Losing AP's during invasion
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
- Kwik E Mart
- Posts: 2447
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:42 pm
Losing AP's during invasion
Some of the threads on this forum mention losing AP's during invasions due to shore fire. It made me curious if the US (or any other nation) ever lost any AP's in RL during an invasion due to shore fire. Anyone know?
Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
Its a good point as in most cases the stand of distance ( and hence disruption) would just increase. I know at Wake Japan lost 2 APDs to CDs but these were going to land on or near the beach anyway.
Underdog Fanboy
-
- Posts: 8500
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
- Location: Olympia, WA
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
Wiki says that no US APs were lost to shore batteries in WW2, for what it is worth.
We lost five APs to German U-boats during Torch, it seems and three to Kamikaze attacks as the next highest cause of loss.
It appears that 2 DDs were sunk by German shore batteries at Normandy and one DD was lost to Japanese shore batteries after grounding off Okinawa (interestingly, it appears that the Japanese let it sit grounded until the tug showed up to pull it off and then they opened up on it). Those are the only large vessels (larger than an LST) lost to shore batteries in the war that I can find on short notice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... rld_War_II
We lost five APs to German U-boats during Torch, it seems and three to Kamikaze attacks as the next highest cause of loss.
It appears that 2 DDs were sunk by German shore batteries at Normandy and one DD was lost to Japanese shore batteries after grounding off Okinawa (interestingly, it appears that the Japanese let it sit grounded until the tug showed up to pull it off and then they opened up on it). Those are the only large vessels (larger than an LST) lost to shore batteries in the war that I can find on short notice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... rld_War_II
fair winds,
Brad
Brad
- CarnageINC
- Posts: 2208
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:47 am
- Location: Rapid City SD
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
This information leads back to the issue of CD being to powerful that was discussed awhile ago. Maybe landings should have higher infantry losses instead of hits on ships? It always annoys me that AP's get nailed so hard, they should be well back from any battery fire.
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
Whenever you see war movies the landing ships are like down the horizon (or nearly) from the beach and the only ships making the run are little landing boats.
It does feel odd with AE where it seems the AP's are practically beaching themselves to land troops or something.
It does feel odd with AE where it seems the AP's are practically beaching themselves to land troops or something.
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
Not sure troop losses should be higher but imho disruption should be higher and a force shock attack if it is a contested landing.
Speaking of which was the worst landing in History ?
Speaking of which was the worst landing in History ?
Underdog Fanboy
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
I would tend to agree that CDs are too powerful in the game. A typical outcome when invading Ambon as the Japanese - after softening up the defenders with air bombardment - will see several APs heavily damaged together with supporting PBs - even a couple sunk. In one PBEM I had a sorry armada limping back to Kendari where more succumbed to fire damage and sank. I am all in favour of CD being a deterrent to weakly supported landings and also dont mind scoring some damage but this feature of the game does not seem all that balanced to real life experience. Its tough for Japan as they do not get a lot of replacement ships of these types. That said, once you are aware of it you learn to find ways of mitigating the worst effects so I don't feel it matrs the overall experience of a fantastic, deep operational game.
The most advanced nations are always those who navigate the most -
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 -1882)
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 -1882)
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
I would agree CDs are overrated; they should do very little to ships, except in places like Corregidor or the strait between Singapore and Sumatra, where the guns are meant to control a narrow body of water.
They should, though, take a toll on landing troops, which was what they did IRL. The Germans had alot of CD guns at Normandy, and they didn't do much to the US Navy, but they did take out alot of landing craft and otherwise caused alot of casualties.
They should, though, take a toll on landing troops, which was what they did IRL. The Germans had alot of CD guns at Normandy, and they didn't do much to the US Navy, but they did take out alot of landing craft and otherwise caused alot of casualties.
- treespider
- Posts: 5781
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
- Location: Edgewater, MD
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
Think of the AP damage in a Witp-Zen sort of way...as an abstraction that helps to slow the pace of operations.
The damage could be considered to represent damage to the inherent landing craft that the player does not see. So the landing craft would need to be replaced (ie the AP needs to be repaired) prior to the next operation.
The damage could be considered to represent damage to the inherent landing craft that the player does not see. So the landing craft would need to be replaced (ie the AP needs to be repaired) prior to the next operation.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB
"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB
"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
I think sinking APs to represent sinking LC/Higgins boats is not accurate, because the APs are taken completely out of the transport chain from the West Coast to wherever. If there were task forces of LCs running troops across the Pacific, then I could see the parallels. I've lost damn near 20 APs at Mili and Ponape alone, with the joyous Saipan looming in the near future. I think CinCPac would have a real issue with losing the transport capacity of two divisions at two piss-ant islands.
Would it be possible to have LCs added in to the mix without the huge micro-management effort normally required? Perhaps, each AP and AK has an option to "load" them like they do troops. When you are loading your troops at base, you also load landing craft. So you dont have to form a TF with 99 LC--it's automaticly done in the background of the game--limited by the LC resources you have available at that port. Your amphib TF pulls up off shore, and the troops hit the beach at a rate of how many ever LCs you have previously loaded. Now, the LCs get hammered, as in real life, and the APs stay relatively safe, as in real life.
BTW-how DID they get the small LCs to the battle? Were they towed behind the APs or were they carried in other ships?
Nevermind, answered my question here:
http://www.ussrankin.com/id34.htm
Would it be possible to have LCs added in to the mix without the huge micro-management effort normally required? Perhaps, each AP and AK has an option to "load" them like they do troops. When you are loading your troops at base, you also load landing craft. So you dont have to form a TF with 99 LC--it's automaticly done in the background of the game--limited by the LC resources you have available at that port. Your amphib TF pulls up off shore, and the troops hit the beach at a rate of how many ever LCs you have previously loaded. Now, the LCs get hammered, as in real life, and the APs stay relatively safe, as in real life.
BTW-how DID they get the small LCs to the battle? Were they towed behind the APs or were they carried in other ships?
Nevermind, answered my question here:
http://www.ussrankin.com/id34.htm
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
APs were hardly ever sunk during the war and should not be in the game. I also agree that the landing troops should suffer much more than the ships.
Another improvement would be to allow an order for a TF to do multi-day bombardments, currently it is a one shot deal and the bombardment TF sails away.
Another improvement would be to allow an order for a TF to do multi-day bombardments, currently it is a one shot deal and the bombardment TF sails away.
"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
I think WWI gallipoli (sp?); although i dont think it was the landing itself that went terribad......
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
Wasn't Dieppe a bad landing for the Royal Navy? I know it was for the grunts.
Wasn't Tarawa was the worst for the USN in the Pacific (besides kamikazees off of Okinawa)?
Wasn't Tarawa was the worst for the USN in the Pacific (besides kamikazees off of Okinawa)?
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
ORIGINAL: bklooste
Not sure troop losses should be higher but imho disruption should be higher and a force shock attack if it is a contested landing.
Speaking of which was the worst landing in History ?
From memory, I would nominate two landings which probably would not be nominated by others on this forum.
1. Kublai Khan's second invasion of Japan, the one which was visited by the divine "Kamikaze" wind but the invasion had already been defeated before the storm broke over the fleet.
2. The sea landing (IIRC in December 1914) in German East Africa which was defeated on the "beach".
In both instances the landings were complete failures, being unable to even remain on the beach and being forced to reembark. Although the casualties suffered by the British/Indian troops in East Africa was only a fraction of that of Kublai Khan's, in terms of site selection and planning, that has to be a leader in the most incompetent category.
Dieppe was only a raid. On Gallipoli the beaches were secured on day 1 (both the April and August landings) - they ran into difficulties inland but were never in danger of being pushed off the beaches. Anzio was similar to Gallipoli, although early on there was concern that the Germans might have broken through to the beachhead.
Alfred
- CarnageINC
- Posts: 2208
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:47 am
- Location: Rapid City SD
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response [;)]ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response [;)]ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.
You know, I did not say that I thought it was working as designed. I said that we considered historical stand off distanes when setting the distance from shore that the transports would unloading into landing craft.
I am no longer directly involved in support - just stick my nose in with a comment once in a while. But I do think it is universally recognized that CD and Naval Bombardment need some tuning.
Also, having once been an IBM trained manager, I have been trained in and have come to absolutely detest the "position as question" method of debate.
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
ORIGINAL: d0mbo
I think WWI gallipoli (sp?); although i dont think it was the landing itself that went terribad......
no. The defenders had no CD defenses. MG's and rifles in those places where the landing was opposed. Gallipoli did witness the first dedicated (through conversion) landing ship attempt aka "The River Clyde" She was retrofitted with troop disembarking ramps and had sandbagged MG installations to cover the men as they disembarked.
I would mention that part of the reason, a big part, that no AP's were lost was because the Allies chose their locations with care and brought an overwhelming weight of support along with them. They tended to avoid assaulting places with heavy CD defenses. lol....first it was complained that CD's were too anemic....now they're overpowered. [:D]
- CarnageINC
- Posts: 2208
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:47 am
- Location: Rapid City SD
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response [;)]ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
When designing the Amphibious Invasion process for AE, we went to the trouble of looking up the line of departure distance for several major invasions in the Pacific. The AE functions will generate transport ranges (from shore) well within these historical ranges. Transport locations and line-of-departure would of course be set for the shortest reasonable run in for the landing craft.
You know, I did not say that I thought it was working as designed. I said that we considered historical stand off distanes when setting the distance from shore that the transports would unloading into landing craft.
I am no longer directly involved in support - just stick my nose in with a comment once in a while. But I do think it is universally recognized that CD and Naval Bombardment need some tuning.
Also, having once been an IBM trained manager, I have been trained in and have come to absolutely detest the "position as question" method of debate.
I meant no offensive nor I'm I trying to debate you. I value the opinion of anyone who has worked on AE had no idea you were not involved in the game anymore.
RE: Losing AP's during invasion
ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
So even though very few AP's were lost in all the invasions you feel that this is WAD when you designed it? I understand that CD fire go after the escorts mostly but don't you think that the losses suffered in the overall picture of invasions by AP's is to high? Whats your thoughts on loss ratio of the AP's versus escorts now when looking at the data in AAR's? Thanks for any response [;)]
You know, I did not say that I thought it was working as designed. I said that we considered historical stand off distanes when setting the distance from shore that the transports would unloading into landing craft.
I am no longer directly involved in support - just stick my nose in with a comment once in a while. But I do think it is universally recognized that CD and Naval Bombardment need some tuning.
Also, having once been an IBM trained manager, I have been trained in and have come to absolutely detest the "position as question" method of debate.
I meant no offensive nor I'm I trying to debate you. I value the opinion of anyone who has worked on AE had no idea you were not involved in the game anymore.
No worries. Been on the project a long time and we're just tired of each other.