Finland during the Winter war was tremendiously supported by thousands of fieldpieces firing indirect fire missions of such length and saturation that finnish survivors of the ordeal called it "hell on earth". It also was probably the single deciding factor in forcing Finland to accept terms. Prior to the change of command for the campaign the Red army attempted to attack "everywhere".

"In January 1940, Timoshenko took charge of the Soviet armies fighting Finland in the Soviet-Finnish War. This had begun the previous November, under the disastrous command of Kliment Voroshilov. Under Timoshenko's leadership, the Soviets succeeded in breaking through the Finnish Mannerheim Line on the Karelian Isthmus, prompting Finland to sue for peace in March. His reputation increased, Timoshenko was made the People's Commissar for Defence and a Marshal of the Soviet Union in May." From Wiki.

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

I think the key at Pago Pago could have been the Japanese air superiority. Do one or two "port attacks" by all KB-bombers in preparation of the assault, and these 155mm guns are almost completely gone. Without defending infantery, the atoll probably falls in the first attack.

To improve the game mechanics in a future game, I think there should be a flotilla structure for small boats (PT, barges, landing craft, ...) comparable to the aircraft squadrons. The boats would be produced in factories like planes are produced now, the flottillas can draw new craft from the pool in large ports (I think at least size 6, maybe 8 or even 10), and some ships (e.g. APA) can carry such boat flotillas around.


My 2 cents about the comparision of the armies: I think the Americans are the kings of logistics. It is incredible, how well they could and can coordinate supply streams, how many sorties their aircraft can fly (from CVs as well as from airfields), how fast they can build/repair airstrips/roads etc. pp.
The Russians had very bad organisation, especially at the beginning of the war. For instance, for the first year, most Russian artillery units were not trained to do indirect fire. Russians combat forces were generally low on supplies and the lack of competent support troops was crippled them. They improved a lot during the war, but never came close to American standards.
On the other hand, the Russians certainly had the most cost effective weapons of the world. The T-34 was weaker than a German Panther, but with the same amount of labour as needed for 1 Panther, they built almost 3 T-34 (and Russian factories usually didn't have as modern tools as the German ones). You can find more examples in aircraft, guns etc. pp. The Russians built quite crude and simple stuff, which wins every comparision if you take the production cost into account (many authors irgnore these).

[Bogo Mil]

I didn't say they were completely unable to do indirect fire, but most units were very badly trained at it.
Pre-planned bombardement against well known enemy positions was possible - this is the "easiest" way of indirect fire. But in a moving battlefield, when the batteries have to calculate their aiming themselves and time is an issue, they were usually not able to do it fast and accurate enough. Thus they usually relied on direct fire during the first year of the Great Patriotic War.