1990's Re-fitted Iowa Battleships vs Kirov Battlecruisers (Naval Battle 64) | DCS
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 07. 2024
- 0:00 Intro
0:49 Details
3:18 Predictions
4:45 Considerations & Trial Run
14:29 Battle #1 (4 vs 4)
28:38 Drag Race
32:24 Battle #2 (4 vs 4)
41:44 Broadside
Battleship Fight Vid 1: • Can A WWII Battleship ...
Battleship Fight Vid 2: • REMATCH! Can A WWII Ba...
Battleship Fight Vid 3: • Could A WWII Battleshi...
Battleship Fight Vid 4: • 1990's Re-fitted Iowa ...
Master Sheet: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Mods Used: • WWII: US, British, Ger...
Playlist: • Naval Battles
SPONSORS
Winwing: www.wwsimstore.com/STORE
Winwing USA: fox2.wwsimstore.com/STORE
Sponsor Reviews: • Sponsor Reviews
USEFUL LINKS
GRIM REAPERS(CZcams): / @grimreapers
GRIM REAPERS 2(CZcams): / @grimreapers2
GRIM REAPERS(Odysee): odysee.com/$/invite/@grimreap...
GR PODCASTS: anchor.fm/grim-reapers
DCS TUTORIALS: / @grimreapers
DCS BUYERS GUIDE: • DCS World Module Quick...
DCS OFFICIAL SITE: www.digitalcombatsimulator.co...
ONE TO ONE LESSONS: grimreapers.net/one-to-one-le...
DONATE/SUPPORT GRIM REAPERS
MERCHANDISE: www.redbubble.com/people/grme...
PATREON monthly donations: / grimreapers
PAYPAL one-off donations: www.paypal.me/GrimReapersDona...
SOCIAL MEDIA
WEBSITE: grimreapers.net/
STREAM(Cap): / grimreaperscap
STREAMS(Other Members): grimreapers.net/gr-twitch/
FACEBOOK: / grimreapersgroup
TWITTER: / grimreapers_
DISCORD(DCS & IL-2): / discord (16+ age limit)
DISCORD(TFA Arma): discordapp.com/invite/MSYJxbM (16+ age limit)
OTHER
CAP'S X-56 HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.com/open?id=1g7o...
CAP'S WINWING HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.com/drive/folder...
THANK YOU TO: Mission Makers, Admin, Staff, Helpers, Donators & Viewers(without which, this could not happen) xx
#DCSQuestioned #GRNavalBattle #DCSNavalBattle #Iowa #Battleship #Kirov #GR #DCSWorld #Aviation #AviationGaming #FlightSimulators #Military - Hry
czcams.com/video/sv1RTFzJuYM/video.html
here CAP this is a video by world of warships not by me this gives specs about the Iowa, but it will talk like it's from the 1940s, but it's all 90's era love the video also an Iowa class BB was almost hit by a anti shipping missile during the 1991 golf war.
thx czcams.com/video/5AS6AlAcyJQ/video.html
If Iowa got hit by the missile it would of survived anyway
I'm pretty sure the missile that almost hit the Iowa was an old SY-1 Styx anyway. I was in the USN back in the Cold War. We always used to joke that if one of our Iowas were ever hit by a Russian missile, the announcement would be, "Men, man your brooms" - just to sweep the missile debris away. Or it was a joke about scratching the paint. No one was afraid of getting slammed with a Shipwreck or a Sunburn (or other ridiculously large Russian missile) because the cheap and expendible Perry class frigates would absorb them - even if they had to literally put the ship between the incoming missile and more valuable ships.
In any event, the battleship was not in any real danger. Unfortunately there likely would've been some casualties and a fire caused by unspent missile fuel igniting when the warhead detonated. Whether even a Shipwreck or a Sunburn would've truly penetrated the armor of an Iowa battleship is something we'll never know for sure. Games can try to model it, but I'm just not convinced a game can model all the various weird things that can happen in the real world to thwart even the best designers. I do know that video games are both generous and forgiving to the losing side. Ships that are sinking, ablaze from bow to stern, with all of its superstructure flattened - will still be firing all of its weapons since games never model an "abandon ship" order that would've come long before a ship actually sinks.
@@grimreapers sorry forgot about that video well see you next time
@@hannable70 that could possible happen if one of those F off missiles hit the ship but i would fell much safer on a battleship the a CV do to most modern carriers have 4 inches of steel vs the Iowa's 12+ inches it would result in many deaths but it may stay in the fight longer do to sheer bulk do to older BB survived nukes or took 5+ hours to sink but who knows because we never will do to all battleships are permanently decommissioned and are just for display and to learn.
The USS Wisconsin I was part of the turret 3 crew that holds the record for 50 rounds of 16 inch rounds in 30 minutes.
Awesome! What was it like serving on a legendary battleship?
@@zachboyd4749 REALLY LOUD!
I mean REALLY REALLY loud, at least for those 30 minutes.
Literally had the Robin williams "JUST PLAY IT LOUD OK!?" from Good morning Vietnam radio broadcast.
Great question btw, too. (no I didn't serve on one, just another BB geek).
Holy moly that is insane!
The Phalanx Deckloader System (PDS) is a compact, high density rapid replenisher designed specifically to reload the Phalanx CIWS. The PDS allows total turnaround of the Phalanx CIWS replenishment in less than 4 minutes with only a crew of two.
thx
yea the CIWS should be able to be reloaded, the Iowas have a massive reserve bouyancy and could carry a massive number of rounds for the CIWS guns and they carried a lot of 5" shells.
I'm not familiar with it but I assume it's similar to the reloader for the GAU on the A10...uses the gun drive to reload from a matching unit..true?
@@semajniffirg230 they had ready ammo right next to tge CIWS, at least on New Jersey, and then more in magazines.
@@BlackHawkBallistic yea I know and it only takes a few min to reload, you open a door, basically stick the belt into the feeder and hold a button and let it suck the belt in the gun. It's supposed to take 2 guys a few minutes. Even training new guys it only takes about 10 minutes.
Re the Iowa's turning circle. That class has 4 prop shafts with 17 1/2 foot diameter props where the Kirov only has two shafts; not sure of the prop diameter. If the Iowa went ahead on two screws and astern on two; she would turn very quickly, quite possibly faster than the two screw Kirov. Great vid guys.
Number of screws doesn't matter..its only about total thrust, both in forward and reverse, at what point you have cavitation issues, and the resistance of the hull to be driven/pulled sideways through the water. Using the props forward/reverse to turn a ship is giving you a turning point somewhere in the middle of the ship.
In addition there are the mechanical limitations of how fast you can be spinning a prop before changing the rotation.
@@duanesamuelson2256 The number of screws do matter because of weight. As well her screws are another form of redundancy if her rudders get destroyed. She can basically turn without the use of rudders moderately. The youtube channel BattleshipNewJersey explains this and how it operates and works. They are also a very Factual and reliable channel because... they Own the battleship itself since that is the museums CZcams channel. There are only 2 Screws thats almost in the middle of the ship. and 2 more Aft where the twin rudders are located. All of them can be used to turn the ship moderately fast. Although it will turn faster with the help of the two rudders. which are located behind each of the aft screws.
@@duanesamuelson2256 also pls check out the channel. it's a good youtube channel. an i think you will like it.
@@duanesamuelson2256 The number of screws does matter as this type would not be possible on a single screwed ship. It also matters if the Kirov had two 17 foot diameter propellers versus the Iowas four 17 foot diameter propellers. Also the displacement of the vessel would have an effect. The point is that it is a multiple shafted vessel. Its not about the number of screws but the fact that drag or reverse thrust on one side can be increased by the a multi shafted vessel. There are many factors involved, not least of which is the diameter and design of the propellers. It is also about the spacing between the shafts and the propeller pitch which will have a direct result on the cavitation. Whether the shafts can be reversed in good time or not is relevant but not the be all and end all. By keeping one or two or ten screws going full ahead on the port side, while increasing drag and reducing thrust on the starboard side will result in a reduction of forward momentum but will have the result in increasing the rate of turn to starboard.
The Iowas could actually out-turn their Fletcher class destroyer escorts.
The missiles hitting the "dead" ships is definitely a DCS thing, but so is the "dead ship" concept. A ship isn't dead when it's health gets depleted, it takes damage and systems get knocked out until either the ship sinks or retreats. The short version is in reality, sinking a ship isn't as black and white as DCS renders it.
Missiles will attack whatever they lock on to. It doesn't "know" the target is "dead"
i think harpoons and shipwrecks can change directions in mid flight if they are still wirely controlled to the ship radar
@@airshark2764 LOLZ - You might be able to give them new targets, but I'm pretty sure
neither of those missiles is wire-guided OR linked to its ships radar.
Interestingly USS New Jersey was fitted with three Mark 56 GFCS during Vietnam, that were removed during the 80's modernization.
The Mark 56 integrated and could concentrate the 5" guns of the secondary battery on a single airborne target.
It was capable of automatic tracking, bearing elevation and range with target solution time of less then 2 seconds from target acquisition to salvo firing. The whole system could be controlled below deck (behind the armor belt/deck) and likely would have provided near immunity to antiship missiles during this simulation.
Pretty sure the 5" guns on Iowa are dual purpose guns and are built to fire at airborn targets (and were proven to consistently be able to shoot down aircraft at 13,000 feet )so they should be opening up ahead of the CIWS and the upgrade package also included the addition of FIM-92 stinger missile systems if I am not mistaken which should be able to lock and track the granit
They weren't integrated into the CIWS radar and I doubt that the system they were on could even see the ASMs. The 5' was designed to counter aircraft (much like the stinger) and not projectiles. Since the Iowa was never meant to sail by herself, they only gave her the bare minimum for missile defense.
Pretty sure the Stinger wouldn't stand a chance in hell of intercepting a missile.
The Mk1A had a gear change to allow targeting of targets traveling up to 1200kt, and they were using VT fuzes all the way to the end. The 5"/38 would have made short work of a shipwreck.
@@FlyingWithSpurts Yep, especially with so many 5" guns on each side.
@@AB-sg3wi did the Iowa's loose their air search radar capability during their Vietnam or 80's refit? I would imagine they could track a missile with it if they didn't.
Fun fact: in this context, "50 caliber" (note: not ".50 caliber") means that the Iowa's 16-inch guns have bores that are 50 calibers long: that is, 50 x 16 inches or 800 inches (about 67 feet).
And the secondary batteries were 5"/ 38.
Thanks for the explanation. I was going to look it up after the video, but now I don't need to.
@twatts45 the confusion comes from rifle/pistol terminations. Caliber in small arms has come to mean the bore diameter rather than length of barrel in relation to bore.
While I can't find the history of this change I assume small arms started using Caliber incorrectly and became adopted by common usage.
In the 16th century it referred to social standing and similar(still a meaning today like she does high caliber work).
@@duanesamuelson2256 I assume it probably they did it just to shorten the terminology. Especially after the proliferation of metallic cartridges. If someone had a .22 inch/24 caliber gun that could mean many different chamberings obviously. This obviously just an assumption though. I also realized after writing this that it would likely not be 24 "calibers long", but would actually be like 100 calibers long if I understand how a caliber is measured. From what I could tell it's bore diameter x caliber = barrel length. So a .22inch/100 caliber would have a 22 inch barrel? If so maybe that's why they changed it for small arms. I will be done rambling now. Interesting stuff though
@twatts45 .22 bore 100 caliber would be a 2.2 inch barrel if written the same as cannons.
Iowas are realistic. Iowas can turn inside a destroyer. She has twin rudders and come 180 in 5 minutes.
At which speed?
She can do this at an around 11-16 knots depending on how tight she wants the circle
@@TheSilverwolf1001 True. At 30 kts, she can come 180 in 87 seconds. At 5 kts, she wallows like a beached freighter.
Seems to me a 16" shell hitting on the forward deck of the Kirov would take out any weapons system located there?
I don’t think a Kirov could withstand more than 2x 16” shells. Kirovs are only 28 kT and have paper-thin armor relative to big old battle wagons like New Jersey…
Kirov Class may well be cut in half to be honest.
if 1 shipwreck hit the barbette irl, that whole battleship will turn to a giant firework explosions hence why they stopped building BBs these days.
It definitely would have sunk it in one hit.
Yeah....16" HE shells create a 50' radius 20' deep crater. The AP shells punch through 30' of reinforced concrete. If that round that hit the bow area of the Kirov had been AP, it would have blown right through that hull and if ordinance had been in the way...BOOM! It that round was HE it still would have wrecked the bow and probably set off the forward ordinance. Kirovs have crap armor.
Caps commentary is always a blast. Like football only with guns and passion
Don't care if Cap's is commentating a warzone, rugby or the grass grow. I'd watch it.
A “guns” ship needs to turn inside itself for maneuvering to get the guns on target. It’s realistic that it would turn that quickly. Additionally, the game doesn’t model chaff to distract missiles or other defenses. Remember, the BB would NEVER be alone under any circumstances. It’s meant to operate as part of a task force.
I'd like to imagine the Iowas were blasting Thunderstruck to disorient the Kirovs
"The thunder of guns
Tore me apart
You've been
Thunderstruck"
"Yeah, yeah, yeah, thunderstruck" !
@@forMacguyver Hammer of god bouta come down...
imagine if Kirov actually fired all 20 Granits like its actual Naval Strategy.
@@Shaquiifa imagine if the Iowa had her escorts with her. It's almost as if this Sim isn't that realistic.
My brother was assigned to the Marine Detachment on the Iowa when the Navy brought it out of mothballs; when I was at Quantico and he was home-ported in Norfolk, I went down to see him and he gave me a two-hour grand tour of the battleship. Amazing. He said that when they fired all nine 16-inch guns at once at a target directly to port or starboard, it pushed the ship four feet sideways through the water.
The MarDet was responsible for running one of the 5"/38 mounts at general quarters. Their turret was right below the flag bridge. The Marines sneaked out one night and painted the turret in green, brown, and black forest camo. When the ship's captain got to the bridge and to his regular seat, he looked down and saw it. He cracked up, then sent someone to tell the CO of the MarDet that the captain wanted the pleasure of his company on the bridge. When the MarDet CO reported to him (he had not known about the plan, and this was when he found out the turret had been repainted), the captain told him it was the funniest thing he'd seen in years and had made his day. He asked the Marine CO to give the captain's compliments to his Marines, and then genially told him that turret WOULD be haze gray again before the sun went down if the MarDet knew what was good for them.
Nice! And Yut! Contrary to belief the military is generally accepting of harmless things like that, at least if they’re reasonable things, that are also funny. To an extent. I was about 20 yrs, or a little less later than your brother in The Corps. Our CO, when in Iraq, said off hand he wished we had some trees and shade, around our HQ building on base, that same night, everyone we could spare had picks and shovels, trucks and hungers to pull trailer, way more than we were assigned, and we did a raid on the base, we carefully dug up 20 something palm trees, loaded them by hand, onto trailers, hauled them to our HQ building, and planted them all, before he showed up at 0500. All the trees but lived through the transplant. It was hilarious, watching him walk up some, then stopping a couple hundred yards short and just staring for a few seconds. Then shaking his head, walking in, he mentioned it, and said he didn’t want to know, you’d be surprised what a few hundred Marines can do in a handful of hours. And yes our CO was that awesome and loved that about 200 guys would give up their sleep, to do that, while deployed, even about a 1/3 of our officers got involved and ran shovels and picks and helped load them and all that. It’s a rare time you see up to majors running pick axes and shovels, unless we are all fucked, or it’s something like that.
I love stories like that! Only the Marines! lol
@@darrellseike3185 ahaha, for sure. Not even you’re trees are safe, of our CO desires them, if he’s an epic Marine and CO, and loved, we’ll do silly shit like that, just to get what he mentioned off hand.
I heard all MarDet’s on all Iowas in WW2,Korea,and the 80’s had big marine corps symbols on the sides of their gun mounts
Imagine if the Iowa got another modernisation today
It would be awesome
@@coldfork4235ruining the legacy of a legend is not what I would consider great . Modern air power would decimate any battleship .
@@Dr.Westside
You incorrectly assume that an Iowa class battleship, refitted, would be even remotely more vulnerable than any surface ship in the Navy.
It would not.
Now if you could get the 5-inch guns to work on those Iowa's in conjunction with the 16 inchers, that would be one massive slug fest against a Kirov or any other fleet
Let alone to be able to use them as flak against the missiles. Wouldnt be a guarantee but its better than letting them be idle
This was awesome. Maybe do it where is a 1990s Surface Action Group vs a Kirov Surface Group. I think that would be a more interesting test.
Honestly, it would come down to escorts. The Iowa would need more protective escorts so it can get into guns range, whilst the Kirov will need more offensive escorts to overwhelm the US battlegroup.
I remember as a kid, getting a couple binders of a late 80s magazine on all things military. One magazine focused on the Iowa and its refit, awesome! Worthy of note is a USMC officer did a case study on how useful a modernized Iowa would be for NGFS, and how it outshines every alternative.
What is NGFS?
@@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL Naval gunfire support, I just googled it. Iowa is old but gold in that category.
@@totalnerd5674 Cheers man
@@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL Thanks, you too
Yes nothing can put more tons down range then one of these. nearly every round is like a ton and the rate of fire is 2 rounds per min soo that is 18ish tons a min. not counting the 5in.
"you gotta give it to Damp. He's taking 27 sixteen inchers at once."
lol he loves that.
Their was this girl on base that did also.
Yeah, that acceleration of the Kirov in this game isn’t realistic at all, the Iowa, much more realistic. And yeah, she can turn super fast with 4 props and 2 rudders. She’s made to maneuver, can run two backwards and two forward, depending on speed.
The reason why is that her main priority was to gun down Japanese Cruisers and the Kongo Class Ex-Battlecruisers, which were known for their fast speed and tight turns, so comparative, she needed to have Battleship Grade Guns and Armor, while having Battlecruiser-like Handling
Looks like the Americans did a Great job at that
The Kirov is in dry-dock right now. Check it out, the Admiral Nakhimov. They built a new ship basically, except it holds the pool with a waterfall believe it or not as it did before.
Now that we have the refit Iowa, let's re do the US Carrier group vs Russian and add the Iowa!!!
@SubtoPolecat324 In every one of his battle the formations charge each other for some reason. An iowa would have WON the US/UK vs Ru/Ch carriers group battle.
That's got my vote.
I agree a 90’s US carrier group versus 90s Soviet carrier group would be a fun match to see. Both surface fleets at the height of the Cold War.
@SubtoPolecat324 If you think about it, the BB's as part of a Carrier Battle Group would make them immense missile attractors, either by size(60K tons displacement and a huge radar signature), or by missile threat prioritization based on programmed threat recognition software in the missiles. IE very expensive missile decoys, but also VERY handy to around when it gets to knife-fighting range(sub 20 miles).
@SubtoPolecat324 the last time they ran this sim. it came down to close combat when the missiles ran out. Keep the Battleship in the rear by a little ways let it merged into the fleet when the missiles run dry. Firing long range at first then full speed to close in.
Engineer here. One thing about the nuclear reactors on the Kirov, a hit or even a near miss from the 16 inch guns from a battleship would cause the reactor to scram. Which would cause the Kirov to have to stop and switch to conventional oil power. That would slow her down significantly due to poor quality oil in the Soviet union at the time. Great video guys.
There’s a lot of in inaccuracies on DCS part regarding the Iowa but the main one is how DCS is an HP pool game meaning missile hits you lose HP no matter where the missile hits you’ll still lose HP. For instance if a missile hit the bow it wouldn’t do as much damage as if the missile hit through the citadel or even a magazine. The game does not render a Citadel or any of the battleships damage control systems. DCS doesn’t have the various types of shells that The iowa could fire in this game. Still a very entertaining video.
Rather poor sim considering the Iowas were deprived of their 5" AA fire and chaff dispensers. But the accel and maneuvering was spot on. Nuclear reactor means basically unlimited steam for the turbines where boilers have to ramp up slowly to full power so they don't collapse the steam bubble.
P.S. The Iowa turrets turn way too fast.
I noticed that too. But was also missing was the six 5" guns per side. Those would cause A LOT of damage at such close range rather quickly.
Also ECM. To affect the Shipwrecks and the Kirov fire control radars.
Reactors also do not like the ship shaking when they get hit.
Correct me if I'm wrong but p700 missiles can't penetrate iowas belt or turret, Iowa has an "all or nothing" armor scheme so kirov can't actually kill an Iowa but a mission kill is possible.
@@Tuck-Shop everyone says that but we honestly don't know how modern Top Secret military reactors tolerate shock, because they're Top Secret. For all we know that problem was solved decades ago.
Why aren't the 5 inch dual purpose guns not firing barrage at missile altitude
My question exactly. They are dual purpose and if the ship can see the missiles they can be directed against them.
They weren't integrated into the CIWS radar and I doubt that the system they were on could even see the ASMs. The 5' was designed to counter aircraft and not projectiles. Since the Iowa was never meant to sail by herself, they only gave her the bare minimum for missile defense.
@Chandler White this is wrong, the 5" 38's could move pretty quick and target fast aircraft, and they had the capability right up until the end.
@@semajniffirg230 Yeah, they were found to be excellent aa escorts for carrier groups, and there was one instance where the North Carolina was firing their 5” guns so fast other sailors from different ships thought she was on fire from a kamikaze crash.
@@semajniffirg230 they could track ww2 planes at 600 kilometers per hour not missiles at 1800. if we are realists the CIW
was far too effective and the granit did not do ani defense maneuver and yes they do defensive maneuvers
Admiral Cunningham once said "the correct range for any ship of the Mediterranean Fleet, from Battleship to Submarine, to engage the enemy ship is point blank, at which range even a gunnery officer cannot miss." He would have been very proud of that final broadside
Small note: Turrets on American BBs are not called "Anton", "Bruno", etc. They are numbered based of position. So, the furthest forward turret would be Turret 1.
ok
My father served on the Iowa during WW II. Acceleration according to him was about 10-15 minutes to get to top speed
thx
@@grimreapers czcams.com/video/i43WNXnlGMs/video.html
I've always believed that modern carrier groups should include one Battleship for carrier defense and close in and far distance shelling. Nobody is going to pull up on a Battleship. I know Russia had great or better gun defense systems, but they pale in comparison to the broadside power of several thousand pounds of shelling in one Salvo.
UNLESS ONE SINGLE HYPERSONIC "CARRIER GROUP" KILLER MISSILE APPEARS ON THE HORIZON and then in that case ALL ships within the blast radius are SUNK without the Carrier group or its battleships and other boats getting a single shot off, even from their MG's it would be over before they even seen it or registered it on their radars. _ Z _
A Kirovs Mach 10 Hypersonic with 400kg warhead has 2.5x more kinetic energy than an Iowas 1200kg 16 inch shell, the Hypersonic missiles are orders of magnitude more destructive, travel further and have better accuracy, there is no comparison
@@kymsheba LOL. This is not 2018....US Navy is not AFRAID of Hypersonic Missiles DUDE, . When Russia used a couple on Ukraine US was able to TRACK THEM on RADAR. They are not suppose to be TRACKABLE.........🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. And you have no FRIGGING clue what The US has up its sleeves.........
@@willwozniak2826 lol another USA dreamer who can't accept that their dominance is OVER simple fact, and your military IS VERY AFRAID OF HYPERSONIC technology as their is NO DEFENCE lol little boy needs to learn some real life lessons lol - Z -
@@martinpalmer6203 Missile tech and defense change frequently but guns are always going to deal damage.
obviously at 20 miles the Iowa would crush any ship other than Yamato, but the main disadvantage is that modern ships vastly outrageous the iowa's guns
They would kill the yamato too, perhaps not quickly but they would certainly win that fight.
In battleship vs battleship combat whoever gets the first hit is usually who will win that advantage goes to British and American ships due to radar fire control but this is also a downside. There was a time the South Dakota couldn't fire due to electrical failures. So it doesn't make them invincible
@@seskorirkeashimrui3556 The thing about the SoDak, is it was a flaw of the class compounded by entirely wrong action to correct by its chief engineer(Massachusetts had the same issue on its first engagement in the Mediterranean but her chief engineer took the right action to correct it)
The Iowas didn't have this problem. They were a total improvement over anything that came before them. That said, no ship is invincible, but we can confidently give a strong edge in an Iowa vs Yamato fight to Iowa.
@@seskorirkeashimrui3556 this isn't a bb v bb fight, this is a guided missle cruiser whose armor is not getting hit vs a battleship whose armor is actual steel. 406mm shells are much faster than any missle. and the South Dakota's electrical problems were caused by a design issue with that class, not the Iowas.
@@twinkyoctopus I know what this fight is I'm just bringing up that in a Iowa vs Yamato I'd give the Iowa the better chance of winning thanks to a better fire control system. It simply has a better chance of landing a hit.
One thing that would have been awesome: using the Iowa's 5 inch battery with flak shells to complement the CIWS. They *are* dual-purpose guns and were used quite often for anti-air defense in WWII. Since the incoming Shipwreks would have a predictable flight path, it's possible a good radar track could give those guns a firing solution at range. Doubt that was actually a thing, though.
The Iowas have other guns. They have 12x5 inch guns which can fill the air with shrapnel to defend against missiles. The plan was to lay a cloud of airburst shrapnel with these guns in the case of a saturation missile attack. Individually the guns are mot accurate, but with 6 guns active against a single attack trajectory, collectively they would be nearly impenetrable.
They could be usable gun wise, fire control, not so.
That last one was BRUTAL. Predictable, but amusing regardless.
It's funny to think that IRL the kirov would fire nuclear tipped missiles and the Iowa nuclear shell's, would be kinda cool if we could get those in the game.
They did make 200 nuclear shells for the iowas but decided that would be too much and destroyed all but 1. The remaining one is decommissioned and in a museum
Also the hilarious part, do a Kirov, with its fleet, following only the orders of the Kirov, as they would in real life, with soviet doctrine, providing the Kirov actually works and is close to combat ready, ahaha! Against and Iowa class surface action group, with realistic, far more flexible orders, and ships and systems that actually function as intended, and all of them are working. Both sides have awacs, then let’s see who wins, every single time, I’ll let you take a guess, their plan would have to been nuking it, as they could never hope to stop that SAG, let alone a full up CVBGN.
very easily who would win EVERYTIME is the Russia group as they have HYPERSONIC MISSILES and "CARRIER GROUP" HYPERSONIC MISSILES. GAME OVER BEFORE USA SHIPS COULD RESPOND .... FACT (as stated by the USA themselves hence the concern USA have NO DEFENCE against HYPERSONIC MISSILES BOTH CONVENTIONAL AND NUCLEAR)
In any realistic scenario wherein Iowa would have to face the Kirov both the Iowa's tomahawks and Kirovs Granit's would have Nuclear Warheads anyway.
Yet the iowas can withstand a nuclear attack to an extent
iowa as part of a battle group with aegis destroyers for missile defence and the 16 inchers smashing out lead would be amazing.
As far as tactics, i would definitely try to get as close to the kirovs as fast as possible - just slight zig zagging or a formation of 3 iowas all providing alternate coverage for each other.
Even with just the forward turrets working the improved accuracy would help
Just wanna say the rotation speed of Iowa's heavy guns in completely unrealistic. In reality the guns rotate at 4 degrees per second meaning it would take 20-25 seconds for them to get on-target in the last scenario.
check your stats.
Make it more realistic; Pit them hundreds of kilometers away, or at least 80km away. Both are guided missile vessels anyway, they also should be able to use helicopters for beyond the horizon reconnaisance.
I've been watching this channel for years now. I'm still not exactly sure why it's so wildly entertaining. Pretty sure it's Cap's color commentary.
lols
Those 16s shells can fire over the horizon.
“Rupaul”.
definitely one of my best CZcams channel..
Might be interesting to have two surface groups. US group with 1x Iowa class, 1x Ticonderoga cruiser, 2x Perry frigates vs equivalent Russian surface force with Kirov as the flagship.
The Iowa had radar guided corrections on the 16’s - was that modeled correctly?
they fire one barrel then make corrections before the other two go - well before the first shell hits
You could stagger the 3 turrets to drive any ship dodging into the three shells from the other turrets
You would dodge one salvo and have the next salvo into where you dodge
I don't think so.
@@grimreapers Judging by the results of the 1st part of the Video , I'm going to say the game doesn't have that Modification.......When the company I retired from was doing a coating development for the Tomahawk guiding system(to keep the boards from oxidizing in salt air conditions) one of our "off topic" conversations was about 16inch guns vs Tomahawk, "Verbatim" "@ 20 mile target range, it takes a tomahawk roughly 5 sec to hit it's target, the 16in/50cal takes up to 1.5min for the MK8APC round(2700lbs) and 1.25min for the MK13HC round(1900lbs) , but keep in mind that for every 4 tomahawks fired from VLS the Iowa can fire 9 rounds , in practicality, it goes like this. Fire Tomahawk, train the 16's on said target, Tomahawk is neutralized by target ,1'st 16 inch round fired with Tomahawk will over shoot target, recalculate as tomahawk is Neutralized ,next two shells, one will hit one will miss, reevaluate firing solution , last 6 of a 9 round salvo will have a better accuracy rate then Chip Lohmiller(Kicker for the Washington Redskins 1988-1994.....71.4 % for the record)" .....In real world conditions the shells used against the Kirov Battlecruisers would be Mk13HC, the MK8APC would go just poke holes in the Russian ship. The MK13HC round was used to create helicopter landing sites in Vietnam , upon impact it would create a 50 wide by 20 ft deep impact crater and clear out a 200 sq yard area(15m x 6 x 167 sq meter) in the 1st salvo against the "Kirov Battlecruiser" at least 4 of the last 9 rounds fired will hit it, , the "Kirov" class , will not survive taken 4 rounds of the MK13HC rounds, if one round were to hit the "kirov" in it's forward VLS .......Game over , @ 15 mile target range one well placed 5/38cal AAC Mark 56 or RAP Mark 57 would penetrate VLS blast doors and detonate missiles in the launcher......all this can only happen if the "Iowa" class defenses are not penetrated.....judging by the recent actions" Moskva" . My money is on "Chip Lohmiller" accuracy
Wow! That one was really exciting! I never would have predicted that outcome. I commend your great teamwork guys.
Love these videos Cap, been rather ill of late and they are a little something for me to look forward to watching during the day. Keep it up guys !!
The Iowas were designed in WW2 to be fast BBs to provide AAA support for the fast carrier groups of the day. They were also designed to turn on a dime to avoid Kamikaze attacks or at least get into position to bring their 80-40 mm and 49-20 mm cannons to bear. That was a fun sim today. Thanks for the great content.
turning on a dime is relative for a ship over 800 feet long. A long hullform allows for a more hydrodynamic shape resulting in higher speeds, but it also reduces turning radius.
Iowa was designed sometime in the Late 1939-Early 1940, with the Escalator Clause of the London Treaty, she could only have a max standard tonnage of 45,000 Tons, with guns no larger than 406mm(16-Inches)
Her Primary(Intended)role was to gun down the IJN Heavy Cruisers and Kongo-Battlecruisers when designed, so she needed the Speed and Maneuverability of a Battlecruiser at least, and be some 30+ Knots to make sure they stay in gun range, while having the Armor to withstand shells from guns up to 406mm(16-inches), unfortunately she needed to be constrained in Draft & Width to fit Panama, which the class Barely could, so she was restricted to a 310mm(12.1-Inch) Main Belt, but was designed to make sure the hits were less severe to the hull, allowing the designers to achieve their goal armor-wisely
Her Construction was approved in 1941 with 2 ships in the works(Iowa & New Jersey) by the time Pearl Harbor rolled along, after that, and the Essex Class being Prioritized, needed Battleships with large deck space for Anti-Air roles and to keep up with the Carriers 32.5 knot speed, which the Iowa could easily do with their Speed of 33 Knots average(NJ setting the speed record for a Battleship at I think 36 knots for 18 hours straight)
The Width being 108ft wide meant she had ample space for AAA across the Deck, but also restricted it as well since the Ship(of all the ships above 50,000 tons) is the thinnest of the bunch
Since the Ships had Great Speed(32.5 knots at 63,000 tons is Damn Scary) and can turn on a dime, as well as the 4 Shaft, 2 Rudder setup, she had one of the best Rudder authority for any ship(Rivaling that of the Bismarck Class), the Ship Designers would be proud of their baby performing up to the task
Sadly the Carrier Age had begun and so was relegated to Fast & Fucking Heavy AAA Escorts for Carriers, a role where the Iowa’s would perform with flying colors, able to dish the highest amount of weight in AAA fire not counting the AAA shells of the 16 inch guns for any battleship of that time, while maintaining Fast & Nimble
I rate this video 10/10 on the abundance of Cap screams alone. Never change guys! Also love seeing you guys so bold and fearless with the political simulations. A win for free speech in my book!
This is so fascinating. I find myself pausing often and rewinding to catch every detail.
That was really exciting to watch Cap, You should do more of these with different ships. Plus your Sea battles are always my Favorite to watch.
yes Sir
Cap, Turret 3 is not Dora Turret. That's turret 4, and the US didn't use that naming convention, anyway, that was the Germans. Anton, Bruno, Caesar, and Dora. The US just numbered them.
The US called them Alpha, Bravo and Charlie from the military phonetic alphabet. The older battleships with four turrets also called it’s furthest aft turret “Delta”
@@jamesmarciel5237 they also referred to them turrets 1-4, as evidenced by the official USS Iowa turret explosion report referring to "Turret II."
In any case, the third turret is never "Dora" or "Delta" or any other D designator.
That was the names given to Bismarck’s guns. Also this proves what the Brits found out with Prince of Wales and Repulse. Battleships should go nowhere on their own. Make it more, give them escorts
The Brits called their turrets A,B,X and Y and on the WW1 Dreadnoughts it was A,B,Q,X,Y
@Chandler White I'm aware. I'm referring to a situation where there would be a "Dora" turret, meaning four turrets.
Further evidence that usable ship-mounted railguns will be OP. Can defend and shoot down missiles ... not going to shoot down a railgun projectile
That was a fun watch. Thanks Cap and GR team.
For those who do not know this, yesterday was the 38th anniversary of the re-commissioning of the USS IOWA, April 27th.
Each Iowa class battleship, adjusted for inflation, would cost ~ 2 billion dollars in 2022 dollars. None are in service.
Each Khirov cost somewhere around 1.8 billion dollars. Only 1 is in active service and one is being upgraded.
Good show to all involved. Cap with excellent commentary as always 👏
Wow... thats big $$
Still half the price of the zumwalt a who arnt even armed with the intended weapons since they costed too much
The thing about the Iowa class that this simulation didn't take into account, is the armored belt.. It's a really cool system. The armored belt is so thick and angular, protecting all the vital parts of the ship. The whole ship can crumble around it, and it'll keep the ship afloat and in most circumstances, the guns above water.. That thing is built to fight and survive. I still think they're viable today for sure.. Also, the reloads on the aux guns are not nearly as long. Their missile compliment in the 80s configuration was pretty lackluster, since they have those 16in guns, they were still betting on those, and for good reason. That's one hell of an impact. I think the results would be different positively if the field was spread significantly, such as, Iowa operating that close to each other would be to their detriment. (they'd become a bigger target) We don't know what their formation would be since you never saw more than one Iowa in a conflict, but if they did tag team, they'd probably be spread by at least a mile, which would significantly broaden their ability to defend from the missiles. The angles of attack with the 16 inchers would have been pretty varied and hard to mitigate with movement. If they were working in tandem they could do things like painting an area of affect, so the could lob 16 inchers and saturate the target area. 9 guns are scary af, 36 guns would be suicide. Missiles or no, you can't shoot down a solid flying car coming at you, let alone 36 of them. Not to mention besides the anti missile systems on display, they'd be dropping ir smoke, AA guns would be able to engage missiles as needed, and the Iowa classes fire crews were superb. So if you did get explosions and penetration, there'd be crew on hand to mitigate the damage in real-time.
The sim was pretty excellent, and you guys sounded like you were having a blast! Keep it up! I wish there was a way to enhance the programming of the ships easily to take those things into account. The tactics alone would be really hard for an ai to reproduce, let alone a person not trained in those tactics. (There are so few alive today that have that knowledge) I love the Iowa class so much.. I've been studying them for a few years now, and they marvel me. So many interlaced systems, offsets, planned failures to protect vital systems. The whole thing is a miracle. Above all that though, is that they built a platform that could run at cruiser speeds, with cruiser mobility (for the most part) that had that much deck space, carried those kinds of weaponry, and had the armored belt to mitigate devastating attacks. No wonder it was the flagship for so many battles. Not to mention, the ship built in 1943 stayed quite relevant into the 1990's, when it's expected service life was 20 years. They fought in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf war, and many other skirmishes. I think with some minor retrofitting, those things would be scarier today than the bulk of ships in the water! People in the naval community chuckle at the idea of an Iowa duking it out in the 21st century, but I beg to differ. I think with some modernizing and a really good well trained crew, those ships could be just as deadly today as they were in the 40's. I mean, think about it. All that deck space. All that room on board that was used for an insane number of AA and conventional guns in her original configuration. The already established operating areas for their launchers and CIWS systems (2 port, 2 starboard) the triple 16in modules, the insane number of rounds they had at their disposal. The different kinds of 16 inch munitions we could make today to do insane things. Take her, upgrade and retrofit her, give her a battlegroup full of other mitigating ships with more targeted defensive weaponry, and the radar they have today along with her spotting helicopters from her flight deck in the rear, and you're talking a floating death flotilla moving at 30kts in any direction. Man, I hate war, but I love the tech. That'd be a sight to see. A giant Iowa class, strafed with cruisers, destroyers and headed or tailed by a sub or two. That'd be a 5 or so mile strip of NOPE for anyone even thinking they wanna get froggy. Bring back battleships!!!
That full broadside from the Iowa at the end was just beautiful 😍
I’ve noticed that whenever a ship catches fire cap says it is dead is the fire a signal that it is dead in the game because surely there capital ships are prepared and able to cope with fire great video so fun to watch keep it up
If you guys like the Naval history aspect of ships like the Iowa Class I highly recommend a channel called Drachinifel. Think of him as the history teacher we all wanted at school. Most of his content covers WW1 & 2. He's also done some amazingly well made videos on particular historical events such as the Battle of Jutland, Battle of Denmark Strait, Taffy 3 vs Yamato and her escorts in the Pacific and the doomed Voyage of the Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron that ended in the Battle of Tsushima.
I saw someone linked World of Warships video, Drach was part of Wargamings Armchair Admiral series along with the Mighty Jingles and Dr Alexander Clark until Wargaming kinda burned that bridge with their shenanigans but Armchair Admiral VODS on WoWs channel are still worth a watch.
The Iowa class battleships couldn't fire their main guns forward nor backwards, as the recoil from then would damage components, such as radar, in the superstructure. If you ever get a chance, all 4 Iowas are museum ships, and I've personally been on the New Jersey. They're great to see in person.
If you're ever in Wilmington the USS North Carolina is there and is the 1 battleship closest to it's WWII configuration.
Id love to go see an iowa class, but im the wrong side of the atlantic.
In the uk ive been on an amphion class sub, the hms victory and hms warrior, and ive seen both qe class carriers together in port, as well as watching hmcs ville de quebec entering portsmouth harbour.
Apart from maybe the carriers, none of them have anything on a 60,000 ton battleship tho
@@ErokCherokee USS Texas is actually still in its WW2 configuration
Alabama and North Carolina are also still in WWII config.
The most fun show on CZcams, great job reapers!
36:09 “good covering, excellent covering from Iowa” as the one further right completely sprays the other one’s nav bridge with CIWS…
The game did a horrible job with Iowa's 16" gun accuracy..
They are accurate, but also cannot change tractory in flight.
Lol that WinWing's integrated pre-roll commerical teaser actually got me interested and going to their site (in combination with the inherent flightsimcontrols marketing that comes with watching you guy's videos and the urge to be immersed even more it gives haha)
I love this commentary! Its almost like a pro soccer match or Formula 1. Great vid!
Wow, massive warships with massive fire power. Modern navies are missing out on having more of those.
Aircraft are the counter to the battleships, bad example since the Yamato got swarmed by hundreds of bombers but they had much more AA than the Iowa's and still were only able to shoot down 4 bombers. And those were against propeller craft. Battleships would need much better AA to stand a chance in today's world.
No they're not! Do you have any idea how short legged those guns are compared to even their original contemporary aircraft, let alone modern planes?? They would be dead a dozen times over before getting into the theoretical maximum range for their guns.
@@tremedar , I mean replace the Big Guns or half of them with missile cruise launchers and modern upgraded systems and they still have a role.
Too bad the dual purpose aa turrets do nothing.
Cap is the 12 year old voice in us all... Just love it
agree
So awesome!!! Love these ship battle videos! :D
I would say the Iowa could have made dodging impossible if it fired its 3 cannons at the same time in different locations to make a "Screen" effect in which if it the Kirov was doing constant dodging it would have a very hard time not being hit
I just posted this
They were also radar corrected - fire one barrel and the radar would provide correction for the other 2 barrels before the first shell lands
And then as you mention, coordinate the salvos from the other 2 turrets
The Kirov is not dodging that
Also, it was proven that the ballistic computers on USS Washington(the same one the Iowa’s had by VJ-Day) could effortlessly maintain an accurate fire solution in Night and while doing Extreme maneuvers, with the FCS of Iowa improved during Reagen, it’s Possible for Iowa to continuously Dodge, deploy Chaff & Flare & Fire at Kirov while Kirov needed to stay straight while firing
@@angusalba providing the shells land where you aimed at
@@matrix2697 yes but the systems were far more accurate than this system was simulating nor was it doing bracketing
The CEP was around 100 yards at 20 miles with the improved powder and radar tracking the muzzle velocity
The simulation is just not accurately depicting the 80’s Iowa gunnery
Imagine if the entire world agrees to set aside just 0.1% of their GDP to maintain an iconic warship of their country and keep it out of scrap yard…
847.1 billion U.S. dollars just to maintain an iconic warship? Sign me up!
Yeah, no. There are far more important things to spend money on. Yes, it is an important piece of history but the amount of money required to maintain it would be better spent elsewhere.
@@daniel_person4437 more like 2 billion for America and lower for other countries (0.01%) Ok maybe that’s too much as well, then 1 billion is surely enough.
More like %.0001 We spend just over % 3 of GDP here in the U.S. on defense .
agree
This reminds me of playing Harpoon on my dad's old AMIGA. The SAG groups duking it out around Iceland was a great scenario. The AEGIS cruisers made the difference. Once the Iowa's closed to 20 miles, the Kirov's were toast. One broadside Salvo was it.
Can you use main/secondary guns for a splash barrage?
It feels like DCS doens't take armour into account, without an armour penetrating cap, I imagine that the Shipwrecks would struggle to penetrate the citadel
True they were designed for thin modern warships not thick WW2 pre nuclear battleship armor
@ Antony Mitchell; Agreed, DCS probably has a much simpler damage estimate modeling function than real-life. I saw a few of the hits that would have significantly damaged an Iowa, but probably would not have sunk it unless the hits were below the waterline or detonated in a magazine. They, like carriers, have an amazing amount of reserve buoyancy, as well as a high level of compartmentalization. I am pretty sure the damage modeling function did not take this into account. Neither would it have accounted for the penetration performance difference between 2000lb 16" Armour Piercing rounds vs 1000lb Granite missile warheads. That class have would to take concentrated abuse similar to what was dealt to the Bismarck by the Royal Navy to finally drive them under.
You are probably correct Sir.
@E Johnson a 16 inch armor piercing shell only has 41 lbs of explosive. That's in a 2500 lb shell.
It's part of the reason missles and rockets are far more destructive than Artillery shells..their casings are subjected to the extreme acceleration that guns subject on their payloads.
This isn't a comparison for damage caused..just that a 1 ton shell has far less destructive payload .. a 1000 lb warhead in a missle is close to that 1/2 ton of explosive. Plus they have the diameter to make a very effective shaped chage and/or a self forging projectile.
Battleship rounds are old tech and at this point, putting the development into more modern systems isn't worth it.
Shipwrecks have SAP warhead, and also, many other soviet anti-ship missles have combined HEAT-HE warheads
Hi Cap, could you create a scenario where the Yamato battleship would face an iowa class ?.
Whos going to model the Yamato in DCS? They better be very good in Blender, it is bristling with AAA guns.
@@debbiestimac5175 Check out Binkov's Battleground here on YT. He did a good vs vid about just that.
@@forMacguyver Is he the russian guy with the sock puppet?
@@adrien5834 My sincerest apologies to the puppet! 😉
Sure
This is the most exciting naval battle I have ever seen....
I have seen videos of the real Iowa-class ships turning at speed. They can indeed change course quickly. And they will heel over (list) quite a bit while doing so. It's awesome to watch.
Very interesting comparison. Missiles seem to be the future yet are ineffective against a good missile defense systems. Yet I'm curious how it would do vs hypersonic ballistic missiles like the kalibr or kinjal.
Missiles are the status quo, not the future!
They were the future in the 1950s.
They were officially balanced by defenses during the gulf war, desert storm.
Currently it's all about quantity, most missiles wins.
As for hypersonics?
Untested and unproved and the claims are all by the people who want to sell them to you.
Speeds all well and good but it creates limitations and can be used against you.
This is not a new thing!
Kalibr is not hypersonic or a ballistic missile. It is a subsonic cruise missile similar to the tomahawk.
the modeling here is very unrealistic, the 7 ton missile doesn't just cease to exist if it gets hit by the CWIS, even without the warhead exploding the wreck hitting the ship would cause substantial damage *and* a lot of fires.
@@AKAtheA well also DCS is doesnt allow ships to use ECM or chaff. as other issue with this game and modeling of ships
Kalibr will not make it through the Iowa’s splinter protection before the main belt, and it has 3 separate layers of deck armor. The warhead on kalibr is smaller and slower than a shell from the Kirishima battle cruiser Which was not able to penetrate the armor of the South Dakota class battleship in the fight at Guadalcanal. But good point on Kinzal that might work.
A nuclear reactor is more efficient and can deliver maximum thrust sooner. Thus the Kirov ought to have far better acceleration.
No the Iowa's acceleration and kerov were near accurate.
Im pretty sure that they need to model the Iowa class a little better as they have a 17.5 second rudder shift time so your turn to get the CWIS would'nt have been so quick and you might have taken more damage towards the start. Loving the Vids was introduced by my father of all people who got me into DCS currently learning F-18 and planning to grab the f16 when it next goes on sale
much entertainment over the last few months thank you. And for me the cockpit perspective can get a little old. I personally very much enjoy the old battleship sims. Shout out to Simba and Kortana. And cap you play drums as well that's awesome and you're very clean. You guys are funny, great personalities and I love your German accents and all the accidents you guys do really....
I was under the impression that the Iowa fire control systems were very accurate.
@ markever234; Accurate is relative. The original gunnery computers were electro-mechanical analog computers. They were as good as you could get in that day, and for a very good many years afterward. Would it have been possible to upgrade to a digital control system? Perhaps, but that would have been stupidly expensive upgrade for not that much better accuracy at long range. Shell-time-of-flight figured greatly into accuracy, as did round-type(GP or AP), weather, sea-state, maneuvering of self AND by the enemy. They did upgrade them with radar inputs to augment/replace the original gun directors, but that was probably as far as they got. They were designed to take a hard punch and still be able to deliver a hard punch.
@E Johnson I don't know the actual range probable error but for calling for fire from a battle ship it is a very long oval (longest on the axis of fire). These errors can't be made up for with better fire control, RPE is a function of the gun itself, and for ships that they are on a moving substrate.
I don't have the tables with me but they are very inaccurate compared to land based Artillery.
There was a radar augmentation done that is not modeled in this nor is the salvo co-coordination - the three turrets are independently targeted so you can co-ordinate the salvos to negate the dodge
@@angusalba wasn’t an augmentation they used a rc drone to more accurate see the splashes “even though her stock radar could see splashes” and then aim it far more accurately
@@c0ldyloxproductions324 Yes they were augmented and it was NOT just a drone.
quote
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, these improvements made these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made. For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.
PLUS - again all three turrets can coordinate to bracket the target and to counter any maneuvering
I think it would have been better if both ships had at least a small escort. The US BBs weren't upgraded to be anti-air/missile because it was doctrine to be with a supporting battle group.
Exactly. Iowas in the 90's wouldn't have deployed anywhere with out escort for that very reason.
A capital ship never goes alone .
@@jasondiaz8431 Not unless you're Scharnhorst or Gneisenau. Well make that Graf Spee, Scheer, and Deutschland.
Words can't describe what I feel when I get to see an Iowa battle
Entertaining as always
Turn rate of the Iowa guns are very unrealistic lol 🤣
you need independent turret captains so you get a better spread. full broadsides are killing your chances on an evasive target who can see when you fire
I suspect it might be best to fire a single shot every three seconds and see what the radar and Ford gun director has to add about the air conditions affecting the shells in flight.
I was going to say an American BB would not go out without its support. But after watching this nail biter of a fight, I’m not saying anything! AHHHHHHHHHH! That was awesome! As always never a disappointment from you gents! 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
The Iowa's cannons were so loud they broke DCS's sound! 🤣
Lol can't wait for U.S. Carrier Fleet with additional 80's Iowa Class Battleship and LHD Amphibious Assault Ship VS Russian Carrier Fleet Rematch! 😁✌
PLEASE! 😅🙏
Please place the Iowa Class Battleship next to The Aircraft Carrier, acting as a bodyguard, and please half F-14's half F-18's on The Carrier and F-35's plus Helicopters on The LHD! Any additional Helicopters on the Support Ships would be bad ass!👍
rgr
@@grimreapers your the freakin man Cap!😁✌
@@grimreapers have you ever seen H2 (History Channel Two's Dogfights, Season 2, Episode 18-- Future Dogfights??
cap talking about all this straddling and pumping 16 inchers has me feeling some kinda way
lol
Iowas also will fire 2 x 16 inch rounds per minute per barrel. Firing sequentially could put one radar adjusted range finder-followed shell on target roughly every 3 seconds from 9 cannon tubes.
Shell AP Mark 8: 2,700 lb (1,225 kg)
HC Mark 13: 1,900 lb (862 kg)
Nuclear Mark 23 (W23): 1,900 lb (862 kg)
Caliber 16 in (406 mm)
Muzzle velocity AP: 2,500 ft/s (762 m/s)
HC & Nuclear: 2,690 ft/s (820 m/s)
Hard for me to imagine those missiles being that effective against the Iowa's armor.
A small Maverick Missile will penetrate 1300mm of RHA armor. Shipwrecks are MUCH bigger.
@@swaghauler8334 maverick is anti tank, anti ship missiles are not intended to penetrate as naval armor is not thick anymore, they explode on impact and blow massive holes Into the hull, iowa with 400mm of armor mixed with the spaced torpedo armor filled with fuel would make it neigh impossible for any anti ship missiles to penetrate Iowa’s belt, superstructure wise is another story but because she follows the battleship construction theme even if the superstructure is knocked out there are secondary command centers inside the hull protected by her belt armor so she can still sail home
@@c0ldyloxproductions324 Except that the Shipwrecks were designed to defeat the armor of US Nuclear CARRIERS (which are tough) by PENETRATING (with a delay in detonation) and then exploding. The Shipwrecks were tested against Iowa's armor (in a mockup) during the 90s, and they DID penetrate it.
@@swaghauler8334 yes nuclear carriers are tough but not battleship tough
@@c0ldyloxproductions324 And yet the US tested one in the 90s against a mockup of the Iowa's armor and it penetrated it.
If the simulation would let you shoot VT Frag out of the 5"/38s you would have another anti-aircraft/missile option besides CWIS.
I give this video as many thumbs-up as those Ruskies had Shipwrecks - great fun!
To do the quick-turn to bring the alt-side CIWS to bear, you need to perfect the "Battleship: the Movie" maneuver...
....at full speed, drop the front anchor, and crank the screws and the alt-side
She''ll spin like Linda Blair on a midway carrousel.
CWIS takes 30 mins to reload? Huh.. I don't recall G Division on the Stennis taking that long IRL..
If you don't remember, this directly indicates that you have a problem with your memory. You see, memory needs to be trained constantly as a muscle, otherwise the muscle may atrophy. Recharging for 30 minutes is during non-military time, during quiet time during exercises. In combat, fighters tend to forget quickly what they were taught because they have an internal panic, as 7-ton missiles are flying at them. Seeing such horror, the crew usually shits in their pants around the corner from the horror of what is happening. According to this, the recharge will be about 1.5 - 2 hours. If the crew miraculously survives and spends about 3 more months of such hostilities, then only then will they be able to work calmly in the most stressful situation.
@@ХРЕНОРЕЗ Memory??? Thank you for noticing I do have a TBI but still I LIVED it man, GQ training which is DAILY out to sea, is to make people understand what to do under pressure. Only the uneducated would panic. Old Salts know what to do and WILL fight knowing everything is on the line. So not fully following exactly what you're saying. We knew our jobs and tasks despite being under pressure.
@@yeoldesaltydog7415 I'm not talking about you personally at all. I say that those who do not have combat experience, they are guaranteed to panic in the first battle. This fighter in the first fight will forget everything he was taught, he will roll back in his skills and knowledge.
@@ХРЕНОРЕЗ This is true! No question there. I see what you meant.
Anyone interested in Iowa Class battleships, check out the CZcams channel for the New Jersey! It's a museum ship now and the channel is AWESOME!!
thx
Been waiting for this one
8:28 The turrets on US battleships were NOT called “Anton”, “Bruno” or “Dora”. Only German ships used those names for turrets. US ships used numbers for the turrets