Invasion TF

[baldbrother]

When planning to invade an enemy held Island, what steps do you need to take to ensure the TF arrives at night...and can you combine a landing with a naval bombardment? Thanks.

[dtravel]

Set their destination to be a hex adjacent to the target, then when they arrive there give them the order to move to the target.
 
And no, the closest you can come to combining the landing with a bombardment is to have a Bombardment TF in the hex.  But they will still perform their functions at different times in the turn processing. 
 
*waits for people to claim ships in the transport TF will bombard, excuse me, "suppress enemy fire"*

[Gem35]

When planning an invasion to an island you will also want to consider sending either land based bombers within range or a carrier task force to bomb the port so you can suppress the big guns that may fire upon your landing forces. Port attacks will bomb the coastal defense guns that may be positioned there.
as dtravel said, you will want to include some dd/cl/ca to suppress the enemy fire on your landing ships, APs are best suited for invasion rather than Aks which may be subjected to more coastal guns thatn the APs.

[Feinder]

Well, you can insure that your -separate- bombardment TF hits the target on the same turn, but setting it to the same adjacent hext, and then sending them both in.

You're amphib TF is still going to get shot at by the CD guns, -but- when your troops shock attack from the landing (assuming it's an atoll), at least your bombardment TF will have hit the enemy on the same turn, causing disruption to the enemy and giving you the best chance you're going to get. You can also set the bombardment TF to patrol/no retire, and they will stay on station (altho subsequent rounds are usually far less effective than the initial bombardment for a variety of reasons).

-F-

[tabpub]

Agree with all posters on P/DNR to adjacent hex with landing force; then assign target hex for landing group on next order phase. You have to be confident in your situation to do this though, as it is a definite "giveaway" as to what the target is for tomorrow.

For bombardment, prefer to have bombardment force(s) "follow" the landing group(s); they will do the job and then hang around as big brothers for the little guys.

And, combatants in the landing force will fire and cause casualties; this is known and at the very least, their presence does seem to help attract fire to them, rather than the thin skins. Now, to what degree that works, well that is up to the individual to determine.
Personally, there is always a pre-1930's BB at least in most every landing force that I put together.

[tsimmonds]

Just be sure that the adjacent hex you select as your rally point does not contain any land. When a transport TF with LCUs loaded reaches its destination hex, it will start to unload regardless of whether "do not unload" is set or not. When this "feature" bites you, it always hurts like hell, not only because of the time it costs you, but also because of the exposure while you re-load, and worst of all because of the fatigue and disruption the unloaded LCUs will have earned....[:(]

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: tabpub

Agree with all posters on P/DNR to adjacent hex with landing force; then assign target hex for landing group on next order phase. You have to be confident in your situation to do this though, as it is a definite "giveaway" as to what the target is for tomorrow.

For bombardment, prefer to have bombardment force(s) "follow" the landing group(s); they will do the job and then hang around as big brothers for the little guys.

And, combatants in the landing force will fire and cause casualties; this is known and at the very least, their presence does seem to help attract fire to them, rather than the thin skins. Now, to what degree that works, well that is up to the individual to determine.
Personally, there is always a pre-1930's BB at least in most every landing force that I put together.

Actually, I have yet to see test results that prove any benefit from placing surface combat ships in an amphib TF. From my own observations, such escorts do not inflict casualties on the defenders and their presence and fire actually draws additional fire on the TF from the defenders. So personally I would argue against putting such combatants in the transport TFs.

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: tabpub

Agree with all posters on P/DNR to adjacent hex with landing force; then assign target hex for landing group on next order phase. You have to be confident in your situation to do this though, as it is a definite "giveaway" as to what the target is for tomorrow.

For bombardment, prefer to have bombardment force(s) "follow" the landing group(s); they will do the job and then hang around as big brothers for the little guys.

And, combatants in the landing force will fire and cause casualties; this is known and at the very least, their presence does seem to help attract fire to them, rather than the thin skins. Now, to what degree that works, well that is up to the individual to determine.
Personally, there is always a pre-1930's BB at least in most every landing force that I put together.

Actually, I have yet to see test results that prove any benefit from placing surface combat ships in an amphib TF. From my own observations, such escorts do not inflict casualties on the defenders and their presence and fire actually draws additional fire on the TF from the defenders. So personally I would argue against putting such combatants in the transport TFs.

Personally, I don't "test", I play; against other lifeforms, that is. And, my "transport" TF's do cause casualities. Now, as to whether this "draws" more fire to them...I can't really say; but, the boots get ashore and the job gets done. And, on the other side of the coin, I have seen plenty of Japanese TF's with no combatants get literaly MURDERED by coastal guns....so, I know what my opinion is. You have yours.....we obviously differ.

[m10bob]

For gosh sakes', don't forget minesweepers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ChezDaJez]

Actually, I have yet to see test results that prove any benefit from placing surface combat ships in an amphib TF. From my own observations, such escorts do not inflict casualties on the defenders and their presence and fire actually draws additional fire on the TF from the defenders.

That's why I like to put a CA or two, maybe a BB with a amphib TF... they will draw some of the CD fire that otherwise would hit the transports. Now if they would only shoot back...

Chez

[Mark VII]

In my last game as the Japanese, CA's would always have at least half ammo expended when part of the invasion TF. Did they hit anything, who knows!

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

That's why I like to put a CA or two, maybe a BB with a amphib TF... they will draw some of the CD fire that otherwise would hit the transports. Now if they would only shoot back...

Chez

[FeurerKrieg]

I've seen enemy casaulties cause by my invasion TF's before, not often, but it has happened. Now whether that is from my cruisers in the invasion TF or from the gunfire of my unloading troops I couldn't tell you.