Battleship Fight Vids: 1: kzread.info/dash/bejne/c59-08yuepuwprg.html 2: kzread.info/dash/bejne/gXuupsqzepC1nqQ.html 3: kzread.info/dash/bejne/k6hksJWbhtuXm8Y.html 4: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Yq6BrsiocZe1fNY.html

@firefox5926

2 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

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

@Majority623y

Жыл бұрын

Battleship Tirpitz

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 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@kanyeeast8450 you forget about flak

@kanyeeast8450

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

@locutus9956

6 күн бұрын

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.

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 жыл бұрын

modern navy was suffering from microchip shortages😁

@jamesjdm

3 жыл бұрын

Pretty much

@scalywing1

2 жыл бұрын

This^

@mirrormonstere113

2 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

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

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 жыл бұрын

Don’t forget the cruise missiles…

@andythomason5576

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, sir, I agree 100% with you.

@therealsenorisgrig

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

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

@pilsplease7561

2 жыл бұрын

probably not

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

@Dannyboy31415

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

thx

@Dannyboy31415

3 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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 жыл бұрын

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

@longtimber

3 жыл бұрын

LMAO

@thephantom2man

3 жыл бұрын

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

@Wolfen443

3 жыл бұрын

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

@user-hi7jk6fu3f

3 жыл бұрын

@@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

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

@andythomason5576

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

@subjectc7505

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@erikturner5073

9 ай бұрын

Battleships are still impressive and AWESOME!!

@anomalyp8584

5 ай бұрын

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

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

@georgewhitev7900

3 жыл бұрын

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

@teargass1849

3 жыл бұрын

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

@martinpalmer6203

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

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

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

@trolleriffic

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

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

@Jammybee

3 жыл бұрын

The carrier wouldn't stand a chance against Casey Ryback

@cdc194

3 жыл бұрын

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

@jtkoontz69

3 жыл бұрын

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.

"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 жыл бұрын

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

@ariq4209

2 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

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 жыл бұрын

Enjoy: kzread.info/dash/bejne/amykx8V9o8_Jm5c.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/Ymua1Zpwepexnbw.html

@pogo1140

3 жыл бұрын

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

@Wayoutthere

3 жыл бұрын

@@pogo1140 The only reason for watching that movie

@hphp31416

3 жыл бұрын

normal high altitude jdams are already supersonic

@Stephengirty

3 жыл бұрын

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

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

@thephantom2man

3 жыл бұрын

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

@grimreapers

3 жыл бұрын

I have a star wars ep coming :)

@tombeers3489

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

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

@Wolfen443

3 жыл бұрын

We need the Alien Fleet from Battleship the movie.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@rorkgoose6114

24 күн бұрын

Fake climate simulations and DEI?

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 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

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

@LoisoPondohva

3 жыл бұрын

@@littletimelord2755 * battle lines and t-formations

@warrior7ra

3 жыл бұрын

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

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

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.

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

@Luke-em1ko

3 жыл бұрын

Yes

@ABeastMadeOfSteel

3 жыл бұрын

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

@ABeastMadeOfSteel

3 жыл бұрын

I think you and I would get along great. XD

@dubs4life08

3 жыл бұрын

You're definitely not alone

@greg.kasarik

3 жыл бұрын

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.

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 жыл бұрын

agree

@hamzajas1532

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@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 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

@Cgrazi

3 жыл бұрын

The subs also did not help at all.

@PrepperStateofMind

3 жыл бұрын

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

@WigSplitters

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

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

@WigSplitters

3 жыл бұрын

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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 ай бұрын

Why would a carrier let a battleship get close?

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

@bjmccann1

3 жыл бұрын

🤣😅🤣😅

@terrywest111

3 жыл бұрын

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

@stephenjennings7303

3 жыл бұрын

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

@johnkepa2240

3 жыл бұрын

😂🤣😂

@thephantom2man

3 жыл бұрын

@@stephenjennings7303 list lazily to the left

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

@grimreapers

3 жыл бұрын

Look at me learning a thing!

@trazyntheinfinite9895

3 жыл бұрын

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

@Acepilot235

3 жыл бұрын

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

@diggersdingo4282

2 жыл бұрын

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

@diggersdingo4282

2 жыл бұрын

Tirpitz was the one he kept calling bismarck

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 жыл бұрын

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

@jasonb8957

2 жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

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

Жыл бұрын

tomahawk are not used for surface to surface contacts

@jerryalbus1492

Жыл бұрын

@@TheElloatmatt what are you on about?

@GageEakins

Жыл бұрын

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

@chrissegee

Жыл бұрын

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

@XionToday

Жыл бұрын

@@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

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

Жыл бұрын

LOL!

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.

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

@laurenfazenbaker9777

Жыл бұрын

If that

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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!

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 жыл бұрын

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

@benn454

3 жыл бұрын

@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 Superstructures are unarmored.

@CRAZYHORSE19682003

3 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

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

@johnbreitmeier3268

3 жыл бұрын

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

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

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 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

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

@thomasgregory6975

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

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

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

@Davivd2

3 жыл бұрын

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

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

@grimreapers

3 жыл бұрын

We tried...

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

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 жыл бұрын

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

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 жыл бұрын

Just a correction, it's Leyte Gulf

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)

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

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

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.

Love the details you provide! Thank you!

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.

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 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

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

@CRAZYHORSE19682003

3 жыл бұрын

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

@xanatos819

3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

@chuckwilliams1058

3 жыл бұрын

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

@warlordjohn8927

3 жыл бұрын

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

@Maverick-gg2do

3 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

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.

I am hopelessly addicted to this series.

@mattnsac

3 жыл бұрын

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

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

@paullunan2261

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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 жыл бұрын

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

Stop it - you're assuming a globe Earth.

Fun Fact about the Yamato: even though its guns are technically bigger by 2 inches, the Iowa class's 16 inch guns achieved better penetration. Murica.

@Jadefox32

3 жыл бұрын

Yet in face testing WW2 16inch shells wouldn't penetrate Yamato's turrets. As they get closer to each other Yamato's accuracy goes up and an Iowa's chance of surviving goes down. First hit would probably go to the Iowa with the better FCS, but it would not likely be a fatal hit and Yamato would keep slinging in return.

@Chase-Man

3 жыл бұрын

@@Jadefox32 idk anything anout naval but the HE shells alone on the yamato could render everything on the deck of the iowa useless i would have to guess

@Jadefox32

3 жыл бұрын

@@Chase-Man the secondaries and AAA yes

@bjmccann1

3 жыл бұрын

Insert requisite adolescent joke here about length versus girth.

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

41:07 Bismarck is now a small cruiser.

@duanesamuelson2256

Жыл бұрын

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.

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 жыл бұрын

That’s not what the pop up mode is for

@commiccannon592

3 жыл бұрын

@@lohrtom what is it for

@lohrtom

3 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@lohrtom cool thanks for the info

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

@fubarace1027

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

I said to myself at the start that if the Yamato or Musashi got into gunnery range, then the carrier group was doomed. 130mm guns were not going to penetrate the Japanese gun turrets with something like 406mm face plates. 18.1 inch shells would be unstoppable. Most of the ship models were pretty good except for the Bismarck which was horrendous. It was HMS Duke of York which defeated the Scharnhorst at the Battle of North Cape. Graf Spee was the ship with two turrets, one fore and one after with 11 inch barrels. Sunk at the Battle of River Plate. The heavy Cruiser you forgot the name of after about a minute was the Prinz Eugen - sunk in real life during US atomic tests at Bikini Atoll. Regardless I really enjoyed seeing the Nimitz Class being burnt stem to stern. Thank you for 100 minutes that flew by.

I've been waiting for this one cap!

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

@natalijalaonar8187

2 жыл бұрын

...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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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.

The modern ships attacked wildly without any kind of consideration of their enemy of any sort of plan. The Modern battlefleet would be able to detect the incoming battleships from quite the distance, and make a serious attempt at fleeing from them. At the same time, a saturation attack with missiles would be completely unhindered. Missiles could be targeted at radars, bridges, and critical and vulnerable areas of the ship, as well as the decks, to reduce their defense against bombs. Finally, laser and GPS guided weapons could be used against the ships once their weapons had been degraded. The carrier would probably not have enough raw munitions to sink all of those ships, or even most of them, but none of them would be leaving that front anything close to combat effective.

For those asking why the US force stopped attacking and the planes refused to attack... Apparently, they got a call from UN to stop the attack to preserve the history of those vessels... The mission on stopping them will fall to the hands of their country of origins.

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 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

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

@brothergunns5055

3 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

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

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

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

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

The Bismarck and Yamato. Two amazing coral reefs.

Several inconsitances here, Tirpitz is a battleship, Scharnhorst and Gniesenaua were also classed as battleships, you are identifying an Italian heavy cruiser as the Bismarck, look at the paintwork on the italian ship, you can clearly tell that they are italian as they have the stripes on the bow, Aegis cruisers carry Tomahawk cruiser misiles with a 500lb anti shipping warhead and that is what is hitting and doing the damage.

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.

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

@hithere7382

3 жыл бұрын

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

@asheer9114

3 жыл бұрын

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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

@@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...

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

this is a clip from a discussion about "How many Harpoons would it take to stop or sink an Iowa class BB" Stuart Slade said: In a word, no. Most large anti-ship missiles (and a lot of the smaller ones) have shaped-charge warheads. The penetration of a shaped charge is approximately six times its diameter. That means that a small anti-ship missile (Harpoon, Exocet, Otomat, P-15 etc) can penetrate 54 - 72 inches of armor. A heavy anti-ship missile (P-5, P-35 etc etc) can penetrate 144 inches of armor. That isn't the end of it. What really does the damage in a missile hit is fire. You see, all those missiles carry a substantial excess of fuel, most often rocket fuel (there's a reason why most of these missiles are rocket-powered). When the missile hits, all that fuel gets sprayed around and ignited, touching off major fires. Now, if that fuel is rocket fuel, it contains its own oxidizers and that means it can't be put out (there's the reason). The only way to deal witha fire like that is to contain it by shutting watertight and firetight doors and letting it burn itself out. Flooding, foam etc, all are ineffective. If the fuel is jet fuel, then life is a bit easier but its still a hard, hard battle. Just to add to the shits and giggles, many of the missile designs have their warheads behind the fuel tank so the explosion blasts the blazing fuel deep into the ship. The damage control crews have to face extensive fires on multiple levels of the ship and do so in highly adverse conditions. If the missile has hit above a magazine, it will blast blazing rocket fuel into that magazine. Flooding the mag (s sovereign remedy in the old days) doesn't work, the damned stuff burns underwater. A magazine explosion is a racing certainty. Also battleships are not hard targets at all. They carry a lot of armor, sure, but only limited areas of the ship are protected by that armor. The ships radars, communications, fire control plus a whole load of other expensive systems are in the unarmored superstructure. So, even if the armor doesn't get penetrated, those missiles with their explosive warheads and fuel loads are going to trash the superstructure and set the wreckage on fire. All those expensive electronics are gone, history. So, the ship has no fire control, no comms, no surveillance, no air defense, nothing. She may have 16 inch guns but the only thing she can use them for is to hang out the crew's washing. She's mission-killed even if she survives. By the way, notice something about sinking battleships - the crew casualties are very, very heavy. Why? Because in action, nearly all of the crew are deep inside the ship. Getting out isn't easy. With the way out blocked by rocket fuel fires, its a lot more so. Finally, repairing an Iowa is impossible, We just don't have the industrial base any more. A mission-killed ship is a constructive total loss - damaged beyond economic repair.

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

@trumpetyt267

2 жыл бұрын

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

You've forgot about the ship to ship missiles from the American fleet. I think they had a range of 70 to 80 miles. And they also had tomahawk missiles, which most likely be use against WW2 and modern battleships.

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

@ThunderForce222

3 жыл бұрын

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

@SCfanIam100

3 жыл бұрын

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

@TerryTerius

3 жыл бұрын

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

@TerryTerius

3 жыл бұрын

@@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 жыл бұрын

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

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.

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

I was looking forward to the Nimitz carrier taking a barage of 14+ in shells. I always enjoy Cap's unbridled enthusiasm for such carnage. I figured that would happen. As someone else mentioned, I had imagined a scenario where the two battle groups are identical - with current capabilities. One group has the last New Jersey variant and the other the Nimitz-class carrier This would square up the fight and we can see how an realistic aircraft-borne attack would do against long range guns. No chickensh-t Bogs this time.

I think in the real world if this ridiculousness actually happened, those Harpoons wouldn't of worked anyway. They'd end up blowing up or getting completely wiped out if they hit any of those huge columns of water they were flying through. Hitting water at the speed those missiles are moving would be like slamming into a concrete wall, so if the force of hitting the water didn't just outright destroy it, it'd either trigger the contact fuse, drown out the turbojet, or knock it completely off course.

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

The heavy cruiser was a admiral hipper class. The smallish cruiser was Graf spee. The double barrel with 4 turrets battleships were bismarck and tirpitz The triple barrel battleship was Scharnhorst The double barrel with 3 turrets battleship was Gneisenau. So there was 2 scharnhorsts at the end, but no gneisenau Edit: Yamato:460mm Bismarck/Gneisenau: 380mm Scharnhorst:305mm Graf spee: 305mm Admiral Hipper: 203mm

@sebastianthiele7637

11 ай бұрын

yeah the Tirpitz was the sistership of the Bismarck and sank in a norwegian fjord. And the Tirpitz had two or three barrel torpedo tubes on both sides.

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

Tirpitz was a Bizmark-class battleship.

@marmite8959

3 жыл бұрын

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

@rossanderson5815

3 жыл бұрын

Bismarck was also a dreadnought not a battleship.

@grimreapers

3 жыл бұрын

thx

@nicbruv

3 жыл бұрын

@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 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

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 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

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?

have the ships approaching at angles where the broadside armament and rear turrets can fire 30-45 degree angles would be better. The Yamato class secondary armament would be able to ruin all the cruisers and smaller without even needing the main guns

What about 1980's Iowa battlegroup vs Nimitz battlegroup? Also, Americans use 5in guns, so 127mm in sensible units. As for the big caliber guns, the Americans have somewhat of an advantage if the shells are modeled correctly. If the shells fusing vs the very minimal armor of modern USN vessels is taken into account, more than likely any hits from big caliber shells will just go straight through them either w/o arming, or arming too late to do any meaningful damage. You have to remember that the Axis ships have shells designed to go up against warships with a considerable amount of armor. Something the modern vessels do not have.

The planes and missiles were really the only way the modern group would have been able to handle the old ships since the oldies had such thick armor and the modern ships have such small guns. With no planes to batter the top sides, it was over then.

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

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 жыл бұрын

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.

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

The most unrealistic naval engagement I've witnessed. What happened to the submarines and tomahawk missiles from both the surface fleet and the strike aircraft. They would've launched well beyond the effective range of the enemy surface battle group.