@@grimreapers Originally GR2 was for non-DCS vids (such as Mr. Cap playing the drums). So...what changed? My theories: 1.) to grow the "base". 2.) Amee (...Aimee...?) is blackmailing Mr. Cap ("Steelin' tha creem...ooh, buttah!"). Can you imagine all the worthless expensive Bling Amee's buying instead of Mr. Cap buying beautiful hand-made Turkish Cymbals?
@@grimreapers do this fight around a high mountainous island,, each army on different sides of island,,where close combat will happen between battleships and cruiser/carrier.(please.)
I ran a USS New Jersey battle group vs the Soviet Atlantic fleet in Harpoon in the mid-90's. I really didn't understand missile tactics and managed to get everything but the BB sunk without scoring a single hit, but got an idea of where the enemy was. The Jersey then waded through a hail of missiles slowly until she got within 16 inch range. She then engaged and sunk the entire Soviet fleet before succumbing to fire.
It took 19 1000 pound bombs and 10 2000 pound torpedoes to sink the Yomato. I think the battleships should have more hit points based on tonage. Scharnhorst and Kirishima were tough ships to sink at 30,000 tons but Bismarck and Yamato were noticeably tougher, being 50,000 and 70,000 tons respectively.
@@Rover200Power Modern ship armor is the paint. No one has armored ships since the end of WW2 and that's why that Russian cruiser got sunk by a single subsonic cruise missile in Ukraine while in WW2 Tirpitz ate 5 12,000lb bombs before she sank and Bismarck ate over 400 2000lb shells and many torpedo's before her crew scuttled her.
Funny enough, back in the 80s during a war games exercise, an Iowa-Class Battleship was able to sneak up and get within gun range of a Super-Carrier battle group. Can you even imagine? Lol
This was fun one. A little disappointing that we had invincible battleship but all things considered this really wasn't that buggy for such a complex simulation. Good job guys another great video. Thanks for the quality content.
Prior to the supremacy of the carrier, a typical ideal "Big Guns" engagement would be "crossing the T". All guns in a battle line are pointed towards target. With that knowledge a battleship fleet would typically not sail straight for the targets. Typically there is the lead ship that the rest follows. Based on the lead ship, the rest will maneuver in accordance of the proper engagement formation.
This is going to be a weird suggestion, but I would like to see a modern US CSG with an Iowa class within the fleet, duking it out in a fleet battle, just to see if the BB, with the help of modern AA air support and CIWS, would make the fleet perform any better. Just to see, yaknow.
Is there a mod to get the Iowas up to their 1980s specs? They were refitted with CIWS and Tomahawks, that would make them more survivable in that context.
@@PhoenixT70 I know about the 80s refit, but I don't know if that is in DCS. They could just put the 40s BB in instead, however, just being covered by escorts.
So happy you did another one of these. It had thrills, chills and spills. I laughed, cried and cheered and only threw one pretzel at the television, no Bismarck! Great fun to watch and the Scharnhorst, bugger! The turrets on German battle ships from front to back are: Anton, Bruno, Caesar, Dora. Waiting for the Battle of the North Cape simulation, you talked about a while ago. As always rollicking good fun to watch. I appreciate the hard work and time put into this and all you and the Reapers do. Cheers and take care.
Hey Cap! Thanks for all the entertainment, and thank you guys who participated in this and all other events. I got a little unlucky and got "welders eye" from welding. Been blind few days now, but i got someone to help me open up your vids. This is my 4th time listening to this video and few other newly added videos and now my first time being able to watch it. I love you guys! I hope i can stay alive and get the chance to watch more of your content :D
Since the Iowa and Yamato are working it would be cool to see a historical match up between the IJN and the USN with those two bruisers in a position to trade fire. Maybe make it an Axis vs Allies brawl of the biggest battleships each have access to.
Well the Yamato would easily win against the Iowa, because of the 18” guns. As long as Yamato doesn’t go brawling it should just tear the Iowa piece by piece.
Cap, I know you were getting sick and tired of the naval battle stuff but THANKS ! We love 'em, please feel free to knuckle under to valued human requests any time, it will always be appreciated.
Battleships would soak up way more damage than that to put them down. Also modern ships have crap for armor and would fold rather quickly under big guns.
Battleships will probbaly not sink but they sure are getting mission killed. If a shipwreck hits the superstructure it will only take 1 -2 to seriously dmg the fire control and alot of things.
couple things, one you should've used the warspite, she loves objects, known for ramming other ships (including 2 of her sisters), rocks and mines. 9h and she ate 2 of the world's first guided bombs and survived. second, how about a cv group that is made up of different ships and planes from different countries and doing like a wave defence. you have waves of attacks of different types and directions and you have to survive.
When HMS Warspite was sold for scraps, the ship went and hugged the land, stranding itself, making it as hard for the scrappers to get at her. The Klabautermand of the ship had a lot of power, I proport (a "Klabaudermand" is a ship's gnome, a supernatural protector, that will normally only be seen in extreme danger, where he will try to help the crew to get things done right, to save the ship).
Having the Battleship fleet steam straight reduces the firepower of each ship by 1/2-1/3 as their rear turrets don't come into play. The battleships would do their best to get a broadside on the enemy. Maybe 1/2 to the left and half to the right, and the French one from the front as it has no rear guns. That would also split the Russian air defences. They can't use their AA against the missiles as the bulk of the AA defences are on the sides of the battleships. Battleships can try to do a thing called 'crossing the T' where they try to come in to the enemy fleet with the enemy being the leg of the T and the Battleships being the bar across the top. Steaming perpendicular to the enemy, with their guns broadside to get as many of them able to see the target as possible. Possibly coming from either side to split the enemy's firepower. The Russian ships would have the advantage of early detection via better Radar and such, but the battleships woul have airborne reconnaisance floatplanes that aren't modelled here either.
the floatplanes would get shot down before they could spot anything by naval grumbles... also the bbs wouldnt be able to use their aa guns against missiles anyway. the fact they managed to shoot down so many of them is completely ridiculous
No float planes but they would have drones, probably 2 for rach BB to help correct and predict future fire locations with GPS. And main guns in a single turret are never all aimed the same. 1/3 or 2/4 are dead on the other 2 are 1 click up and 1 click down to always bracket
You forgot the Bismarck. It would have been a bit more interesting if you had placed the battleships closer to the carrier group, just outside their gunning range, but moving within 5 minutes so they could also have shelled the carrier group.
"With the decommissioning of the last Iowa-class ships, no battleships remain in service or in reserve with any navy worldwide." It should be pointed out, Battleships relied on eyes above or in front of them to pick up targets beyond LOS, increasing their range and effectiveness. Also, give the movie Battleship a chance, it is dumb fun.
Bismarck vs. Hood was 24 km so exactly 15 miles. Given that the shots were pretty much all on target and that a ship of the russian fleet would have severe problems with even a single hit, I guess you are correct here.
You gotta check out the Battleship New Jersey TH-cam channel! It's AWESOME! It's a museum ship now! You'd be amazed how many different lives she's had. At the end of her career, you might be interested to see how advanced she was.
The Dunkerque's gun layout was actually a fairly common design, called "all-forward main armament." The British Nelson Class had a similar layout, with three triple turrets all mounted forward of the superstructure. There were also several planned designs, never built, including one that eventually evolved into the Yamato. The reason for the layout was that it saved weight, because you didn't have to add belt or deck armour for the aft magazines. Since most naval battles were fought in broadsides at the time, it wasn't really much of a weakness to have no aft turrets; in fact, it was actually a strength if you were chasing an enemy.
Do any of you warriors ever read about battleship tactics ? Its called crossing the T. The battle ships want to maneuver to a point where they can get close enough for the big guns, in a line exactly like you have it, but when they are close enough they would turn in line port or starboard , forming another line that would allow for all the guns to be used at once. Then they would hammer each ship as a team. The best thing for them would be for the opposition to be in a vertical line that would restrict the oncoming boats to only use front turrets, one at a time/ So full broadsides from all ships hammering the closest in the line. Thats straight out of WW1 and would have been used in WW2 if there were ever battle ship fleet only action. I love these vids. cheers and ahoy!
Back in the early 90's when I was getting in the Navy. We went down to Long Beech where the USS Missouri was. I went on a tour. They had the floor location roped off, where the signing of the ending of World War 2 took place.
Brilliant show as always Cap, I love this shit mate. I stumbled across this channel and have I've watched it every day since. It's an easy watch and a great way to spend some spare time.
Per current world evidence, I believe all scenarios involving Russian forces should receive an automatic 40% penalty in performance due to the game assuming Russia can operate as a modern military (which has proven to be false).
@@apsgeneralstudies5673 I know they have low stocks of weaponry, can't afford to replenish multi-million dollar ordnance once a ship has expended it's ammunition, the average sailor is likely undertrained unless the navy is the only branch operating at a highly trained level, and the same goes for the commanding officers in charge as the Russian air force and army have shown a lack of leadership. NATO forces simply have more modern ships in the water, about 15x more naval air power, and a combined fleet of a few magnitudes larger than the Russian navy. I'll absolutely admit Russia has very capable offensive ships (missile cruisers) and extremely capable supersonic anti-ship and anti-air missiles, but yet again, they don't have a large stockpile of these $2+ million USD missiles. Meanwhile, each guided missile destroyer in the combined NATO navy forces is equipped with 24 to 128 vertical missile launch pods filled to the maximum capacity and additional missiles to reload onboard. The same goes for the large fleet of both silent diesel/battery powered submarines and nuclear powered submarines, along with the vast number of submarine warfare ships, helicopters, and aircraft. I don't want war between Russia, China, the EU, the US, or NATO, but the fact remains Russia has proven to be poorly trained with poor leadership while using outdated technology for many of their most vital combat vehicles and systems, along with the lack of modern ATGMs, MANPADS, precision guided missile artillery, precision guided artillery shells, precision guided air-to-ground missiles, and precision guided bombs. They have simply displayed the WWII era tactics of deploying unguided rockets, shells, and bombs into civilian populations and military targets alike. Therefore, I have no reason to believe the Russian navy is even able to execute their duties as well as the DCS sim portrays, as the DCS sim isn't accounting for the lack of training, tactics, strategy, and munitions that the entire world has been observing in Ukraine. Russia would have been much better off not starting a war with Ukraine, and the EU/US/NATO would have gone on continuing to believe Russia had the second most capable military force in the world. They have displayed that they clearly do not have the second most capable military, with China and a few other countries leapfrogging them in overall combat effectiveness and strength. For example, why would the US fear the Russian air force anymore while they have a total of 11,000+ aircraft in their active services against a potential adversary who can't gain air superiority over a non-NATO air space against a country with a very small air force remaining? The USN air assets alone could beat the entire Russian air force on their own if Russia were to make the mistake of attacking a NATO country. The only reason NATO hasn't assisted Ukraine with direct military action is due to Russia having a combination of nuclear weapons and a psychotic autocrat who is currently committing war crimes. So, I'm assuming you are Russian or an individual who supports Russia, and for that, I feel sorry for your people as they suffer military losses to a superior military and your citizens who are suffering from financial sanctions due to the insanity and pure evil of the cowardice of Putin.
@APS General Studies So you're claiming the Russian navy is an exceptional fighting force, but the ground forces and air force have proven to be underperforming with horrible leadership, strategy, tactics, armament, along with the high losses to show for it? A Russian naval ship was even lost while docked in a Russian held port. I know the following about the Russian navy, but none of it speaks to the training quality and discipline of their sailors, or the presumed lack of a large amount of their most modern and expensive munitions in reserve. After the Slava class fires their 16 large missiles, can you even be certain they have additional missiles within their immediate deployed fleet to rearm (either on the ship itself or a supply ship)? The good: - High quality anti-ship, anti-missile, and anti-aircraft guided missiles. But there won't be a lot of them in reserve due to a lack of funding and corruption funneling funds budgeted for the armed services going to high-ranking officers and high-level individuals within the administration offices and industrial complex of the Russian military. - A high quality dual-barrel rapid firing AK-130 turreted cannon. - An excellent remotely controlled point-defense AK-630 autocannon (more effective than the equivalent NATO Phalanx CIWS). - A sizeable ballistic and cruise missile submarine fleet (22) with advanced ballistic missiles and anti-ship/cruise missiles, in addition to greater capacity per boat than the USN variants. However, the USN alone has just six fewer ballistic/cruise missile subs, which is not including the additional submarines of NATO allies. - 46 Attack Submarines (15 nuclear powered and 21 diesel powered); the USN has 50 nuclear powered attack subs. The not-so-good: - A limited number of destroyers which were all designed and commissioned prior to the year 2000. Russia only has approximately 20 destroyers and frigates combined. The USN alone, not counting NATO navies, has 90+ guided missile cruisers and destroyers in service. Each of these ships, besides a standard forward mounted 127mm cannon, CIWS point-defense autocannons, and torpedo tubes, has 106 (Destroyers with VLS units and Harpoon launchers) to 218 (Guided Missile Cruisers with VLS units and automated reloading Mk-26 launchers) missiles loaded and prepared to fire without timely rearming. Arleigh Burke class destroyers are still being constructed and commissioned into service as the fleet grows, but a new class of ships is being designed to replace the older cruisers and destroyers. In addition, a new class of frigates are currently being constructed for a planned total of 20 ships (this will grow the fleet due to zero existing frigates), and each of those ships will have an additional 69 guided missiles loaded for launch. - One ski-ramp aircraft carrier which is not nuclear powered, has a relatively small number of jets, and is an extremely flawed design with higher than desired maintenance and repairs required, which has resulted in the Russian carrier strike group requiring a tugboat to travel with the group. As evidence of this, it is currently undergoing a refit during a three to four-year overhaul period since 2018, and even then, it will still likely be retired before 2028. The design is so flawed, China had to make significant changes for their Type 002 carrier to justify building a second ship derived from the Russian carrier they purchased (Type 001). The USN has nine amphibious assault carriers (with a new class currently replacing the older Wasp class) with each capable of carrying a mixed combination of 26-30 total: F-35Bs/Super Cobra gunships/submarine warfare helicopters/armed utility helicopters/transport helicopters/V-22 Ospreys. They also host a Marine Expeditionary Brigade with their equipment and vehicle loadout complimented by two other class of ships in support of the amphibious task force group. These nine smaller amphibious carriers combined are equal to approximately four times the firepower of the single Type 001 aircraft carrier. - No fifth-generation or stealth naval aircraft deployed. The one aircraft carrier in service can only hold approximately 60% capacity of one US supercarrier. - On the carrier front, Russia is also up against the following ships with helicopter landing decks/jump-jet ski ramps/amphibious assault ships with flight decks (along with being in NATO or having friendly relations with EU/US/NATO): Japan (4), Spain (1), UK (2), Australia (2), Turkey (2), Italy (2), France (3), Thailand (1), Brazil (1), and Egypt (2). Some of these carriers also currently or will host squadrons of F-35B's along with helicopters and V-22 Ospreys. Interestingly enough, Russia was going to purchase five French designed amphibious assault ships which carry a significant tank and infantry force in addition to 2-3 dozen helicopters, but then Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 and France voided the contract. Egypt took delivery of the first ship. - A significantly lower amount of electronic warfare, naval radar and datalink specialty aircraft (such as the E-2D Hawkeye US planes). - Limited naval aircraft refueling capabilities. - Limited submarine warfare and offensive/defensive mine capabilities for both aircraft and helicopter based on naval vessels. - Only two battle cruisers which outclass your average USN destroyer in capability and number of vertical launch missiles, but the USN makes up for that by having over 70 of its own guided missile cruisers and destroyers, not even counting a large number of NATO destroyers and USN & NATO frigates and corvettes with additional VLS capability. - The USN is currently developing a brand-new class of ships to replace the cruisers and destroyers in service, in addition to developing a new class of modern frigates which will also have VLS capability. - Extremely large supersonic anti-ship missiles housed on three cruisers, but again, they take a long time to reload and will have a limited number stored in reserve due to funding issues. I could go on, but that’s enough. I’m not really sure what else to say, but the Russian navy wouldn’t win a direct prolonged battle with the US alone or Europe alone, let alone NATO. As a reminder, the largest air force in the world is the USAF. The second largest in the world is the USN. Then we also have the US Marines, which have their own aircraft too. The US Coast Guard has a respectable number of armed ships and the USN has littoral combat ship which take care of our coastal defenses, which means virtually the entire USN is a blue-water navy. China is growing their navy rapidly, but the US is also developing new warships to keep up technologically, all US military branches are currently developing more advanced missiles comparable to Russian and China missile technology, and the USN is also increasing their total fleet size in addition to the new designs being commissioned.
i wonder what would happen if you reset with the battleships in firing range (about 14 miles i think?) and all broadside on... my guess is the carrier group would eat it pretty quickly, but it would be interesting to see
In regards to how a WW2 fleet would move they would move in columns with battleships in the centre cruisers flanking them, when they get close to a target they would turn 90 degrees and sail broadside when engaging with cruisers at the front and rear battleships in the centre of the line
US and Russian navys have different doctrines, america's is more focused on defense while the aircraft carry out the offensive. Russian ships are all made to be offensive which makes them better for offensive missions but ofc they can do both
Those ASMs are HE vs AP. They would do massive damage to everything outside a BB's armored citadel, but they would absolutely destroy a CA or CB. Also since they come in low, the would be hitting the thick belt armor. WW2 BBs were designed to take damage from their own guns. The Iowa-class BBs fired super heavy 16" shells that weighed 2700 lbm with a muzzle velocity of 2690 ft/sec (around Mach 2.4...supersonic speeds). Aside from the HE, the kinetic energy of the ASMs will be over double that of the 16" shells (~1035MJ vs ~411MJ using a P-700), but the energy on impact would be spread over a much larger surface area when compared to an AP shell.
Should do this again after you get the bugs fixed, but only with actual battleships: both Yamato and Musashi, Tirpitz and Bismarck, all 4 Iowas, the 5 King George class, both Nelson and Rodney, the 4 Kongo class, and a Montana if that one has been made for the game. That’s 20 ships. Should be a fun mission, 19 ships if Montana isn’t available. So everything with 14 inch guns and up. No Battlecruiser or heavy cruiser types (8-12 inch gun calibers).
I think WWII Battlewagons used a line of battle where they cruise in one or two rows past the target at point blank gun range so that they can all use all of their guns against the target at once. It also allows them to turn aside and disengage if they take damage and take cover behind the other ships. Attacking in that formation might have resulted in the Russians blowing most of their missiles to sink the front most units and then having to get into a gun fight with the others. It also hides their numbers because the enemy might not see far enough to see the entire fleet all at once.
They also used formations vaguely similar to our current carrier formations with the strongest ships being surrounded in rings of protection with smaller faster ships. With nothing but battleships. This situation may have been better to have cruisers and destroyers in also, but with this maybe having the fastest ships on the outside with the heaviest hitters in the middle.
@@davidmacy411 Yeah, plus the lighter ships had and used torpedoes, giving them an assertive way of expressing themselves against some of the heavier hitters and also complicated enemy formations. ;-)
It just gets worse the more I listen, they are still going on about a 2000lb supersonic missile sinking a battleship with one hit. In case you didn't know, a 16" battleship shell weighed 2700lbs, it was supersonic, it had an armor piercing cap, and battleships were designed to be armored against their own guns which means that they are designed specifically to shrug off the wimpy little 2000lb non armor piercing missile. The missile is loaded with HE and the battle of Jutland in 1916 showed that HE had little effect on armor plate, nice dramatic fireballs but no damage except some scorched paint and the modern missiles will do the same, they will break up on contact with the armor and will not penetrate the ship.
I love Battleship scenarios, new versus old. Makes you think about warfare evolution. If there was a way somehow to tie in Battleships and a SR-71, I think life would be complete.
Several of the other responses fail to realize just how much armor an Iowa class battle ship has. It has 17.5 inches of steel plating at the points where Granit is designed to attack the ship, namely the hull just above the waterline. It has 10 inch deck armor. It is literally a floating tank. The warheads on the Granit were not designed to penetrate that kind of armor, and it is not a close call. The Missouri was designed to withstand hits from a 16" shell at a 45 degree apogee at 2,500 feet per second. This is well over Mach 2. So…a 16" shell weighs 2,700lb and is 16" in diameter. The warhead on the Granit weighs 1,653lbs and is 33" in diameter. So, it weighs 60% as much over double the surface area and travels 30% slower (Granit is Mach 1.6), and will impact the hull exactly as the Missouri was designed to withstand. An Iowa class could absorb an entire magazine of 20 Granits into the hull and it would be unlikely to sink. There would be awful shock damage and almost certainly raging topside fires and almost every topside system would be offline, but she could still firefight and manage minor flooding from shock damage. She would float.
I don't disagree with the armor idea, I just think about a few 1 ton supersonic missiles and what it would do to the crew. Even if the armor stops the blast that's a lot of casualties from the hits alone.
@@mfreed40k True enough. Shame we can’t test this somehow. Interesting to read up if you’re interested on the Bikini Atol tests and how battleships fared with nukes.
My biggest beef with this one, as others have said, is lack of a destroyer and cruiser screen for the battleships. That would probably have made a significant difference on the AAA screen versus both the incoming missiles and the incoming aircraft. Not to mention the added ship-to-ship fire support once they get into gun range. If one were to borrow the arrangement of a US Pacific Fleet carrier task force but plunk a battleship into it instead of a carrier, it would have something like 2-3 Cruisers (New Orleans Class cruisers or Atlanta Class light cruisers) and 6 or so destroyers to screen for the Battleship.
Considering these WW2 ships were designed to do broadside bombardment sending the headlong at the enemy you took away most of their AA defenses. The AA batteries on the Yamato alone should have been enough to knock down many of those missiles.
I'm only a few minutes away from "Big J", been there quite a few times as well. They went after the USA ships 1st because the center of the ship line came in range 1st, slightly before the outer edges of the line. You need to add a slight curve to the ship line if you want them to all be targeted at the same time and not focused fired a few at a time.
One thing to consider...as general doctrine, most battleships/battle cruisers would turn to the side once in range to bring their stern turrets to bear on enemy targets
The battleship Roma were sunk by two fritz x guided glide bombs by the Germans. One of them caused a magazine explosion. So, I don't think anti ship missiles would do worse.
Sir Sockington de Cold Lake he did his best But when the German 11 inchers did their worst. Poor Sockington's bubble sadly burst. Alas poor Sockington, he was laid to rest, All at sea in a bright yellow survival vest.
I was listening to the commentary and the RM Roma (Littorio class) was sunk by the Luftwaffe using a Fritz-X TV guided bomb. They guided the weapon right down one of Roma’s funnels where it exploded in one of her engine rooms.
Very fun to watch but the damage calculations need a little work. The Iowa's alone would fire 2,700-pound (1,225 kg) armor-piercing rounds with a muzzle velocity of 2,500 ft/s (that's about mach 2.2) and they were built to survive multiple direct hits from similar rounds without loss of combat effectiveness. The idea that even a 1000 lb. missile warhead would do anything but scratch the paint is a little far fetched. But it was a blast to watch. Thanks for the hard work.
Operation Python and Trident and EILAT showed what happened to ww2 ships against anti ship missiles, they got blown up by slow Styxs, imagine mach 3, 1 ton warhead Shipwrecks
Here's the thing, you have the 40s Iowa class, I'm sure you know that the Missouri and the Wisconsin fought in the Gulf War. You should try this again but with the Gulf War Iowa if you can find one.
Hi Cap. From memory Dunkerse class BB 8 x 13 inch (2x4 each gun) I hink it was a naval treaty limitation (Washington / London Naval) Only 2 other class with similar configuration: Richeliu class (8x15inch 2x4) and Nelson class BB (9x16inch) (3x3)
@@grimreapers As an addition: The reasons for the all-forward-main-gun armament weren't purely born out of the naval treaty limitations, but have had other benefits as well. Primarily you could present a smaller target signature to your enemy AND angling your armor at the same time while still being able to fire all of your main guns. More traditional battleship/battlecruiser layouts could only do one, not both. And yes, this is only viable for an offensive stance, defensive engagements (aka running away) could become problematic. For a variety of reaons (balance, guns beeing to close to each other in quadruple turrets, bad scalability for larger guns etc) this layout didn't persist for too long.
Would like to see the WW2 group use full fleets, with DD's, CV's, CL's, and their own CV's. I think it would give them a better chance as the Soviets wouldn't be able to just concentrate on the ships immediately. It would also provide a better AA defense for the WW2 fleet as the CL's provided a lot of the fleets AA defense
Can we see a fleet of boghammers vs Iowa class battleships. Dunkerque was unique due to one of naval treaties and was more of a battle cruiser due to only having 13 inch guns. Also the Soviet missiles where made for punch, but not pen, it is doubtful that they could knock out a WW II BBs, but no body knows. A good example is USS Missouri having a slight impact damage from a kamikaze zero.
If the battleship coalition was a actual strike group with DDs, light cruisers, etc. no chance for the aircraft and maybe a chance for the missiles to go through. Just the amount of AA and AAA on a light cruiser alone is scary
i love Yamato trying to keep up in the back and also i think it would be cool if there was the desert storm modification for the USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin.
Roma was actually the first ship sunk by a guided weapon! It was a German Fritz-X bomb dropped by the Luftwaffe after the Italians surrendered in 1943 to prevent the ship falling into allied hands.
This would be interesting to see with Late WW2 U.S. Battlegroup (minus CVs). Iowa's, N Dakota's, S Dakota's, Cleveland, Atlanta, Baltimore.... maybe some Alaska's... just to see what happens with every inch of sky is filled with AA.
Have you thought of doing the Des Moines class cruisers? they had/have 8 in automatic main guns, so they could do better at long range defense against missiles, and they have the 5in and 3 in antiair guns. Food for thought!
Super fun scenario, but the damage model for the BBs feels waaay off. The actual damage taken by ships that sank during WW2, adjusted for size/armor, would seem to have been a much better baseline to set, keeping in mind that most were actually done in by torpedoes rather than shells and bombs (i.e. citadels actually worked). Don’t mean to take anything away from all the work that went into setting this up, by the way. Just addressing a bit of a realism gap in the model.
@@grimreapers was because Italy surrender and they were giving their navy to the British that why the Roma was bomber, to avoid that the brithis will use that ship
So the reason Dunkerque had all her heavy guns forward is that she was built as a direct counter to the Deutschland class pocket battleships. They wouldnt need a rear turret since they would be chasing the German raider.
I believe the tirpitz was a bit smaller than an iowa or yamato class yet it still took a direct hit by a 12000 pound bomb and survived, though the turret was absolutely knocked out. I’m sure these battleships would take a lot of missles to sink
The damagemodelling would be a mare but with accurate damage models I think you would probably see the WW2 ships eek a victory. Like 2 2000lbs aren't going to kill an Iowa IRL
Tirpitz was damaged by midgets but they repaired that and then put a big sub net around it. Lancasters with the tall boy bomb actually caused it to capsize and then sink
The problem I see is penetration etc. A massive 1000lbs bomb will not seriously damage a battleship.. but if it is semi piercing and penetrated the deck...
Wish you had put in bigger German ships( Tirpitz/Bismarck 15 inch guns vs the pocket battleships 11 inch guns. More British ships like Nelson/ Rodney or American fast battleships. 5 inch and even larger caliber guns had proximity fuses for AA effect. Fun to watch though. Thanks!
A single destroyer would be able to take out a fleet of battleships from 400 miles away. A carrier group would be able to do it from 1200 miles away if they was established as targets to be destroyed.
The only weapons any modern ship has that could sink a carrier would be torpedos, and you couldn't get close enough to fire them without getting sunk sunk by the naval guns.
Loving this (and the other) channel!
What's the other channel?
GRIM REAPERS 2(TH-cam): th-cam.com/channels/ZzvHfFzIpMrvgAbgZDUX9A.html
@@grimreapers Originally GR2 was for non-DCS vids (such as Mr. Cap playing the drums). So...what changed? My theories: 1.) to grow the "base". 2.) Amee (...Aimee...?) is blackmailing Mr. Cap ("Steelin' tha creem...ooh, buttah!"). Can you imagine all the worthless expensive Bling Amee's buying instead of Mr. Cap buying beautiful hand-made Turkish Cymbals?
@@grimreapers do this fight around a high mountainous island,, each army on different sides of island,,where close combat will happen between battleships and cruiser/carrier.(please.)
@@grimreapers You only got one French battleship to work? That's better than the French navy managed isn't it?
I would love to see a full-out battleship brawl. Just put a bunch of Allied and Axis capital ships in opposing battle lines and watch the fireworks.
Yes 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏
ok
@@grimreapers thanks cap! 😊
@@grimreapers It would be really appreciated Cap, thanks.
Can’t wait to see it!
I ran a USS New Jersey battle group vs the Soviet Atlantic fleet in Harpoon in the mid-90's. I really didn't understand missile tactics and managed to get everything but the BB sunk without scoring a single hit, but got an idea of where the enemy was. The Jersey then waded through a hail of missiles slowly until she got within 16 inch range. She then engaged and sunk the entire Soviet fleet before succumbing to fire.
That is cool.Thank you for your service
It took 19 1000 pound bombs and 10 2000 pound torpedoes to sink the Yomato. I think the battleships should have more hit points based on tonage. Scharnhorst and Kirishima were tough ships to sink at 30,000 tons but Bismarck and Yamato were noticeably tougher, being 50,000 and 70,000 tons respectively.
I'm sure WW2 era battleships had much better armour than a modern carrier does.
@@Rover200Power Modern carriers have no armor
@@aitorbleda8267 not even light composite based armour? I'm sure I read somewhere about it but I can't remember where.
@@Rover200Power Reinforced bulkheads/antishrapnel.
@@Rover200Power Modern ship armor is the paint. No one has armored ships since the end of WW2 and that's why that Russian cruiser got sunk by a single subsonic cruise missile in Ukraine while in WW2 Tirpitz ate 5 12,000lb bombs before she sank and Bismarck ate over 400 2000lb shells and many torpedo's before her crew scuttled her.
Funny enough, back in the 80s during a war games exercise, an Iowa-Class Battleship was able to sneak up and get within gun range of a Super-Carrier battle group. Can you even imagine? Lol
This was fun one. A little disappointing that we had invincible battleship but all things considered this really wasn't that buggy for such a complex simulation. Good job guys another great video. Thanks for the quality content.
thx
Prior to the supremacy of the carrier, a typical ideal "Big Guns" engagement would be "crossing the T". All guns in a battle line are pointed towards target.
With that knowledge a battleship fleet would typically not sail straight for the targets. Typically there is the lead ship that the rest follows. Based on the lead ship, the rest will maneuver in accordance of the proper engagement formation.
There is only one major problem with this engagement. The Russian carrier would have caught fire and sunk before it left the harbor
NOPE!
@@cucupaus5793 Is that why it cannot leave port without a tug?
@@jhint1929yep
@@cucupaus5793I found the coping loser
Implying it wouldn’t sink while in dry dock?
This is going to be a weird suggestion, but I would like to see a modern US CSG with an Iowa class within the fleet, duking it out in a fleet battle, just to see if the BB, with the help of modern AA air support and CIWS, would make the fleet perform any better. Just to see, yaknow.
rgr
Is there a mod to get the Iowas up to their 1980s specs? They were refitted with CIWS and Tomahawks, that would make them more survivable in that context.
@@PhoenixT70 I know about the 80s refit, but I don't know if that is in DCS. They could just put the 40s BB in instead, however, just being covered by escorts.
@@totalnerd5674 It was a general question, I assumed that you already knew about the refit.
@@PhoenixT70 aye
So happy you did another one of these. It had thrills, chills and spills. I laughed, cried and cheered and only threw one pretzel at the television, no Bismarck! Great fun to watch and the Scharnhorst, bugger! The turrets on German battle ships from front to back are: Anton, Bruno, Caesar, Dora. Waiting for the Battle of the North Cape simulation, you talked about a while ago. As always rollicking good fun to watch. I appreciate the hard work and time put into this and all you and the Reapers do. Cheers and take care.
Thanks Ben
Hey Cap!
Thanks for all the entertainment, and thank you guys who participated in this and all other events.
I got a little unlucky and got "welders eye" from welding. Been blind few days now, but i got someone to help me open up your vids. This is my 4th time listening to this video and few other newly added videos and now my first time being able to watch it. I love you guys! I hope i can stay alive and get the chance to watch more of your content :D
When a 16" shell is over a ton I question how this could ever be simulated truly realistically
Since the Iowa and Yamato are working it would be cool to see a historical match up between the IJN and the USN with those two bruisers in a position to trade fire. Maybe make it an Axis vs Allies brawl of the biggest battleships each have access to.
Or a fantasy 1v1 fight.
Well the Yamato would easily win against the Iowa, because of the 18” guns. As long as Yamato doesn’t go brawling it should just tear the Iowa piece by piece.
@@loganjacobs6970 Iowa has better radar and sighting systems, so overall effective range would probably go to the Iowa class
I love the WW2 German fleet ships, this is a super interesting simulation, thanks!
Cap, I know you were getting sick and tired of the naval battle stuff but THANKS ! We love 'em, please feel free to knuckle under to valued human requests any time, it will always be appreciated.
Cap, you forgot about "crossing the T". It would've allowed the ships to train all the guns on the enemy.
Roger will do this next time.
Battleships would soak up way more damage than that to put them down. Also modern ships have crap for armor and would fold rather quickly under big guns.
Battleships will probbaly not sink but they sure are getting mission killed. If a shipwreck hits the superstructure it will only take 1 -2 to seriously dmg the fire control and alot of things.
@@matrix2697 battleships are still better, they only get mission kill. You cant even mission kill a destroyer cus it would sink already
couple things, one you should've used the warspite, she loves objects, known for ramming other ships (including 2 of her sisters), rocks and mines. 9h and she ate 2 of the world's first guided bombs and survived.
second, how about a cv group that is made up of different ships and planes from different countries and doing like a wave defence.
you have waves of attacks of different types and directions and you have to survive.
First wave cows, second wave zombies...
Bold of you to assume Warspite could be sunk.
@@jugganaut33 but I didn't
When HMS Warspite was sold for scraps, the ship went and hugged the land, stranding itself, making it as hard for the scrappers to get at her.
The Klabautermand of the ship had a lot of power, I proport (a "Klabaudermand" is a ship's gnome, a supernatural protector, that will normally only be seen in extreme danger, where he will try to help the crew to get things done right, to save the ship).
Having the Battleship fleet steam straight reduces the firepower of each ship by 1/2-1/3 as their rear turrets don't come into play. The battleships would do their best to get a broadside on the enemy. Maybe 1/2 to the left and half to the right, and the French one from the front as it has no rear guns. That would also split the Russian air defences. They can't use their AA against the missiles as the bulk of the AA defences are on the sides of the battleships. Battleships can try to do a thing called 'crossing the T' where they try to come in to the enemy fleet with the enemy being the leg of the T and the Battleships being the bar across the top. Steaming perpendicular to the enemy, with their guns broadside to get as many of them able to see the target as possible. Possibly coming from either side to split the enemy's firepower. The Russian ships would have the advantage of early detection via better Radar and such, but the battleships woul have airborne reconnaisance floatplanes that aren't modelled here either.
the floatplanes would get shot down before they could spot anything by naval grumbles... also the bbs wouldnt be able to use their aa guns against missiles anyway. the fact they managed to shoot down so many of them is completely ridiculous
No float planes but they would have drones, probably 2 for rach BB to help correct and predict future fire locations with GPS. And main guns in a single turret are never all aimed the same. 1/3 or 2/4 are dead on the other 2 are 1 click up and 1 click down to always bracket
Crossing the T is a classic battle tactic used whenever possible
@41:41 "Squeeze out the Cleveland steamer right on his face" LMFAO!!
Funny thing is i recently got a 1:1000 scale uss iowa
Roma was sank by german bomber fritz x guided bomb
And compared to my uss alabama its massive
You forgot the Bismarck. It would have been a bit more interesting if you had placed the battleships closer to the carrier group, just outside their gunning range, but moving within 5 minutes so they could also have shelled the carrier group.
This battle should be started when the Russian Fleet is in Range of the Battleship Guns... It'd be more of an even fight.
yeah. we all wanna see massive guns blasting
Nice battle. I watched every bit of this video. Thanks!
20:53 This video has it all, including a superb Arnold Schwarzenegger impression just tossed casually into the fray. Much like the bombs, really.
LOL - that was a blast to watch! Thanks guys.
"With the decommissioning of the last Iowa-class ships, no battleships remain in service or in reserve with any navy worldwide."
It should be pointed out, Battleships relied on eyes above or in front of them to pick up targets beyond LOS, increasing their range and effectiveness.
Also, give the movie Battleship a chance, it is dumb fun.
My prediction is that if 2 battleships get within 15 miles, they'll win.
Bismarck vs. Hood was 24 km so exactly 15 miles. Given that the shots were pretty much all on target and that a ship of the russian fleet would have severe problems with even a single hit, I guess you are correct here.
You gotta check out the Battleship New Jersey TH-cam channel! It's AWESOME! It's a museum ship now! You'd be amazed how many different lives she's had. At the end of her career, you might be interested to see how advanced she was.
thx
I heard she was reactivated. 😉
The Dunkerque's gun layout was actually a fairly common design, called "all-forward main armament." The British Nelson Class had a similar layout, with three triple turrets all mounted forward of the superstructure. There were also several planned designs, never built, including one that eventually evolved into the Yamato. The reason for the layout was that it saved weight, because you didn't have to add belt or deck armour for the aft magazines. Since most naval battles were fought in broadsides at the time, it wasn't really much of a weakness to have no aft turrets; in fact, it was actually a strength if you were chasing an enemy.
Do any of you warriors ever read about battleship tactics ? Its called crossing the T. The battle ships want to maneuver to a point where they can get close enough for the big guns, in a line exactly like you have it, but when they are close enough they would turn in line port or starboard , forming another line that would allow for all the guns to be used at once. Then they would hammer each ship as a team. The best thing for them would be for the opposition to be in a vertical line that would restrict the oncoming boats to only use front turrets, one at a time/ So full broadsides from all ships hammering the closest in the line.
Thats straight out of WW1 and would have been used in WW2 if there were ever battle ship fleet only action. I love these vids. cheers and ahoy!
We fly planes here, sir.
@@WyvernFalken Copy that!
Back in the early 90's when I was getting in the Navy. We went down to Long Beech where the USS Missouri was. I went on a tour. They had the floor location roped off, where the signing of the ending of World War 2 took place.
Grim reapers, still home to the most fun battles on TH-cam! Great job to all of you and thank you for all the fun Sims!
thx
Brilliant show as always Cap, I love this shit mate. I stumbled across this channel and have I've watched it every day since. It's an easy watch and a great way to spend some spare time.
Per current world evidence, I believe all scenarios involving Russian forces should receive an automatic 40% penalty in performance due to the game assuming Russia can operate as a modern military (which has proven to be false).
I think u know nothing about the operating status of Russian navy.
@@apsgeneralstudies5673 I know they have low stocks of weaponry, can't afford to replenish multi-million dollar ordnance once a ship has expended it's ammunition, the average sailor is likely undertrained unless the navy is the only branch operating at a highly trained level, and the same goes for the commanding officers in charge as the Russian air force and army have shown a lack of leadership. NATO forces simply have more modern ships in the water, about 15x more naval air power, and a combined fleet of a few magnitudes larger than the Russian navy.
I'll absolutely admit Russia has very capable offensive ships (missile cruisers) and extremely capable supersonic anti-ship and anti-air missiles, but yet again, they don't have a large stockpile of these $2+ million USD missiles. Meanwhile, each guided missile destroyer in the combined NATO navy forces is equipped with 24 to 128 vertical missile launch pods filled to the maximum capacity and additional missiles to reload onboard. The same goes for the large fleet of both silent diesel/battery powered submarines and nuclear powered submarines, along with the vast number of submarine warfare ships, helicopters, and aircraft.
I don't want war between Russia, China, the EU, the US, or NATO, but the fact remains Russia has proven to be poorly trained with poor leadership while using outdated technology for many of their most vital combat vehicles and systems, along with the lack of modern ATGMs, MANPADS, precision guided missile artillery, precision guided artillery shells, precision guided air-to-ground missiles, and precision guided bombs. They have simply displayed the WWII era tactics of deploying unguided rockets, shells, and bombs into civilian populations and military targets alike. Therefore, I have no reason to believe the Russian navy is even able to execute their duties as well as the DCS sim portrays, as the DCS sim isn't accounting for the lack of training, tactics, strategy, and munitions that the entire world has been observing in Ukraine.
Russia would have been much better off not starting a war with Ukraine, and the EU/US/NATO would have gone on continuing to believe Russia had the second most capable military force in the world. They have displayed that they clearly do not have the second most capable military, with China and a few other countries leapfrogging them in overall combat effectiveness and strength. For example, why would the US fear the Russian air force anymore while they have a total of 11,000+ aircraft in their active services against a potential adversary who can't gain air superiority over a non-NATO air space against a country with a very small air force remaining? The USN air assets alone could beat the entire Russian air force on their own if Russia were to make the mistake of attacking a NATO country.
The only reason NATO hasn't assisted Ukraine with direct military action is due to Russia having a combination of nuclear weapons and a psychotic autocrat who is currently committing war crimes. So, I'm assuming you are Russian or an individual who supports Russia, and for that, I feel sorry for your people as they suffer military losses to a superior military and your citizens who are suffering from financial sanctions due to the insanity and pure evil of the cowardice of Putin.
@APS General Studies So you're claiming the Russian navy is an exceptional fighting force, but the ground forces and air force have proven to be underperforming with horrible leadership, strategy, tactics, armament, along with the high losses to show for it? A Russian naval ship was even lost while docked in a Russian held port.
I know the following about the Russian navy, but none of it speaks to the training quality and discipline of their sailors, or the presumed lack of a large amount of their most modern and expensive munitions in reserve. After the Slava class fires their 16 large missiles, can you even be certain they have additional missiles within their immediate deployed fleet to rearm (either on the ship itself or a supply ship)?
The good:
- High quality anti-ship, anti-missile, and anti-aircraft guided missiles. But there won't be a lot of them in reserve due to a lack of funding and corruption funneling funds budgeted for the armed services going to high-ranking officers and high-level individuals within the administration offices and industrial complex of the Russian military.
- A high quality dual-barrel rapid firing AK-130 turreted cannon.
- An excellent remotely controlled point-defense AK-630 autocannon (more effective than the equivalent NATO Phalanx CIWS).
- A sizeable ballistic and cruise missile submarine fleet (22) with advanced ballistic missiles and anti-ship/cruise missiles, in addition to greater capacity per boat than the USN variants. However, the USN alone has just six fewer ballistic/cruise missile subs, which is not including the additional submarines of NATO allies.
- 46 Attack Submarines (15 nuclear powered and 21 diesel powered); the USN has 50 nuclear powered attack subs.
The not-so-good:
- A limited number of destroyers which were all designed and commissioned prior to the year 2000. Russia only has approximately 20 destroyers and frigates combined. The USN alone, not counting NATO navies, has 90+ guided missile cruisers and destroyers in service. Each of these ships, besides a standard forward mounted 127mm cannon, CIWS point-defense autocannons, and torpedo tubes, has 106 (Destroyers with VLS units and Harpoon launchers) to 218 (Guided Missile Cruisers with VLS units and automated reloading Mk-26 launchers) missiles loaded and prepared to fire without timely rearming. Arleigh Burke class destroyers are still being constructed and commissioned into service as the fleet grows, but a new class of ships is being designed to replace the older cruisers and destroyers. In addition, a new class of frigates are currently being constructed for a planned total of 20 ships (this will grow the fleet due to zero existing frigates), and each of those ships will have an additional 69 guided missiles loaded for launch.
- One ski-ramp aircraft carrier which is not nuclear powered, has a relatively small number of jets, and is an extremely flawed design with higher than desired maintenance and repairs required, which has resulted in the Russian carrier strike group requiring a tugboat to travel with the group. As evidence of this, it is currently undergoing a refit during a three to four-year overhaul period since 2018, and even then, it will still likely be retired before 2028. The design is so flawed, China had to make significant changes for their Type 002 carrier to justify building a second ship derived from the Russian carrier they purchased (Type 001). The USN has nine amphibious assault carriers (with a new class currently replacing the older Wasp class) with each capable of carrying a mixed combination of 26-30 total: F-35Bs/Super Cobra gunships/submarine warfare helicopters/armed utility helicopters/transport helicopters/V-22 Ospreys. They also host a Marine Expeditionary Brigade with their equipment and vehicle loadout complimented by two other class of ships in support of the amphibious task force group. These nine smaller amphibious carriers combined are equal to approximately four times the firepower of the single Type 001 aircraft carrier.
- No fifth-generation or stealth naval aircraft deployed. The one aircraft carrier in service can only hold approximately 60% capacity of one US supercarrier.
- On the carrier front, Russia is also up against the following ships with helicopter landing decks/jump-jet ski ramps/amphibious assault ships with flight decks (along with being in NATO or having friendly relations with EU/US/NATO): Japan (4), Spain (1), UK (2), Australia (2), Turkey (2), Italy (2), France (3), Thailand (1), Brazil (1), and Egypt (2). Some of these carriers also currently or will host squadrons of F-35B's along with helicopters and V-22 Ospreys. Interestingly enough, Russia was going to purchase five French designed amphibious assault ships which carry a significant tank and infantry force in addition to 2-3 dozen helicopters, but then Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 and France voided the contract. Egypt took delivery of the first ship.
- A significantly lower amount of electronic warfare, naval radar and datalink specialty aircraft (such as the E-2D Hawkeye US planes).
- Limited naval aircraft refueling capabilities.
- Limited submarine warfare and offensive/defensive mine capabilities for both aircraft and helicopter based on naval vessels.
- Only two battle cruisers which outclass your average USN destroyer in capability and number of vertical launch missiles, but the USN makes up for that by having over 70 of its own guided missile cruisers and destroyers, not even counting a large number of NATO destroyers and USN & NATO frigates and corvettes with additional VLS capability.
- The USN is currently developing a brand-new class of ships to replace the cruisers and destroyers in service, in addition to developing a new class of modern frigates which will also have VLS capability.
- Extremely large supersonic anti-ship missiles housed on three cruisers, but again, they take a long time to reload and will have a limited number stored in reserve due to funding issues.
I could go on, but that’s enough. I’m not really sure what else to say, but the Russian navy wouldn’t win a direct prolonged battle with the US alone or Europe alone, let alone NATO. As a reminder, the largest air force in the world is the USAF. The second largest in the world is the USN. Then we also have the US Marines, which have their own aircraft too. The US Coast Guard has a respectable number of armed ships and the USN has littoral combat ship which take care of our coastal defenses, which means virtually the entire USN is a blue-water navy. China is growing their navy rapidly, but the US is also developing new warships to keep up technologically, all US military branches are currently developing more advanced missiles comparable to Russian and China missile technology, and the USN is also increasing their total fleet size in addition to the new designs being commissioned.
Good Job Reapers. Outstanding!!!!!
i wonder what would happen if you reset with the battleships in firing range (about 14 miles i think?) and all broadside on... my guess is the carrier group would eat it pretty quickly, but it would be interesting to see
In regards to how a WW2 fleet would move they would move in columns with battleships in the centre cruisers flanking them, when they get close to a target they would turn 90 degrees and sail broadside when engaging with cruisers at the front and rear battleships in the centre of the line
Glad to know Simba is Socks favorite XD
US and Russian navys have different doctrines, america's is more focused on defense while the aircraft carry out the offensive. Russian ships are all made to be offensive which makes them better for offensive missions but ofc they can do both
Those ASMs are HE vs AP. They would do massive damage to everything outside a BB's armored citadel, but they would absolutely destroy a CA or CB. Also since they come in low, the would be hitting the thick belt armor. WW2 BBs were designed to take damage from their own guns. The Iowa-class BBs fired super heavy 16" shells that weighed 2700 lbm with a muzzle velocity of 2690 ft/sec (around Mach 2.4...supersonic speeds). Aside from the HE, the kinetic energy of the ASMs will be over double that of the 16" shells (~1035MJ vs ~411MJ using a P-700), but the energy on impact would be spread over a much larger surface area when compared to an AP shell.
Should do this again after you get the bugs fixed, but only with actual battleships: both Yamato and Musashi, Tirpitz and Bismarck, all 4 Iowas, the 5 King George class, both Nelson and Rodney, the 4 Kongo class, and a Montana if that one has been made for the game. That’s 20 ships. Should be a fun mission, 19 ships if Montana isn’t available.
So everything with 14 inch guns and up. No Battlecruiser or heavy cruiser types (8-12 inch gun calibers).
I think WWII Battlewagons used a line of battle where they cruise in one or two rows past the target at point blank gun range so that they can all use all of their guns against the target at once. It also allows them to turn aside and disengage if they take damage and take cover behind the other ships.
Attacking in that formation might have resulted in the Russians blowing most of their missiles to sink the front most units and then having to get into a gun fight with the others. It also hides their numbers because the enemy might not see far enough to see the entire fleet all at once.
They also used formations vaguely similar to our current carrier formations with the strongest ships being surrounded in rings of protection with smaller faster ships. With nothing but battleships. This situation may have been better to have cruisers and destroyers in also, but with this maybe having the fastest ships on the outside with the heaviest hitters in the middle.
@@davidmacy411 Yeah, plus the lighter ships had and used torpedoes, giving them an assertive way of expressing themselves against some of the heavier hitters and also complicated enemy formations. ;-)
You need to simulate the Battle off Samar. But, replace the Taffys with modern light carriers and escorts.
It just gets worse the more I listen, they are still going on about a 2000lb supersonic missile sinking a battleship with one hit. In case you didn't know, a 16" battleship shell weighed 2700lbs, it was supersonic, it had an armor piercing cap, and battleships were designed to be armored against their own guns which means that they are designed specifically to shrug off the wimpy little 2000lb non armor piercing missile. The missile is loaded with HE and the battle of Jutland in 1916 showed that HE had little effect on armor plate, nice dramatic fireballs but no damage except some scorched paint and the modern missiles will do the same, they will break up on contact with the armor and will not penetrate the ship.
As a native New Joisian, I appreciate the attention to detail on our atrocious accent, thank you Cap!
lol
I love Battleship scenarios, new versus old. Makes you think about warfare evolution. If there was a way somehow to tie in Battleships and a SR-71, I think life would be complete.
cool
Remember that winwing technology is your ultimate hardware solution :) 95
agree
Several of the other responses fail to realize just how much armor an Iowa class battle ship has. It has 17.5 inches of steel plating at the points where Granit is designed to attack the ship, namely the hull just above the waterline. It has 10 inch deck armor. It is literally a floating tank. The warheads on the Granit were not designed to penetrate that kind of armor, and it is not a close call.
The Missouri was designed to withstand hits from a 16" shell at a 45 degree apogee at 2,500 feet per second. This is well over Mach 2. So…a 16" shell weighs 2,700lb and is 16" in diameter. The warhead on the Granit weighs 1,653lbs and is 33" in diameter. So, it weighs 60% as much over double the surface area and travels 30% slower (Granit is Mach 1.6), and will impact the hull exactly as the Missouri was designed to withstand.
An Iowa class could absorb an entire magazine of 20 Granits into the hull and it would be unlikely to sink. There would be awful shock damage and almost certainly raging topside fires and almost every topside system would be offline, but she could still firefight and manage minor flooding from shock damage. She would float.
A iwoa would have been take down of combat by 1 or 2 granits
I appreciate your resistance against the modern tech fanboys, but we all know the hordes of commenters are descending on you now...
I don't disagree with the armor idea, I just think about a few 1 ton supersonic missiles and what it would do to the crew. Even if the armor stops the blast that's a lot of casualties from the hits alone.
@@mfreed40k True enough. Shame we can’t test this somehow. Interesting to read up if you’re interested on the Bikini Atol tests and how battleships fared with nukes.
Love when Cap calls Simba , " Simbra " lmao
My biggest beef with this one, as others have said, is lack of a destroyer and cruiser screen for the battleships. That would probably have made a significant difference on the AAA screen versus both the incoming missiles and the incoming aircraft. Not to mention the added ship-to-ship fire support once they get into gun range.
If one were to borrow the arrangement of a US Pacific Fleet carrier task force but plunk a battleship into it instead of a carrier, it would have something like 2-3 Cruisers (New Orleans Class cruisers or Atlanta Class light cruisers) and 6 or so destroyers to screen for the Battleship.
Considering these WW2 ships were designed to do broadside bombardment sending the headlong at the enemy you took away most of their AA defenses. The AA batteries on the Yamato alone should have been enough to knock down many of those missiles.
I'm only a few minutes away from "Big J", been there quite a few times as well.
They went after the USA ships 1st because the center of the ship line came in range 1st, slightly before the outer edges of the line.
You need to add a slight curve to the ship line if you want them to all be targeted at the same time and not focused fired a few at a time.
One thing to consider...as general doctrine, most battleships/battle cruisers would turn to the side once in range to bring their stern turrets to bear on enemy targets
The battleship Roma were sunk by two fritz x guided glide bombs by the Germans. One of them caused a magazine explosion. So, I don't think anti ship missiles would do worse.
Sir Sockington de Cold Lake he did his best
But when the German 11 inchers did their worst.
Poor Sockington's bubble sadly burst.
Alas poor Sockington, he was laid to rest,
All at sea in a bright yellow survival vest.
I was listening to the commentary and the RM Roma (Littorio class) was sunk by the Luftwaffe using a Fritz-X TV guided bomb. They guided the weapon right down one of Roma’s funnels where it exploded in one of her engine rooms.
The Urban Dictionary has now been integrated into the Universal Rules of Radio Communication
Very fun to watch but the damage calculations need a little work. The Iowa's alone would fire 2,700-pound (1,225 kg) armor-piercing rounds with a muzzle velocity of 2,500 ft/s (that's about mach 2.2) and they were built to survive multiple direct hits from similar rounds without loss of combat effectiveness. The idea that even a 1000 lb. missile warhead would do anything but scratch the paint is a little far fetched. But it was a blast to watch. Thanks for the hard work.
Operation Python and Trident and EILAT showed what happened to ww2 ships against anti ship missiles, they got blown up by slow Styxs, imagine mach 3, 1 ton warhead Shipwrecks
cool
"Time to commit sudoku" hhaha
Here's the thing, you have the 40s Iowa class, I'm sure you know that the Missouri and the Wisconsin fought in the Gulf War. You should try this again but with the Gulf War Iowa if you can find one.
We got battleship action! as two cruisers fire...
The "hello" segment is strong in this one :)
The Blücher heavy cruiser was sunk right outside where I live, in the Oslo fjord, Norway
Hi Cap. From memory Dunkerse class BB 8 x 13 inch (2x4 each gun) I hink it was a naval treaty limitation (Washington / London Naval) Only 2 other class with similar configuration: Richeliu class (8x15inch 2x4) and Nelson class BB (9x16inch) (3x3)
Thanks!
@@grimreapers As an addition: The reasons for the all-forward-main-gun armament weren't purely born out of the naval treaty limitations, but have had other benefits as well. Primarily you could present a smaller target signature to your enemy AND angling your armor at the same time while still being able to fire all of your main guns. More traditional battleship/battlecruiser layouts could only do one, not both. And yes, this is only viable for an offensive stance, defensive engagements (aka running away) could become problematic. For a variety of reaons (balance, guns beeing to close to each other in quadruple turrets, bad scalability for larger guns etc) this layout didn't persist for too long.
Would like to see the WW2 group use full fleets, with DD's, CV's, CL's, and their own CV's. I think it would give them a better chance as the Soviets wouldn't be able to just concentrate on the ships immediately. It would also provide a better AA defense for the WW2 fleet as the CL's provided a lot of the fleets AA defense
Bad luck Damp. Great flying though!
Can we see a fleet of boghammers vs Iowa class battleships. Dunkerque was unique due to one of naval treaties and was more of a battle cruiser due to only having 13 inch guns. Also the Soviet missiles where made for punch, but not pen, it is doubtful that they could knock out a WW II BBs, but no body knows. A good example is USS Missouri having a slight impact damage from a kamikaze zero.
rgr
If the battleship coalition was a actual strike group with DDs, light cruisers, etc. no chance for the aircraft and maybe a chance for the missiles to go through. Just the amount of AA and AAA on a light cruiser alone is scary
Any big modern campaign - like the iran campaign coming out any time soon? Would love to see you fly the F-16 or apache.
i love Yamato trying to keep up in the back and also i think it would be cool if there was the desert storm modification for the USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin.
Roma was actually the first ship sunk by a guided weapon! It was a German Fritz-X bomb dropped by the Luftwaffe after the Italians surrendered in 1943 to prevent the ship falling into allied hands.
I'd love at some point that evasive maneuvers are programmed in for the BB's.
Strangely satisfying :)
concerned how cap learned about Cleveland steamers
Jack Black
"That's a 5 inch in your face" - Grim Reapers, 2022
Good show guys love the ending should put a bunch of small boats next time
Wouldn't the B Ships maneuver in a way as to allow the rear turrets to fire?
Yes next time will assign proper captains to move.
This would be interesting to see with Late WW2 U.S. Battlegroup (minus CVs). Iowa's, N Dakota's, S Dakota's, Cleveland, Atlanta, Baltimore.... maybe some Alaska's... just to see what happens with every inch of sky is filled with AA.
Have you thought of doing the Des Moines class cruisers? they had/have 8 in automatic main guns, so they could do better at long range defense against missiles, and they have the 5in and 3 in antiair guns. Food for thought!
I think the ww2 ships should have been set out in line a stern formation which would have been more historically accurate 🙂
Super fun scenario, but the damage model for the BBs feels waaay off. The actual damage taken by ships that sank during WW2, adjusted for size/armor, would seem to have been a much better baseline to set, keeping in mind that most were actually done in by torpedoes rather than shells and bombs (i.e. citadels actually worked).
Don’t mean to take anything away from all the work that went into setting this up, by the way. Just addressing a bit of a realism gap in the model.
The Roma was sunk by the Luwwaffe using a frix-x bom
thx
Hang on, Italy and Germany were on same side??
@@grimreapers was because Italy surrender and they were giving their navy to the British that why the Roma was bomber, to avoid that the brithis will use that ship
Never ending amount of facts to learn about the WWs
So the reason Dunkerque had all her heavy guns forward is that she was built as a direct counter to the Deutschland class pocket battleships. They wouldnt need a rear turret since they would be chasing the German raider.
Massive assumption is that the carrier could leave sight of the coast without breaking down
Somewhat appropriately I guess, Roma was sunk by the Germans using an early guided munition called the Fritz X. First munition of it's type I think.
48:16 'Wow, Moskva is really taking hits guys.' - we call this FORESHADOWING.
Yes! Iowa Class Battleship!! Bad ass😁👍👍
Wait they don't have anti missile Phalanx and anti ship Harpoons!? These aren't the 80's I'm confused??
I am using the 1940's variant here.
@@grimreapers got it, my bad. Guess that makes sense considering the title🙃😆
I believe the tirpitz was a bit smaller than an iowa or yamato class yet it still took a direct hit by a 12000 pound bomb and survived, though the turret was absolutely knocked out. I’m sure these battleships would take a lot of missles to sink
The damagemodelling would be a mare but with accurate damage models I think you would probably see the WW2 ships eek a victory. Like 2 2000lbs aren't going to kill an Iowa IRL
Iowa. Lass can only take damage from down the main gun deck is wood.
Tirpitz was damaged by midgets but they repaired that and then put a big sub net around it. Lancasters with the tall boy bomb actually caused it to capsize and then sink
The problem I see is penetration etc.
A massive 1000lbs bomb will not seriously damage a battleship.. but if it is semi piercing and penetrated the deck...
That Grump bloke sounds like fun. 🤣🤣
50:40 foreshadowing?
Wish you had put in bigger German ships( Tirpitz/Bismarck 15 inch guns vs the pocket battleships 11 inch guns. More British ships like Nelson/ Rodney or American fast battleships. 5 inch and even larger caliber guns had proximity fuses for AA effect. Fun to watch though. Thanks!
It would of been cool to see HMS Vanguard with its 15 inch guns. It was an evolution of Hood in fairness with its armament etc.
37:01 That was almost a perfect Homer Simpson DOH
lol
Simba had to stop that particular AA shell with his face.
A single destroyer would be able to take out a fleet of battleships from 400 miles away. A carrier group would be able to do it from 1200 miles away if they was established as targets to be destroyed.
The only weapons any modern ship has that could sink a carrier would be torpedos, and you couldn't get close enough to fire them without getting sunk sunk by the naval guns.