JerseyJohn Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 There has been much discussion recently about a more serious and realistic approach to the Amphibious Operations/Assault subject than is currently used in the game (sending units to sea and allowing gross abuses to occur instead of legitimate landing operations). Bill Macon came up with an interesting idea while commenting in the Amphibious Landing Forum. . "Allow fleets to move and then have a menu option to convert to a port, subject to attack as a fleet, and to convert back to a fleet when it's done. Additionally, fleets as temporary harbors could then permit seaborne evacuations (Dunkirk-style), which is something else to work into the game. As for being supply sources, this is something HQs already provide and we should continue to encourage this. Should HQs at sea continue to provide their command rating and combat morale bonus to landing units?" Extremely good concepts presently lacking in the game. While making the above statement, Bill also mentions that landing operations do not warrent an entire research field on their own account. Though at first in desagreement, I'm now inclined to agree with him. However, quoting from the same forum, reasons are cited as to some of the hidden complexities of this area which go far beyond simply designing Higgens Boats. "I think research ought to be a factor. At first it also seemed to me that there wasn't that much involved, but upon further examination it didn't seem as simple. "-- There's the organizational skill of getting the proper units to the proper beaches. Even after dozens of Pacific landings, Operation Torch, Sicily, Salerno and Anzio -- the American planners still screwed much of this up in the Normandy operation! "-- There's coordination of naval and air bombardment. Literally hit and miss, not intending that horrible pun. "-- The development of bombardment weapons such as multiple rocket launches mounted upon small vessels adapted to move in for close support. "-- Sophistication of fire control from BBs and CAs offshore after the troops have landed and are attempting to make their way inland, etc.. "-- Evolution of amphibious ducks, Higgins Boats, LSTs and LSIs. "-- Beachmaster skills, training of specialized units such as British Commandos, US Army Rangers, and whatever their Axis counterparts would have been called. Additionally, there's specially trained engineers to come ashore with the first wave for obstacle removal. "And much more. I don't think these are simple tasks easily carried out by forces on the first attempt. The British paid for their experience at Dieppe, the Americans in a hundred other places, mainly against the Japanese. Non-combat casualties were being incurred right up till May 1944 in realistic training exercises. "To me, incorporating all these different skills and procedures in a comprehensive landing would be L-5 invasion technology; as opposed to Germany's inexperienced attempt at converting canal barges to gated boats, attaching large airplane engines and hoping for the best in the Autumn English Channel, where most of them would probably have been swamped and gone under before reaching the opposite shore. To me that would be L-0! And the German professionals recognized it as such, yessing Hitler to death while making sure those deathtrap barges remained in France." All of this ties in to what is obviously a fairly complicated area of operations. An area that helps define why some navies are traditionally great while others are barely afloat, even in time of peace. As a result of these Ideas, I'd like to suggest a new area of research designated AMPHIBIOUS OPERATIONS which would cover a nation's ability to perform tasks such as Bill's Evacuation operation as well as land and supply units on hostile shores. click here for related Amphibious Landing Unit Forum click here for related Amphibious Operations Forum As always, all feedback, pro and con, is welcome. [ March 04, 2003, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Here what I said in the other Amphibious Topic, since it's more relevant here... All your point are well explained and indeed may be improved... The question is: Can this be learn through research or only with live experience... Historically speaking... And what the technology should improve? - Longer supplies: Temporary Harbor last longer... - Better supply: Starting at supply 5 up to 10 at full research... - Lower initial MPPs cost... - Better defense against attack (before and after landing)... - Less landing casualties on a clear, non-defended beach... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 5, 2003 Author Share Posted March 5, 2003 Minotaur Yes, I think those are exactly the sort of things that would be affected. Also, I'm sure a lot of it would be learned in noncombat circumstances though it happens that some things are always learned the hard way. For example, at Tarawa the U. S. learned a lot about soft sand and shell explosions while at Dieppe the British/Canadians learned about tanks being stalled on beaches due to wet gravel. The Germans would have been able to learn these things in the Baltic, the Italians in the Adriatic, the British in the Irish Sea, the Russians in the Black Sea/Caspian -- all areas normally far from the fighting. Getting to Bill's point about amphibious evacuations, the British already had skills in this sort of operation before WW II from Gallipoli and also the Aegean by evacuating Greeks in the early 20s. During the war this experience came in handy at Dunkirk in '40, then in evacuating Wavell's troops from both Greece and Crete in '41 and later evacuating the Canadians from Dieppe -- where it was part of the plan for a change. Evacuations and landings should be very dependant upon weather conditions. The British admitted that at Dunkirk, despite it being late spring/early summer, if the conditions had been bad, choppy waves, etc. the evacuation could not have been conducted effectively, if at all. I'll paste this response to you're original posting. [ March 05, 2003, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Totally Agree John. Amphibious Assult. Level 0 none, L1 a weak Corps, L2 stronger etc. L5, D-Day equipment, unstoppable! This should be the 12th item in the research chart. I never buy sonar, sub, or rocket. Sometimes, bomber or Gun laying radar, all the rest get points in some order of importance. This needs another topic though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 5, 2003 Author Share Posted March 5, 2003 SeaWolf Thanks for the support and I'm very glad we agree. A new topic -- :eek: YES! By all means have at it. I can't as I've already passed my forum starting limit. If I start another there will be perfectly justified protests that JJ Forums should be limited along with the number of airfleets! [ March 05, 2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts