NationStates Jolt Archive


Naval Landings

The Island of Rose
24-10-2004, 22:12
First of all don't expect an OMG UBER LONG guide. I'm just going to nitpick about a few things that bother me. In fact, don't expect anything fancy either.

Me being an OMG UBER ISLAND NATION, I must have an OMG NAVY bigger then my Air Force or Army. I bet nations that have a coast have large Navies also, but maybe I'm wrong.

Well, this is a guide/rant about...

Dan dan dan!

NAVAL LANDINGS

What is a Naval Landing?

It's when you land on a nation with boats.

Now when people think of Naval Landings I bet you think of OMG NORMANDY! That means you must think of.

-Heavily fortified beaches
-Men dieing and screaming
-Saving Private Ryan

Well guess what boys and girls, it's not as easy as it looks. If you want to make a naval landing first you must:

-Find out if he has a shore
(You can't invade an inland nation)

-Ask about defenses
(Make sure it is OOC, ICly he's not going to tell you. You just can't waltz up with 100,000 men, say "I claim this land in the name of England!" and not expect to get shot. No, quite the opposite, you'll get shot multiple times, yes, multiple times. Or beat back.)

Well... now that you have done the basics, let's get to more basics... how to land properly.

First of all, it takes time to enter a nation with water. And the defending nation can use that time to... I don't know, blow your ships out of the water making you waste billions of lives and dollars?

(But I have Air Troops!)

Oh yeah, but they can't stay alive without food, water, supplies? They'll run out soon and then they'll get cut! Or killed, or both...

Now, let's say most of your ships arrive at shore and you have a beachhead.

(But wait, you forgot about terrain!)

Why yes I did! Remember kiddies, soldiers can't walk on mud or tanks land good on forest coasts. They're not Master Chief you know!

(Now to the beach head)

Yes.... now you must figure out the following:

-Find a Harbor or make one
(Those big boats need to land somewhere!)

You have a Harbor? Good! Now you need to go inside the country, take down the cities, and then you can finally say....

"I claim this land in the name of England!"

But defenders, use scorched Earth. If they can't suck from your land, you'll complicate them logistics of theirs.

Ah logisitics! Remember attackers, a Naval Landing is OMG LOGISTICALLY LONG! So you'll have to waste billions doing a landing.

Defenders, now you must be thinking (I'll build walls and things!)

Don't worry, just have tanks outside the landing beach and blast em.

And that was the informal guide to beach landings, give me criticisms and advice, hell, I suck at logistics really :D

Of course if you want to take an Island, there are alternatives:


OOC:

Looks good to me. The fact that naval landings are such difficult, complex, painful affairs is why I've never gone through with one. All the logistics, amphibious unit assualts, beating back already fortified enemy positions at the landing sites - in my admittedly limited RPing experience, I've found it easier to bomb the enemy from afar until they're forced to the bargaining table instead. There is much more to landing on a hostile shore than some currently believe, and I think this post does a good job of explaining some of that.

And defenders, you don't need to destroy every ship with big ships. And offenders, a small tip.

To have a naval landing you need a couple of other things:
naval superiority
Well it is kind of obvious but you would be surprised how many people forget how damaging the odd mini sub or fast patrol boat is to things like landing craft and RiBs. You don't nessicarilly have to destroy their entire navy but you have to make sure he doesn't have any where you are landing, thus you can now use your big shiny ships to pound his defenses (or if you are a truly sneaky bugger, blow up his reserve tanks with long range missiles... oops did i say that out loud )
Air superiority:
Again pretty obvious but rather difficult considering that you will be relying solely on carrier borne aircraft (you did remember your carriers?), unless you happen to have friendly bases within a couple of hundred Ms.

Unless you have both of these you may as well not bother with a full naval landing, of course small raids are something else...

And of course there are other ways to land supplies.


Way back when the World-Wide Cluster Fuck, Scene Two was playing the amphibious troops didn't have the luxury of hovercraft to land tanks and other heavy equipment away from the wet sand of the shoreline. They also did not have the luxury of heavy-lift transport aircraft to land more troops once an airport was secure.

Standard Imperial Marines doctrine have always been to force an initial beachead with light infantry and cavalry divisions and then follow up with mechanized infantry divisions as a second wave. When that occurs the troops would move inland and secure the neareast international airport for the heavy-lift aircraft to begin bringing in Imperial Army troops. It saves time and lives to not have to force a harbor and is arguably the quicker and less risky solution.

But Crookfur wants to add something to that:

the majority of amphibious operations in NS are not going to be D-Day or any of the other western theatre landings of WW2, they are going to at best similar to the pacific island hoping or at worst like the Falklands (funny how people forget about the fact that it was a rahter large modern amphibious, or rather combined arms, operation) ie fought at the end of very very long supply chains.

D-day involved over 7000ships (and contary to my estemed collegue SS's statemnet the nromandy ports were fairly high on the objective lists despite the fact that the allies basically biult entirely new ones at each landing site) yet it involved a relatively short crossing. To make that sort of landing in the NS enviroment you will be required to double or tripple the number of vessels. While the ships used will likely be individually of a higher capability you will face the fact that you will need to carry all the massive stores that were warehoused in the south east of england with you.

Here's a lil History for ya:


the difficulty of amphibious landings is the prinicipal reason the US Marines got a bunch of helicopters, and there hasn't been a major (division sized) landing since Korea (Inchon 1950)

It takes a really big war to have a situation so critical that a nation is willing to take the casualties and risks needed for a major amphibious assault.

World War 2 saw a lot of Amphibous landings.... some were relatively unopposed, but some, like Omaha Beach, Tarawa and Iwo Jima were extremely costly.

Invade a defended beach and you are going to have to soak up a lot of lumps.

Major airborne (parachute) assaults have the same problems too, and the last big one was a brigade sized assault in Congo in the 1970s

Our own Omz222 has more info-mation.


However, with airborne assaults, the danger of surface-to-air weapons aside, you do have to remember that if you drop troops into someone's territory in a joint operation, you gotta either have some way to have then link up with the incoming amphibious forces for supplies (just like in Operation Overlord/D-Day). Otherwise, it is highly likely that these airborne troops aren't going to survive for long without food and ammunition.
Helicopter landing could be possible, but it couldn't carry much equipment, and you do need a landing site for helicopters to actually land. The helicopters could also be exposed to surface-to-air missiles, if a shore bombardment is done improperly and there are still large concentrations of enemy troops very near the area. As with this, I also don't quite approve putting LCACs into the water tens of kilometers away and have them make their way towards the shore on their own, since the possibility is that they are going to be blown up, unless you drop a combination of LCACs and LCUs from a short distance offshore, while maintaining air support and have the naval gunfire support that you'd need (since most 5" guns on RL ships right now can't fire their percise rounds too far, and missiles are very expensive to do the job). Logistics will also be a problem if you do drop the LCACs thirty miles away, since not only you'd need a much longer time to pick up and deliver the supplies, but also that you can only do so via the landing craft and (hopefully) helicopters. The amphibious ships would be within range of shore-based missile and coastal artillery batteries anyways (which is also another reason why warships should be armored in NS naval combat).
----------------------------
Because of these factors, and although the Omzian Navy rarely conducts actual landings, our doctrine for a typical medium-scale amphibious operation is always (after obstacles has been cleared through an intensive shore bombardment) using a sizable amount of Marine infantry forces to land from landing craft and amphibious tractors at close ranges, while destroyers, cruisers, and carrier aircraft provide continued gunfire and close air support. If mobile gun and missile batteries on enemy shore fires, it is likely that UAVs over the area will pick the source up (which will be another target for the 5" and 8" rounds on my destroyers). Once the main infantry lands, armor (in the form of tanks) will also land via LST vessels, while they advance towards their objectives (which will be typically linking up with possible airborne troops, capturing a significant nearby town linked to other hostile territories, and/or capturing a possible airstrip or dock). Once this is finished and the beachhead is secured, casulties will be evacuated, while they are replaced by other soldiers, delivered from ships and helicopters.
Inkana
24-10-2004, 22:16
Not bad, not bad at all!
The Island of Rose
24-10-2004, 22:22
((ooc: Comment!))
The Island of Rose
24-10-2004, 22:32
And of course I am ignored :(
Democratic Colonies
24-10-2004, 22:33
OOC:

Looks good to me. The fact that naval landings are such difficult, complex, painful affairs is why I've never gone through with one. All the logistics, amphibious unit assualts, beating back already fortified enemy positions at the landing sites - in my admittedly limited RPing experience, I've found it easier to bomb the enemy from afar until they're forced to the bargaining table instead. There is much more to landing on a hostile shore than some currently believe, and I think this post does a good job of explaining some of that. Well done TIOR.
The Island of Rose
24-10-2004, 22:36
((OOC: Thank you. Maybe people will RP naval landing properly. I mean, I've seen alot of landings where they just land and start marching inwards))
Crookfur
24-10-2004, 22:37
Toa hcive a naval alnding you need a couple of other things:
naval superiority
Well it is kind of obvious but you would be surpirsed how many people forget how damaging the odd mini sub or fast patrol boat is to things like landing craft and RiBs. You dont nessicarilly have to destroy thier entire navy but you have to amke sure he doesn't have any where you are landing, thus you can now use your big shiny ships to pound his defenses (or if you are a truely sneaky bugger, blow up his reserve tanks with long rnage missiles... oops did i say that out loud ;) )
Air superiority:
Again pretty obvious but rahter difficult cosnidering that you will be relying solely on carrier borne aircraft (you did remember your carriers?), unless you happen to have freidnly bases within a couple of hundred KMs.

Unless you have both of these you may as well not bother witha fulls clae landing, of course small raids are soemthign else...
imported_Illior
24-10-2004, 22:37
And of course I am ignored :(
I know how you feel buddy, I know, Only 2 people have come to see the Uberly Awesome ground attack aircraft.
The Island of Rose
24-10-2004, 22:39
Croofur: Yup, forgot about that. Want me to add it? Maybe after a few spellchecks =/

Illior: Yup.
Crookfur
24-10-2004, 22:47
Croofur: Yup, forgot about that. Want me to add it? Maybe after a few spellchecks =/

Illior: Yup.

hey spell check away :) I will be the first to admit I have a bad habit of inserting interesting typos when in full flow
Avadria
24-10-2004, 22:48
Great job TIoR. Both informative and slightly humerous. I will consult this if I do choose to undertake any naval landings.
Present Day Comatica
24-10-2004, 22:49
It sounded like you were really pissed off when you wrote that.
imported_Illior
24-10-2004, 22:49
hey spell check away :) I will be the first to admit I have a bad habit of inserting interesting typos when in full flow
same here, letters next to the one i wanna hit i actually hit, it annoys me.
Crookfur
24-10-2004, 22:49
Why did you post this? On a fucking site that has nothing to do with real world engagements? I'm sure all those guys who conduct our naval invasions are holding you in the highest esteem right now. Kill yourself you dumbass :sniper:

Oh dear did we forget our medicine this morning?
Just wait right here and i'm sure the medical staff will be by shortly to make everything better...
The Island of Rose
24-10-2004, 22:50
Why did you post this? On a fucking site that has nothing to do with real world engagements? I'm sure all those guys who conduct our naval invasions are holding you in the highest esteem right now. Kill yourself you dumbass :sniper:

When properly insulting people you must use the :mp5: smiley. Remember that.
Inshallah
24-10-2004, 22:50
sticky.
The Island of Rose
24-10-2004, 22:52
It sounded like you were really pissed off when you wrote that.

I was.

Great job TIoR. Both informative and slightly humerous. I will consult this if I do choose to undertake any naval landings.

I try.

sticky.

It should.
The Island of Rose
24-10-2004, 23:08
I bump j00!
Israelities et Buddist
24-10-2004, 23:19
wow, someone needs to come back to reality. Make that somepeole. :eek:


(remebered to use a smiley)
The Island of Rose
24-10-2004, 23:21
wow, someone needs to come back to reality. Make that some people. :eek:


(remebered to use a smiley)

^I try to curb godmodding and I get this. Bah.
Avadria
24-10-2004, 23:23
Eh, just look at their post count and origin date. These people are most likely to godmod and what have you.

Kudos for you TiOR on trying to keep things within the realm of reality for the game.
Vastiva
24-10-2004, 23:26
OOC:

Looks good to me. The fact that naval landings are such difficult, complex, painful affairs is why I've never gone through with one. All the logistics, amphibious unit assualts, beating back already fortified enemy positions at the landing sites - in my admittedly limited RPing experience, I've found it easier to bomb the enemy from afar until they're forced to the bargaining table instead. There is much more to landing on a hostile shore than some currently believe, and I think this post does a good job of explaining some of that. Well done TIOR.

OOC: Very true. This is why Vastiva's SOP is to let someone else make the beach head. We'll just stand back and shotgun the enemy with cruise missiles and naval artillery, thank you very much.
Israelities et Buddist
24-10-2004, 23:30
i resent that, and was here for a long time but lost other nation and had a couple 1000 posts. im no n00b. :upyours: I also belong to family with a lot of political power in real life. I wasnt saying ur thingy mabob wasnt good, as a matter of fact it was extremely close to real life
The Island of Rose
24-10-2004, 23:32
i resent that, and was here for a long time but lost other nation and had a couple 1000. im no n00b. :upyours:

I never called you a n00b. I'm just upset that I get smartass comments after I typed this.
Israelities et Buddist
24-10-2004, 23:35
i wasnt saying ur thingy mabob wasnt good, as a matter of fact it was extremely close to real life
Israelities et Buddist
24-10-2004, 23:39
sorry i also came in a little bias agianst u too :(
The Island of Rose
24-10-2004, 23:41
It's okay. It is hard to read sarcasm on the Internet ;)
Avadria
24-10-2004, 23:43
I suppose I owe an apology to you israelities. I suppose I read your comment in the wrong tone. It was a misunderstanding. I am sorry for my reaction.
Izistan
24-10-2004, 23:53
OOC: I'll keep this in mind if and when I have to invade someone.
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 00:10
OOC: I'll keep this in mind if and when I have to invade someone.

Thanks!
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 00:38
Bump
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 00:54
Post now!
Scandavian States
25-10-2004, 01:21
Nice, but I do have a rebuttle for one point. You said that if one wants to invade a country one must find a harbor, I say that this isn't necessarily true. Way back when the World-Wide Cluster Fuck, Scene Two was playing the amphibious troops didn't have the luxury of hovercraft to land tanks and other heavy equipment away from the wet sand of the shoreline. They also did not have the luxury of heavy-lift transport aircraft to land more troops once an airport was secure.

Standard Imperial Marines doctrine have always been to force an initial beachead with light infantry and cavalry divisions and then follow up with mechanized infantry divisions as a second wave. When that occurs the troops would move inland and secure the neareast international airport for the heavy-lift aircraft to begin bringing in Imperial Army troops. It saves time and lives to not have to force a harbor and is arguably the quicker and less risky solution.
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 01:30
Well Scan, the WWI Clusterfuck is called the Clusterfuck for a reason. Either way, I'll add your comment to the first post :)
IDF
25-10-2004, 01:40
good job TIOR, if only my text books inserted humor like that, then I'd enjoy homework. otherwise TAG.
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 01:42
Somebody's gotta teach em :D
Procco
25-10-2004, 01:44
Heh, I love all the OMGs.
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 01:51
Heh, I love all the OMGs.

Thank you :)
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 02:13
bump
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 02:25
I bump thee in the name of England!
New Shiron
25-10-2004, 03:22
good posts Island of Rose.....

the difficulty of amphibious landings is the prinicipal reason the US Marines got a bunch of helicopters, and there hasn't been a major (division sized) landing since Korea (Inchon 1950)

It takes a really big war to have a situation so critical that a nation is willing to take the casualties and risks needed for a major amphibious assault.

World War 2 saw a lot of Amphibous landings.... some were relatively unopposed, but some, like Omaha Beach, Tarawa and Iwo Jima were extremely costly.

Invade a defended beach and you are going to have to soak up a lot of lumps.

Major airborne (parachute) assaults have the same problems too, and the last big one was a brigade sized assault in Congo in the 1970s
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 03:29
Thanks. And of course I'll add your comment.
Nation of Fortune
25-10-2004, 03:30
No, quite the opposite, you'll get shot, and then ass raped if it was my Island.

That line is awesome
IDF
25-10-2004, 03:35
That line is awesome
I agree, but the mods won't sticky it because of that line and others. If only other NS players could lighten up and laugh some.
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 03:48
I edited it and now it's clean...ish.
Omz222
25-10-2004, 03:52
Great thread here, should be able to clear up some confusion and the belief that you can land 1 to 2 million troops onto someone's beaches without much preparation in one sigle blow.

However, for some basic information and some indepth stuff about how amphibious landing should be conducted, I refer to this excellent link:
http://www.g2mil.com/amphib-1.htm

However, with airborne assaults, the danger of surface-to-air weapons aside, you do have to remember that if you drop troops into someone's territory in a joint operation, you gotta either have some way to have then link up with the incoming amphibious forces for supplies (just like in Operation Overlord/D-Day). Otherwise, it is highly likely that these airborne troops aren't going to survive for long without food and ammunition.
Helicopter landing could be possible, but it couldn't carry much equipment, and you do need a landing site for helicopters to actually land. The helicopters could also be exposed to surface-to-air missiles, if a shore bombardment is done improperly and there are still large concentrations of enemy troops very near the area. As with this, I also don't quite approve putting LCACs into the water tens of kilometers away and have them make their way towards the shore on their own, since the possibility is that they are going to be blown up, unless you drop a combination of LCACs and LCUs from a short distance offshore, while maintaining air support and have the naval gunfire support that you'd need (since most 5" guns on RL ships right now can't fire their percise rounds too far, and missiles are very expensive to do the job). Logistics will also be a problem if you do drop the LCACs thirty miles away, since not only you'd need a much longer time to pick up and deliver the supplies, but also that you can only do so via the landing craft and (hopefully) helicopters. The amphibious ships would be within range of shore-based missile and coastal artillery batteries anyways (which is also another reason why warships should be armored in NS naval combat).
----------------------------
Because of these factors, and although the Omzian Navy rarely conducts actual landings, our doctrine for a typical medium-scale amphibious operation is always (after obstacles has been cleared through an intensive shore bombardment) using a sizable amount of Marine infantry forces to land from landing craft and amphibious tractors at close ranges, while destroyers, cruisers, and carrier aircraft provide continued gunfire and close air support. If mobile gun and missile batteries on enemy shore fires, it is likely that UAVs over the area will pick the source up (which will be another target for the 5" and 8" rounds on my destroyers). Once the main infantry lands, armor (in the form of tanks) will also land via LST vessels, while they advance towards their objectives (which will be typically linking up with possible airborne troops, capturing a significant nearby town linked to other hostile territories, and/or capturing a possible airstrip or dock). Once this is finished and the beachhead is secured, casulties will be evacuated, while they are replaced by other soldiers, delivered from ships and helicopters.
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 03:58
Omz222, your freakishly long comment has been added :D
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 04:15
Well... I ran this through mIRC in #themodcave. It ain't gettin stickied, not "mindblowingly useful enough"

So... I need comment, the newbies must learn! Oh and I go to sleep!
Crookfur
25-10-2004, 11:35
I think ic oudla gree with it not beign sticked but hva eyou tried getting it added to oen of the "big list of useful stuff" posts.

<set voice=uncle from Jacki Chan> One More thing!</voice>

the majority of amphibious operations in NS are not going to be D-Day or any of the other western theatre landings of WW2, they are going to at best similar to the pacific island hoping or at worst like the Falklands (funny how people forget about the fact that it was a rahter large modern amphibious, or rather combined arms, operation) ie fought at the end of very very long supply chains.

D-day involved over 7000ships (and contary to my estemed collegue SS's statemnet the nromandy ports were fairly high on the objective lists despite the fact that the allies basically biult entirely new ones at each landing site) yet it involved a relatively short crossing. To make that sort of landing in the NS enviroment you will be required to double or tripple the number of vessels. While the ships used will likely be individually of a higher capability you will face the fact that you will need to carry all the massive stores that were warehoused in the south east of england with you.
Praetonia
25-10-2004, 11:44
I claim TIoR in the name of England!

Good guide.
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 21:30
Thank j00 all! Crookfur it will of course be added again.......
The Island of Rose
25-10-2004, 21:46
bump
Crookfur
25-10-2004, 21:55
Actually i misread SS's post he didn't acutally imply that the normandy ports were a target so just remove this:
>>
(and contary to my estemed collegue SS's statemnet the nromandy ports were fairly high on the objective lists despite the fact that the allies basically biult entirely new ones at each landing site)
<<

I would still argue that if not of absolute importance a major port is still extremely high on the target list. Even with the latest in high capacity aircraft the only way to shift the required amounts of muntions for a sustained action is by sea. unless you are a very very rich nation then your muntions and heavy support equipment are not going to be loaded on baord your vessels with well decks (ie the ones LCACs oeprate from) but on your bulk transporters and your Ro-Ro ferries, which while they will have soem sort of self unloading capability will unload a heck of a lot faster a decent set of port facilities.
Scandavian States
25-10-2004, 21:59
I know harbors were high priorities on D-Day. I said I don't like to go for them, I'd rather surround them and then blockade them to starve them out, I don't like having men bleed when it isn't necesary.
Crookfur
25-10-2004, 22:05
I would go for them, if for the simple fact that LCACs are very choosy about weahter conditions.

Air feilds are what my airborne divsions are for...
Five Civilized Nations
26-10-2004, 21:39
You mean amphibious landings not naval landings... Please use the correct terms.

Anyways, here's my take.

-----

Amphibious assaults/landings are one of the hardest types of operations to plan out and carry out, as it is one of the military operations that requires a broad spectrum of units, logistics, and support.

The first issue is training your assault force for the amphibious landing with priority given to training them in amphibious warfare doctrines and weeding out the issues associated with sea sickness. Precedence must be given to engineers to clear up beach debris and obstacles, along with soldiers trained in operating amphibious assault vehicles.

The second issue is preparation. Before the attack, a nation must prepare landing ships for infantry, engineers, medics, tanks, armored vehicles, and supplies that are capable of landing these specified items directing on the beach, along with destroyers, cruisers, and maybe battleships for close-in fire support, minesweepers to clear away mines, and air power for suppression and interception duties.

The third and final issue is the assault itself. In such a complex operation, things will almost always go wrong. Examples of near fiascos include the Normandy Operation and the American assault for Okinawa. Always prepare for the unexpected.

As a rule, always provide more fire and air support than necessary as well as enough landing ships to put as many men onto the beach as fast as possible. But never put more troops onto the beach so as to create a bottleneck. It is better to have fewer troops with mobility than a lot of troops with nowhere to move except to be slaughtered. In addition, always provide engineers to clear away mines and obstacles. Without the invaluable service these engineers provide, amphibious assault vehicles will never be able to get off the beach.
Vastiva
27-10-2004, 05:34
How NOT to have an amphibious invasion : See Truk
Dunbarrow
29-11-2004, 00:10
Semi-Bump

Lots of 'phibs to get your guys on shore,
and even more merchies to keep 'em supplied.

*wonders if anyone ever tried to stop a naval invasion by hunting down the supply-convoys, which are less heavily screened*
Japanese Antarctica
29-11-2004, 00:58
OOC: Yeah, I'll keep all of this in mind for a future RP. I'm surprised this isn't stickied actually.

Well, with all that said, I hope everyone realizes that, if possible, it would be MUCH better to find someone who borders your enemy, and, using diplomacy, find a way to convince that country to let you march through their territory into enemy land. I believe the US was trying to do this in the current Gulf War in order to open up a second front with Iraq, by using Turkey as an entry point (but Turkey did not allow it). Also, in the first Persian Gulf War, the Iraqis believed that the US would attempt a D-day style landing. Instead, the strategy was to establish air superiority (Operation Desert Storm) and push the retreating Iraqis out of Kuwait (Operation Desert Sabre). Imagine what would have happened if they tried an amphibious landing.
Unified Bubnor
29-11-2004, 01:26
thanks. entertaining, informative guide.

esp for n00bs like me.
Clan Smoke Jaguar
29-11-2004, 01:48
I seem to recall saying a lot of what's in this thread somewhere before (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=297064).

Some other things to know about landings:
1) The entire US amphbious force is capable of deploying only about 2.5 reinforced marine brigades and supplying them for two weeks. Not a whole lot when you think about it. It's even worse when you consider that about 1/3 of these ships are going to be in refit at any given time, leaving about 16,000 troops that can be delivered in an invasion.

2) The LCAC is actually a hardy little helper. 7 of these will be sufficient to deliver and supply a reinforced marine battalion (in fact, any more will tend to create a bottleneck at the beach), which is why a US amphibious squadron is built around a 7 LCAC capacity.

3) Vertical envelopment (aka helicopter assault) is a popular method of delivering soldiers ashore. Now this is definately good in that it allows troops to be delivered at almost any point on the coastline, but it also has the problem of supplying them. Troops generally won't last more than a few days without resupply, and helicopters are expensive to operate and easy to shoot down or drive away. Thus, this is not good for opposed landings.

4) For all that it's touted with, only about 100,000 troops went ashore on D-Day. The remaining 900,000 were follow-ups. Unfortunately, given the greater supply requirements of modern militaries, the feat of D-Day could not be recreated today. In fact, half that would be a truly impressive feat.

5) Since Amphibiuos forces cannot be expected to maintain a superior capability over their opponents, they rely on naval support and airstrikes to both keep the enemy's forces scattered and provide direct support. Without heavy air cover and gunfire support, the invasion forces will almost certanly be crushed. Unless, of course, they can get a good seaport before they're run down.

6) How does airlifting supplies compare?
A force of 30,000 marines needs about 120,000 tons of supplies (!) to last 30 days. Breaking that down, it amounts to 4000 tons of supplies per day. That equates to 31 C-5B, 53 C-17, or 224 C-130J flights each day, just to support 30,000 marines. Even worse, with the loaded ranges of those aircraft, you must be based less than 2500 km (1550 miles) away for air drops (or 5000 km if you have an airfield on site), or the aircraft will need even more sorties to account for the payload reductions. Even with the huge Pelican ULTRA concept, you'll need at least one or two of these for every marine division you put ashore.
Now, this marine force includes about two brigade's worth each of LAVs and AAVs, with a full battalion of MBTs, so it isn't exactly light. However, with a heavier mechanized infantry or armored division of <20,000, you'll probably need about as much supplies as those 30,000 marines.
Naturally, as multiple divisions start to appear, air supply gets less and less attractive.
Japanese Antarctica
29-11-2004, 01:57
OOC: I apologize if this information is already listed, but I was reading up on JFK and remembered this.

The Bay of Pigs is an example of a failed invasion. For those unfamiliar with it, the US was attempting to overthrow Fidel Castro in 1961, who had overthrown Batista earlier. The US planned to bomb certain targets, land a small force, and get locals to support the effort. What happened was the complete opposite. The air attack was led by old B-26 bombers, and did not do enough damage. The men who would land were about 1,500 Cuban exiles, not as well trained. And they did not receive the support from the locals. In the end, about 1000 people were captured and the landing was a complete embarassment.

So what can we learn from this?

- Air support is key. Establishing air superiority is important to an invading force.
- Don't exactly count on support of natives in the beginning. To get their support, you'll need to do what the CIA did in Afghanistan during the Cold War; infiltrate and start a resistance. War is a traumatizing event, you need to prove to the citizens that your way is better. The Cubans were actually in favor of Castro's government; a recipe for disaster.
-Get good intel. Make sure it's reliable. The exiles thought they would be landing in swampland, but since they last saw that place, urbanization had taken place and terrain had changed. They thought they could escape to mountains, but were surprised to see buildings instead.
-Morale, Morale, Morale. The soldiers in the amphibious operation will most likely be nervous, and with good reason. The exiles who took part in Bay of Pigs were not extremely motivated. As a result, they were easily captured.

All for now. Gotta get back to doing homework.
Doomingsland
29-11-2004, 02:18
OOC:Wow, JA, after reading this, I have no idea how you think you can actualy pull off a succesful invasion, although I have a pretty good idea of how you'll be supported logistically :)
Japanese Antarctica
29-11-2004, 12:58
OOC:Wow, JA, after reading this, I have no idea how you think you can actualy pull off a succesful invasion, although I have a pretty good idea of how you'll be supported logistically :)

OOC: must you follow me where ever I go? I'm just trying to help other people with some historical background. Talk about our war in the war thread.