Completely unrealistic for a realistic battle simulator.... All modern planes can fly at a greater altitude and Well over 3times faster than any world war II plane. Right off the bat it's impossible for a Japanese zero to shoot down any modern planes. Literally one modern fighter bomber (if ammunition wasn't an issue) could destroy the entire Japanese naval fleet at world war II Pearl harbor
Yup, the only definitive thing I learned from this video is, if we build a time machine to go back and stop this attack from happening, we should leave Simba and Damp at home. How do you f up a tpod in a hot A-10 lmao
That wasn't even close to tactical. Cap going kamakazie and the t-pod broken was at best a half hearted effort. Each of you could easily target 1 carrier a piece and take out 3 carriers from 20k before they barely get any planes launched. Within minutes you have all 6 dead. Not to mention you only need 3 bombs a piece in case 1 is a dud so your speed and altitude is much better. I agree though the 130 is just unusable.
Other weapons were also feasible. Hydras and Mk. 82s would have been plenty. Decent damage yield against carriers with comparatively weaker armor and defenses than a modern ship plus the ability to carry a hefty payload of them.
6 carriers, 3 A-10C’s, 1 GBU-10 needed per carrier. You should have loaded 2 GBU-10’s per A-10 instead of overloading them with 6. You could have kept your altitude high and stuck to laser guided munitions - maintaining maneuverability with the lighter load. You have to try again! (And perhaps rewatch your older videos on the A-10 ;))
Hence the issue the Iraqis had. One of the tank battles, they had set up their defenses to watch a ridge line. The problem? The mis ranged the ridge line and put it out of range of their dug in tanks but in range of the M1s
Yup. They used weapons ill suited for the task. Mk. 82s would have done well if you came in steep. The Hydra Rocket pods would have smashed up the carriers pretty good or completely destroyed the DDs and Cruisers, on top of being easier to aim and use.
@@tc1817 that sort of thing actually cost Iraq a battle during desert storm. They found a good spot and dug in, watching a ridge. But they made a critical error, they miscalculated the range and dug all their tanks in outside of their own gun range, meanwhile the ridge was within the Abrams gun range. So the Abrams could sit at the ridge and pick off the Iraqi tanks without fear of return fire.
So the death of the fleet? I don't think the LRASM would be able to penetrate the belt of any of these ships, but if the LRASM had a pop up mode, it could wreck their super structures and leave them a burning heap in the middle of the ocean.
Those AC-130s need an update that allows you to aim those guns separate from using the control surfaces... That would make this exercise a bit more viable.. or least, less frustrating lol
You said that you've positioned the ships in the fleet unrealistically close together, and that you did it to make it easier... I wonder if it's counter productive though. First when doing the low altitude attacks, you're in range of many more AA guns than you might be if the ships were further apart. Second, when doing high-altitude attacks, the issue is always how fast the enemy fighters can get to 20,000 ft, and I'm curious if you could actually get a more efficient path between targets if they were further apart (which could reduce your total time to drop 1 bomb on each carrier - because you could just go direct from target to target rather than passing over and coming back - and potentially make it harder for the enemy fighters to get to your altitude).
Yeah instead of having 3 separate C-130's they could have had 1 with full crew and decimated those carriers. Using a method where you can't even aim your guns is pretty poor effort.
great video, a few pointers, don't ever EVER drop bombs in CCIP, it's an A-10 not a tomcat; Gun does a lot better shooting ships in DCS (not sure if it is a damage model problem but you can kill a ship in 2 strafing runs with the A-10 but it takes a lot of bombs to kill it with just bombs); don't drop a GBU without lazing, it tends to point the bomb down to start looking for the laze and never hits properly; don't fly in a straight line with the A-10; when you lose an engine, drop all bombs and use the gun minimally since it produces the same amount of recoil as the thrust of one of your engines. that being said, flying these A-10s this poorly and still managing to do so well tells me it is definitely possible to take out all of these targets with 4 A-10s
I will disagree with you on the A-10 conclusion: If the flight deck of one of those carriers would have been hit it'd be out of action for a few days. And they didn't have catapults, they need any runway they can get. So yes, the hog wouldn't be safe against 300 Zeros, but he could disrupt their flight operations enough to effectively stop or at least weaken a serious attack.
Honestly based on the results of the Operation Crossroads Nuclear tests I think a MOAB would probably have to hit pretty close to a carrier to actually sink it. In the Able test which was an airburst the carrier USS Independence was 560 Yards (510 meters) away from Ground Zero and the carrier USS Saratoga was 2,265 yards (2,071 meters) away and neither of them sunk. It is also worth noting that Able had a yield of 23 Kilotons while a MOAB has a yield of 11 tons or in other words just ~0.05% of the yield.
Something else I just thought of: The Japanese fleet would have been running with no radar or radio emissions at all in order to remain undetected. They'd not have known the A-10s were coming unless they saw them visually, or they got hit by an LGB.
Seems like you'd want to use paveway bombs. They were designed to take out concrete runways and you don't have to kill the carriers, you just have to stop them from landing and launching aircraft for a mission kill.
Your targets are in two separate groups and not communicating with each other. SO you obliterate (or at least mission kill) one half and the other half goes on none the wiser. (or, you know, bring two and swing around to share Oppenhiemer's instant sunshine with everyone.)
@@Yorickunderscore no it’s colloquially known as “mother of all bombs” but it’s officially “massive ordinance air blast” en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_MOAB
The Japanese Fleet would have a very difficult time shooting down a C-130J with Rolls Royce 6 Bladed Turbo Props and a FULL compliment armory-- The Phalanx Gatling Gun, 20mm Cannon, 45 and 105 Caliber and extra fuel. The C130J is fast enough to avoid the Zero or shoot it down before it became a threat. The heavy artillery on board could sink a carrier.
Cap the term u are looking for in regards to the ac130 aiming. 'Like flying a hot air balloon in a typhoon' Very happy you have a dedicated server makes things even better
Many Japanese carriers quickly turned into raging infernos as aviation fuel and ordnance cooked-off following a relatively small bomb strike. These ships lacked many of the damage control measures that U.S. carriers had.
Midway was a special case - they were hit in the middle of refueling and rearming for a fleet strike with the bombs intended for a second strike on Midway still on deck.
Short answer is, when? If it caught them while they were still fueling and arming aircraft, but before they started launching them, it could absolutely obliterate them. All it took was a single 1000 pound bomb to sink a carrier in such a state at Midway. If it caught them after the strike had already been launched, no. There's too many of them.
The A-10 has a service ceiling 15,000 feet higher than the A6M and climbs at twice the rate. Given that the bombs are laser guided and just one is capable of destroying a carrier, you could have stayed at 45,000 feet and dropped bombs to sink the carriers. Once the carriers are sunk, the Japanese would have lost the battle since their planes wouldn't have had anyplace to land. Additionally, if the Japanese fleet had been detected at night, the A-10 has thermal night sights and could have used the night as cover to kill the ships.
"We believe in you Cap." ROFL. Believe. Just like Ted Lasso, brah! It's fun to watch and think about whether this would actually work. While the A-10 has tons of hitting power, it seems on par with the zero for speed. Thus, you're in deep trouble if you go take it downtown to try and hit these guys. When you got down low, you weren't really able to put the GAU 8 to the fullest advantage. That is, come in hot, straight down the throat with the GAU 8 and go down the long axis of the carrier, then start the can opener and tear that mutha open. This also exposes you to a lot of AA, but better chance of success with the guns. Great stuff!
Convoys had AA. AC130 is very good at dishing it out but anything decent coming the other way and it will not fly much longer. I guess it could fire from a distance but I would imagine it not being very effective.
Not to be critical, but what if you "train" for this exercise and run it a few times prior to the recording. Maybe cut down on the misses and mistakes?
Do a bomber wave with targeting pods on them, or fighters with targeting pods, if that's actually possible. I'd love to see a rain of 1000 or 2000-pound bombs on the IJN fleet
At Pearl Harbor, the A6M2 (Type 0 Model 21) was the fighter used by the IJNAS. It had 940 hp for take-off and 950 hp at 13,800 ft. It could climb to 20,000 ft in 7-1/2 minutes.
Prewatch: I think the A10s are going to devastate the carriers. They are incredibly armored and the GAU-8 is a monster of a gun. Biggest issue I see with it is running low on ammo. The AC130? I am not as familiar with it but it should be able to drop a lot of problems. I do not see it doing as well because of armor.
Heh! That AC-130 is just like the old predecessor of it, the AC-47, an old DC-3 gunship aimed by the pilot looking to his left through a small crosshair, and aiming the fire by adjusting the orbit of the aircraft. Worked very well in Vietnam for those firebases under siege, and guys in the back lighting up the area at night with flares. But yes, unless you have air superioriity and there are no ground based Anti Air, the big gunships are not a good option.
@@danielhughes5932 The US Navy used 1000lb bombs at Midway. But the key to the destruction of the carriers was the armed and fuelled bombers on deck. The US Navy lost carriers to the exact same combination later in the war - bomb sets off fire that sets off a chain reaction in the aircraft and bombs on deck. A carrier with its strike group off on a mission is much harder to sink.
The AC-130 Spectre gunship's weapons are fired by the pilot, but there's also a full crew of people in the back of the plane, including gunners who train/aim the weapons. When they're on target, they press the "ready" trigger. The pilot has a targeting HUD (on his left facing starboard) which will indicate which guns are targeted and ready to fire. This is how they are so accurate in their air support/air attack role. This is definitely not represented in the game.
This is completely in accurate. The pilot focuses on flying the plane. Specifically during the pylon maneuver which they use when they’re striking targets. AC-130 weapons fire and targeting is done primarily at the hand of the Combat Systems Officer sitting in the back of the aircraft at a control station that feeds them data.
If you could pick the weapons to use with the A-10 there is a Maverick variant that is anti ship. If you had 3 A-10's loaded up with those you could fire half of them at the screening destroyers from a safe distance and thin out the AA coverage. Also it might have confused them and they might have thought submarines found them. Then you could send a couple of Mavericks in per carrier to kill them. After that you could go in and strafe the remaining outer defenses and ruin their day. The other nice thing about the A-10 with Mavericks is you have a higher max ceiling than the Zero's and you can stay above them until you dive through them to strafe. Also with Mavericks since they are fire and forget, you could have dropped down on the deck after firing them and come in low and fast to strafe. You could have come in from different directions thinning the AA or come in together and tried to blow a hole through the defense.
I'd love to see The U.S. Carrier Fleet with Two additional ships-- USS Iowa Class Battleship and Amphibious Assault Ship with Helicopters and F-35's! Please third times a charm! Especially when you have an Iowa Class Battleship!!👍👍
Japanese damage control in WW2 was horrible. Poor ship design from a DC standpoint and little to no training for the crew. Such things simply weren't compatible with the Bushido code that preached attack. If all 6 carriers took a 2000-pounder to the flight deck, I'd bet the farm that at least 5 of them would be little more than floating wrecks (at best) when all was said and done.
Just did some research on whether or not one GBU could kill a Japanese carrier. The GBU 10 has either 535 or 945 lb of explosives, depending on whether it's a BLU-109 or MK 84, respectively. The Hiryu was hit by four 1000 pound MK 65 bombs, which exploded and made the carrier catch fire, leading to it sinking. The carriers also had only 1 inch of armor below the flight deck, so if a GBU could penetrate deep enough into a carrier it is possible, but not guaranteed, that it could sink a carrier in one hit. If the bomb variant was the heavier MK 84, it would have a much higher chance of killing in one shot.
Point of interest: Published top speed of the A-10 is 439 mph. Published top speed of the P-51 Mustang is 437.01 mph Published top speed of the P-47 is 433.10 mph. Published top speed of the P-38 is 443.04 mph So, while most of the old warbirds were significantly slower than the A-10, there were a couple that could come close and at least one that could have run it down.
You could have turned Pearl Harbor around with a single f15,,,, attack Pearl yourself - non-critical stuff only - then turn back to the Japanese fleet and keep them busy a while.
I feel like this mission was a cluster (from the A-10 side of things). Your friends really fudged it up. To give the A-10 it's best chance to succeed, you need to have people who know how to employ it, flying them. I would suggest training these two, or getting people who already know how to use it in there-then lets see what happens.
Helps to remember that AC 130 pilots are not gunners. The developers need to either add a gunner patch or make a wat to set an attack pattern if only one person is allowed per plane.
Does the BUFF (B-52) in DCS have a tail gun that works? That might be an interesting option since the zeros seem to sidle right up behind you to shoot. Cheers!
With the C-130s, you might have done better to ignore the carriers and shoot down the zeros. If you flew in a circle, you might have been able to pick off the fighters that tried to climb up to get you; then gone after the dive and torpedo planes headed for Pearl.
Question. Why would you have Spectres in the air, if the firepower is useless? As a former USAF member, this seems ultimately ineffective. Don't get me wrong, I love me some A-10 Warthog action....but the firepower from a Spectre HAS to add to the advantage.Anyway, great vids, and Happy New Year to you all🥂
Interesting, the 6 GBU 10 bombs dropped by the F15 may or may not destroy the carriers but they would certainly render the flight decks inoperable. I wonder if the MOAB could be rigged for a HALO drop on the carriers.
Attack with the A10s from ~35,000 with laser guided bombs. The Japanese would never be able to reach you must less threaten you. All of these I have watched (Admittedly I have not watched all of them) have used tactics that take away most of the advantages for the modern aircraft just to make the fight fair and interesting. Perhaps do both (One with what would have really happened and one where it's a fair and interesting fight) Same with the AC130 (Though less familiar with how that particular weapons mix would work from Max altitude) Though I am sure having a 105mm howitzer rain shells down on an unarmored flight deck would do wonders for the Japanese.
Which GBU are you guys using? There are several. GBU-28 is known known as Bunker Buster. Made to penetrate dozens of feet of reinforced concrete, the mountainsides of Afghanistan. That would work nicely on a carrier deck. It will penetrate through at least several decks of the carrier and blow up close to the keel, breaking the ships back. Would be cool if it hit the oil supplies or ammunition supplies. Of course all the GBU's may have that capability, I just know about the bunker buster. There's also the 500 lb JDAM. Very destructive.
What if we added the variable that the A-10’s had enough warning that they could launch a pre dawn sortie. An attack under cover of darkness could be a significant variable.
Love your videos, but the A10-C has a top speed of 420 knots using turbo-fan tapering, similar to what propeller aircraft do. Also FYI a P38 Lighting, twin-boom fork-tailed aircraft used, in the Pacific theatre has a higher top speed than an A10, 430 knots. Again your videos are great.
Re ac-130 aiming. Pre computer (they started with D-3/C-47's during Vietnam) the pilots put a fixed gun sight on the window. The pilot would fly a left hand pylon turnt around the target, and the guns would be firing into the circle. Where the left wing is pointed is where the gun is pointed is where the bullets will hit.
I know this is a weird thing to complain about, but whoever modeled the HGS for the C130 did not quite get it right. It's a dual-arm combiner and not that tiny little arm coming down to grab the glass which as far as combiner glass goes, weighs a ton. I know you only had three people flying against the IJN, but I think it might have gone a bit better if somebody was flying fighter escort. Not much better, with the amount of aircraft around, but I think it might have helped thin out the ranks a bit.
Not so sure about the 130 but the A-10 would have scared the living hell out of the Japanese Navy leadership aboard the flag ship on the way to Pearl. Wouldn't even have to bomb the carriers, the Japanese are so superstitious they would have turned back knowing they were way way outclassed by something they have never seen before. Put period Army Aircorp markings on the A-10 and the attack never happens. Remember Kurita turned back at Leyte because he thought DE's and Light Carriers were main fleet and turned back from an almost certain victory.
The hell with the A-10 and AC-130, put up 4 P-3 Orion with Harpoon missiles. 6 Harpoons per P-3: 3 per IJN carrier (18 Harpoons) and take out support ships of opportunity (6 Harpoons). Stand off weapons are the best choice: P-3 has good stand-off radar, the IJN would not be able to see them or respond until it was too late, if they could respond at all. The Harpoon has a 60+ mile range. The first missiles would be hitting the carries before and sailors would say "それらは一体何ですか？ - Sorera wa ittai nanidesu ka?" ("What the Hell?") If the weapon spread isn't enough to outright sink the fleet, it would definitely damage it enough to render it mission ineffective and they would have to retire prior to attacking Pearl. Make it 6 P-3s and you can all put take out most of the ships in the IJN attack force of Operation Z. My priorities would have been: The 6 carriers, then the oil tankers - would make it difficult for the surviving ships to make it back to Japan or even to a forward base - then the other surface vessels. ETA: Make it 4 fully loaded P-8 Poseidon's and you have 44 Harpoons to target.... Not as much loiter time, but: 18 for Carriers, 9 for Oilers, and 17 for the rest of the fleet.
Why not make a simulation of what would happen if modern Japanese fighters were suddenly faced with the attack of the B 29 with atomic or incendiary bombs against Japan? Or if they see Yamato attacked by US planes? let's say it's 6 F - 15 Japanese ... or when modern German fighters, Tornados, are suddenly in May 41 when they see the Bismarck attacked by the British battleships Rodney and KGV... cool, isn't it?
Why not go full missile loadout, not as much damage, but the reasons the Americans won the carrier war was not bigger better bombs or skills, but damage control and layout. Americans spent a LOT more time on Damage Control, so you start a good fire on a Japanese WWII aircraft carrier, and its going down. Nothing against them, just a different mindset. And fuel lines and locations, they were not use to getting hammered and the US planned more for that, especially after Perl Harbor. Damage Control is why a A-10 with just missiles, would stop the fleet. It may take conventual (i.e. 1940s era equipment) to finish off the fleet, but three A-10 with 10 each, 30 Mavericks! And do a night time attack, infrared camera, own the night, stay way out and take out each command deck in coordinated salvos, and put one right in the middle of the deck, one right at the waterline near the middle on each side, cut the damn thing in half with four missiles and use the fifth as a backup for any misses. After that, do a strafing run against the lead ships and then spend your last rounds on the carrier before you beat feet. The key is standoff, WWII bullets kill anything it touches the same as bullets today, the key is to NOT be where the bullets are....And night fighting wasn't really a thing in WWII (yes, there are dedicated night fighters-but none on carriers nor were they that effective or common with all that radar gear in them).
I love ya guys, but you need some target practice with your AC-130. 1. It will work from 20,000+ feet if you know how to use it. 2. Use it at NIGHT... both the A-10 and AC-130 can do the deed when the Japanese fleet are totally blind.
It's ineffective cause YOU're zero ginner!!! Lol!!! And first, it's very stupid toattack in day time these carriers! If you did it at night, you could fly by closer , avoid the 3AAA and be able to shoot all your guns at the same time.....almost at point blank!!!
To be fair, the GAU-8 chewing up the flight deck makes it unusable. The A6M is not a realistic substitute for the 1941 A5M. It carried twice as many 20mm cannons as well as far mor ammo for each.
It would be nice if you had taken the time to learn to use each weapons of the AC-130 and the A-10 before doing this WW2 scenario. Because it's clear from what I see you don't know how to use properly these planes. I would advise you to retry this scenario but practice before, because I know thse two type of weapons platforms can do a lot of damage in a real world scenario. In this case it's clear you're in a hurry to do this and you're failling.
I'm not really interested this so skimmed through and I did not watch the "previous episode". So perhaps I should not comment at all. However, I think taking out the carries is not an interesting subject AFAIC, at least in this kind of setup. The first hint about the attack at PH was the actual attack, more or less. So the scenario I would be interested in is if you could find those carriers and then stop them. After all the location of the carriers was not known. And I would be more interested in the kind of scenario where the modern war gear would be on the ground when the Zeros appeared in horizon or maybe even the radars. Then take on the zeros and see what you do to stop them. Taking down carries or at least stopping them when you know where they are is IMO shooting fish in a barrel.
How about doing one using modern aircraft in the Doolittle raid or modern ships protecting 1941 pear harbor I don’t think those zeros would get past or defenses with our Phalanx systems spread around the harbor and sam launchers
31:34 "If this works, I'm a Ch$naman"? I don't think that term is currently used ... like by anyone ... except maybe some American men ... living in 1855.
Would a 2000lbs bomb kill a Japanese carrier? Well a 500lbs bomb did didn't WWII. So even without the fuel planes and weapons out in the open I'd say yep definitely would kill a carrier.
You guys need to do some research. You used the C-130 all wrong.! They are used by going into a racetrack orbit centered on the target and then fire to the center of the circle. secondly you did not fly the Hogs as a squadron, where your wingman would have taken care of the Zeros while the lead would go after the ships. Also learn the controls pilots of those planes do not have to think about what button to push they just push the right one.
it took 3 1000 bombs and all the torpedoes underdeck to sink the carriers. the modern bomb might have done more if it went through both decks before blowing
Buccaneers. Or buccaneers and tornadoes ala Desert Storm. Buccs high with lasers and tornadoes low with the bombs. Not that I think it will work but was an actual strategy against land based targets. Oh and Vulcan would be interesting too at high altitude.
I am not an expert but aren't you using the AC130 incorrectly? The guns "should" be automated? Something wrong with the mod? The crew is their to reload? You should just fly in a circle around the Japanese fleet and let the gun system chew them to pieces. This would also reduce the AA since you would not be flying through the fleet.
