Around 1.15 miles. But since nearly everything is given in nautical miles it doesn't matter since nm is used as the common unit and the player doesn't need an idea about how long it is. Your comment didn't said anything against it tho i'm just adding this.
@sunnyjim1355 Well this will your feelings but for quickest and ease of weapon calculation when I was in the Navy it was dumbed down to 2000 yards because in combat dealing with snap shots with torpedoes we didn't have time to be that exact.
@@jab2505 That is incorrect. A Nautical Mile was meant to be the distance of one degree minute of latitude of the Earth's circumference, but even that is only a rough 'rule of thumb', as such can vary across the Earth (because it's not actually perfectly spherical). The evolution of the concept on the 'nautical mile' is actually really complex, and took centuries to define to a specific length. Today, it is official defined as 1nm = 2025.37 yards. That's not 2000.
@@Harte74 @sunnyjim1355 Mathematically, you are correct but, still for practical purposes, please share with me and the rest of the class your ASW training and expertise and which command you were with?
I wish there was a dynamic damage model that simulated the survivability of the ships. I long for the day a naval game has realistic damage and sinking models.
The game is pretty early access and does have a (admittedly slightly limited currently) damage control menu and system. Its possibly they will expand that in the future. Part of the problem though is most of the weapons in this game are able to kill or disable a ship in a single hit
Same. Cold waters (same dev) never did that and I always wish it did. Even something basic like what Star Wars Empire at war did with broken up ships would be cool
You forgot to tell that RBU sometimes can take out enemy torpedo coming at you. It is not very reliable, but as a weapon of the last chance it can save your ship from time to time.
I wish you covered aircraft carried weapons (bombs, rocket pods, etc). From one video I saw that there was problem with target selection regarding weapons (Ie rocket pods wont target tanks?)
Thanks! A question about the formation editor. Can I add planes to the formation? It would be great to add an E-2 Hawkeye to the formation to make sure it follows it and not to have to relocate it manually to follow the formation. If you can, is it also possible to detach it from the formation? For example you might have a Combat Air Patrol in a formation but when you spot enemy planes, detach it to attack them.
Having played a lot Harpoon in the 90's I'm very interested by this game. Having watched a few youtube videos about it, I wonder if the AA ship defence is correct. I mean when I played Harpoon, I knew that it took a lot of AS4 Kitchen to have a chance to brake though an air carrier defence shield. In my memory it took about 2 to 3 AA missiles to take off an incoming one more or less. But in Harpoon, fleet defence was good as long as you had missiles available AND the attacker did not saturate defence with a swarm of AS missiles (which of course is the searched goal for attacking bombers). In this game, it seems that even with only 16 AS4 you brake a whole carrier fleet defence wall. And it seems that the ciws phalanx system is not very good at the kill ratio chance. I speak for standard attacking pattern missiles, not low profile ones shot by submarines, that are more difficult to intercept (from memory). Of course assuming that the air defence radars and fleet positionning are set correctly. If this early game isn't accurate on that, I guess I will wait for corrections and updates, but already it seems to have a great potential. Let's play RED STORM RISING :) Could anyone tell me more if the interception seems realistic or not ?
Harpoon did go a little bit further into late cold war and beyond, with later VLS-equipped Ticonderogas and Arleigh Burkes, and that does make quite a difference in anti-missile volume against saturation attacks. Makes sense from a gameplay perspective, given the Soviet side doctrine essentially has this one trick, and that still needs the advantage of early detection to work, where the US/NATO side typically has the advantage.
@@Stealth17Gaming I know. That is my point. :P You are saying "CWIS" ("seewis") - that is, "CWIS". ;) For example in the Electronic Warfare Tutorial (as I was just watching that one and saw another example) at 4:10. This happens across the spectrum where these systems are referred - not only you, not only in a gaming context. People know it is "Close In Weapon System", and even those that do write the initialism correctly tend to _say_ "CWIS". I suspect "seewis" is easier to say than "siws" or "kiws" to most people.
@@Stealth17Gaming Le sigh, I note that the joke is taking a ballistic trajectory here... I haven't said people don't say see-whiz. I've said people say see-whiz. You telling me people say see-whiz makes no sense as a retort to me saying people say see-whiz. I just said it is funny, given how it turns the the initialism "CIWS" (where the C is for "Close", a hard K ) into the spoken "CWIS" (where the C is soft, like "slose?" and injects an I between the W and the S.). So the way people say it turns "Close In Weapon System into "Slose Weapon In System". But nevermind. Carry on.
@@NonameEthereal A reason might be the multinational nature of NATO, for example in german the letters 'e' and 'i' basically have their phonetics flipped compared to english. For a german speaker, the 'CI' combination would very naturally go with 'see-' or 'zee-', and the 'whiz' for 'WS' comes fairly naturally as well. My french is a bit rusty, but I think the same holds true there.
I thought the phoenixes were SARH on initial launch then have a terminal phase where they go active. Taking advantage of the tomcats TWS radar suite. I could be mistaken though. Nvm I’m a dummy made my comment too soon. I see it now
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that certain aircraft were actually used to shoot down missiles like cruise missiles. While not their primary role, I think AIM 7 Sparrows could be used to intercept anti-ship missiles and cruise missile just their success rate might be questionable.
I'm pretty sure you're right. A good radar can detect objects much smaller than a large anti-ship or cruise missile. If a Sparrow or an AMRAAM can hit a light aircraft (which it can), then it should definitely be able to hit a missile.
@@johnnyenglish583 Cruise missiles, probably. Proper antiship missiles, however, will usually either be flying high and fast where it's difficult to actually engage them or slow, but sea-skimming, where it's difficult for radar to see them and for missiles to hit them. Smaller antiship missiles tend to do the latter while larger ones (like a Shipwreck/Granit) tend to do the former, unless it's an SS-N-3 (in which case it's an older design) or a Tomahawk (in which case it's a cruise missile LARPing as an AShM). The reason ship-based SAMs work better against these is because the missile is in all cases moving either directly or almost directly towards their launchers, because the high-and-fast ones have to descend from high altitude since ships are neither high or fast, and presumably because the ship-based radars are generally more capable than an aircraft-mounted radar (on account of not having nearly the same space restrictions) and are located much closer to the surface than an aerial radar generally would be. Modern AShMs of the 'high and fast' variety (such as a BrahMos) might actually be fast enough to outrun some AAMs in a straight line, although Cold War-era ones (which were generally Soviet, although a Talos missile being used in its secondary AShM role would arguably fit this description) topped out at Mach 3 or so. But yeah, I suppose if you've managed to actually find the AShMs, lock onto them, are heading directly towards them (if they're the 'high and fast' type) and get lucky then you might maybe be able to hit them with an AAM. 'Might' being the operative word. People who know more about the specifics of this feel free to correct me.
@@removed7331yes, I tried that in U-boat but not really successful. I am happy either way, would just be good to know but I guess I will find out this weekend when I finally get to play!
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
![⭐️( ลอยกระทง 2024 ) Ver. แดนซ์ Remix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rMWOLhgXUHc/mqdefault.jpg)
There's actually quite a difference between miles and nautical miles.
Around 1.15 miles. But since nearly everything is given in nautical miles it doesn't matter since nm is used as the common unit and the player doesn't need an idea about how long it is. Your comment didn't said anything against it tho i'm just adding this.
A nautical mile is 2000 yards 1.151
@sunnyjim1355 Well this will your feelings but for quickest and ease of weapon calculation when I was in the Navy it was dumbed down to 2000 yards because in combat dealing with snap shots with torpedoes we didn't have time to be that exact.
@@jab2505 That is incorrect. A Nautical Mile was meant to be the distance of one degree minute of latitude of the Earth's circumference, but even that is only a rough 'rule of thumb', as such can vary across the Earth (because it's not actually perfectly spherical). The evolution of the concept on the 'nautical mile' is actually really complex, and took centuries to define to a specific length. Today, it is official defined as 1nm = 2025.37 yards. That's not 2000.
@@Harte74 @sunnyjim1355 Mathematically, you are correct but, still for practical purposes, please share with me and the rest of the class your ASW training and expertise and which command you were with?
Thank you a lot I am right now watching all of your tutorials to not be sniped away from 200miles.
*VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE*
Thanks for showing us the formation editor. It's very nice to have that as an option.
Very excite to give this a go as cold waters was fantastic
I wish there was a dynamic damage model that simulated the survivability of the ships. I long for the day a naval game has realistic damage and sinking models.
The game is pretty early access and does have a (admittedly slightly limited currently) damage control menu and system. Its possibly they will expand that in the future. Part of the problem though is most of the weapons in this game are able to kill or disable a ship in a single hit
I have no idea about survivability of the ships. Is War Thudner at least close?
Same. Cold waters (same dev) never did that and I always wish it did. Even something basic like what Star Wars Empire at war did with broken up ships would be cool
You forgot to tell that RBU sometimes can take out enemy torpedo coming at you. It is not very reliable, but as a weapon of the last chance it can save your ship from time to time.
I actually have quite a good luck with them, 50% of the time I destroy the torp
The AIM54 was specifically designed to work withe the APG of the F14. It was one system from the drawing board. This is the raison d etre of the F14
and the missile says "okay goodbye"
idk why but that had me rolling on the floor 😭
The RBU can be used to intercept torpedoes, so I think they're quite powerful. That means only Russians can hard-kill an incoming torpedo.
Great video. Thorough, informative, entertaining and easy to follow
Thanks!
I believe you can also use the RBU launchers to destroy incoming torpedoes if they're detected.
I wish you covered aircraft carried weapons (bombs, rocket pods, etc). From one video I saw that there was problem with target selection regarding weapons (Ie rocket pods wont target tanks?)
sadly u can't control the seeker placement. Like f.e. in DW. That is something that I wished for making waypoints for missiles for optimal enagement
Thanks! A question about the formation editor. Can I add planes to the formation? It would be great to add an E-2 Hawkeye to the formation to make sure it follows it and not to have to relocate it manually to follow the formation. If you can, is it also possible to detach it from the formation? For example you might have a Combat Air Patrol in a formation but when you spot enemy planes, detach it to attack them.
Right click. Formation. Join formation. Leaving formation is in the same menu
@Stealth17Gaming brilliant, thanks!
CVN-69 is in this SAG, NICE!
Why cant tomcats attack anti ship missles? I thought in real life they had the ability to target anti ship missles.
IIRC they did in a video by Wolfpack 345 called “Dance of the Vampires”
From what I've seen, you can do it with the Tomcats, but I've only seen it with AIM-7s and AIM-9s.
Phoenix was literally made to shoot down soviet bombers / ASMs those bombers carried. Weird.
Was waiting for the release of this game, but the $70 price tag. Brings me to just watching it on youtube lol
Same. I was thinking it was going to be around $40 at most.
@@removed7331 Might be regional pricing, it is €44 over here with the 10% launch discount.
RBU-6000/RBU-1000 was anti-torpedo weapon.
Having played a lot Harpoon in the 90's I'm very interested by this game. Having watched a few youtube videos about it, I wonder if the AA ship defence is correct. I mean when I played Harpoon, I knew that it took a lot of AS4 Kitchen to have a chance to brake though an air carrier defence shield. In my memory it took about 2 to 3 AA missiles to take off an incoming one more or less.
But in Harpoon, fleet defence was good as long as you had missiles available AND the attacker did not saturate defence with a swarm of AS missiles (which of course is the searched goal for attacking bombers).
In this game, it seems that even with only 16 AS4 you brake a whole carrier fleet defence wall. And it seems that the ciws phalanx system is not very good at the kill ratio chance.
I speak for standard attacking pattern missiles, not low profile ones shot by submarines, that are more difficult to intercept (from memory).
Of course assuming that the air defence radars and fleet positionning are set correctly.
If this early game isn't accurate on that, I guess I will wait for corrections and updates, but already it seems to have a great potential. Let's play RED STORM RISING :)
Could anyone tell me more if the interception seems realistic or not ?
Harpoon did go a little bit further into late cold war and beyond, with later VLS-equipped Ticonderogas and Arleigh Burkes, and that does make quite a difference in anti-missile volume against saturation attacks.
Makes sense from a gameplay perspective, given the Soviet side doctrine essentially has this one trick, and that still needs the advantage of early detection to work, where the US/NATO side typically has the advantage.
RBU-6000 can also intercept torpedoes
I do like how half the world has decided to go "CWIS" for "Close In Weapon System"... :D
It's CIWS, not CWIS.
@@Stealth17Gaming I know. That is my point. :P
You are saying "CWIS" ("seewis") - that is, "CWIS". ;) For example in the Electronic Warfare Tutorial (as I was just watching that one and saw another example) at 4:10.
This happens across the spectrum where these systems are referred - not only you, not only in a gaming context. People know it is "Close In Weapon System", and even those that do write the initialism correctly tend to _say_ "CWIS". I suspect "seewis" is easier to say than "siws" or "kiws" to most people.
@NonameEthereal I think it's just you then. Even Wikipedia has the phonetic description as see-whiz
@@Stealth17Gaming Le sigh, I note that the joke is taking a ballistic trajectory here...
I haven't said people don't say see-whiz. I've said people say see-whiz. You telling me people say see-whiz makes no sense as a retort to me saying people say see-whiz.
I just said it is funny, given how it turns the the initialism "CIWS" (where the C is for "Close", a hard K ) into the spoken "CWIS" (where the C is soft, like "slose?" and injects an I between the W and the S.). So the way people say it turns "Close In Weapon System into "Slose Weapon In System".
But nevermind. Carry on.
@@NonameEthereal A reason might be the multinational nature of NATO, for example in german the letters 'e' and 'i' basically have their phonetics flipped compared to english.
For a german speaker, the 'CI' combination would very naturally go with 'see-' or 'zee-', and the 'whiz' for 'WS' comes fairly naturally as well. My french is a bit rusty, but I think the same holds true there.
I thought the phoenixes were SARH on initial launch then have a terminal phase where they go active. Taking advantage of the tomcats TWS radar suite. I could be mistaken though.
Nvm I’m a dummy made my comment too soon. I see it now
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that certain aircraft were actually used to shoot down missiles like cruise missiles. While not their primary role, I think AIM 7 Sparrows could be used to intercept anti-ship missiles and cruise missile just their success rate might be questionable.
I'm pretty sure you're right. A good radar can detect objects much smaller than a large anti-ship or cruise missile. If a Sparrow or an AMRAAM can hit a light aircraft (which it can), then it should definitely be able to hit a missile.
@@johnnyenglish583 Cruise missiles, probably. Proper antiship missiles, however, will usually either be flying high and fast where it's difficult to actually engage them or slow, but sea-skimming, where it's difficult for radar to see them and for missiles to hit them. Smaller antiship missiles tend to do the latter while larger ones (like a Shipwreck/Granit) tend to do the former, unless it's an SS-N-3 (in which case it's an older design) or a Tomahawk (in which case it's a cruise missile LARPing as an AShM). The reason ship-based SAMs work better against these is because the missile is in all cases moving either directly or almost directly towards their launchers, because the high-and-fast ones have to descend from high altitude since ships are neither high or fast, and presumably because the ship-based radars are generally more capable than an aircraft-mounted radar (on account of not having nearly the same space restrictions) and are located much closer to the surface than an aerial radar generally would be.
Modern AShMs of the 'high and fast' variety (such as a BrahMos) might actually be fast enough to outrun some AAMs in a straight line, although Cold War-era ones (which were generally Soviet, although a Talos missile being used in its secondary AShM role would arguably fit this description) topped out at Mach 3 or so.
But yeah, I suppose if you've managed to actually find the AShMs, lock onto them, are heading directly towards them (if they're the 'high and fast' type) and get lucky then you might maybe be able to hit them with an AAM. 'Might' being the operative word. People who know more about the specifics of this feel free to correct me.
Why can’t the f-14s fight enemy ASMs? That’s kind of the whole point in the tomcats
Aim9l Warhead size: KG
But how many kilos?
So, no ground launchers?
BOOO! F-14 With NO Phoenix?! J/K This game looks AMAZING!
phoenix is in game
Can someone explain to me what the green/blue and red circles mean on the SM2? Red means air to air but the other two?
Gettin jealous over ere, when are they releasing this thing.
It just released today
you're in luck
Eeexcellent, thanks guys.
Are left right clicks fixed or are they reversed for left handed people?
you could probably remap it in your mouse settings or in game.
@@removed7331yes, I tried that in U-boat but not really successful. I am happy either way, would just be good to know but I guess I will find out this weekend when I finally get to play!
submarine tutorial ?
Hello 🤗