Can A WWII Battleship Super Fleet Beat A US Carrier Group? (Naval 13a) | DCS WORLD

Просмотров 413 тыс.

% 6 926

0:00 Briefing
6:08 Restrictions
7:24 Fights On!
Battleship Fight Vid 1: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AkJqjuJ8JvU.html
Battleship Fight Vid 2: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OGzDhzJ-OnA.html
Battleship Fight Vid 3: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-at0N3bVx1kc.html
Battleship Fight Vid 4: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0zMLfoA4OLs.html
Master Sheet: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/135X_4QJuN1EgOzHqhNcIat9wUfSntl9LGfnXITISXX8/edit?usp=sharing
Playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PL3kOAM2N1YJdV_JwZaN1yGScRAb_yUTHx
Mods Used: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TzmGB2xWeiQ.html
SPONSORS
Winwing: www.wwsimstore.com/STORE
Winwing USA: fox2.wwsimstore.com/STORE
USEFUL LINKS
GRIM REAPERS(RU-vid): ru-vid.com/show-UCZuXjkFY00p1ga3UyCBbR2w
GRIM REAPERS 2(RU-vid): ru-vid.com/show-UCZzvHfFzIpMrvgAbgZDUX9A
GRIM REAPERS(Odysee): odysee.com/$/invite/@grimreapers:e
GR PODCASTS: anchor.fm/grim-reapers
DCS TUTORIALS: ru-vid.com/show-UCZuXjkFY00p1ga3UyCBbR2w/playlists?view=50&sort=dd&shelf_id=4
DCS BUYERS GUIDE: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fDpL5eVCKlA.html
DCS OFFICIAL SITE: www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/
ONE TO ONE LESSONS: grimreapers.net/one-to-one-lessons/
DONATE/SUPPORT GRIM REAPERS
MERCHANDISE: www.redbubble.com/people/grmerchandise/shop?asc=u
PATREON monthly donations: www.patreon.com/GrimReapers
PAYPAL one-off donations: www.paypal.me/GrimReapersDonation
SOCIAL MEDIA
WEBSITE: grimreapers.net/
STREAM(Cap): www.twitch.tv/grimreaperscap
STREAMS(Other Members): grimreapers.net/gr-twitch/
FACEBOOK: GrimReapersGroup/
TWITTER: GrimReapers_
DISCORD(DCS & IL-2): discord.gg/cATmE3d (16+ age limit)
DISCORD(TFA Arma): discordapp.com/invite/MSYJxbM (16+ age limit)
OTHER
CAP'S X-56 HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.com/open?id=1g7op9YxNbWi8fogam0tK0yer1rRCLe7A
CAP'S WINWING HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PsvBNEFS9hgo7p-tunMWOTQRR3HWtkqE?usp=sharing
THANK YOU TO: Mission Makers, Admin, Staff, Helpers, Donators & Viewers(without which, this could not happen) xx
#DCSQuestioned #GRNavalBattle #DCSNavalBattle #GR #DCSWorld #Aviation #AviationGaming #FlightSimulators #Military

Игры

Опубликовано:

30 май 2021

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 2,2 тыс.

@grimreapers 2 года назад

Battleship Fight Vids: 1: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AkJqjuJ8JvU.html 2: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OGzDhzJ-OnA.html 3: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-at0N3bVx1kc.html 4: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0zMLfoA4OLs.html

@firefox5926 2 года назад

18:26 well if its any consolation the yamato has according to Wikipedia 12 × twin 12.7 cm guns DP guns 162 × 2.5 cm AA guns 4 × 13.2 mm AA machine guns in hey 1945 config and DP stands for duel purpose so they can also fire at aircraft and from memory th 18inch guns also had an aa round but it wasnt very good

@firefox5926 2 года назад

22:23 i would not be surprised if there were over 1000 guns fireing up at them from all those ships lol

@Majority623y Год назад

Battleship Tirpitz

@kacper9085 3 года назад

"Have you ever seen something so inaccurate?" this video would be a good for drinking game

@locutus9956 12 дней назад

I mean ‘drink every time he misidentifies one of the German battleships’ or ‘drink every time he (inaccurately) uses the term amidships to try and sound like he knows what he’s talking about’ you would die of alcohol poisoning a dozen times over… it’s a fun video but anyone who thinks this is a realistic simulation of how this would play out hypothetically ‘in real life’ is high.

@michaelreedx6823 3 года назад

The winner was determined by programing failures, they were set to Close Air Support when they should have been set to Ground Attack.

@jeremypilot1015 2 года назад

You're underestimating that humans would have been firing those guns and would have been more accurate and lethal. So the ratio outcome was probably the same.

@billwhoever2830 2 года назад

@@jeremypilot1015 Exactly, not to mention that the ww2 battleships would show broadside to expose more of their anti air guns during the defense and more of the primary on attack. Also, I dont think that harpoons can sink any of the ships in the video, it might completely disable it but it wont sink it. The primary guns could remain operational even after most of the ship is disabled.

@kanyeeast8450 Год назад

@@jeremypilot1015 actually, they would have scored almost no hits, theres a reason there was so much AA on ships back then, they could barely hit piston engine fighters without simply slinging a mass of bullets.

@jeremypilot1015 Год назад

@@kanyeeast8450 you forget about flak

@kanyeeast8450 Год назад

@@jeremypilot1015 Not really, volume of fire was key at that point in time, considering even flak was inaccurate against a maneuvering target, since you had to predict where they would be and oftentimes they can simply swerve out of the way. There is a reason missiles were invented.

@charlesfollette9692 3 года назад

One escorting us submarine would’ve sunk this entire battle fleet, would’ve ran out of Torpedoes but would’ve crippled or sank everything

@KyleTerrioJohnson 3 года назад

Don’t forget the cruise missiles…

@andythomason5576 3 года назад

Yes, sir, I agree 100% with you.

@therealsenorisgrig 3 года назад

Exactly, at the very least it could’ve mission killed the major ships and forced them to turn back. The Japanese weren’t great at detecting 40s era subs, they’d never even know an LA class was there before they’re all sunk

@sharpy3453 2 года назад

idk, a mk 48 detonating under the hull could possibly crack the hull of the cruisers if not the smaller battleships

@pilsplease7561 2 года назад

probably not

@ClericChris 3 года назад

A fantastic simulation on what would happen if a modern Navy abandoned all of the tactical advantages it has and solely relied on flinging rocks. Next do WW2 soldiers vs modern army but only use state of the art KitchenAid blenders to fight with.

@ciphergalm1174 3 года назад

modern navy was suffering from microchip shortages😁

@jamesjdm 3 года назад

Pretty much

@scalywing1 3 года назад

This^

@mirrormonstere113 2 года назад

@@ciphergalm1174 the us navy has a very exclusive supply of chips mined and made in the USA. Our military has no shortage of chips.

@mirrormonstere113 2 года назад

@@ciphergalm1174 that and Taiwan has a very good relationship with us. We buy thier Raw product, and turn it into chips for our military.

@lilcommandergaming8573 3 года назад

Tirpitz is a battleship and is Bismarck’s sister ship not scharnhorsts

@Dannyboy31415 3 года назад

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are battleships despite being smaller and lighter than the Tirpitz and Bizmark. Germans never really had a battlecruiser apart from the Duetschland class (The Admiral Sheer) - which kind of defy the traditional classes. They were known by the British as "pocket battleships" but were roughly the size of cruisers.

@tomriley5790 3 года назад

@@Dannyboy31415 Lots of German battlecruisers in world war 1 and prior to that. The Deutschland's weren't battlecruisers - just overgunned cruisers, they were only called Pocket battleships by exageration.

@grimreapers 3 года назад

thx

@Dannyboy31415 3 года назад

@@tomriley5790 Agreed that Germany had bc's in WW1. I should have been more specific. They didn't really have any during WW2. The Deutschland class were the closest they had but they were never officially classified as such by either the Allies or the Axis powers. They're a little small and undergunned compared to other bc's of the time. Tldr. I stand corrected.

@jameschenard7691 3 года назад

@@Dannyboy31415 It took some time post war for the allies to call the Scharnhorsts battleships, they had battleship grade armor which was either not realized or ignored and much of the focus was on them carrying only 9 X 11 inch guns ( it had been intended to substitute these for 6 x 15 inch guns in 3 twin mounts). The Roma was a brand new battleship of the Italian Navy, with 2 sister ships: the Vitório Veneto and the Littorio.

@skribeworks 3 года назад

Brave Sir Hornet ran away Bravely ran away away When danger reared its ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled Yes, brave Sir Hornet turned about And gallantly he chickened out Apologies to the Pythons.

@CRAZYHORSE19682003 3 года назад

I didn't.....all lies!!!!!!

@longtimber 3 года назад

LMAO

@thephantom2man 3 года назад

The brave, brave,brave,brave,brave,,brave siir hornet

@Wolfen443 3 года назад

Is that a joke about the Hornet avoiding the worse of the Battle of Midway?

@user-hi7jk6fu3f 3 года назад

@@Wolfen443 No, I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the super hornets that fled instead of dropping their bombs but I guess it could be used for that too

@grevensher594 3 года назад

Should retitle the video "Battleship superfleet" vs. 5 modern destroyers. 😅

@andythomason5576 3 года назад

Ya and try using 5-inch guns against targets armored against 16-inch guns all. the hits in the world with a 5-inch gun would do you no good at all.

@chasecarter8848 3 года назад

Are you high? The CV was rendered totally inert by mishandling the SIM. COs routinely defeated battleships in the 1940s with 1940s aircraft and Weapons....it's absurd that Nimitz class is even threatened

@johnulmer1622 3 года назад

@@chasecarter8848 Not to mention the CGs didn't fire their Tomahawks. They only fired their 16 Harpoons. Also, where was the fast boat with the MK48 adcaps? I guess that would have made this a very short video.

@GYM829 3 года назад

Yeah it's a shame that the age of battleships ended so early. They were real beautiful things.

@subjectc7505 3 года назад

The last remaining wouldn't lasted against some of the morden navy's, but small and not well developed like the Iranian navy that's probably where they'll see combat.

@kiriltzenev5955 2 года назад

US could have upgraided its battlships with antiship and airdefence missiles instead of waising ton of money for rail gun stealth no _go's

@GageEakins Год назад

Battleships are dumb. There is a reason they are not used anymore.

@erikturner5073 9 месяцев назад

Battleships are still impressive and AWESOME!!

@anomalyp8584 5 месяцев назад

What do you mean, early? They have been the boss of the navy all the way through History until the planes got invented.

@jpm74 3 года назад

These Carrier Group titles just keep getting more ridiculous. I love it. I can't wait for an alien invasion UFO force,

@thephantom2man 3 года назад

Im waiting for 20 episodes time when its "the entire globes military forces vs a us carrier group" 😅

@grimreapers 3 года назад

I have a star wars ep coming :)

@tombeers3489 3 года назад

The UFO - er, UAP - idea would be cool. Considering the recent release of UAP footage by the Pentagon that would be timely. Does DCS have a stand-in for a UAP that can pull like 100Gs, accelerate 0 to Gone in. .0060 seconds and operate underwater? Is someone modeling a UAP yet?

@icin4d 3 года назад

Bees vs Titans. How many RATAs to take out Bismarck?

@Wolfen443 3 года назад

We need the Alien Fleet from Battleship the movie.

@setesh1294 3 года назад

Based on that top down profile, Admiral Scheer is a Deutschland class heavy cruiser, also sometimes referred to as a pocket battleship.

@georgewhitev7900 3 года назад

You're right. 11 inch guns too, not something to mess with

@teargass1849 3 года назад

Technically armored cruiser is not incorrect, the Germans called her a Panzerschiff or "armored ship"

@martinpalmer6203 3 года назад

Yeah Deutchland,Admiral Scheer and Graf Spee were pretty radical , heavily gunned for cruisers and also very effective as commerce raiders. Probably one of the most Original and unique ships of WW2, very clever. Id imagine they were quite a nightmare to face.

@setesh1294 3 года назад

@@martinpalmer6203 Graf Spee definitely was. However I have respect for her Captain, as he was an honorable man, despite his nation's atrocities.

@joachimhupe4018 3 года назад

They where officialy called Panzerschiffe or armored ships, but where later renamed to heavy cruisers.

@johnnydiamondsmusic1673 3 года назад

Imagine what kind of computer simulations military commanders must be training with.

@rorkgoose6114 Месяц назад

Fake climate simulations and DEI?

@drewd2 3 года назад

I mean, if you take away basically every Hornet and don't allow any of the ships to shoot while having their backs up against the wall then yeah.

@JDale56 3 года назад

An interesting variation of this would be to use a 1990s era Iowa class Battleship task force.

@trolleriffic 3 года назад

If it was a 1980s era Iowa then it should be an easy win for the Battleship. It could carry both nuclear-tipped Tomahawks and nuclear 16" shells which would be handy for blasting incoming aircraft and missiles and would devastate surface ships. It could also carry the nuclear variant of ASROC to destroy any subs from the carrier fleet. Granted the Tomahawks would be the land attack variants, but it should be possible to retarget them at an area of sea with enough accuracy to spoil somebody's day.

@grimreapers 3 года назад

WE do have them but their damage models aren't working in testing :(

@Jammybee 3 года назад

The carrier wouldn't stand a chance against Casey Ryback

@cdc194 3 года назад

@@Jammybee "You can court marshal me if I live, Sir!"

@jtkoontz69 3 года назад

a full 16" Salvo using HC from the mighty MO would instantly render a modern carrier useless i say HC due to CVNs hull thickness. especially since she was updated with the same modern defense systems a Nimitz class would have, aircraft would be useless. the Iowa class was not slow either.

@xenimaging 3 года назад

I love how excited cap gets during commentary. It's like listening to a match

@kickofftheboot 2 года назад

At the battle of Samar. A detachment of American destroyers and destroyer escorts took on a Japanese battle fleet including Yamato. The destroyers raked the superstructures with their five inch guns but five inch guns can’t do much to a battleship. Interesting fact, it’s believed the Japanese were using armor piercing shell which punched clean through the destroyers and that’s how the destroyers were able to take multiple hits by 18 inch guns.

@TheBigBaal 3 года назад

The Axis fleet would have lasted about 10 minutes past detection.

@laurenfazenbaker9777 Год назад

If that

@saintmobius5348 3 года назад

Here's another one for you Cap, imitate the movie Stealth. Hypersonic deep penetration bomb drop. Start at 100k feet or highest altitude possible in editor. Dive straight down full burner and release at fastest point of dive. Momentum should carry bomb supersonic to target with missiles having little time to adjust to rate of the bomb. If this works, replicate with 10 people and watch that carrier sink.

@grimreapers 3 года назад

Enjoy: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-88pecDslck4.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-07fs87J4KmY.html

@pogo1140 3 года назад

@@grimreapers ahh stealth or as I remember it the airplane movie with Jessica Biel in a bikini at a waterfall.

@Wayoutthere 3 года назад

@@pogo1140 The only reason for watching that movie

@hphp31416 3 года назад

normal high altitude jdams are already supersonic

@Stephengirty 3 года назад

Set the 18s to work. You basically set this to "kill the Americans".

@nonanon666 3 года назад

Accuracy problems: *F-18s turning away. *F-18s unable to launch Harpoons. *Harpoons performing terminal pop-ups instead of hitting armor belts on hulls. *Tirpitz is Bismarck's sister ship. *Shells are not bullets. *Guns are not boom-booms. *Turrets are not doo-dads. Other than that, it was entertaining as hell.

@littletimelord2755 3 года назад

Good point, all of them good points. Here’s some more: *Tirpitz is not schornhorst *tirpitz is not a battlecruiser *ww2 AA (especially axis power AA) would not shoot down a harpoon *fast battleships could be as fast as Battlecruisers *destroying the superstructure would not sink a ship *capitol ships would not use main batterie guns to fight a missile unless you are Japanese(I’m looking at you Yamato, you know what you did) *and finally, because of fast battleships the statement “battleships are slow” is not true in all cases

@speeddemon2262 3 года назад

just @ ED also Shell in the artillery's sense of WW2/1en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)

@LoisoPondohva 3 года назад

@@littletimelord2755 * battle lines and t-formations

@warrior7ra 3 года назад

Umm again harpoon is a pop up and plunge into target weapons system it flies at wave top goes vertical at about 600 yrds noses straight down at 1600 feet and accelerate near vertically into its target. It is not an Exocet which targets the largest radar return point.

@scalywing1 3 года назад

@@littletimelord2755 The biggest problem is the tactics. Why would any carrier group ever sail straight toward a gun centric fleet? That is not the way that WW2 carriers operated and that is not the way that a carrier battle group or strike group would fight.

@FrederikVanlokeren 3 года назад

Am I the only one who gets annoyed that they keep misidentifying the Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes?

@Luke-em1ko 3 года назад

Yes

@ABeastMadeOfSteel 3 года назад

No, am I the only one who gets annoyed by the guns being aimed foward at the start, lol.

@ABeastMadeOfSteel 3 года назад

I think you and I would get along great. XD

@dubs4life08 3 года назад

You're definitely not alone

@greg.kasarik 3 года назад

And fairly much everything else. I'm continually amazed by just how little the guy narrating actually knows. He sounds like he is at the football and he might as well be for the paucity of his understanding of naval combat. Would very much like to have seen how they'd have managed a Fleet Carrier group from the period.

@roberticvs 3 года назад

I hope this is a lesson to Iran: build battleships. Yes. That is what Iran should do.

@bjmccann1 3 года назад

🤣😅🤣😅

@terrywest111 3 года назад

@@Mechanized85 SHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! LET THEM DO IT. lol

@stephenjennings7303 3 года назад

Iran: guys the hornets are not just going away like in DCS..what do we do🤣

@johnkepa2240 3 года назад

😂🤣😂

@thephantom2man 3 года назад

@@stephenjennings7303 list lazily to the left

@optony9606 3 года назад

so the final countdown fleet was lucky the time portal came back when it did haha

@Davivd2 3 года назад

That movie was the first thing that I thought about when I saw this video.

@joshelam8756 2 года назад

8:05 before literally anything happens, viewing the battleship fleet from a birds eye/airplane view is so crazy, seeing what those pilots used to see is so amazing to me. i wish i could be in a cockpit and see it first hand

@maianoguillaume Год назад

Well, you're free to install the game and fly a plane. It is a plane simulator, first and foremost...

@immort4730 3 года назад

I think you got the Bismarck and Sharnhorst mixed up. The Bismarck is the one with 4 dual 380 mm guns, the Sharnhorst is the one with 3 triple 283 mm guns.

@lord00144 Год назад

and also the fact the sister ship for scharnhorst is the Gneisenau and Bismarck sister was the tirpitz XD

@Russet_Mantle 3 года назад

GR pronouncing "Prinz Eugen" the correct way Me: happy noises

@grimreapers 3 года назад

Look at me learning a thing!

@trazyntheinfinite9895 3 года назад

GR not recognizing Bismarck and calling it scharnhorst. ME: Cursing noises

@Acepilot235 3 года назад

@@grimreapers you got that one right but not Gneisenau :P

@diggersdingo4282 3 года назад

@@trazyntheinfinite9895 not being able to tell the difference between tirpitz and bismarck

@diggersdingo4282 3 года назад

Tirpitz was the one he kept calling bismarck

@MikeAnderson2858 3 года назад

So far everyone of these scenarios has had the airpower of the American fleet completely handedcaped. Totally unrealistic.

@Cgrazi 3 года назад

The subs also did not help at all.

@PrepperStateofMind 3 года назад

One fully loaded carrier would have sank everyone one of those ships

@WigSplitters 3 года назад

lmao why yall getting salty, its a video and it was very entertaining, frankly none of you know how this would have gone down you are all assuming.

@Forthecasuals 3 года назад

They said it themselves that there were bugs in the mission, why are you guys complaining its unrealistic? No shit sherlock.

@WigSplitters 3 года назад

@@Forthecasuals the whole fucking point of the video was about an unrealistic scenario, so I'm not sure why these guys care

@ShionWinkler 2 года назад

"we are 90% certain Harpoons in real life wouldn't actually hurt these ships" The Harpoon II, which is a small anti-ship missile, is capable of penetrating over 60" of armor according to the US Navy. While heavy anti-ship missiles like the Soviet P-5 can penetrate almost 144 inches of armor. The reason modern ships don't have thick steel armor anymore is because anti ship missiles can penetrate it. If WW2 Battleships were immune to modern anti ship missiles, we would still be using WW2 style battleships, just with modern weapons onboard.

@marshalljulie3676 2 года назад

Expensive to build the only reason us would have to increase metal trading with Russia to build ship

@ariq4209 2 года назад

Source? Because it took about 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs to sink Musashi. The Mark 14 torpedo, which was the US’s standard torpedo during WW2, has roughly the same if not more TNT filler than Harpoon.

@ShionWinkler 2 года назад

@@ariq4209 Source is the data sheet from the US Navy, while the exact specs of the warhead are classified, they do say it has a yield of about 500 lbs of TNT and can pernitrate 60-70 inches of steel. The Musashi did take a beating to sink her, but the US navy's AP Mark 1 had poor penetration as stated by US navy ordnance manual from WW2, "AP Mark 1, which weighs 1600 lbs (726 kg) of which 240 lbs (109 kg) is high explosive. The Mark 1 can penetrate a 5" (13.7cm) deck from 7500' (2900m) or from 4500' (1370m) in a 300 knot 60 degree dive." Now, the Mark 14 Torpedo was a pile of crap, it had more issues to the point the US navy didn't want to uses them, but had no choice. As stated by Rear Admiral Charles A. Lockwood in his report to the CNO, Admiral Ernest J. King, after he performed various test in Frenchman Bay, Albany on 20 June 1942, "The Mark 14 torpedo has three major flaws. 1) It tended to run about 10 feet (3 m) deeper than set. 2) The magnetic exploder often caused premature firing. 3) The contact exploder often failed to fire the warhead on impact." While these issues were corrected it took 3 more years before the corrections happened, and by then well... 1942+3=1945.....

@WaveForceful 2 года назад

Harpoons can penetrate like 20+ fleet of reienforced constal defence concrete. They wouldnt have any issue getting through 12 inches of WWII steel. I dont understand why people over rate WWII ships and make them out to be invincible. They are massively out performed by a modern Destroyer that can outgun them and out range them.

@ariq4209 2 года назад

@@ShionWinkler that's interesting, any link please? I Googled and can't find it. I thought it's not gonna penetrate that much as it's subsonic and I don't see the point in using shaped charge as modern ships have no armor.

@ppgamer3992 3 года назад

41:07 Bismarck is now a small cruiser.

@duanesamuelson2256 Год назад

Way late but the Bismarck was never a battleship as such. It was a very heavily armed and armored commerce raider. Think of a class between battle cruiser and battleship.

@garymyers6638 3 года назад

It strikes me that you have enough guys in GR that you could command all the boats with people and a good many aircraft. Also, on a similar vein, have you guys done the battle of midway or the battle of latee gulf or truk island or even Pearl Harbor?

@senioravocado1864 3 года назад

Just a correction, it's Leyte Gulf

@treybaker3634 3 года назад

As much as i enjoy these videos, this was hard to watch. i wish you would do this again but get the f18 to work properly and also switch up the camera angles when the gun battle starts happening. watching the big guns firing for 5 mins without even focusing on the target was frustrating.

@cancermonkey80 3 года назад

yes they can scramble every jet....question is whether or not the carrier has enough JP5 fuel for all the aircraft and helicopters.

@BattleshipSailorBB63 2 года назад

I served on both an Iowa-class battleship and on a Nimitz-class carrier. Of the two, I greatly preferred the battleship! You really have to see the armor and the shells in real life for a sense of just how much punishment they can both give and take. The battleship is akin to a heavyweight boxer where the carrier is like a whip-wielding lion tamer. If the battleship gets close and the guns are accurate enough, you're done.

@chandlerwhite8302 Год назад

Actually Sinking a Iowa with air launched conventional weapons would be close to impossible but a mission kill is a near certainty. Knock out the radars and range finders and the Iowa is no more then a floating steel barracks that would have to retreat for repairs. And sorry, but if just one modern submarine launched torpedo explodes underneath the keel of an Iowa, it’s endsville. Her torpedo defense never imagined a weapon like that.

@BattleshipSailorBB63 Год назад

@@chandlerwhite8302 I do appreciate what you're saying.....but knocking out the radar isn't a death sentence. Even back in the Gulf War, we used drones as overhead spotters for our shells and adjusted from that. They even piped the Drone footage over the Berthing TVs so the crew could watch as our shells landed, it was pretty neat. Flight time was in the neighborhood of 50-60 seconds and you'd see a "poof" on the TV. I imagine the capabilities have greatly increased since then. And I further imagine backup antennas for the drones were stowed somewhere for emergencies, but just speculation. The targeting computers for the Main guns were 100% Analog. Gears and sprockets, a table-sized thing. Think giant Abacus with manual inputs, an old-timey cash register. Left there on purpose during the 80's Modernization so even an EMP wouldn't take the ship completely out. And of course well under the armor. Manual controls for nearly everything as a backup is standard fare. The entire Superstructure could be destroyed and she can still fight. Torpedo defense (specifically under-keel)......yeah, IMO no ship is built to withstand that super well, but given the Iowa-class and Nimitz-class I have experience with, the Battleships would fare far better overall. No doubt in my mind. Main defense a Carrier has from that is sheer size and volume, little to no armor. The USS New Jersey curator guy did a nice video about that some months ago on both the pros and cons.

@davidohara7669 9 месяцев назад

Why would a carrier let a battleship get close?

@Nails077 3 года назад

Seeing that cap have nothing to shoot at kind of makes me want to see a ww2 carrier group vs a modern one 😆

@hurricaneace143 3 года назад

Soo, Japanese Midway Fleet then? Well we did try the Pearl Harbor strike force already so fuck yeah, let's try it!! I'd love to see if we'd sink the Yamato before she got in range

@Rightin02 3 года назад

A modern day Jutland. Despite the glitches this was an awesome video. Thanks for taking the time to create, edit and share. I was surprised by how many Harpoons the Axis fleet was able to down.

@cowpercoles1194 3 года назад

The WW2 ships would all be vulnerable to homing torpedoes from modern attack subs. They'd have little defense against them. Aerial bomb runs might also be effective against them, and AP bombs could be built with all the modern targeting tech, which would take them out.

@TheBishopconrad 2 года назад

That require the channel not being basically....guys who pull their nipples when they see Axis Naval tech....

@jasonb8957 2 года назад

ARA General Belgrano (C-4), was originally the USS Phoenix of the Navy, and saw action in the Pacific Theatre during WWII. She was then sold to Argentina and named after a man. The Belagrano was sunk by the Royal Navy Submarine Conqueror on May 2nd 1982. Because it was so easy, and because it showed PM Thatcher wasn't playing games. Some would argue that the sinking of the Belagrano put an end to the Falklands War. The Belgrano is the only ship ever sunk by a nuclear powered submarine. I think one Los Angeles Class Sub would make an entire WWII fleet disappear before anyone ever figured out what was happening.

@johnbrobston1334 Год назад

There isn't anything magic about the destructive power of modern US torpedoes. Their magic is in the homing, not in the bang. And before you say "explode underneath and break its back", be aware that US torpedoes had that trick before WWII started. They couldn't use it in the Pacific because somebody screwed up the design, but it was there, was known, and the ships were designed to deal with it.

@StewartWalker-hy1eo Год назад

A Nuclear powered carrier would also be very vulnerable to Submarines and they also use human beings to operate the power station just so they don’t need to refuel but the aircraft need refuelling anyway

@erichardy9788 3 года назад

U.S. 5 inch 54 has a range of 13 KM where 15 and up guns fire at 23ish KM. the WW2 would be unable to track the harpoons.and all the US ships should have fired MK48s torps

@hithere7382 3 года назад

Hi Eric, USN only fires the MK48 ADCAP from submarines. From surface ships we shoot the MK46, it's smaller and is fired from a 323mm triple launcher installed on the surface warfare ships en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_32_Surface_Vessel_Torpedo_Tubes it's also dropped from helicopters and P-8's.

@parrot849 3 года назад

@@hithere7382 - - Nevertheless, they would’ve launched torpedoes way before hand, I think anyway. Plus where WERE the submarines…??

@thomasgregory6975 3 года назад

No nation has a missile that could sink a WWII battleship. The armor is too thick compared to modern ships of any nation today two inches is much thinner than one, two, and three feet of armor. They are designed to take a beating. Check the warhead size and the kinetic energy put out by ship killing missiles today and the warhead weight and kinetic energy put out from one round of a 14, 15, 16, or an 18 inch high caliber round.. It is said that if one round from a battleship hit another opposing battleship that you were in. You knew you got hit.

@erichardy9788 3 года назад

@@thomasgregory6975 I do agree on the WW2 BB's having thick belting but a well place harpoon Salvo could put one OOS or even sink her

@hithere7382 3 года назад

@@thomasgregory6975 yes we do it's called the Trident D5 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. 480 kilotons times 8 or more warheads on the Mk21 reentry vehicle will do the job just fine.

@Doorsiess 3 года назад

I am hopelessly addicted to this series.

@mattnsac 3 года назад

same, and to think this would be the carrier group at its absolutely most vulnerable.

@joeyravage4798 3 года назад

Why is this a question? Carrier interceptors sink battle ship group with smart misiles within an hour.

@kenhelmers2603 3 года назад

I am actually not surprised at the outcome, since the Hornets all QUIT! Thanks GR!

@grimreapers 3 года назад

We tried...

@michaelredford5389 3 года назад

I do wish an rts existed that had the same level of detail as dcs. A battlestations game for example. That'd be awesome.

@Bassjunkie_1 3 года назад

I've never wanted a game based of just watching it do its thing. But this game I could watch all week!

@Flyboy_Gospel 3 года назад

I love the enthusiasm Cap. Keep it up! I really dig these naval battles.

@ronaldpadavan4516 2 года назад

Possible explanation for the mysterious water plumes at 20:21 could be the Hornets actually dropped their ordinance before turning away and retreating, but a graphics glitch still shows them carrying their bombs. Also a possible explanation for the battleships showing some damage without seeing any actual hits on them.

@everettputerbaugh3996 Год назад

In WW-II only the U.S. had proximity fuses on AA munitions, and then only in the Pacific to keep the tech away from the enemies. That could explain the water plumes. Also, not the entire battleship was armored (too much weight), leaving the bow and stem sections unarmored. See videos: battleship New Jersey.

@thegrizzlyoldtiger Год назад

If you watch close you can see the water plums were from the rounds the battleships had fired into the air, the easiest part to see is when the recall tracers are used. Take care!

@russellwilliams3209 2 года назад

Love the details you provide! Thank you!

@MrLukasboys 3 года назад

China, North Korea and Iran are furiously taking notes from this series on how to defeat a US carrier group. Turns out: Just build WW2 era battleships.

@CRAZYHORSE19682003 3 года назад

@Emrys Harpoons would be ineffective against a battleship. They are not armor piercing weapons.

@benn454 3 года назад

@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 Superstructures are unarmored.

@CRAZYHORSE19682003 3 года назад

@@benn454 True but there are no vital systems there. The Harpoon could do a lot of superficial damage and even potentially mission kill the battleship by destroying the radar and fire control systems but sinking one, impossible.

@benn454 3 года назад

@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 Mission kill is good enough. It's out of the fight. You can bomb it to hell later.

@johnbreitmeier3268 3 года назад

@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 If it cannot shoot accurately the battleship, short of ramming, is just a nuisance not a real danger.

@lohrtom 3 года назад

I worked on Harpoons for 20 years. No way they penetrate a BBs armor. Also, the newer Harpoons have a smaller warhead but the same blast equivalent to the older larger warhead due to improved explosives. The extra room was used to enlarge the fuel tank increasing its range.

@grimreapers 3 года назад

agree

@hamzajas1532 3 года назад

Yeah, the Tirpitz had 320mm hardened steel belt and 220mm bulkhead armor. It was rated for many 18 inch gun hits, with AP rounds as heavy as 3200 pounds... There is jo fucking way that a 500 pound warhead traveling 0.71 mach would even scratch the belt of the Tirpitz

@hamzajas1532 3 года назад

@Emrys I just mentioned the belt because a harpoon would also be capable of targeting the belt. The superstructure, deck, turrets etc are also armored with more than 100-200mm of armor.

@player55redcrafter8 3 года назад

Unless your harpoon has armor piercing warhead just like fritz x and ww2 AP bombs, it can go through. Fritz X speed is like modern subsonic missiles. It just needs to have AP warhead. Fritz sank Battleship Roma.

@lohrtom 3 года назад

@@player55redcrafter8 harpoons have a semi-armor piercing warhead. It is a latter half 20th weapon. For harpoon that means a small steel lattice in the nose cone to allow it to penetrate modern warships hull, which are extremely thin. That and a several nano second warhead delay ensures it detonates inside the ship. It would never penetrate anything even moderately armored. It was not designed for that because it didn’t need to be, and still doesn’t. Best case scenario a harpoon damages some topside equipment and/or the unspent fuel starts a distracting topside fire.

@roentgen571 3 года назад

The Burkes and Ticos should have had dozens of Tomahawk missiles as well as the Harpoons, and the Aegis Standard SAMs can be used in surface-to-surface role, too.

@TheElloatmatt Год назад

tomahawk are not used for surface to surface contacts

@jerryalbus1492 Год назад

@@TheElloatmatt what are you on about?

@GageEakins Год назад

@@TheElloatmatt What? That is exactly what they are for.

@chrissegee Год назад

@@TheElloatmatt that’s exactly what they are for long range precision strikes

@XionToday Год назад

@@TheElloatmatt This guy is smoking his socks. Thats literally what they're made for. Either he's trolling or he don't know what he's talking about

@FredDaDa69 Год назад

The Bismarck and Yamato. Two amazing coral reefs.

@ZooKeePla 3 года назад

Now imagine if those BB's have been equiped with modern sensors, air defense, etc.

@chuckwilliams1058 3 года назад

Or even just equipped with modern CIWS and auto-loading turrets.

@warlordjohn8927 3 года назад

I think the Iowa fire control system is good enough to hit fast jets, plus the proxy fuse

@Maverick-gg2do 3 года назад

@@warlordjohn8927 Nah, it may be radar directed but it's a mechanical fire control computer. It doesn't have capability to track a target beyond a certain speed. I believe the upgraded versions can just about deal with the early jets, but I don't think they'd be able to do much else. They'd probably be relegated to a standing barrage like we see the ships doing here.

@ser43_OLDC 3 года назад

@@warlordjohn8927 The BB used HE VT back in the ww2 expecially the japanese but alos de germans used He vt in their main guns

@warlordjohn8927 3 года назад

@@Maverick-gg2do hmm, make sense. But in the Vietnam war, do u know that most American jets were shot down by heavy machine guns and aa guns similar to ww2 aa gun.

@M4xPower 3 года назад

This was the most interesting match up since HMS Thunderchild took on a squadron of 3 Martian fighting machines at the Battle of Blackwater in 1894.

@penponds Год назад

LOL!

@shaneebahera8566 3 года назад

those 5 destroyers held their own pretty well against a super fleet

@dragonlips2005 2 года назад

"It's starting to get juicy!" Stayed for the commentary!!!! LOL!

@anntrautwein1430 3 года назад

Carrier group turns and runs staying out of range subs aircraft have target practice

@natalijalaonar8187 2 года назад

...and thats all it would be, target *practice* , since none of them can penetrate WW2 battleship armor. They wuld strip those BBs of all radars, fire control, and ranging equipment, but they wuldnt sink them.

@anntrautwein1430 2 года назад

@@natalijalaonar8187 First off a Sub is very cable of sinking a battleship the Yamato was sunk by torpedoes. The weapons a carrier carries are also cable of crippling if not sinking a BB. Case in point a bunker buster is a penetrator weapon which would be effective agains armor or just drop explosive weapons next to the ship sometimes a miss is better then a hit. But for argument lets say that all the carriers just do is the damage you describe. How do you propose they find the carriers or aim there guns or get in range.

@natalijalaonar8187 2 года назад

@@anntrautwein1430 Bunker busters arent part of a standard carrier arsenal. But assuming they have them, sure. If they (most likely) don't, there in trouble. As for subs, not sure. Modern torpedoes don't actually carry that big a warhead (since modern ships have soft armor). But I could be wrong. Guess we'll find out if they can get the subs working. They'd have to do that damage to ALL the what - 10 - ships in the battleship flotilla. If even one's radar stays working, it can direct the whole fleet toward the carrier. And once there close enough, they can use optical targeting (less accurate, but get close enough, they can do it). Bottom line, I don't disagree that the battleships would lose, 90% likely. But they wouldn't be sunk easily.

@gabriels5105 2 года назад

@@natalijalaonar8187 modren torps are amazing due to going off below ships and for actually working. No ship gets armor that low. New explosives are also better. They also cant really repair that low on a ship except at pearl harbor.

@Maverick-gg2do 3 года назад

Blücher really is cursed as a name for german cruisers. Even in DCS she suffers.

@jamesbridgeman7324 3 года назад

According to the 2 minutes of research i did a harpoon or any other ASM should have no issue penetrating armor on a battleship.

@steved1387 2 года назад

That's incorrect. Harpoons have an impact-warhead, meaning they have no inherent capability to penetrate armor because the warhead will explode on contact, so damage is caused by the massive explosion, very effective against soft targets. You'd need a delayed-action fuse and a hardened tip to defeat armor, but then, how much armor are you talking about? Probably not a lot. It depends on the missile, and Western countries don't have a lot of such missiles because there has been little need to develop them. Your best bet to penetrate ***thick*** armor is a shaped-charge warhead, which are mostly deployed by the Russians, because they were designed to destroy aircraft carriers. The most powerful Russian missile is the Raduga Kh-22, a 7-ton missile with a 2,200-pound shaped-charge warhead that will strike the deck at a perpendicular angle. It will penetrate any thickness of deck armor and send a jet of superheated metal deep into the ship. There is no current Western equivalent. The Exocet does, however, have a shaped-charge warhead which the US Navy has said can defeat 10-inches of vertical armor. Oddly enough, one man with a Russian RPG-7 can penetrate 32 inches of Rolled Homogeneous Armor, much thicker than any battleship armor. These weapons were designed to defeat the protection of modern tanks. Bunker-buster bombs can penetrate the armor of a battleship's decks and turret roofs. A bunker-buster version of the Tomahawk has been developed as well, and is likely to be in service relatively soon.

@Meep_kun 3 года назад

Grandpa about to teach all these New modern tech Troublemakers some manners

@eyes_on_iah 3 года назад

I've been waiting for this one cap!

@briand.1694 3 года назад

Really no way they would have been able to shoot down that may harpoons.

@Hangman105 2 года назад

1sub with modern torpedos would have ended this, a carrier group would never go anywhere without sub escort. Remember modern torpedos blow up under the middle of a ship breaking them.

@numbersletters3886 3 года назад

The fast attack subs would have wrecked many of the battleships.

@hithere7382 3 года назад

One fast attack would sink all of the battleships, a pair would sink all of the ships.

@asheer9114 3 года назад

I wouldn't be so sure... since modern torpedoes AREN'T designed to deal with heavy armored targets like BB hulls... furthermore, modern ships are thin like Coke can while even WW2 heavr cruiser had enough anti torp protection to whitstand more than one torpedo hit (and slight advice : NEVER use computer games as references when comes to real life naval combat)...

@hithere7382 3 года назад

@@asheer9114 mk48 adcap has over 800 pounds of high explosive in it's warhead. You aren't hitting the armor dude, you detonate under the keel to crack the target in half.

@numbersletters3886 3 года назад

@@asheer9114 but torpedoes destroy a ship today by exploding under the ship to create a massive air bubble and crack its hull right? So a vey heavy BB would crack in two under its own unsupported weight right? The torpedo belt and armor would be useless.

@asheer9114 3 года назад

@@numbersletters3886 Perhaps... but let's not forget that for example Prinz Eugen during Operation Crossroad was in the literal epicentre of the nuclear explosion... and yet, she just capsizing due extensive damages BUT her hull remained intact... while to sink Nagato (a BB) it was needed two nuke explosions and a scuttle team... On other words... its not easy to sink heavy armored ship...

@Jadefox32 3 года назад

sad thing is once the missiles run out our 5 inch guns wouldn't do much more than tickle even a WW2 BB

@brothergunns5055 3 года назад

But the good thing is that a couple of Anti-ship cruise missiles would be enough to sink or disable a WW2 battle ship. And moreover they can't intercept those missiles.

@Jadefox32 3 года назад

@@brothergunns5055 I know in the real world you wouldn't have Harpoon missiles having those kinds of issues. I'm just talking about this particular situation.

@brothergunns5055 3 года назад

@@Jadefox32 oh. Yeah. **US Carrier fleet gets destroyed** Attack subs : I'll pretend I didn't see that. 😂

@brothergunns5055 3 года назад

@@Jadefox32 Imagine the Iranians making battleships to counter USA. **During war** **US subs and super Hornets obliterates the whole battleship fleet** Iranians : **Surprised Pikachu face**

@fridofridolin 3 года назад

@@brothergunns5055 yeah, like this: Iranian fleet: hey, it worked in DCS.....they must have cheated!

@superzentredi 3 года назад

Who's going to explain this to the US taxpayers?

@ThunderForce222 3 года назад

LMFAO!!! Let Biden do it... lololol he likes spending invisible money.

@SCfanIam100 3 года назад

This wasn't real - you do understand that don't you??

@TerryTerius 3 года назад

@@SCfanIam100 99.99% sure that was a joke my dude.

@TerryTerius 3 года назад

@@ThunderForce222 The general conversation around spending on the right and left seems to suffer from a combination of most people not having any idea how economics works at the national level, and taking their talking points from politicians or whoever lines up with their worldview. Which are some of the same issues we see around conversations dealing with science.

@ThunderForce222 3 года назад

@@SCfanIam100 It was more real than anything I've heard on CNN.....

@nicomeier8098 3 года назад

Don't carrier groups have at least one attack sub with them?

@user-cy2iq1gl1t 2 года назад

The biggest issue the carrier group would have is if they should reduce all the surviving enemies in the water and if so what to do with all the POWs. In reality I doubt most of the carrier groups men and women would even physically see any of the other ships before they were sunk.

@hav0cer 3 года назад

Hmmm submarine probably would have destroyed most of the battleships easily, but fun video...

@paullunan2261 3 года назад

Justifies the Royal Navy sinking the Belgrano when they had the chance in the Falklands War, exocet would have been useless against her as the armour plate was situated where Exocet was designed to hit and she out gunned every ship in the Task Force.

@fubarace1027 3 года назад

I actually wonder about that. Would modern torpedoes be able to punch through the armored belt of a ship like the Yamato? I haven't finished the video yet, I'm having fun conjecturing how I think the fight should go. My guess is that the Subs can take the BCs, but not the BBs, unless they're willing to use a nuclear torpedo.

@hav0cer 3 года назад

@@fubarace1027 as far as I know and I am not an expert :-). Adcap torpedoes can specifically create an explosion below the ship creating a gasbubble , capable in breaking the keel of a warship. Essentially my expectation would be that a battleship would be destroyed by its own mass and rigidity. In regards to a direct impact I think an example is the Argentinian cruiser Belgrado (ex USS Phoenix) during the Falklands.

@fubarace1027 3 года назад

@@hav0cer I don't think either of the Submarines sounded off in this fight. It's really a shame the game doesn't like these mods. This is one of those fun scenarios you play once, see how it goes, then change it for another "what if". This could be a lot of fun if it all worked.

@paullunan2261 3 года назад

@@hav0cer the Royal Navy used a torpedo designed in the 1920s to sink the Belgrano because the captain of HMS Conqueror wasnt sure if a modern Tigerfish torpedo was reliable enough to do the job.

@looneyflight 3 года назад

This whole thing was a hilarious parody of reality.

@SilverHwk7 2 года назад

I understand a modern Carrier to carry about 70 or so aircraft. 40 Strike Fighters (a mix of Super Hornets and F-35s) 5 Electronic Attack Craft (EA-18Gs) 4 Airborne Early Warning Craft (E-2Cs) 20 Helicopters (A mix of maritime strike and sea combat helicopters) 2 Logistics Transports (C-2As)

@alonsoquijano9555 3 года назад

Fun test! We need to go back to the old ways, or to a combination of both ages.

@trumpetyt267 2 года назад

That’s what I was thinking. Make a modern day battleship. I’m sure we have the technology.

@malusignatius 3 года назад

It's worth noting that a modern frigate or destroyer is roughly the size of a WW2 cruiser.

@fubarace1027 3 года назад

I don't believe that's true. Maybe a CL but not a CA. Looking at displacement numbers as the basis for comparison. modern US ships: Perry class frigate 4200 tons Constellation class frigate 7300 tons Largest build of the Burke class Destroyers 9700 tons Ticonderoga class cruiser 9800 tons WWII US Cruisers: Des Moines class heavy cruiser 21,500 tons Cleveland class light cruiser 14,500 tons In terms of size, Ticonderoga is 200 feet shorter than Des Moines, Ticon is bigger than the other frigates and destroyers in terms of length. Our ships are smaller now because speed and endurance is more important to the Navy than how many hits the ship can take. Time will tell if that was a good decision or not.

@malusignatius 3 года назад

@@fubarace1027 Comparing using the Des Moines is a little unfair, as it's post WW2 and importantly for this discussion, post Washington Naval Treaty (where Cruisers light or heavy had a displacement cap of 10,000 tons). Clevelands are in the same boat (pardon the pun) regarding the treaty, but they did serve in WW2. As a side-note, the Ticos are built on a modified destroyer hull (the Spruance). The USS Atlanta is roughly the same displacement as the Constellation (7,200 tons loaded), and if you look at non-US cruisers you can get some down around 4,000 tons (the Japanese Tenryu class, though admittedly they were old ships in WW2).

@fubarace1027 3 года назад

@@malusignatius I'll give you the point on the Des Moines, I was surprised when I couldn't think of a WWII cruiser off the top of my head (I used to know quite a bit about WWII naval warfare, but it's been quite a while it seems) so I used the first one that google spat out, and it said 1957 on the picture. I assumed it was based on a WWII hull as ships tend to live long lives. Had to reference the Ticon as she's the largest of the surface escorts and she's smaller than both Des Moines and Cleveland in terms of length. Des Moines being 200' longer and Cleveland 100. Using the Atlanta as a counter argument is also a little unfair as of the 12 classes of Cruiser (CL and CA) we used in WWII, her class is the smallest.(correction, the Omaha is slightly smaller and quite old) Quickly thumbing through the cruisers they seem to range from the Alaska which is damned near a BB at 35k tons to the Atlanta at 7400.(Omaha was 7200) The mean seems to be around 10-11,000 tons for WWII cruisers. And really that makes sense. WWII ships were being built with more armor to take hits, current doctrine has moved away from that. What I find interesting from this reading is how after the Alaska, we didn't make any Cruisers larger than 14.5k in reaction to the Germans.

@malusignatius 3 года назад

@@fubarace1027 It's as much that's how much tonnage they needed to carry supplies and fuel. WW2 US cruisers (and most of the Japanese cruisers as well) were not that heavily armoured. Compared to current ships, yes they had more armour, but that's because modern ships have next to none at all. And if you look beyond the US ships, you get more variance in size as well (Japanese heavy cruisers got big once they dropped any pretence of following the treaty, but most of the Brit classes stuck to the treaty limits, etc). Point being, modern destroyers are very large compared to WW2 ships. A Fletcher class destroyer's only 2,500 tons loaded, not even a third of the displacement of the A-B and just over half the displacement of the OHP. Their weight's well within what would be 'treaty cruisers' in the 1930s/early 40s, even if the US and Japanese were pushing the upper limits of what you could get away with under the treaty.

@ABT747 3 года назад

Imagine battleships with modern targeting systems, that is terrifying

@scorpiontdalpha9799 2 года назад

It will get fuk by missiles

@michaelmihalyi835 2 года назад

Not really. I mean there is a reason the last battleship was decommissioned nearly 30 years ago.

@scorpiontdalpha9799 2 года назад

@@nordoceltic7225 No, big ship equal expensive to maintain, repair and also a giant target for missiles

@scorpiontdalpha9799 2 года назад

@@nordoceltic7225 I get that the battleship is THICC but there is a reason why US not use it After upgrading the system, the cost to maintain an Iowa will be massive The old engine may need to be replaced for better one which may need a new design for the installment of that engine plus other modern tech thus increase even more money So in the end u got a big ship which can does damage, takes damage and consume a giant amount of money While the smaller ships can also do the same thing but consume less money

@aurelmatthews4164 2 года назад

"Oh no the Blucher's been hit" "Oh no, the Blucher is sinking! Have you ever seen anything like it?" Well...

@kurtedwards3213 3 года назад

Thanks for the nail biter video if the f-18's used their harpoons the battle would of been over i truly enjoyed your video as always keep up the good work 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

@johneid7291 3 года назад

Tirpitz was a Bizmark-class battleship.

@marmite8959 3 года назад

Tirpitz was even some 2,000 tonnes heavier than Bismarck, definitely a battleship by all accounts

@rossanderson5815 3 года назад

Bismarck was also a dreadnought not a battleship.

@grimreapers 3 года назад

thx

@nicbruv 3 года назад

@Ross Anderson No, the Bismarck was a battleship. A dreadnought is an era/type of battleship that are consistently armored but slow. The Bismarck-class was a fast battleship, which sacrificed armor for more speed.

@JacenHawk 2 года назад

@@nicbruv That is not rally an accurate description of what a dreadnaught is. In fact most dreadnaughts had a stricter all-or-nothing armor scheme than the Bismarck did. Dreadnaughts are simply battleships the fist generation of battleships that focused on a unified caliber main battery(generally 10-12in guns). Fast battleships were simply an evolution of that which were able to achieve higher speeds due to advances in propulsion technology.

@Davivd2 3 года назад

It's really impressive how DCS has the carrier deck crew working with the planes on the air craft carrier.

@pdp101ski 3 года назад

Fight was over when the planes turned around. Planes ended the reign of the Battlleship. No planes, BB is King again. If you do this again, surround about 4 heavy battleships with a bunch of light cruisers. They were the AA of the fleet back in the day.

@t.r.4496 3 года назад

Americans got a radio message that the Japanese navy was in there and remembered 1945. Someone on board yelled kamikaze and noped out.

@BCTTV_DTJ 2 года назад

I think the U.S. destroyers and cruisers would've faired better after the harpoons were gone if they attacked as a group instead of 1 or 2 at a time facing that battleship cluster. Still would've lost to that armor but could've sunk a few more ships I think.

@edwardchong7212 3 года назад

The Flight 2A Arleigh Burke destroyers as shown in game can use SM-2 missiles as anti-ship missiles. Maybe you can try update next time.

@everettputerbaugh3996 Год назад

The O. H. Perry Frigates have been out of service for years (decades, now) and have been given away or used for target practice.

@norcatch 2 года назад

«The Blücher's on fire!» *Smiles in Norwegian*

@theshawnmccown 3 года назад

The US Carrier Group just stopped and started yelling out "A2!, D3!..." *scratches head* "I don't think they know how to play Battleship."

@ronaldfinkelstein6335 3 года назад

The submarines would have been the big ship killers, if the AI would let them fight. Torpedos are big ship killers...and the subs are the only ships in this with torpedos

@xanatos819 3 года назад

Destroyers and frigates both have torpedoes. Actually I think every navy vessel has torpedoes. Either from deck launchers, sub surface tube or from helos

@Nikarus2370 3 года назад

@@xanatos819 Helo dropped anti-sub torpedoes are have significantly smaller warheads (often 1/10th) than ship/sub launched torpedoes. Additionally they have ranges on the order of 5-6 miles rather than 25-30, meaning the heli would have to be well within AA range of the battleship fleet to drop them. As far as ship launched torps. While yes, American surface ships do have torp launchers... really wouldn't want to be close enough to the battleship fleet to need these torp launchers. (perhaps in a running engagement, with the modern ships fleeing a pursing battleship force, torps could be dropped as the effective range between the ships is "lower").

@MrMattumbo 3 года назад

@@xanatos819 modern ships carry torps for engaging subs, not other surface vessels.

@CRAZYHORSE19682003 3 года назад

@@xanatos819 None of those torpedo's can be used in an anti ship role, only anti submarine.

@xanatos819 3 года назад

@@Nikarus2370 Really? I didn't know that. I assumed they carried the same ADCAP torpedoes deployed on subs. I always figured the logic in not using them was the range and the fact they have attack subs in the group already down there to use them. Thanks for the info.

@commiccannon592 3 года назад

The harpoons have two terminal options skim (low level hit at the waterline) and pop-up (what you see in the video where it pops up to hit the deck and superstructure) Specifically because ships often have lots of armour along the waterline because of torpedoes

@lohrtom 3 года назад

That’s not what the pop up mode is for

@commiccannon592 3 года назад

@@lohrtom what is it for

@lohrtom 3 года назад

@@commiccannon592 some ships have close in defense optimized for sea skimming missiles, some for diving missiles. The choice of using the pop up mode for terminal guidance is chosen for ships that are best equipped to handle sea skimming missiles. In a perfect world, would plan an attack in which multiple harpoons arrived at the same time from different directions, with some of them using pop up mode and some not. The point would be to confuse the ships defenses and reach at least one blind spot.

@commiccannon592 3 года назад

@@lohrtom cool thanks for the info

@PornopietistgeilimBe 3 года назад

Interestingly the Roma was the first ship to be sunk by guided weapons. When the Germans realized the Italians wanted to turn on them the Luftwaffe got orders to sink the Roma. They just got a new weapon, the Fritz X (somehow I think they were joking about themselfs with that name) a few days earlier and used it to sink the Roma in 2 hits within 5 minutes. PS: Also fyi the visible distance over the horizon at sea is roughly 15nm at peak weather. I once spotted an oil rig's gas flare at 26nm. PPS: The Arleigh Burke and the Tica both use a 120mm turret with a range of about 13nm.

@chinua2584 3 года назад

Somewhere, a Chinese officer is watching this video, taking notes.

@Uriel77200 3 года назад

So yea:an upgraded and refit Missouri would fick some modern shit up. Bring back the Mighty Mo

@Bluelamb03 3 года назад

Why did the attack subs not engage with torpedoes? Not a very 'realistic' simulation when the most dangerous of the surface combatants is left out of the fight. Disappointing....

@jefferyrdavis 3 года назад

Nuclear tomahawk cruse missile fired over the horizon guided by AWACS flying over the fleet. Enemy fleet? What enemy fleet!

@malusignatius 3 года назад

Another point: Because of how height the optics on a ship like Yamato are, the horizon for them is a lot further away than a person at sea level. I can't recall the exact details but you're looking at visual detection ranges of 30-36km (18.7 to 22.5 miles) for a lot of WW2 battleships.

@ngc-fo5te Год назад

Stop it - you're assuming a globe Earth.

@kevinrowe6902 3 года назад

Modern ships have very thin skins. A large shell landing near it would pepper the thing in shrapnel.

@ddgdgdg6509 3 года назад

shouldnt the bb be in a line formation

@MikeSmith-ok2ci 2 года назад

Also IRL the battleships wouldn't just be firing main cannon HE at any low flying aircraft. There is such a thing as main gun or secondary gun AA airburst shells. So if they fired those at the Harpoons, they might not have lost so many battleships.

@GageEakins Год назад

A WWII anti-aircraft gun would NEVER hit a harpoon missile. They wouldn't even see it.

@haraldlorentzen40 2 года назад

This is innacurate. Roma had a top speed of 30 knots, so it's no way they would only do 14 in a battle situation. Even Yamato had a top speed of 27 knots, so this setup is a bit weird to me.

@norbertaronvarga5361 2 года назад

At a cruise, they are not going with max power. In a situation like this where they didn't detect the ships, then detect and shoot, won't go too fast because they need fuel, etc.

@norbertaronvarga5361 2 года назад

As well as a task force is going MAXIMUM with the speed of the slowest ship in the group.

@confusedturtle2275 Год назад

@@norbertaronvarga5361 the last time a battleship traveled 14 knots at max speed was in the late ironclad era i believe, and battlelines would usually not be 14 knots but quite a bit faster than that despite not being at the max speed that the ships can reach, only going 14 knots would be such a serious disadvantage to the ships that it would probably be better to just sink your ship on your own

@norbertaronvarga5361 Год назад

@Confused Turtle They going at those sppeds or just a bit faster at cruises to save power, and they were suprised by the air attack, so they didn't go faster

@confusedturtle2275 Год назад

@@norbertaronvarga5361 they would still not be going as slowly as 14 knots. Do you want to know why they're traveling so slowly? It's because the yamato model he uses in the video is only capable of going 14 knots. despite that, it is still way slower than what they would be traveling at. The battle like should be traveling at 24 knots at the very least judging by the fact that the slowest ship in the formation is capable of going 27 knots. However the poorly made yamato model can only go 14, so that's what he made them do. It is not because they were "surprised" by the air attack, like you're claiming

@LtChaco 3 года назад

The models of the battleships look really realistic, but if I'm honest the Bismarck doesn't look like the real ship. She looks like a bulky cruiser

@trazyntheinfinite9895 3 года назад

No... GR just fucking kept calling it scharnhorst..... because he has a counting deficiency. 3 turrets on scharn and gneis. 4 on bismarck. I dun waNna know what that low detail thing was.

@urbypilot2136 3 года назад

I imagine the harpoons being targeted in the same way that torpedo bombers would be targeted back in WWII

@grimreapers 3 года назад

agree

@MrMattumbo 3 года назад

Not very realistic though. Torpedo bombers had to fly very slowly or their torps would get smashed on impact with the water. Harpoon doesn't have that problem, is like 1/10th the size, with the top attack is maneuvering way too hard for a AA gunner to train on it at the last second (AA mounts weren't the most user friendly, they can't train like a CIWS lol), and light AA would struggle to stop the missile (there's a reason the US uses 20mm sabot, Russians 30mm, the 20/25mm HE and .50 would disable the harpoon but like a kamikaze it would still follow a ballistic arc into them and explode all the same). Also you won't see the AA firing at it once it's inside their formation since they'd be hosing down their fellow gunners on the other ships (well they could, but they'd kill all their AA gunners at the rate they were doing it in the video). If anything Harpoons are more like dive bombers as far as difficulty to shoot down. I think they might take out one or two Harpoons through shear luck and volume of fire, but nothing like what was shown in the video. AA was shite in WWII even against big slow prop planes, you can look up the kills/shells fired statistics its laughable.

@CRAZYHORSE19682003 3 года назад

The Harpoon is very small and would be hard to detect visually. The WW2 ships radars probably could not pick up a Harpoon on radar, they were not designed to detect sea skimming weapons. The Harpoon is 13.5 inches in diameter. Smaller than a battleship shell, by the time they visually detected it, if they detected it at all it would be too late to react.

@urbypilot2136 3 года назад

It's funny how people replied entire essays to say "that's not realistic, Harpoons are smaller and slower than torpedo bombers" Uh, DUH! Of course they are. One is a contemporary attack aircraft of WWII combat vessels, another is a weapon developed to avoid having to bring a manned aircraft so close to opposing point-defense weapons. My point is that WWII battleships already had a system to track and shoot down low flying targets. As for the efficacy against a Harpoon missile, that's an all together different story. Closest we'll get is what the lads at Grim Reapers did here.

@MrMattumbo 3 года назад

@@urbypilot2136 We all just pointed out numerous reasons they would not be effective against Harpoons as a rebuttal to the video (specifically the ship mods/AI). You don't have to take it as a personal attack, but since you are already: you're wrong ;) Welcome to the internet lol

@ajuntapall8860 10 месяцев назад

The real MVP is the Scharnhorst refusing to sink so it could keep tanking the missiles for the rest of the fleet. Edit: Tirpitz

@jamesa.7604 2 года назад

This was a hell of a fight! I think it would have worked out better for the US Fleet if those cowardly F/A 18's had actually engaged. Those Harpoon missiles really did the damage.

@Kevin-hb7yq 3 года назад

Cap, you are the only one who could make a massive navel battle sound like more fun than a football match. Awesome!!

@grimreapers 3 года назад

lol

@strambino1 3 года назад

Great video! Love to see the old battle wagons on the screen. Shows that armor has a place on modern ships. Why no JDAM’s, HARMS, AGM65 meverick,s if the harpoon and mark82’s weren’t working?

@carl626 3 года назад

Cap: "These ships are almost invincible with their 18" toughened armor" Norway:

@usmctien 3 года назад

What DSC did not model is when a shell is a near miss in the direction of fire next the intended target the shell actually continues to travel and hit the hull of the target below the water line. So in actuality the armor plating below the water line was pretty thick for just that eventuality.