Do You Want Historical Transports?

[disorder]

i havent always been a fan of changing transports in SC. last month i re-read crusade in europe,by eisenhower and on page 163 of the hardback it says (REGARDING OPERATION HUSKY)

“the supply staffs were again required to study the problem, and now they came to a more optimistic estimate than they had some weeks previously.

This change resulted from the unforseen availability of a considerable number of LST’s and the quantity production of the “duck” an amphibious vehicle that proved to be one of the most valuable pieces of equipment produced by the united states during the war." (EISENHOWER goes on to brag on the jeep, the 21/2 ton truck, the bulldozer, and the c-47)

this “research developement” totally changed their plans for attack.

to expand on (and alter) shaka’s and others comments regarding amphibious landings and transports-------

SHAKA THREAD SUGGESTIONS FOR AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULTS

AMPHIBIOUS UNIT BY JERSEYJOHN AND MANY OTHERS

i propose the following.

a change in research chits to reflect the historical advances in landing craft operations which took place during ww2.

at the extremes we go from the sight of 20 LSM ®, nearing land, each one disgorging up to 9 dukws,( and each dukw capable of inland movement over any terrain). the LSM’s also continue giving weapons support to the landing troops

to the other extreme, germany in 1940 with no worthy craft and only barges for hauling troops short distances.

this is one of the few “historical” areas easily fixed with a research chit.

lvl 1 transport as now with only 4 movement

lvl 2 transport as now with only 8 movement

lvl 3 transport as we know it now

lvl 4 amphibious transport, as level 3 but being able to attack (weakly) on water

lvl 5 amphibious transport able to attack(weakly) on water and ALSO weak attack on an on-shore target

the offshore attack for level 5 would be the same as the weak water attack with level 4 research., and would,technically be from the LSM'S themself, and not from the individual landing crafts..therefore a transported HQ could still be defended by an attack. the LSM attack should certainly be less than a sub attack, a 0-1 maybe?

of course the research development wouldnt be just for the individual craft. it would be for the whole DELIVERY SYSTEM involved with the landing of headquarters,tanks corps or armies.

lst’s were 1942-45

lsm’s were 1944-45

lsm(rockets)”188 class” were converted from lsm’s late 1944-45

lsm(rockets) “401 class” were converted from lsm’s in 1945--- (these craft had 1 5"/38 DP, 2x2 40mm, 4x2 20mm, 4 4.2" mortars, 20 continuous loading 5" SS rocket launchers and a complement: of 6 officers, 137 enlisted

this research chit still doesnt take into account the need to be able to attack an enemy occupied territory with landing troops(which is needed also), but with very few changes this should be able to be implemented into the game.

it also doesnt take into account the amount of time spent on the water, as i believe this is extremely difficult to render on abstract groups for ocean-going movement.also, germany could start out with level 0 and u.s. could start with level 2 or 3 (just a thought)

i apologize in advance if some or most of this was hashed before. many, many, transport and amphibious links to search!

[JerseyJohn]

disorder

Agreed 100%. Your ideas would solve several problems and improve the game immensely.

[ May 01, 2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Definitely, take away the powerful bombardment capability of battleships and cruisers<what 50 mile accurate guns???>, make certian that all Italian/German/Russian transports are increased in price!<in makes too much imbalance to allow these nations to make superFlotillas> In fact, a research chit for it would be nice as well because if Germany had great limitations on tranports in a major Ocean it doesn't possess many ports it would be forced to wait on Sea Lion or truly dominate the seas before it could perform it or, the move would be too costly. This has been mentioned before?

Also add Coastal batteries and fortifications in certian hexes...i.e. Atlantic Wall, UK PillBox buildup in East Anglia, Italian Mountain Gustav Line...etc...

Perhaps the ability to add these defense grids by purchasing them or forcing a corps to become forever entrenched...giving it a bonus not as high as Maginot/Gibraltar/Sevastapol..although better than it is currently... Also an added Port defense bonus against enemy aircraft if you should bury your own fighters in the soil around a port...especially on any unit struck on the Port Hex itself...On and on and on

Keep these ideas rolling folks

[SeaWolf_48]

And guys don't forget beach hexes that would need those defense units. Not every coastline hex is approachable from the sea. Make Hilter spend MPP's on coastly defense, The Nazi spent more time and material on the Atlantic wall than the US on Hoover Dam, four times as much! That should show up in OUR game.

[disorder]

LIAM--

the thing about this change, would be that i believe it would be a very minor game change and the transport already exists as a part of the game.

no need to "create" a new system, a new army, a new weapon, etc. forget the increase in price for transports you want for the low-life poor countries. a 1939 scenario would be made which had research levels increased however you wanted them increased(or decreased), for each country, or with chits already there, and you place them where you want! sacrifice anti-tank and get LST!

if germany wants to sacrifice some research chits for LST'S let them!

the thing right now that takes the place of a defence grid is simply placing corps in the hex. i agree, a poor substitute. permanent entrenchment of tanks? i like that thought.

take away the powerful bombardment capability of battleships and cruisers<what 50 mile accurate guns???>,

i remember in "the big red one" where the germans were off-shore bombarded from 30 miles (if i remember right)away. did a number on them!

[Edwin P.]

From a playability point of view, I question the limiting of a transport's movement allowance.

Why? US forces would take 4x to 5x as long to reach Europe or the UK and this would be too late to reinforce any existing beachhead or save England from a Sea Lion.

German naval forces could easily intercept any force crossing the Atlantic. Now the high movement rate of transports allows transports to evade German subs and surface craft if they are few in number. With this change a few German naval craft could easily blockade Europe from reinforcements from the US.

A large number of transports along the coast also forces the Axis to cover a wide front with more units pulled from the Eastern Front. With a fewer number of transports the Axis would have an easier time defeating any D-Day.

Although this idea may be more realistic at the unit level I have doubts about its effect on play balance and general strategy.

I also think that surface ships should retain their ability to bombard units on land. Although hexes are 50 miles wide I would assume that surface ships position them self closest to the enemy and not 10 or 25 or 50 miles away.

[disorder]

edwin

I also think that surface ships should retain their ability to bombard units on land. Although hexes are 50 miles wide I would assume that surface ships position them self closest to the enemy and not 10 or 25 or 50 miles away.

yes, agree here!

US forces would take 4x to 5x as long to reach Europe or the UK and this would be too late to reinforce any existing beachhead or save England from a Sea Lion.

yes, thats why us should start out with level 2 or 3 transports already!or with research chits giving you the option to do so. you have to admit, the worst us transport could beat the stuffings out of any of the others! the scows germany had. the tugboats uk had!

if germany really got serious abt a sealion, they should be able to do it right, huh?

Although this idea may be more realistic at the unit level I have doubts about its effect on play balance and general strategy.

ah well, i have doubts abt it too but....

i so seldom get an idea, i had to write it down!

[ May 01, 2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: disorder ]

[Edwin P.]

Disorder

Now's the time when we need a good editor to play test these ideas.

PS: Your idea would also make it easier for the UK to defeat a sea lion as they would see the german fleets approaching and have time to move units into position.

[disorder]

edwin

editor, yes!

i think it would make people reassess the actual historical uses of them. they would have more value. perhaps a few more subs brought into the game to track them down.

and you could still get by o.k. if you didn't sink a dime into them. you'd just have to get out the canoes and the rafts if you were british!

imagine an attack of an armed transport vs. an unarmed transport. imagine a greek coastal hex guarded by a 1 or 2 army. on one turn, they destroy the troops, and on the next they land to occupy.

[JerseyJohn]

A minor but inportant note:

Maximum range for BB main guns (14-16") was about 30,000 yards and the largest, 18" for the Japanese giants, would have been about 33,000 yards. Which I believe is 20 miles or so, less than half the distance through an SC hex.

LINK to Discussion of Expanded Scenario Editor

*Player Defined Unit Limits in the Scenario Editor.

[ May 01, 2003, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Though creating a seperate system of research would be good, and giving the historical levels to begin with on unit transport and amphibious landings, make sure to look at the other points. There were cases were those battleship guns could reach coastal defences, that's about all they were good for after the sinking of the Bismark. Conversion for anti-sub roles and floating gun platforms for coastal defence destruction was what they were in Europe... Even in the Pacific good anti-aircraft platforms!

I have to agree about some of these nations having the ability to transport. It was something many nations weren't capable of in 1941. It had to be researched or an Allies resources had to be utilized. Especially with all those Balkan and Russian 1920 style equipment. They might transport to a safe port but they couldn't amphibiously assualt a Carribean Island on vacation

Subs were floating Wolf Packs, hunting at night for anti-shipping. With a few of those and gunboats and perhaps even a few pocket battleships/destroyers it would be feesible to have a percentage failure for Amphibious assualts on enemy coastlines. That and an Atlantic Wall that the Allies feared!? Why did the Allies go to such extents to leave D-Day off till Summer 1944, they knew it would be costly with a still active Luftwaffe. Why does a fighter have to interdict<why can't it be forced into another role?> i.e. focus on destruction of transports or defence of a particular hex...

Most Western Allied tanks until Torch and Break out and France were tracked Artillery. The Russians didn't fully utilize them either till Kursk.

One thing, I think it's a laugh to destroy a corp on a city with just coastal bombardment. That actually makes it worse for an enemy unit to assualt a city. Rubble makes better hiding places

[88mm]

Oh my godd.... armed LVM's :eek:

See it happening, six to the teeth armed LVM's knocking out a sub

Or landing-craft A boards landingcraft B (Pirates ?) and fight head tot head

Movement increase, oke. But let the LVM's be what they were, landing=craft with absolutely no assault-abilities.

[ May 01, 2003, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: 88mm ]

[Edwin P.]

In thinking about techs to improve the movement allowance of transports, it just hit me that its not just the size of the real life engines but also the operational security that allows one to deploy units for a surprise landing.

Thus a transports speed reflects country's ability to maintain operational security for large troop movements across large expanses of open seas/oceans. ( SC abstracts transports to cover both Landing Craft and Troop Transports).

Higher tech levels would reflect the ability of a nation to secretly deploy large naval forces before the opposing side became aware of the fact.

Thus I could see the US starting with Transport Tech 2 as the Germans would not be aware of actual US troop deployments and would be less able to respond to them. UK/Germany/Italy would start with transport tech 0 and the associated reduced movement/surprise factor. Of course this would impact the strategies of each side.

Thus one might want to give UK/Ger/France/Italy Tansport Tech 2/ USSR Tech 0 / and USA Transport Tech 3/ and all other countries transport tech 0.

A higher transport tech in my mind would give higher movement rates as suggested by Disorder but not any attack abilities.

Transport Tech 0 - Movement 4 (200 miles)

Transport Tech 1 - Movement 6

Transport Tech 2 - Movement 8 (400 miles)

Transport Tech 3 - Movement 9

Transport Tech 4 - Movement 10 (600 miles)

PS: My preference is to leave things as they are and not make any changes to transport techs.

[ May 01, 2003, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[santabear]

I like the ideas that are springing up in here.

It seems to me that the 'problem' of transport movement is caused by the skewed map scale in the Atlantic ocean. If transport movment is limited to something more realistic for, say, the Baltic sea, the American army will take years to assemble in Britain (as Edwin pointed out).

If the map scale remains unchanged, perhaps there could be the equivalent of 'terrain' in the ocean, with different ocean/sea hexes allowing faster or slower movement. That might address some of the naval issues and would allow more realistic transports.

[SeaWolf_48]

Transporting armies was a great logistical problem for most countries. When the 101st Airborne (screaming eagles man) left No. Carolina to go to England it took them one month , three weeks in ports and on the water. When the 6th Panzer Division left france in Nov of 1942 to releave the 6th Army surrounded in Stalingrad, it took them three weeks by train to get southwest of the Stalingrad pocket.

How well does SC do the same. Armies take two to three turns to go from the US to England, takes way to long, transports traveled from 12 to 20 Knots depending on the ship. 12 knots times 24 hours is 288 KM's (knotical miles) per day. 7 days is 2016 KM's, the distance across the No. Atlantic (zigzag may have added 1/3 more distance, but that would still be only a couple days).

How about the German example. With operation movement you can go from france (purposely left the f lower case) to Western Russia in one turn, but then you have to travel at normal movement the rest of the way to Stalingrad whaich could take three more turns, again way to slow.

Monthly turns are difficult for ship battles (2 to 3 thousand KM's is a long way every month), and why can you place a brand new unit next to an enemy unit, but can't place an existing unit next to the same unit.

Maybe we need some work done on movement?

[disorder]

comments on operation sealion on web page

"To get the first wave across, the Germans gathered barges and tugs, totally disrupting their trade in the Baltic. Eventually, 170 cargo ships, 1277 barges, and 471 tugs were gathered. These were, inevitably, bombed by the RAF (about 10% being sunk before they dispersed again). The barges were mainly those designed for use on the Rhine, with a shallow freeboard. They sink in anything above Sea State 2. The wash from a fast-moving destroyer would swamp and sink the barge. (Correct: the RN could sink the lot without firing a shot).

The situation with regard to mariners for the barges with experience of the sea was even worse. When used as a landing craft, the barges, tugs and motorboats required extra crew. In total, the Kriegsmarine estimated that a minimum of 20,000 extra crew would be needed. That's 20,000 extra crew at least knowledgable of matters maritime. By stripping its ships to the minimum (which doesn't bode well for the Kriegsmarine if it is required to fight a fleet action), the Kriegsmarine was able to supply 4,000 men. The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe transferred 3,000 men who had been sailors in civilian life, and an in-depth trawl of the reserves and the factories and the drafts brought forward another 9,000 men. After digging through the entire manpower cupboard, the barges were still 4,000 men short of the minimum required.

Nothing could alter this, and the Kriegsmarine came to the reluctant conclusion that the barges would have to sail in an undermanned condition.

Finally, the barges were under-powered for open water operations, and required towing. The basic unit was a tug towing two barges, and travelling at 2-3 knots, in the Channel, which has tides of 5 knots. Given that the distance that the far left of the invasion had to cross, a minimum of 85 miles, the poor bloody soldiers would be wallowing for a minimum of 30 hours in an open boat, and expected to carry out an opposed amphibious landing at the end of it.

The most comical element of the plan, however, was that for manoeuvring the flotilla. The plan was that this huge mass of towed barges would proceed in column until reaching a point ten miles from the landing beach, then wheel and steer parallel to the coast. When this was complete, the vessels would make a 90 degree turn at the same time, and advance in line towards the coast. This was to be carried out at night, and controlled and co-ordinated by loud hailers. There had been no chance to practise the operation, and there was less than one skilled sailor per vessel.

sorry, this is a bit long, but i wanted to make sure we were on the same page "historically".

we go from this description of sealion above to this picture(click link)

dukw

88mm i didnt put those continuous loading rockets and other weapons on those lsm®'s uncle sam did!

LIAM see your point about the bombardment of units on cities, range,etc. DEFINITELY OFF A BIT THERE!

EDWIN P appreciate the comments, and "thinking out loud" on this. i think no matter what the proposed solution, there are factors one cant anticipate. like to see a testing of it somehow, though.

SANTABEAR regardless of the skewed ranges, and hexes, this was just a feeble attempt to make a difference in transports.

barges 2-3 knotts

lvm's loaded 13 knots

SEAWOLF agree!

[ May 02, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: disorder ]

[Liam]

Well, not to run off into aerial warefare in a transport subject. Though it was the job of the luftwaffe to supress the British Coastal defences to make crossing the ocean possible. They never achieved this objective so the whole plan was scrapped. Second Failure by the Luftwaffe, which couldn't afford it...They could afford Dunkirk but since the Germans put most of their research and cash into Planes and Tanks it wasn't going to be worth much if the Planes couldn't open up a sea route between France and Britian.

While the United Kingdom we know had the Mighty Navy of all European Powers and a fair airforce. You have to defeat one or both to make Sea Lion. They were one of the Most Premier nations of the early 1900s aside from Germany. I'd say more powerful the USA worldwide until 30-40s conversion. They put their cash in Boats... BTW: I never knew the Germans had such an extensive plan in the works. Suppose why Churchill praises the RAF so much...<that wasn't lacking # of planes but pilots and workable airfields when the Battle reached it's climax>

The transport system is just simplified math. We all know that deployment of a force overseas at any time is not a easy job. It is a bit fast that the US Armies get deployed within 2 game turns into France and fighting. Regardless of technology amphibious warefare was in it's infancy back in the 40s and lots of men died attempting it. Remeber that we didn't attempt to landin Normandy until there was virtually nothing left of the Western Luftwaffe. Open Skies to spend time pouring a million men across the Channel.