British Indian Ships and Troops Question

[Rogue187]

I am starting to get a build up of ships and troops in Aden and Colombo and I have no idea what I am supposed to do with them. I have studied a lot of the Pacific action, be the Burma-China-India Theater is something I am really weak with. As I understand it, most of the action was on land and fairly static after Burma fell. I know the Japaneses made a couple of attempts to invade India, but they weren't successful. I know I need to build up along the India-Burma border, but should I use Auzzie arriving in Aden for this or just keep them going to Oz? Do I just take the British ships and put them in Oz, too?

[Lecivius]

It all depends on what you plan to do in the next year or so. What is your current plan of action for the future?

[Canoerebel]

It's up to you, depending on how you read you game, the threats and the opportunities.

In the Real War, the Allies all but ignored Sumatra, Malaya and Java in order to focus on other vectors. You can change that. Many/most players do.

Early in the game, your strategy will depend on perceived or realized threats to India and/or Oz.

Later in the game (sometimes as early as late 1942, cough, cough) you may choose a course that takes you to Sumatra or wherever.

By late game, even if you've pretty much ignored the DEI to that point, you'll probably have enough assets to open a new theater in the DEI if you think it makes sense to do so.

The main thing about British and Commonwealth troop pools is that they're limited. It's best not to get a bunch of British and Australian divisions torn up. But that's something we all probably have to learn...just as we have to learn not to go and get our carriers sunk in 1942 in the zeal of inexperience.

[anarchyintheuk]

I hate to say that it all depends . . . but it all depends. I'm assuming it's somewhere around 2/42. Are you playing solo or not? If not, have you seen signals intelligence indicating an invasion of India or Australia? Is Japan pushing up from Burma towards the Chittagong-Ledo line or have they invaded Darwin? Do you even care if they do? It's more about what areas you want to secure preparatory to countering in 43.

Re: RN, remember that the vast majority have withdrawal dates.

[adarbrauner]

Destinations, Toyohara, in summer, and Okinawa in winter

[jwolf]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Re: RN, remember that the vast majority have withdrawal dates.

Be very careful about this. If a ship to be withdrawn gets severely damaged, you can be in a world of trouble. Always look ahead to the ship withdrawing list before you plan any major naval movements and operations.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Rogue187

I am starting to get a build up of ships and troops in Aden and Colombo and I have no idea what I am supposed to do with them. I have studied a lot of the Pacific action, be the Burma-China-India Theater is something I am really weak with. As I understand it, most of the action was on land and fairly static after Burma fell. I know the Japaneses made a couple of attempts to invade India, but they weren't successful. I know I need to build up along the India-Burma border, but should I use Auzzie arriving in Aden for this or just keep them going to Oz? Do I just take the British ships and put them in Oz, too?

I recommend you read Defeat into Victory, subtitle Battling Japan in Burma and India, 1942-1945, by Field-Marshal Viscount Slim.

The issue of how to handle things there in the game is mostly up to personal choice but is influenced by game mechanics and hindsight. Even if the game mechanics would allow the same thing to happen as happened IRL (defeat of Japanese forces in India followed by rapid Allied advance to Rangoon), the Japan player is unlikely to have everything the same on their side as Japan did historically.

I will say this. After I read the book I was amazed how - at a high level - the game engine gave a good enough accounting of history there.

[adarbrauner]

General ,than Field -Marshal, Slim, was commander of the (#? don't remember) British (CW) Army at Burma's border; he after wrote the official history for that theatre; in the book he strongly discounted Charles Orde Wingate and his operate , read the creation of the Chindit force and subsequent operations;

a great many argue against that's bias, originated by the pretty bad relation with Wingate, who used to relate with collegues and particularly superiors with stanch arrogance and dispise for their military mind narrowness, and for his attitude to by pass them byappealing directly to Churchill leveraging political and PR issues;
gathered a nice lot of enmity at Dehli, but also some potent protectors such as Wavell and Lord Moutbatten (not to say Churchill himself);


by his many supporters and admirers, including first his former Chindit subordinates, he was considered the greatest British military genius of the century, and their undiscussed leader, for whom his troops were ready to do everything with him at lead as he always did;


He's also extremely well esteemed and revered till today by the Israel Army, by which he's considered its first inceptor and inspirer, the IDF proudly states it's continuing the legacy and modus operandi of Wingate;




he

[philabos]

+1 for Defeat into Victory, also on SecDef reading list.
Slim took all blame on his own shoulders and gave credit to his subordinates for the successes.
A rare individual.

[adarbrauner]

Gen. Slim

[adarbrauner]

Burma

[adarbrauner]

The Chindits

[adarbrauner]

I don't think that any other operation in the war ever surpassed the Chindits for vision, perseverance up to humans limits and behind, determination, skills, training, daringness, personal example and leadership, sheer courage and adherence to the goals.

No wonder Churchill liked it. Not so much Gen Slim, for his own reasons.

[Rogue187]

I am just playing against the AI. My plan is simple. Stop the Japanese expansion. Recapture lost territory. Win the war. So there is a bit of wiggle room. I have heard some people post something along the lines of "transports in port are transports wasted." I have been trying to keep them busy moving supplies (and fuel from time to time) but I am depleting my off board bases (Aden, Cape Town, Mombasa) and now need to wait for them to rebuild supply. It just leaves me at a loss when I have 40 xAKs, some CA, CLs and weak CVs sitting around doing nothing.

[btd64]

Send them to the Pacific....GP

[Lovejoy]

ORIGINAL: Rogue187
I have heard some people post something along the lines of "transports in port are transports wasted." I have been trying to keep them busy moving supplies (and fuel from time to time) but I am depleting my off board bases (Aden, Cape Town, Mombasa) and now need to wait for them to rebuild supply.

You might consider using them to ship supply and fuel (depending on your position on using AKs to haul fuel) from the East Coast to Cape Town.

[Rogue187]

ORIGINAL: Lovejoy

ORIGINAL: Rogue187
I have heard some people post something along the lines of "transports in port are transports wasted." I have been trying to keep them busy moving supplies (and fuel from time to time) but I am depleting my off board bases (Aden, Cape Town, Mombasa) and now need to wait for them to rebuild supply.

You might consider using them to ship supply and fuel (depending on your position on using AKs to haul fuel) from the East Coast to Cape Town.

I understand where the no fuel on AKs comes from. I don't know if some were fitted out with bladders or had their cargo holds modified to carry large quantities of fuel in real life. I think most players just envision hundreds and hundreds of 55 gallon drums being loaded onto the ship. Personally, I am surprised by the lack of tankers in the early game. I don't know how many I have active (I'm in January 1942), but I would guess between 30-40 off the top of my head. I have never researched it but that just seems low. Did the US, Britain, Australia, DEI, India, and New Zealand only had about three dozen tankers available in the Pacific? Really?

[JeffroK]

Wingate, maybe a good Brigade commander. The Allies had many of these.

Slim, a superb Army commander. Very few available.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Rogue187

ORIGINAL: Lovejoy

ORIGINAL: Rogue187
I have heard some people post something along the lines of "transports in port are transports wasted." I have been trying to keep them busy moving supplies (and fuel from time to time) but I am depleting my off board bases (Aden, Cape Town, Mombasa) and now need to wait for them to rebuild supply.

You might consider using them to ship supply and fuel (depending on your position on using AKs to haul fuel) from the East Coast to Cape Town.

I understand where the no fuel on AKs comes from. I don't know if some were fitted out with bladders or had their cargo holds modified to carry large quantities of fuel in real life. I think most players just envision hundreds and hundreds of 55 gallon drums being loaded onto the ship. Personally, I am surprised by the lack of tankers in the early game. I don't know how many I have active (I'm in January 1942), but I would guess between 30-40 off the top of my head. I have never researched it but that just seems low. Did the US, Britain, Australia, DEI, India, and New Zealand only had about three dozen tankers available in the Pacific? Really?

Probably due to the other war going on at the time.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Rogue187

I understand where the no fuel on AKs comes from. I don't know if some were fitted out with bladders or had their cargo holds modified to carry large quantities of fuel in real life. I think most players just envision hundreds and hundreds of 55 gallon drums being loaded onto the ship. Personally, I am surprised by the lack of tankers in the early game. I don't know how many I have active (I'm in January 1942), but I would guess between 30-40 off the top of my head. I have never researched it but that just seems low. Did the US, Britain, Australia, DEI, India, and New Zealand only had about three dozen tankers available in the Pacific? Really?

Yes really... [8D] I think the game portrays this very accurately.

1) is mentioned already... a War in the Atlantic. North America had to float fuel oil to the fortress United Kingdom as the Med was closed to the British.

2) Check out the wiki threads on Escort Carriers and what they were designed from ... The Sangamon class as a specific example - they were built from Tankers as I recall... or shipframes laid down as tankers.

3) While the United States shipped oil / fuel around the world in those days as a very larger exporter... they were not specifically "American Ships" carrying that supply. Japan had quite a few because they depending upon the USA for something like 90% of their oil / fuel pre war. I am sure you read that part some where before.