Never, never stop. Do realize how long it takes to gets thousands of tons of ship moving? Plus, it is easier to hit a non-moving target than a moving one. Battleships were designed to hit targets while moving.
Yes, even the old mechanical computers in WWII era ships accounted for the speed & heading of both the BB and the target. Trust the math, and keep moving.
Ryan Szymanski did a video where the USS New Jersey went up against the Graf Spee. Apparently there’s a bunch of stuff that has to happen in order to change the speed . I think he said they had to change the fuel sprayers. The Graf Spee, even though slower, was running marine diesels and was able to out accelerate the Jersey.
Yeah but with round travel times so long it becomes almost impossible to hit a target that is moving faster than a large warship. If the pilot of a small boat moves the steering wheel a tiny bit after the shells have been fired, the boat is going to be in a way different area than where the guns were aimed by the time the shells arrive.
Naval gunnery is an advanced math problem. Sitting still or moving at flank the shots are just math problems. sitting still only makes you a bigger target. and WWII naval battles had TONS of direct hits.
@@Conman1181 i love old mechanical tech like that. modern electronics are like a little black box of voodoo that pictures come out of. cogs and wheels are just so fascinating to watch the ingenuity
at sea sitting still is still moving relative to the enemy. youre easiest to hit running parallel courses at similar speeds because youre still relative to the other observer
I thought it was obvious that the Iowa was "crossing the T"; maneuvering so that its broadside will face the enemy to give all its main guns clear lines of fire.
Its broadside was exposed from the beginning, and the turn presented its stern to the oncoming. The status bar says "engaging with RGM-109B (Target too close)". It's trying to open range and fire Tomahawks.
IMO the best strategy would be to sail at the maximum traverse of the forward guns so they’re firing “over the shoulder” as it runs away, maximising closure time and so maximising the time it has to shoot at them. Battleships were like big floating tanks- sure, you could shoot HE rounds at it and hope to damage something, but realistically you need to punch through the armour with an armour-piercing round and destroy what’s inside. HE shells can smash lightly armoured targets like destroyers or light cruisers, but foot-thick armour on a battleship will shrug those off.
Fire Control Systems: US Navy ships used sophisticated fire control computers like the Mark 1, which calculated the necessary aiming point based on the target's speed, course, and distance, allowing them to fire accurately at moving targets. Rangekeeping: Skilled personnel on the ship, known as "rangekeepers," would constantly track the target's position and feed this information into the fire control system to ensure the shells landed where intended. Limitations: While capable of hitting moving targets, accuracy decreased significantly if the target was maneuvering rapidly, especially at longer ranges. Ship types: Battleships like the Iowa-class were particularly adept at engaging moving targets due to their powerful guns and advanced fire control systems
You want to "run away" / open the range at max speed and at an angle at which you can still fire all your forward guns back "over your shoulder" to maintain your full salvo, but reduce the closure rate as much as possible. Buying you more time to hit them, and making the math on where you need to aim easier, because the relative difference in your speeds is less and effectively making them a slow-moving target. This also forces the torpedo boats to seek a much closer launch point, so their torpedoes have the legs to chase you down, giving you more time to hit the boats before they can launch them. And ideally, if you can visually determine a torpedo boat has been hit and is smoking, or your radar sees their speed drop, you leave it to fire on one that isn't smoking and is still charging full speed, and come back to it later if needed. With regards to the Harpoons, you send 1, let it hit someone, and then send another, so they are always hitting something at the front of the group, and thus is still a live target.
There were "torpedo boats" / E-boats in the Federal German Navy (Western Germany's navy) ... from end of 50s until mid 80s. It was the Sea Eagle Class (1959 - 1976), Jaguar Class (1959 - 1976) and the Sable class (1961 - 1984). First armed with unguided torpedoes and the Sable class was in the 70s upgraded with cable guided torpedoes. The later E-boat classes were armed with missles instead of torpedoes. I hope I didn't forget anything or made a mistake with the data ...
I think survival of the BB in this scenario is the biggest mission goal. Turn and run at flank and you'll out-range those fast boats eventually. Running full-tilt like that gobbles up fuel and they can't operate far from shore. That combined with anti-ship artillery should keep the Iowa safe, unless it gets hit by a torpedo. If that happens, then top speed would drop considerably and make defending the BB much more difficult.
You should work with Ryan at the battleship New Jersey channel. I think it would be a cool tie in with an actual Iowa that has a presence on TH-cam. Might even be some overlap in viewership (besides me.)
Me four! The big question is how well Sea Power AI can operate the BB -- for example, the 5" guns are dual use and specifically meant to take out smaller, faster targets because they can track much faster than the main turrets. AA fire, yes, but also small surface ships that make it past the destroyer screen (as in "torpedo boat destroyer" their full original name).
The United States is really the only NATO nation fully fleshed out in this game so far. The United States also does not have a lot of shallow water to defend, or that it anticipates operating in. The US Coast Guard handles most of that work, not the US Navy. Therefore, US Navy doctrine back then was all "blue water" operations. The Soviets on the other hand had several regional potential conflict zones where smaller patrol craft would be useful for anti-submarine or ambush anti-ship tactics, like the Baltic, the Black Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Barents.
The 16 inch MK 13 HC shells had 2" thick walls and nearly 150 lbs of explosive D (ammonium picrate) filler - its roughly a Mk 82 GP bomb in filler size. Shell splashes were routinely 30 ft in diameter and about 100ft high. The fragmentation alone from near misses would devastate the torpedo boats
Agreed, and the shock wave through the water would do considerable hull damage. Additionally, the torpedo boats would be at great risk of being flipped / capsized by the shell splash and "running into the hole" made by the shell impact. The damage model doesn't cover it.
@@xet1sw156 probably even more devastating would be proximity fused 16 inch shells, as those shells woutonate above the surface of the water and shower a wide area with high velocity fragments, and 16 inch shells can be fitted with proximity fuses.
1:36 Bcs blue side had CVs with torpedo bombers and are focused on a open sea Navi with almost no need for a costal ship of the type due the surplus of ww2 DD to fill the role the exception is Italian navy The red side has quite a lot I use for this costal vessels due the Baltic Mediterranean and North Sea where they are most useful
Battleship Gunnery is all about doing a lot of math very quickly and guessing where their target will be at the time of arrival of the shell. A very well known example of Battlship Marksmanship is HMS Hood fighting Bismarck & Prinz Eugen, the 5th Salvo from Bismarck penetrated Hoods deck and detonated the Magazine, splitting the ship in half and killing all but 3 Sailors on board instantly. This salvo was fired from 10 miles away. The shells being fired at this range would 'Plunge' from above the ship, negating their thick belt armour and instead, smashing their way through the lightly armoured Deck.
Those 16 inch are not correctly portrayed in sea power. No explosions unless it's a direct hit in sea power. IRL those shells would splinter and wreck the engines of the torpedo boats causing them to explode.
If you watch to the end some of the torpedo boats are damaged from this. That being said, Sea Power is accurate for armor piercing shells. They only arm after penitration so would explode underwater. The French and the Germans had shells designed to explode to damage ships on near misses, but everyone else used more standard fuses
my guess would be that the only areas during the cold war which could have used torpedo boats were the North Sea and the Baltic. The Bundesmarine had torpedo boats to defend against a red landing but that would probably be the only area of operations for these boats in a WW3 scenario
22:40 re. Zigzagging or not, consider the experience of Taffy 3 destroyer USS Johnston and destroyer escort USS Samuel B Roberts in the battle off Samar, charging toward battleship Yamato & cruisers etc, (“This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can.”) Several accounts of this engagement suggest that one or both captains ordered the helmsmen to steer toward the latest shell splashes, assuming that after each volley the enemy ships were adjusting left or right to correct. This was one of the all-time great naval engagements and would almost certainly be studied in any serious naval war college.
I think most of those rounds went high was because if the target was a frigate or something they would be right on. The game probably has the math for a ship and is getting confused by the smaller cross section.
Cap, every time you say "why is it doing that", check the status bar. It tells you exactly what's up 90% of the time. In this case, the Iowa was turning away to open range and fire Tomahawks.
Ahead two thirds away from the threat at an angle to allow the front guns to fire over the shoulder. You would have to do long zig zagz. If they launch go flank and continue because they would have to get closer to hit with Torps. Think a jet running away it reduces your missile range.
The U.S. Coast Guard has some gun boats of that speed... but no dedicated torpedo boats. Some Coast Guard boats have torpedo tubes -- but mostly for ASW. The difference between blue water and brown water. If we ever have an opponent close to our shores, I think we can expect the coast guard to be employed. I cannot speak to other NATO countries.
Late WW2 U.S. ships tied fire control to radar. You zigzag between shots when you see the flash.. the worst possible thing to do is go in a straight line...
I think NATO doesn't use pure torpedo boats, but many ships have torpedo tubes. Counting on air superiority, they fire their torpedoes by planes and helicopters?
I don't know if this would work or not these days but the American destroyers that went against the Japanese cruisers and battleship chased the water spouts from the big ships guns. The thinking was they'd over compensate wouldn't hit the same spot twice.
The received wisdom about trying to evade torpedoes is to run at a 60 degree angle from the track of the incoming torpedo. That seems to be the best compromise between reducing closure rate and getting off the weapon's track.
I agree, I don't think those shells are modeled right. Not to mention as pointed out in other comments: the range finder would have lead those shots better (so those misses at 20:00 would have probably been dead on). The other note on that: the attacking captains would have altered their courses more between volleys instead of a straight charge. Another note is that this is a purely hypothetical situation. Iowa would have never been alone while transiting an area like that. Personal suggestion: instead of going pure standup and fight or pure run, go at a slight angle (i.e. 30%). It keeps all batteries in arc while drawing out the engagement time. We have a similar tactic in my LARP circles for when you and up fighting with a pole weapon alone: if you can string them along to have to engage in a line you draw out the engagement while bottling them up on top of each other.
Also, the 5"/38 cal secondary guns had an easy range of 10K - 12K yards and could fire at 30 rounds/min per mount. These guns would have been pummeling these boats by the time they were 7-8 miles out and these guns were designed to shoot 200 knot aircraft.
Also secondary comment most gunnery ships have 2 types of shells minimum which would include an H.E. (high explosive) and an A.P. (armor pirecing) HE would definetly spinlter upon contact with the water where AP would penetrat the water then explode
During the Cold War the U.S. navy was focused on the “blue water navy” and torpedo boats are not ocean going vessels. They deployed torpedoes off aircraft with carriers.
I ran some gun battles with the few ships I could find that aren't bristling with missiles. The Russian Sverdlov vs the American Gearing FRAM-II is pretty good, with the range going to Sverdlov's 152mm and accuracy going to Gearing's 5-inch guns. I also found that 6 Sverdlovs match up pretty well against 1 Iowa.
The torpedo defences on an Iowa-class are the best that were available at the time. It's all passive, built around void spaces the flooding of which would be acceptable in the short term. This is, of course, defence against a torpedo that is trying to hit the target directly. Modern torpedoes detonate beneath a ship's keel. I don't know which type is on board those torpedo boats . . .
A technique that can be used with the 16" guns only is to run at max speed, doing swerves when the forward turrets are loaded and you can fire 'Over the Shoulder', maximizing both your damage and your survival potential
Hi cap...Iowa class have torpedo bulges that protect the hull, old school torpedoes used contact or magnetic detonators that hit the bulge and exploded harmlessly...
Not harmlessly - they'd still cause a fair bit damage, but much less than they would without the bulges. Torpedoes have always been something battleships are worried about, hence adding torpedo defense bulges.
Cap, WW2 naval gunnery was designed to hit a ship. It did it by purposely firing the 9 shells to land in roughly a 100 yard wide by 200 yard long oval. This dispersion gave the best chance of accounting for target movement and errors in calculation. Most capital ships like battleships and heavy cruisers were armored to shake off near misses and splinter damage. Only direct hits had a chance of taking them down. In a situation like this with targets moving at you in a straight line, at a consistent speed, and within radar range you have the best chance for naval gunnery to work. That kind of target is pretty easy for the calculations since there are few changining variables.
When they go crazy Cap. Pause, right click the ship or in the menu hit cease fire, go to the navigation tab remove waypoint then place the new waypoint and then unpause. Then you can assign fires or go back to weapons free. It works 98% of the time for me
Here's some research on torpedo/missile boats and my own observations thrown in Cap; I hope it serves as interesting material! First, the U.S. Navy generally stopped using torpedo boats after World War II because they were primarily vulnerable to air attacks but also some other more modern threats like long-range ASMs. It always goes back to US doctrine, where the carrier air wing was used for offensive capability and gave them a huge amount of range advantage over most enemy ships. Meanwhile, any potential US torpedo boat really wouldn't get too close to a Soviet boat/ship, never making it within range to fire the torpedoes under normal scenarios. The fact the Soviets still had them is more telling in my opinion, as they were likely very desperate if they found themselves deploying those against US naval forces, and it would also mean there likely wasn't a US carrier involved, and there would also likely have to be some significant terrain advantages to even make it remotely possible to launch an attach (being able to hide their presence and launching an attack at a natural choke point). This is also pretty much the same reason the USN didn't use missile boats, as the carrier air wing would always provide them with more reach than any missile boat could, plus the missile boat would carry Harpoons and be outranged by the equivalent Soviet missile boats or missile ships. However, I believe there could be a case to reintroduce missile boats into the current US Navy fleet. One of the major considerations for the USN in present-day is making more use of a "distributed fleet" approach, where they have fewer large ships carrying 100+ VLS cells and attempt to spread out that capacity to larger quantities of ships. This is due to a fear where China shocks the world and proves they managed to create an effective weapon capable of hitting a moving carrier, cruiser, or Burke destroyer at short to intermediate ballistic missile ranges. If that were the case, the USN losses for just one ship could be truly damaging. As the USN considers the potential for a more distributed approach, one effort in response to this is the Constellation-class frigates, while another is the small, medium, and large unmanned surface vessels. Currently, the medium unmanned surface vessel is likely going to be dedicated to ISR, sensors, radar, and generally serving as the additional eyes/ears/sonar for the fleet as a whole, wherever needed. I believe the small unmanned class will be used in miscellaneous specialized roles, such as mine-sweeping, mine-laying, perhaps deep-infiltration of sensor platforms, or as launch platforms for other unmanned vehicles in the air, on the water surface, and submersibles; launching and recovering these units while being controlled from distance. The plan for the large unmanned surface vessel is to stick a bunch of modified containers onto it, each modified to hold 4 Mk 41 VLS cells, with the idea of having approximately 4 to 8 containers per vessel at 16 to 32 extra VLS cells for a relatively cheap vessel that, if lost, won't be a huge blow to the USN. However, I'm more interested in a potential offshoot of these unmanned surface vessels. I'm imagining a second series of small, medium, large, and XL-sized optionally manned surface vessels. The current unmanned vessel program is based on commercial off-the-shelf ship designs modified for USN use. This second series I'd love to explore would be a more bespoke design and sort of be seen as the "enhanced" or "2nd generation" of USN unmanned vessels once the bugs are worked out with the first-gen. The first change would be enhancing survivability by making each design as stealthy as possible within a reasonable budget constraint, limiting IR emissions, and lower silhouettes against the horizon than existing boats/ships. The primary difference is that these boats would have the general stations and equipment needed for some of them to be manned (medium and up; small would only be unmanned), but most would operate as unmanned under normal operating conditions, so the "core crew" operating this group of vessels would consist of the people needed to control various unmanned platforms during the deployment while also being able to maintain various systems if there were any maintenance or breakdowns. They would operate in small surface group swarms, and one of the medium-sized "ISR/sensor/radar" boats would act as a crewed command and control vessel and operate very similarly as the current 6th generation fighter aircraft + collaborative combat aircraft (loyal wingman program) works, except with boats. This means that the C&C boat would be working in the rear and furthest away from potential enemy fire. The small and medium variants would generally fulfill the same mission sets. The small would come equipped with at least a few long-range air-based recon drones and also likely a towed sonar array plus mine-sweeping underwater drones. Each of the boats would have the capability to launch tethered communications/ISR drones, which would allow for better over-the-horizon detection via sensors, and although I imagine most comms between boats would be via satellite relay, a secondary feature would be expanded comms range using the elevated tethered drones to communicate between unmanned vessels in the group. For armament, the small/medium/large/XL unmanned vessels would all have a base amount of stealthy design characteristics to operate within the group (can't have one sticking out more than the others), plus core USN systems (off-the-shelf) for electronic warfare and decoys/countermeasures, the XM913 50mm autocannon comes standard on each vessel, which is normally hidden underneath a stealthy cover rather than just being out there and all bulky. It would have the recently announced dual-feed munitions system and be loaded with the XM1204 High Explosive Air Bursting Tracer and XM1203 Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot Tracer for anti-drone and anti-surface threats. The medium, large, and XL unmanned vessels would also add a SeaRAM launcher, as that provides it with it's own self-contained SAM defense with all required functionality and sensors within one package. The large and XL-sized boats would be the actual missile boats, and these would comprise the bulk of each deployed group. In addition to the 50mm autocannon and SeaRAM launcher, these would be equipped with the relatively new Adaptive Deck Launcher (ADL), which is a "bolt-on" Mk 41 VLS compatible missile launcher angled at about 45 degrees with capacity for 4 missiles that fit within standard Mk 41 VLS cells; these would be underneath another shell to enhance the general stealth profile of the boats. Each boat could hold at least 8 missiles (one ADL on each side of the boat, pointing offset to the left and right of the boat's centerline, much like the torpedo launchers within the video). The XL sub-model would be the same essential design, but it would add about 25% additional length to allow for another ADL to be added on each side, behind the first two. This results in a large unmanned missile boat with the capacity for 8x: Tomahawk Block V's (anti-ship or anti-land), 8x Naval Strike Missiles, 8x JASSM-ER, or 8x LRASM (those are all certified for Mk 41 VLS launches). For the XL version of the missile boat, you would increase the capacity to 16x any of those aforementioned missiles per boat. For a really rough size, the ADL appears to be 8 meters in length, so the overall size of the large unmanned surface vessel utilizing those would likely be smaller than the Cyclone-class patrol ship, which was 330 tons and 55 meters in length. As far as an approximation to the general design language/layout, please look at the Chinese Type 22 missile boat (220 tons, 43 meters). Man, I would absolutely love to work with a Sea Power or DCS modder and create this ship with them to see how it performs. :)
FWIW, Cap, the Iowa-class carried at least two different types of shell for the 16" guns : high-explosive and armour-piercing. I'd assume that you'd load armour-piercing rounds when you're expecting to score direct hits. BTW, get that rate of fire! IIUC, a really good Iowa gun crew could fire a salvo of three every 35 seconds or so. But they wouldn't be able to keep that rate of fire up for very long. Partly because the intense activity quickly tires the crew, and partly because each set of three rounds is a little bit farther from the shell hoists. Once you've fired all the shells that were closest to the shell hoists, the crews have to travel a greater distance to bring the next round to the hoist. It may only be a foot and a half farther each time; but it still takes time. And the same applies to the bags of powder in the powder magazine (though these, being lighter than a 16" shell, could be sped up by the application of more manpower).
My thought on what a large ship would do against smaller faster aggressors is circle the advancing force, making the smaller ships use more fuel by making them arc. As they get closer, the larger ship's gun would become more effective. You can't outrun the smaller force so running is not likely best and stopping doesn't help in any way. Keep moving and circle. Don't become a sitting duck.
Check out the story of the uss Washington in ww2 its gunnery tactics and lessons were before the time of the Iowa and so accurate its captain could often aim for bridges and funnels. These lessons eventually spread to the Iowa class who also got some of the first ballistic calculators.
In Cold Waters, TASMs have a min range of 8 000 yards, which is just under 4nmi. Assuming Cold Waters is accurate, you should’ve been able to launched your TASMs. There might be some other mechanic preventing your TASM launch. Maybe you were outfitted with TLAMs?
@grimreapers I guess that’s the game mechanic. I’m not sure if that’s true to life. On another note, Cap, how are you finding Sea Power as compared to DCS? Have you received any feedback as to which is more realistic? The ship-borne defences in DCS (SMs, CWIS, etc) seem to be more accurate against incoming targets.
Sweden ran torpedo boats throughout the 20th century. For the complicated archipelagos around Stockholm and Gothenburg, it's a natural continuation of cannon boats. The complicated seaways lend themselves to fast and agile ways of defending. The torpedo boats where mostly around 40m long did around 40kn, the newer ones possibly faster. Some of them would later be converted to guided missile boats using RBS-15 . A re-use of some of the technical design would become the Stockholm class of corvettes, also with RBS-15. I think you can still ride the HMS Ystad as moving museum, if you're not afraid of losing your hearing. Those gas turbines are LOUD. Boats of this size are plentiful, and I suppose the developers only had time for some of them. But they were workhorses of many a navy, and not just red ones.
The Bundesmarine (West German Navy) had Speed Boats for example the Albatros Class which were equipped with two 533mm Torpedos and four Exocet Rockets in the 1970s to the 1980s.
Not sure if the Stilettos design flaws were the reason we didn’t use boats like this or not. But its design caused some type of corrosion from the salt water on the metals or plastics they used
You should do Gearing vrs Torpedo boats next. Old school ww2 destroyer with the same guns as Iowa's secondaries Also what I would do is put the torpedo boats in groups of four to make it eaiser to place a bunch.
Regarding the Iowa class and torpedo boats. Point #1: The battleship should always be moving against smaller enemy boats (particularly torpedo boats). Even the systems used on the Iowa's during their original WWII era configuration were intelligent enough to calculate the constant aim point for each barrel, so they were definitely good enough to do so after the modernization program, meaning the ship should be just as accurate while moving at flank speed compared to it not moving at all. In addition, the ship only has two real defenses against torpedoes: general movement to make it a more difficult target to hit in regards to the torpedoes firing solution and any sensors the torpedoes may have (wake homing or wire guidance) and speed, where the Iowa would be at flank speed to create as much distance as possible to run the incoming torpedoes out of energy/range. All of these factors combined point to Iowa's needing to move as fast as possible for maximum effectiveness. Point # 2: I believe SP models some damage for indirect fire (it's unclear how it models it right now, as some ships within the front of the push had many shells land really close, up to 10+, without slowing down, while it appears one close shell slowed down other targets). However, based on reality, the Iowa's would have fired HE shells and set them to explode in an airburst at an appropriate height above the water. Also, for the 5" guns, I believe they could have also used proximity fuses against the boats, just as they would against aircraft. This would achieve the most damage against personnel and targets with little to no steel armor like the torpedo boats and should have absolutely shredded the boats in this attack. This can definitely be improved within SP, but the game is relatively early in its development when you compare its current state to the "ideal" level of functionality and features included, which will take several more years of development. Per Wikipedia: "For unarmored targets and shore bombardment, the 1,900 lb (862 kg) Mk. 13 HC (high capacity-referring to the large bursting charge) shell was available. The Mk. 13 shell would create a crater 50 feet (15 m) wide and 20 feet (6 m) deep upon impact and detonation and could defoliate trees 400 yards (360 m) from the point of impact." Point #3: I think the best defensive movement for the torpedo boats would be constant changes in direction and even speed potentially, plus spreading out. If you combine the amazing power of the air-bursting shells above and then read the amazing fire control systems below, the boats would have to create space between themselves so only one would be taken out or damaged per every potential shell landing within a few hundred meters. Then, with the amazing fire control details below, staying on a constant heading and speed would be an absolute death wish. I believe the 16" and 5" guns on the Iowa were noticeably more accurate in the real world than the impacts depicted in SP, at least for boats depicted in this scenario, going in a straight line at constant speed. For those reasons, I imagine a zig-zag pattern with variable timing between each zig and zag would be their best chance, but still like 1 in a thousand to get to firing range when modeled properly. Point #4: The Iowa's had really impressive fire control and aiming systems even in WWII, so I can only imagine this was improved significantly during the modernization (as depicted in SP) too. Here are some excerpts regarding their original capabilities from Wikipedia: The early main battery fire control consisted of the Fire Control Tower, two Mark 38 Gun Fire Control Systems (GFCS), and fire control equipment located in two of the three turrets. As modernized in the 1980s, each turret carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, the improvements created the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made. The major components of the Mk 38 Gun Fire Control System (GFCS) were the Director, Plotting Room, and interconnecting data transmission equipment. The forward Mk 38 Director was situated on top of the fire control tower, equipped with Mark 45 Rangefinder optical sights, and a Mark 13 Fire Control Radar antenna. The purpose of the Director was to track the target's present bearing and range; done electronically with the radar (preferred) or optically by the men inside using the sights and Rangefinder. The present position of the target was called the Line-Of-Sight and it was continuously sent down to the Mk 8 Rangekeeper by Synchro transmitters. The forward main battery plotting room housed the forward system's Mark 8 Rangekeeper, Mark 41 Stable Vertical, Mk13 FC Radar controls and displays, Parallax Correctors, Fire Control Switchboard, battle telephone switchboard, battery status indicators, assistant Gunnery Officers, and Fire Control Technicians. The Mk 8 Rangekeeper was an electromechanical analog computer whose function was to continuously calculate the gun's bearing and elevation, Line-Of-Fire, to hit a future position of the target. It did this by automatically receiving information from the director (LOS), the FC Radar (range), the ship's gyrocompass (true ship's course), the ship's Pitometer log (ship's speed), the Stable Vertical (ship's roll and pitch), and the ship's anemometer (relative wind speed and direction). Before the surface action started, the FTs made manual inputs for the average initial velocity of the projectiles fired out of the battery's gun barrels and air density. The Rangekeeper calculated the relative motion between "OWN SHIP" and "TARGET". It then could calculate an offset angle and change of range between the target's present position (LOS) and future position at the end of the projectile's time of flight. To this bearing and range offset, it added corrections for gravity, wind, Magnus effect of the spinning projectile, earth's curvature, and Coriolis effect. The Mk 41 continuously measured the angles between the deck and the horizontal plane. These deck angles were continuously transmitted to the Rangekeeper so that it could keep the guns correctly elevated as the ship rolled and pitched. The Mk 41 could be enabled to automatically fire the guns whenever the ship's deck was parallel to the horizontal plane.
An interesting scenario might be to run a situation where you have tankers/cargo ships moving with torpedo boats hugging the side opposite a blue fleet, then have them head in at 2-3 miles, fire torpedoes, then move to hide behind shipping again. Blue's job is not destroy the shipping but get the torpedo boats. I have no idea how to model that in Sea Power. Might need a human opponent?
Torpedo boats are very limited in range and do not handle rough seas. Second Torpedoes have a very limited range, the harpoon was specifically designed to kill these boats. Remember the US never fight without air cover and air launched surface search radar, either an E2 hawkeye or Seahawk S-60. This gives you an extended range detection. That gives you a lot of capacity to use their hapoons.
It is a strange one that so many western nations gave up on fast attack craft after the second world war. Scandinavia still carries on building some. The Pegasus was a failure in its designated role but made a great anti-smuggling boat! Be great to get hold of someone like Drachinifel to tell us why. There were (are?) HE rounds for the 16" guns. I wonder if they can be fused for airburst? Be like cluster bombs going off.
Probably admirals prefered blue water ships. Pegasus were a bit niche and quite expensive for limited versatility. Would have been good maybe for a med navy with a req for fast attack.
Originally, DDs were called, torpedo boats as they carrier torpedos, then they became multi use for ASW and escort and eventually graduated into their own designation. This is what i can remember so do not quote me on it.
What we know as modern Destroyers were originally called Torpedo Boat Destoyers. With the idea that they would destroy torpedo boats. (Duh) and were intended to escort battleships and protect them from torpedo boats. Eventually they evolved beyond the escort role. With Destroyer Escorts (small) Destroyers (medium) and Destroyer Leaders (often light cruisers or big destroyers)
This is pretty much my go-to tactic with winning engagements in Ultimate Admiral early game...the AI never can seem to deal with my TB Zerg swarms, nor can the game seem to either; haven't seen 60 fps in a fight in so long.
Ships are dynamically stabile. Stopping to fire is a very bad idea. Just sit there and move with the water. Much more control when moving. Much steadier when moving. Never stop - Especially when there's potentially incoming fire and you have to get all that weight moving .
Last one I promise... Press f10, go to tools, click control ai and then you can take each one to target the one ship via the map. That will sort the control issue and make them all go for it at the same time.
destroyers are called that because they were meant to destroy torpedo boats, they were called Torpedo Boat Destroyer and were battleship escorts, the term was later changed to just "destroyers" because the boats turned to submarines and missiles appeared you should try this with 2 destroyers instead of 1 cruiser
I believe you can set different vessels to go the same speed via the formation editor if they are in a formation together. I am not sure if you can set this for enemy AI vessels, but I know it is a feature for the player controlled formations.
I think moving away at speed while limiting the number of guns that could fire would have increased accuracy because it woukd have slowed the target speed relative to firing position .
wow the tico is good. where does the perception that it doesnt have ASW capability come from? people seriously think the US navy would build a cruiser that cant kill ships?
I think those Tomahawks were designed for land attack. I don’t think they were anti-ship that’s why they put the harpoons on them back then. Plus you have multiple 5 inch guns that’s why they were on there for any aircraft and Andy ship rolls
Cap. Delete will remove waypoints. You can alao click and drag existing waypoints. Also, idk about in game, but in real life Battleships were more accurate at low speed. Theyd usually go ahead slow for naval bombardment and around 16 knots for surface to surface. Finally the main guns would be horriblly ineffectice against torpedo boats. The main guns are designed to explode after penitrating. Meaning they only explode under water if they miss. So no shrapnel. The 5 inch guns and escorts would have the job of dealing with torpedo boats
The naval guns are radar controlled, it doesn't matter if your moving at 35 knots or sitting still or the target is moving 50 knots or sitting still. The gun accuracy will not change. Also you give the attacker a better torpedo calculation. Most Russian torpedos are wake homing.
Denmark had torpedo boats, or actually torpedo-missile boats, until year 2000, called the "Willemoes-klassen". 1 x 76 mm canon 2 x stinger missiles 8 x RGM 84 harpoons 4 x 553 mm torpedoes But it could also be used as a minelayer 😂 very versatile, and very fast 💪🤯
Never, never stop. Do realize how long it takes to gets thousands of tons of ship moving? Plus, it is easier to hit a non-moving target than a moving one. Battleships were designed to hit targets while moving.
except certain homing torpedos couldnt actually hit an immobile target according to Tom Clancy lol.
Yes, even the old mechanical computers in WWII era ships accounted for the speed & heading of both the BB and the target. Trust the math, and keep moving.
Ryan Szymanski did a video where the USS New Jersey went up against the Graf Spee. Apparently there’s a bunch of stuff that has to happen in order to change the speed . I think he said they had to change the fuel sprayers. The Graf Spee, even though slower, was running marine diesels and was able to out accelerate the Jersey.
The Iowas (and a lot of other warships at the time) had automated methods to come up with a firing solution, and had the ability to lead targets
Yeah but with round travel times so long it becomes almost impossible to hit a target that is moving faster than a large warship. If the pilot of a small boat moves the steering wheel a tiny bit after the shells have been fired, the boat is going to be in a way different area than where the guns were aimed by the time the shells arrive.
Naval gunnery is an advanced math problem. Sitting still or moving at flank the shots are just math problems. sitting still only makes you a bigger target. and WWII naval battles had TONS of direct hits.
The mechanical computers they used always fascinated me.
@@Conman1181 i love old mechanical tech like that. modern electronics are like a little black box of voodoo that pictures come out of. cogs and wheels are just so fascinating to watch the ingenuity
at sea sitting still is still moving relative to the enemy. youre easiest to hit running parallel courses at similar speeds because youre still relative to the other observer
To be fair standing still gave ships the best accuracy, but they are also a sitting duck.
I thought it was obvious that the Iowa was "crossing the T"; maneuvering so that its broadside will face the enemy to give all its main guns clear lines of fire.
Its broadside was exposed from the beginning, and the turn presented its stern to the oncoming. The status bar says "engaging with RGM-109B (Target too close)". It's trying to open range and fire Tomahawks.
IMO the best strategy would be to sail at the maximum traverse of the forward guns so they’re firing “over the shoulder” as it runs away, maximising closure time and so maximising the time it has to shoot at them.
Battleships were like big floating tanks- sure, you could shoot HE rounds at it and hope to damage something, but realistically you need to punch through the armour with an armour-piercing round and destroy what’s inside. HE shells can smash lightly armoured targets like destroyers or light cruisers, but foot-thick armour on a battleship will shrug those off.
Fire Control Systems:
US Navy ships used sophisticated fire control computers like the Mark 1, which calculated the necessary aiming point based on the target's speed, course, and distance, allowing them to fire accurately at moving targets.
Rangekeeping:
Skilled personnel on the ship, known as "rangekeepers," would constantly track the target's position and feed this information into the fire control system to ensure the shells landed where intended.
Limitations:
While capable of hitting moving targets, accuracy decreased significantly if the target was maneuvering rapidly, especially at longer ranges.
Ship types:
Battleships like the Iowa-class were particularly adept at engaging moving targets due to their powerful guns and advanced fire control systems
You want to "run away" / open the range at max speed and at an angle at which you can still fire all your forward guns back "over your shoulder" to maintain your full salvo, but reduce the closure rate as much as possible. Buying you more time to hit them, and making the math on where you need to aim easier, because the relative difference in your speeds is less and effectively making them a slow-moving target. This also forces the torpedo boats to seek a much closer launch point, so their torpedoes have the legs to chase you down, giving you more time to hit the boats before they can launch them. And ideally, if you can visually determine a torpedo boat has been hit and is smoking, or your radar sees their speed drop, you leave it to fire on one that isn't smoking and is still charging full speed, and come back to it later if needed.
With regards to the Harpoons, you send 1, let it hit someone, and then send another, so they are always hitting something at the front of the group, and thus is still a live target.
Excellent answer
There were "torpedo boats" / E-boats in the Federal German Navy (Western Germany's navy) ... from end of 50s until mid 80s. It was the Sea Eagle Class (1959 - 1976), Jaguar Class (1959 - 1976) and the Sable class (1961 - 1984). First armed with unguided torpedoes and the Sable class was in the 70s upgraded with cable guided torpedoes. The later E-boat classes were armed with missles instead of torpedoes. I hope I didn't forget anything or made a mistake with the data ...
Thanks!
@@grimreapers You're welcome 😊
They used the old e-boats post war for SAR and minesweeping duties.
I think survival of the BB in this scenario is the biggest mission goal. Turn and run at flank and you'll out-range those fast boats eventually. Running full-tilt like that gobbles up fuel and they can't operate far from shore. That combined with anti-ship artillery should keep the Iowa safe, unless it gets hit by a torpedo. If that happens, then top speed would drop considerably and make defending the BB much more difficult.
"naval gunnery wasnt designed to hit.. was designed to straddle" Nobody told that to ching lee!
He was a sniper with that 8 inch
there's an inherent inaccuracy... so, you have to fire a lot to guarantee a hit
@@andyf4292 look up fat electricians video to see what i meant. theres an inherent inaccuracy with all systems
You should work with Ryan at the battleship New Jersey channel. I think it would be a cool tie in with an actual Iowa that has a presence on TH-cam. Might even be some overlap in viewership (besides me.)
Me too
Battleship New Jersey museum and memorial is supported by the New Jersey department of state . . .
Roger send him my way please!
Me four! The big question is how well Sea Power AI can operate the BB -- for example, the 5" guns are dual use and specifically meant to take out smaller, faster targets because they can track much faster than the main turrets. AA fire, yes, but also small surface ships that make it past the destroyer screen (as in "torpedo boat destroyer" their full original name).
The United States is really the only NATO nation fully fleshed out in this game so far.
The United States also does not have a lot of shallow water to defend, or that it anticipates operating in. The US Coast Guard handles most of that work, not the US Navy. Therefore, US Navy doctrine back then was all "blue water" operations.
The Soviets on the other hand had several regional potential conflict zones where smaller patrol craft would be useful for anti-submarine or ambush anti-ship tactics, like the Baltic, the Black Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Barents.
The 16 inch MK 13 HC shells had 2" thick walls and nearly 150 lbs of explosive D (ammonium picrate) filler - its roughly a Mk 82 GP bomb in filler size.
Shell splashes were routinely 30 ft in diameter and about 100ft high. The fragmentation alone from near misses would devastate the torpedo boats
Agreed, and the shock wave through the water would do considerable hull damage. Additionally, the torpedo boats would be at great risk of being flipped / capsized by the shell splash and "running into the hole" made by the shell impact. The damage model doesn't cover it.
@@xet1sw156 probably even more devastating would be proximity fused 16 inch shells, as those shells woutonate above the surface of the water and shower a wide area with high velocity fragments, and 16 inch shells can be fitted with proximity fuses.
Thanks for doing my suggestion!
Pleasure
why aren't the 5" 38's engaging?
Never stop moving!!!
Keep up the great videos legend
Those naval guns are more accurate than you think. Radar and computer guided even back in the day.
1:36 Bcs blue side had CVs with torpedo bombers and are focused on a open sea Navi with almost no need for a costal ship of the type due the surplus of ww2 DD to fill the role the exception is Italian navy
The red side has quite a lot I use for this costal vessels due the Baltic Mediterranean and North Sea where they are most useful
Battleship Gunnery is all about doing a lot of math very quickly and guessing where their target will be at the time of arrival of the shell. A very well known example of Battlship Marksmanship is HMS Hood fighting Bismarck & Prinz Eugen, the 5th Salvo from Bismarck penetrated Hoods deck and detonated the Magazine, splitting the ship in half and killing all but 3 Sailors on board instantly. This salvo was fired from 10 miles away. The shells being fired at this range would 'Plunge' from above the ship, negating their thick belt armour and instead, smashing their way through the lightly armoured Deck.
Those 16 inch are not correctly portrayed in sea power. No explosions unless it's a direct hit in sea power. IRL those shells would splinter and wreck the engines of the torpedo boats causing them to explode.
If you watch to the end some of the torpedo boats are damaged from this.
That being said, Sea Power is accurate for armor piercing shells. They only arm after penitration so would explode underwater. The French and the Germans had shells designed to explode to damage ships on near misses, but everyone else used more standard fuses
I love how Cap is voicing doubt right as the 16” guns land a salvo all over one of the torpedo boats!🤣
Cap : " . . . and you can still pummel them with the 16-incher."
You're just showing off now, Cap.
my guess would be that the only areas during the cold war which could have used torpedo boats were the North Sea and the Baltic. The Bundesmarine had torpedo boats to defend against a red landing but that would probably be the only area of operations for these boats in a WW3 scenario
you would zig-zag, for sure!
Enjoyed this one Cap, never a waste of time with Sea Power scenarios.
22:40 re. Zigzagging or not, consider the experience of Taffy 3 destroyer USS Johnston and destroyer escort USS Samuel B Roberts in the battle off Samar, charging toward battleship Yamato & cruisers etc, (“This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can.”) Several accounts of this engagement suggest that one or both captains ordered the helmsmen to steer toward the latest shell splashes, assuming that after each volley the enemy ships were adjusting left or right to correct. This was one of the all-time great naval engagements and would almost certainly be studied in any serious naval war college.
Really enjoyed this scenario. Good work.👌
I think most of those rounds went high was because if the target was a frigate or something they would be right on. The game probably has the math for a ship and is getting confused by the smaller cross section.
Awesome battle! The Iowa is a sheer class act!
What a hilarious idea. Can't wait to see how it turns out. :)
This is a really fun video
"Oh! Crap in a hat" , I never heard that one before. lol!
Nice one Cap 👍
Cap, every time you say "why is it doing that", check the status bar. It tells you exactly what's up 90% of the time. In this case, the Iowa was turning away to open range and fire Tomahawks.
Ahead two thirds away from the threat at an angle to allow the front guns to fire over the shoulder. You would have to do long zig zagz. If they launch go flank and continue because they would have to get closer to hit with Torps. Think a jet running away it reduces your missile range.
I suspect that would need micro-managing by the human.
The U.S. Coast Guard has some gun boats of that speed... but no dedicated torpedo boats. Some Coast Guard boats have torpedo tubes -- but mostly for ASW. The difference between blue water and brown water. If we ever have an opponent close to our shores, I think we can expect the coast guard to be employed. I cannot speak to other NATO countries.
Late WW2 U.S. ships tied fire control to radar.
You zigzag between shots when you see the flash.. the worst possible thing to do is go in a straight line...
seeing the iowa move so fast almost doesnt seem possible
I think NATO doesn't use pure torpedo boats, but many ships have torpedo tubes. Counting on air superiority, they fire their torpedoes by planes and helicopters?
I don't know if this would work or not these days but the American destroyers that went against the Japanese cruisers and battleship chased the water spouts from the big ships guns. The thinking was they'd over compensate wouldn't hit the same spot twice.
For the love of god, I beg you, please make the game audio lower! I can't hear you
The received wisdom about trying to evade torpedoes is to run at a 60 degree angle from the track of the incoming torpedo. That seems to be the best compromise between reducing closure rate and getting off the weapon's track.
I agree, I don't think those shells are modeled right. Not to mention as pointed out in other comments: the range finder would have lead those shots better (so those misses at 20:00 would have probably been dead on).
The other note on that: the attacking captains would have altered their courses more between volleys instead of a straight charge.
Another note is that this is a purely hypothetical situation. Iowa would have never been alone while transiting an area like that.
Personal suggestion: instead of going pure standup and fight or pure run, go at a slight angle (i.e. 30%). It keeps all batteries in arc while drawing out the engagement time. We have a similar tactic in my LARP circles for when you and up fighting with a pole weapon alone: if you can string them along to have to engage in a line you draw out the engagement while bottling them up on top of each other.
Also, the 5"/38 cal secondary guns had an easy range of 10K - 12K yards and could fire at 30 rounds/min per mount. These guns would have been pummeling these boats by the time they were 7-8 miles out and these guns were designed to shoot 200 knot aircraft.
For a challenge use a Gearing, Garcia or Knox class. Or one of the British WW2 destroyers. (C class I think)
Thank you
Also secondary comment most gunnery ships have 2 types of shells minimum which would include an H.E. (high explosive) and an A.P. (armor pirecing) HE would definetly spinlter upon contact with the water where AP would penetrat the water then explode
The Shersehn uses the USET-40 anti-submarine torpedo, which makes it completely useless in this scenario as it is not dual purpose.
During the Cold War the U.S. navy was focused on the “blue water navy” and torpedo boats are not ocean going vessels. They deployed torpedoes off aircraft with carriers.
I ran some gun battles with the few ships I could find that aren't bristling with missiles. The Russian Sverdlov vs the American Gearing FRAM-II is pretty good, with the range going to Sverdlov's 152mm and accuracy going to Gearing's 5-inch guns. I also found that 6 Sverdlovs match up pretty well against 1 Iowa.
The torpedo defences on an Iowa-class are the best that were available at the time. It's all passive, built around void spaces the flooding of which would be acceptable in the short term. This is, of course, defence against a torpedo that is trying to hit the target directly.
Modern torpedoes detonate beneath a ship's keel. I don't know which type is on board those torpedo boats . . .
The TDS of the Iowas was sub par by WW2 battleship standards, and the SD class was even worse !
@niclasjohansson4333 😱😱😱
A technique that can be used with the 16" guns only is to run at max speed, doing swerves when the forward turrets are loaded and you can fire 'Over the Shoulder', maximizing both your damage and your survival potential
Hi cap...Iowa class have torpedo bulges that protect the hull, old school torpedoes used contact or magnetic detonators that hit the bulge and exploded harmlessly...
Not harmlessly - they'd still cause a fair bit damage, but much less than they would without the bulges.
Torpedoes have always been something battleships are worried about, hence adding torpedo defense bulges.
Cap, WW2 naval gunnery was designed to hit a ship. It did it by purposely firing the 9 shells to land in roughly a 100 yard wide by 200 yard long oval. This dispersion gave the best chance of accounting for target movement and errors in calculation. Most capital ships like battleships and heavy cruisers were armored to shake off near misses and splinter damage. Only direct hits had a chance of taking them down. In a situation like this with targets moving at you in a straight line, at a consistent speed, and within radar range you have the best chance for naval gunnery to work. That kind of target is pretty easy for the calculations since there are few changining variables.
When they go crazy Cap. Pause, right click the ship or in the menu hit cease fire, go to the navigation tab remove waypoint then place the new waypoint and then unpause. Then you can assign fires or go back to weapons free. It works 98% of the time for me
You can take control of the ship with WASD. Thanks for your videos!
Here's some research on torpedo/missile boats and my own observations thrown in Cap; I hope it serves as interesting material!
First, the U.S. Navy generally stopped using torpedo boats after World War II because they were primarily vulnerable to air attacks but also some other more modern threats like long-range ASMs. It always goes back to US doctrine, where the carrier air wing was used for offensive capability and gave them a huge amount of range advantage over most enemy ships. Meanwhile, any potential US torpedo boat really wouldn't get too close to a Soviet boat/ship, never making it within range to fire the torpedoes under normal scenarios. The fact the Soviets still had them is more telling in my opinion, as they were likely very desperate if they found themselves deploying those against US naval forces, and it would also mean there likely wasn't a US carrier involved, and there would also likely have to be some significant terrain advantages to even make it remotely possible to launch an attach (being able to hide their presence and launching an attack at a natural choke point). This is also pretty much the same reason the USN didn't use missile boats, as the carrier air wing would always provide them with more reach than any missile boat could, plus the missile boat would carry Harpoons and be outranged by the equivalent Soviet missile boats or missile ships.
However, I believe there could be a case to reintroduce missile boats into the current US Navy fleet. One of the major considerations for the USN in present-day is making more use of a "distributed fleet" approach, where they have fewer large ships carrying 100+ VLS cells and attempt to spread out that capacity to larger quantities of ships. This is due to a fear where China shocks the world and proves they managed to create an effective weapon capable of hitting a moving carrier, cruiser, or Burke destroyer at short to intermediate ballistic missile ranges. If that were the case, the USN losses for just one ship could be truly damaging.
As the USN considers the potential for a more distributed approach, one effort in response to this is the Constellation-class frigates, while another is the small, medium, and large unmanned surface vessels. Currently, the medium unmanned surface vessel is likely going to be dedicated to ISR, sensors, radar, and generally serving as the additional eyes/ears/sonar for the fleet as a whole, wherever needed. I believe the small unmanned class will be used in miscellaneous specialized roles, such as mine-sweeping, mine-laying, perhaps deep-infiltration of sensor platforms, or as launch platforms for other unmanned vehicles in the air, on the water surface, and submersibles; launching and recovering these units while being controlled from distance. The plan for the large unmanned surface vessel is to stick a bunch of modified containers onto it, each modified to hold 4 Mk 41 VLS cells, with the idea of having approximately 4 to 8 containers per vessel at 16 to 32 extra VLS cells for a relatively cheap vessel that, if lost, won't be a huge blow to the USN.
However, I'm more interested in a potential offshoot of these unmanned surface vessels. I'm imagining a second series of small, medium, large, and XL-sized optionally manned surface vessels. The current unmanned vessel program is based on commercial off-the-shelf ship designs modified for USN use. This second series I'd love to explore would be a more bespoke design and sort of be seen as the "enhanced" or "2nd generation" of USN unmanned vessels once the bugs are worked out with the first-gen. The first change would be enhancing survivability by making each design as stealthy as possible within a reasonable budget constraint, limiting IR emissions, and lower silhouettes against the horizon than existing boats/ships. The primary difference is that these boats would have the general stations and equipment needed for some of them to be manned (medium and up; small would only be unmanned), but most would operate as unmanned under normal operating conditions, so the "core crew" operating this group of vessels would consist of the people needed to control various unmanned platforms during the deployment while also being able to maintain various systems if there were any maintenance or breakdowns. They would operate in small surface group swarms, and one of the medium-sized "ISR/sensor/radar" boats would act as a crewed command and control vessel and operate very similarly as the current 6th generation fighter aircraft + collaborative combat aircraft (loyal wingman program) works, except with boats. This means that the C&C boat would be working in the rear and furthest away from potential enemy fire.
The small and medium variants would generally fulfill the same mission sets. The small would come equipped with at least a few long-range air-based recon drones and also likely a towed sonar array plus mine-sweeping underwater drones. Each of the boats would have the capability to launch tethered communications/ISR drones, which would allow for better over-the-horizon detection via sensors, and although I imagine most comms between boats would be via satellite relay, a secondary feature would be expanded comms range using the elevated tethered drones to communicate between unmanned vessels in the group.
For armament, the small/medium/large/XL unmanned vessels would all have a base amount of stealthy design characteristics to operate within the group (can't have one sticking out more than the others), plus core USN systems (off-the-shelf) for electronic warfare and decoys/countermeasures, the XM913 50mm autocannon comes standard on each vessel, which is normally hidden underneath a stealthy cover rather than just being out there and all bulky. It would have the recently announced dual-feed munitions system and be loaded with the XM1204 High Explosive Air Bursting Tracer and XM1203 Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot Tracer for anti-drone and anti-surface threats. The medium, large, and XL unmanned vessels would also add a SeaRAM launcher, as that provides it with it's own self-contained SAM defense with all required functionality and sensors within one package.
The large and XL-sized boats would be the actual missile boats, and these would comprise the bulk of each deployed group. In addition to the 50mm autocannon and SeaRAM launcher, these would be equipped with the relatively new Adaptive Deck Launcher (ADL), which is a "bolt-on" Mk 41 VLS compatible missile launcher angled at about 45 degrees with capacity for 4 missiles that fit within standard Mk 41 VLS cells; these would be underneath another shell to enhance the general stealth profile of the boats. Each boat could hold at least 8 missiles (one ADL on each side of the boat, pointing offset to the left and right of the boat's centerline, much like the torpedo launchers within the video). The XL sub-model would be the same essential design, but it would add about 25% additional length to allow for another ADL to be added on each side, behind the first two. This results in a large unmanned missile boat with the capacity for 8x: Tomahawk Block V's (anti-ship or anti-land), 8x Naval Strike Missiles, 8x JASSM-ER, or 8x LRASM (those are all certified for Mk 41 VLS launches). For the XL version of the missile boat, you would increase the capacity to 16x any of those aforementioned missiles per boat.
For a really rough size, the ADL appears to be 8 meters in length, so the overall size of the large unmanned surface vessel utilizing those would likely be smaller than the Cyclone-class patrol ship, which was 330 tons and 55 meters in length. As far as an approximation to the general design language/layout, please look at the Chinese Type 22 missile boat (220 tons, 43 meters). Man, I would absolutely love to work with a Sea Power or DCS modder and create this ship with them to see how it performs. :)
Is it possible to do a free for all, every ship fighting every other ship?
Right. Next question then, how many torpedo boats does it take to overwhelm an Iowa or a Tico?
FWIW, Cap, the Iowa-class carried at least two different types of shell for the 16" guns : high-explosive and armour-piercing.
I'd assume that you'd load armour-piercing rounds when you're expecting to score direct hits.
BTW, get that rate of fire! IIUC, a really good Iowa gun crew could fire a salvo of three every 35 seconds or so. But they wouldn't be able to keep that rate of fire up for very long. Partly because the intense activity quickly tires the crew, and partly because each set of three rounds is a little bit farther from the shell hoists. Once you've fired all the shells that were closest to the shell hoists, the crews have to travel a greater distance to bring the next round to the hoist. It may only be a foot and a half farther each time; but it still takes time. And the same applies to the bags of powder in the powder magazine (though these, being lighter than a 16" shell, could be sped up by the application of more manpower).
My thought on what a large ship would do against smaller faster aggressors is circle the advancing force, making the smaller ships use more fuel by making them arc. As they get closer, the larger ship's gun would become more effective. You can't outrun the smaller force so running is not likely best and stopping doesn't help in any way. Keep moving and circle. Don't become a sitting duck.
Check out the story of the uss Washington in ww2 its gunnery tactics and lessons were before the time of the Iowa and so accurate its captain could often aim for bridges and funnels. These lessons eventually spread to the Iowa class who also got some of the first ballistic calculators.
In Cold Waters, TASMs have a min range of 8 000 yards, which is just under 4nmi. Assuming Cold Waters is accurate, you should’ve been able to launched your TASMs. There might be some other mechanic preventing your TASM launch. Maybe you were outfitted with TLAMs?
I checked and it's 27 miles in game.
@grimreapers I guess that’s the game mechanic. I’m not sure if that’s true to life. On another note, Cap, how are you finding Sea Power as compared to DCS? Have you received any feedback as to which is more realistic? The ship-borne defences in DCS (SMs, CWIS, etc) seem to be more accurate against incoming targets.
Sweden ran torpedo boats throughout the 20th century. For the complicated archipelagos around Stockholm and Gothenburg, it's a natural continuation of cannon boats. The complicated seaways lend themselves to fast and agile ways of defending. The torpedo boats where mostly around 40m long did around 40kn, the newer ones possibly faster. Some of them would later be converted to guided missile boats using RBS-15 . A re-use of some of the technical design would become the Stockholm class of corvettes, also with RBS-15.
I think you can still ride the HMS Ystad as moving museum, if you're not afraid of losing your hearing. Those gas turbines are LOUD.
Boats of this size are plentiful, and I suppose the developers only had time for some of them. But they were workhorses of many a navy, and not just red ones.
The Bundesmarine (West German Navy) had Speed Boats for example the Albatros Class which were equipped with two 533mm Torpedos and four Exocet Rockets in the 1970s to the 1980s.
Not sure if the Stilettos design flaws were the reason we didn’t use boats like this or not. But its design caused some type of corrosion from the salt water on the metals or plastics they used
You should do Gearing vrs Torpedo boats next. Old school ww2 destroyer with the same guns as Iowa's secondaries
Also what I would do is put the torpedo boats in groups of four to make it eaiser to place a bunch.
Now do an Iowa with an escort group. Tico and a couple destroyers. Hostile destroyers leading a swarm?
those boats are insanely small, imagine how many hits you would've gotten if they were destroyer! the iowa did good for the size of the targets
Regarding the Iowa class and torpedo boats.
Point #1: The battleship should always be moving against smaller enemy boats (particularly torpedo boats).
Even the systems used on the Iowa's during their original WWII era configuration were intelligent enough to calculate the constant aim point for each barrel, so they were definitely good enough to do so after the modernization program, meaning the ship should be just as accurate while moving at flank speed compared to it not moving at all. In addition, the ship only has two real defenses against torpedoes: general movement to make it a more difficult target to hit in regards to the torpedoes firing solution and any sensors the torpedoes may have (wake homing or wire guidance) and speed, where the Iowa would be at flank speed to create as much distance as possible to run the incoming torpedoes out of energy/range. All of these factors combined point to Iowa's needing to move as fast as possible for maximum effectiveness.
Point # 2: I believe SP models some damage for indirect fire (it's unclear how it models it right now, as some ships within the front of the push had many shells land really close, up to 10+, without slowing down, while it appears one close shell slowed down other targets). However, based on reality, the Iowa's would have fired HE shells and set them to explode in an airburst at an appropriate height above the water. Also, for the 5" guns, I believe they could have also used proximity fuses against the boats, just as they would against aircraft.
This would achieve the most damage against personnel and targets with little to no steel armor like the torpedo boats and should have absolutely shredded the boats in this attack. This can definitely be improved within SP, but the game is relatively early in its development when you compare its current state to the "ideal" level of functionality and features included, which will take several more years of development. Per Wikipedia: "For unarmored targets and shore bombardment, the 1,900 lb (862 kg) Mk. 13 HC (high capacity-referring to the large bursting charge) shell was available. The Mk. 13 shell would create a crater 50 feet (15 m) wide and 20 feet (6 m) deep upon impact and detonation and could defoliate trees 400 yards (360 m) from the point of impact."
Point #3: I think the best defensive movement for the torpedo boats would be constant changes in direction and even speed potentially, plus spreading out. If you combine the amazing power of the air-bursting shells above and then read the amazing fire control systems below, the boats would have to create space between themselves so only one would be taken out or damaged per every potential shell landing within a few hundred meters. Then, with the amazing fire control details below, staying on a constant heading and speed would be an absolute death wish. I believe the 16" and 5" guns on the Iowa were noticeably more accurate in the real world than the impacts depicted in SP, at least for boats depicted in this scenario, going in a straight line at constant speed. For those reasons, I imagine a zig-zag pattern with variable timing between each zig and zag would be their best chance, but still like 1 in a thousand to get to firing range when modeled properly.
Point #4: The Iowa's had really impressive fire control and aiming systems even in WWII, so I can only imagine this was improved significantly during the modernization (as depicted in SP) too. Here are some excerpts regarding their original capabilities from Wikipedia:
The early main battery fire control consisted of the Fire Control Tower, two Mark 38 Gun Fire Control Systems (GFCS), and fire control equipment located in two of the three turrets. As modernized in the 1980s, each turret carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, the improvements created the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made.
The major components of the Mk 38 Gun Fire Control System (GFCS) were the Director, Plotting Room, and interconnecting data transmission equipment.
The forward Mk 38 Director was situated on top of the fire control tower, equipped with Mark 45 Rangefinder optical sights, and a Mark 13 Fire Control Radar antenna. The purpose of the Director was to track the target's present bearing and range; done electronically with the radar (preferred) or optically by the men inside using the sights and Rangefinder. The present position of the target was called the Line-Of-Sight and it was continuously sent down to the Mk 8 Rangekeeper by Synchro transmitters.
The forward main battery plotting room housed the forward system's Mark 8 Rangekeeper, Mark 41 Stable Vertical, Mk13 FC Radar controls and displays, Parallax Correctors, Fire Control Switchboard, battle telephone switchboard, battery status indicators, assistant Gunnery Officers, and Fire Control Technicians. The Mk 8 Rangekeeper was an electromechanical analog computer whose function was to continuously calculate the gun's bearing and elevation, Line-Of-Fire, to hit a future position of the target. It did this by automatically receiving information from the director (LOS), the FC Radar (range), the ship's gyrocompass (true ship's course), the ship's Pitometer log (ship's speed), the Stable Vertical (ship's roll and pitch), and the ship's anemometer (relative wind speed and direction). Before the surface action started, the FTs made manual inputs for the average initial velocity of the projectiles fired out of the battery's gun barrels and air density. The Rangekeeper calculated the relative motion between "OWN SHIP" and "TARGET".
It then could calculate an offset angle and change of range between the target's present position (LOS) and future position at the end of the projectile's time of flight. To this bearing and range offset, it added corrections for gravity, wind, Magnus effect of the spinning projectile, earth's curvature, and Coriolis effect. The Mk 41 continuously measured the angles between the deck and the horizontal plane. These deck angles were continuously transmitted to the Rangekeeper so that it could keep the guns correctly elevated as the ship rolled and pitched. The Mk 41 could be enabled to automatically fire the guns whenever the ship's deck was parallel to the horizontal plane.
An interesting scenario might be to run a situation where you have tankers/cargo ships moving with torpedo boats hugging the side opposite a blue fleet, then have them head in at 2-3 miles, fire torpedoes, then move to hide behind shipping again. Blue's job is not destroy the shipping but get the torpedo boats.
I have no idea how to model that in Sea Power. Might need a human opponent?
Also, click on the ship onscreen and it will follow whether its visible to your side or not.
SM-1 also has a surface mode
Torpedo boats are very limited in range and do not handle rough seas. Second Torpedoes have a very limited range, the harpoon was specifically designed to kill these boats. Remember the US never fight without air cover and air launched surface search radar, either an E2 hawkeye or Seahawk S-60. This gives you an extended range detection. That gives you a lot of capacity to use their hapoons.
It is a strange one that so many western nations gave up on fast attack craft after the second world war. Scandinavia still carries on building some. The Pegasus was a failure in its designated role but made a great anti-smuggling boat! Be great to get hold of someone like Drachinifel to tell us why. There were (are?) HE rounds for the 16" guns. I wonder if they can be fused for airburst? Be like cluster bombs going off.
Probably admirals prefered blue water ships. Pegasus were a bit niche and quite expensive for limited versatility. Would have been good maybe for a med navy with a req for fast attack.
Many things go boom, bang, boom, boom, bang.
Originally, DDs were called, torpedo boats as they carrier torpedos, then they became multi use for ASW and escort and eventually graduated into their own designation. This is what i can remember so do not quote me on it.
What we know as modern Destroyers were originally called Torpedo Boat Destoyers. With the idea that they would destroy torpedo boats. (Duh) and were intended to escort battleships and protect them from torpedo boats.
Eventually they evolved beyond the escort role. With Destroyer Escorts (small) Destroyers (medium) and Destroyer Leaders (often light cruisers or big destroyers)
This is pretty much my go-to tactic with winning engagements in Ultimate Admiral early game...the AI never can seem to deal with my TB Zerg swarms, nor can the game seem to either; haven't seen 60 fps in a fight in so long.
The Iowa's did have an Analogue Fire Control Computer which alledgidly guaranteed a first or second salvo hit
Ships are dynamically stabile. Stopping to fire is a very bad idea. Just sit there and move with the water. Much more control when moving. Much steadier when moving. Never stop - Especially when there's potentially incoming fire and you have to get all that weight moving .
Last one I promise... Press f10, go to tools, click control ai and then you can take each one to target the one ship via the map. That will sort the control issue and make them all go for it at the same time.
i dont recall if its in sea power, but does iowa have her towed torpedo decoy?
Stand aside, I'm comin through.
destroyers are called that because they were meant to destroy torpedo boats, they were called Torpedo Boat Destroyer and were battleship escorts, the term was later changed to just "destroyers" because the boats turned to submarines and missiles appeared
you should try this with 2 destroyers instead of 1 cruiser
I think those Tomahawks were designed for land attack. I don’t think they were anti-ship that’s why they put the harpoons on them back then.
I believe you can set different vessels to go the same speed via the formation editor if they are in a formation together. I am not sure if you can set this for enemy AI vessels, but I know it is a feature for the player controlled formations.
I think moving away at speed while limiting the number of guns that could fire would have increased accuracy because it woukd have slowed the target speed relative to firing position .
Britain had torpedo boats until the 1970s with the Brave and Dark Class boats
Traditionally the 5" guns would be used to go after gunboats/torpedo boats.
wow the tico is good. where does the perception that it doesnt have ASW capability come from? people seriously think the US navy would build a cruiser that cant kill ships?
Pretty much anything that can fire SM-1 or SM-2 can kill ships easily at 15 miles.
I think those Tomahawks were designed for land attack. I don’t think they were anti-ship that’s why they put the harpoons on them back then. Plus you have multiple 5 inch guns that’s why they were on there for any aircraft and Andy ship rolls
In confused. At 22:00, why aren’t the 5” guns opening up. You’re at their extreme range.
5 inch may get a few boats but they allready have launched torps by then
Cap. Delete will remove waypoints. You can alao click and drag existing waypoints.
Also, idk about in game, but in real life Battleships were more accurate at low speed. Theyd usually go ahead slow for naval bombardment and around 16 knots for surface to surface.
Finally the main guns would be horriblly ineffectice against torpedo boats. The main guns are designed to explode after penitrating. Meaning they only explode under water if they miss. So no shrapnel. The 5 inch guns and escorts would have the job of dealing with torpedo boats
Thanks
The naval guns are radar controlled, it doesn't matter if your moving at 35 knots or sitting still or the target is moving 50 knots or sitting still. The gun accuracy will not change. Also you give the attacker a better torpedo calculation. Most Russian torpedos are wake homing.
25:27 The biggest captain of all times!
The US discontinued all their PT boats at the end of WW 2 around 1945 . They where all wooden and it was cheeper to strip and demolish them .
Denmark had torpedo boats, or actually torpedo-missile boats, until year 2000, called the "Willemoes-klassen".
1 x 76 mm canon
2 x stinger missiles
8 x RGM 84 harpoons
4 x 553 mm torpedoes
But it could also be used as a minelayer 😂 very versatile, and very fast 💪🤯
the shells have a little bit more HE than a mk81 bomb,, and the fuse on them, theyd go off under the water surface