Singapore-Port Arthur "resources highway"

[Sun Tempest]

I heard that it is possible to connect Singapore with Port Arthur, via the Chinese railways. But how efficient really is (transfer rate) and how hard is to accomplish this feat? Which by the way it happened in RL, with the successful IchiGo operation, although too late to matter.

Thank you

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Sun Tempest

I heard that it is possible to connect Singapore with Port Arthur, via the Chinese railways. But how efficient really is (transfer rate) and how hard is to accomplish this feat? Which by the way it happened in RL, with the successful IchiGo operation, although too late to matter.

Thank you

I think there exists clear evidence of such a 'resource highway' within China from Hong Kong to Port Arthur. However, supply, resources, oil, fuel and the like don't migrate from Singapore to Hong Kong in my experience-you've got to get 'em to Hong Kong.

[Sun Tempest]

So the Singapore-Port Arthur route is myth? It would have been too nice[:(]

[bradfordkay]

IIRC, it existed in WITP but the railroads were changed in AE so it no longer exists. 

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

IIRC, it existed in WITP but the railroads were changed in AE so it no longer exists. 

There's a big gap in southern Cambodia/Vietnam between Phnom Penh and Saigon, and another in China between LangSon and Liuchow.

[Numdydar]

I thought the paved roads counted as well, not just RRs.

The RR can get you to Phnorn Penh from Singapore, then paved roads to Saigon, RR to Lang Son, paved roads to Liuchow, then RR to Changsha, paved roads for the hop to Wuchang, and finally RRs to either Port Athur or Shanghai. So this seems very douable if paved roads are used as advertised.

If ONLY RRs count for oil and resource movement, then Hong Kong is not going to help. I just don't see how the paved roads from there will work while the paved roads into China from Indochina will not. Really does not make sense. Another 'feature'. lol.

Of course if oil/resources move around based on code that has nothing to do with the types of roads/RRs and what they connect to, then it is really hard to figure out what to do on the land side of the game.

I am POSITIVE that if the Japanese connected a land bridge between Singapore and Shanghai, they would have used the hell out of it regardless of whether is was RR or not. Just mho of course [:D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I thought the paved roads counted as well, not just RRs.

The RR can get you to Phnorn Penh from Singapore, then paved roads to Saigon, RR to Lang Son, paved roads to Liuchow, then RR to Changsha, paved roads for the hop to Wuchang, and finally RRs to either Port Athur or Shanghai. So this seems very douable if paved roads are used as advertised.

If ONLY RRs count for oil and resource movement, then Hong Kong is not going to help. I just don't see how the paved roads from there will work while the paved roads into China from Indochina will not. Really does not make sense. Another 'feature'. lol.

Of course if oil/resources move around based on code that has nothing to do with the types of roads/RRs and what they connect to, then it is really hard to figure out what to do on the land side of the game.

I am POSITIVE that if the Japanese connected a land bridge between Singapore and Shanghai, they would have used the hell out of it regardless of whether is was RR or not. Just mho of course [:D]

I've never played the Japanese side, so . . .

That said, I don't know how the code treats it, but realistically, how do you transport a train-load of oil or fuel on roads? Even with fleets of 1940s-era tanker trucks, which the Chinese economy certainly didn't have? Oil moves in pipelines, on tankers, and, less-efficiently, on trains in tank cars. Going inter-modal onto trucks is nuts. Relying on coolie labor is science fiction.

There's no RL way you should be able to flow petroleum from Singapore to Port Arthur. When I do play the Japanese I hope there's no way to do so in the game either.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I thought the paved roads counted as well, not just RRs.

The RR can get you to Phnorn Penh from Singapore, then paved roads to Saigon, RR to Lang Son, paved roads to Liuchow, then RR to Changsha, paved roads for the hop to Wuchang, and finally RRs to either Port Athur or Shanghai. So this seems very douable if paved roads are used as advertised.

If ONLY RRs count for oil and resource movement, then Hong Kong is not going to help. I just don't see how the paved roads from there will work while the paved roads into China from Indochina will not. Really does not make sense. Another 'feature'. lol.

Of course if oil/resources move around based on code that has nothing to do with the types of roads/RRs and what they connect to, then it is really hard to figure out what to do on the land side of the game.

I am POSITIVE that if the Japanese connected a land bridge between Singapore and Shanghai, they would have used the hell out of it regardless of whether is was RR or not. Just mho of course [:D]

I've never played the Japanese side, so . . .

That said, I don't know how the code treats it, but realistically, how do you transport a train-load of oil or fuel on roads? Even with fleets of 1940s-era tanker trucks, which the Chinese economy certainly didn't have? Oil moves in pipelines, on tankers, and, less-efficiently, on trains in tank cars. Going inter-modal onto trucks is nuts. Relying on coolie labor is science fiction.

There's no RL way you should be able to flow petroleum from Singapore to Port Arthur. When I do play the Japanese I hope there's no way to do so in the game either.

The typical train of the time carried 500 tons. That meant you needed a truck fleet at each gap.

[Numdydar]

The major point is that it was doable in RL, so the game SHOULD have some method to reflect it.

What would have happened in RL, is at evey transfer point a depot would have been created that would have stored the resources to even out the flow difference between the trains and trucks. This is no different than what occurs using ships.

You create major resource/supply areas that are fed into, such as Singapore, PHL, etc. Shipping from around these areas feed into them and then once enough quanties are available, they are shipped out. So for land, trains/trucks would both feed into and out of these land depots in order to have a smooth transfer between Indochina and beyond to ports closer to Japan. Seems obvious to me anyway and a big issue/disapointment if it does not work this way.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

The major point is that it was doable in RL, so the game SHOULD have some method to reflect it.

What would have happened in RL, is at evey transfer point a depot would have been created that would have stored the resources to even out the flow difference between the trains and trucks. This is no different than what occurs using ships.

You create major resource/supply areas that are fed into, such as Singapore, PHL, etc. Shipping from around these areas feed into them and then once enough quanties are available, they are shipped out. So for land, trains/trucks would both feed into and out of these land depots in order to have a smooth transfer between Indochina and beyond to ports closer to Japan. Seems obvious to me anyway and a big issue/disapointment if it does not work this way.

You're referring to a country that sometimes used ox-carts to move A6Ms from the factory to the airfield.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
There's no RL way you should be able to flow petroleum from Singapore to Port Arthur. When I do play the Japanese I hope there's no way to do so in the game either.

It's not in the game, Bull. Doesn't happen. Please note my previous post.

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

The major point is that it was doable in RL, so the game SHOULD have some method to reflect it.

Was it doable in real life? The Japanese expended a great deal of resources and human life on building the much shorter Burma-Siam railroad to avoid having to route shipping around the Kra Isthmus to Rangoon and it only marginally improved Japanese logistics in Burma, which fell to pieces during the U-Go Operation.

Somehow I can't see a nation which had to virtually suspend building AFVs by 1944 building enough tanker trucks and cars to make it economically feasible.

[bradfordkay]

The only country that had anywhere near the road hauling capacity to do such was the US, and we had to halt our advance into Germany due to the lack of transport for fuel and supplies to the army. There is no way that the Japanese had such a capacity. This is why the allied campaign against the Japanese merchant fleet was so successful in grinding the Japanese war machine to a near halt. 

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: herwin

The typical train of the time carried 500 tons. That meant you needed a truck fleet at each gap.

From the link below I get:

"Example: A typical railcar used in the 1940’s and 1950’s had a gross capacity of 180,000 lbs. or the
ability to carry 74 tons when the weight of the car is taken into consideration. Trains would consist
of an average of 60 cars and hence, have a carrying capacity of 4,440 tons. A modern railcar has a
gross capacity of 286,000 lbs or 125.5 tons moving in trains consisting of 100 cars or more, yielding
a total carrying capacity of 12,500 tons, an increase of over 181% in carrying capacity."

http://www.quorumcorp.net/Downloads/Pap ... erview.pdf

Gonna need a LOT of trucks. I believe, however, that this site is speaking of Canadian railways.

Other sites show that IndoChina was predominently metre guage in the 1940s, with just a bit of standard guage. The link below states that the monthly capacity of dry supply and arms between Haiphong and Kunming on the Sino-Vietnamese Railway in 1940 was 10,000 tons per month. This was a key reason for the Japanese invasion of IndoChina--to extend the blockade of China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_o ... _Indochina

Also, during the war, the Viet Minh routinely destroyed bridges and track, and Allied bombers atempted to interdict trains with CAS and level-bombing.

I'd have to dig further to find the output capacity of the oil fields which would have been pouring into Singapore in this scenario (Palembang, Sumatra, et al) but I suspect that the oil tonnage would far exceed 10,000 tons a day, let along per month.

The only way to get POL to the HI was tankers. Which I suspect was your point.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

The major point is that it was doable in RL, so the game SHOULD have some method to reflect it.

What would have happened in RL, is at evey transfer point a depot would have been created that would have stored the resources to even out the flow difference between the trains and trucks. This is no different than what occurs using ships.

You're kidding, right? Have you ever seen an oil tanker loading or unloading?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
There's no RL way you should be able to flow petroleum from Singapore to Port Arthur. When I do play the Japanese I hope there's no way to do so in the game either.

It's not in the game, Bull. Doesn't happen. Please note my previous post.

I saw that. But how does it flow from Hong Kong either unless it's on roads?

[Nami Koshino]

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard


The Japanese expended a great deal of resources and human life on building the much shorter Burma-Siam railroad to avoid having to route shipping around the Kra Isthmus to Rangoon and it only marginally improved Japanese logistics in Burma, which fell to pieces during the U-Go Operation.

The irony is the Japanese dismantled railroads and steel spans in Malaysia and Java and confiscated rolling stock from all over SE Asia to operate that railroad. A logistical case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. [;)]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: herwin

The typical train of the time carried 500 tons. That meant you needed a truck fleet at each gap.

From the link below I get:

"Example: A typical railcar used in the 1940’s and 1950’s had a gross capacity of 180,000 lbs. or the
ability to carry 74 tons when the weight of the car is taken into consideration. Trains would consist
of an average of 60 cars and hence, have a carrying capacity of 4,440 tons. A modern railcar has a
gross capacity of 286,000 lbs or 125.5 tons moving in trains consisting of 100 cars or more, yielding
a total carrying capacity of 12,500 tons, an increase of over 181% in carrying capacity."

http://www.quorumcorp.net/Downloads/Pap ... erview.pdf

Gonna need a LOT of trucks. I believe, however, that this site is speaking of Canadian railways.

Other sites show that IndoChina was predominently metre guage in the 1940s, with just a bit of standard guage. The link below states that the monthly capacity of dry supply and arms between Haiphong and Kunming on the Sino-Vietnamese Railway in 1940 was 10,000 tons per month. This was a key reason for the Japanese invasion of IndoChina--to extend the blockade of China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_o ... _Indochina

Also, during the war, the Viet Minh routinely destroyed bridges and track, and Allied bombers atempted to interdict trains with CAS and level-bombing.

I'd have to dig further to find the output capacity of the oil fields which would have been pouring into Singapore in this scenario (Palembang, Sumatra, et al) but I suspect that the oil tonnage would far exceed 10,000 tons a day, let along per month.

The only way to get POL to the HI was tankers. Which I suspect was your point.

I was working from 15-year-old memory of German Reichsbahn military trains, which were sized to carry an infantry battalion or tank company. The following might explain the discrepancy.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
There's no RL way you should be able to flow petroleum from Singapore to Port Arthur. When I do play the Japanese I hope there's no way to do so in the game either.

It's not in the game, Bull. Doesn't happen. Please note my previous post.

I saw that. But how does it flow from Hong Kong either unless it's on roads?

I too would like to know the answer to this. That is my issue. IF resources CAN move from HK to Shanghai as an earlier post stated, the SAME issues that others have rasied here are still valid regradless whether resources are moved from HK or Singapore. To recap:

1. If resources can move from HK to Shanghai but not from Singapore to Shanghai the game is not being consistant causing players to plan incorrectly. You still have a combiation of paved roads/RRs to get out of HK to Shanghai. The same as Singapore to Shanghai route (of course there ARE a lot more gaps in the longer route [:D] Could that be the reason? The game can have resources 'jump' a single gap in the RR net but not mutiple ones? This WOULD allow resources to go from HK to Shanghai but not from further south. Of course if that is true then resources and supplies could flow both ways from Rangoon to Bangkok too which as far as I can tell does not happen. Maybe the 'jump' from HK to the China railnet is a special case?)

2. If resources cannot move from HK to Shanghai, then the game is WAD and no method of getting resources from Singapore by land to points Northeast exist.

3. If only RRs can move resources, then moving them to HK will not do any good, other than a staging point to reship them to Japan proper.

Comments?

[bradfordkay]

The manual is strangely silent on this: do resources follow the same overland transport rules that control supply movement? If so, I would be sure that Saigon to Shanghai is likely an invalid path.