P700s do have long range. However, the Nimitz has airplanes. Which are like smarter than smart missiles with missiles. The soviets don’t have super carriers so they made really good ASMs. I feel like it’s balanced.
Wow its almost like USN ships without Aegis and VLS upgrades that were specifically meant to counter the Soviet missile spam they struggle I would have never guessed.
More like the USN don’t get proper use of its carriers against those which is silly, since USN IRL has twice as many super carriers as the Soviets did Kirovs.
@@artruisjoew5473 Nearly 3 times as many; 11 to 4 iirc. Still made going after surface action groups the Soviets had a bit of a pain in the ass, since it had that 50NM bubble no fly, and the ~300NM bubble of no sail, (Tico of the time was limited by the SM-1/2's it carried to 40-50NM. Airwing wise, you had to sit outside that and fling harpoons in. Potentially tedious work if Ivan is on the ball for point defense, though if you had 3 or more flights of Hornets/Intruders, you can most likely brute force PD saturation. You are SOL if you run anything shorter range than the Harpoon, so the French Navy with the Exocet would have attacked it with foul language and sea skimming etendards I gander. Not sure if the AD network can interface with the radar coverage/datalink from the KA-25TDS with the radar in its belly, but if so, it makes the sea skimming ability of the Harpoon much less valuable. Like everything else formidable in existence, the Kirov is tough, but aint invincible. Stick with the Master Chief, he'll know what to do.
I still have PTSD from fighting against the Kirov in cold waters, both as a Submarine and a Surface Vessel, it is MUCH weaker in Sea Power than it was in Cold Waters, yet people still call it OP? Amazing.
For quite sometime, I've started to understand that the Russia is not the USSR and vice versa (internal issues aside, the Soviet Union still managed to keep up with the US for decades until they finally collapsed). The Slava's especially get a lot of flack, and understandably so, but there's a lot of differences from what happened in 2022 that could've happened in the 1980s (literally around 40 years apart for starters!). By the 1980s theses ships were basically brand new, well-rounded, and were in the cold war climate. HOWEVER, I still don't understand what was put into the SA-N-9s of the Udaloys, I've legitimately seen this ship be surrounded by Harpoons from all directions and defeated ALL of them, sea-skimming be damned (and this is a ship that prides itself as an ASW focused Destroyer/Spruance-equivalent, btw). Not calling for something to change, but seems a bit much. Not the mention that the SS-N-22 Sunburns are so effective that they worry me more than Shipwrecks and Sandboxes. As for US ships apparently being nerfed... I suppose one way I can see that is the USN being denied the honestly almighty 3-letter power up called "NTU' as apparently 1986-1991 don't count (not complaining, but it is a cold war game after all). Makes me curious how the upcoming campaign would work if they are hard stopped at 1985, assuming they allow for ships to get refits. On another note, I'm quite sure the Iowa's were reactivated not because of the Kirovs specifically, but because it was cheaper to refit a 45,000 BB with Tomahawks, Harpoons, CIWS, and other electronics than it was build an entirely new 4,100 ton OHP FFG or 7,100 ton Spruance DD from the keel up (it's not easy when the US president - Ronald Regan - makes a pledge for a '600-ship navy'). A few other things: I still think the Exocet missile is overrated, SM-1s suck in general, and Harpoons are surprisingly versatile especially when you have a large SAG with 8 ASMs per ship.
Well the SA-N-9 has an insane rate of fire, thanks to the VLS system and multiple missile channels. Yes, the Udaloy was an ASW ship, but the missile system was really put on that ship and it was (on paper) as capable as the game portrays. The main issue with it is that it's a point defence system, less than 9nm of range. Still, that's pretty impressive and allow for surprising performances...at least at first sight. But they really are not. Think of it this way, Harpoons move at roughly half the speed of a SS-N-12. Udaloy's VLS is the fastest-firing SAM system in the game at the moment, with an insane rate of fire. 9 nm might seem not that much but in the time the harpoons take to cover that distance, A LOT of missiles will be fired at them. Now think of this scenario: A VLS Ticonderoga finds itself with SS-N-12s coming for it from twice the distance (18-20nm) but double the missile speeds. Would you be surprised if it was able to put up a brutal wall of impenetrable SAM fire?. Personally I've never had problems sinking Udaloys (several videos uploaded in this channel can attest to that), as long as I remembered is a very, very capable ship at the time of defending itself. Heck, I even sank one with a Walleye fired from 10k altitude :D. About the NTU the way I understand it is that the 1985 date was very much settled to prevent NATO to have access to those upgrades. Because honestly against US ships with the NTU upgrades, the soviets would stand no chance (and the mod that incorporates it pretty much showcases it). Also 1985 is an OK cut-off date because thanks to Perestroika the chances of a hot war happening between NATO and the WP decreased drastically.
SAN-9's are actually really effective at shorad. The main issue with them on land is the limited ammo count of the launchers and how long they took to reload. But having an auto loader (the Soviet Military loved and perfected auto loaders) tied to a VLS, also tied to a good radar suite... It's basically the best of the best at the time for shorad (which in the game is actually stepping outside the date scope so they are using future tech)...
The udaloy in this game is unrealistically good because the game does not model command limitations and allow ships to use the max of their *weapons*capability, when in reality a lot of the limitation of these ships were the command and control limitations (which is why the aegis was such a big deal-the ticos can finally use the full extent of its arsenal thanks to aegis instead of being limited to what people can pay attention to like any other ship of the time). If the game models realistic command capability… you get the IRL Moskva event. And in game, in the mission in the Aegean Sea, I got frustrated with the udaloy intercepting everything (it was the last ship alive) so I drove Iowa to gun range and asked the udaloy to intercept these 16” shells.
It's not the only one who dismisses the old soviet weapons as useless because they underperformed in Ukraine...forgetting that most of them are 35 years old (at best) and Russia has awfully maintained them during this time. Still, the video is about nowadays Russia, totally out of what I cover in this channel. But it was the one who said Sea Power was buffing one side and nerfing another just because...so I guess that part I could address :).
@@ramjb the 24 harpoons in that pacific strike mission is not enough to kill off everything, but enough to kill off all the big ships with long range AShM so you can bully the rest with harpoons.
Oh I know. I played that mission and uploaded the video. Gut Kirov in that scenario, and you've mostly won already. And with 24 harpoons and Prowlers around, Kirov is going down.
I like video games such as DCS and SP that try to model military systems accurately. I dont want that accuracy to include malfunctions. Also, i realize the info used to model the systems is not classified material, and thus, based on publicly available info and guesswork. Most importantly its a video game...
>people whining about redfor being OP >Redfor the minute the USN CBG is out of missile range (deceased) >Redfor when their carrier attack aircraft AShMs are optically tracking and have to be fired one at a time >Redfor when Yak-38 >Redfor when no AWACS (without the Orels) People are idiots, what else is new. They get clapped for not treating these platforms as brand new and tacking into account that they're using arm-launchers instead of VLS
The people saying the soviets are overpowered are comparing US and soviet ships apples to apples in surface engagements. That's not how the US designed thier fleets to be used so of course the soviets seem OP. In reality the Kirovs stood no chance against US carriers which is the case in seapower as well.
Yes, that's pretty much one of the points I make in the video. Comparing fleets side by side makes no sense, the soviet fleet was intentionally designed the way it was aknowledging that challenging the US in carriers was simply not an option. Asimmetry was a result, and the consequence is that ships were designed with so different waysdoctrines that a direct one-on-one comparison of their ships just makes no sense. In the game this translates in what I said in the video - if the soviets don't face a carrier their strenghts shine. If a carrier is present, they might aswell scuttle their ships. In game there are many scenarios where a Kirov is present while a US Carrier is not... in real life such an engagement would've never happened. But still those scenarios are fun to play...which is kinda the point of a game :).
@@philippschmid8674not really. The aircraft (yak38s) the Kiev could carry really doesn’t stand a chance against tomcats and the Soviet fleet don’t get to magically spawn within missile range so they are SOL. That doesn’t even include the potential future inclusion of the hornets.
To be completely honest, a handful of yak38s is going to make very little difference in that scenario...but it still would be cool if the ai used them 😀
Everything in Sea Power is insanely over-modeled. Which is good because weapons and ships that refuse to work for inexplicable reasons make for frustrating gameplay. The game does a good job giving both factions situational advantages. The Kirov is deadly against surface units, but can be taken down with a well executed airborne attack. As an aside: I look forward to the dynamic campaign because it will also make ammo management another variable to take into account. Right now there's really no penalty for spamming all your missiles, while in real life that can take a ship out of action for weeks or months.
Sea Power also makes things far more integrated. For instance, a sub at 400ft of depth "sees" what other platforms might be detecting 20nm away , and "Knows" the battlefield in a way no submarine would be able to know. Every platform in the game has access to knowledge of the battlefield that in no way would be available for systems of the era (exception made for a very very limited few, mostly AWACS or Aegis, and even those had limitations). All that affects the game, gameplay and tactics. But is done like that for one simple reason: simplicity and accesibility for players. Not everyone is a military freak who is familiarized with those limitations because he has spent 5 years playing CMO...and this game is not CMO anyway (and don't take me wrong I *LOVE* CMO. But it's not for everyone). It's a game. And as such has compromises. That's perfectly fine. Or should be, even while reading some people's comments in several different places for some seems it's not.
Remember, the Kirov started out early in its design process as a Large Anti-Submarine Ship designed to escort the Project 1165 Fugas missile cruiser, the last designs of which could have carried up to 40 SS-N-19s.
I find the iowa reactivation a bad reason to say kirov was good The United states had no way of truly knowing the capability of the missiles on the ships or how well the solviets would be able to maintain the ship It also doesn't help that people had been trying to find ANY reason to get the iowas back in service
Well the point was not that the Iowas reactivation meant that the Kirov was "good"...rather that their reactivation meant that the US saw the Kirov was a very real, very strong, threat that needed a direct match. Far cry from the idea displayed in the clip I adressed with this video that states that Kirovs were always white elephants, since the beginning. They were flawed, they were full of very questionable design choices, and for sure they were far too expensive for what they offered...but "white elephants"?...that's going a bit too far. In particular because the Kirovs (as the rest of the Red Navy) wasn't supposed to engage one on one with american surface formations, but to be a strong part of a combined effort from SSGNs, Bomber wings from the Naval Aviation and surface fleet, to defend the soviet "bastions" against NATO intrusion in case of a war. And for that particular task, and with the support of submarines and bombers, the Kirov was a very, very, dangerous asset.
@ramjb I think the kirov did lead to iowa reactivation but more for an ego reason of congress and some admirals not wanting the solviets to have the larger surface combatant "oh you have a battle cruiser well we have a battleship" Realistically an Iowa didn't have the missiles or the missile defense to take a kirov the iowa would never get into gun range and it have few missiles I care less about the game giving the solviet ships the benefit of the doubte in ship capabilities because they already left reality with the orel and good game design can't have lots of equipment malfunctions (for example in war thunder it would not be fun if your tiger 2 would just breakdown seemingly at random) now if it was trying to do naval war in the current day (or even mid 90s with the solviets still around) thare would be no contest
I do agree: Iowas were VERY poor choices to "match" the Kirov capabilities. For one, the total lack of self-defence against missiles (other than the CIWS) was a killer. Meanwhile Kirov had not one, but two anti-air defence systems (one area and another point defence). Also, TASM was no match to the SS-N-19. Not that the americans would've known that, if I'm not mistaken the Shipwreck's capabilities weren't fully understood by NATO until much later. My main point bringing the fact that the Iowas were reactivated when the west got wind of the Kirov class is not to argue that the Kirovs were "amazing"...or that the Iowas were a good match. It's to emphasize the fact that the clip I am adressing with this video states the Kirovs were "white elephants" since they were built...well, they were not, and a signal of that is that , faulty or not, they were felt and perceivced as enough of a threat that the West was really concerned about them. Iowas reactivations reinforce that such a feeling was real...not that the Kirov was amazing or that the Iowas were a good match for them :). As for your assessment about a naval game with todays ships...yeah, it would be a problem. How do you model Moskva?...as "on paper"? or as "in reality" with only one CIWS system in operation, and it's AA missiles switched off because their radar jammed the own on-board shipboard electronics when operative?. Frankly, today's russian fleet is a joke. And quite probably Adm. Nakhimov, when it's overhaul finishes (if it ever does it) will also be a joke. But by the 80s ... no, they were no joke at all :).
Every source I've ever seen about the Iowa class battleships specifically mention that the existance of the Kirov was the main reason behind their final reactivation... Now, that it was not a good match for Kirov, or that it's capabilities differed significantly from that of a Kirov's is a whole another story :).
The problem I'm seeing with The History of Everything is his overt criticality over various things he doesn't actually understand from a military political, and actual military combat standpoint. I love his content but there are things I'm starting to notice about his recent channel content.
I saw his videos from a satirical platform, with great exaggerations to make the jokes about Russian quality and efficiency. I don't see it as a serious analysis, just an historical comedy
@@otatoshio4315 hes just another channel that sprung up during the ukraine war and does nothing but shit all over soviet equipment, and most people remove the context, for example saying ha ha ha t-72 shit ignoring the fact that the T-72 would have primarily fought M60s, Leopard 1s and Cheiftans at the time of its introduction, not the modern 120mm armed nato tanks which of course it struggles against
I do concur to a point, because he makes some very valid arguments in all his videos. Others (much fewer in number), however, are seriously debatable to say the least. And his videos are fun to watch... But in order to be fun you don't need to twist or exagerate. For instance, take Perun...his content always makes me break a smile, if not laughter, at least a couple times in each of his videos because of his sense of humor, yet he takles the situation in Ukraine without the need of thrashing the russians without need (beyond trashing them when they should be thrashed, of course). I don't know...I do find History of Everything content worth watching, same as others that fall in the same...niche, let's say. Such as Lazerpig or others, who all share a very similar style. But they have to be taken with a grain of salt. Or two....
The part about Sea Power maybe was. Still, I've seen enough complains about american anti-ship systems in youtube comments, reddit posts, Discord messages, and Steam threads to know that just said comment and believe is widely accepted within the Sea Power community. And I think it was about time that someone explained things as they were in the time frame represented by the game.
I have seen lots of stuff like this recently, saying Soviet stuff is bad... not because of soviet stuff underperforming in a way or another... but because "Russia evil" due to stuff like Ukraine. its quite sad really. I mean dilsike all you want the Russian gov, but don't lie to yourself, specially over historical matter that is not related to today besides the genetic of the people of a country.
To be fair, there were many soviet systems that historically were hyped to then find out they were not so dangerous. MiG-25 for instance. Weapon systems that were capable, but not the ultimate terminators the west feared. Then, there also were a good number of soviet systems the West never knew how incredible were until they got the chance to test them first hand. The R-73 comes to mind. Russia is not the Soviet Union. Evil, not evil, awful political system or not, that has nothing to do with the performance of the weapons they designed. And like everyone else, the USSR had stinkers of weapons that never worked as they intended, and they had also excellent platforms that exceeded anyone's expectations. I see that happening also with Nazi Germany equipment during WW2. Most of it dismissed because "Nazis bad". Well, yes, nazis were absolutely awful indeed, and they created some ridiculous stuff that made no sense and was horribly dangerous and unsafe (Me163 anyone?). But they also had competent engineers and created some very powerful pieces of weaponry, that had flown under a white star or a red and blue circle would now be considered as a "classic" of warfare. It is how it is. And to be honest, when those channels speak about nowadays russia, they tend to get things right. Ukraine is a result of that. But when they begin speaking about the 1980s Soviet Union in same terms as 2020s Russia...well, no. Things were bad back in the USSR too, but it's a whole different topic.
So, what do you think?. Let me know. Of course my opinion is stated in the video, but I'd love to hear yours :).
P700s do have long range. However, the Nimitz has airplanes. Which are like smarter than smart missiles with missiles. The soviets don’t have super carriers so they made really good ASMs. I feel like it’s balanced.
Wow its almost like USN ships without Aegis and VLS upgrades that were specifically meant to counter the Soviet missile spam they struggle I would have never guessed.
More like the USN don’t get proper use of its carriers against those which is silly, since USN IRL has twice as many super carriers as the Soviets did Kirovs.
@@artruisjoew5473 Nearly 3 times as many; 11 to 4 iirc. Still made going after surface action groups the Soviets had a bit of a pain in the ass, since it had that 50NM bubble no fly, and the ~300NM bubble of no sail, (Tico of the time was limited by the SM-1/2's it carried to 40-50NM. Airwing wise, you had to sit outside that and fling harpoons in. Potentially tedious work if Ivan is on the ball for point defense, though if you had 3 or more flights of Hornets/Intruders, you can most likely brute force PD saturation. You are SOL if you run anything shorter range than the Harpoon, so the French Navy with the Exocet would have attacked it with foul language and sea skimming etendards I gander.
Not sure if the AD network can interface with the radar coverage/datalink from the KA-25TDS with the radar in its belly, but if so, it makes the sea skimming ability of the Harpoon much less valuable.
Like everything else formidable in existence, the Kirov is tough, but aint invincible. Stick with the Master Chief, he'll know what to do.
I still have PTSD from fighting against the Kirov in cold waters, both as a Submarine and a Surface Vessel, it is MUCH weaker in Sea Power than it was in Cold Waters, yet people still call it OP? Amazing.
For quite sometime, I've started to understand that the Russia is not the USSR and vice versa (internal issues aside, the Soviet Union still managed to keep up with the US for decades until they finally collapsed). The Slava's especially get a lot of flack, and understandably so, but there's a lot of differences from what happened in 2022 that could've happened in the 1980s (literally around 40 years apart for starters!). By the 1980s theses ships were basically brand new, well-rounded, and were in the cold war climate.
HOWEVER, I still don't understand what was put into the SA-N-9s of the Udaloys, I've legitimately seen this ship be surrounded by Harpoons from all directions and defeated ALL of them, sea-skimming be damned (and this is a ship that prides itself as an ASW focused Destroyer/Spruance-equivalent, btw). Not calling for something to change, but seems a bit much. Not the mention that the SS-N-22 Sunburns are so effective that they worry me more than Shipwrecks and Sandboxes.
As for US ships apparently being nerfed... I suppose one way I can see that is the USN being denied the honestly almighty 3-letter power up called "NTU' as apparently 1986-1991 don't count (not complaining, but it is a cold war game after all). Makes me curious how the upcoming campaign would work if they are hard stopped at 1985, assuming they allow for ships to get refits. On another note, I'm quite sure the Iowa's were reactivated not because of the Kirovs specifically, but because it was cheaper to refit a 45,000 BB with Tomahawks, Harpoons, CIWS, and other electronics than it was build an entirely new 4,100 ton OHP FFG or 7,100 ton Spruance DD from the keel up (it's not easy when the US president - Ronald Regan - makes a pledge for a '600-ship navy').
A few other things: I still think the Exocet missile is overrated, SM-1s suck in general, and Harpoons are surprisingly versatile especially when you have a large SAG with 8 ASMs per ship.
Well the SA-N-9 has an insane rate of fire, thanks to the VLS system and multiple missile channels. Yes, the Udaloy was an ASW ship, but the missile system was really put on that ship and it was (on paper) as capable as the game portrays. The main issue with it is that it's a point defence system, less than 9nm of range. Still, that's pretty impressive and allow for surprising performances...at least at first sight. But they really are not.
Think of it this way, Harpoons move at roughly half the speed of a SS-N-12. Udaloy's VLS is the fastest-firing SAM system in the game at the moment, with an insane rate of fire. 9 nm might seem not that much but in the time the harpoons take to cover that distance, A LOT of missiles will be fired at them.
Now think of this scenario: A VLS Ticonderoga finds itself with SS-N-12s coming for it from twice the distance (18-20nm) but double the missile speeds. Would you be surprised if it was able to put up a brutal wall of impenetrable SAM fire?.
Personally I've never had problems sinking Udaloys (several videos uploaded in this channel can attest to that), as long as I remembered is a very, very capable ship at the time of defending itself. Heck, I even sank one with a Walleye fired from 10k altitude :D.
About the NTU the way I understand it is that the 1985 date was very much settled to prevent NATO to have access to those upgrades. Because honestly against US ships with the NTU upgrades, the soviets would stand no chance (and the mod that incorporates it pretty much showcases it). Also 1985 is an OK cut-off date because thanks to Perestroika the chances of a hot war happening between NATO and the WP decreased drastically.
SAN-9's are actually really effective at shorad. The main issue with them on land is the limited ammo count of the launchers and how long they took to reload. But having an auto loader (the Soviet Military loved and perfected auto loaders) tied to a VLS, also tied to a good radar suite...
It's basically the best of the best at the time for shorad (which in the game is actually stepping outside the date scope so they are using future tech)...
The udaloy in this game is unrealistically good because the game does not model command limitations and allow ships to use the max of their *weapons*capability, when in reality a lot of the limitation of these ships were the command and control limitations (which is why the aegis was such a big deal-the ticos can finally use the full extent of its arsenal thanks to aegis instead of being limited to what people can pay attention to like any other ship of the time). If the game models realistic command capability… you get the IRL Moskva event.
And in game, in the mission in the Aegean Sea, I got frustrated with the udaloy intercepting everything (it was the last ship alive) so I drove Iowa to gun range and asked the udaloy to intercept these 16” shells.
Yeah I watched the video and the same statement perked my ear. I was hoping someone would address it.
It's not the only one who dismisses the old soviet weapons as useless because they underperformed in Ukraine...forgetting that most of them are 35 years old (at best) and Russia has awfully maintained them during this time. Still, the video is about nowadays Russia, totally out of what I cover in this channel. But it was the one who said Sea Power was buffing one side and nerfing another just because...so I guess that part I could address :).
People who think reds are OP just need to play the strawberries mission and see how much a cake walk that is on the blue side.
Same with the one where the soviet navy goes to Guam. Those B-52s carry 12 harpoons a pop. Those things alone can win the scenario singlehandedly :)
@@ramjb the 24 harpoons in that pacific strike mission is not enough to kill off everything, but enough to kill off all the big ships with long range AShM so you can bully the rest with harpoons.
Oh I know. I played that mission and uploaded the video. Gut Kirov in that scenario, and you've mostly won already. And with 24 harpoons and Prowlers around, Kirov is going down.
I like video games such as DCS and SP that try to model military systems accurately. I dont want that accuracy to include malfunctions. Also, i realize the info used to model the systems is not classified material, and thus, based on publicly available info and guesswork. Most importantly its a video game...
I only can say I completely agree with you :)
>people whining about redfor being OP
>Redfor the minute the USN CBG is out of missile range (deceased)
>Redfor when their carrier attack aircraft AShMs are optically tracking and have to be fired one at a time
>Redfor when Yak-38
>Redfor when no AWACS (without the Orels)
People are idiots, what else is new. They get clapped for not treating these platforms as brand new and tacking into account that they're using arm-launchers instead of VLS
The people saying the soviets are overpowered are comparing US and soviet ships apples to apples in surface engagements. That's not how the US designed thier fleets to be used so of course the soviets seem OP. In reality the Kirovs stood no chance against US carriers which is the case in seapower as well.
Yes, that's pretty much one of the points I make in the video. Comparing fleets side by side makes no sense, the soviet fleet was intentionally designed the way it was aknowledging that challenging the US in carriers was simply not an option. Asimmetry was a result, and the consequence is that ships were designed with so different waysdoctrines that a direct one-on-one comparison of their ships just makes no sense.
In the game this translates in what I said in the video - if the soviets don't face a carrier their strenghts shine. If a carrier is present, they might aswell scuttle their ships. In game there are many scenarios where a Kirov is present while a US Carrier is not... in real life such an engagement would've never happened. But still those scenarios are fun to play...which is kinda the point of a game :).
Yeah honestly just play the strawberries mission on blue side, absolute shooting gallery.
@@artruisjoew5473to be honest, this mission would be way more difficult if the the Soviets would use aircraft but that’s not in the game yet
@@philippschmid8674not really. The aircraft (yak38s) the Kiev could carry really doesn’t stand a chance against tomcats and the Soviet fleet don’t get to magically spawn within missile range so they are SOL. That doesn’t even include the potential future inclusion of the hornets.
To be completely honest, a handful of yak38s is going to make very little difference in that scenario...but it still would be cool if the ai used them 😀
Everything in Sea Power is insanely over-modeled. Which is good because weapons and ships that refuse to work for inexplicable reasons make for frustrating gameplay. The game does a good job giving both factions situational advantages. The Kirov is deadly against surface units, but can be taken down with a well executed airborne attack.
As an aside: I look forward to the dynamic campaign because it will also make ammo management another variable to take into account. Right now there's really no penalty for spamming all your missiles, while in real life that can take a ship out of action for weeks or months.
Sea Power also makes things far more integrated. For instance, a sub at 400ft of depth "sees" what other platforms might be detecting 20nm away , and "Knows" the battlefield in a way no submarine would be able to know. Every platform in the game has access to knowledge of the battlefield that in no way would be available for systems of the era (exception made for a very very limited few, mostly AWACS or Aegis, and even those had limitations).
All that affects the game, gameplay and tactics. But is done like that for one simple reason: simplicity and accesibility for players. Not everyone is a military freak who is familiarized with those limitations because he has spent 5 years playing CMO...and this game is not CMO anyway (and don't take me wrong I *LOVE* CMO. But it's not for everyone).
It's a game. And as such has compromises. That's perfectly fine. Or should be, even while reading some people's comments in several different places for some seems it's not.
Remember, the Kirov started out early in its design process as a Large Anti-Submarine Ship designed to escort the Project 1165 Fugas missile cruiser, the last designs of which could have carried up to 40 SS-N-19s.
Actually IIRC Kirov was the final design product of merging two different soviet surface projects, Fugas being one of them.
I find the iowa reactivation a bad reason to say kirov was good
The United states had no way of truly knowing the capability of the missiles on the ships or how well the solviets would be able to maintain the ship
It also doesn't help that people had been trying to find ANY reason to get the iowas back in service
Well the point was not that the Iowas reactivation meant that the Kirov was "good"...rather that their reactivation meant that the US saw the Kirov was a very real, very strong, threat that needed a direct match. Far cry from the idea displayed in the clip I adressed with this video that states that Kirovs were always white elephants, since the beginning.
They were flawed, they were full of very questionable design choices, and for sure they were far too expensive for what they offered...but "white elephants"?...that's going a bit too far. In particular because the Kirovs (as the rest of the Red Navy) wasn't supposed to engage one on one with american surface formations, but to be a strong part of a combined effort from SSGNs, Bomber wings from the Naval Aviation and surface fleet, to defend the soviet "bastions" against NATO intrusion in case of a war. And for that particular task, and with the support of submarines and bombers, the Kirov was a very, very, dangerous asset.
@ramjb I think the kirov did lead to iowa reactivation but more for an ego reason of congress and some admirals not wanting the solviets to have the larger surface combatant "oh you have a battle cruiser well we have a battleship"
Realistically an Iowa didn't have the missiles or the missile defense to take a kirov the iowa would never get into gun range and it have few missiles
I care less about the game giving the solviet ships the benefit of the doubte in ship capabilities because they already left reality with the orel and good game design can't have lots of equipment malfunctions (for example in war thunder it would not be fun if your tiger 2 would just breakdown seemingly at random)
now if it was trying to do naval war in the current day (or even mid 90s with the solviets still around) thare would be no contest
Pretty sure the reason the Iowas were reactivated was because it was a cheap way of adding Tomahawks to the fleet.
I do agree: Iowas were VERY poor choices to "match" the Kirov capabilities. For one, the total lack of self-defence against missiles (other than the CIWS) was a killer. Meanwhile Kirov had not one, but two anti-air defence systems (one area and another point defence). Also, TASM was no match to the SS-N-19. Not that the americans would've known that, if I'm not mistaken the Shipwreck's capabilities weren't fully understood by NATO until much later.
My main point bringing the fact that the Iowas were reactivated when the west got wind of the Kirov class is not to argue that the Kirovs were "amazing"...or that the Iowas were a good match. It's to emphasize the fact that the clip I am adressing with this video states the Kirovs were "white elephants" since they were built...well, they were not, and a signal of that is that , faulty or not, they were felt and perceivced as enough of a threat that the West was really concerned about them. Iowas reactivations reinforce that such a feeling was real...not that the Kirov was amazing or that the Iowas were a good match for them :).
As for your assessment about a naval game with todays ships...yeah, it would be a problem. How do you model Moskva?...as "on paper"? or as "in reality" with only one CIWS system in operation, and it's AA missiles switched off because their radar jammed the own on-board shipboard electronics when operative?. Frankly, today's russian fleet is a joke. And quite probably Adm. Nakhimov, when it's overhaul finishes (if it ever does it) will also be a joke.
But by the 80s ... no, they were no joke at all :).
Every source I've ever seen about the Iowa class battleships specifically mention that the existance of the Kirov was the main reason behind their final reactivation...
Now, that it was not a good match for Kirov, or that it's capabilities differed significantly from that of a Kirov's is a whole another story :).
The problem I'm seeing with The History of Everything is his overt criticality over various things he doesn't actually understand from a military political, and actual military combat standpoint. I love his content but there are things I'm starting to notice about his recent channel content.
I saw his videos from a satirical platform, with great exaggerations to make the jokes about Russian quality and efficiency. I don't see it as a serious analysis, just an historical comedy
@@otatoshio4315 hes just another channel that sprung up during the ukraine war and does nothing but shit all over soviet equipment, and most people remove the context, for example saying ha ha ha t-72 shit ignoring the fact that the T-72 would have primarily fought M60s, Leopard 1s and Cheiftans at the time of its introduction, not the modern 120mm armed nato tanks which of course it struggles against
I do concur to a point, because he makes some very valid arguments in all his videos. Others (much fewer in number), however, are seriously debatable to say the least. And his videos are fun to watch...
But in order to be fun you don't need to twist or exagerate. For instance, take Perun...his content always makes me break a smile, if not laughter, at least a couple times in each of his videos because of his sense of humor, yet he takles the situation in Ukraine without the need of thrashing the russians without need (beyond trashing them when they should be thrashed, of course).
I don't know...I do find History of Everything content worth watching, same as others that fall in the same...niche, let's say. Such as Lazerpig or others, who all share a very similar style. But they have to be taken with a grain of salt. Or two....
It was an off hand statement not sure how much weight I would have put on it.
The part about Sea Power maybe was. Still, I've seen enough complains about american anti-ship systems in youtube comments, reddit posts, Discord messages, and Steam threads to know that just said comment and believe is widely accepted within the Sea Power community.
And I think it was about time that someone explained things as they were in the time frame represented by the game.
I have seen lots of stuff like this recently, saying Soviet stuff is bad... not because of soviet stuff underperforming in a way or another... but because "Russia evil" due to stuff like Ukraine. its quite sad really. I mean dilsike all you want the Russian gov, but don't lie to yourself, specially over historical matter that is not related to today besides the genetic of the people of a country.
To be fair, there were many soviet systems that historically were hyped to then find out they were not so dangerous. MiG-25 for instance. Weapon systems that were capable, but not the ultimate terminators the west feared.
Then, there also were a good number of soviet systems the West never knew how incredible were until they got the chance to test them first hand. The R-73 comes to mind.
Russia is not the Soviet Union. Evil, not evil, awful political system or not, that has nothing to do with the performance of the weapons they designed. And like everyone else, the USSR had stinkers of weapons that never worked as they intended, and they had also excellent platforms that exceeded anyone's expectations. I see that happening also with Nazi Germany equipment during WW2. Most of it dismissed because "Nazis bad". Well, yes, nazis were absolutely awful indeed, and they created some ridiculous stuff that made no sense and was horribly dangerous and unsafe (Me163 anyone?). But they also had competent engineers and created some very powerful pieces of weaponry, that had flown under a white star or a red and blue circle would now be considered as a "classic" of warfare.
It is how it is. And to be honest, when those channels speak about nowadays russia, they tend to get things right. Ukraine is a result of that. But when they begin speaking about the 1980s Soviet Union in same terms as 2020s Russia...well, no. Things were bad back in the USSR too, but it's a whole different topic.