ORIGINAL: Alpha77
@MindM: Seems you are the type who wants always be right, so I just should forget about talking with you further. However you shot yourself in the foot already with re. the rocket issue with your own link to the Iwo operation, if you had bothered to read it like myself, the rockets DID not obliterate (or only disable) even 30-40% of defenders (est.) plus the troops felt that heavy directed fire from big naval guns was the main contributor to success. Not rockets, yes they helped and did their work for "beach supressioN"
You may want to revisit your source material - where did I claim that rockets should obliterate up to a third of defenders?
The US post-battle assessment of Iwo is a fairly authoritative document, but given that you have read it in such detail you should have noted that it is by nature limited to an American viewpoint. What US troops viewed as effective and what the IJ felt was effective may well have been different, and there weren't a whole lot of IJ perspectives to be gathered after the battle was done.
I suggest you broaden your reading to the effectiveness of Soviet rocket artillery on the Eastern Front.
...also you said yourself these weapons are for beach suppression, guess what ? Not all troops are at the beach and not in range of the rockets.
For the purposes of AE combat, all troops are at the beach.
That sword can cut both ways, as both the defender and the attacker can be in a position to profit (or not) from suitable preparation during that stage.
The defender gets to maximise potential damage, but with the trade off to expose units to return fire from off-shore.
Also I do not see why the explosive force can not be compared to other shells or even bombs. HE is = HE there is not much difference in the filling of HE shells from rockets to bombs to shells and also not from say 1942 - 1945. Eg. TNT is still used today. Even the Wiki says that the rocket barrage "was comparable to a heavy mortar barrage"
It can't be compared because the game code treats 5kg of explosive filler in a bomb different from 5kg of explosive filler in a naval shell, which is in turn different from the same shell fired during a land combat engagement.
Different code, different algorithms, different results. See previous comments from Symon on those who've attempted to mod the game without acknowledging this fact.
I would have hoped that you would have read a bit more in-depth than just Wikipedia, but I'm used to being disappointed by the quality of these discussions.
..here another quote:
"Rocket artillery cannot usually match the accuracy and sustained rate of fire of conventional gun artillery. They may be capable of very destructive strikes by delivering a large mass of explosives simultaneously, thus increasing the shock effect and giving the target less time to take cover."
That only changed quite recently (1990s) with weapons like MLRS but these are also guided and LR rockets often with "intelligent" sub munitions.
But guess it is useless to show the real world to you
Yes, Soviet Guards Mortar's units were disbanded in 1941 because STAVKA were disappointed that they couldn't match the accuracy and fire rate of the regular artillery units...
Oh wait, no. They were fine with that because accuracy and sustained fire wasn't what these unguided rocket systems were designed to accomplish.
Never mind the fact that unguided rocket systems (with abysmal accuracy and poor fire rates compared to conventional artillery!) have stuck around till this day.
Throwing a lot of rockets that go boom at things still works. See the BM-21 and related systems, and none of your fancy sub-munitions or guidance systems there. Sometimes you just want to excavate football pitches with high explosives and then drive back home.
I'd like to challenge you to find me an account from combat where a unit is subject to heavy rocket bombardment and maintains complete combat effectiveness. It's a good challenge, but if it ever has happened I'm confident someone will have noted it
