Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition? - 2/25/2016 4:14:37 AM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline
When invading an atoll one needs to deploy the maximum troops in the first turn. I understand this.

1. When landing a regiment of US army or marines, what is the optimum number of APs or APxs one should have said unit embarked upon to maximize said debarkation?

2. Same as #1, but for a division?

3. Same as #1, but for a 68 tank battalion?

4. When dealing with the TF commander, what is the optimum skill for the commander for off-loading and minimizing disruption? Naval? Land?

5. Same as #1 but for combat engineers.


Thank you!
Post #: 1
RE: Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition? - 2/25/2016 8:38:53 AM   
rms1pa

 

Posts: 269
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline
ow,
a real grognard can give you detailed direction.

for me i like to have 3 to 1 loading so if the personell cost is 800 i want 2400 capacity to invade with. AP/APx is tough and really depends on availability. butt keep in mind if you use small APx with 300 personell capacity they should unload in 1 or 2 days anyhow.

you have enough APs to load a regiment entirely.

divisions not so much.

tanks need the AK not so much AP

good luck
rms/pa


_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 2
RE: Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition? - 2/25/2016 11:58:27 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 2647
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: online
The more the merrier, use as many as you can afford. More ships = less crowded ships = faster unloading

For APs/ AKs, you can unload 600 per phase, so you want around 600 to 1,200 troops per ship. This is easy because most APs are around 1,300 to 1,500 troop capacity

For xAPs/ xAKs, you can unload 250 per phase, so here you really need to use the very small ships only, otherwise it will take too long to unload.
Also, because supplies unload before tanks, it makes sense to load them as "troops only"

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 2/25/2016 11:59:55 AM >

(in reply to rms1pa)
Post #: 3
RE: Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition? - 2/25/2016 2:51:27 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 6178
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Once you get into 1943 and get some LSTs and LCIs, you can start custom loading your units.

Tanks love LSTs so form a Landing Craft TF and load the tanks on LSTs and LCIs or small xAPs. Let the bigger xAPs take second wave stuff like BFs and Engs which you can hold back until it is safe to spend days unloading.

xAKLs may have range issues but if you have a lot of them you can spread out your troop/artillery equipment load so that if one or two get sunk the unit is not totally crippled.

Load some smaller xAKs with supply only (don't forget to create them as an amphib TF, NOT cargo!) so that your landing troops have enough to work with from the get-go.

When you have done your custom loading, combine the TFs into one or two big Amphib TFs for economy of escorts. You do not have to do this at a distant loading base because you may want to start your slowest (LST) ships moving several days before the faster ones. Combine them a couple of days away from target.

On the distance to target point, if I am loading somewhere a long way from target and do not want to (or can't) have an interim rest stop, I put the Infantry and Combat Engineers on the fastest APs so they will be less fatigued from time at sea. Baby your fighting troops as much as you can.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to rms1pa)
Post #: 4
RE: Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition? - 2/25/2016 4:34:12 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 629
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
For atolls I would wait for APA and AKA ships. They will unload 3000 in one phase( or day? - I forget )
If I remember right, you shock attack every turn you unload troops, it helps to get them all unloaded in one turn if possible.

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 2/25/2016 4:35:20 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 5
RE: Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition? - 2/26/2016 3:28:23 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 282
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
My impression has always been, without any real proof, that it's better to use APs and AKs, which are purpose built military transports, than it is to use the civilian conversions xAK or xAP when it comes to unloading times for amphib operations.

But I could totally be wrong.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 6
RE: Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition? - 2/26/2016 4:10:13 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 2647
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

My impression has always been, without any real proof, that it's better to use APs and AKs, which are purpose built military transports, than it is to use the civilian conversions xAK or xAP when it comes to unloading times for amphib operations.

But I could totally be wrong.


Of course they are better, but they are a scarce, thereby strategic asset. Moreover, most of these AKs/ APs will upgrade to AKA/ APA later on (starting in early Q1.43).

So it is more a matter of how many of those APs/ AKs you are willing to risk in an early invasion; you lose too many and your invasion potential will suffer until later.

small xAPs/ xAKs in the other hand are rather abundant, and by mid 42 even redundant, as they are too short ranged, too small/ slow for oceanic trade.
I will try to avoid using xAPs or xAKs in the 1st invasion wave, but in my games they will take care of 2nd line troops


< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 2/26/2016 9:32:45 PM >

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 7
RE: Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition? - 2/26/2016 4:27:45 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 5275
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

My impression has always been, without any real proof, that it's better to use APs and AKs, which are purpose built military transports, than it is to use the civilian conversions xAK or xAP when it comes to unloading times for amphib operations.

But I could totally be wrong.


Of course they are better, but they are a scarce, thereby strategic asset. Moreover, most of these AKs/ APs will upgrade to AKA/ APA later on (starting in early Q3).

So it is more a matter of how many of those APs/ AKs you are willing to risk in an early invasion; you lose too many and your invasion potential will suffer until later.

small xAPs/ xAKs in the other hand are rather abundant, and by mid 42 even redundant, as they are too short ranged, too small/ slow for oceanic trade.
I will try to avoid using xAPs or xAKs in the 1st invasion wave, but in my games they will take care of 2nd line troops




In addition, the scarcity and need to save as many as possible for the upgrade in '43 means not risking them in secondary operations during '42.

I execute most amphibious ops in '42 with civilian transports.

Only the crucial ops get the military transports.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 8
RE: Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition? - 2/26/2016 6:26:54 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 6178
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

My impression has always been, without any real proof, that it's better to use APs and AKs, which are purpose built military transports, than it is to use the civilian conversions xAK or xAP when it comes to unloading times for amphib operations.

But I could totally be wrong.


Of course they are better, but they are a scarce, thereby strategic asset. Moreover, most of these AKs/ APs will upgrade to AKA/ APA later on (starting in early Q3).

So it is more a matter of how many of those APs/ AKs you are willing to risk in an early invasion; you lose too many and your invasion potential will suffer until later.

small xAPs/ xAKs in the other hand are rather abundant, and by mid 42 even redundant, as they are too short ranged, too small/ slow for oceanic trade.
I will try to avoid using xAPs or xAKs in the 1st invasion wave, but in my games they will take care of 2nd line troops




In addition, the scarcity and need to save as many as possible for the upgrade in '43 means not risking them in secondary operations during '42.

I execute most amphibious ops in '42 with civilian transports.

Only the crucial ops get the military transports.

+1 ... and with lots of embedded bombardment ships to soak up/suppress coastal artillery fire ... and ASW protection .... and air cover .... and SCTFs to intercept raiders. Awww, to heck with it - just use xAKs/xAPs you can afford to lose!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Amphibious Task force AP/APx composition? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117