Question for Cid

[herwin]

I now have a copy of Rottman's World War II Pacific Island Guide. Have you seen it? It seems to provide detailed geographic intelligence on most of the area covered by WiTP. In reading it, I wonder how port and airfield sizes in RHS are defined. For example, Kavieng was a deep water anchorage of about 100 square nm, with a few thousand inhabitants, and no industrial development. What would that correspond to?

[ChezDaJez]

Nice. The info on the book sounds great but it is expensive so I'll probably skip it but there is another book by the same author listed that is considerably cheaper:

Japanese Pacific Island Defenses 1941-45 (Fortress) (Paperback)
by Gordon Rottman (Author), Ian Palmer (Illustrator)

I might get this one.

Chez

[el cid again]

Kavieng (Location 721 in stock, CHS and RHS) is rated as a potential Level 3 port by all of them - but as is barely developed (but not undeveloped) it starts at Level 1. There is no RHS rating system for ports per se - and only obvious errors have been addressed. Clearly Kavieng was an "inherited" value which, on review, I am inclined to agree with.

There is a problem with the WITP code concept of port capacity. It is not related to the size of the ships nor to the number of ships which can use them. Except for house rules (don't unload more than x times the port capacity at the same time) I know of no way to address it. And then how do you account for landings? Of course, landings are not efficient - but more ships can always unload inefficiently. This matter really needs to be addressed by Matrix - if ever it is - and as it isn't glamorous like adding the Soviet Navy was (which Matrix DID add) my hopes are not bright.

Port capacity should be related to the number of facilities (or potential facilities) at the port - how many ships of what size can (or could) use them - and probably also some factor for local stevedoring assets. Thus - a great but virtually uninhabited base (see Adm Fisher's plan to use the Guadalcanal area because it is the very finest potential anchorage in the region) should not have as much capacity as a lesser base with a major city available to service it. Having not been asked to come up with a system - and having no way to implement one - I have not thought about this in more detail - but perhaps the Forum could figure this out - if we tried?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I now have a copy of Rottman's World War II Pacific Island Guide. Have you seen it? It seems to provide detailed geographic intelligence on most of the area covered by WiTP. In reading it, I wonder how port and airfield sizes in RHS are defined. For example, Kavieng was a deep water anchorage of about 100 square nm, with a few thousand inhabitants, and no industrial development. What would that correspond to?

Ports are a real pooper to get a handle on. "Ports" fall into a couple categories; anchorages and ports, and they aren't necessarily fungible.

You've been to the NE, you ever been to Portland ME ? Casco Bay, inside Long and Great Cheabeague Islands (just off Falmouth Foreside) was a favorite anchorage for the Atlantic Fleet. It could accommodate the whole fleet, but the "port" would likely rate 2, or maybe even 1.

Think now about San Diego; squat for anchorage, but what was available was serious 'port' capacity.

You get to the Pacific, later war, and you get Eniwetok; squat for 'port' facilities, but the anchorage was tight for the entire Pacific Fleet. The difference was the fleet train. The USN could turn an 'anchorage' into a 'port' by virtue of of the train (recognizing always the large hull drydock capabilities of a 'real' port).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Nice. The info on the book sounds great but it is expensive so I'll probably skip it but there is another book by the same author listed that is considerably cheaper:

Japanese Pacific Island Defenses 1941-45 (Fortress) (Paperback)
by Gordon Rottman (Author), Ian Palmer (Illustrator)

I might get this one.

Chez

The defenses book is a close look at defensive doctrine. Wish I had had it when I was studying related issues in the context of the next war.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Kavieng (Location 721 in stock, CHS and RHS) is rated as a potential Level 3 port by all of them - but as is barely developed (but not undeveloped) it starts at Level 1. There is no RHS rating system for ports per se - and only obvious errors have been addressed. Clearly Kavieng was an "inherited" value which, on review, I am inclined to agree with.

There is a problem with the WITP code concept of port capacity. It is not related to the size of the ships nor to the number of ships which can use them. Except for house rules (don't unload more than x times the port capacity at the same time) I know of no way to address it. And then how do you account for landings? Of course, landings are not efficient - but more ships can always unload inefficiently. This matter really needs to be addressed by Matrix - if ever it is - and as it isn't glamorous like adding the Soviet Navy was (which Matrix DID add) my hopes are not bright.

Port capacity should be related to the number of facilities (or potential facilities) at the port - how many ships of what size can (or could) use them - and probably also some factor for local stevedoring assets. Thus - a great but virtually uninhabited base (see Adm Fisher's plan to use the Guadalcanal area because it is the very finest potential anchorage in the region) should not have as much capacity as a lesser base with a major city available to service it. Having not been asked to come up with a system - and having no way to implement one - I have not thought about this in more detail - but perhaps the Forum could figure this out - if we tried?

Kavieng was potentially a fine port with little development and no infrastructure. On the other hand, Guadalcanal was basically a beach with room for several airstrips. Noumea had 11,000 population with hydroelectric power and natural gas. The area had a good road network. Excellent deepwater port, lacking sufficient unloading, warehousing, and support facilities. How do you rate them?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: herwin

I now have a copy of Rottman's World War II Pacific Island Guide. Have you seen it? It seems to provide detailed geographic intelligence on most of the area covered by WiTP. In reading it, I wonder how port and airfield sizes in RHS are defined. For example, Kavieng was a deep water anchorage of about 100 square nm, with a few thousand inhabitants, and no industrial development. What would that correspond to?

Ports are a real pooper to get a handle on. "Ports" fall into a couple categories; anchorages and ports, and they aren't necessarily fungible.

You've been to the NE, you ever been to Portland ME ? Casco Bay, inside Long and Great Cheabeague Islands (just off Falmouth Foreside) was a favorite anchorage for the Atlantic Fleet. It could accommodate the whole fleet, but the "port" would likely rate 2, or maybe even 1.

Think now about San Diego; squat for anchorage, but what was available was serious 'port' capacity.

You get to the Pacific, later war, and you get Eniwetok; squat for 'port' facilities, but the anchorage was tight for the entire Pacific Fleet. The difference was the fleet train. The USN could turn an 'anchorage' into a 'port' by virtue of of the train (recognizing always the large hull drydock capabilities of a 'real' port).

So it's a non-linear combination of anchorage capacity and port capacity.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Kavieng (Location 721 in stock, CHS and RHS) is rated as a potential Level 3 port by all of them - but as is barely developed (but not undeveloped) it starts at Level 1. There is no RHS rating system for ports per se - and only obvious errors have been addressed. Clearly Kavieng was an "inherited" value which, on review, I am inclined to agree with.

There is a problem with the WITP code concept of port capacity. It is not related to the size of the ships nor to the number of ships which can use them. Except for house rules (don't unload more than x times the port capacity at the same time) I know of no way to address it. And then how do you account for landings? Of course, landings are not efficient - but more ships can always unload inefficiently. This matter really needs to be addressed by Matrix - if ever it is - and as it isn't glamorous like adding the Soviet Navy was (which Matrix DID add) my hopes are not bright.

Port capacity should be related to the number of facilities (or potential facilities) at the port - how many ships of what size can (or could) use them - and probably also some factor for local stevedoring assets. Thus - a great but virtually uninhabited base (see Adm Fisher's plan to use the Guadalcanal area because it is the very finest potential anchorage in the region) should not have as much capacity as a lesser base with a major city available to service it. Having not been asked to come up with a system - and having no way to implement one - I have not thought about this in more detail - but perhaps the Forum could figure this out - if we tried?

Like to interject a thought. An Anchorage/Harbor's POTENTIAL should be determined by it's SIZE. It's rating as a PORT should be determined by it's FACILITIES. Thus an anchorage like Ulithi or Seadler Harbor should start as a 0/9, while something like Pearl Harbor might be a 9/7. One has huge potential, while the other is already developed to the max. Make size a reflection of how many ships can comfortably anchor, and facilities a measure of what you can do with those ships while they are there. Having one number represent both size and facilities is silly and misleading. PH start's the game with excellent facilities, but it's a bit cramped. Seadler Harbor in the Admiralties could hold virtually all the world's navies---but it's facilities (until the Seabee's and the Fleet Train Arrived) wouldn't have been able to sort the ship's mail.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: herwin

So it's a non-linear combination of anchorage capacity and port capacity.

Yes, I believe so. Anchorage for 100, docks for 10, vs anchorage for 10, docks for 100.

Airfields are a teensy bit worse, because a good airfield site depends on geology, as much as topography; modofied by how permanent you want the situs to be.

Think on the VA peninsula; at the bottom half, by Ft. Monroe, it is beautifully flat sand, but underlayed by several hundred feet of clay marl; ever wondered why CONARC don't have a significant airfield close by. In contrast, Eglin is sand, but with several hundred feet of limestone base beneath the surface. Out west, the clay is not marl, is only about a hundred feet deep, and lies on a sandstone/granite base layer.

In the Pacific, people wanted something relatively flat (without granitic or limestone ridges), reasonably close to the land/sea interface, and with adequate drainage (geologically hydrophobic soils). You couldn't get there from anywhere, so they developed what they had and screw longevity. The engineers could acquire, crush and deposit coral slurrys such that they could build a major airfield over anything that was within 30' of the ocean surface.

All you needed was 3000' to 5000' of somewhere relatively flat, and the engineers would build you a nice field. Who cares if it wouldn't last as long as LaGuardia; they wouldn't be staying.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
PH start's the game with excellent facilities, but it's a bit cramped.

Do you mean that considering all the locks it's cramped?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
PH start's the game with excellent facilities, but it's a bit cramped.

Do you mean that considering all the locks it's cramped?

While well-protected from the sea and storms, it's limited in space, and the channels are narrow and convoluted.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Like to interject a thought. An Anchorage/Harbor's POTENTIAL should be determined by it's SIZE. It's rating as a PORT should be determined by it's FACILITIES. Thus an anchorage like Ulithi or Seadler Harbor should start as a 0/9, while something like Pearl Harbor might be a 9/7. One has huge potential, while the other is already developed to the max. Make size a reflection of how many ships can comfortably anchor, and facilities a measure of what you can do with those ships while they are there. Having one number represent both size and facilities is silly and misleading. PH start's the game with excellent facilities, but it's a bit cramped. Seadler Harbor in the Admiralties could hold virtually all the world's navies---but it's facilities (until the Seabee's and the Fleet Train Arrived) wouldn't have been able to sort the ship's mail.

Right smack on the nosey Mike ! Good thought !

[Dili]

I'll drop here one point of my research in Med War. Only two ports(i dont have the names in my head) in whole Marocco/Algeria in North Africa for Operation Torch could handle the 28t Sherman tanks. I think that author wanted to mean limit of Port cranes weight capability and the relevance i think it is probably due to most ships at time didnt had a 30t crane (not sure about this later part).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Kavieng (Location 721 in stock, CHS and RHS) is rated as a potential Level 3 port by all of them - but as is barely developed (but not undeveloped) it starts at Level 1. There is no RHS rating system for ports per se - and only obvious errors have been addressed. Clearly Kavieng was an "inherited" value which, on review, I am inclined to agree with.

There is a problem with the WITP code concept of port capacity. It is not related to the size of the ships nor to the number of ships which can use them. Except for house rules (don't unload more than x times the port capacity at the same time) I know of no way to address it. And then how do you account for landings? Of course, landings are not efficient - but more ships can always unload inefficiently. This matter really needs to be addressed by Matrix - if ever it is - and as it isn't glamorous like adding the Soviet Navy was (which Matrix DID add) my hopes are not bright.

Port capacity should be related to the number of facilities (or potential facilities) at the port - how many ships of what size can (or could) use them - and probably also some factor for local stevedoring assets. Thus - a great but virtually uninhabited base (see Adm Fisher's plan to use the Guadalcanal area because it is the very finest potential anchorage in the region) should not have as much capacity as a lesser base with a major city available to service it. Having not been asked to come up with a system - and having no way to implement one - I have not thought about this in more detail - but perhaps the Forum could figure this out - if we tried?

Kavieng was potentially a fine port with little development and no infrastructure. On the other hand, Guadalcanal was basically a beach with room for several airstrips. Noumea had 11,000 population with hydroelectric power and natural gas. The area had a good road network. Excellent deepwater port, lacking sufficient unloading, warehousing, and support facilities. How do you rate them?

It isn't well known, but in pre WWI days Guadalcanal was nominated to be the primary base of the British Pacific Fleet - because it has the finest major deep water anchorage there was in British hands - in league with Hong Kong but actually greater (and I have seen hundres of ships in Hong Kong without filling it to capacity). Admiral Fisher as First Sea Lord wanted to develop the place. The idea never went anywhere because of WWI - the British China Fleet left - never to return - and no British Pacific Fleet was created as a standing force. [There was a "British Pacific Fleet" in 1945 - it served as a single task force in the 7th Fleet - and it was not there to stay]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: herwin

So it's a non-linear combination of anchorage capacity and port capacity.

Yes, I believe so. Anchorage for 100, docks for 10, vs anchorage for 10, docks for 100.

Airfields are a teensy bit worse, because a good airfield site depends on geology, as much as topography; modofied by how permanent you want the situs to be.

Think on the VA peninsula; at the bottom half, by Ft. Monroe, it is beautifully flat sand, but underlayed by several hundred feet of clay marl; ever wondered why CONARC don't have a significant airfield close by. In contrast, Eglin is sand, but with several hundred feet of limestone base beneath the surface. Out west, the clay is not marl, is only about a hundred feet deep, and lies on a sandstone/granite base layer.

In the Pacific, people wanted something relatively flat (without granitic or limestone ridges), reasonably close to the land/sea interface, and with adequate drainage (geologically hydrophobic soils). You couldn't get there from anywhere, so they developed what they had and screw longevity. The engineers could acquire, crush and deposit coral slurrys such that they could build a major airfield over anything that was within 30' of the ocean surface.

All you needed was 3000' to 5000' of somewhere relatively flat, and the engineers would build you a nice field. Who cares if it wouldn't last as long as LaGuardia; they wouldn't be staying.

That's quite obvious reading Rottman. It will probably take a multivariate analysis, but I'd like to have a model that allows me to inject the characteristics of the site and read out raw and developed base evaluations.

The key factors for a port are probably:
1. protected anchorage space (land).
2. dockage (capital).
3. infrastructure (labour).
4. repair facilities (more capital).

The anchorage space defines how big a force can base there. Dockage gives loading/unloading. Repair facilities describes what you can repair. Finally, infrastructure tells you how self-supporting it is and how large a population can be drawn on. Are these multiplicative? (Likely from the economics.) If so, the port size might be treated as the sum of (weights times the logarithms of the elements).

A similar model might apply for air facilities:
1. Suitable site.
2. Runway development.
3. Infrastructure.
4. Facilities.

The size of a base might then be (on a logarithmic scale, which I suspect is appropriate to the game ratings) log(site size)/4 + log(capacity)/4 + log(local population)/4 + log(facilities development)/4, capped at 0 on the low side and 9 (or 10) on the high side.

Alternatively, the things you can change over time can be seen to be related to capital and the import of labour (troops). Runway development and dockage will be limited by some of the same geographical features involved in siting, so this suggests somewhat different weightings. So the maximum size of a base might involve about (a rating of the site)/3 + (capital availability)/3 + (labour availability)/3.

Try both and see which fits the game ratings better.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: herwin

That's quite obvious reading Rottman. It will probably take a multivariate analysis, but I'd like to have a model that allows me to inject the characteristics of the site and read out raw and developed base evaluations.

The key factors for a port are probably:
1. protected anchorage space (land).
2. dockage (capital).
3. infrastructure (labour).
4. repair facilities (more capital).

The anchorage space defines how big a force can base there. Dockage gives loading/unloading. Repair facilities describes what you can repair. Finally, infrastructure tells you how self-supporting it is and how large a population can be drawn on. Are these multiplicative? (Likely from the economics.) If so, the port size might be treated as the sum of (weights times the logarithms of the elements).

A similar model might apply for air facilities:
1. Suitable site.
2. Runway development.
3. Infrastructure.
4. Facilities.

The size of a base might then be (on a logarithmic scale, which I suspect is appropriate to the game ratings) log(site size)/4 + log(capacity)/4 + log(local population)/4 + log(facilities development)/4, capped at 0 on the low side and 9 (or 10) on the high side.

Alternatively, the things you can change over time can be seen to be related to capital and the import of labour (troops). Runway development and dockage will be limited by some of the same geographical features involved in siting, so this suggests somewhat different weightings. So the maximum size of a base might involve about (a rating of the site)/3 + (capital availability)/3 + (labour availability)/3.

Try both and see which fits the game ratings better.

That’s probably a very good analysis for a commercial port; beans & bauxite to the friendly folks in the hinterlands.

Couple other factors may influence a military supply port, especially 1944 and beyond.

Infrastructure: They won’t necessarily require transport connections to inland points; basically just onshore or near shore storage and cargo make-up and redistribution facilities (big quonsets, aprons, and forklifts). Liquids (bunker, gas, diesel, etc) normally stored in barges, sorta like the old company station tanker concept. Labor would be Army & Navy service force personnel.

Dockage: ServForPac provided lighterage to forward fleet supply bases like Ulithi. Much then depended on a vessel’s on-board lift capacity. Progressively, the masts and kingposts went to a 30-40 ton capacity on many vessels; with this and suitable lighterage, a forward fleet supply base could get by with relatively limited wharf facilities (for those older ships with only 10 ton lift capacity).

Repair Facilities: Usually provided by AR-types. Yes, limited in scope and finish, but they could usually get a ship in condition to transit to a ‘real’ repair yard, unless the girder lacked integrity.

Do not know how this might be incorporated into the game system. Maybe a ‘traveling port’ TF ? Anyway, you may wish to take the ‘kind’ (purpose) of the port into account. For something like Ulithi, all that would be required is a large protected anchorage and sufficient land space to host warehousing; the rest would depend on integral vessel capacity. For anchorages, you don’t want a deep bottom (requires too much scope and results in a large swing radius), so check your charts for your potential anchorages of choice.

In other words, perhaps 'protected anchorage space' should have a more significant weighting factor than the others.

Ciao.

[JWE]

Thinkin about it herwin, you might want to consider a step function in there somewhere before you go logarithmic, or maybe even a 3-part piecewise linear (or a 3-part piecewise power law).

Anchorage is only that; doesn’t imply ability to break bulk. Remember Noumea, where ships sat at anchor for 3 months because there wasn’t a crane big enuf to remove the deck cargo so they could get to the cargo hatches ?

Unloading is a function, mostly, of 1) the number and capacity rating of the lifting cranes, and 2) the availability of somewhere to put it (either on a lighter, an integral landing craft, or on a peir).

I would probably set the step to the availability of a 30 ton hoist, either on-board, or pierside; below that you’re running cargo slings, above that you can palletize. At Noumea, the problem was a 20 ton deck container, on a 10 ton hoist vessel.

IIRC, most pacific island ports with piers just had wharf space. The only 30 ton crane was at the base of K in the naval basin at Suva. Everyone else depended on vessel cranes. Noumea had a movable 10 tonner, but then, so did most large commercial vessels.

IMHO, certain anchorages ought to have a potential “capability” of 8-9, but start life at 0, as suggested by Mike. It ought to be easy to develop these to a 3 or 4, but the step function shouldn’t kick in till later ’43; then they could be developed all the way. Maybe the “potential” could be expressed as a 5 (or 6), that way it could be developed into an 8 (or 9) with increasing costs over nominal. Just as an FYI, the Ulithi fleet support base had a capability and capacity far beyond San Diego (under the 80/20 rule).

Anyhow, hope this helps somewhat.

[JWE]

One last teeny little thing. When you consult your Rottmans and/or contemporary Admiralty charts, for anchorage sizes, look at soundings. The rule of thumb (going back to the 1890s) is that a 'safe' anchorage must be no deeper than the length of the average vessel contemplated. The rule puts the best depth at one third, to one half, the loa of the 'average vessel. This is due to the scope requirements for vessels at anchor.

The 'bottom' must be 'secure', meaning it should be impacted sand or gravel mud. It can't be coral or rock or have substantial articulated hard features, or be close to the offing. That’s basically why we didn’t develop Lunga or Tassafaronga beyond maybe a 5. The offing was quite close and dropped to over 500 fathoms from the shelf. A really lousy harbor. The anchorage was thin but elongated shorewise with no protection from the autumnal trades.

Look for your potential island (atoll) soundings in the 50, or less, fathom range (you are going to want a 150’ to 300’ bottom). Characteristically, atoll lagoons have large areas of good bottom inside the reef barrier, delineated by spurs, or outcroppings, of coral ridges; usually buoyed along the axis. Caldera depths are very likely to be within the 300' range.

Ciao.

[herwin]

OK

log(physical size and suitability of site)/2 +
log(skilled population on site)/4 +
log(capital resources on site)/4 +
constant

So for San Francisco, it's
log(big)/2 + log(1,000,000)/4 + log(1,000,000,000)/4 + C = log(big)/2 + 1.5 + 2.25 + C >= 10

For Tulagi, it's
log(big)/2 + log(small)/4 + log(small)/4 + C = log(big)/2 + 0 + 0 + C initially
log(big)/2 + log(100,000)/4 + log(100,000,000)/4 + C = log(big)/2 + 1.25 + 2.0 + C eventually

For Rabaul, it's log(big)/2 + 0.75 + 1.25 + C initially, and log(big)/2 + 1.25 + 1.75 + C eventually.

For the Normandy artificial harbours, it's 0 initially, and 2 eventually.

I think we're under-rating development. I'd prefer a +4 for that. Assume the USN could move in 1,000,000 trained personnel and about 1,000,000,000 dollars of capital if needed to develop a base. Assuming the weight of each is equal.

The scale from 0 to 10 corresponds to the difference between an undeveloped beach and an international port serving a million people. That would correspond to A*(large anchorage value) + B*(6 + 9) + C = 10. If B is 1/3 and C is 0, A*(large anchorage value) <= 5. If B is 1/4, A*(large anchorage value) <= 6.25. If B is 1/5, A*(large anchorage value) <= 7. I think I like B = 1/3. Let's use the number of ships that can shelter in the anchorage as the basic value. So 10000 ships has an underlying value of 15 (to correspond to an A of 1/3)

Does the value of a port or airbase really range between 1 and 10 on a log scale???

San Francisco compared to a beach has 1,000,000 times as many people, 1,000,000,000 as much investment, and 10,000 or so as many ships. A small port or airfield might have 100 people, 100,000 in investment, and 1 vehicle. That's about 10,000 to 1. OK, so use that. The value of a port/air base is: 2.5*(log(people)+log(capital)+log(capacity)-7)/3

I think that's not far off...

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JWE

One last teeny little thing. When you consult your Rottmans and/or contemporary Admiralty charts, for anchorage sizes, look at soundings. The rule of thumb (going back to the 1890s) is that a 'safe' anchorage must be no deeper than the length of the average vessel contemplated. The rule puts the best depth at one third, to one half, the loa of the 'average vessel. This is due to the scope requirements for vessels at anchor.

The 'bottom' must be 'secure', meaning it should be impacted sand or gravel mud. It can't be coral or rock or have substantial articulated hard features, or be close to the offing. That’s basically why we didn’t develop Lunga or Tassafaronga beyond maybe a 5. The offing was quite close and dropped to over 500 fathoms from the shelf. A really lousy harbor. The anchorage was thin but elongated shorewise with no protection from the autumnal trades.

Look for your potential island (atoll) soundings in the 50, or less, fathom range (you are going to want a 150’ to 300’ bottom). Characteristically, atoll lagoons have large areas of good bottom inside the reef barrier, delineated by spurs, or outcroppings, of coral ridges; usually buoyed along the axis. Caldera depths are very likely to be within the 300' range.

Ciao.

Takes me back to when I was a navigator on a trawler in Alaskan waters...