ORIGINAL: Evoken
M_M you are falling into a logical fallacy here. Who here claimed rocket artillery were completely useless ?
I think you missed the sarcasm - I was highlighting the fact that rocket artillery has been an exceptionally effective weapon in causing widespread dislocation and disruption to defensive positions. Those claiming that this result is a game bug or database error are not grasping the real impact of the weapon (nor the significant difference with traditional artillery).
54 combat squads were destroyed. Killed. Wiped out. That seems appropriate.
353 combat squads were disabled. Injured, concussed, dazed. That also seems appropriate.
You are being disingenuous in your arguments and you are not answering any points with any sort of data.
Reposting the link as evidently you missed it.
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/l ... -jima.html
Some choice quotes from me:
"The capture of Iwo Jima would have been impossible without the preparatory bombardment and continued support of fire support vessels, carrier and land-based aircraft supplementing the artillery, rockets, tanks, and organic infantry weapons of the landing force."
"The LCI(L)(3)(R)(RCM)'s were used for harassing and interdiction fires but their rockets were soon exhausted. As there were no replacements available, the LCI(R)'s were used thereafter for RCM and anti-small-craft patrol duties and smoke craft. The rockets have the advantage of long range (4,000-5,250 yards maximum) but their uncertain flight makes the troops unwilling to have them fired over men or boats or very close to front lines."
"RCM and Rocket Support Unit No. 1 consisting of nine 5".0 SSR Rocket LCI's, delivered scheduled neutralization fire on the Motoyama area from 0645 to 1300. All rockets on board these ships (a total of approximately 9,500) were delivered during this period, using standard plan RA from a reference point to northeast of the island. On completion of this fire, all fire support duties of this unit terminated for the remainder of the operation."
"How-minus-Forty-five and delivered initial rocket salvos in an attempt to detonate possible inflammables on the beach well in advance of the time of landing. Another innovation at Iwo Jima was the loading and firing of a second rocket salvo during the ship-to-shore movement of the leading wave. The gunboats fired their first salvo at How-minus-Ten minutes as in past operations, then reloaded rocket racks as they moved in to a range of 600-700 yards from the beach and fired a second salvo at How-minus-Five minutes placing this salvo 300 to 500 yards inland. Since 4".5 rocket fire is more neutralizing than destructive and since its short range prevents its use for neutralization of inland areas, its use has rarely been requested after a landing. The best employment of 4".5 rockets therefore is beach neutralization just prior to the landing and their employment for initial and additional salvos at Iwo Jima is recommended for future landing support."
Plenty more in there to discuss.
If you look at results with 6000 casualties from 26 LCI (G) on atoll invasion. These LCI's fired their rockets in pairs of 12 and each rocket warhead has 6.5 lb of explosive which brings us to 78 LB per salvo with 780 lb total per LCI (with irl values) meanwhile an American heavy cruiser has 21 lb of explosive per shell , thats 189 LB of explosive per salvo with hundreds of rounds (if anyone knows total 8in ammo on US heavy cruisers please chime in with total number)(if we go with 14 rounds per gun of Witp its 9x14x21=2646).
Some points:
- Not casualties in the sense of destroyed squads.
Disablements. The distinction is critical here. If all those squads had been destroyed, I'd be inclined to think that there was something off. The fact that they are disablements suggests that these weapons are WAD.
- In terms of a rapid, focused, concentrated delivery of firepower, the LCI(G) is vastly superior. The entire battery rockets can be fired and impact in seconds over a large area, while for a CA to empty it's magazines you're likely talking in the rate of hours and the extent to which it can area saturate is very limited. That is something to factor in to the "shock" element when considering disablements.
ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking
ORIGINAL: Dili
Those rocket had only 1km range...
I don't think anyone is saying the garrison should have been only mildly affected
I do think that should have been even less than mild.
Okay, I stand corrected, someone is saying that. [:D] I made some assumptions about atolls not being particularly large, and looking up Marcus Island (now called Minami-Tori-shima), it's only 1.51 square kilometers, so perhaps its entire surface could be in rocket range. With that said, I still hold that level 6 forts should do something more than diversify the skyline.
The abstractions work both ways: all the defenders have a chance to fire at the landing force, and so the landing force has a chance to fire back.
The level 6 forts kept the troops alive till the deliberate attack. That in itself is something. You've a Seelow Heights situation here - it doesn't matter how deep the trenches are when there's that much explosives going off.
