New Transport Defense

[baron Münchhausen]

It seems SS your original way of handling TP was very near Phillip Schwartzer World War II The expansion rule on Classic A&A for Transport.
Unable to defend against warships but able to flee after two attack rolls.
Able to defend @1 (on D6) each combat round against aircrafts but unable to flee from them.

Your rule was more realistic with @1 on D12.

I believe it might help to give a few facts:

Use in battle
On 27 September 1942 the SS Stephen Hopkins was the first (and only) US merchant ship to sink a German surface combatant during the war. Ordered to stop, Stephen Hopkins refused to surrender, the heavily armed German commerce raider Stier and her tender Tannenfels with one machine gun opened fire. Although greatly outgunned, the crew of Stephen Hopkins fought back, replacing the Armed Guard crew of the ship’s lone 4-inch (100 mm) gun with volunteers as they fell. The fight was short, and both ships were wrecks.[26]

On 10 March 1943 the SS Lawton B. Evans became the only ship ever to survive an attack by the German submarine U-221. The following year from 22 to 30 January 1944, the Lawton B. Evans was involved in the Battle of Anzio in Italy. It was under repeated bombardment from shore batteries and aircraft throughout an eight-day period. It endured a prolonged barrage of shrapnel, machine-gun fire and bombs. The gun crew fought back with shellfire and shot down five German planes, contributing to the success of the landing operations.

But Liberty was not the main troop Transport ships.

In September 1943 strategic plans and shortage of more suitable hulls required that Liberty ships be pressed into emergency use as troop transports with about 225 eventually converted for this purpose.

Probably troop transports were much more heavily equipped by Anti-Aircraft guns than standard Liberty ship.

For instance attack Cargo ships, or AKA:

A total of 388 APA (troop) and AKA (cargo) attack transports were built for service in World War II in at least fifteen classes. Depending on class they were armed with one or two 5-inch guns and a variety of 40 mm and 20 mm anti-aircraft weapons.

As amphibious operations became more important in World War II, planners saw the need for a special kind of cargo ship, one that could carry both cargo and the LCM and LCVP boats with which to attack the beach, and that carried guns to assist in anti-air defense and shore bombardment. Specifications were drawn up, and beginning in early 1943, the first 16 U.S. attack cargo ships were converted from Navy cargo ships that had previously been designated AK. During the course of the war, 108 such ships were built; many of them were converted from non-military ships, or started out as non-military hulls.

Attack cargo ships played a vital role in the Pacific War, where many were attacked by kamikazes and other aircraft, and several were torpedoed, but none were sunk or otherwise destroyed. Nine AKAs were present at the surrender ceremony in Tokyo Bay on 2 September 1945.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_transport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_cargo_ship

@Der:

Larry Harris said this about transports in 2007 on his site:

“I will say this… Transports are considered to be lightly defended with escorts. Additional ships provide additional defense and so on.” (Posted: Fri 23.Feb, 2007)

So originally transports were not to be thought of as just transports.

Two maxims of the game have generally been:

1. every decision involves some risk (dice rolls)
2. defender chooses his own casualties

The new transport rules violate both.

@Der:

More research:

The typical troop carrying Liberty ship in WWII had 3 3"/50 cal guns, 1 5"/38 cal gun, and 8 20mm AA guns. How is this now represented in the auto-destroy rule?

The following escort vessels I found in a short search are not represented in this game:

Merchant aircraft carriers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrier

Catapult Aircraft Merchantmen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship

Armed merchant cruisers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_merchantmen#Armed_merchant_cruisers

Corvettes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette#World_War_II

Frigates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate#World_War_II

Escort Carriers 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escort_aircraft_carrier

How do you represent them? Keep Transports defense@1.

And we are not talking about dry goods/grain/supply transports here - supply is not modeled in the game. These are all really Troopships - which were naturally more heavily defended.

[General 6 Stars]

I just double checked. My 40 game has the D12 @1 too. I don’t know if I’m going to go back to the old way.

Wolf double 1 good idea for D6 but 90 % don’t want the change.

[Imperious Leader]

Probably troop transports were much more heavily equipped by Anti-Aircraft guns than standard Liberty ship.

They had none whatsoever. The whole idea is farcical. The fact that one liberty ship damaged a German sub does not mean the thousands of liberty ships should now have AA capabilities or ability to destroy subs or other surface warships is akin to Nazi’s exploring the moon in 1944 and leaving a swastika to mark Hitlers new colony. Only The US and Germany employed decoy ships that were used to trick subs into surfacing, with the Germans using them to sink other merchant ships as Raiders ( no not Los Angeles Raiders).

Holy crap

[Wolfshanze]

@Imperious:

The whole idea is farcical. The fact that one liberty ship damaged a German sub does not mean the thousands of liberty ships should now have AA capabilities or ability to destroy subs or other surface warships is akin to Nazi’s exploring the moon in 1944 and leaving a swastika to mark Hitlers new colony.

So you’re the guy who made this movie?  How did you know the Nazis were on the moon? That base is a secret!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jth4yATniS4

@Imperious:

(no not Los Angeles Raiders).

The Los Angeles Raiders? Dude, you’re several decades out of date, they’ve been in Oakland for a very long time and are about to move to Las Vegas.

[CWO Marc]

@Imperious:

Probably troop transports were much more heavily equipped by Anti-Aircraft guns than standard Liberty ship.

They had none whatsoever. The whole idea is farcical. The fact that one liberty ship damaged a German sub does not mean the thousands of liberty ships should now have AA capabilities or ability to destroy subs or other surface warships is akin to Nazi’s exploring the moon in 1944 and leaving a swastika to mark Hitlers new colony.

I.L. makes an important fundamantal point: units in A&A are a somewhat generic and abstracted representation of what the corresponding unit types did in WWII, and as such their game capabilities should reflect what most of them did most of the time in the circumstances under which they normally operated, not what a small number of them might have done under unusual circumstances.  Or to put it in statistical terms, the modeled capabilities should be based on the real-world behaviour found in the middle of the bell curve, rather than being based on the statistical outliers found at the two tail ends of the bell curve.  The fact that exceptional behaviour exists doesn’t justify treating exceptions as if they were the norm.  That would be like saying: “somebody bought a winning ticket to last week’s lottery, so this proves that everyone who buys a ticket for next week’s lottery is going to win.”

[Wolfshanze]

That’s what I was trying to say in my post, just probably not as clearly… basically transports SHOULD be sitting ducks, and making them capable of taking out warships is a bigger inaccuracy then whatever SS’s friends are crying about.

[baron Münchhausen]

Here, I’m not talking about merchant’s vessels.
Only specifically navy troop transport.
So, Germany only use Destroyers as troop transport for Norway invasion?
Japan mainly use Destroyers for Tokyo Express?

But any Axis troop transport was totally unarmed?

Only USA had APA and AKA and were armed against aircraft?

UK get no armed troop transport at all because they only made it on D-Day and after they assumed total air dominance ?

Another case: General G. O. Squier-class transport

Armament:
   4x 5"/38 caliber gun mounts
   4x 40 mm AA gun mounts
   16x 20 mm AA gun mounts

So, I guess only USA have money to invest into Trooper ship and built-in AA armaments.

All other Powers were careless about this (not enough resources) and only rely unto escorting frigate or Destroyer?

OK, I saw that many if not most of UK’s troop ship were Armed Merchant Cruiser:
Which brings around 7 BL 6-inch Mk VII naval gun on deck and  2 x3*76mm, AA QF 12-pounder 12 cwt naval gun:

In World War II the gun was used to arm British troop ships and armed merchant cruisers, including HMS Rawalpindi, which briefly fought the German 11-inch gun battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in November 1939, and HMS Jervis Bay which similarly sacrificed herself to save her convoy from the 11-inch pocket battleship Admiral Scheer in November 1940.

Jervis Bay’s sacrifice bought enough time for the convoy to begin to scatter. Further time was bought by the freighter SS Beaverford which engaged Admiral Scheer for over four hours. In the end the German cruiser was only able to sink five merchant ships and the remainder of the convoy escaped.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/the-fearless-near-forgotten-story-of-hms-jervis-bay-1.1288803

So, if we set aside the idea that TP unit in A&A are merchant cargo ships and agree that its purpose is to carry Inf, Art, MI and Tank, and such unit are functional army divisions able to be thrown into amphibious assault. We have to wonder: what kind of Allied troopships were totally defenseless against aircraft?

Even fast ocean liner such as Queen Elizabeth:

Queen Elizabeth left the port of New York on 13 November 1940 for Singapore to receive her troopship conversion. After two stops to refuel and replenish her stores in Trinidad and Cape Town, she arrived in Singapore’s Naval Docks where she was fitted with anti-aircraft guns, and her hull repainted grey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Elizabeth

[Imperious Leader]

basically transports SHOULD be sitting ducks

Exactly this.They are Ducks. Quack.

So, Germany only use Destroyers as troop transport for Norway invasion?
Japan mainly use Destroyers for Tokyo Express?

Because this is true does not give Transports AA capabilities, no matter how many examples you can show. ^65%%*(900-0-0–0-) -120=3

Just the Germans and USA made any attempt to arm them them for different reasons and to fight in extremely limited events.

The transports represent many types of ships, but they mostly represent by far the type that has NO GUNS OF ANY TYPE. The few cases are very limited. Anybody can find some example of any ship that had some luck at feeding Goering, but usually they came up empty. The British had like thousands of merchant ships, and perhaps a few had some cook who brought a pistol, most of them didn’t and NONE OF THEM HAD aa GUNS.  If you find one i will look at a naked picture of Herman eating a sandwich that could feed starving Germans.

[Caesar-Seriona]

Transports should have defense regardless. They are armed transport ships and second, if you take D-Day as an example, half the allied fleet that was used for Overlord was armed civilian ships.

[baron Münchhausen]

Here is another example of a converted merchant ship into military troop transport:
Armament:
   4x 15 cm/50 41st Year Type guns
   2x 8 cm/40 3rd Year Type naval guns
   2x 4 Type 93 13.2-mm machine guns
   2x 4 533 mm (21.0 in) torpedo tubes

As a military transport

From 16 December 1942, Aikoku Maru was reassigned back to the IJN 8th Fleet, primarily as a military transport to support New Guinea operations, and her aircraft were disembarked. While unloading cargo at Madang on 18 December, she was attacked in an air raid by B-17 Flying Fortress bombers of the 43rd Bomb Group of the USAAF Fifth Air Force, but was not hit. She returned to Kure on 29 December 1942.[1]

As part of “Operation C” (the Reinforcement of New Guinea), on 5 January 1943, Aikoku Maru loaded the IJAAF 209th Airfield Battalion, 14th Aerial Repair Shop and others, a total of 691 men plus 34 vehicles at Pusan in Korea, arriving at Rabaul on 14 January. She was then sent to Tsingtao in Japanese-occupied China, arriving 24 January, and from there to Cebu (2 February) and Palau (7 February), where she loaded additional troops and cargo, delivering the reinforcements successfully to Wewak on 23 February. She returned to Kure on 5 April.[1]

On 10 July 1943, as part of a convoy including the aircraft carrier Un’yō, Aokoku Maru was attacked by the submarine USS Halibut 170 nautical miles (310 km; 200 mi) north of Truk, which fired six torpedoes. One struck Aikoku Maru, causing moderate damage. On her return voyage, on 15 July, she was attacked again, this time by the submarine USS Tinosa, whose four torpedoes all missed. She returned to Kure on 2 September.[1]

On 6 October, Aikoku Maru returned to Tamano for repairs and refitting with additional weaponry, which included two 152 mm guns and four twin-mount Type 96s. The refitting work was completed by 31 December 1943.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikoku_Maru_(1940)

Armament:
   4x 14 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval guns,
   2 Type 93 13.2-mm machine guns
   2x 4 533 mm (21.0 in) torpedo tubes

Military service

On 6 August 1941, Kongō Maru was requisitioned by the Imperial Japanese Navy and was converted to an armed merchant cruiser at the Harima Shipyards at Aioi. Single mount 14 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval guns were installed at her bow and stern, as were two Type 93 13.2-mm machine guns and two 533 mm (21.0 in) torpedo tubes. Her conversion was completed on 14 October and she was assigned to the IJN 4th Fleets South Seas Force and deployed to Truk. At the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Kongō Maru was at Kwajalein, from which she deployed as part of the Japanese task force in the first attempt to invade Wake Island on 8 December 1941. She was bombed by USMC F4F Wildcat aircraft using depth charges, and caught fire. The fires were brought under control and she returned to Kwajalein. She later participated in the second attack on Wake Island on 21 December 1941, which succeeded in taking the island. After the battle, Kongō Maru was sent via Saipan, Truk and Guam to participate in the battle of Rabaul on 22 January 1942.[2]

During the invasion of Lae-Salamaua on 8 March 1942, Kongō Maru transported elements of the Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces to Huon Gulf in what is now eastern Papua-New Guinea. While still at Huon Gulf of 10 March 1942, Kongō Maru was bombed and sunk by aircraft from the United States Navy aircraft carriers USS Lexington and USS Yorktown at 06 49′S 147 02′E.[2] She was removed from the navy list on 20 March 1942.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongō_Maru_(1935)

If Transport are considered Troopships, it seems very dumb to not trying to give some Air defense to protect the costly soldiers which take a lot of time to replace.

I can understand that cargo ships were less important, stock can be rebuilt faster.
A functional military unit cannot be rebuilt that fast. Training take times.

I see no absolute reason to treat Transport unit as only merchant ship.
And, on the reverse, there is no absolute reason to not consider Transport unit as military troopship.

The game does not actually consider fuel, supplies, drugs, cloths, food and shelters shipping on the map.

Even G40, the more complex and detailed game, get a special Convoy Disruption rule to consider the economic aspect and impact on merchant shipping.

[Caesar-Seriona]

Plus as an example, it’s not like the crew aboard a ship is not going to return fire, even if it’s small arms. I know it seems dumb but several nations have used their squad machine guns as AA before. Plus as said before, it seems illogical that the player cannot take transports as a hit in combat.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Wolfshanze:

That’s what I was trying to say in my post, just probably not as clearly… basically transports SHOULD be sitting ducks, and making them capable of taking out warships is a bigger inaccuracy then whatever SS’s friends are crying about.

@Wolfshanze:

@SS:

OK, I’m looking at giving a transport a defense shot besides at a plane only.

Each transport can decide if it wants 1 shot D12 D1 at a plane or a Cruiser ?, Destroyer and a transport. In all my games the transport gets 1 shot each at any attacking planes.
I don’t know off hand what the G40 OOB rule is.

I know some US transports had 5in guns and the other ones had 20,40 mm anti air and mortars. But I can’t find any info on what was on the other WW2 transports as far as Ger, Russ and so on.

I got a new youngin in group now and all he complains about is the history is not right in these games.

While it’s not perfect, no defense for transports is a lot closer to history than giving them the ability to sink enemy warships.

Yes, some had some light AA armament, and if you’re lucky, you might mount a single 4 or 5-inch deck gun…

On the matter of light AA, yes, in-theory you could shoot down a plane with this, but it was nowhere near the AA armament of an actual warship (even a DD)… so something like a roll of “1” on a 1D12* would be better than the standard roll of “1” on a 1D6. If you want to house-rule AA on a transport, I’d say “1” on a 1D12… using a standard 1D6 would be giving them too much credit (heck, I might even argue a 1D20).

Now a single 4 or 5 inch deck gun for anti-sub defense… this is a long-shot… because for starters, the sub would have to be surfaced for this to even have a chance, and a 4" gun vs torpedoes usually doesn’t end well for the guy with the deck gun… but for the most part, subs stopped making surface attacks anyways, unless it was in the dead of night.

On the issue of a single 4 or 5 inch deck gun on an unarmored transport EVER having ANY chance of engaging and destroying an enemy warship, especially since you specifically mentioned a cruiser (which would be in-reference to a 10,000-ton+ cruiser armed with multiple turrets of 8" guns and an armor belt designed to stop at least 6" and lighter armament, I’m sorry… your friends can moan all they want, a 30-knot heavy cruiser let loose in a fleet of 10-knot unarmored transports is not going to result in the loss of the cruiser in any circumstance short of divine intervention.

Heavily armed Q-ships is an altogether different issue… they aren’t even really transports at that point… not in the traditional sense… they also still suffer from the very bad issue of no armor and no speed (it can be armed well, but it still has no armor belt and usually can’t top 10 to 15 knots tops). Their main advantage is not firepower as much as surprise… the enemy not expecting a armed merchant and closing in without expecting resistance… a proper clash between a Q-ship and an enemy warship would still usually not go well… at best there is chance against a DD or CL, but you can forget a Q-ship having any chance against a CA… and once again, surprise is the main issue here, lose it and the Q-ship is toast. In any case, it’s not really a proper transport, and certainly not the norm… if you want to try and work in unarmored slow Q-Ships, they should be a separate purchase.

In the end, an unarmed or lightly armed typical transport IS A SITTING DUCK to any enemy vessel in this game, and giving them no defense is more realistic then giving them a 1 in 1D6 chance of killing planes and enemy warships. Your friends are getting closer to history as-is than if you start having transports sinking heavy cruisers.

*If 12-sided dice are a rarity or an issue, you can always demand a roll of “snake eyes” on 2D6 to simulate a roll of “1” on a 1D12.

I agree with your analysis.
But you also have to consider the other spectrum of unrealistic depiction provided by a more (when on offense) or less no hit value TP. It never happened that a whole convoy (if looking at TP unit as Cargo ship) was obliterated.
Usually, merchant ship were targeted first by Subs and planes because they have limited ammunition or torpedoes and bombs and have to inflict maximum damage.
So, the actual game depiction is faulty on that point because you destroyed all warships before touching TPs.

Now, if you consider TP as real military vessel troopship, and, as such, were always heavily protected you have to admit that these specific ships were equipped with Anti-Air defense.
So, you cannot have your cake and eat it.
In addition, in the case all escorting vessels would have been sunk. As showed by the example of HMS Jervis Bay, it give time to Troopships to scatter away from enemy’s warship.
It is only realistic that in a situation like Battle off Samar, Escort Carrier and Destroyer would have fought valiantly too. Even to be defeated by enemy’s warships (if IJN Yamato’s fleet would have stay the course instead of retreating) to ensure that as few troopships as possible will sink. Hence, a big naval clash resulting in a total oblivion of all TPs unit, once the last Fg or BB escorting as been sunk, is totally unhistorical.

A zero hit unit create a lot historical aberration too.

Also, this does not consider the tactical use of scattering when the enemy is overwhelmingly powerful.
A few warships cannot be everywhere to sink multiple ships, and each single fleeing target is also buying time for others.

At a theater of operational level, total destruction of all TPs units is also very weird if you cannot achieve it on tactical level.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Caesar:

Plus as an example, it’s not like the crew aboard a ship is not going to return fire, even if it’s small arms. I know it seems dumb but several nations have used their squad machine guns as AA before. Plus as said before, it seems illogical that the player cannot take transports as a hit in combat.

To be fair, the other issue is that in some particular naval combat a given player would take as casualties all TPs before loosing any precious and costly warships like Cruiser or Battleship.
That would be weird because it gives the impression that gunboats are hiding behind unarmored TPs.

[Caesar-Seriona]

So basically, we all have different opinions and it seems like most of us are against OOB treatment of transports.

So either give them AA guns or give them a defense of 1.

I also like the idea of letting them scatter in combat.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@Baron:

@Caesar:

Plus as an example, it’s not like the crew aboard a ship is not going to return fire, even if it’s small arms. I know it seems dumb but several nations have used their squad machine guns as AA before. Plus as said before, it seems illogical that the player cannot take transports as a hit in combat.

To be fair, the other issue is that in some particular naval combat a given player would take as casualties all TPs before loosing any precious and costly warships like Cruiser or Battleship.
That would be weird.

Weird but not above AA, out of all the version I have played, G40 is the first I’ve seen where you can’t just soak hits on transports to protect costly BB or Carriers.

[baron Münchhausen]

It is the case since AA50 edition.
All TPs are defenseless since then.

[Imperious Leader]

They are armed transport ships and second, if you take D-Day as an example, half the allied fleet that was used for Overlord was armed civilian ships.

When are they THAT?

[Imperious Leader]

Since the “Kongō Maru” was made from a Dreadnought to a Troopship ( which was an upgrade) sure lets make the other 50,000 merchant ships of the world into AA gunned, torpedo tubed, leviathans of the sea.

Hence forth all navies of the world rejoice in their newfound capabilities. The vaunted conversions to troopships is abound and all nations must comply in face of the wrath.

Battleships beware a new sheriff is in town and taking names and putting notch’s on their 50 Caliber AA guns.

The world will never be the same…

600&(^^&(^^%%–===++==3+5434=542334=-5455=)=0

[Imperious Leader]

lets get this straight:
What you want is to demonstrate that Japan had two glorious transports that they converted with a few portable machine guns ( that never shot down any planes, but were capable) and a coastal gun, then assigning the old " well transports are actually other ships too like armed troopships…. then by osmosis saying " lets give all transports that ever sailed by any navy and every navy the same capability that these two machine guns could of should of would of had and the result is EVERY SHIP IN THE WORLD THAT WAS USED TO TRANSPORT SOLDIERS TO BE ABLE TO SHOOT DOWN ANY PLANE. Knowing all the while that all the combat ships like battleships and cruisers, carriers and destroyers DO NOT HAVE THIS CAPABILITY. Just the transports can shoot down planes with the aa gun.  OK lets do it. I’m convinced. Excellent! It’s well thought out and planned.

[baron Münchhausen]

What I’m inquiring is about what military HQ with resources want as troopships for moving troops and landing equipment.
USA clearly built armed troopships (attack Transport Ship, APA and attack Cargo Ship, AKA) and used them extensively in Pacific.

Here is one older of her kind:

Like all attack transports, the purpose of the Harris class ships was to transport troops and their equipment to hostile shores in order to execute amphibious invasions using an array of smaller integral landing craft. As with all such ships, the Harris-class was well armed with antiaircraft weaponry to protect itself and its vulnerable cargo of troops from air attack in the battle zone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris-class_attack_transport

Also:

Of comparable size to Landing Ship, Tank and the Landing Craft, Infantry, there were 558 LSM (Landing Ship, Medium) made for the USN between 1944 and 1945. The majority of vessels built on this versatile frame were regular transports however there were several dozen that were converted during construction for specialized roles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship_Medium#LSM.28R.29-501_Class_Landing_Ship_Medium_.28Rocket.29

Going from :
   2 40 mm AA guns
   4 20 mm AA guns
to:
1 5"/38 caliber gun
2 40 mm AA guns
3 20 mm AA guns
85 Mk. 51 automatic rocket launchers
LSM®-196 to LSM®-199 :
1 5"/38 caliber gun
2 40 mm AA guns
75 4-rail Mk. 36 rocket launchers
30 6-rail Mk. 30 rocket launchers
85 Mk. 51 automatic rocket launchers

US also converted merchant liner:

USS Ancon (AGC-4) was an ocean liner acquired by the United States Navy during World War II and converted to a combined headquarters and communications command ship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ancon_(AGC-4)

And this armament:
   two 5 in (130 mm) gun mounts
  four twin 40 mm gun mounts
   fourteen single 20 mm gun mounts
There is also a nice picture below.

What about UK? For all I know, they seemed to prefer to use fast liners with added AAgun on deck.
It just seems natural to provide minimal armament to defend against the most probable threat.
Assuming that Troopship are clearly unarmoured, they get no chance against torpedoes and naval guns outside scattering in numbers.

What I found is that for amphibious landing UK developed and use this kind of ship LST (1) Boxer class, armed with:
   4 QF 2 pdr
   8 20 mm Oerlikon
   2 4-inch smoke mortars

Landing Ship, Tank (LST), or tank landing ship, is the naval designation for ships built during World War II to support amphibious operations by carrying tanks, vehicles, cargo, and landing troops directly onto shore with no docks or piers. This provided amphibious assaults to almost any beach. The bow of the LST had a large door that would open with a ramp for unloading the vehicles. The LST had a special flat keel that allowed the ship to be beached and stay upright. The twin propellers and rudders had protection from grounding. The LSTs served across the globe during World War II including: Pacific War and European theatre.

The first tank landing ships were built to British requirements by converting existing ships; the UK and the US then collaborated upon a joint design. Over 1,000 LSTs were laid down in the United States during World War II for use by the Allies. Eighty more were built in the United Kingdom and Canada.

…
Throughout the war, LSTs demonstrated a remarkable capacity to absorb punishment and survive. Despite the sobriquets “Large Slow Target” and “Large Stationary Target,” which were applied to them by irreverent crew members, the LSTs suffered few losses in proportion to their number and the scope of their operations. Their brilliantly conceived structural arrangement provided unusual strength and buoyancy; HMS LST 3002 was struck and holed in a post-war collision with a Victory ship and survived. Although the LST was considered a valuable target by the enemy, only 26 were lost due to enemy action, and a mere 13 were the victims of weather, reef, or accident. A total of 1,152 LSTs were contracted for in the great naval building program of World War II, but 101 were cancelled in the fall of 1942 because of shifting construction priorities. Of 1,051 actually constructed, 113 LSTs were transferred to Britain under the terms of Lend-Lease, and four more were turned over to the Greek Navy. Conversions to other ship types with different hull designations accounted for 116.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship,_Tank

There is also Landing ship Infantry, Manoora is an example :

In Australia in mid-1942, HMAS Manoora was marked for conversion into the Royal Australian Navy’s first landing ship, infantry at Garden Island Dockyard. **Her armed merchant cruiser armament was removed and replaced with a single 12-pounder gun, six 40 mm Bofors, and eight 20 mm Oerlikons.**The Walrus amphibian aircraft was removed, and the ship was modified to carry US manufactured landing craft: 17 LCVPs, and two LCM(3)s. Manoora was initially able to accommodate 850 soldiers, but later modifications increased this to 1,250. The ship was recommissioned on 2 February 1943 with the pennant number C77, and after spending six months on amphibious warfare training in Port Phillip, was deployed to New Guinea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_ship,_infantry

I also found some kind of this converted Liners into armed merchant ships then troopship for Royal Canadian Navy. The most interesting thing is that one becomes a dedicated anti-aircraft escort vessel:

HMCS Prince David was one of three Canadian National Steamships passenger liners that were converted for the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), first to armed merchant cruisers at the beginning of Second World War, then infantry landing ships (medium) or anti-aircraft escort. For three years, they were the largest ships in the RCN.

The three ‘Prince’ ships were a unique part of Canada’s war effort: taken out of mercantile service, converted to armed merchant cruisers, two of them (Prince David and Prince Henry) were reconfigured to infantry landing ships and one (Prince Robert) to an anti-aircraft escort; all three ships were paid off at war’s end and then returned to mercantile service.

In the early part of the war, as armed merchant cruisers equipped with antique guns and very little armour, Prince David and her sisters were sent to hunt enemy submarines and surface ships, tasks better suited to warships. As the needs of the RCN changed, so were the ‘Prince’ ships able to adapt to new roles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Prince_David_(F89)

Now, what about Japan, I also found that they use landing ship?

n June 1943, after its defeat in the Guadalcanal Campaign, the IJN realized it needed high-speed military transport vessels, and designed two classes of ship in response. One (the No.1 class) was to be the 1,500-ton mothership of the Daihatsu-class landing craft and Kō-hyōteki-class submarines, the other was to be a 900-ton amphibious assault ship, the No.101 class.
The IJA already had an amphibious assault ship, the SS-class landing ship. However, the SS craft were not suitable for mass-production, leading to IJA support for the new amphibious assault ships.
The IJN and IJA therefore cooperated on the production of the new amphibious assault ships with the IJN providing design and shipyards while the IJA offered mineral resources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.101-class_landing_ship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-class_landing_ship

Also, this kind of troopship was also armed:
1 76.2 mm (3.00 in) L/40 AA gun
6 Type 96 25 mm AA guns
6 depth charges
OR
   1 76.2 mm (3.00 in) L/40 AA gun
   16 Type 96 25 mm AA guns
   4 13 mm AA guns
   12 depth charges

Shinshū Maru (神州丸) was a ship of the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II. She was the world’s first landing craft carrier ship to be designed as such, and a pioneer of modern-day amphibious assault ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_amphibious_assault_ship_Shinshū_Maru
It was also armed:
4 75 mm (3 in) Type 88 guns
4 20 mm (0.79 in) AA guns

I’m not pretending that Troopships can compete with warships in any area.
Solely that if the original transport sculpts were those used for military operation and amphibious landing, probably people would have look differently to this unit.
Not just looking at merchant boats doing military invasion all over the map.

Looking deeper into this topic about defenseless transport just provide a totally different way of looking at was going on on A&A board at this theatre of operation level.
The smaller board are just about moving troops, MIs, tanks and artillery divisions not about logistics and economic while the detailed one make an abstract concept of it with Convoy Disruption.

I’m pretty sure SS might find a plausible game mechanics if there is enough evidence about what was use by armies and navies to make landing and oversea invasion.

For now, I’m just discovering the extent of human ingenuity when there is a need to develop a functional machine.

Here is what I can find about Germany:

The landing craft of the Kriegsmarine are a often neglected part of German naval history, although the over 700 crafts build played multiple roles during World War II.

During the invasion of Norway in 1940 (Operation Weserbung), the Kriegsmarine did not have specialized landing crafts, instead destroyers, cruisers and torpedo  boats were used. During the following planning operation for the invasion of England (Seelwe) it got obvious that it could not be archived without such crafts. Since the development of real landing crafts would take too long, many river boat and merchant ships were provisionally modified for this role and the designs of real landing crafts was started.

Operation Sealion never took place, but the so called Marinefhrprahme (MFP) were build. They proved to be as vehicles with a universal use - besides transport and supply operations in all theaters of war, they could be operating as gun boats, mine layers or Sperrbrecher.

The Naval Landing Crafts - called “Marinefhrprahm” in German were the largest landing craft used by the Kriegsmarine. Although required for Operation Sealion (Invasion of England) in 1940, the first of this transport ships were delivered in 1941. The development of this ship went through several Types (A-D), whose size and armament grew from class to class.

They were mainly used for transport and supply duties and not for their initial invasion role and could transport 200 Soldiers or 140ts of equipment, including Tiger tanks.

Marinefhrprahme were used in almost all Kriegsmarine operational areas, the British Channel, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/landingcrafts/index.html
http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/landingcrafts/mfp/index.html
Clearly not the biggest of ship, as the name says: craft not ship.