Transports and submarines during noncombat movement

[geocal]

I have a few questions concerning what friendly transports can do during the noncombat movement phase when an enemy submarine is present in a sea zone:
1. Can the transport move through the sea zone occupied by the enemy submarine without being accompanied by a friendly warship?
2. Can the transport load and/or unload friendly land units (either his own or an ally’s) in territories adjacent to the submarine’s sea zone?

[Witt]

Morning Geocal.
Yes to both questions.

[Panther]

@geocal:

2. Can the transport load and/or unload friendly land units (either his own or an ally’s) in territories adjacent to the submarine’s sea zone?

Remember that allied land units can only be loaded/unloaded during the ally’s turn.

Welcome to the forum :-)

[geocal]

Thanks for the clarifications.  However, the logic of allowing transports to be immune from enemy submarines during the noncombat movement phase escapes me.  Why then does a transport need an accompanying friendly warship when it makes an amphibious assault?

[Panther]

@geocal:

Thanks for the clarifications.  However, the logic of allowing transports to be immune from enemy submarines during the noncombat movement phase escapes me.  Why then does a transport need an accompanying friendly warship when it makes an amphibious assault?

There is no concept of “immunity”. The concept here is that an enemy submarine does not make a seazone hostile.
As well during combat move phase (CM) as during noncombat move phase (NCM) the transport may enter a seazone that contains an enemy submarine, simply ignoring it.

In case the transport goes there during CM intending to unload for an amphibious assault, it needs to be accompanied by a warship at the end of CM to be allowed to unload.
In case the transport goes there during NCM it can load/unload without “escort”.

During CM the transport unloads into a hostile territory.
During NCM the transport can only load/unload from/into a friendly territory.

HTH :-)

[geocal]

Your reply does not provide a logical reason why an unaccompanied transport can ignore an enemy submarine in one situation but not in another.  If the concept is that a submarine does not make a sea zone hostile, why then does the transport need an accompanying warship to perform an amphibious assault?

[Panther]

@geocal:

Your reply does not provide a logical reason why an unaccompanied transport can ignore an enemy submarine in one situation but not in another.  If the concept is that a submarine does not make a sea zone hostile, why then does the transport need an accompanying warship to perform an amphibious assault?

I see now what you mean. I pointed out that different scenarios have different rules with different requirements.

But you want to know why this special requirement has been added. As the “escort-rule” has been introduced with the 1940-games.
In case there is another reason than to reflect different scenarios, I am optimistic that Krieghund probably knows more about the background.

[Krieghund]

There is no reason other than to prevent a hostile action by a non-warship when an enemy sub is present.  The rule is there simply to prevent a transport from attacking through a sub without being escorted by a warship.  If it’s not attacking, it doesn’t need an escort.

[geocal]

The game rules regarding submarines not making a sea zone hostile do not seem to reflect the realities of what submarines did in WW II.  The Allies developed anti-submarine forces and the convoy system to fight the German submarine threat in the Atlantic theater and were, after a time, able to virtually eliminate the submarine threat from this “hostile sea zone”.  On the other hand, the Japanese never bothered with anti-submarine forces or the convoy system and, by the end of the war, Allied submarines had essentially run out of targets to sink.