@@Greybeard1357 Fair enough but I wish he said whan starting his videos and not repeating it all the way through them. We don't need to be constantly reminded that we're 'valued' do we?
@@chrisparnham I just consider it another, friendlier, term than "the audience" as many TV shows do. It doesn't bother me at all. Then again these days I spend more time in the woods away from human interaction so I personally don't feel offended or pelted with the terms constantly. My usual response to interaction is bugger off but I'm very much enjoying this channel and the next generation of players. The 80s and 90s were my time with these games.
Yamato was among the faster of the battleships irl.. like casually as fast as Iowa class, maybe tiny bit slower but definitely making something like a minimum of 25 knots. They were fast :p
@@tuxedoederminenaswall3751 Just to point, the fastest battleship known was USS New Jersey (post 1980s refit) pulling a fantastic 36 knot speed. The Iowa class is rated for (and has demonstrated) a maximum speed of 33knts while the Yamato and her sister ships (Counting Shinano were she finished as a battleship and not a support carrier) were rated for 28knts. The difference largely comes from a demand from the US navy that all ships would be able to maintain the same top speed without breaking formation.
@@tuxedoederminenaswall3751 Interesting point to add- while the Yamato was on paper stated to have a max speed of 27kts- there is no evidence it could go that fast. No Japanese logs, nor any record via movement tracking has ever put a Yamato class above 23kts. The Shinano only hit 28kts AFTER being converted to a carrier and and yielding 7,000 tons less in displacement, it was measured as going 28kts for about 3 minutes.
@@DR-pu5hm "...it was measured as going 28 kts for about 3 minutes." Which was about the full extent of _Shinano's_ career since a sub torpedoed and sank her the first time she went anywhere...
Given the early comment in the video about not being realistic to have 28 launch ready planes, that would only be the most casual and non-ready skipper ever. The few times I went into or out of the Persian Gulf on a carrier in the 90s began by launching every operational plane and helicopter so none were caught on deck if the ship was attacked in the Strait of Hormuz. So, for the full transition through the SOH, 75-ish planes armed to the teeth and in the air before the passage, everyone at full battle stations, and even full CBR/NBC gear worn by everyone across the battle group. We even put the Marines on the portable .50 cal positions all around the deck. A carrier group making that transition is fully ready for battle at any moment; any arming or fueling is rearming or refueling. 👍
Geeze what the hell is even gonna try and violate that airspace with 75 damn planes with fighter jocks all looking to become an ace. I can’t imagine what that would look like approaching you.
If they complain about that not beeing realistic, while heaving like all the battleships of WW II at the same place steaming to the carrier group, while the carrier group steams to them... yeah... I mean...
God, the inside of that Tomcat cockpit sounds like a damn McDonald's lobby with all those beeping alarms going off. Pull the damn fries out of the fryer! They're done!!
@@grimreapers dcs ai and hit markers need a recap. Overall effects do too like dropping a 10k bomb on the stern of a ship would.. i dont know... kill the engine
Don’t stress too much on the realism of the AI, these scenarios are more for fun than accuracy. IRL the Carrier Group would be steaming the opposite way, and be able to outpace the warships and never be touched. Fun video
Missiles don't track, catapults break and radar doesn't work, not every thing can work all the time and frequently doesn't. It was a funny dose of realism in a simulation, truly a stupendous amount of effort was put into it, just like the first one. I thought it was good fun and the enthusiasm was contagious, I honestly didn't know who to root for. Great job guys, I am a fan.
@@134StormShadow This is true (generally) but that's only because they don't have to. If battleships were still a thing then we could easily design anti ship weapons to deal with them. Remember that most of a battleship is only lightly armored. The armor is all concentrated around the more vital systems and then only at angles where the ship can expect enemy fire to come from. A Mark 84 2,000 pound laser guided bomb has about 1,000 pounds of explosive and can penetrate a fair amount of armor if dropped from a high altitude. Maybe one of these bombs wouldn't be enough to penetrate the top turret armor on some of the later battleships, maybe. But it would easily penetrate the deck right in front of the main guns. Then, if fused correctly, the bomb would travel down below the waterline and explode. A 1,000 pound contained explosion from this position would result in what is technically known as a case of "the front fell off." This might not sink the ship but the damage along with the blast wave, which would travel through the ship injuring crew and destroying equipment ,would render the ship combat ineffective until it could be repaired. And while modern laser guided bombs require (quite obviously) laser guidance, it would be relatively trivial to design seekers which relied in infrared or optical recognition. A cheap cell phone can pick out people's faces in a photograph and focus on them. How hard would it be to design a seeker to recognize a ship, and vulnerable parts of that ship?
Kido Butai vs a modern version of Task Forces 16 and 17. That would be awesome to watch. Marianas map would be perfect for it. A weird recreation of Midway.
I am ao glad US are really more effective in real life. It only seems that Russian weapons are reliable. When I saw a Russian AWACs dodge a sidewinderX I call BS
This really just shows the limitation of AI. Look at how the submarine acted - nothing like in reality. Consider also the F-18 wings that didn't release their Harpoons.Look at how effective just the few human pilots were compared to the AI squadrons. This battle would have been very one-sided (in favor of modern tech) if humans were running all of the ships and planes.
If this was realistic, none of the planes or surface ships in the carrier group would be necessary to sink all the enemies, just 1fleet submarine. Armour is irrelevant to modern heavyweight torpedoes with under-keel detonation, and WWII battleships have no active or passive guided torpedo defence.
With all those hornets in the air, circling waiting to land, a real carrier would launch a hornet in a refueling config to top off those hornets before they run out of fuel.
The Carrier battle group would have "hours and hours and hours" They would spot the WWII fleet 100's of miles out and would attack at the time and place of their choosing.
If a carrier group was going to fight a bunch of battle ships, it would start air attacks near the maximum combat radius with tanker support...see if AI can land and refuel/arm and re-attack.
Red white things on the submarines are the escape hatches, inside is a floodable compartment so people can escape from the submarine if it sinks (in shallow water). The Zuni rockets probably worked well on the Italian vessel as she was a cruiser - relatively lightly armoued, battleships (Yamato, Bismark, Tirpitz) had much tougher armour. Good work! The thing is that Yamato and Musashi could actually go about 27kts too :-)!
Exactly. They were insanely fast for how much they weighed and i would love to see the yamato modernized with the technology we have today to bad it sunk😢
Red white things on the submarines are the escape hatches, inside is a floodable compartment so people can escape from the submarine if it sinks (in shallow water). I think the reason for the red/white stripes is, the crew can be rescued by a special rescue submarine, even in deep water. But it needs the stripes to find the docking station in the dark water.
@@adamkepinski Not to mention FOUR CIWS mounts. For those not up on naval jargon. CIWS = Close-In Weapon System AKA Phalanx The six twin 5" mounts are still radar guided. Would be hard for aircraft and anti-ship missiles to get to an '80's Iowa class battleship.
Appreciate all your hard work here. I still think if everything was working properly, the american fleet would walk away with this. Add the subs in, get all the planes to fire their weapons, get the carrier to land/launch like its supposed to, and get all the hits to register, its something else.
@@TheRibbonRed Yeah, sorry, English isn`t my native language. It wasn`t meant as a question. Just wanted to tell that guy, that he probably missed that part.
The Iowa class battleships had pretty significant refits in the 80s. Maybe try and see how a task force of those refitted ships could stack up against a modern carrier group. only four ships so fewer targets to chose from but they have better defenses
Only difference would be *some* guided AA in the form of the four Phalanx mounts. The upgraded Iowas still relied on Tichonderogas for for fleet air defense.
The last time, the Harpoons kept going for the same ship until it was sunk, even when it was going down. That’s overkill on a few ships, when you have an entire task force you need to disable or sink.
The engagement should start 300 nautical miles or more away from the carrier. AWACS is going to see those giant radar returns hundreds of miles away. Why no laser-guided bombs? E.g. Paveway series? Those hit moving targets just fine.
I remember something from my time learning logistics in the military. Jets have something called Exhaust Gas Temperature and when hit a certain threshold the engine is "EGT limited." What they do to clean the ignition is to run the engine and spray water with ground up walnuts in it. Jet engines are fairly robust. Harpoon missiles are a different story, that's a rocket motor and not a jet turbine. It doesn't need oxygen going through it to combust, it has its fuel and an oxidizer that it combines to create combustion. Long story short, a harpoon can not only go through mist, it can be launched from a sub while submerged.
I would be interested in the density of the water column over an engines ability to ingest the water. In WW2, (supposedly) ships would shoot the main guns at the water in front of low flying planes in an attempt to have the water spouts take out planes.
As far as the Scharnhorst, the ship you are trying to remember is the HMS Duke of York, a King George V-class battleship which had 10 14 inch guns. She fired 52 salvos and scored at least 13 hits before she ceased fire. Admiral Fraser then ordered Jamaica and Belfast to move into range and finish the crippled ship off with torpedoes.
For one thing transiting the straights we had a fully combat ready flight deck before we started to transit. You would also be surprised at hoe fast the ground crews can load up a full squadron.
Hello from your Sainsbury's grocery delivery driver Andy... Really enjoying these videos even as a kind of podcast when driving! These are the kind of nerdy scenarios I can only dream of as a console owner! P.S. as car guy I love that you have an SiL180 hidden away in your garage 😮
Too bad the AI froze that one F/A-18 at the waist catapult. If that doesn't happen, I bet more Harpoons get loosed. Of course, a lot of planes already in the air had Harpoons, and never fired, so the scenario just seemed to be overwhelming the AI. If the subs could fire torpedoes while submerged and more F/A-18s could loose more Harpoons simultaneously, the old fleet would be toast. So, it's not the modern carrier group's fault, it's just an AI locking up. Nice simulation, though. As fascinating as the prior attempt.
love how we have this wall of battleships, then just some cruisers hangin out with them. Also, who else wants type 3 shells and for Yamato to move at more than half speed? I love how the harpoon was talked up so much when it's probably equivalent to about an 8 inch HE shell, and has none of the armor penetration needed to get through the belt. There's just too many compartments for them to hit, and the turrets have some of the thickest armor on the ship. In reality the harpoons would probably poke a few holes in the deck, scorch the pain, break a few windows, and start a few fires. The fact is that harpoons are made to punch through essentially paper armor, when some of these ships have literal FEET of armor, they would flatten and explode against it, and just scorch some paint. Another note is that there is something called an, "all-or-nothing armor scheme", in which there is one super-heavily armored citadel, and literally everything else can be blown off without the ship sinking. This citadel is the most heavily armored part of the ship and would laugh at modern AshM's. Dear god those Zuni's are absurdly overpowered, there is no way in hell they'd be able to do more than cause some splinter damage to outer compartments. The Biskos were firing 15IN in 4 double turrets, 2 fore, 2 aft. The Yamato's had 18.1IN guns in 3 triple turrets, 2 fore, 1 aft. Not sure about the italians. The Hipper class cruisers in there had 203mm guns in the same layout as the biskos. Not sure about the scharnhorst's.
In Battle 360: Enterprise a dive bomber pilot from the Enterprise pulled out of his dive lower than he should have. The Japanese were shooting the water like in this video and the pilot said a shell hit underneath them and the water spout actually lifted their aircraft up. So, I could see the water affecting the harpoons. Maybe not destroying it, but possibly damaging or altering it's course enough it misses the target.
To be fair, an actual carrier group wouldn't be sailing towards a battleship group, instead it would use it's speed to keep well out of visual range so the planes can harrass and sink the battleships with impunity.
@@ciphergalm1174 You made a very wrong generalization. The Iowa-class was the fastest Battleship in the navy and possibly the fastest capital ship in the US navy, but not the fastest ship overall. For example, only 1 destroyer was slower than Iowa, the USS Allen DD-66 (Sampson-class).
the graphics, frame rate & 'reality' is absolutely phenomenal. Could you please do a video on the hardware/software (including OS) you're using to generate such wonderful videos ??
Well done, lol. I see the biggest problem in this battle - you humans spent too much time using ineffective bombs. Next time, try one thing each, and find the best outcome and then equip all fighters with that. Dont use all bombs and find out that after 100 runs it's ineffective, and trying something else. Also if someone is stuck - WIPE IT OUT immediately. I said to myself when I saw that AI plane stuck on the deck - just ram it away, kill it ASAP! Aside these "issues" - it was impressive watching that again as usual! Love your vids Cap, and keep them coming!! :D
Just found this channel yesterday, I have no idea what I'm watching. I watched the IJN vs a modern Carrier group earlier, not as decisivie as one would think. What software is this? I wish a) that I had friends, and b) that I had friends into flight sims. This looks fun.
Put all 4 Iowa class on the baddies side. Configure them with WW2 weaponry. 20 5" 38's with VT fuzzes. 80 40mm Bofers and 40 20mm's. The VT 5" would be very capable of shooting down harpoons and hornets.
33:34 Just doing some flying around 500 AA guns, thinking he's invincible and BOOM wing gone from a 40MM to the face!!! Love these videos guys, keep them coming!
I've heard(read) on the internet that antiship missiles and torpedoes would also have a hard time sinking a battleship. So why not just bomb them with lazer guided from where their AA(s) could not reach them
I do not think missiles or torpedoes would have any issue it would be like a hot knife through butter, yes battle ships has heavy armor on the top but the hull is not that thick, modern torpedoes are far more powerful than the ww2 ones and even the ww2 ones could sink battle ships, as for missiles well they are often designed to penetrate Armour and with a battle ship full of propellant for the big guns it would not take much, or they could simply target the bridge and disable the ship and radars of the time would never see the missiles coming due to the speed size and how low to the water they fly, so the ships would be dead before the even knew it
@@EQINOX187 Err no, single torpedoes did not sink decently build battleships, and only Mark48 torps are heavier, most of the torps would be light.. yes, they will cause heavy damage, but you would need 3-4 at least to get one battleship out of the fight, unless you are very lucky. Missiles are no longer designed to penetrate armor, as there is no longer any real armor to penetrate, and you risk overpenetrating... missiles today are designed to explode inside and have a lilmited capability to penetrate super heavy armor.. older missiles might be based on old designs and therefore be very useful for this.
@@aitorbleda8267 just like i think, modern ships dont have much armour so missile no longer needed much AP ability. So missiles unless bunker busting type would have a problem dealing with heavily armoured battleship, if they hit the bridge multiple time would be good but it cant always be like that, right? So if missile and torpedoes were to have problems sinking Battleships why not guided bombs with bunker busting ability or atleast having some AP ability, that eay they will pierce the deck armour and explode inside the ship;Propably
@@aitorbleda8267 Err yes, single torpedoes did sink decently built battle ships and the majority of ships and battle ships where sunk or disabled by single torp hits, the reason more than one torp was fired was the simple fact that torps of the time where dumb fired and often missed so firing more than one increased the chance of hitting and if more than one hits great, modern torps are, indeed more powerful with greater rage but also are precision guided under the Armour belt of the hull, there is no shortage of modern torp testing on ww2 battle ships. As for missiles you are slightly incorrect again, many missiles are still designed to penetrate armor others with smart fuses that ether detonate on contact with armor or penetrate and then detonate, and modern missiles are very good a penetrating even the thickest of armor even if it is just through explosive force again there are many many videos on youtube showing this, this is basically why modern ships do not use armor as they quickly figured it was ineffective at stopping missiles and so they shifted to weapons designed to create a shield
These WW2 Battleship videos are so entertaining. It's the game's AI that is so frustrating to watch. This should have been easy if the AI Hornets would've acted correctly. Thank you for the effort.
@@MrBurgerphone1014 Indeed. As expensive as a Carrier, without the capability, I'd say. And with the Mk41 VLS, DDGs and CGs are capable of laying down some hurt. It's just a shame I guess there's no ASM for the VLS
@@MrBurgerphone1014 In real life, these hornet would be carrying HARMs or AARGM-ER, they would blind the fire control of these battleship very quickly. Then the battleship would die by laser guided bomb or JSOW-C with BROACH warhead. In DCS, there is no laser guided bomb
i do know that in WWII, ships would fire at the water if they were unable to hit planes (particularly low flying ones) because that volume of water splashing up with that much force acted much like concrete. A pilot was documented saying that during an interview where he dove, dropped his bombs, hit the target, and had to serpentine as he retreated due to the impact spouts of water. I beleive he said he had seen planes hit the water blasts and crash from it... However, the missles in this video do have much more velocity than a WWII fighter and much less surface area, so do what you want to with that info. Just thought id chime in with what i had heard. Again though, this is more for fun and curiosity, not an exact or practical situation. Thank you so much for all the videos you do.
the damage profile for ww2 warships is so so different from the modern ones cause one harpoon or 6-inch gun for that matter and whole deck and super structure everything goes boom...but the same effect is not seen on modern frigates etc, they take much more beating and modern missiles before showing any significant damage and those guns dont stop firing till last
Russia: AH MOTHERLAND! Germany: FOR ZE FATHERLAND! Glad you mentioned torpedo bombers... Would be cool to see some old zero's go up against tomcats again... Still one of my favorite movies growing up that!
22:52 - The operation to sink Bismarck took about three days, but that was everything done to find and disable her. The battle where she was sunk lasted several hours where HMS Rodney and HMS King George V just shelled her continuously. Ultimately, it was a torpedo from I think HMS Dorsetshire, or she was scuttled by her crew, that finally sank her. Scharnhorst was sunk by a task force led by HMS Duke Of York.
Crew Scuttled when they were Finally able to Surrender. The British tried to sink her with all hands in revenge for the HMS Hood, but she was to tough for that. The torp did happen, but wasn't enough to sink. The surviving crew hid below decks, (Below the inner Turtleback armor), until the shelling stopped. They, (The Bismarck crew), wanted to surrender within the first hour, but you know... If you see no white flag, and all that.
@@RadicalKattastrophe there is proof for both sides of the argument, and it is quite stupid to think that any one of the answers are right, as the result is still the same, she sunk.
you mean when air power weakened and supersied BBs can run at full speed no problem? yes, top it with the latest engine, anti torp device, laser point defense and seawizz on deck, a pack of new generation BB can be really deadly at sea
You make it seem like you genuinely care about us, that's super sweet and kind I really respect when TH-camrs acknowledge us like that and would you maybe help me pay rent and make the down payment on my new Camaro? Thanks again so much!!!
The Tirpitz has 4 torpedo launch tubes on her port and starboard sides. I can't remember the model they carried but they have a 10k range Problem is they need to turn to a pretty sever angle to get a solution. or wait tell they are passing through on the left or right of the target. Other problem, Harpoons. B( It is extremely difficult to sink battleships. They are made to take a beating and still deliver. And you never even encountered the Yamoto. LOL
Ive read articles on modern weapons v WW2 battleship armour and the conclusion was very few of them would get through the armour,some of the missile hits in this would do little damage to the battleships ....another thing was they had the speed of the Yamato as 13 knots which is ridiculous as its top speed was 28 knots
The U.S.S. Nevada served in WWI, was damaged in the attack on Pearl Harbor, served in the Atlantic as a maritime escort, was part of the D-day invasion, served in the Pacific campaign of WWII and then survived two nuclear bombs and still couldn't be sunk by conventional means till multiple torpedoes sunk her because she was far too radioactive to do anything else with her. Recently she was found on the bottom of the ocean with the tanks also involved in the nuclear testing still on her deck.
Sadly, this makes no sense. The modern ships with all their missiles would annihilate the battleships, nevermind the sub which could take all of them out by itself.
These days, bombs are GUIDED which means that they seldom miss and warheads are shaped charges, which means that penetrating 9 inches of armor is trivial. In other words, modern bombs would make short work of WW2 battleships.
if the angle of entry means it enters through the deck, yes. If the bomb hits the superstructure, there will be weather deck damage. The conning tower and CIC are armored. If the bomb or missile tries to penetrate the outer belt and citadel armor, nope. Get the brooms out and sweep the decks.
lol, well done just goes to show that this fight was happening far to close to carryer group. when thes fights happened IRL the carriers where over 100 miles away from the Surface group and even then it was touch and go.
A bit of input on the missiles flying through the gun splashes: Airplanes and missiles can fly through rain, but those splashes are more a wall of water than they are rain/mist until they start to disperse. I don't know how much this applies to modern aircraft, but a legitimate tactic back in WWII to stop torpedo bombers was to shoot the main/secondary guns into the water in front of the attack, and try to knock the planes out of the sky with the walls of water while the AAA guns continue shooting at them directly.
Question at 1:01:00 "What is the red and white thing on the back of the submarine?" That sub was a Russian Kilo SS, so that is the emergency escape hatch, its painted that color so a rescue sub or diving bell can find it under water.
hey guys asking if you can recreate as scene from planes 2013 where a cropduster is in a wourld race and gets lost over the ocean and gets intercepted by the f-18s. and they escort him to the carrier to land and repair.
I was thinking about that the only trouble is the max speed of the piper Pawnee is only 125 mph and IF you could get an f18 that slow your AOA would be ridiculous cool scene tho
No midair refueling? That's it, my immersion is broken. I can suspend my disbelief only so much, you know. Great video and I'm looking forward to more of your content.
I feel like the damage model is not correct. Harpoons would absolutely shred the unarmored portions of the ships: flying bridge, radars, rangefinders, AAA batteries, maybe even the secondary batteries. But they're not going to do anything to the hull, most of the superstructure, or the main battery. The hull and main battery of those ships were designed to withstand direct hits from multiple 14"-16" shells, which deliver a shitload more concentrated energy than 400lbs of destex exploding in open air. I think a more realistic outcome would be a stalemate or a pyrrhic victory for the battleships. They were all designed so the main batteries could be operated locally (with reduced range and accuracy), and the ship can be commanded from a secondary bridge inside the hull (with reduced situational awareness). If the BB's were committed to fight until sunk, a modern carrier group has basically nothing that will do for sinking them short of bunker-busting bombs. Harpoons aren't going to do the job.
Nice to see someone wiht some sense. Too many ppl here auto-assume that just because modern weapons, that the BBs wouldnt have a chance. They don't understand that modern weapons arent designed to penetrate heavy armor. And yes, the game damage model gave the Harpoons (and those piddly rockets they used later), WAY too much effectiveness. On the other hand it also disabled subs, so... fair game I guess. XD
Love the simulation. Helpful aid: Scharnhorst & Gneisenau have 3 turrets with triple mounted 11" guns. Bismark and Tirpitz had 4 turrets. Two guns per.
You don't know what fear is on a carrier until the very first time you have to crawl underneath an aircraft, tied up the the catapult and ready to go, to remove the other wheel chock.
Ya'know in June 30, 1946 the US Navy assembled a large fleet of 95 ex-warships and dropped two nukes on them in Operation Crossroads. One ship in particular, Battleship USS New York surviving both the Able and Baker Atomic Bomb test was towed to Pearl Harbor to study the effects of the bomb blasts on her. On 6 July 1948, she was towed out to sea and used as target practice, and was sunk by several naval aircraft and ships.. Battleships really can take a beating.
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 ธันวาคม 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dNTiBBthKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Battleship Fight Vids:
1: th-cam.com/video/AkJqjuJ8JvU/w-d-xo.html
2: th-cam.com/video/OGzDhzJ-OnA/w-d-xo.html
3: th-cam.com/video/at0N3bVx1kc/w-d-xo.html
4: th-cam.com/video/0zMLfoA4OLs/w-d-xo.html
Could you cut down on the 'valued viewers' refrain it gets really irritating after the first few listens. Well after once hearing it if I'm honest.
@@chrisparnham We are valued viewers and he's acknowledging it. For me it's cool and I appreciate his doing so
@@Greybeard1357 Fair enough but I wish he said whan starting his videos and not repeating it all the way through them. We don't need to be constantly reminded that we're 'valued' do we?
@@chrisparnham I just consider it another, friendlier, term than "the audience" as many TV shows do. It doesn't bother me at all. Then again these days I spend more time in the woods away from human interaction so I personally don't feel offended or pelted with the terms constantly. My usual response to interaction is bugger off but I'm very much enjoying this channel and the next generation of players. The 80s and 90s were my time with these games.
Heatblur: We upgraded Jester missile call outs. He's won't call irrelevant missiles.
Jester: *calls out missiles while fighting a ww2 fleet*
lols
Yamato was among the faster of the battleships irl.. like casually as fast as Iowa class, maybe tiny bit slower but definitely making something like a minimum of 25 knots. They were fast :p
@@tuxedoederminenaswall3751 Just to point, the fastest battleship known was USS New Jersey (post 1980s refit) pulling a fantastic 36 knot speed. The Iowa class is rated for (and has demonstrated) a maximum speed of 33knts while the Yamato and her sister ships (Counting Shinano were she finished as a battleship and not a support carrier) were rated for 28knts. The difference largely comes from a demand from the US navy that all ships would be able to maintain the same top speed without breaking formation.
@@tuxedoederminenaswall3751 Interesting point to add- while the Yamato was on paper stated to have a max speed of 27kts- there is no evidence it could go that fast. No Japanese logs, nor any record via movement tracking has ever put a Yamato class above 23kts. The Shinano only hit 28kts AFTER being converted to a carrier and and yielding 7,000 tons less in displacement, it was measured as going 28kts for about 3 minutes.
@@DR-pu5hm "...it was measured as going 28 kts for about 3 minutes." Which was about the full extent of _Shinano's_ career since a sub torpedoed and sank her the first time she went anywhere...
Tripitz: "we're taking too much fire! Dive!"
Tirpitz was renamed the Flying Dutchman and can now dive and resurface at will!!
lol
;D hahaha
@@isaned Ahem. I direct your attention to SCP-4217. Not quite Tirpitz, but close enough.
This is totally an Arpeggio of Blue Steel reference.
Still really liked the scene from Battleship where the old guy says: "Let's drop some lead on those motherf***"..... BOOOM!!
Old habits Die hard.
Movie censoring itself
Sins:1
Same Here dude! And the Missouri opens up with her 16-inch Guns, It’s awesome!!
was super cool seeing The big guns on the battle ships blowing holes in the alien's superb tech ships...."Oh they ain't gonna sink this battleship"!
"Oh Brother, somebody gonna kiss the donkey!"
Given the early comment in the video about not being realistic to have 28 launch ready planes, that would only be the most casual and non-ready skipper ever. The few times I went into or out of the Persian Gulf on a carrier in the 90s began by launching every operational plane and helicopter so none were caught on deck if the ship was attacked in the Strait of Hormuz. So, for the full transition through the SOH, 75-ish planes armed to the teeth and in the air before the passage, everyone at full battle stations, and even full CBR/NBC gear worn by everyone across the battle group. We even put the Marines on the portable .50 cal positions all around the deck. A carrier group making that transition is fully ready for battle at any moment; any arming or fueling is rearming or refueling. 👍
I know im late but I just said the same thing
Geeze what the hell is even gonna try and violate that airspace with 75 damn planes with fighter jocks all looking to become an ace. I can’t imagine what that would look like approaching you.
@@adarkwind4712 You would be surprised, the Iranian navy tries dumb shit all the time with their .50 cal wave racers
If they complain about that not beeing realistic, while heaving like all the battleships of WW II at the same place steaming to the carrier group, while the carrier group steams to them... yeah... I mean...
@@Gentleman...Driver 🤣
God, the inside of that Tomcat cockpit sounds like a damn McDonald's lobby with all those beeping alarms going off. Pull the damn fries out of the fryer! They're done!!
Stick a fry in the oven. It's done!
Couldn't have said it better 🤣
As someone who's made a mission with scripted AI reactions, I do believe how hard it was for them to work. DCS AI needs a recode ASAP
Someone believes me!
@@grimreapers I do Cap! It's like they're random
lmao, you should try in Arma!
@@LEWTSPEC Arma is terrrrrrible.......trying to get the AI to drive is like watching a demolition derby.
@@grimreapers dcs ai and hit markers need a recap. Overall effects do too like dropping a 10k bomb on the stern of a ship would.. i dont know... kill the engine
Don’t stress too much on the realism of the AI, these scenarios are more for fun than accuracy. IRL the Carrier Group would be steaming the opposite way, and be able to outpace the warships and never be touched. Fun video
Peter the Great's gun placement says a lot about Naval strategists' opinions on the strategy of Kiteing
True, why would the aircraft carrier keep going towards those battleships when it could easily outrun them
Actully the Modern Warships are slower
Arleigh-Burk does 31knots and Bismarck does 31.5knots
@@Heckerstuff The Burkes and Ticos are both considerably faster than that. Their actual speeds are not published, since they are still in service.
@@johnulmerRacing but they are between 30 to 40knots.
If you Take a ww2 Destroyer its much faster (Taschkent For example
Missiles don't track, catapults break and radar doesn't work, not every thing can work all the time and frequently doesn't. It was a funny dose of realism in a simulation, truly a stupendous amount of effort was put into it, just like the first one. I thought it was good fun and the enthusiasm was contagious, I honestly didn't know who to root for. Great job guys, I am a fan.
"Is America motherland or fatherland?"
Pretty sure it's "homeland."
Its 'meruica
@@jasondiaz8431 It is becoming the motherland
The stolenland
@@Ltasty haha conquered and bought by a lot and stolen yes. What will you do about it? Rhetorical question lol
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t “Fatherland” Germany and “Motherland” Russia?
I love these and appreciate your efforts Cap. It's not that the Battleships are too powerful, it's because the AI for this scenario doesn't like you.
Modern anti shipping cant cope with 18 inches of hardened steel.. end of
@@134StormShadow why not bomb them with guided bombs, with the ship(carrier) heading the other way if possible
@@134StormShadow A 500kt shipwreck would take that bet
@@134StormShadow This is true (generally) but that's only because they don't have to. If battleships were still a thing then we could easily design anti ship weapons to deal with them. Remember that most of a battleship is only lightly armored. The armor is all concentrated around the more vital systems and then only at angles where the ship can expect enemy fire to come from. A Mark 84 2,000 pound laser guided bomb has about 1,000 pounds of explosive and can penetrate a fair amount of armor if dropped from a high altitude. Maybe one of these bombs wouldn't be enough to penetrate the top turret armor on some of the later battleships, maybe. But it would easily penetrate the deck right in front of the main guns. Then, if fused correctly, the bomb would travel down below the waterline and explode. A 1,000 pound contained explosion from this position would result in what is technically known as a case of "the front fell off." This might not sink the ship but the damage along with the blast wave, which would travel through the ship injuring crew and destroying equipment ,would render the ship combat ineffective until it could be repaired. And while modern laser guided bombs require (quite obviously) laser guidance, it would be relatively trivial to design seekers which relied in infrared or optical recognition. A cheap cell phone can pick out people's faces in a photograph and focus on them. How hard would it be to design a seeker to recognize a ship, and vulnerable parts of that ship?
@@ThubanDraconis Select all the images with a *battleship*
Powered by Captcha
20:58 the first submarine ship. GR making history once again
lol
How about a large ww2 carrier group against a single carrier modern group
I like that idea a lot
Kido Butai vs a modern version of Task Forces 16 and 17. That would be awesome to watch. Marianas map would be perfect for it. A weird recreation of Midway.
Task Force 16 and 17.....Enterprise and Lexington
I am ao glad US are really more effective in real life. It only seems that Russian weapons are reliable. When I saw a Russian AWACs dodge a sidewinderX I call BS
This really just shows the limitation of AI. Look at how the submarine acted - nothing like in reality. Consider also the F-18 wings that didn't release their Harpoons.Look at how effective just the few human pilots were compared to the AI squadrons. This battle would have been very one-sided (in favor of modern tech) if humans were running all of the ships and planes.
If this was realistic, none of the planes or surface ships in the carrier group would be necessary to sink all the enemies, just 1fleet submarine. Armour is irrelevant to modern heavyweight torpedoes with under-keel detonation, and WWII battleships have no active or passive guided torpedo defence.
With all those hornets in the air, circling waiting to land, a real carrier would launch a hornet in a refueling config to top off those hornets before they run out of fuel.
I would hope so otherwise the whole bunch would be caught needing to land and refuel!
The Carrier battle group would have "hours and hours and hours" They would spot the WWII fleet 100's of miles out and would attack at the time and place of their choosing.
One additional note. The Super Carrier would not continue to close in range but would turn round and stay out of the big guns range!
Hahaha I love Cap's sound effects. Just a happy kid playing with his toys. It's so wholesome.
The amount of effort that yout put in videos is enourmos,also uploads are very frequent.
If a carrier group was going to fight a bunch of battle ships, it would start air attacks near the maximum combat radius with tanker support...see if AI can land and refuel/arm and re-attack.
Red white things on the submarines are the escape hatches, inside is a floodable compartment so people can escape from the submarine if it sinks (in shallow water). The Zuni rockets probably worked well on the Italian vessel as she was a cruiser - relatively lightly armoued, battleships (Yamato, Bismark, Tirpitz) had much tougher armour. Good work! The thing is that Yamato and Musashi could actually go about 27kts too :-)!
Exactly. They were insanely fast for how much they weighed and i would love to see the yamato modernized with the technology we have today to bad it sunk😢
Red white things on the submarines are the escape hatches, inside is a floodable compartment so people can escape from the submarine if it sinks (in shallow water).
I think the reason for the red/white stripes is, the crew can be rescued by a special rescue submarine, even in deep water. But it needs the stripes to find the docking station in the dark water.
Imagine if you added an 80’s era Iowa class in this.
Four of them? With Harpoons and Tomahawks (also nuclear)? That would take 5 minutes max, and not in favor for CV group ;-)
At 40 knots..Yamato at 37 knots
@@patrickcallahan9599 Recheck your information regarding top speeds of the Yamato and the four Iowa class battleships.
@@adamkepinski Not to mention FOUR CIWS mounts.
For those not up on naval jargon.
CIWS = Close-In Weapon System AKA Phalanx
The six twin 5" mounts are still radar guided.
Would be hard for aircraft and anti-ship missiles to get to an '80's Iowa class battleship.
Tirpitz did not sink - she decided to become a submarine. :D
Dive! Dive!
I think it IDENTIFIES as a submarine which you can easily do these days!! :)
Isn't Tirpitz a he?
The Germans referred to their ships as he
@@JimmyCasket02 no.
Appreciate all your hard work here. I still think if everything was working properly, the american fleet would walk away with this. Add the subs in, get all the planes to fire their weapons, get the carrier to land/launch like its supposed to, and get all the hits to register, its something else.
Somehow the Max speed for the two Yamato's is wrong
Even though they weight 72.000t they were fast battleships that could reach speeds of 27kn
He told us, that the GAME doesn`t want them to move faster, didn`t he?
@@Eruthian OP's just clarifying that the game got it wrong.
rgr
@@TheRibbonRed Yeah, sorry, English isn`t my native language. It wasn`t meant as a question. Just wanted to tell that guy, that he probably missed that part.
I should have read more of the comments before dropping my 'pearl of wisdom', now I look rather daft 😶😶
The Iowa class battleships had pretty significant refits in the 80s. Maybe try and see how a task force of those refitted ships could stack up against a modern carrier group. only four ships so fewer targets to chose from but they have better defenses
Only difference would be *some* guided AA in the form of the four Phalanx mounts. The upgraded Iowas still relied on Tichonderogas for for fleet air defense.
@@ERAUsnow they also had some radar upgrades, a couple of scouting drones, and tomahawks added.
@@kokofan50 Right, and that helps when swarmed by carrier aircraft...how?
@@ERAUsnow smdh -.-*
@@smilemore1997 you're gonna have to elaborate there, sparky
20:58 The super heavy U-boat Tirpitz crash diving to avoid aerial attack.
I respect your dedication to setting all of this up.
give the carrier group an Iowa or two.
but then the gulf war version
Add them onto the baddy side.
I don’t understand why he didn’t include an Iowa BB.
@@bri-manhunter2654 i belive because it's supposed to be an axis super fleet
. Good point, I just want to see some Iowa BB’s do some damage control😅!
The last time, the Harpoons kept going for the same ship until it was sunk, even when it was going down. That’s overkill on a few ships, when you have an entire task force you need to disable or sink.
Yes, glad to see this video again!
However, this was your chance to put in an Iowa class BB, very disappointed.
That 14 inch shell on your face was exactly the thing I was expecting
"Arial 9 has jammed up the catapult!"... That's cuz some jackwad in a tomcat KILLED the launch crew a few minutes earlier!
You start off too close, and a carrier would never keep on sailing right into the face of the enemy. That is kind of what they haventhe planes for.
The engagement should start 300 nautical miles or more away from the carrier. AWACS is going to see those giant radar returns hundreds of miles away. Why no laser-guided bombs? E.g. Paveway series? Those hit moving targets just fine.
I remember something from my time learning logistics in the military. Jets have something called Exhaust Gas Temperature and when hit a certain threshold the engine is "EGT limited." What they do to clean the ignition is to run the engine and spray water with ground up walnuts in it. Jet engines are fairly robust. Harpoon missiles are a different story, that's a rocket motor and not a jet turbine. It doesn't need oxygen going through it to combust, it has its fuel and an oxidizer that it combines to create combustion. Long story short, a harpoon can not only go through mist, it can be launched from a sub while submerged.
I would be interested in the density of the water column over an engines ability to ingest the water. In WW2, (supposedly) ships would shoot the main guns at the water in front of low flying planes in an attempt to have the water spouts take out planes.
Ah yes, finally get to see the McDonnell Dauntless Dive Hornet in action. Good video.
I never wanted the supercarrier to win.
Those new Tripitz class Battlesubs are pretty cool….
If the subs were really working then they would have obliterated the battleships alone since battleships didn't really had ASW capabilities.
Pretty sure one working modern sub would sink the whole Battleship group.
Tell that to HMS Dreadnought and Warspite (the first rammed a bloody sub, the second dive bombed another sucker with a floatplane)
@@Maedhros0Bajar uk mate, modern subs are really silent.
@@brothergunns5055 I know, WW1 and 2 u-boats were quite a bit more visible, and audible. Those were still the only confirmed sub kills by battleships
At 8:11 You can just feel the power when that F-18 Gets launched off the deck! I just think it’s so amazing! Great video BTW!
Can you do a post-refit US battleship battlegroup against the carrier group?
As far as the Scharnhorst, the ship you are trying to remember is the HMS Duke of York, a King George V-class battleship which had 10 14 inch guns. She fired 52 salvos and scored at least 13 hits before she ceased fire. Admiral Fraser then ordered Jamaica and Belfast to move into range and finish the crippled ship off with torpedoes.
For one thing transiting the straights we had a fully combat ready flight deck before we started to transit. You would also be surprised at hoe fast the ground crews can load up a full squadron.
So why not have the battleships angle so they can use all their guns?
Man I love these. Thanks Cap and team.
Hello from your Sainsbury's grocery delivery driver Andy...
Really enjoying these videos even as a kind of podcast when driving!
These are the kind of nerdy scenarios I can only dream of as a console owner!
P.S. as car guy I love that you have an SiL180 hidden away in your garage 😮
Thanks Andy hopefully see you soon x!
I wonder if the Harpoons could really track their targets through all those columns of water?
"Tip of the ship." Cap, your command of nautical terms is amazing! ;)
Too bad the AI froze that one F/A-18 at the waist catapult. If that doesn't happen, I bet more Harpoons get loosed. Of course, a lot of planes already in the air had Harpoons, and never fired, so the scenario just seemed to be overwhelming the AI. If the subs could fire torpedoes while submerged and more F/A-18s could loose more Harpoons simultaneously, the old fleet would be toast.
So, it's not the modern carrier group's fault, it's just an AI locking up.
Nice simulation, though. As fascinating as the prior attempt.
The German sailors would be shouting: TOMKATZEN!!!
Id like to hear the axis chatter about some super weapons (harpoons) and jets.
@@solomongainey838 Where are the ME-262's and V-1 and 2 rockets.
With even one f-18 inbound armed with laser-guided bombs, I would NOT want to be on the Yamato!
love how we have this wall of battleships, then just some cruisers hangin out with them. Also, who else wants type 3 shells and for Yamato to move at more than half speed?
I love how the harpoon was talked up so much when it's probably equivalent to about an 8 inch HE shell, and has none of the armor penetration needed to get through the belt. There's just too many compartments for them to hit, and the turrets have some of the thickest armor on the ship. In reality the harpoons would probably poke a few holes in the deck, scorch the pain, break a few windows, and start a few fires.
The fact is that harpoons are made to punch through essentially paper armor, when some of these ships have literal FEET of armor, they would flatten and explode against it, and just scorch some paint.
Another note is that there is something called an, "all-or-nothing armor scheme", in which there is one super-heavily armored citadel, and literally everything else can be blown off without the ship sinking. This citadel is the most heavily armored part of the ship and would laugh at modern AshM's.
Dear god those Zuni's are absurdly overpowered, there is no way in hell they'd be able to do more than cause some splinter damage to outer compartments.
The Biskos were firing 15IN in 4 double turrets, 2 fore, 2 aft. The Yamato's had 18.1IN guns in 3 triple turrets, 2 fore, 1 aft. Not sure about the italians. The Hipper class cruisers in there had 203mm guns in the same layout as the biskos. Not sure about the scharnhorst's.
The Roma has 3x3 380mm/15in guns, the Scharnhorsts have 3x3 283mm/11.1in guns.
In Battle 360: Enterprise a dive bomber pilot from the Enterprise pulled out of his dive lower than he should have. The Japanese were shooting the water like in this video and the pilot said a shell hit underneath them and the water spout actually lifted their aircraft up. So, I could see the water affecting the harpoons. Maybe not destroying it, but possibly damaging or altering it's course enough it misses the target.
Bismarck used the same strategy with the Swordfish, that were coming in too low for the AA to depress
@@Nightdare that and the bullets just went right through the cloth
Navy: Battleships are outdated and useless against modern carriers.
DCS would like a word with you.
To be fair, an actual carrier group wouldn't be sailing towards a battleship group, instead it would use it's speed to keep well out of visual range so the planes can harrass and sink the battleships with impunity.
DCS: Simulation
Modern Submarines would like a word with you
Outdated yes. Not useless.
They are too slow, too heavy, too expensive, and not suited for modern tactics. Also kinda outlawed I believe.
the iowa class were faster than any other ship in the navy (for thier time) and had the most range think about that for a second
@@ciphergalm1174 You made a very wrong generalization. The Iowa-class was the fastest Battleship in the navy and possibly the fastest capital ship in the US navy, but not the fastest ship overall. For example, only 1 destroyer was slower than Iowa, the USS Allen DD-66 (Sampson-class).
the graphics, frame rate & 'reality' is absolutely phenomenal. Could you please do a video on the hardware/software (including OS) you're using to generate such wonderful videos ??
I agree!
Well done, lol. I see the biggest problem in this battle - you humans spent too much time using ineffective bombs. Next time, try one thing each, and find the best outcome and then equip all fighters with that. Dont use all bombs and find out that after 100 runs it's ineffective, and trying something else. Also if someone is stuck - WIPE IT OUT immediately. I said to myself when I saw that AI plane stuck on the deck - just ram it away, kill it ASAP!
Aside these "issues" - it was impressive watching that again as usual! Love your vids Cap, and keep them coming!! :D
In real life the thickest part of an Iowa class battleships amour was the bridge 439mm compared to 241 on turret sides.
Basically 44cm or 17.3in - that’s some thick armor.
Believe the turret face is a lil thicker at 19.5 inches technically.
Just found this channel yesterday, I have no idea what I'm watching. I watched the IJN vs a modern Carrier group earlier, not as decisivie as one would think. What software is this? I wish a) that I had friends, and b) that I had friends into flight sims. This looks fun.
Welcome. DCS
Always thought that the Yamato’s top speed was something like 27 knots. So why the 14? Sea water in the fuel?
It is good for 27 knots. The game needs fixing.
@@blacquejacqueshellaque6373 the mod needs fixing
Yep 27+
YES Cap battle ship superstructure is armored several inches, the range finders are armored as much as the turrets. Excellent video thank you
thx
If that was real the US Carrier Group would never sail into those battleships.
5:26 "Nothing can survive that"
1:12:34 "We lose, again"
Cap's sound effects are completely epic!
After you finish what can beat a USN carrier group, you should do what can beat a USN battleship battle group
actually being able to be next to F35s and F18s on the cat is such a nice feeling. Engines just roaring thru your head when theyre taking off
Maybe give the Carrier Group the 1980's refit Iowa class Battleships? It would be very interesting.
That would make it not a "modern Carrier group" as the Iowa was mothballed in 1990 after an ammunition explosion in 89 damaged one of it's turrets.
@@pogo1140 An Iowa, not the Iowa. Still three others.
@@TheAtomicSpoon of those 3, 2 were decommissioned in 91 and 1 in 92. so still breaks the "modernish" rule that the scenario called for.
Put all 4 Iowa class on the baddies side. Configure them with WW2 weaponry. 20 5" 38's with VT fuzzes. 80 40mm Bofers and 40 20mm's. The VT 5" would be very capable of shooting down harpoons and hornets.
@@infidel66687 But the 5/38 can't move fast enough to track them properly.
33:34 Just doing some flying around 500 AA guns, thinking he's invincible and BOOM wing gone from a 40MM to the face!!! Love these videos guys, keep them coming!
"Get some baby feel the suck-OH MY GOD" -Man flying between 400 AA Guns
I've heard(read) on the internet that antiship missiles and torpedoes would also have a hard time sinking a battleship. So why not just bomb them with lazer guided from where their AA(s) could not reach them
New ones, yes, old ones would be better, as they were designed to go through armor.
I do not think missiles or torpedoes would have any issue it would be like a hot knife through butter, yes battle ships has heavy armor on the top but the hull is not that thick, modern torpedoes are far more powerful than the ww2 ones and even the ww2 ones could sink battle ships, as for missiles well they are often designed to penetrate Armour and with a battle ship full of propellant for the big guns it would not take much, or they could simply target the bridge and disable the ship and radars of the time would never see the missiles coming due to the speed size and how low to the water they fly, so the ships would be dead before the even knew it
@@EQINOX187 Err no, single torpedoes did not sink decently build battleships, and only Mark48 torps are heavier, most of the torps would be light.. yes, they will cause heavy damage, but you would need 3-4 at least to get one battleship out of the fight, unless you are very lucky.
Missiles are no longer designed to penetrate armor, as there is no longer any real armor to penetrate, and you risk overpenetrating... missiles today are designed to explode inside and have a lilmited capability to penetrate super heavy armor.. older missiles might be based on old designs and therefore be very useful for this.
@@aitorbleda8267 just like i think, modern ships dont have much armour so missile no longer needed much AP ability. So missiles unless bunker busting type would have a problem dealing with heavily armoured battleship, if they hit the bridge multiple time would be good but it cant always be like that, right?
So if missile and torpedoes were to have problems sinking Battleships why not guided bombs with bunker busting ability or atleast having some AP ability, that eay they will pierce the deck armour and explode inside the ship;Propably
@@aitorbleda8267 Err yes, single torpedoes did sink decently built battle ships and the majority of ships and battle ships where sunk or disabled by single torp hits, the reason more than one torp was fired was the simple fact that torps of the time where dumb fired and often missed so firing more than one increased the chance of hitting and if more than one hits great, modern torps are, indeed more powerful with greater rage but also are precision guided under the Armour belt of the hull, there is no shortage of modern torp testing on ww2 battle ships.
As for missiles you are slightly incorrect again, many missiles are still designed to penetrate armor others with smart fuses that ether detonate on contact with armor or penetrate and then detonate, and modern missiles are very good a penetrating even the thickest of armor even if it is just through explosive force again there are many many videos on youtube showing this, this is basically why modern ships do not use armor as they quickly figured it was ineffective at stopping missiles and so they shifted to weapons designed to create a shield
These WW2 Battleship videos are so entertaining. It's the game's AI that is so frustrating to watch. This should have been easy if the AI Hornets would've acted correctly. Thank you for the effort.
Imagine these battleships being escorted with aegis destroyers with powerful AA. That would be a stomp.
Iowas with their CIWS and proximity fuse 5-inch AA guns would wreck everything.
@@MrBurgerphone1014 well not really... theres a reason they retired...
@@ΓρηγόρηςΠανούσης They're expensive to operate
@@MrBurgerphone1014 Indeed. As expensive as a Carrier, without the capability, I'd say. And with the Mk41 VLS, DDGs and CGs are capable of laying down some hurt. It's just a shame I guess there's no ASM for the VLS
@@MrBurgerphone1014 In real life, these hornet would be carrying HARMs or AARGM-ER, they would blind the fire control of these battleship very quickly. Then the battleship would die by laser guided bomb or JSOW-C with BROACH warhead.
In DCS, there is no laser guided bomb
i do know that in WWII, ships would fire at the water if they were unable to hit planes (particularly low flying ones) because that volume of water splashing up with that much force acted much like concrete. A pilot was documented saying that during an interview where he dove, dropped his bombs, hit the target, and had to serpentine as he retreated due to the impact spouts of water. I beleive he said he had seen planes hit the water blasts and crash from it... However, the missles in this video do have much more velocity than a WWII fighter and much less surface area, so do what you want to with that info. Just thought id chime in with what i had heard. Again though, this is more for fun and curiosity, not an exact or practical situation. Thank you so much for all the videos you do.
the damage profile for ww2 warships is so so different from the modern ones cause one harpoon or 6-inch gun for that matter and whole deck and super structure everything goes boom...but the same effect is not seen on modern frigates etc, they take much more beating and modern missiles before showing any significant damage and those guns dont stop firing till last
Russia: AH MOTHERLAND!
Germany: FOR ZE FATHERLAND!
Glad you mentioned torpedo bombers... Would be cool to see some old zero's go up against tomcats again... Still one of my favorite movies growing up that!
Cap, I love how you GR guys know DCS is a flight sim that happens to have ships yet you still try to "crack the egg to make the omlette". 👍👍👍
22:52 - The operation to sink Bismarck took about three days, but that was everything done to find and disable her. The battle where she was sunk lasted several hours where HMS Rodney and HMS King George V just shelled her continuously. Ultimately, it was a torpedo from I think HMS Dorsetshire, or she was scuttled by her crew, that finally sank her.
Scharnhorst was sunk by a task force led by HMS Duke Of York.
Crew Scuttled when they were Finally able to Surrender. The British tried to sink her with all hands in revenge for the HMS Hood, but she was to tough for that. The torp did happen, but wasn't enough to sink. The surviving crew hid below decks, (Below the inner Turtleback armor), until the shelling stopped. They, (The Bismarck crew), wanted to surrender within the first hour, but you know... If you see no white flag, and all that.
@@RadicalKattastrophe there is proof for both sides of the argument, and it is quite stupid to think that any one of the answers are right, as the result is still the same, she sunk.
Doing this in stormy weather with large waves could be cool.
you mean when air power weakened and supersied BBs can run at full speed no problem? yes, top it with the latest engine, anti torp device, laser point defense and seawizz on deck, a pack of new generation BB can be really deadly at sea
You make it seem like you genuinely care about us, that's super sweet and kind I really respect when TH-camrs acknowledge us like that and would you maybe help me pay rent and make the down payment on my new Camaro? Thanks again so much!!!
The Tirpitz has 4 torpedo launch tubes on her port and starboard sides. I can't remember the model they carried but they have a 10k range
Problem is they need to turn to a pretty sever angle to get a solution. or wait tell they are passing through on the left or right of the target. Other problem, Harpoons. B(
It is extremely difficult to sink battleships. They are made to take a beating and still deliver. And you never even encountered the Yamoto. LOL
Ive read articles on modern weapons v WW2 battleship armour and the conclusion was very few of them would get through the armour,some of the missile hits in this would do little damage to the battleships ....another thing was they had the speed of the Yamato as 13 knots which is ridiculous as its top speed was 28 knots
The U.S.S. Nevada served in WWI, was damaged in the attack on Pearl Harbor, served in the Atlantic as a maritime escort, was part of the D-day invasion, served in the Pacific campaign of WWII and then survived two nuclear bombs and still couldn't be sunk by conventional means till multiple torpedoes sunk her because she was far too radioactive to do anything else with her. Recently she was found on the bottom of the ocean with the tanks also involved in the nuclear testing still on her deck.
Sadly, this makes no sense. The modern ships with all their missiles would annihilate the battleships, nevermind the sub which could take all of them out by itself.
27:37 "If you've got this much horsepower, nothing else really matters in life."
Out there apparently flying a turboshaft powered Tomcat.
These days, bombs are GUIDED which means that they seldom miss and warheads are shaped charges, which means that penetrating 9 inches of armor is trivial. In other words, modern bombs would make short work of WW2 battleships.
if the angle of entry means it enters through the deck, yes. If the bomb hits the superstructure, there will be weather deck damage. The conning tower and CIC are armored. If the bomb or missile tries to penetrate the outer belt and citadel armor, nope. Get the brooms out and sweep the decks.
Typical bombs do not used shaped charges
@@jonathanhinds7117 If one is attempting to penetrate armor, why would one NOT use a shaped charge?
Battleships took a beating the whole time still kept coming...gg..your videos are 👌
lol, well done just goes to show that this fight was happening far to close to carryer group.
when thes fights happened IRL the carriers where over 100 miles away from the Surface group and even then it was touch and go.
A bit of input on the missiles flying through the gun splashes: Airplanes and missiles can fly through rain, but those splashes are more a wall of water than they are rain/mist until they start to disperse. I don't know how much this applies to modern aircraft, but a legitimate tactic back in WWII to stop torpedo bombers was to shoot the main/secondary guns into the water in front of the attack, and try to knock the planes out of the sky with the walls of water while the AAA guns continue shooting at them directly.
Seems like the battleships are shooting each other by aiming at incoming harpoons
Question at 1:01:00 "What is the red and white thing on the back of the submarine?"
That sub was a Russian Kilo SS, so that is the emergency escape hatch, its painted that color so a rescue sub or diving bell can find it under water.
thx
That take off was grounds for a court martial for sure.
20:30 thank you kindly for the wonderful sound effects cap
hey guys asking if you can recreate as scene from planes 2013 where a cropduster is in a wourld race and gets lost over the ocean and gets intercepted by the f-18s.
and they escort him to the carrier to land and repair.
I was thinking about that the only trouble is the max speed of the piper Pawnee is only 125 mph and IF you could get an f18 that slow your AOA would be ridiculous cool scene tho
Hmmm somehow i'm remember... isn't the pilot name is dusty?
🤣👌
No midair refueling? That's it, my immersion is broken. I can suspend my disbelief only so much, you know.
Great video and I'm looking forward to more of your content.
27:20 Is that a legit USN procedure for launching Tomcats when the catapults are not working?
I feel like the damage model is not correct.
Harpoons would absolutely shred the unarmored portions of the ships: flying bridge, radars, rangefinders, AAA batteries, maybe even the secondary batteries. But they're not going to do anything to the hull, most of the superstructure, or the main battery. The hull and main battery of those ships were designed to withstand direct hits from multiple 14"-16" shells, which deliver a shitload more concentrated energy than 400lbs of destex exploding in open air.
I think a more realistic outcome would be a stalemate or a pyrrhic victory for the battleships. They were all designed so the main batteries could be operated locally (with reduced range and accuracy), and the ship can be commanded from a secondary bridge inside the hull (with reduced situational awareness). If the BB's were committed to fight until sunk, a modern carrier group has basically nothing that will do for sinking them short of bunker-busting bombs. Harpoons aren't going to do the job.
Nice to see someone wiht some sense. Too many ppl here auto-assume that just because modern weapons, that the BBs wouldnt have a chance. They don't understand that modern weapons arent designed to penetrate heavy armor. And yes, the game damage model gave the Harpoons (and those piddly rockets they used later), WAY too much effectiveness.
On the other hand it also disabled subs, so... fair game I guess. XD
Something about battleship always get my attention...
Me too!
Love the simulation. Helpful aid: Scharnhorst & Gneisenau have 3 turrets with triple mounted 11" guns. Bismark and Tirpitz had 4 turrets. Two guns per.
This reminds me of the book and movie called "Final Countdown" where a naval carrier goes back in time to save Pearl Harbor.
It was made into a movie as well
Yo they did that scenario on this channel too. It was sick
Thanks for the video, love these what if’s scenarios
You don't know what fear is on a carrier until the very first time you have to crawl underneath an aircraft, tied up the the catapult and ready to go, to remove the other wheel chock.
Ya'know in June 30, 1946 the US Navy assembled a large fleet of 95 ex-warships and dropped two nukes on them in Operation Crossroads. One ship in particular, Battleship USS New York surviving both the Able and Baker Atomic Bomb test was towed to Pearl Harbor to study the effects of the bomb blasts on her. On 6 July 1948, she was towed out to sea and used as target practice, and was sunk by several naval aircraft and ships.. Battleships really can take a beating.