On the previous British turn, the British loaded land units onto American transports in an adjacent sea zone. On its turn, the British conduct an amphibious assault from the American transports in the sea zone during the combat phase.  During the British noncombat movement phase, the British want to load more British land units onto the American transports from an adjacent friendly territory.  The British are using the same American transports both in the combat phase and noncombat phase of the British turn.  Is this allowable?

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.

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?

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?

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?

Thanks for the clarification on this situation.  However, your answers raise another question. If the situation is changed where there is no Japanese sub in the sea zone and the Australian infantry is assaulting from an American transport, can the Japanese fighter scramble into the sea zone to prevent the amphibious assault?

Your answer to question 2 would seem to imply that it would not, since the Japanese fighter cannot defend against American units.  If this is true, this again seems to imply that allied units can attack together.

The rules indicate that an attacking land unit can assault a coastal territory from an ally’s transport but only on the attacking land unit owner’s turn.  Consider the situation where the Americans have conducted an amphibious assault on a Japanese coastal territory containing an airbase and ignored a Japanese sub in the sea zone from which the assault was made.  In this sea zone there are two Australian infantry on an American transport and one Australian fighter on an American carrier.  The American amphibious assault is unsuccessful, leaving two American carriers, one battleship, two cruisers, two destroyers, and three transports in the sea zone and one Japanese fighter in the coastal territory.  On the Australian turn, the Australians want to conduct an amphibious assault using the two infantry units from the American transport and the fighter from the American carrier.  Here are some questions I have about this:

1. Does the Japanese sub prevent the amphibious assault because there is no accompanying Australian surface warship?
2. If the Japanese scramble its one fighter into the sea zone, does the fighter and sub defend against the entire American fleet in the sea zone or just the American transport that is carrying the Australians?

If you change the situation and the two Australian infantry are carried into the amphibious assault by an Australian transport instead of the American transport, then the rules indicate the Japanese sub would prevent the assault since there is no accompanying Australian surface warship.  The rule allowing an amphibious assault from an ally’s transport seems to be in conflict with other rules indicating allied units cannot attack together.