It's Been said......

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,970
Reaction score
2,040
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
The most important Allied invention of WW2 was the LCVP landing craft. That without this development in the 1930's, the war would have taken far longer and resulted in hundreds if not thousands more Allied forces casualties form amphibious landings.

Thoughts?
 

Bob Walters

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
768
Reaction score
273
Location
Santa Clara, California
Country
llUnited States
You have a point, people always seem to underestimate the importance of landing craft. As I understand it one of the reasons we had to wait until 1944 to invade Europe was the lack of adequate numbers of landing craft.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,193
Reaction score
1,174
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
The most important Allied invention of WW2 was the LCVP landing craft. That without this development in the 1930's, the war would have taken far longer and resulted in hundreds if not thousands more Allied forces casualties form amphibious landings.

Thoughts?
The soviets would have been in Berlin in May anyway; would we have been able to invade France without the landing craft? If not, then we inch up Italy, and maybe invade the Balkans as Churchill wanted, but the Soviets would not have been affected.

In the Pacific it would have retarded landings significantly, but it's hard to tell if Japan wouldn't have been in basically the same position as the blockade of the sub fleet, and the lack of fuel oil would have been about the same. The Abomb could have flown out of China as easily as Saipan.
 
Last edited:

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,193
Reaction score
1,174
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
You have a point, people always seem to underestimate the importance of landing craft. As I understand it one of the reasons we had to wait until 1944 to invade Europe was the lack of adequate numbers of landing craft.
The PTO was always fighting for more, but it would have been starved if the US and Brits had been ready for a cross Channel attack in 1943. We weren't, and it wasn't due to lack of landing craft, although that was a concern. The decision to put off the landing until 1944 (and even have a cross Channel attack at all) was made at Tehran in 1943.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,279
Reaction score
5,365
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I've always thought that. The LCVP and the Atomic Bomb, one and two.

JR
 
Last edited:

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,970
Reaction score
2,040
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
The PTO was always fighting for more, but it would have been starved if the US and Brits had been ready for a cross Channel attack in 1943. We weren't, and it wasn't due to lack of landing craft, although that was a concern. The decision to put off the landing until 1944 (and even have a cross Channel attack at all) was made at Tehran in 1943.
Considering their use began with Operation Torch landings, one thinks it would have been of a serious effect had every ETO landing, not to mention the PTO landings, been forced to occur over the then in production BuShips 30 ft lighters with no ramps that were prone to capsizing in the surf.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,389
Reaction score
3,372
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Others have proposed the Liberty Ship, not because it did a job better than more traditional cargo ships, but because it could be built so quickly and in such numbers it nullified any Axis blockade efforts. Their sheer number and carrying capacity dwarfed everything else. Your LCVP didn't row itself across the Atlantic or Pacific!
 
Last edited:

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,193
Reaction score
1,174
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Considering their use began with Operation Torch landings, one thinks it would have been of a serious effect had every ETO landing, not to mention the PTO landings, been forced to occur over the then in production BuShips 30 ft lighters with no ramps that were prone to capsizing in the surf.
As I said, the PTO would have been starved of LC if otherwise the Wallies were ready to go in 1943, and it would have been enough. The Germany first policy was the right one, but King was always wrangling stuff for the PTO.

There were a lot of advantages in going in 1943 that would have counter-balanced the lack of LC--e.g. there were very few beach fortifications in 1943; the ports were not rigged for destruction. That means an easier time landing and, once captured, a port would go into full capacity much sooner. Cherborg took weeks (months?) to get to full capacity due to the extensive demolition the Germans did. The Brittany ports were never even captured in 1944 in part because they would have been so badly damaged by the Germans that they would have been useless for months. (note, need to fact check this as I don't have access to my notes and sources, so this is off the top of my head).

From the ASL perspective, the US/British Shermans would have gone up against PzIVs instead of PzVs.
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
1,733
Reaction score
667
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
Others have proposed the Liberty Ship, not because it did a job better than more traditional cargo ships, but because it could be built so quickly and in such numbers it nullified any Axis blockade efforts. Their sheer number and carrying capacity dwarfed everything else. Your LCVP didn't row itself across the Atlantic or Pacific!
This....and,
Aircraft carriers.

Note that the OP specifically referred to the LCVP, a craft which is incapable of transporting anything larger than a 1/2 ton truck, let alone a medium tank.
I would imagine that the landings in the Pacific and Normandy would have had a very different outcome if they had been made by an all infantry force.

The premise of landing craft as a key contribution to the final allied victory is certainly a valid one. My belief is that the ultimate allied victory (in all theaters/fronts) in the second world war was as a result of a well executed naval strategy. None of the land based endeavors would have succeeded without the control of the seas.

Perhaps with the prolonged immersion in a complicated, and engrossing land-based game such as ASL, some folks could lose sight of the Navy's contribution to victory being more than landing craft and NOBA.
 
Last edited:

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,193
Reaction score
1,174
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Gato Class submarine.
The older I get the more I think that the US Navy in WW2 was dramatically incompetent at various parts of the war. The undersea war was a prime example. The US held the cards, and due to failings of operations and strategy, took two and a half years to accomplish what should have been done in a year and a half. Yet because the war was ultimately such a success, we often gloss over the problems that were solved long after they should have been. And frankly, that's being kind.

The number one issue, the torpedoes should have been working from the start of the war. There were great examples of the problems the Germans and the Brits had in 1939-41. That they weren't working was nearly criminally negligent. That they weren't made to work after so many skippers complained is a great tragedy in it's own right. It took a year for the USN to decide to test the torpedoes in anything like real world conditions, and that was done at the local level, not by ComSubPac. And even when Lockwood (who started testing before becoming ComSubPac) was installed, the fixes were slow in coming. Young officers' careers were destroyed when they were blamed for the failings of BuOrd and upper command's torpedoes.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,131
Reaction score
1,673
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
We were what the 14th ranked army (or there about) in the world before the war started...you can make the point about weapon systems at outbreak endlessly (and about various nations to boot just pick the weapon system against the nation.)

The flaw lies not with any service but with the outlook of the USA as a nation at that time (and so too other nations with the weapon systems)...for us... "less than engaging". If you are not planning on doing that you are not testing and testing and refining...you are just muddling along...

[Also my post was about a class of sub..not a type of torpedo, of which I am aware of its shot comings...]

So once engaged...

The fact about tonnage sunk stands as a class for the subs... That platform mattered...just like the OPs landing craft answer when floating of the topic.

In short I have heard it called: LC, Gato, and carrier...

In the end, JRV's answer wins...split the atom over their heads...
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,193
Reaction score
1,174
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
My point did not refute yours, so I don't know why you are defending it to me. The USN fought with a broad spectrum of incompetence, and the undersea war in the Pacific had some of the worst.
 

kcole4001

Stray Cat
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
1,447
Reaction score
212
Location
North
Country
llCanada
Enigma computer
I think this is often overlooked, or more accurately, taken for granted.
The cost (in both money and lives) and time required to win the war was dramatically reduced by the intelligence successes of the Allied powers.
Victory was inevitable given the materiel advantage, but it was applied more efficiently because of Ultra and all other intelligence advantages.

It's more of a subtle effect than a particular hardware advantage, but the more one reads about the intelligence campaign the more one sees how much influence it had on strategy and the results of battles, or even better, the possibility of operational success without a battle.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,193
Reaction score
1,174
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I read as incompetence nullifies platform.
That's one reason that the failures are overlooked. In other words, because eventually things worked out, we don't judge the entire effort as poorly as it should be.

As for the platform itself, the only comparable vessels built in numbers were the Japanese fleet subs and the German IX class. I'm not sure how directly comparable the three nationalities are with each other; all suffered from the large size making them slow to submerge and not as maneuverable underwater as the non-fleet subs (German type VII, US S-class). The German boats were able to reach far greater depths than the US boats, and that and speed of submerging are two of the important defenses of the boats. A direct comparison would be interesting, especially on time to submerge, turning radius submerged, deapth changes submerged, battery endurance, range.

I suspect that the German boats were superior in most underwater agility categories. But it's like comparing the Sherman, T34, and Panther. Each had something the others didn't.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,193
Reaction score
1,174
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I think this is often overlooked, or more accurately, taken for granted.
The cost (in both money and lives) and time required to win the war was dramatically reduced by the intelligence successes of the Allied powers.
Victory was inevitable given the materiel advantage, but it was applied more efficiently because of Ultra and all other intelligence advantages.

It's more of a subtle effect than a particular hardware advantage, but the more one reads about the intelligence campaign the more one sees how much influence it had on strategy and the results of battles, or even better, the possibility of operational success without a battle.
Funny, one of the problems with the US sub campaign (sorry to bring it up again, but it is a good example of bad operations based on really good intel) was it's use of sigint data. Sending boats to intercept an A/C carrier whose location was divined from sigint data was a massive waste of time and cost the lives of a few crews, too. As with everything else, it's not just the data/equipment superiority, it's how you apply the superiority.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,131
Reaction score
1,673
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
That's one reason that the failures are overlooked. In other words, because eventually things worked out, we don't judge the entire effort as poorly as it should be.

As for the platform itself, the only comparable vessels built in numbers were the Japanese fleet subs and the German IX class. I'm not sure how directly comparable the three nationalities are with each other; all suffered from the large size making them slow to submerge and not as maneuverable underwater as the non-fleet subs (German type VII, US S-class). The German boats were able to reach far greater depths than the US boats, and that and speed of submerging are two of the important defenses of the boats. A direct comparison would be interesting, especially on time to submerge, turning radius submerged, deapth changes submerged, battery endurance, range.

I suspect that the German boats were superior in most underwater agility categories. But it's like comparing the Sherman, T34, and Panther. Each had something the others didn't.
Not quite. It is a bit like sports. You are judged on championships (overall effect)...ie tonnage sunk. Doesn't matter the season was not perfect...doesn't matter that there could have been a better torpedo for the US.

I suspect Donitz himself would have happily traded one aspect of 'his' advantages for more Allied merchant ships at the bottom of the sea.
 
Last edited:
Top