I don't know how you expected any result other than what you got. The 'refit' BB's were never meant to be alone against missile cruisers and lack not only defensive SAMs, but a radar that can track and engage more than 1 target at a time. They are part of a system in which they are the support role. If you wanted more of an apple to apple comparison you have to put the Slava vs the Tico. The Tico can attack and defend as it can track 30 targets and engage 24 simultaneously at 40 miles. By the late 80's, in direct response to the Slava, they were capable of 130 mile Harpoons and 90 mile SAMs.
At the end? The turn? It was so that the rifle barrels of the 16 inchers depressed far enough to allow them to hit the Slava's at close range. If more range is needed, they turn HARD, the other way -- allowing for the turret 'mean angle' to change and allow for a greater distance. The 'bad' part of this is that they can only 'hold' this positioning for a limited amount of time in that the ship itself, will head off to the wrong course. Kind of a "quick" 'snap shot'.
@Grim Reapers, the scenario I would love to see, is a Soviet battle group, of the real (not paper) Soviet carrier plus Moskova, Kirov and some good destroyers and frigates with at least one SSN v a USN carrier battle group with good escorts and a SSN. Now that would be very interesting.
Instead of the Slavas or instead of the Iowas? Because they actually did pit the Iowas against the Kirovs before and the Iowas actually won the round. (somehow)😅
I mean, the Iowas did already win against Kirovs. It was pure luck in that the Kirovs targeted sinking ships, but they still won by the rules of the tournament and moved on. It was kinda obvious that Iowa wouldn’t move on too much further, they have such awful defenses.
@@andrewruss5824 Yeah, but the gun range fights are just for fun. They don't affect the score. But you are right the Kirovs had bad luck with their targeting, like the Iowas had this time. And the Iowas at the end of the day are still pretty well armoured, even against these kinds of anti-ship missiles. Atleast when compared to any of the other ships in sea power.
Great video Cap. Really highlights the difference in naval philosophy between the US and USSR during the early/mid 80's. American ships were always intended to operate with escorts, each ship having a main role vs a 1 size fits all. Russia knew they couldn't match the American carrier battle groups straight up, so made their ships multi-purpose and almost raider like in strategy. My opinion has always been that the Russian surface fleet was significantly better during this timeframe as long as they could neutralize the American satellite and carrier advantage. It wasn't until the mid/late 80's early 90's that American ships became more self sufficient (again, my unlearned opinion). Another great video!
That tracks with what I've done with the game. I can't believe the Iowa beat the Kirov. So far I've been getting my Iowas asses kicked by Kirovs and Slavas.
Its weird the CIWS were so ineffective against a supersonic missile. I could see if they were hypersonic, and know both the Harpoons and Tomahawks are subsonic missiles. but would have thought the CIWS would have at least got some of the Vulcan Missiles.
I still maintain that those missles are not punching through the 17” of solid rolled homogeneous steel armor on that hull. You can take out the superstructure but as for sinking it? Don’t see how anything but a torpedoe blowing under the keel does that. The missles don’t have shaped charges…they are blast fragmentation.
No clue what your smoking but the Iowas hull is most certainly not 17in thick, Iowas are fairly poorly armoured ships for their size with closer to a 12in belt and you are completely ignoring the fact that a 7000kg missile travelling at Mach two is going to strike the hull with so much kinetic energy it doesn’t even need to penetrate the belt to sink the ship… it can obliterate the upper hull and superstructure while warping and damaging the ships hull and structure so much it’s a functional loss even without a complete sink.
Dear Gamemaster, these rules suck, they don't allow my battleship to cheat and win like I want it to...lol Great matchup. I do wish those Iowa-class BBs did better, but there is a reason we have moved to missile systems vs guns. Best!
At the beginning of the battle, you stated the range was short and each side had an AWACS as the Iowa did not have any sort of spotter aircraft while the Kirov/slava could just launch its helicopter. Does this mean that the RQ-2’s that the Iowa carried are not modeled in game, as well as its ability to support/carry a whole host of helicopters on its rear heli deck?
Iowa class ships have 12 inch belt armour. Those missiles aren't armour piercing and she's designed to take hits from battleship grade guns. A missile wouldn't penetrate
Yeah... I do not see a US class destroyer taking down a Slava... but I HOPE to be stunned surprised. I am enjoying the firepower comparisons [I never tried that with the old Harpoon I], but I hope to see some more tactical based situations. Thank you. CAP: would make a comment on: if you had to choose between DCS and Sea Power, what would you choose? Again thank you!
Next round suggestion. Get two Grim Reapers, they get 100 points and then assign ships a point value. Then they get to have a face off. Could even be a tournament between GRs.
hey Cap, two things: 1st: if you do a follow up competition it would be nice to use the NTA mod that equips US ships with VLS, otherwise the Sovremenny will win the next tournament just like it will win this one because NATO can't really cope with the ss-n-22s without VLS. 2nd: It would be nice if there was a mod that could replace the Iowa's phalanxes with the rim-16 because otherwise the Iowas will always get hit.
Anything else you want changed so the Iowas can win? It will never win the engagement, doesn’t matter what you throw on, because it’s a polished turd once great in ww2 but now insanely outdated.
Cap: Anti Ship missiles could be guided by Data Link since the 60s. The Soviets had that Capability, at least in theory, with either a Hormone or one of their MPAs. We know that if that side claims a Capability, its fair to assume they are actually lying. It was a crucial capability, otherwise guided Antiship missiles, especially the guided missile subs would have been close to useless.
@TheNerdForAllSeasons Well, you know how it is with soviet/russian systems. A lot of them were really good on paper and for the first year in service, but attricious quality control, unprofessional crews, non existant maintenance made their practical capability dubious.
Wait a minute! 24 Tomahawks? 8 Harpoons? Iowa class should have 32 Tomahawks and 16 Harpoons! Unless the other 8 Tomahawks are land attack…also, the CIWS setup on the Iowa class was specifically designed to allow 2 to be brought to bear in any direction, including fore and aft. Also, when you talk about defensive systems you should also mention the number and types of decoy and electronic warfare systems as well
Cap, I saw a comment on another Sea Power video (Jingles) that ECM for the American ships isn't working. It'll show as active, but would not actually be doing anything. SP devs confirmed and will work to correct it . . . after Christmas. This may explain why the Soviet missiles were so effective in previous battles.
There is a reason why the navy retired the battleship design. Can’t compete in long range battle. Possibly if the ships started out closer it would be different. Maybe put an island between the two ships. No line of sight (no awacs) bring them close to as 15 miles.
But they retired them in the 90s, even put them back in service to tank soviet missile Cruiser attacks, just like with most of these scenarios it doesn't account for doctrine and task Forge composition
The RQ-2 Pioneer could be used for Reconnaissance and spotting at about 100nm away from the Iowas. I guess an H2 could be used in its place, along the lines of what the KA-25 role.
@@riskinhos You mean like they were in 1981 over the Bekaa Valley or in 1991 over Kuwait and Iraq when Missouri and Wisconsin used them against the Republican Guard ?
@@riskinhos SO! YOU SEE IT! MADE IN USA? VERY GARBAGE AND RUBBISH! IN THE WORLD! SOVIET ARE THE BEST AND PERFECTION! EVEN RUSSIA TODAY CAN WIN EVERYWHERE OF BATTLEFIELD! VICTORY BELONG TO RUSSIAN!
I wonder if the flak AoE is well modeled? There were so many very near misses that would probably shred an aircraft, but do the missiles just not have that much vulnerable avionics? I would think that a near miss by a 5”38 shell would do a number to anything within 50 feet of detonation with even WWII era VT fusing
If they took out iowas guns and put missles in it would have a good chance to beat kirov .but it don't have enough missles to over whelm kirov in the game. I think the iowas will lose because they don't have missle defense and there 80s configuration is for land attack not really ship attack. Kriov is a big ship with vls all over the place. Iowa would be strong if it had all vls like that too
Fun However Iowa just not a great match with Kirov or Moskva. The Iowa never had air defense missiles installed due to operating with escorts that provided air Defense. If it had a battery replaced with a VLS then the Iowa would hold its own just fine. Why they didn’t do that? Probably naval battle doctrine. I don’t like the philosophy of relying on escorts to protect a capital ship and have to defend themselves as well. I think US is more evolved to that issue in today world. Soviets liked their ships to be monster armed to the teeth as interdictor ships. Americans liked operating in mutual support Also, US seems under powered and less effective compared to their Soviet counterparts in Sea Power
You underestimate the size of this missile. P-500 is a 5000 kilo monster, traveling at 2 mach speed and carrying 1000 kilogram HEAT warhead. It will go through the belt. And even if it doesn't, the Iowa's belt is narrow, it covers only critical parts of the ship. And most of the ship has much thinner armor.
@@TheNerdForAllSeasons Their belt was 12.2 inches thick angled at 19 degrees but their main turret faceplates and armored conning tower was 18 inches thick. The Iowa and New Jersey had 16inches at the front of their armored box bulkhead while the Missouri and Wisconsin had 18inches.
@ not trying to pick a fight, but legitimately curious about what you base that on. The 1000 kg warhead on the Soviet ASMs just doesn’t seem like something any ship is going to laugh off.
@@CreepingTerror The Iowa does have I think 16 inches of armor in the main citadel (could be a bit less) and was invulnerable to its own fire (2700 lbs shell) beyond 10,000 yards. I don't know the math but I don't think that 1000kg explosive warhead is more force than a 1200kg armor piercing shell. I also don't think that the interior compartmentalization is modeled (which would be able to deal with hits) and holes above the water line let in air while hits below the water line sink the ship.
While I don’t think that the ASMs would sink the ship, I think it’s highly likely that being struck by six ASMs in short order, would do enough catastrophic damage to the upper hull and superstructure that the ship would be rendered combat incapable. Because a 1200 kg warhead is nothing to joke about. I do think some flooding is possible though, if the missiles were to contact the main belt directly it might be possible to cause some fractures in the welding and push the armor plates in similar to what happened on German Capitol ships at Jutland one British shells detonated prematurely on the exterior of the armor belt. Although this might be indicated by different methods used by the US in manufacturing these main belts
@CharliMorganMusic because they have not the slightest Chance to penetrate the citadel. They aren't hardened. And they don't pop up. They fly straight into the belt. And that wouldn't do anything damage frankly.
Something seriously wrong with the US ship AI, didn't evade, didn't use countermeasures. Yet the Russian ship did everything it could to defend itself.
No bots yet? Sweet. Thanks again Cap! Love seeing the navy battle on both sides both dcs and sea power. Edit. Sigh, nm. There they are. Can we hit them with a 16" shell?
The match may have not turned out the way we all hoped for between the Iowa Battleships vs Soviet Missile Cruisers. The Iowa Battleships in a all guns fight, would have won this battle hands down. Though the outcome just came down to which side had the upper hand in missile defense. All in all, I enjoyed watching this exciting match and looking forward to the next one.
Lest I become overwrought, I sometimes must remind myself that these kinds of videos are just for fun. It's good to keep in mind that the scenarios are all about as realistic as the question of who would win the fight, one horse sized duck or one hundred duck sized horses? Or who would win the fight, a Sherman tank or a Tiger tank? (As a reminder, there wouldn't be one Sherman tank, there would be three to eight Sherman tanks, and there wouldn't be one Tiger tank there would be a Panzer III and a Stug because the Tiger broke down one week and one hundred kilometers ago.) Before a bunch of simps come to pile on me, I'll point out that I do enjoy the videos which is why I keep watching them. I'm just pointing out the obvious. There's a reason that a nation with an economy the size of Italy never tried to get it on with a nation whose economy was larger than all of Europe put together plus Europe itself. A nation who bankrupted itself North Korea style by even trying to even keep up militarily.
Not a single US ship used AA missles nor chaf or really anything defensive. When you sre in control of 1 side the game expects you to actually play and so it doesn't take 100% full control. Also gotta remember that the chances of Russian ship weapons actually work and are accurate are very slim. We've seen proof of that IRL multiple times.
@is-4skilled64 So how does this video make sense? Uses a ship designed as a ship killer designed in the very late 80's early 90's vs the IOWA which was designed late 70's early 80's that supposedly doesn't have any anti air? It's like putting a tank designed to run over vehicles and other obstacles vs a toyota Camry. The ONLY chance the Iowa had is if the engagement zone was within 20 miles. From the beginning when going over what each had capabilities wise this was obvious to see.
My idea of a wild night now involves staying up past 10 PM and reading an entire chapter of an erotic novel without nodding off. Ah, the joys of growing up😚
Last night, I tried to impress my husband with a sexy dance. Let's just say I'm sticking to my day job. Who knew I had the rhythm of a malfunctioning washing machine💋
I tried to spice things up with some role play. My partner came in dressed as a handyman. I was expecting a quick fix, but he ended up redecorating the entire bedroom💋
I don't know how you expected any result other than what you got. The 'refit' BB's were never meant to be alone against missile cruisers and lack not only defensive SAMs, but a radar that can track and engage more than 1 target at a time. They are part of a system in which they are the support role. If you wanted more of an apple to apple comparison you have to put the Slava vs the Tico. The Tico can attack and defend as it can track 30 targets and engage 24 simultaneously at 40 miles. By the late 80's, in direct response to the Slava, they were capable of 130 mile Harpoons and 90 mile SAMs.
At the end? The turn? It was so that the rifle barrels of the 16 inchers depressed far enough to allow them to hit the Slava's at close range. If more range is needed, they turn HARD, the other way -- allowing for the turret 'mean angle' to change and allow for a greater distance. The 'bad' part of this is that they can only 'hold' this positioning for a limited amount of time in that the ship itself, will head off to the wrong course. Kind of a "quick" 'snap shot'.
Cap - just for fun at the end of the tourney - Iowa vs. Everybody in a galleon battle. We need to see more 16" shells in the air!
I was in a 14' fishing boat when the Iowa passed about 100 feet away, all hands on deck, upon leaving Long Beach Harbor on the way to retirement.
@Grim Reapers, the scenario I would love to see, is a Soviet battle group, of the real (not paper) Soviet carrier plus Moskova, Kirov and some good destroyers and frigates with at least one SSN v a USN carrier battle group with good escorts and a SSN. Now that would be very interesting.
Didn't the Moskva get sunk?
25:27 the survival rafts got blown up QAQ
Loved that bouncer off the second ship in the background at 19.30.
Just like WW2 the Iowa battleships would be able to create huge splash columns with their main batteries to at least disrupt the missiles if needed
NAH! WHEN GREAT MISSILE CAN BE W! IT'S ALWAYS BE W! YOU AMERICAN ARE SO MUCH FOOLISH AND INCOMPETENCE!
Love your work Cap
Ahh the Slava can only dream of being this good in reality.
I try to always like a video before I watch so my pick losing doesn't affect me forgetting to.
Honestly, maybe a kirov would have been a better pick but Iowa having no real good missile swarm defense will result in the same loss
Instead of the Slavas or instead of the Iowas? Because they actually did pit the Iowas against the Kirovs before and the Iowas actually won the round. (somehow)😅
@firstname8637 yeah true but alot was in the Iowa favor, especially gun range
I mean, the Iowas did already win against Kirovs. It was pure luck in that the Kirovs targeted sinking ships, but they still won by the rules of the tournament and moved on. It was kinda obvious that Iowa wouldn’t move on too much further, they have such awful defenses.
@@andrewruss5824 Yeah, but the gun range fights are just for fun. They don't affect the score. But you are right the Kirovs had bad luck with their targeting, like the Iowas had this time. And the Iowas at the end of the day are still pretty well armoured, even against these kinds of anti-ship missiles. Atleast when compared to any of the other ships in sea power.
Great video Cap. Really highlights the difference in naval philosophy between the US and USSR during the early/mid 80's. American ships were always intended to operate with escorts, each ship having a main role vs a 1 size fits all. Russia knew they couldn't match the American carrier battle groups straight up, so made their ships multi-purpose and almost raider like in strategy. My opinion has always been that the Russian surface fleet was significantly better during this timeframe as long as they could neutralize the American satellite and carrier advantage. It wasn't until the mid/late 80's early 90's that American ships became more self sufficient (again, my unlearned opinion).
Another great video!
That tracks with what I've done with the game. I can't believe the Iowa beat the Kirov. So far I've been getting my Iowas asses kicked by Kirovs and Slavas.
Should play on both sides, then make a determination from there. That way you can control fully each side...
"Don't know what to say about that, viewers": one ship has air defenses, one doesn't.
Got to like the Slave ....... Iowa ofcourse is a nice BB ..... not as nice as Bismarck but still got to love them big guns
Its weird the CIWS were so ineffective against a supersonic missile. I could see if they were hypersonic, and know both the Harpoons and Tomahawks are subsonic missiles. but would have thought the CIWS would have at least got some of the Vulcan Missiles.
I still maintain that those missles are not punching through the 17” of solid rolled homogeneous steel armor on that hull. You can take out the superstructure but as for sinking it? Don’t see how anything but a torpedoe blowing under the keel does that. The missles don’t have shaped charges…they are blast fragmentation.
No clue what your smoking but the Iowas hull is most certainly not 17in thick, Iowas are fairly poorly armoured ships for their size with closer to a 12in belt and you are completely ignoring the fact that a 7000kg missile travelling at Mach two is going to strike the hull with so much kinetic energy it doesn’t even need to penetrate the belt to sink the ship… it can obliterate the upper hull and superstructure while warping and damaging the ships hull and structure so much it’s a functional loss even without a complete sink.
11:31 "She didn't put chaff out" 😏
Do a fleet battle with one of each ship in this battle series.
Dear Gamemaster, these rules suck, they don't allow my battleship to cheat and win like I want it to...lol Great matchup. I do wish those Iowa-class BBs did better, but there is a reason we have moved to missile systems vs guns. Best!
US NAVY VERY GARBAGE! STOP HELPING THE WESTERNER! LOL!
I’m very curious to see just what the arsenal ship would do within the fleet
At the beginning of the battle, you stated the range was short and each side had an AWACS as the Iowa did not have any sort of spotter aircraft while the Kirov/slava could just launch its helicopter. Does this mean that the RQ-2’s that the Iowa carried are not modeled in game, as well as its ability to support/carry a whole host of helicopters on its rear heli deck?
Most aircraft in game are in their early to mid 80s spec at the moment, the game is early access as well
I meant ships, not aircraft
I may be slightly addicted to this series to be within the first minute lol, keep up the awesome content folks!
Iowa class ships have 12 inch belt armour. Those missiles aren't armour piercing and she's designed to take hits from battleship grade guns. A missile wouldn't penetrate
Yeah... I do not see a US class destroyer taking down a Slava... but I HOPE to be stunned surprised. I am enjoying the firepower comparisons [I never tried that with the old Harpoon I], but I hope to see some more tactical based situations. Thank you. CAP: would make a comment on: if you had to choose between DCS and Sea Power, what would you choose? Again thank you!
Awesome
This needs to be redone
NAH! THERE'S NO NEED TO REDONE! ALL OF THE WESTERNER WARSHIP ARE USELESS AND GARBAGE IN THE WORLD!
US ships designed to work together and complement each other not standalone
Next round suggestion. Get two Grim Reapers, they get 100 points and then assign ships a point value. Then they get to have a face off. Could even be a tournament between GRs.
Does Sea Power have PvP?
@@jjkrayenhagen no but they could simply plop the ships down
Technically the Iowas could be mine sweepers too. 😉 except the New Jersey. Since she had her paravane mounting point removed
LOL THAT MEANS YOUR BATTLESHIP ARE SUCKS!
hey Cap, two things:
1st: if you do a follow up competition it would be nice to use the NTA mod that equips US ships with VLS, otherwise the Sovremenny will win the next tournament just like it will win this one because NATO can't really cope with the ss-n-22s without VLS.
2nd: It would be nice if there was a mod that could replace the Iowa's phalanxes with the rim-16 because otherwise the Iowas will always get hit.
Anything else you want changed so the Iowas can win? It will never win the engagement, doesn’t matter what you throw on, because it’s a polished turd once great in ww2 but now insanely outdated.
Anyone know if 80's era Iowas still had their armor, and if so, how would it have effected these hits?
Cap, enjoyed the show, but the Iowa's were never going to have a chance out of gun range, nor were they even intended to.
If you want it to be more equal between classes, make the tonnage equal (1 battleship vs 2 cruisers vs 5 destroyers vs etc).
Cap: Anti Ship missiles could be guided by Data Link since the 60s. The Soviets had that Capability, at least in theory, with either a Hormone or one of their MPAs. We know that if that side claims a Capability, its fair to assume they are actually lying.
It was a crucial capability, otherwise guided Antiship missiles, especially the guided missile subs would have been close to useless.
"In theory" Right.
@TheNerdForAllSeasons Well, you know how it is with soviet/russian systems. A lot of them were really good on paper and for the first year in service, but attricious quality control, unprofessional crews, non existant maintenance made their practical capability dubious.
THE REAL LIAR ARE YOU AND YOUR AMERICA AND SO CALLED WESTERNER PIG! LOL
Wait a minute! 24 Tomahawks? 8 Harpoons? Iowa class should have 32 Tomahawks and 16 Harpoons! Unless the other 8 Tomahawks are land attack…also, the CIWS setup on the Iowa class was specifically designed to allow 2 to be brought to bear in any direction, including fore and aft. Also, when you talk about defensive systems you should also mention the number and types of decoy and electronic warfare systems as well
YOU SEE! IOWA BOOTYSHIP ARE GARBAGE AND FAILED TO SAVE THEMSELVES DURING GREAT MISSILE ATTACK! SO YOUR WESTERNER DREAM ARE FULL OF POOPS! LOL
So what happens when it's Soviet versus Soviet ship? I.e. Soviet's win the semi-finals and there's no NATO ship in the finals?
Cap, I saw a comment on another Sea Power video (Jingles) that ECM for the American ships isn't working. It'll show as active, but would not actually be doing anything. SP devs confirmed and will work to correct it . . . after Christmas.
This may explain why the Soviet missiles were so effective in previous battles.
There is a reason why the navy retired the battleship design. Can’t compete in long range battle. Possibly if the ships started out closer it would be different. Maybe put an island between the two ships. No line of sight (no awacs) bring them close to as 15 miles.
But they retired them in the 90s, even put them back in service to tank soviet missile Cruiser attacks, just like with most of these scenarios it doesn't account for doctrine and task Forge composition
I’m pretty sure you said 50 mile and not 50km starting distance. If both steamed ahead that would put in Iowa gun range in about 15-18 minutes.
HMS Victory vs L’Orient?
The RQ-2 Pioneer could be used for Reconnaissance and spotting at about 100nm away from the Iowas. I guess an H2 could be used in its place, along the lines of what the KA-25 role.
can also be shot down in seconds.
@@riskinhos You mean like they were in 1981 over the Bekaa Valley or in 1991 over Kuwait and Iraq when Missouri and Wisconsin used them against the Republican Guard ?
@@00calvinlee00or when a group of Iraqi soldiers surrenders to one of the Wisconsins Pioneers?
@@00calvinlee00 you mean like the ultra top secret state of art UAV RQ-170 that usa offered to Iran?
@@riskinhos SO! YOU SEE IT! MADE IN USA? VERY GARBAGE AND RUBBISH! IN THE WORLD! SOVIET ARE THE BEST AND PERFECTION! EVEN RUSSIA TODAY CAN WIN EVERYWHERE OF BATTLEFIELD! VICTORY BELONG TO RUSSIAN!
I wonder if the flak AoE is well modeled? There were so many very near misses that would probably shred an aircraft, but do the missiles just not have that much vulnerable avionics? I would think that a near miss by a 5”38 shell would do a number to anything within 50 feet of detonation with even WWII era VT fusing
If they took out iowas guns and put missles in it would have a good chance to beat kirov .but it don't have enough missles to over whelm kirov in the game. I think the iowas will lose because they don't have missle defense and there 80s configuration is for land attack not really ship attack. Kriov is a big ship with vls all over the place. Iowa would be strong if it had all vls like that too
Fun However Iowa just not a great match with Kirov or Moskva. The Iowa never had air defense missiles installed due to operating with escorts that provided air Defense. If it had a battery replaced with a VLS then the Iowa would hold its own just fine. Why they didn’t do that? Probably naval battle doctrine. I don’t like the philosophy of relying on escorts to protect a capital ship and have to defend themselves as well. I think US is more evolved to that issue in today world. Soviets liked their ships to be monster armed to the teeth as interdictor ships. Americans liked operating in mutual support
Also, US seems under powered and less effective compared to their Soviet counterparts in Sea Power
NAH YOUR NAVY WAS ALWAYS SUCK AND GARBAGE LOL.
W
You're the umpire Cap, you should be a little less biased ;-)
I have serious doubts of the Russian missiles penetrating the armored belt line of an Iowa battleship, 12.2 inches is quite alot.
17.5 inches on the belt.
You underestimate the size of this missile. P-500 is a 5000 kilo monster, traveling at 2 mach speed and carrying 1000 kilogram HEAT warhead. It will go through the belt. And even if it doesn't, the Iowa's belt is narrow, it covers only critical parts of the ship. And most of the ship has much thinner armor.
@@TheNerdForAllSeasons Their belt was 12.2 inches thick angled at 19 degrees but their main turret faceplates and armored conning tower was 18 inches thick. The Iowa and New Jersey had 16inches at the front of their armored box bulkhead while the Missouri and Wisconsin had 18inches.
@@budguy8829 GO HOME YANKEE! YOUR NAVY ARE USELESS! LOL
IRL the Slava really did sink didn't it? That was the Moskova wasn't it? Didn't fair too well against obsolete Ukrainian ASMs did it?
It is so weird to think of a battleship as being a glass cannon, but it's totally true when missiles come into it.
No it isn't. Armor penetration isn't modeled in this. The Iowa would laugh at virtually everything the Kirov is equipped with.
@ not trying to pick a fight, but legitimately curious about what you base that on. The 1000 kg warhead on the Soviet ASMs just doesn’t seem like something any ship is going to laugh off.
@@CreepingTerror The Iowa does have I think 16 inches of armor in the main citadel (could be a bit less) and was invulnerable to its own fire (2700 lbs shell) beyond 10,000 yards. I don't know the math but I don't think that 1000kg explosive warhead is more force than a 1200kg armor piercing shell. I also don't think that the interior compartmentalization is modeled (which would be able to deal with hits) and holes above the water line let in air while hits below the water line sink the ship.
While I don’t think that the ASMs would sink the ship, I think it’s highly likely that being struck by six ASMs in short order, would do enough catastrophic damage to the upper hull and superstructure that the ship would be rendered combat incapable. Because a 1200 kg warhead is nothing to joke about. I do think some flooding is possible though, if the missiles were to contact the main belt directly it might be possible to cause some fractures in the welding and push the armor plates in similar to what happened on German Capitol ships at Jutland one British shells detonated prematurely on the exterior of the armor belt. Although this might be indicated by different methods used by the US in manufacturing these main belts
Noice
Realisticly, the Iowa should not be seriously damaged by missiles. Superficially yes. Mission kill? Yes. Actually sunk? No.
Why not? These are big missiles. Have we even sunk a battleship at a SinkEx?
@CharliMorganMusic because they have not the slightest Chance to penetrate the citadel. They aren't hardened. And they don't pop up. They fly straight into the belt. And that wouldn't do anything damage frankly.
The Slava couldn't even stand up to the Ukrainian air force.
Something seriously wrong with the US ship AI, didn't evade, didn't use countermeasures. Yet the Russian ship did everything it could to defend itself.
USA LOSER! LOL
No bots yet? Sweet. Thanks again Cap! Love seeing the navy battle on both sides both dcs and sea power.
Edit. Sigh, nm. There they are. Can we hit them with a 16" shell?
Glad I didn't waste my money on this game.
I'll just stick with Cold Waters Dot Mod. 🙂
dickhead
The match may have not turned out the way we all hoped for between the Iowa Battleships vs Soviet Missile Cruisers. The Iowa Battleships in a all guns fight, would have won this battle hands down. Though the outcome just came down to which side had the upper hand in missile defense. All in all, I enjoyed watching this exciting match and looking forward to the next one.
Lest I become overwrought, I sometimes must remind myself that these kinds of videos are just for fun. It's good to keep in mind that the scenarios are all about as realistic as the question of who would win the fight, one horse sized duck or one hundred duck sized horses? Or who would win the fight, a Sherman tank or a Tiger tank? (As a reminder, there wouldn't be one Sherman tank, there would be three to eight Sherman tanks, and there wouldn't be one Tiger tank there would be a Panzer III and a Stug because the Tiger broke down one week and one hundred kilometers ago.)
Before a bunch of simps come to pile on me, I'll point out that I do enjoy the videos which is why I keep watching them. I'm just pointing out the obvious. There's a reason that a nation with an economy the size of Italy never tried to get it on with a nation whose economy was larger than all of Europe put together plus Europe itself. A nation who bankrupted itself North Korea style by even trying to even keep up militarily.
Ruzzia so stronk... right Moskva? Right Moskva? Moskva? Oh noes.
Careful everyone, this guy is actually a high ranking Naval Officer posing as brain-dead Zoomer.
Not a single US ship used AA missles nor chaf or really anything defensive. When you sre in control of 1 side the game expects you to actually play and so it doesn't take 100% full control. Also gotta remember that the chances of Russian ship weapons actually work and are accurate are very slim. We've seen proof of that IRL multiple times.
USSR =/= Russia
@mac2857 Literally the exact same weapons and they still don't take care of anything
LoL the Iowa classes don't have Anti air missiles and your mistaken, the Chaffs do deploy automatically
@is-4skilled64 That's funny because not a single ship he was in control of used any counter measures at all
@is-4skilled64 So how does this video make sense? Uses a ship designed as a ship killer designed in the very late 80's early 90's vs the IOWA which was designed late 70's early 80's that supposedly doesn't have any anti air? It's like putting a tank designed to run over vehicles and other obstacles vs a toyota Camry. The ONLY chance the Iowa had is if the engagement zone was within 20 miles. From the beginning when going over what each had capabilities wise this was obvious to see.
I don't buy that. Iowa armor scheme is much better than this game. It was designed to be hit by AP shells going faster than the missiles. nope.
Why's this sim stuck in the past?
Because its based in the 80s... are you slow?
@@TFY-v8l Correction: Because it treats every claim the Soviets ever made about their equipment as fact.
@@TheNerdForAllSeasons SIMPLE YOUR WESTERN WORLD ARE SUCKS! LOL!
My idea of a wild night now involves staying up past 10 PM and reading an entire chapter of an erotic novel without nodding off. Ah, the joys of growing up😚
Last night, I tried to impress my husband with a sexy dance. Let's just say I'm sticking to my day job. Who knew I had the rhythm of a malfunctioning washing machine💋
I tried to spice things up with some role play. My partner came in dressed as a handyman. I was expecting a quick fix, but he ended up redecorating the entire bedroom💋