Matrix Games Forums

I offer help about italian unit if needed

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Re the earlier posts on this subject I have been doing some research and now have some ideas for providing write ups on the CW transports and amphibious units. However before I go too far down a blind alley, could someone clarify what is the difference between Transports and Amphibious units? From what I recall of playing many years ago, there was no real difference in terms of range or capacity and so does any one know the rationale for ADG splitting out these into two distinct types as opposed to just having a "transports" counter?

AMPH always have a smaller range than TRS, their range is within 2-3 when the TRS are within 3-5.
AMPH can't carry artillery, armored units and planes, TRS can carry everything.
AMPH can make their loaded unit invade, TRS cannot, except for MAR units who are special in this regard.

Would not the AMPH be equal to the LCI?

Warspite1

That was my thinking. I intend to use the amphibious counters for LCA, LCI and LCT and the transport counters for LSI and LST. Here`s my first stab at the Commonwealth transport counters. I am undecided as to whether to do one ship per counter or a number of ships on one counter and have all counters the same. Problem with the first approach is the lack of material I can find at the moment. However I intend to visit Portsmouth Dockyard later this year and will make a final decision based on what books I can find on the subject.

.P These counters do not represent individual ships. Instead they represent a
number of vessels of various types, that were used firstly, to get troops and
equipment transported across seas and oceans to a target destination and
secondly, on arrival at the target, to get sufficient quantities of men and
material ashore - often against a defended stretch of coast. This counter
represents the former type of vessel, although in many cases they carried the
second type of unit.
.P Very little work was done during the inter-war years on developing amphibious
warfare capability. However the defeat at Dunkirk brought into sharp focus -
certainly in the mind of Winston Churchill - that a means of getting troops,
tanks and guns across water and landed on a hostile shore, would need to be
found. To this end, Churchill set up the Combined Operations Command in June
1940. This Command had two functions. Firstly to allow hit and run Commando
raids like Bruneval and the Lofoten Islands and secondly to allow the build up
over time of the necessary specialist equipment and in sufficient quantity that
would allow a full scale invasion of enemy held territory.
.P Below is a selection of vessel types that was used to get men and equipment
across seas and oceans ready for an impending invasion - and sometimes to bring
them back when operations turned to evacuation.


.B Name: HMS Royal Ulsterman
.B Type: Landing Ship Infantry (Hand) LSI(H)
.B Top Speed: 16 knots
.B Main Armament: Unarmed
.B Gross Tons: 3,244 tons
.B Military Load: 6 Landing Craft Assault LCA
485 troops

.P The Royal Ulsterman was perhaps the most well known vessel of its type.
She saw action in almost all the key operations of WWII in Europe. The H stood
for Hand and referred to the fact that her cargo of Landing Craft Assault (see
amphibious units) were lowered using hand operated davits.
.P Commissioned in 1936, she acted as a passenger ship on the Glasgow-Belfast
route before the outbreak of war gave her a whole new purpose. She was
commissioned HMS Royal Ulsterman and first served as a troop transport during
the Norwegian campaign. She then took part in:
.B the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from France
.B landing troops in Iceland
.B evacuating civilians from Malta to the UK
.B Operation Torch, the allied landings in North Africa
.B Operation Husky, the allied landings in Sicily
.B Operation Avalanche, the allied landings at Salerno
.B Operation Shingle, the allied landings at Anzio
.B Operation Neptune, the naval element of the D-Day landings at Normandy
.B Liberation of the Channel Islands
.P Royal Ulsterman paid off in December 1945 and resumed work on the Glasgow-
Belfast run. While serving with a Cypriot company in the Mediterranean in 1973,
she struck a mine near Beirut and sank.


.B Name: HMAS Manoora
.B Type: Landing Ship Infantry (Large) LSI(L)
.B Top Speed: 16 knots
.B Main Armament: 2 x 4-inch (102mm), 2 x 3-inch (76mm) A.A guns.
.B Gross Tons: 10,856 tons
.B Military Load: 8 Landing Craft Assault LCA
4 Landing Craft Mechanised LCM
1,230 troops

.P The Manoora was originally built for the Adelaide Steamship Company and
operated on the Cairns – Fremantle route. She was requisitioned by the Royal
Australian Navy (RAN) and commissioned as HMAS Manoora in December 1939 for
service as an Armed Merchant Cruiser (AMC).
.P She had a successful career as an AMC in the early part of the war, helping
to intercept a number of Norwegian vessels after the occupation of that
country by the Germans. She also forced an Italian ship to scuttle. She served
in the Indian Ocean for a while and provided escort for troop convoys bringing
Australian troops back from the Middle East.
.P Her role as a Landing Ship started in March 1943 after a conversion in
Sydney. Her first role in this new guise was to take part in exercises with
the US Navy. After this she took part in:
.B July, October and November 1943 - transport of troops to Milne Bay, New
Guinea
.B April 1944 - landed troops at Tanahmerah Bay
.B May 1944 - landed US troops on Wake Island
.B September 1944 - landings at Morotai
.B November 1944 - one of three large Australian LSI assisting the landings at
Leyte
.B January 1945 - landings at Lingayen Gulf again in company with fellow RAN
ships Kanimbla and Westralia.
.B April 1945 - Embarked Australian troops for the first time in April for the
landings at Tarakan. She towed a Landing Craft Tank (LCT).
.B June 1945 - landings on Brunei
.B July 1945 - landings at Balikpapan
.P Manoora paid off in December 1947 and was returned to her owners in August
1949. She was scrapped in 1972.

Looks great.

You could remind the reader that 1 TRS, 1 AMPH or 6 CP = 1 million tons of merchant shipping .

Also for the SUB counters, it can be remembered that 1 SUB = 30 first line submarines (plus many more obsolete).

And for the ASW that 1 ASW = around 5 to 20 DD/DE/corvette type units.

And for the ASW-CV that 1 ASW-CV units = around 6 CVEs.

I intend to use the amphibious counters for LCA, LCI and LCT and the transport counters for LSI and LST.

I do not agree with you Warspite1.
I think that all of those you cited represent the AMPH.

LCA : Landing Craft Assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Assault)
LCI : Landing Craft, Infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft%2C_Infantry)
LCT : Landing craft tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_craft_tank)
LSI : Landing Ship, Infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship%2C_Infantry)
LST : Landing Ship, Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship%2C_Tank)

All these are for invasions.
For me, all of these are represented by the AMPHs. All of these are capable of loading & unloading troops directly from the shore, which is exactly what an AMPH is made to do. A TRS needs a port, or an HQ acting like a temporary port facility. One could say that AMPH can't load ARM units, but I would reply that there are Tanks in all military formations, including INF, so LCT and LST are needed even for INF troops.

IMO, the TRS are simply represented by civilian or ex-civilian merchantships used by the military to transport troops & crated planes.
This is supported by the figures of the International shipping capacities of 1939 (in million tons) that are very close to those you obtain when you calculate the CP + TRS available at startup (I had discussed that with Harry a long time ago to know the rationale for the number of CP and the number of TRS at setup, especially for Minor Countries).

For example,
- the USA start the game with 27 CP and 4 TRS, which convert to (27/6)+4 = 8,5 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 8,9 million tons of shipping.
- the Netherlands start the game with 10 CP and 1 TRS, which convert to (10/6)+1 = 2,7 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 3,0 million tons of shipping.
- Japan start the game with 20 CP and 3 TRS, which convert to (20/6)+3 = 6,7 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 6,0 million tons of shipping.
- Norway start the game with 13 CP and 2 TRS, which convert to (13/6)+2 = 4,2 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 4,8 million tons of shipping.
- Italy start the game with 7 CP and 2 TRS, which convert to (7/6)+2 = 3,2 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 3,4 million tons of shipping.
- Denmark start the game with 6 CP and 0 TRS, which convert to (6/6)+0 = 1 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 1,2 million tons of shipping.

As we can see by looking at these numbers, we see that CP and TRS are all acounted for in the same category of "Merchant shipping". CP are dedicaced to transporting resources and BP, and TRS to transport combat units. There even was a rule in an old WiF edition that allowed to convert one into the other, at the expense of loss of capacity due to the conversion.

I would have to agree with Froonp..both the LSI and LST are amphibious ships and another you are missing is the APA or attack transport. These were used extensively in the Pacific, especially in the early landings like at Guadacanal, New Georgia, Bouganville..before the huge assortment of more specialized amphibs became available.

When I think of transport (non-amph) I picture the Queen Mary loaded to the gills with troops heading for England or the bjillion Liberty Ships that made the long journey across the Pacific.

Sabre

ORIGINAL: Sabre21
When I think of transport (non-amph) I picture the Queen Mary loaded to the gills with troops heading for England or the bjillion Liberty Ships that made the long journey across the Pacific.

Yes, the liberty ships !
Maybe the TRS writeup may contain the figure about the million tons of shipping of that country ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I intend to use the amphibious counters for LCA, LCI and LCT and the transport counters for LSI and LST.

I do not agree with you Warspite1.
I think that all of those you cited represent the AMPH.

LCA : Landing Craft Assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Assault)
LCI : Landing Craft, Infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft%2C_Infantry)
LCT : Landing craft tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_craft_tank)
LSI : Landing Ship, Infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship%2C_Infantry)
LST : Landing Ship, Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship%2C_Tank)

All these are for invasions.
For me, all of these are represented by the AMPHs. All of these are capable of loading & unloading troops directly from the shore, which is exactly what an AMPH is made to do. A TRS needs a port, or an HQ acting like a temporary port facility. One could say that AMPH can't load ARM units, but I would reply that there are Tanks in all military formations, including INF, so LCT and LST are needed even for INF troops.

IMO, the TRS are simply represented by civilian or ex-civilian merchantships used by the military to transport troops & crated planes.
This is supported by the figures of the International shipping capacities of 1939 (in million tons) that are very close to those you obtain when you calculate the CP + TRS available at startup (I had discussed that with Harry a long time ago to know the rationale for the number of CP and the number of TRS at setup, especially for Minor Countries).

For example,
- the USA start the game with 27 CP and 4 TRS, which convert to (27/6)+4 = 8,5 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 8,9 million tons of shipping.
- the Netherlands start the game with 10 CP and 1 TRS, which convert to (10/6)+1 = 2,7 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 3,0 million tons of shipping.
- Japan start the game with 20 CP and 3 TRS, which convert to (20/6)+3 = 6,7 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 6,0 million tons of shipping.
- Norway start the game with 13 CP and 2 TRS, which convert to (13/6)+2 = 4,2 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 4,8 million tons of shipping.
- Italy start the game with 7 CP and 2 TRS, which convert to (7/6)+2 = 3,2 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 3,4 million tons of shipping.
- Denmark start the game with 6 CP and 0 TRS, which convert to (6/6)+0 = 1 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 1,2 million tons of shipping.

As we can see by looking at these numbers, we see that CP and TRS are all acounted for in the same category of "Merchant shipping". CP are dedicaced to transporting resources and BP, and TRS to transport combat units. There even was a rule in an old WiF edition that allowed to convert one into the other, at the expense of loss of capacity due to the conversion.

Warspite1
Thanks Patrice and Sabre for the feedback - as I said this is a first stab at what is a relatively obsure subject in terms of WWII history.

However, the distinction I have tried to make is between those vessels that have the ability to actually take the troops and equipment overseas - the trs - and having got there, those vessels that land the combat teams - the Amphs. For example, I cannot imagine the Royal Ulsterman getting anywhere close to the shore but the craft she carried were designed exactly for that. Equally I accept that the Amphs are not going to do much over long distances (Torch) without "motherships" like Royal Ulsterman. So there is an argument for including the "mothership" in the Amphs but this was not my preferred route.

The reason is that if I take this latter approach there is tons to write about the Amphs and in my view very little to write about the trs - apart from the Queens which have there own counter - which is why I have sought to split them out. The everyday trs ship - whilst vital - do not make for interesting reading. There is also the fact that things evolved over time. I do not know this but I doubt the Royal Ulsterman carried Landing Craft for the Norwegian operation? If not then she would be a trs at that time.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
However, the distinction I have tried to make is between those vessels that have the ability to actually take the troops and equipment overseas - the trs - and having got there, those vessels that land the combat teams - the Amphs. For example, I cannot imagine the Royal Ulsterman getting anywhere close to the shore but the craft she carried were designed exactly for that. Equally I accept that the Amphs are not going to do much over long distances (Torch) without "motherships" like Royal Ulsterman. So there is an argument for including the "mothership" in the Amphs but this was not my preferred route.

I think that, WiF being such large scaled game, you should not look at AMPH as ships that can actualy take troops to the shore. AMPH simply are everything that makes a non MAR unit able to strategicaly invade. so mother ships as you call them are AMPH. The actual barges (LST, LSI) are unable to make cross ocean travels, while their motherships are, so both of them are the AMPH.

The reason is that if I take this latter approach there is tons to write about the Amphs and in my view very little to write about the trs - apart from the Queens which have there own counter - which is why I have sought to split them out. The everyday trs ship - whilst vital - do not make for interesting reading. There is also the fact that things evolved over time. I do not know this but I doubt the Royal Ulsterman carried Landing Craft for the Norwegian operation? If not then she would be a trs at that time.

I agree there is less to write about TRS than AMPH, but this should not be a reason to include in the TRS category ships that belong to the AMPH category.
There are some things we can write about the TRS : For example, the size of the merchantman navy in 1939 is one interesting information that can be put there, the history about the Liberty Ships too. I'm sure there are some various freighters or troop transports informations that can be gathered too.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: warspite1
However, the distinction I have tried to make is between those vessels that have the ability to actually take the troops and equipment overseas - the trs - and having got there, those vessels that land the combat teams - the Amphs. For example, I cannot imagine the Royal Ulsterman getting anywhere close to the shore but the craft she carried were designed exactly for that. Equally I accept that the Amphs are not going to do much over long distances (Torch) without "motherships" like Royal Ulsterman. So there is an argument for including the "mothership" in the Amphs but this was not my preferred route.

I think that, WiF being such large scaled game, you should not look at AMPH as ships that can actualy take troops to the shore. AMPH simply are everything that makes a non MAR unit able to strategicaly invade. so mother ships as you call them are AMPH. The actual barges (LST, LSI) are unable to make cross ocean travels, while their motherships are, so both of them are the AMPH.

The reason is that if I take this latter approach there is tons to write about the Amphs and in my view very little to write about the trs - apart from the Queens which have there own counter - which is why I have sought to split them out. The everyday trs ship - whilst vital - do not make for interesting reading. There is also the fact that things evolved over time. I do not know this but I doubt the Royal Ulsterman carried Landing Craft for the Norwegian operation? If not then she would be a trs at that time.

I agree there is less to write about TRS than AMPH, but this should not be a reason to include in the TRS category ships that belong to the AMPH category.
There are some things we can write about the TRS : For example, the size of the merchantman navy in 1939 is one interesting information that can be put there, the history about the Liberty Ships too. I'm sure there are some various freighters or troop transports informations that can be gathered too.

I might add that the writeups do not have to be long. And I would prefer long writeups on abstract units (like AMPHs) to be broken into pieces and doled out to 'different' units.

For the TRS, a paragraph, maybe two about what the counter represents and what those units did during the war should be enough. For instance, do we know how many men were moved across the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, and the Mediterranean?

Not just men, but also planes, tanks, guns &c.

If you look at some of the various merchant marine forces for the major countries you will get an idea on how to approach the TRS unit. There is a lot of good data on these sites that give how many ships involved..how many were sunk..what they carried..etc.

I would not want to underscore how important this particular unit was in WWII considering how many died to deliver the beans and bullets to the front..not to mention most of the troops.

One particular note of interest is that the US Merchant Marine of WWII had a higher wartime percentage of casualties than any other US service. 1 in 26 killed in the line of duty.

Here is a US Merchant marine site that will help.

http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html

Sabre

ORIGINAL: Sabre21


One particular note of interest is that the US Merchant Marine of WWII had a higher wartime percentage of casualties than any other US service. 1 in 26 killed in the line of duty.

Sabre

Warspite1

Yep - no different for the UK, where statistically you were more likely to die in the Merchant Navy than in the RAF, Army or Royal Navy

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: warspite1
However, the distinction I have tried to make is between those vessels that have the ability to actually take the troops and equipment overseas - the trs - and having got there, those vessels that land the combat teams - the Amphs. For example, I cannot imagine the Royal Ulsterman getting anywhere close to the shore but the craft she carried were designed exactly for that. Equally I accept that the Amphs are not going to do much over long distances (Torch) without "motherships" like Royal Ulsterman. So there is an argument for including the "mothership" in the Amphs but this was not my preferred route.

I think that, WiF being such large scaled game, you should not look at AMPH as ships that can actualy take troops to the shore. AMPH simply are everything that makes a non MAR unit able to strategicaly invade. so mother ships as you call them are AMPH. The actual barges (LST, LSI) are unable to make cross ocean travels, while their motherships are, so both of them are the AMPH.

The reason is that if I take this latter approach there is tons to write about the Amphs and in my view very little to write about the trs - apart from the Queens which have there own counter - which is why I have sought to split them out. The everyday trs ship - whilst vital - do not make for interesting reading. There is also the fact that things evolved over time. I do not know this but I doubt the Royal Ulsterman carried Landing Craft for the Norwegian operation? If not then she would be a trs at that time.

I agree there is less to write about TRS than AMPH, but this should not be a reason to include in the TRS category ships that belong to the AMPH category.
There are some things we can write about the TRS : For example, the size of the merchantman navy in 1939 is one interesting information that can be put there, the history about the Liberty Ships too. I'm sure there are some various freighters or troop transports informations that can be gathered too.

Warspite1

I have to say I`m not entirely convinced but then neither am I prepared to die in a ditch over such a point!!
Having looked at the responses I will amend the Commonwealth write ups as follows:

TRS - I will do a summary piece on the Merchant Navy and seek to include one or two stories of interest - one for each counter. This would mean including all types of merchant vessels - not just transports. The story of the Tanker Ohio during the Pedestal convoy, the AMC Jervis Bay etc would I think add some colour. To this end, to help with the summary, I would be grateful to any Canadians and Australians if they could provide some brief detail on their Merchant Navy to cater for the one CDN and one AUS TRS counter.

AMPH - Will contain a brief summary of the main vessel types used for Overlord, Husky, Torch etc. These will include the LST and LSI`s plus specification details for the actual craft that took the troops to the beach, LCA, LCT etc. Ideally there will be one vessel per counter.

Warspite1,

Try this Canadian government link for starters: http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub. ... chant/hist

FYI Canada had the fourth largest navy (I'm including the merchant navy) in WW2. Are we only worth a measley 1 counter?



GSB

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob

FYI Canada had the fourth largest navy (I'm including the merchant navy) in WW2. Are we only worth a measley 1 counter?

Yes, fourth largest in the world at the end of the war after the US, British, and French, although this wasn't really difficult since the German, Italian, Japanese, Dutch, Norwegian, Russian, and Spanish navies had all been devastated by the events of 1936-1945, effectively removing the competition. However, the vast majority of the extensive growth in the RCN was in ships transferred from the British in 1945 (due mostly to the Brits in 1945 not having enough personnel to crew all thier ships), including cruisers and aircraft carriers. Many of the transfers took place after Germany's surrender.

Most of these ships are in game, but with British designations, since they spent nearly the entire war under British flag.

Many convoy points would be in fact Canadian, but since they carry no specific country distinction it isn't shown in game.

Canada does have quite a few ASW counters if that option is used, and rightly so, Canada was a major operator of Corvettes and Escorts thoughout the hostilities.

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob

Warspite1,

Try this Canadian government link for starters: http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub. ... chant/hist

FYI Canada had the fourth largest navy (I'm including the merchant navy) in WW2. Are we only worth a measley 1 counter?



GSB

Warspite1

Mr Grapeshot

Don`t have a go at me speak to ADG - and while you`re querying counter anomalies ask Harry why the hell Warspite has an attack rating of 6 - same as the Scharnhorst[:@]!! Surely she deserves a 10[;)]

Seriously though, thanks for the web address.

Canada may have only one TRS counter but she gets plenty of ASW and rest assured in my Commonwealth write ups the oldest Dominion gets her due recognition for her contribution to the Battle of the Atlantic.

Rgds

Warspite1

I am back in buisness and will start looking into who is active and not on thursday (barring a mass hungover). We will make a push to finish the land writeups! Any volounteers to do some writing for MWIF? IF so send me a PM!

ORIGINAL: capitan

I am back in buisness and will start looking into who is active and not on thursday (barring a mass hungover). We will make a push to finish the land writeups! Any volounteers to do some writing for MWIF? IF so send me a PM!

Warspite1

Capitan - just to let you know I am still active but have taken a break from the CW land units while I break the back of the CW naval units that I signed up for. I anticipate being able to go back to the land units in the late Summer/early Autumn so please don`t re-assign these!

Rgds

Warspite1

Warspite, duly noted.