@Eddy525_violinthe problem isn’t firing the missiles it’s guiding them. Plenty of systems can track dozens of target but can only engage a handful of them.
Note on Soviet CIWS: You are just counting gun mounts, in ALMOST all cases two gun mounts are controlled by one FCR, so are effectively one weapons system with two guns. So, a ship with four 30mm cannons are just two CIWS.
This is also why some soviet ships prefer head-on missile defense, compared to US ships which generally prefer broadside. Smaller effective RCS, and twice the effective CIWS unmasked.
@@grimreapers What was initially a short, simple, and to the point comment; quickly became a Wall of Text for which I apologize. But if you're still interested in reading it, here's some general background info on the Phalanx CIWS and things about it that may or may not be a factor the game takes into account, potentially affecting how well (Or not) they might perform in said game: As a comparison, it's very important to note the US equivalent that's also used by many NATO vessels aka the "Phalanx CIWS", as an inherent aspect of its drop-in design means it has its own entirely self-contained FCS and dual antenna Ku-Band Radar in the "R2-D2" Radome. This enables it to act 100% autonomously, with its search antenna (Obviously) searching and detecting any objects, if its main computer which is analyzing the search antenna data determines the object meets all the listed threat criteria of a valid target, it immediately turns the mount to face the target and once the threat enters within "Approx." 8km then hands control over to its tracking antenna. The track antennas subsystem observes it until the main computer determines the probability of a successful hit is Maximized at which once it enters around 2km-ish immediately and automatically opens fire while simultaneously tracking outgoing rounds at 75rds per second; literally "Walking" them into the target. This is all just a SINGLE mount, which as previously mentioned being designed for drop-in capability in mind; can be placed essentially ANYWHERE on deck of ANY ship where there is free deck space, nice open lines of fire, and the ability to run lines and hoses/pipes for its required 440V of power and water cooling system for its electronics. This means no matter HOW much damage the ship has taken, or personnel been killed; as long as those lines remain functioning, it's magazine drum (ALSO self-contained on the mount, suspended directly under the gun) has remaining ammo, and MOST IMPORTANTLY is in "Autonomous Mode" (In 1987 USS Stark had its Phalanx in "Stand-By Mode" as they weren't expecting any action, when out of nowhere it was hit by 2 undetected Iraqi Exocets after an IQAF Mirage F1 misidentified and mistakenly fired upon it, killing 37 Sailors); it will just keep "BBRRRRRTT! BBRRRRRRTT! BBRRRRRRRRRTTT!"-ing targets all on its own. This means with TWO Phalanx, they're both doing ALL this completely independently; allowing multiple targets to be engaged simultaneously instead of another system that can only fire them both at a single target. So the x8 Soviet CIWS, and USN ships with x4 Phalanx can actually engage the same max # of targets at any one time. Bonus - The 20mm Phalanx on Warships uniquely also fires what was initially DU, but now replaced with Tungsten APDS-T with a subcaliber diameter of 15mm once the plastic Sabot falls away. This is 1. To destroy the missile by making it un-aerodynamic, making it incapable of flight forcing it to crash instead of explode or break apart in the air for the purpose of... 2. Reducing breakup of the missile body in flight to limit any secondary fragmentation damage from parts of the missile still peppering the ship, either from continuing through the air, or skipping off the sea into the ship. An EXTREMELY IMPORTANTLY benefit, is APDS is quite literally MEANT to penetrate armor which is why it's the primary Anti-Tank round for the cannons of most MBT's around the world. The reason this matters so much in context, is many Soviet AShM's just happen to contain armor plating SPECIFICALLY to survive damage from hits and fragmentation caused by gunfire and missiles attempting to intercept them. The biggest and really only Achilles heel of the Phalanx is Saturation attacks, at 3,000 RPM for Block 0 and 1, and 4,500 RPM for Block 1A and beyond they BURN through ammo. The Block 0 has the biggest disadvantage as it only has a magazine drum capacity of 989rds, ALL subsequent Blocks have extended magazine drums that hold 1,550rds. IIRC for the Land based Version (LPWS), the limit is something like around 15-ish targets that it can engage before Winchester. The second Saturation Attack vulnerability is just how many targets would "Normally be considered realistic", if there's SO many targets inbound that the computer starts questioning whether it has a fault or error; it will end up overloaded and automatically reset itself thinking its seeing erroneous contacts or "Ghosts" trying to fix itself. This reset takes IIRC around 15-20ish seconds to fully boot back up and come online, during which that entire time the ship is essentially defenseless; unless one of the OTHER weapons all linked into the ships CIC/CEC along with all its other sensors manages to intercept the threats with whatever else the ships armed with such as a 5" Gun, VLS, SeaRAM, 25mm Bushmaster, Sea Sparrow/ESSM, etc, etc. However as most if not all CIWS are generally "Last Ditch, Point Defense" systems, the ability for another weapon system to take over in time is doubtful. A 5" Gun take time to turn, VLS have a minimum engagement range they can't fire within, etc.
You also have to take into account how Soviet vessels can't use all of their electronic equipment at the same time...if their ships have functioning electronic equipment to begin with (some of their stuff was nothing more than "slap it on the ship because it LOOKS real impressive," nothing more).
The US won because almost every US ship at this time carried at least 8 harpoons. The Soviets had better anti-ship missiles, yes, but these were mostly concentrated on a few vessels such as Slava, Sovremenny and Kirov. The moment that those 3 ships fired their load, the Soviet fleet was left with nothing but garbage like SS-N-3 or SS-N-9, which fly high.
SS-N-12 flies high for a good part of it's flight too (as does SS-N-19), and it looked like several of the SS-N-12s got shot down before they dove down to the deck. Also Harpoons, while smaller, hit well above their weight because of their terminal attack dive profile. They hit the totally unarmored deck and dive deep into the ship's guts with their semi armor piercing warhead before exploding. Very nasty.
And also, US SMs can be use as antiship... in the game the damage is quite... devastating tbh, seen few videos of theese SMs in sea power launch against a ship and the damage is quite massive for an air defence missile
@@zechuanlu426a carrier attack group of 4 squadrons (12 planes) would be 48 planes or 2 3rds of the a carriers plane force. each plane typically a super hornet holds 4 harpoons. A US carrier strike group can launch 192 harpoons from ranges of 300+ miles from the carrier without firing from the ships once
@@B-52H True, true. Even excluding the carrier and focus mainly on surface vessels. The "mighty" kriov could only carry 20 P700, while a tico with vls can theoretically carries 122 anti ship bgm109s along with 8 harpoons. Even if half the cells are armed with sif and Asroc, that is still 69 anti ship missiles. So 20vs69, even without factoring the carries, the US is simply the one pumping 3 times as much missiles with less than half the displacement.
Medium range SAMs are stored vertically (think Adams, OHP, Kidd, and early Tico). Extended range SAMs are stored horizontally because they have boosters attached to the RIM 66. The ramp on the front of the Belknap and Leahy is the loading track from the magazine to the launcher. The aft launcher on the Leahy and the Coontz (also aft launcher for extended range) doesn't need a ramp -- loads horizontally.
Leahy-class (CG) was the first and only cruisers designed without a main gun battery for shore bombardment or ship-v-ship action so their gun armament was reduced in order to carry a larger missile load as their principal mission was to form part of the anti-air and antisubmarine screen for carrier task forces.
@@grimreapers After Leahy, all ships that you would think would be cruisers like the Belknap, Virginia, and early Tico were classified as destroyers leaders (DLG) or just destroyers (DDG) until the Navy realized that their ship classifications were wacky and outdated and did an entire overhaul in the 70s resulting in the modern US ship classifications.
I found this out when i was looking at the list of all US destroyers and was confused when I saw the Tico and every single large nuclear cruiser classes from Long Beach to the Virginia class
@@grimreapersalso, the Leahy lacks a gun as they were inteded to be "Double Ended" cruisers, i.e, have twin missiles launchers, one fore, one aft of the superstructure, this was changed in the Belknap where they had the aft Mk.10 Terrier launcher replaced with a Mk.42 5" gun
RIM-2 Terrier were solid rocket, surface-to-air missiles (range 32 km, speed Mach 3, warhead 99 kg) first deployed on the USS Boston (CAG-1/former CA-69), a WWII-era Baltimore-class Heavy Cruiser that was converted to a guided missile cruiser, the first-ever CAG, by having her aft 8" gun turrets replaced with two twin launchers. In 1967, my brother was on USS Boston when she was part of the Sea Dragon operations, during which she fired thousands of rounds of 8” and 5” shells against coastal and ship targets along the coast of North Vietnam. But he said the crew always were extra watchful when a Terrier was launched. He joked that several times a Terrier would spiral and zig-zag after launch and even seem to head back towards the ship! Early days.
-The Kidd class are upgraded Spruance class destroyers originally built for Iran and have air conditioning plus some other qualilty of life upgrades for serving in the Middle East. They were bought by the US Navy when the Iranian government changed in the late 1970s. -The Leahy Class, early 1960s design with the SAMs coming out of those ramps from an armory room underneath for the original Terrier missle, later the standard missle. It was an all-missle loadout with the guns being sacrificed for more missle storage. My guess as to why it has the extended range SM is because the original Terrier was so much larger that there was room for a larger, more capable missle. Retired mid-1990s. -Gearing class destroyers were late WWII destroyers built as upgraded Fletchers. The FRAM stands for Fleet Rahabilitzation and Modernization that happened for a good chunk of the WWII-era destroyers with 3 different versions based on cost (the 3rd was fairly cheap) in the late 1950s/early 1960s to extend their life a little longer until Cold War construction could take their place. There was a small hanger installed for a DASH (drone anti-submarine helicopter) that wasn't very good, but it was also one of the first drones so some learning had to be done. Retired late 1960s/early 1970s. -Galveston-class cruisers were converted WWII Cleveland-class all-gun light cruisers and are the first guided missle cruisers. The USS Little Rock is the sole remaining example of this type and the Clevelands and she is a museum ship in Buffalo, NY. Retired mid/late 1970s.
@KazzoKiller3890 Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, "I have the solution, but it works only in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum." Edit: Oh, and military grade sounds like it means good, but it actually means bad. That's part of the joke. But it's not funny now because I explained it.
To add to why all ships don’t have the same missiles: when a ship is purpose-built for something it will be given only the weapons necessary for the job. The Spruance, for example, was designed as an ASW platform and did not need to defend a fleet from air attack, which is why it only was fitted with RIM-7s for self-defense. However, I do know that I’m some cases, for example the Galveston CLG, the missiles were so big that they had to be assembled on the ship before being loaded onto the rail, which may explain the horizontal loading.
17:55 Sverdlov were based on Soviet, German, and Italian designs and concepts developed before WW2. They were modified to improve their sea capabilities, allowing them to operate at high speeds in the rough waters of the North Atlantic and North Sea.
I read in notes from some old game that the Sverdlovs were used as flagships, because they had at least some armor and therefore were believed to be a bit more survivable.
I've noticed that the defensive ecm has gotten quite good in the game. If you have the logs open you can see what attacking or defending missile got spoofed by defensive jammming. Also if you look at the green lines coming out from the missile towards a ship, that's the ship the missile in gonna hit, so you don't have to wait for them to hit the target to know which ship the missile is going for TIp for cap: You can press Tab to fullscreen the tacmap
The older soviet ships using silex were not in range reducing the volley mass plus the different missile velocities of the Soviets broke up the attack. US ships all using the same missiles on a greater number of ships had a perfect time on target scenario.
The Soviet naval designers loved to place multiple and varying weapons systems on their decks. This made feeding stores more difficult than they needed to be, causing spaces below to be more open/fewer bulkheads… with the unfortunate result being a propensity to spread fires quickly. To make matters worse, all that weight topside lead to “interesting” ship handling challenges due to the top-heavy nature of their vessels. Keeping varied systems working in the Soviet system was… monumentally difficult. Many systems would go FOR YEARS in a degraded state, with few crew members being knowledgeable and empowered to repair their many complicated subsystems. Many systems had poor reliability and some systems were nonfunctional for YEARS and remained so after the Soviet government was dissolved.
The story about non-working Russian ships is the funniest I've heard. Especially after the story about the last US Ford aircraft carriers, whose toilets don't even work properly, not to mention other systems😂😂😂😂
How many ships? ALL the ships! Thank you, CAP and Reapers. Some of my Sicilian relatives in New Jersey are considering CIWS for their back yards, in case of drone attack. 😅
Correction: the missile launcher on the front of the Spruance is an ASROC launcher, which fired missiles that would deliver torpedoes for ASW work Reason for the different Standard missiles on different ships is because of how they were armed when first built, which was during the “T3 era.” The surface to air missiles used by the U.S. Navy were the Talos, Terrier, and Tartar missiles, long to medium to short range respectively (and hence the 3 T’s or T3). What version of Standard each ship received depended on which of the 3 T’s they were originally armed with mainly due to magazine size for the missile itself. If you see a ramp behind one of the twin armed launchers for the Standard missile, it’s where the missile would come out of the magazine to be loaded The Knox class were originally outfitted with Sea Sparrow missiles on the stern but at some point, some if not all of them replaced that launcher with a Phalanx mount. The ASROC launchers on the Knox would at some point be modified to be able to fire Harpoon missiles once it entered service and to my knowledge, would usually dedicate four of the eight “tubes” for them You are correct in assuming that the Charles f. Adams class fires Harpoons from the MK 13 missile launcher Galveston class is a converted WW II Cleveland class light cruiser Again, Harpoons and CIWS were retrofitted in the 70’s and 80’s for a lot of American vessels. Not too sure about Soviet CIWS. IIRC, the reason why the Soviet ships have more CIWS is that they would primarily rely on the ship’s primary sensors to maintain a small size to pack more onto a vessel. But because of this, if you take out the ship’s radar, they would be severely limited in capability as they would only have EO/IR backups. The Phalanx on the other hand has its own radars integrated into it, trading size for independence. The reason why America only has the Pegasus class while the Soviets have a larger variety of fast attack craft (FAC) is due simply to geography and doctrine. America has a huge amount of coast exposed to ocean and was focused on controlling sea lines of communication (SLOC) worldwide. The Soviets in the other hand, while they do have coasts, the vast majority of it that is accessible are littoral environments, namely the Baltic, Black and Caspian Seas where FACs are far more useful
The Galleon battle went hard for the Russians because the US core game Mk46 torpedos and ASROC cant be used against surface ships, but the Russian Torpedos and ASW mortars can. The later Mod5 (modeled in the NTU upgrade) can attack surface ships. Though truth be told, at the range the Galleon fight occurred, the Iowa's 16" guns would have close to a 100% hit rate, and a single 3 barrel salvo would completely destroy any of the Soviet ships it was facing (including the Kirov). The Tico would've gone absolutely nuts with SM-2s in surface attack mode too, but still and all, it was an entertaining Galleon fight. That russian Gun Cruiser was incredibly effective.
The smaller guns shoudln't do *any* damage to an Iowa, and neither should small modern ASW torpedos or most types of antiship or surface to air missiles (in surface mode). When the then captain of the USS Iowa was asked what he would do if the Iowa was hit with an exocet like the ones used in the Falklands he said, quote: "I would order sweeper operations to sweep the (still burning) missile pieces over the side of the ship"
@@SgtTechCom not penetrating the armor is not the same as doing no damage. An Iowa being raked by massed 100mm fire would take damage to anything outside the armor, CWIS mounts, radars, antennas, armored box launchers et cetera would be devastated as well as the 5 inch gun mounts which aren't armored enough to resist.
@@josephahner3031 True. And then the 16" turrets would turn and obliterate whatever was silly enough to try that. See also: howitzer she'll damage and what was sent downrange in response. Also, while you can mangle superstructure, doing so with pea-shooters will take quite a while to have much effect. 100mm is smaller than her *secondary* battery.
the ER uses the mk10 launcher which has two barrel shaped magazines set low down in the hull takes up a bit of space. There are some good diagrams on the web EDIT Harpoon and CWIS added in the late 70s early 80's...
OK, so the Americans won. I'll admit I was actually thinking the Soviets would. So, the reason why actually comes to a firepower advantage for the Americans, ironically enough. The huge focus on defense meant that every part of that line was covered by multiple lines of defense, and the larger cruisers like the Tico can help direct the air defenses of the weaker ships. By contrast, the air defense of the Soviets was terrible, with most of the warships relying on S-125Ms and Osa-Ms. The Osas had such a bad reputation that many Warsaw Pact nations simply refused to install them on their warships. Also, many of the Soviet CIWS you saw were actually AK-230s, and not the AK-630s. The -230 is a much weaker weapon system and was highly unreliable for taking out anti ship missiles. Also, the Americans had a massive number of anti ship missiles. Almost all those ships had 8 Harpoons, and some had a few extra anti- ship Tomahawks. Because the Harpoons fly so low, the Soviets had an extremely hard time dealing with them and immediately crumbled at the massive wall of missile. By contrast there were actually a lot of Soviet ships that had no anti ship missiles at all (like the Petya, Sverdolov, Kresta, Kara, etc). So, in all, the Americans had a very difficult but workable defensive strategy against the Russian onslaught, while the combination of poor air defense and sheet numbers of enemy missiles leads to a total wipeout for the Soviets.
Near video end, BEST Galleon fight ever ... by a wide margin. Don't care that comparable classes weren't aligned. Such fun to watch! Pure carnage (and a near-fishing boat) FTW! Well done!
Instead of a Petya, you should have used the Kresta-1, which is armed with Shaddock's. Also every ship with SS-N-14 Silex is outranged by the US warships, and even if they were in range, only SS-N-14B is able to be an AShM. SS-N-14A is purely anti-submarine, like a super-ASROC.
Spruance Class, the box launcher on the front is the ASROC launcher, not Seasparrow, the single launcher on the back is the Seasparrow. 24 missiles might include 2 reloads after the first 8. To reload that MK29 is not a fast endeavor. (This is my system, and am extremely familiar with it. Not going into to much more detail for reasons...)
@williamescolantejr5871 Probably. I was just pointing out a Seasparrow fact. The old Knox Class had the older BPDMS Mk25 launcher, which, while different, looks a bit like the ASROC. USS Downes DE/FF-1070 was the only Knox to get the Mk29 launcher, which we still use today, but has been modified to use the RIM-162 ESSM.
Right. For all intents and purposes the 8 cell box launcher would never be reloaded in time in a fight like the ones Cap has been doing. Sea Sparrow does have a *very* nasty antiship mode though, which the US ships didn't seem to use in the galleon fight. A US ship accidentally shot a Turkish destroyer with a Sea Sparrow during an exercise and did enormous damage to the ship. There are photographs online.
Russian navy took to having red decks back in the Peter The Great days where wind powered ships ruled. The red was to disguise all the blood from cannonballs and grapeshot messing up the crews, that blood on the decks was very intimidating for crew that were in battle. I know current ships don't have that kind of issue but it could be just a page from history.
@@derpderpson2188 Considering it's almost universally used on hulls below the waterline... I'm guessing the choice has two purposes. 1. It's cheap and available. 2. Operating in the Arctic seas are rougher and the decks are frequently awash. Deck rusting is probably a larger issue in that environment. Well, historically, it's not limited to deck rust.
Well, this output was totally expected. 90% of the spawned soviet ships were Antisub ships that couldn't return fire. Even when they have some antiship missiles, you placed them in a distance that doesn't allow then to fire. So at the end this scenario was 3 Soviet ships against all the Americans. Also you didn't spawn the soviet carriers forgetting that they are considered missile cruisers, and they would deliver a big punch with their supersonic missiles. That said, the video was very entertainment! Specially the galleon battle! thank you!
It is INSANE how overmodeled the SS-N-22 sunburn is in this game. The sea skimming speed is WAY too high (actual published sea skimming speed is mach 2.2). If you watch the video, the Sunburn that missed it's target at over 1600 knots makes about a 300G 90 degree turn to attack another US ship. Totally hilarious (but people say NTU is unbalanced, lol)
I really enjoyed this cap,even more because the CIWS on my ship was going off for training. It added some nice immersion to the already chaotic battle.
One all the bots. Also the Galveston class CL. It a converted Cleveland class light cruiser of ww2 vintage. The one in game is the flagship version there where 2 of these and another one that had more 6in guns and 5in cool ships
Russia has more patrol craft due to having more shallow water areas to defend. Baltic, Black Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, Barents, etc. US navy is a power projection. The coast guard handles the smaller stuff.
The thing about the Iowa class battleships was their fire control radar was so advanced and accurate that they were able to be used in the Korean, Vietnam, and first Gulf Wars.
The rampy thing on the Leahy is the loading mechanism for the two-arm launcher. Note the doors. The rear launcher has two doors behind it as well, but set into the upper structure so a ramp is not needed.
Some history on the less well known USN ships used in this one ! Garcia class Frigate is a early 60's ASW frigate part of a modernization of the USN,(the Brooke class is a Tartar equipped subclass) Coontz class is a big DDG class built from 59'-61' and served into the 90s till the Burkes came into service (these did not get reclassed as cruiser in 1975 due to their shorter cruising range than the Belknap and Leahy classes even though they are similarly armed) Belknap and Leahy class are both mid 60's classes classed as FFGs originally till 1975 when they got reclassed as cruiser CG both have similar hull (almost same size) just the Leahy is a double ended missile truck with 80 SM1ERs neither class got NTU, only USS Wainwright CG28 got SM2ER ands the trials ship for the full NTU upgrade. the 3 Galveston class cruisers are WWII light cruisers converted to guided missile cruiser equipped with Talos missile system aft replacing the rear superstructure and aft triple 6"turret. Okie City and Little Rock also lost a fwd 6" turret as they got added space for Fleet Flagship duties, Galveston retained both fwd 6'turrets, their close sisters ships in the Providence class got Terrier launchers instead of Talos. Gearing class Destroyer was a huge class of 98 ships built too late for WW2 and got many updates leading to FRAMII (Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernisation II) these ships served right into the 1970s and five are preserved as Museum ships. Charles F Adams class was early 60's DDG with 23 built for USN, 3 for (Lutjens class) West Germany Navy and 3 for the Royal Australian Navy (Perth Class) the RAN ships have the UK/Aust developed Ikara ASW system in place of ASROC, and the last RAN Perth class was retired only in October of 2001. Virginia class CGN is arguably a 3rd generation CGN following on from the 2nd gen California class, orginally intended to have SM2 when built they got SM1MR due to delays with the SM2 program. The fwd mk26 magazine only has 24 rds(including ASROCs and SM1or 2MRs) aft magazine has 44rds. The newest ship CGN41 Arkansas only served 18 years!! All CGNs decommissioned due to crew costs and diminshed global threats despite their unique capablities to go anywhere at speed. Kidd class DDG was a subclass of the Spruance class ASW destroyer with the same mk26 armament setup as the Virginias and flt1 Tico's the 4 ships of the class got the NTU refit and served the USN for many years then sat in mothballs for a bit then got offered to the RAN for a bargain price (the RAN declined due to the large crew needed), then they got sold to Taiwan where they still serve.
I am absolutely shocked by that first round, I genuinely thought so many more of those faster Soviet missiles would have gone through. The Soviet had better offensive missiles, a TON more CIWS, and even a few more ships. I can't believe just how effective the American SAMs were in mass.
Yeah, in hindsight it was clear that this would happen though😅. Pretty much all American ships used the same (decent) missile, which meant that the entire swarm hit at the exact same time. While the three most pwerfull Soviet ships all use different missiles that go at different speeds. And in my experience the older Soviet missiles, which are on most of their ships and the missile boats for example, are absolute rubbish. They're dumb missiles that neither go very fast nor fly particularly low, don't have all that great range and to top it all off they're big targets. Tried 20 of those boats against the Nimitz Carrier group (so120 missiles). Nothing went through.
As has been said before. The Soviet Navy has more weapons per ship because they expected to be out numbered. Thats why these US vs Soviet "fair fights" lean toward the Soviets. If you wanted even fights the US probably needs more escorts to make the firepower fair per side
The Soviets also tend to be hyperspecialized, though. Most of the post-50s US ships are, to some degree, a 'jack of all trades.' Notice how basically every one has harpoons tacked onto the side. Meanwhile, the *good* Soviet ASMs are all concentrated on three ships.
У СССР была тактика обороны и они не собирались нападать на США, и главная задача всех этих больших ракет уничтожить авианосцы и плевать на весь этот мелкий эскорт.
The box launcher on Front of the Leahy is an ASROC launcher. And the Leahy class were dedicated AAW platforms with minor ASW capability. These were desinged as Carrier AAW escort as primary mission. Initially they did not even have an ASW helo.
That large box launcher abaft the forward 5 inch gun on the Spruance, is the 8 cell ASROC launcher. ASROC = A missile that carries an ASW torpedo to kill subs at extended range.
About damn time the Adams class gets some screen time! You can ask me anything about them, I am an Adams Class DDG encyclopedia. First answer: the Harpoon load out on the Adams was the same as the OHP: 4 launched via age MK 13 launcher. The ramps in front of the launchers on some ships are the missile house. The fins were attached manually by sailors in the missile house before sliding onto the launcher. Fun fact 1: the Garcia class FF was known as “McNamara’s Nightmare” because they were so weakly armed and were procured by Robert McNamara, the then Secretary of Defense. Fun fact 2: the USS Coontz harpoon techs attempted to complete two maintenance actions at once. The result was an accidental launch of a harpoon. The lasting result is that this blunder was what caused the introduction of a launch key for the Harpoon missile system (which every harpoon tech knows how to bypass).
The harpoons have a tiny seeker cone. If the formation is spread out enough you can pretty much pick out whatever target you'd want and fairly reliable hit it. The downside is the fairly limited range compared to things like a harpoon or pretty much all russian asm's
It wasn't the Iowa that was going to get VLS, it was New Jersey and the VLS would have replaced turret 3 with reloads in the armored turret, which would have made for a lot of missiles.
And now you see why I love playing the Sverdlov in Cold Waters (this games' predecessor). All those guns, and all that CIWS...lovely little ship, she's so great! You go, Sverdy!! 😁
The gentlemans agreement of the slowest missile can shoot first principle does muddy the water substantially to be able to predict the outcome, but maybe it does not? Would like to see a rematch or an addendum where it was ran again?
Lots of questions when you were looking at the ships, but one you asked that has a fairly easy answer is why some ships carried SM-1MR/SM-2MR vs SM-1ER/SM-2ER. That's because the MR & ER missiles are actually quite different, designated RIM-66 (MR) and RIM-67 (ER), with the ER missiles weighing nearly twice as much & being nearly twice as long, due to the added booster stage that gives them the longer punch. Tico's & other MR-missile ships simply don't have the proper lengths in their magazines to store the ER missiles, and their arm launchers couldn't accommodate the longer missiles. Belknap, Leahy, and a few other classes of cruisers were designed for the extended range engagements; it's too sad they were never provided the AEGIS system to really be a potent force, but their effectiveness here shows just how good they were as it was. Tico's with the RIM-156 SM-2ER Blk IV (based on RIM-67) missiles in VLS are darned scary Gods of War. If you think the game is unbalanced with the NTU, VLS, and RIM-66H SM-2MR Blk IV, the RIM-156 basically doubles the range of the RIM-66H.
Gavelston-Class Cruisers are converted Cleveland Class CL's post war. The 6-inch turret is the original on the ship. There is still one preserved as a muesuem ship that I have visited in Buffalo, New York. USS Little Rock, moored next to a fletcher class destroyer and I believe a balao class submarine as well.
"Anti-corrosive paints contain corrosion-resistant pigments, such as zinc oxide, zinc chromate, lead chromate, or red lead. These paints create a barrier that prevents corrosive materials and chemical compounds from coming into contact with the metal. Corrosion can severely damage the life of any steel or iron element." Other countries also use red lead paint but top coat it Grey for a uniform color.
Came for the introduction, stayed for the Galleon Another reason the Russians lost the missle fight so hard, most of their SAMs don't deal with sea skimmers like the Harpoon. As oposed to even the SM1 on some of the frigates for the US at least have a chance of intercept.
RIM-67B is Standard Missile 2. 67A is SM-1. THe B's included inertial navigation. The 67's are all extended range. The 66's are Medium Range. So you're just a little mixed up.
That was not the USS Galveston but one of the two other class members USS Little Rock (still afloat) or USS Oklahoma City. All three were Cleveland class light cruisers launched in 44 to 45 but not commissioned until 58 to 60 following the conversion to carry missiles. Galveston retained her original forward armament of 3 dual five turrets and two triple. The Oklahoma City and Little work were refit as fleet command cruisers. To expand the superstructure for flag use they removed the superfiring triple 6 turret and two of the duel 5 inches then extended the superstructure moving the remaining duel 5 mount forward. That's the configuration in the game.
Is USS Long Beach in the game yet? It’s the first nuclear powered cruiser ever made and it was designed to be an anti aircraft carrier would love to see it in one of these battles
Yes, at this time the Soviet ships were better armed and defended than the USN ships. That's why there is the post 1986 ship mod which model America's response to these ships.
I don't think any of the ships in core game are real world "better armed or defended" than a mk26 Ticonderoga when you consider that the Tico's SM-2s are also Antiship missiles. I would say only the Kirov and Slava could be reasonably called "better defended" than a Ticonderoga, or even a Kidd (remember the real Kidd's had SM-2, not SM-1 as in the core game)
American vessels were pure blue water operating in the Pacific. They needed range so a lot of tonnage is fuel. Soviet ships are more limited in range because lack of air power meant the ships had to carry full air/missile defense and full offensive capacity along with anti sub and anti surface capacity. Take half the fuel that easier to do. Also Soviet ships had less endurance on station.
@@joehealy6376the Soviet ships were also woefully under built compared to their American counterparts, with less bulkheads, damage control stations, and redundant systems, which saved a lot of weight
As events in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Ukraine have shown, Patriot air defense systems are not capable of adequately intercepting cruise and ballistic missiles. Obviously, their characteristics are exaggerated. Similarly, expectations for naval air defense in the game are unreasonably high.
The Leahy-class cruisers (originally DLGs, reclassified to CGs in 1975) were built without naval guns for the purpose of making room for more missiles.
Certainly Sverdlov benefited by being at the end of the line, but also because its 8 inch shells are much faster-firing and meaningfully just as destructive against modern, essentially un-armored ships as Iowa's 16 inchers.
Even a 152mm gun would have difficulty penetrating Iowa's armored belt or main decks which were built to withstand 14" guns. Even the superstructure is armored.
I mean battleship armor isn’t proof against cruiser fire 6 inch and 8 inch. The night battles of Savo Island are a testament to that. Granted the Japanese Kongo classes were battlecruisers. The Boise and Helena’s 6 inch rapid firing guns did a lot of damage on those nights.
Pronounced Lay-he or Lay-'e. Regarding the ER vs MR, the ER gets that extra range from a massive solid rocket booster fitted to the back of the missile, that takes up a lot of space and requires much more complex systems to handle which also takes up a lot more space. As for the sloped feature you mentioned, that is the loading mechanism for the launcher.
Suggestion!: In 2005, a Swedish Gotland-class submarine, the HSwMS Gotland, "sank" a US aircraft carrier in a war game, demonstrating the submarine's stealth and innovative design
the soviet vessels had red decks because there was no anti-slip deck covering on soviet era ships, so they used to tar their decks to provide some anti-slip aid as walking the decks in soviet winters could be very dangerous without it.
The soviet cruiser in the galleon battle was the last all gun cruiser ever build. I think it was build in the 1960s its wreck is at the coast of norway. Currently sadly getting scrapped, a beautiful ship.
[A] The USSR had a large Brown Water Navy; AND there were Krivaks/Grishas built for the Navy and Krivaks/Grishas with different armament for the KGB. [B] The Leahy/Belknap were long shooters before the advent of AEGIS. [C] As matter of fun, one of each of those class were nuclear powered.
@@FleetDefenderRA5, there were a few "long-shooters". The purpose- built ones were the Farragut/Coontz-class and Long Beach, but all of the retrofit WWII cruisers (Boston, Albany, and Galveston-classes) carried Terrier and/or Talos.
The Sverdlovs were cool. The Rusians under Stalin created them as sort of an uber version of the WW2 light cruiser. You can see German and Italian influence in their design. The concept was a raiding cruiser that cuold threaten sea lanes in the North Atlantic. They so frightedned the UK that we developed the the Buccaneer as a counter, to do do an ultra low level approach and drop a bomb, probably nuclear on them. They were seen as obsolete by Kruschev and he cancelled them in favor of missile armed alternatives like the Kynda.
re: Virginia and Adams questions by Cap. That angled ramp forward on the Virginia is the missile magazine. Instead of picking up the missiles in the vertical, she picks them up at an angle. It's faster. Adams class - Where are the Harpoons? Good guess, Cap. They're in the SAM magazine. Adams were upgraded in the early 80s (single arm launcher anyways, I don't know about the dual arm) to be able to take a mix of Standard SAMs and Harpoons.
"8 CWIS!!!! that's never gonna get hit !"
immediatly get dunked by 4 harpoons seconds later 🤣🤣
It's CIWS, not CWIS. Does Close Weapon In System make sense? No. Close-In Weapon System.
if the russians fired all at once they almost definitely would have won the missile fight its a game problem
@Eddy525_violin ok commieboo
@Eddy525_violin That would depend on if their FCS worked which the almost never are, case in point, Ukraine.
@Eddy525_violinthe problem isn’t firing the missiles it’s guiding them. Plenty of systems can track dozens of target but can only engage a handful of them.
Note on Soviet CIWS: You are just counting gun mounts, in ALMOST all cases two gun mounts are controlled by one FCR, so are effectively one weapons system with two guns. So, a ship with four 30mm cannons are just two CIWS.
Interesting.
@@grimreapers The Soviet AK 630 is similar to the Chinese mega 30mm 11 barrel CIWS because of the way 2 turrets are tied into one FCR.
This is also why some soviet ships prefer head-on missile defense, compared to US ships which generally prefer broadside.
Smaller effective RCS, and twice the effective CIWS unmasked.
@@grimreapers What was initially a short, simple, and to the point comment; quickly became a Wall of Text for which I apologize. But if you're still interested in reading it, here's some general background info on the Phalanx CIWS and things about it that may or may not be a factor the game takes into account, potentially affecting how well (Or not) they might perform in said game:
As a comparison, it's very important to note the US equivalent that's also used by many NATO vessels aka the "Phalanx CIWS", as an inherent aspect of its drop-in design means it has its own entirely self-contained FCS and dual antenna Ku-Band Radar in the "R2-D2" Radome.
This enables it to act 100% autonomously, with its search antenna (Obviously) searching and detecting any objects, if its main computer which is analyzing the search antenna data determines the object meets all the listed threat criteria of a valid target, it immediately turns the mount to face the target and once the threat enters within "Approx." 8km then hands control over to its tracking antenna.
The track antennas subsystem observes it until the main computer determines the probability of a successful hit is Maximized at which once it enters around 2km-ish immediately and automatically opens fire while simultaneously tracking outgoing rounds at 75rds per second; literally "Walking" them into the target.
This is all just a SINGLE mount, which as previously mentioned being designed for drop-in capability in mind; can be placed essentially ANYWHERE on deck of ANY ship where there is free deck space, nice open lines of fire, and the ability to run lines and hoses/pipes for its required 440V of power and water cooling system for its electronics.
This means no matter HOW much damage the ship has taken, or personnel been killed; as long as those lines remain functioning, it's magazine drum (ALSO self-contained on the mount, suspended directly under the gun) has remaining ammo, and MOST IMPORTANTLY is in "Autonomous Mode" (In 1987 USS Stark had its Phalanx in "Stand-By Mode" as they weren't expecting any action, when out of nowhere it was hit by 2 undetected Iraqi Exocets after an IQAF Mirage F1 misidentified and mistakenly fired upon it, killing 37 Sailors); it will just keep "BBRRRRRTT! BBRRRRRRTT! BBRRRRRRRRRTTT!"-ing targets all on its own.
This means with TWO Phalanx, they're both doing ALL this completely independently; allowing multiple targets to be engaged simultaneously instead of another system that can only fire them both at a single target.
So the x8 Soviet CIWS, and USN ships with x4 Phalanx can actually engage the same max # of targets at any one time.
Bonus - The 20mm Phalanx on Warships uniquely also fires what was initially DU, but now replaced with Tungsten APDS-T with a subcaliber diameter of 15mm once the plastic Sabot falls away.
This is 1. To destroy the missile by making it un-aerodynamic, making it incapable of flight forcing it to crash instead of explode or break apart in the air for the purpose of...
2. Reducing breakup of the missile body in flight to limit any secondary fragmentation damage from parts of the missile still peppering the ship, either from continuing through the air, or skipping off the sea into the ship.
An EXTREMELY IMPORTANTLY benefit, is APDS is quite literally MEANT to penetrate armor which is why it's the primary Anti-Tank round for the cannons of most MBT's around the world. The reason this matters so much in context, is many Soviet AShM's just happen to contain armor plating SPECIFICALLY to survive damage from hits and fragmentation caused by gunfire and missiles attempting to intercept them.
The biggest and really only Achilles heel of the Phalanx is Saturation attacks, at 3,000 RPM for Block 0 and 1, and 4,500 RPM for Block 1A and beyond they BURN through ammo. The Block 0 has the biggest disadvantage as it only has a magazine drum capacity of 989rds, ALL subsequent Blocks have extended magazine drums that hold 1,550rds. IIRC for the Land based Version (LPWS), the limit is something like around 15-ish targets that it can engage before Winchester.
The second Saturation Attack vulnerability is just how many targets would "Normally be considered realistic", if there's SO many targets inbound that the computer starts questioning whether it has a fault or error; it will end up overloaded and automatically reset itself thinking its seeing erroneous contacts or "Ghosts" trying to fix itself.
This reset takes IIRC around 15-20ish seconds to fully boot back up and come online, during which that entire time the ship is essentially defenseless; unless one of the OTHER weapons all linked into the ships CIC/CEC along with all its other sensors manages to intercept the threats with whatever else the ships armed with such as a 5" Gun, VLS, SeaRAM, 25mm Bushmaster, Sea Sparrow/ESSM, etc, etc.
However as most if not all CIWS are generally "Last Ditch, Point Defense" systems, the ability for another weapon system to take over in time is doubtful. A 5" Gun take time to turn, VLS have a minimum engagement range they can't fire within, etc.
You also have to take into account how Soviet vessels can't use all of their electronic equipment at the same time...if their ships have functioning electronic equipment to begin with (some of their stuff was nothing more than "slap it on the ship because it LOOKS real impressive," nothing more).
The US won because almost every US ship at this time carried at least 8 harpoons.
The Soviets had better anti-ship missiles, yes, but these were mostly concentrated on a few vessels such as Slava, Sovremenny and Kirov.
The moment that those 3 ships fired their load, the Soviet fleet was left with nothing but garbage like SS-N-3 or SS-N-9, which fly high.
SS-N-12 flies high for a good part of it's flight too (as does SS-N-19), and it looked like several of the SS-N-12s got shot down before they dove down to the deck.
Also Harpoons, while smaller, hit well above their weight because of their terminal attack dive profile. They hit the totally unarmored deck and dive deep into the ship's guts with their semi armor piercing warhead before exploding.
Very nasty.
And also, US SMs can be use as antiship... in the game the damage is quite... devastating tbh, seen few videos of theese SMs in sea power launch against a ship and the damage is quite massive for an air defence missile
Indeed. It is the US who does saturation attacks with their nimble hatpoon, not the soviets with missiles as big as a F-16😂.
@@zechuanlu426a carrier attack group of 4 squadrons (12 planes) would be 48 planes or 2 3rds of the a carriers plane force. each plane typically a super hornet holds 4 harpoons.
A US carrier strike group can launch 192 harpoons from ranges of 300+ miles from the carrier without firing from the ships once
@@B-52H
True, true. Even excluding the carrier and focus mainly on surface vessels. The "mighty" kriov could only carry 20 P700, while a tico with vls can theoretically carries 122 anti ship bgm109s along with 8 harpoons. Even if half the cells are armed with sif and Asroc, that is still 69 anti ship missiles.
So 20vs69, even without factoring the carries, the US is simply the one pumping 3 times as much missiles with less than half the displacement.
Medium range SAMs are stored vertically (think Adams, OHP, Kidd, and early Tico). Extended range SAMs are stored horizontally because they have boosters attached to the RIM 66. The ramp on the front of the Belknap and Leahy is the loading track from the magazine to the launcher. The aft launcher on the Leahy and the Coontz (also aft launcher for extended range) doesn't need a ramp -- loads horizontally.
Leahy-class (CG) was the first and only cruisers designed without a main gun battery for shore bombardment or ship-v-ship action so their gun armament was reduced in order to carry a larger missile load as their principal mission was to form part of the anti-air and antisubmarine screen for carrier task forces.
Thanks.
@@grimreapers After Leahy, all ships that you would think would be cruisers like the Belknap, Virginia, and early Tico were classified as destroyers leaders (DLG) or just destroyers (DDG) until the Navy realized that their ship classifications were wacky and outdated and did an entire overhaul in the 70s resulting in the modern US ship classifications.
I found this out when i was looking at the list of all US destroyers and was confused when I saw the Tico and every single large nuclear cruiser classes from Long Beach to the Virginia class
@Dingusdoofus another example: Zumwalt-class - is definitely not a destroyer... it has more tonnage than a WWII heavy cruiser!
And the leahy and bainbridge classes each had a nuclear half sister, belknap and truxton. Not modelled in game.
4:49 Smaller vessels and smaller arm launchers can't accommodate RIM-67 due to it's size. The ramp on the Leahy class is simply for reloads
Roger makes sense.
@@grimreapersalso, the Leahy lacks a gun as they were inteded to be "Double Ended" cruisers, i.e, have twin missiles launchers, one fore, one aft of the superstructure, this was changed in the Belknap where they had the aft Mk.10 Terrier launcher replaced with a Mk.42 5" gun
@@grimreapersalso it’s pronounced “Lee hey” for that one ship.
RIM-2 Terrier were solid rocket, surface-to-air missiles (range 32 km, speed Mach 3, warhead 99 kg) first deployed on the USS Boston (CAG-1/former CA-69), a WWII-era Baltimore-class Heavy Cruiser that was converted to a guided missile cruiser, the first-ever CAG, by having her aft 8" gun turrets replaced with two twin launchers.
In 1967, my brother was on USS Boston when she was part of the Sea Dragon operations, during which she fired thousands of rounds of 8” and 5” shells against coastal and ship targets along the coast of North Vietnam. But he said the crew always were extra watchful when a Terrier was launched. He joked that several times a Terrier would spiral and zig-zag after launch and even seem to head back towards the ship! Early days.
It was also fielded on the Gearing-class USS Gyatt, which became the US Navy’s first guided missile destroyer.
-The Kidd class are upgraded Spruance class destroyers originally built for Iran and have air conditioning plus some other qualilty of life upgrades for serving in the Middle East. They were bought by the US Navy when the Iranian government changed in the late 1970s.
-The Leahy Class, early 1960s design with the SAMs coming out of those ramps from an armory room underneath for the original Terrier missle, later the standard missle. It was an all-missle loadout with the guns being sacrificed for more missle storage. My guess as to why it has the extended range SM is because the original Terrier was so much larger that there was room for a larger, more capable missle. Retired mid-1990s.
-Gearing class destroyers were late WWII destroyers built as upgraded Fletchers. The FRAM stands for Fleet Rahabilitzation and Modernization that happened for a good chunk of the WWII-era destroyers with 3 different versions based on cost (the 3rd was fairly cheap) in the late 1950s/early 1960s to extend their life a little longer until Cold War construction could take their place. There was a small hanger installed for a DASH (drone anti-submarine helicopter) that wasn't very good, but it was also one of the first drones so some learning had to be done. Retired late 1960s/early 1970s.
-Galveston-class cruisers were converted WWII Cleveland-class all-gun light cruisers and are the first guided missle cruisers. The USS Little Rock is the sole remaining example of this type and the Clevelands and she is a museum ship in Buffalo, NY. Retired mid/late 1970s.
The misile size between a RIM-2 and a 67 is less than 1 foot. The Standard Range RIM-66 is only 15.
Galvatron class cruisers?! (I joke)
If perfectly spherical cows in a vacuum are scientific, this is military-grade simulation.
Whats this a reference from?
@KazzoKiller3890 Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, "I have the solution, but it works only in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum."
Edit: Oh, and military grade sounds like it means good, but it actually means bad. That's part of the joke. But it's not funny now because I explained it.
To add to why all ships don’t have the same missiles: when a ship is purpose-built for something it will be given only the weapons necessary for the job. The Spruance, for example, was designed as an ASW platform and did not need to defend a fleet from air attack, which is why it only was fitted with RIM-7s for self-defense. However, I do know that I’m some cases, for example the Galveston CLG, the missiles were so big that they had to be assembled on the ship before being loaded onto the rail, which may explain the horizontal loading.
17:55 Sverdlov were based on Soviet, German, and Italian designs and concepts developed before WW2. They were modified to improve their sea capabilities, allowing them to operate at high speeds in the rough waters of the North Atlantic and North Sea.
I read in notes from some old game that the Sverdlovs were used as flagships, because they had at least some armor and therefore were believed to be a bit more survivable.
I've noticed that the defensive ecm has gotten quite good in the game. If you have the logs open you can see what attacking or defending missile got spoofed by defensive jammming. Also if you look at the green lines coming out from the missile towards a ship, that's the ship the missile in gonna hit, so you don't have to wait for them to hit the target to know which ship the missile is going for
TIp for cap: You can press Tab to fullscreen the tacmap
The older soviet ships using silex were not in range reducing the volley mass plus the different missile velocities of the Soviets broke up the attack. US ships all using the same missiles on a greater number of ships had a perfect time on target scenario.
The Soviet naval designers loved to place multiple and varying weapons systems on their decks. This made feeding stores more difficult than they needed to be, causing spaces below to be more open/fewer bulkheads… with the unfortunate result being a propensity to spread fires quickly. To make matters worse, all that weight topside lead to “interesting” ship handling challenges due to the top-heavy nature of their vessels.
Keeping varied systems working in the Soviet system was… monumentally difficult. Many systems would go FOR YEARS in a degraded state, with few crew members being knowledgeable and empowered to repair their many complicated subsystems. Many systems had poor reliability and some systems were nonfunctional for YEARS and remained so after the Soviet government was dissolved.
Great info!
@@grimreapers Most of these Soviet Ships really were paper tigers.
Nonsense
The story about non-working Russian ships is the funniest I've heard. Especially after the story about the last US Ford aircraft carriers, whose toilets don't even work properly, not to mention other systems😂😂😂😂
@@pamir0188 The russian can not even operate 1 carrier.
How many ships? ALL the ships! Thank you, CAP and Reapers. Some of my Sicilian relatives in New Jersey are considering CIWS for their back yards, in case of drone attack. 😅
Correction: the missile launcher on the front of the Spruance is an ASROC launcher, which fired missiles that would deliver torpedoes for ASW work
Reason for the different Standard missiles on different ships is because of how they were armed when first built, which was during the “T3 era.” The surface to air missiles used by the U.S. Navy were the Talos, Terrier, and Tartar missiles, long to medium to short range respectively (and hence the 3 T’s or T3). What version of Standard each ship received depended on which of the 3 T’s they were originally armed with mainly due to magazine size for the missile itself. If you see a ramp behind one of the twin armed launchers for the Standard missile, it’s where the missile would come out of the magazine to be loaded
The Knox class were originally outfitted with Sea Sparrow missiles on the stern but at some point, some if not all of them replaced that launcher with a Phalanx mount. The ASROC launchers on the Knox would at some point be modified to be able to fire Harpoon missiles once it entered service and to my knowledge, would usually dedicate four of the eight “tubes” for them
You are correct in assuming that the Charles f. Adams class fires Harpoons from the MK 13 missile launcher
Galveston class is a converted WW II Cleveland class light cruiser
Again, Harpoons and CIWS were retrofitted in the 70’s and 80’s for a lot of American vessels. Not too sure about Soviet CIWS. IIRC, the reason why the Soviet ships have more CIWS is that they would primarily rely on the ship’s primary sensors to maintain a small size to pack more onto a vessel. But because of this, if you take out the ship’s radar, they would be severely limited in capability as they would only have EO/IR backups. The Phalanx on the other hand has its own radars integrated into it, trading size for independence.
The reason why America only has the Pegasus class while the Soviets have a larger variety of fast attack craft (FAC) is due simply to geography and doctrine. America has a huge amount of coast exposed to ocean and was focused on controlling sea lines of communication (SLOC) worldwide. The Soviets in the other hand, while they do have coasts, the vast majority of it that is accessible are littoral environments, namely the Baltic, Black and Caspian Seas where FACs are far more useful
The Galleon battle went hard for the Russians because the US core game Mk46 torpedos and ASROC cant be used against surface ships, but the Russian Torpedos and ASW mortars can. The later Mod5 (modeled in the NTU upgrade) can attack surface ships.
Though truth be told, at the range the Galleon fight occurred, the Iowa's 16" guns would have close to a 100% hit rate, and a single 3 barrel salvo would completely destroy any of the Soviet ships it was facing (including the Kirov).
The Tico would've gone absolutely nuts with SM-2s in surface attack mode too, but still and all, it was an entertaining Galleon fight. That russian Gun Cruiser was incredibly effective.
I don't think the Iowa's armour is simulated correctly as the smaller guns should not do much damage to it
Agreed
The smaller guns shoudln't do *any* damage to an Iowa, and neither should small modern ASW torpedos or most types of antiship or surface to air missiles (in surface mode).
When the then captain of the USS Iowa was asked what he would do if the Iowa was hit with an exocet like the ones used in the Falklands he said, quote: "I would order sweeper operations to sweep the (still burning) missile pieces over the side of the ship"
@@SgtTechComThat is the definition of casually badass.
@@SgtTechCom not penetrating the armor is not the same as doing no damage. An Iowa being raked by massed 100mm fire would take damage to anything outside the armor, CWIS mounts, radars, antennas, armored box launchers et cetera would be devastated as well as the 5 inch gun mounts which aren't armored enough to resist.
@@josephahner3031 True. And then the 16" turrets would turn and obliterate whatever was silly enough to try that. See also: howitzer she'll damage and what was sent downrange in response. Also, while you can mangle superstructure, doing so with pea-shooters will take quite a while to have much effect. 100mm is smaller than her *secondary* battery.
5:04 Those are the missile magazines.
thx
Thank you for taking the time to put this video together, really enjoyed it
the ER uses the mk10 launcher which has two barrel shaped magazines set low down in the hull takes up a bit of space. There are some good diagrams on the web
EDIT Harpoon and CWIS added in the late 70s early 80's...
Don't forget the Slava also has the ability to act as a submarine
The thresher can also act as a deep sea research vessel
@ as can the Kursk. So multi functional
OK, so the Americans won. I'll admit I was actually thinking the Soviets would.
So, the reason why actually comes to a firepower advantage for the Americans, ironically enough. The huge focus on defense meant that every part of that line was covered by multiple lines of defense, and the larger cruisers like the Tico can help direct the air defenses of the weaker ships. By contrast, the air defense of the Soviets was terrible, with most of the warships relying on S-125Ms and Osa-Ms. The Osas had such a bad reputation that many Warsaw Pact nations simply refused to install them on their warships. Also, many of the Soviet CIWS you saw were actually AK-230s, and not the AK-630s. The -230 is a much weaker weapon system and was highly unreliable for taking out anti ship missiles.
Also, the Americans had a massive number of anti ship missiles. Almost all those ships had 8 Harpoons, and some had a few extra anti- ship Tomahawks. Because the Harpoons fly so low, the Soviets had an extremely hard time dealing with them and immediately crumbled at the massive wall of missile. By contrast there were actually a lot of Soviet ships that had no anti ship missiles at all (like the Petya, Sverdolov, Kresta, Kara, etc).
So, in all, the Americans had a very difficult but workable defensive strategy against the Russian onslaught, while the combination of poor air defense and sheet numbers of enemy missiles leads to a total wipeout for the Soviets.
Near video end, BEST Galleon fight ever ... by a wide margin. Don't care that comparable classes weren't aligned. Such fun to watch! Pure carnage (and a near-fishing boat) FTW! Well done!
The Talos missle actually shot down several migs all in excess of 60 miles from the ship firing the missile
Awesome.
@@grimreapers Check out the real world performance specs of the Talos cap, it's insane that these missiles existed so long ago.
Seems a lot of naval fun
Instead of a Petya, you should have used the Kresta-1, which is armed with Shaddock's. Also every ship with SS-N-14 Silex is outranged by the US warships, and even if they were in range, only SS-N-14B is able to be an AShM. SS-N-14A is purely anti-submarine, like a super-ASROC.
Them's the shakes, the US SM-2s were out of range for surface attacks too.
No unbelievably fun run buys by the Pegasus. I’m disheartened.
P.S. Leahy is said (Lay he) named for US Admiral William F Leahy.
thx
Galleon battle was awesome.... feel like a re-enactment of trafalgar is a must
Spruance Class, the box launcher on the front is the ASROC launcher, not Seasparrow, the single launcher on the back is the Seasparrow. 24 missiles might include 2 reloads after the first 8. To reload that MK29 is not a fast endeavor. (This is my system, and am extremely familiar with it. Not going into to much more detail for reasons...)
served on a spruance in mid 80s an bottom line is if a battle this size happened someone would have tossed few nukes already
@williamescolantejr5871 Probably. I was just pointing out a Seasparrow fact. The old Knox Class had the older BPDMS Mk25 launcher, which, while different, looks a bit like the ASROC. USS Downes DE/FF-1070 was the only Knox to get the Mk29 launcher, which we still use today, but has been modified to use the RIM-162 ESSM.
@@red2001ss this is true.served with desron 31 old san diego times an we traveld with the Downes a few times.Have a good day amigo
Gotcha, thanks.
Right. For all intents and purposes the 8 cell box launcher would never be reloaded in time in a fight like the ones Cap has been doing.
Sea Sparrow does have a *very* nasty antiship mode though, which the US ships didn't seem to use in the galleon fight.
A US ship accidentally shot a Turkish destroyer with a Sea Sparrow during an exercise and did enormous damage to the ship. There are photographs online.
Captain this was actually an awesome video! The Galion battle was tense, and badass!
Russian navy took to having red decks back in the Peter The Great days where wind powered ships ruled. The red was to disguise all the blood from cannonballs and grapeshot messing up the crews, that blood on the decks was very intimidating for crew that were in battle. I know current ships don't have that kind of issue but it could be just a page from history.
It's iron oxide paint, it's not to disguise blood, it's to stop rust.
@@derpderpson2188 Considering it's almost universally used on hulls below the waterline... I'm guessing the choice has two purposes. 1. It's cheap and available. 2. Operating in the Arctic seas are rougher and the decks are frequently awash. Deck rusting is probably a larger issue in that environment. Well, historically, it's not limited to deck rust.
I thought it was the show up the ice
Who's cpu did you melt for this silliness?
I’m very glad you did this such a fun idea
Well, this output was totally expected. 90% of the spawned soviet ships were Antisub ships that couldn't return fire. Even when they have some antiship missiles, you placed them in a distance that doesn't allow then to fire. So at the end this scenario was 3 Soviet ships against all the Americans. Also you didn't spawn the soviet carriers forgetting that they are considered missile cruisers, and they would deliver a big punch with their supersonic missiles. That said, the video was very entertainment! Specially the galleon battle! thank you!
It is INSANE how overmodeled the SS-N-22 sunburn is in this game. The sea skimming speed is WAY too high (actual published sea skimming speed is mach 2.2). If you watch the video, the Sunburn that missed it's target at over 1600 knots makes about a 300G 90 degree turn to attack another US ship.
Totally hilarious (but people say NTU is unbalanced, lol)
I really enjoyed this cap,even more because the CIWS on my ship was going off for training. It added some nice immersion to the already chaotic battle.
One all the bots. Also the Galveston class CL. It a converted Cleveland class light cruiser of ww2 vintage. The one in game is the flagship version there where 2 of these and another one that had more 6in guns and 5in cool ships
One of my favorites. Also has the Talos, amazing missile but very low rof.
@ personally I want the non flagship version for more six inch gun and 5 inch.
Russia has more patrol craft due to having more shallow water areas to defend. Baltic, Black Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, Barents, etc. US navy is a power projection. The coast guard handles the smaller stuff.
The thing about the Iowa class battleships was their fire control radar was so advanced and accurate that they were able to be used in the Korean, Vietnam, and first Gulf Wars.
The rampy thing on the Leahy is the loading mechanism for the two-arm launcher. Note the doors. The rear launcher has two doors behind it as well, but set into the upper structure so a ramp is not needed.
Hi cap and crew! That was a hell of a lot of boom boom effort. Thanks for adding in the knox class frigates. My pops loved the video.
Some history on the less well known USN ships used in this one !
Garcia class Frigate is a early 60's ASW frigate part of a modernization of the USN,(the Brooke class is a Tartar equipped subclass)
Coontz class is a big DDG class built from 59'-61' and served into the 90s till the Burkes came into service (these did not get reclassed as cruiser in 1975 due to their shorter cruising range than the Belknap and Leahy classes even though they are similarly armed)
Belknap and Leahy class are both mid 60's classes classed as FFGs originally till 1975 when they got reclassed as cruiser CG both have similar hull (almost same size) just the Leahy is a double ended missile truck with 80 SM1ERs neither class got NTU, only USS Wainwright CG28 got SM2ER ands the trials ship for the full NTU upgrade.
the 3 Galveston class cruisers are WWII light cruisers converted to guided missile cruiser equipped with Talos missile system aft replacing the rear superstructure and aft triple 6"turret. Okie City and Little Rock also lost a fwd 6" turret as they got added space for Fleet Flagship duties, Galveston retained both fwd 6'turrets, their close sisters ships in the Providence class got Terrier launchers instead of Talos.
Gearing class Destroyer was a huge class of 98 ships built too late for WW2 and got many updates leading to FRAMII (Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernisation II) these ships served right into the 1970s and five are preserved as Museum ships.
Charles F Adams class was early 60's DDG with 23 built for USN, 3 for (Lutjens class) West Germany Navy and 3 for the Royal Australian Navy (Perth Class) the RAN ships have the UK/Aust developed Ikara ASW system in place of ASROC, and the last RAN Perth class was retired only in October of 2001.
Virginia class CGN is arguably a 3rd generation CGN following on from the 2nd gen California class, orginally intended to have SM2 when built they got SM1MR due to delays with the SM2 program. The fwd mk26 magazine only has 24 rds(including ASROCs and SM1or 2MRs) aft magazine has 44rds. The newest ship CGN41 Arkansas only served 18 years!! All CGNs decommissioned due to crew costs and diminshed global threats despite their unique capablities to go anywhere at speed.
Kidd class DDG was a subclass of the Spruance class ASW destroyer with the same mk26 armament setup as the Virginias and flt1 Tico's the 4 ships of the class got the NTU refit and served the USN for many years then sat in mothballs for a bit then got offered to the RAN for a bargain price (the RAN declined due to the large crew needed), then they got sold to Taiwan where they still serve.
I am absolutely shocked by that first round, I genuinely thought so many more of those faster Soviet missiles would have gone through. The Soviet had better offensive missiles, a TON more CIWS, and even a few more ships. I can't believe just how effective the American SAMs were in mass.
Its a game. What do you expect? It is not realistic.
Yeah, in hindsight it was clear that this would happen though😅. Pretty much all American ships used the same (decent) missile, which meant that the entire swarm hit at the exact same time. While the three most pwerfull Soviet ships all use different missiles that go at different speeds. And in my experience the older Soviet missiles, which are on most of their ships and the missile boats for example, are absolute rubbish. They're dumb missiles that neither go very fast nor fly particularly low, don't have all that great range and to top it all off they're big targets. Tried 20 of those boats against the Nimitz Carrier group (so120 missiles). Nothing went through.
The Soviets really only had 44 good antiship missiles total. The Americans had hundreds.
I think there is too many Russians glassing like Dregonman
@@elvhulobanegas I am not Russian. 😄
As has been said before. The Soviet Navy has more weapons per ship because they expected to be out numbered. Thats why these US vs Soviet "fair fights" lean toward the Soviets.
If you wanted even fights the US probably needs more escorts to make the firepower fair per side
The Soviets also tend to be hyperspecialized, though. Most of the post-50s US ships are, to some degree, a 'jack of all trades.' Notice how basically every one has harpoons tacked onto the side. Meanwhile, the *good* Soviet ASMs are all concentrated on three ships.
@@derpderpson2188 That's because the good soviet missiles are the size of Mig-15s, lol.
The Sov, Kirov and Slava are also all 3d multirole ships.
У СССР была тактика обороны и они не собирались нападать на США, и главная задача всех этих больших ракет уничтожить авианосцы и плевать на весь этот мелкий эскорт.
Nobody commented on the torpedo launcher?
"That's never going to get hit!" ....BOOM.
Nothing will get thru that:
Literally 3 seconds later…
USN says boom.
“You’re about to find out why we don’t have healthcare 🦅🦅🦅”
The ramp looking thing on the Lehey-Class is how the Mk 10 GMLS reloads from the ships magazine
10 seconds into this video and it's already got me singing the Star Spangled Banner.
you can always click on the little i / information symbol next to the weapon names and it’ll pull up their encyclopedia entry
Yeah , the conroe request cruisers didn't have a sea with until 1968
The box launcher on Front of the Leahy is an ASROC launcher. And the Leahy class were dedicated AAW platforms with minor ASW capability. These were desinged as Carrier AAW escort as primary mission. Initially they did not even have an ASW helo.
That large box launcher abaft the forward 5 inch gun on the Spruance, is the 8 cell ASROC launcher. ASROC = A missile that carries an ASW torpedo to kill subs at extended range.
That Gearing really said hell no, those six 5" guns on rapid were a treat.
About damn time the Adams class gets some screen time! You can ask me anything about them, I am an Adams Class DDG encyclopedia. First answer: the Harpoon load out on the Adams was the same as the OHP: 4 launched via age MK 13 launcher.
The ramps in front of the launchers on some ships are the missile house. The fins were attached manually by sailors in the missile house before sliding onto the launcher.
Fun fact 1: the Garcia class FF was known as “McNamara’s Nightmare” because they were so weakly armed and were procured by Robert McNamara, the then Secretary of Defense.
Fun fact 2: the USS Coontz harpoon techs attempted to complete two maintenance actions at once. The result was an accidental launch of a harpoon. The lasting result is that this blunder was what caused the introduction of a launch key for the Harpoon missile system (which every harpoon tech knows how to bypass).
FINALLY it's Lohr's time to shine! xx
I spent my formative years on the USS C V Ricketts (DDG 5) and my sophomore years on the USS Preble (DDG 46).
@ DDG-24 (x2) DDG-13 FFG-9 LCC-19
@ I can also add USS Guam (LPH 9) and four years working on subs.
Look up the Talos missle in Vietnam capt - so could reach out real far.
It was used in surface/ground attack missions in actual combat too. VERY nasty beast.
The harpoons have a tiny seeker cone. If the formation is spread out enough you can pretty much pick out whatever target you'd want and fairly reliable hit it. The downside is the fairly limited range compared to things like a harpoon or pretty much all russian asm's
It wasn't the Iowa that was going to get VLS, it was New Jersey and the VLS would have replaced turret 3 with reloads in the armored turret, which would have made for a lot of missiles.
And now you see why I love playing the Sverdlov in Cold Waters (this games' predecessor). All those guns, and all that CIWS...lovely little ship, she's so great! You go, Sverdy!! 😁
you should do all british ships vs some navy
Fun? On my internet? Not allowed!
My brother, you never disappoint. ✊🏿💯
Just the video I needed today. ❤
Cap... That's never going to get hit! That's never going to get hit! Boom! Boom! BOOM! 😆😆😆
The gentlemans agreement of the slowest missile can shoot first principle does muddy the water substantially to be able to predict the outcome, but maybe it does not? Would like to see a rematch or an addendum where it was ran again?
Lots of questions when you were looking at the ships, but one you asked that has a fairly easy answer is why some ships carried SM-1MR/SM-2MR vs SM-1ER/SM-2ER.
That's because the MR & ER missiles are actually quite different, designated RIM-66 (MR) and RIM-67 (ER), with the ER missiles weighing nearly twice as much & being nearly twice as long, due to the added booster stage that gives them the longer punch.
Tico's & other MR-missile ships simply don't have the proper lengths in their magazines to store the ER missiles, and their arm launchers couldn't accommodate the longer missiles.
Belknap, Leahy, and a few other classes of cruisers were designed for the extended range engagements; it's too sad they were never provided the AEGIS system to really be a potent force, but their effectiveness here shows just how good they were as it was.
Tico's with the RIM-156 SM-2ER Blk IV (based on RIM-67) missiles in VLS are darned scary Gods of War.
If you think the game is unbalanced with the NTU, VLS, and RIM-66H SM-2MR Blk IV, the RIM-156 basically doubles the range of the RIM-66H.
Gavelston-Class Cruisers are converted Cleveland Class CL's post war. The 6-inch turret is the original on the ship. There is still one preserved as a muesuem ship that I have visited in Buffalo, New York. USS Little Rock, moored next to a fletcher class destroyer and I believe a balao class submarine as well.
"Anti-corrosive paints contain corrosion-resistant pigments, such as zinc oxide, zinc chromate, lead chromate, or red lead. These paints create a barrier that prevents corrosive materials and chemical compounds from coming into contact with the metal. Corrosion can severely damage the life of any steel or iron element." Other countries also use red lead paint but top coat it Grey for a uniform color.
Where was this battle thst they could sink to beyond 30k feet in the Atlantic?!
harpoon has a 227 kg warhead.... about the same welly as a 1000 lb bomb
Saw the title... You tease me and don't threaten me with a good time Cap😂
The ramp on the leahy class holds the doors that are used to reload the missle turret. Connecting the turret to the magazine.
Came for the introduction, stayed for the Galleon
Another reason the Russians lost the missle fight so hard, most of their SAMs don't deal with sea skimmers like the Harpoon. As oposed to even the SM1 on some of the frigates for the US at least have a chance of intercept.
I thought I'd watch for a few minutes. And I couldn't believe how fast the time went by ;)
RIM-67B is Standard Missile 2. 67A is SM-1. THe B's included inertial navigation. The 67's are all extended range. The 66's are Medium Range. So you're just a little mixed up.
I haven’t watched yet but the title and thumbnail alone gave me a big smile!
That was not the USS Galveston but one of the two other class members USS Little Rock (still afloat) or USS Oklahoma City. All three were Cleveland class light cruisers launched in 44 to 45 but not commissioned until 58 to 60 following the conversion to carry missiles. Galveston retained her original forward armament of 3 dual five turrets and two triple. The Oklahoma City and Little work were refit as fleet command cruisers. To expand the superstructure for flag use they removed the superfiring triple 6 turret and two of the duel 5 inches then extended the superstructure moving the remaining duel 5 mount forward. That's the configuration in the game.
Is USS Long Beach in the game yet? It’s the first nuclear powered cruiser ever made and it was designed to be an anti aircraft carrier would love to see it in one of these battles
Yes, at this time the Soviet ships were better armed and defended than the USN ships. That's why there is the post 1986 ship mod which model America's response to these ships.
I don't think any of the ships in core game are real world "better armed or defended" than a mk26 Ticonderoga when you consider that the Tico's SM-2s are also Antiship missiles.
I would say only the Kirov and Slava could be reasonably called "better defended" than a Ticonderoga, or even a Kidd (remember the real Kidd's had SM-2, not SM-1 as in the core game)
American vessels were pure blue water operating in the Pacific. They needed range so a lot of tonnage is fuel. Soviet ships are more limited in range because lack of air power meant the ships had to carry full air/missile defense and full offensive capacity along with anti sub and anti surface capacity. Take half the fuel that easier to do. Also Soviet ships had less endurance on station.
@@joehealy6376the Soviet ships were also woefully under built compared to their American counterparts, with less bulkheads, damage control stations, and redundant systems, which saved a lot of weight
As events in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Ukraine have shown, Patriot air defense systems are not capable of adequately intercepting cruise and ballistic missiles. Obviously, their characteristics are exaggerated. Similarly, expectations for naval air defense in the game are unreasonably high.
It would be interesting to try NTU ships vs PELT ships.
The Leahy-class cruisers (originally DLGs, reclassified to CGs in 1975) were built without naval guns for the purpose of making room for more missiles.
Certainly Sverdlov benefited by being at the end of the line, but also because its 8 inch shells are much faster-firing and meaningfully just as destructive against modern, essentially un-armored ships as Iowa's 16 inchers.
The Talos missile was manufactured in my hometown. There was an example at KSBN.
Even a 152mm gun would have difficulty penetrating Iowa's armored belt or main decks which were built to withstand 14" guns. Even the superstructure is armored.
I mean battleship armor isn’t proof against cruiser fire 6 inch and 8 inch. The night battles of Savo Island are a testament to that. Granted the Japanese Kongo classes were battlecruisers. The Boise and Helena’s 6 inch rapid firing guns did a lot of damage on those nights.
@@christopherschwind7221
Iowa would've been all but immune to 6 inch fire.
DID you just compare and 8 inch Battlecruisrr armour to an Iowa's 12.1 inch? @@christopherschwind7221
😮 "They're all dead and the tomahawks haven't even got there!" - that's a quote i'll remember. 😂
Pronounced Lay-he or Lay-'e. Regarding the ER vs MR, the ER gets that extra range from a massive solid rocket booster fitted to the back of the missile, that takes up a lot of space and requires much more complex systems to handle which also takes up a lot more space. As for the sloped feature you mentioned, that is the loading mechanism for the launcher.
I’m still not convinced this is not George Russell narrating 😂
All the best to everyone
" Don't worry they've sent a helicopter over " Lmaooo
Suggestion!: In 2005, a Swedish Gotland-class submarine, the HSwMS Gotland, "sank" a US aircraft carrier in a war game, demonstrating the submarine's stealth and innovative design
the soviet vessels had red decks because there was no anti-slip deck covering on soviet era ships, so they used to tar their decks to provide some anti-slip aid as walking the decks in soviet winters could be very dangerous without it.
26:25 I’m in my 40s and we’ve said “sick” for decades.
SS-N-14B is an anti-ship missile. The A variant is the Anti-Submarine one.
keep up the good work Cap!
The soviet cruiser in the galleon battle was the last all gun cruiser ever build. I think it was build in the 1960s its wreck is at the coast of norway. Currently sadly getting scrapped, a beautiful ship.
[A] The USSR had a large Brown Water Navy; AND there were Krivaks/Grishas built for the Navy and Krivaks/Grishas with different armament for the KGB. [B] The Leahy/Belknap were long shooters before the advent of AEGIS. [C] As matter of fun, one of each of those class were nuclear powered.
I think those long shooters made a pretty big difference.
And I think there was a 3rd long shooter class, but the class name escapes me...
@@FleetDefenderRA5, there were a few "long-shooters". The purpose- built ones were the Farragut/Coontz-class and Long Beach, but all of the retrofit WWII cruisers (Boston, Albany, and Galveston-classes) carried Terrier and/or Talos.
The Sverdlovs were cool. The Rusians under Stalin created them as sort of an uber version of the WW2 light cruiser. You can see German and Italian influence in their design. The concept was a raiding cruiser that cuold threaten sea lanes in the North Atlantic. They so frightedned the UK that we developed the the Buccaneer as a counter, to do do an ultra low level approach and drop a bomb, probably nuclear on them. They were seen as obsolete by Kruschev and he cancelled them in favor of missile armed alternatives like the Kynda.
re: Virginia and Adams questions by Cap.
That angled ramp forward on the Virginia is the missile magazine. Instead of picking up the missiles in the vertical, she picks them up at an angle. It's faster. Adams class - Where are the Harpoons? Good guess, Cap. They're in the SAM magazine. Adams were upgraded in the early 80s (single arm launcher anyways, I don't know about the dual arm) to be able to take a mix of Standard SAMs and Harpoons.