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.
