Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Adding Fast Transport capabilty

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Adding Fast Transport capabilty Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Adding Fast Transport capabilty - 11/27/2015 1:25:05 PM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9695
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Since John 3rd didn't have a turn in my inbox to do over morning coffee, I got to thinking about our game and a comment made recent about adding Troop and Cargo capacity to Allied warships in this section of forum. If that was to happen, what values would you use? What warship classes would you add this for? Would it be limited to British and American? I reinstalled my WITP to see what was used then and found nothing (I think it was a code thing as I remember players using BBs in Fast Transport TFs). I did get a shock when I saw that old map.

So, I looked at values for Japanese DDs and CLs. The DDs have Troop capacity from 150 to 200 and Cargo capacity from 50 to 75 while CLs have Troop capacity from 200 to 500 and Cargo capacity from 75 to 300.

Thanks!

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Adding Fast Transport capabilty - 11/27/2015 3:57:55 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16423
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Was about to call you Michael but saw this and thought a discussion involving the Forum might work far better.

I've always felt that the American APDs should have some sort of Troop capacity. Adding this would certainly bring more desire to convert the old DDs into something far more useful.

One of the problems in going beyond this is DOCTRINE.
a. I don't think the Americans ever seriously exploited/contemplated the use of their DDs/CLs in this capacity.
b. The Brits might what with Crete and Dinkirk.
c. The Dutch--with irony--might be the most likely candidate to have contemplated this idea.


As to looking at a Vanilla AE/WitP Map, it is a SHOCK isn't it??!! I felt like I was going back to the dark Ages in agreeing to my Scen 1 game with Herbie. It is taking some serious time to become used to it!

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 2
RE: Adding Fast Transport capabilty - 11/27/2015 5:44:06 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16423
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Here is the APD-Class. It shows a troops capacity of 180. How about we change things to 100 Troops and 150 Supply? Would seem to be a boon to the Allied Side...





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 3
RE: Adding Fast Transport capabilty - 11/27/2015 6:12:38 PM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I've always felt that the American APDs should have some sort of Troop capacity. Adding this would certainly bring more desire to convert the old DDs into something far more useful.

One of the problems in going beyond this is DOCTRINE.
a. I don't think the Americans ever seriously exploited/contemplated the use of their DDs/CLs in this capacity.
b. The Brits might what with Crete and Dinkirk.
c. The Dutch--with irony--might be the most likely candidate to have contemplated this idea.


If you read the US Amphibious Ships Illustrated Design History book by Norman Friedman (which is part of the larger series of books on the Illustrated Design History of US Warships), http://tinyurl.com/usphibshistory, there is a section that talks about the development of the APD. The US Marines had discovered as early as the mid-30s that a four piper could carry part of a combat team and that five destroyers modified could carry a full combat company minus heavy equipment like artillery or tanks. The tests were conducted in the late 30s with two ships losing torpedos and gaining boat davits. The issue was supplies and accommodations. To quote the book:
quote:

On 19-20 January 1938 the old destroyer Jacob Jones (DD 130) successfully carried 100 Marines for 19 hours. Fortunately, she had been fitted with an extra head for a midshipmen's cruise. Her galley proved entirely adequate. The tests included transfer at sea, but admittedly they were conducted under favorable conditions, with high visibility, moonlight, and no surf. A Marine board reviewing the experiment believed that similar results could have been achieved under less favorable conditions, however.
The rest of the section of a chapter goes on how the Marine board and the Naval Planning Board (the folks who decided what ships were built and how) thought that at a minimum 200 men on a converted DD could be carried for at least 24 hours after onload without fatigue damage, 100 men for at least 48 hours with no fatigue damage and that any conversion would have cost a pair of boilers at the lost of some speed (33 down to 27 knots) and that the torpedo tubes could be removed to add davits for launching extra boats. As well as extra space to store all the extra small arms. They even went as far as that these destroyers could be used as landing craft from the large personnel transports and be fitted with rubber rafts and special motorized squad boats. As the Marine Raiders stood up, to be a counter to the Army Rangers and duplicate the British Commandos; the US Navy begrudgingly gave up old flush deck four pipers for conversion or some older escort destroyers to be used for carrying the raiders to locations and later on were used by the UDT teams during the war. The speed of these ships to zip in and drop of the raiding parties. The fact that the 4" guns and later the 3"/50s rapid fire dual purpose guns could be used to supplement the lost artillery that couldn't be carried by these ships made them useful. It was in these missions that the US Navy and US Marines really found value in the APD's and the concept hung around till about the middle of the Vietnam war. That fast destroyers could have space for a Marine Raiders or UDT teams a destroyer would lose a whale boat and gain a landing boat in one of its davits. Then they could deliver the troops to the beaches prior to landings. This was what the South Vietnamese were doing just prior to the Tonkin Gulf incidents with their ships, and the US was watching off the coast.

Funny enough in the same chapter as the APD's was talk that just prior to the war start the Marines were looking for ways to transport a full battalion of troops with all the heavy equipment to hostile shores. There was talk of converting the Wyoming class of ships to be either hybrids or full on transports capable of carrying tanks and artillery. This was rejected because the BB's were too deep draft and the costs of full on conversion into the citadel would have made it cost prohibitive in those budget constraint times of the late 30s and early 40s.

< Message edited by YankeeAirRat -- 11/27/2015 7:13:42 PM >


_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4
RE: Adding Fast Transport capabilty - 11/27/2015 6:22:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16423
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
THAT is pretty cool! Like that this is something fully reflected in Fleet Tactics/Doctrine with the Marines.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 5
RE: Adding Fast Transport capabilty - 11/27/2015 6:58:11 PM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline
Well you have to remember to that prior to WW2, the Fleet Marine Force was really a series of platoons or combat teams (which at the time were similar to a reinforced platoon or a weak company of men that didn't have heavy equipment except maybe a pack howitzer) that were to be part of a landing team to go ashore to deal with issues ashore where US civilians were being harassed or harmed by the local situation. That the CAs, BBs, and CVs all carried Marines who manned the guns and did the landing team bit with the rest of the ship's force in those situations. Whether we are talking chasing Yangtze River Pirates, defending plantations in the PI, or securing whole nations like Nicaragua or Haiti. The idea of getting a larger force than those combat teams rapidly to some locations on DDs was something worthwhile to consider. Also, the tactic of landing on a beach versus an administrative landing in a friendly port was relatively new concept and a tactic that is still being argued about even to today's military theory schools.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 6
RE: Adding Fast Transport capabilty - 11/27/2015 7:22:39 PM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9695
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
So if we go with just adjusting the Allied APDs, then would decreasing the Troop from 180 to 150 and adding the Cargo at 50 work?

Looked up the Marine Raider Bn and they have 1029 Troop and zero Cargo load values. The Allies would be able to load their troops and some supplies. There are some Commonwealth ships that can go into Fast Transport TFs, but not many.

_____________________________


(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 7
RE: Adding Fast Transport capabilty - 11/28/2015 2:53:49 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16423
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Sounds pretty good to me. Adds some lift and makes sense considering what YAR quoted above.

We went out today and saw CREED. I thought the film was pretty good and Stallone was excellent. Very interesting and a walk down amnesia lane for those of us who sat in the theatres when the Rocky Movies came out.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 8
RE: Adding Fast Transport capabilty - 11/28/2015 3:11:58 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
I have two really nice books, memoirs of destroyer duty in the Pacific during that war.
South Pacific Destroyer and Tin Can Sailor.
Have not read either in maybe a year, but at least one talks about transporting land troops in the Solomons/New Guinea campaigns, the troops of course were on the decks.

Both books are excellent reads, readily available, and known well enough that naming the authors should not be necessary.

_____________________________




(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 9
RE: Adding Fast Transport capabilty - 12/1/2015 3:04:36 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5946
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
John/Michael, RHS has troop and cargo on many warships and even some AO's and tankers. Take a look....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Adding Fast Transport capabilty 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

0.125