Can A WWII Battleship Super Fleet Beat A US Carrier Group? (Naval 13a) | DCS WORLD

[@grimreapers]

Battleship Fight Vids: 1: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5ytop2rf519rLc 2: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXjddZuwf5KCpKM 3: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6WTf2aYi91kocU 4: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZquwfZmldpmCgtU

[@firefox5926]

18:26 well if its any consolation the yamato has according to Wikipedia 12 × twin 12.7 cm guns DP guns 162 × 2.5 cm AA guns 4 × 13.2 mm AA machine guns in hey 1945 config and DP stands for duel purpose so they can also fire at aircraft and from memory th 18inch guns also had an aa round but it wasnt very good

[@firefox5926]

22:23 i would not be surprised if there were over 1000 guns fireing up at them from all those ships lol

[@Majority623y]

Battleship Tirpitz

[@michaelreedx6823]

The winner was determined by programing failures, they were set to Close Air Support when they should have been set to Ground Attack.

[@jeremypilot1015]

You're underestimating that humans would have been firing those guns and would have been more accurate and lethal. So the ratio outcome was probably the same.

[@billwhoever2830]

@@jeremypilot1015 Exactly, not to mention that the ww2 battleships would show broadside to expose more of their anti air guns during the defense and more of the primary on attack. Also, I dont think that harpoons can sink any of the ships in the video, it might completely disable it but it wont sink it. The primary guns could remain operational even after most of the ship is disabled.

[@kanyeeast8450]

@@jeremypilot1015 actually, they would have scored almost no hits, theres a reason there was so much AA on ships back then, they could barely hit piston engine fighters without simply slinging a mass of bullets.

[@jeremypilot1015]

@@kanyeeast8450 you forget about flak

[@kanyeeast8450]

@@jeremypilot1015 Not really, volume of fire was key at that point in time, considering even flak was inaccurate against a maneuvering target, since you had to predict where they would be and oftentimes they can simply swerve out of the way. There is a reason missiles were invented.

[@ClericChris]

A fantastic simulation on what would happen if a modern Navy abandoned all of the tactical advantages it has and solely relied on flinging rocks. Next do WW2 soldiers vs modern army but only use state of the art KitchenAid blenders to fight with.

[@ciphergalm1174]

modern navy was suffering from microchip shortages😁

[@jamesjdm]

Pretty much

[@scalywing1]

This^

[@mirrormonstere113]

@@ciphergalm1174 the us navy has a very exclusive supply of chips mined and made in the USA. Our military has no shortage of chips.

[@mirrormonstere113]

@@ciphergalm1174 that and Taiwan has a very good relationship with us. We buy thier Raw product, and turn it into chips for our military.

[@lilcommandergaming8573]

Tirpitz is a battleship and is Bismarck’s sister ship not scharnhorsts

[@Dannyboy31415]

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are battleships despite being smaller and lighter than the Tirpitz and Bizmark. Germans never really had a battlecruiser apart from the Duetschland class (The Admiral Sheer) - which kind of defy the traditional classes. They were known by the British as "pocket battleships" but were roughly the size of cruisers.

[@tomriley5790]

@@Dannyboy31415 Lots of German battlecruisers in world war 1 and prior to that. The Deutschland's weren't battlecruisers - just overgunned cruisers, they were only called Pocket battleships by exageration.

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@Dannyboy31415]

@@tomriley5790 Agreed that Germany had bc's in WW1. I should have been more specific. They didn't really have any during WW2. The Deutschland class were the closest they had but they were never officially classified as such by either the Allies or the Axis powers. They're a little small and undergunned compared to other bc's of the time. Tldr. I stand corrected.

[@jameschenard7691]

@@Dannyboy31415 It took some time post war for the allies to call the Scharnhorsts battleships, they had battleship grade armor which was either not realized or ignored and much of the focus was on them carrying only 9 X 11 inch guns ( it had been intended to substitute these for 6 x 15 inch guns in 3 twin mounts). The Roma was a brand new battleship of the Italian Navy, with 2 sister ships: the Vitório Veneto and the Littorio.

[@kacper9085]

"Have you ever seen something so inaccurate?" this video would be a good for drinking game

[@locutus9956]

I mean ‘drink every time he misidentifies one of the German battleships’ or ‘drink every time he (inaccurately) uses the term amidships to try and sound like he knows what he’s talking about’ you would die of alcohol poisoning a dozen times over… it’s a fun video but anyone who thinks this is a realistic simulation of how this would play out hypothetically ‘in real life’ is high.

[@charlesfollette9692]

One escorting us submarine would’ve sunk this entire battle fleet, would’ve ran out of Torpedoes but would’ve crippled or sank everything

[@KyleTerrioJohnson]

Don’t forget the cruise missiles…

[@andythomason5576]

Yes, sir, I agree 100% with you.

[@therealsenorisgrig]

Exactly, at the very least it could’ve mission killed the major ships and forced them to turn back. The Japanese weren’t great at detecting 40s era subs, they’d never even know an LA class was there before they’re all sunk

[@sharpy3453]

idk, a mk 48 detonating under the hull could possibly crack the hull of the cruisers if not the smaller battleships

[@pilsplease7561]

probably not

[@skribeworks]

Brave Sir Hornet ran away Bravely ran away away When danger reared its ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled Yes, brave Sir Hornet turned about And gallantly he chickened out Apologies to the Pythons.

[@Bellthorian]

I didn't.....all lies!!!!!!

[@longtimber]

LMAO

[@thephantom2man]

The brave, brave,brave,brave,brave,,brave siir hornet

[@Wolfen443]

Is that a joke about the Hornet avoiding the worse of the Battle of Midway?

[@デヴィン]

@@Wolfen443 No, I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the super hornets that fled instead of dropping their bombs but I guess it could be used for that too

[@jpm74]

These Carrier Group titles just keep getting more ridiculous. I love it. I can't wait for an alien invasion UFO force,

[@thephantom2man]

Im waiting for 20 episodes time when its "the entire globes military forces vs a us carrier group" 😅

[@grimreapers]

I have a star wars ep coming :)

[@Spaatz77]

The UFO - er, UAP - idea would be cool. Considering the recent release of UAP footage by the Pentagon that would be timely. Does DCS have a stand-in for a UAP that can pull like 100Gs, accelerate 0 to Gone in. .0060 seconds and operate underwater? Is someone modeling a UAP yet?

[@icin4d]

Bees vs Titans. How many RATAs to take out Bismarck?

[@Wolfen443]

We need the Alien Fleet from Battleship the movie.

[@setesh1294]

Based on that top down profile, Admiral Scheer is a Deutschland class heavy cruiser, also sometimes referred to as a pocket battleship.

[@georgewhitev7900]

You're right. 11 inch guns too, not something to mess with

[@teargass1849]

Technically armored cruiser is not incorrect, the Germans called her a Panzerschiff or "armored ship"

[@martinpalmer6203]

Yeah Deutchland,Admiral Scheer and Graf Spee were pretty radical , heavily gunned for cruisers and also very effective as commerce raiders. Probably one of the most Original and unique ships of WW2, very clever. Id imagine they were quite a nightmare to face.

[@setesh1294]

@@martinpalmer6203 Graf Spee definitely was. However I have respect for her Captain, as he was an honorable man, despite his nation's atrocities.

[@joachimhupe4018]

They where officialy called Panzerschiffe or armored ships, but where later renamed to heavy cruisers.

[@RenegadeNOYDB]

With respect - y'all don't have a freaking clue about the WWII ships. Bismarck and Tirpitz were sister ships, and the most powerful battleships that the Germans fielded. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were the first ships designated as battleships by the Germans (only the British called them battlecruisers). They were armed with 11" guns due to treaty limitations and design arguments (supposed to be regunned with 15" weapons, but that never occurred). Only the Japanese ever used their main gun batteries in an anti-air role, using special 'beehive' rounds called " ("Common Type 3")". These weren't effective, caused damage to the gun barrels, and was considered to be just pyrotechnics by the US pilots.And one more thing - NO WWII anti-aircraft weapons would have any real chance of intentionally tracking and striking a Harpoon missile (MUCH smaller than a WWII aircraft, and moving at well over 500 mph). Axis AAA weapon in particular were NOT very effective, even against larger aircraft moving at 1/2-2/3 the speed of the missiles.Now, in some ways this was a cool video. And despite my above comments, the biggest problems with the video is not from you guys - it is the program. The AI is WAY too limited, and the program itself gets seriously bogged down in places. Nice attempt, but there needs to be a major upgrade to the program. But you guys tried hard, and I applaud your effort. Just please learn more about these ships before trying something like this again.

[@GYM829]

Yeah it's a shame that the age of battleships ended so early. They were real beautiful things.

[@subjectc7505]

The last remaining wouldn't lasted against some of the morden navy's, but small and not well developed like the Iranian navy that's probably where they'll see combat.

[@kiriltzenev5955]

US could have upgraided its battlships with antiship and airdefence missiles instead of waising ton of money for rail gun stealth no _go's

[@GageEakins]

Battleships are dumb. There is a reason they are not used anymore.

[@erikturner5073]

Battleships are still impressive and AWESOME!!

[@anomalyp8584]

What do you mean, early? They have been the boss of the navy all the way through History until the planes got invented.

[@grevensher594]

Should retitle the video "Battleship superfleet" vs. 5 modern destroyers. 😅

[@andythomason5576]

Ya and try using 5-inch guns against targets armored against 16-inch guns all. the hits in the world with a 5-inch gun would do you no good at all.

[@chasecarter8848]

Are you high? The CV was rendered totally inert by mishandling the SIM. COs routinely defeated battleships in the 1940s with 1940s aircraft and Weapons....it's absurd that Nimitz class is even threatened

[@johnulmerRacing]

@@chasecarter8848 Not to mention the CGs didn't fire their Tomahawks. They only fired their 16 Harpoons. Also, where was the fast boat with the MK48 adcaps? I guess that would have made this a very short video.

[@nonanon666]

Accuracy problems: *F-18s turning away. *F-18s unable to launch Harpoons. *Harpoons performing terminal pop-ups instead of hitting armor belts on hulls. *Tirpitz is Bismarck's sister ship. *Shells are not bullets. *Guns are not boom-booms. *Turrets are not doo-dads. Other than that, it was entertaining as hell.

[@littletimelord2755]

Good point, all of them good points. Here’s some more: *Tirpitz is not schornhorst *tirpitz is not a battlecruiser *ww2 AA (especially axis power AA) would not shoot down a harpoon *fast battleships could be as fast as Battlecruisers *destroying the superstructure would not sink a ship *capitol ships would not use main batterie guns to fight a missile unless you are Japanese(I’m looking at you Yamato, you know what you did) *and finally, because of fast battleships the statement “battleships are slow” is not true in all cases

[@speeddemon2262]

just @ ED also Shell in the artillery's sense of WW2/1en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)

[@LoisoPondohva]

@@littletimelord2755 * battle lines and t-formations

[@warrior7ra]

Umm again harpoon is a pop up and plunge into target weapons system it flies at wave top goes vertical at about 600 yrds noses straight down at 1600 feet and accelerate near vertically into its target. It is not an Exocet which targets the largest radar return point.

[@scalywing1]

@@littletimelord2755 The biggest problem is the tactics. Why would any carrier group ever sail straight toward a gun centric fleet? That is not the way that WW2 carriers operated and that is not the way that a carrier battle group or strike group would fight.

[@JDale56]

An interesting variation of this would be to use a 1990s era Iowa class Battleship task force.

[@trolleriffic]

If it was a 1980s era Iowa then it should be an easy win for the Battleship. It could carry both nuclear-tipped Tomahawks and nuclear 16" shells which would be handy for blasting incoming aircraft and missiles and would devastate surface ships. It could also carry the nuclear variant of ASROC to destroy any subs from the carrier fleet. Granted the Tomahawks would be the land attack variants, but it should be possible to retarget them at an area of sea with enough accuracy to spoil somebody's day.

[@grimreapers]

WE do have them but their damage models aren't working in testing :(

[@Jammybee]

The carrier wouldn't stand a chance against Casey Ryback

[@cdc194]

@@Jammybee "You can court marshal me if I live, Sir!"

[@jtkoontz69]

a full 16" Salvo using HC from the mighty MO would instantly render a modern carrier useless i say HC due to CVNs hull thickness. especially since she was updated with the same modern defense systems a Nimitz class would have, aircraft would be useless. the Iowa class was not slow either.

[@LexieAssassin]

What about 1980's Iowa battlegroup vs Nimitz battlegroup? Also, Americans use 5in guns, so 127mm in sensible units. As for the big caliber guns, the Americans have somewhat of an advantage if the shells are modeled correctly. If the shells fusing vs the very minimal armor of modern USN vessels is taken into account, more than likely any hits from big caliber shells will just go straight through them either w/o arming, or arming too late to do any meaningful damage. You have to remember that the Axis ships have shells designed to go up against warships with a considerable amount of armor. Something the modern vessels do not have.

[@ralphbennett8575]

Several inconsitances here, Tirpitz is a battleship, Scharnhorst and Gniesenaua were also classed as battleships, you are identifying an Italian heavy cruiser as the Bismarck, look at the paintwork on the italian ship, you can clearly tell that they are italian as they have the stripes on the bow, Aegis cruisers carry Tomahawk cruiser misiles with a 500lb anti shipping warhead and that is what is hitting and doing the damage.

[@Hangman105]

1sub with modern torpedos would have ended this, a carrier group would never go anywhere without sub escort. Remember modern torpedos blow up under the middle of a ship breaking them.

[@roberticvs]

I hope this is a lesson to Iran: build battleships. Yes. That is what Iran should do.

[@bjmccann1]

🤣😅🤣😅

[@terrywest111]

@@Mechanized85 SHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! LET THEM DO IT. lol

[@stephenjennings7303]

Iran: guys the hornets are not just going away like in DCS..what do we do🤣

[@johnkepa2240]

😂🤣😂

[@thephantom2man]

@@stephenjennings7303 list lazily to the left

[@xenimaging]

I love how excited cap gets during commentary. It's like listening to a match

[@chuckhood9659]

Only (up to) 8 Harpoons on CGs and DDGs in Mk 141 tubes. Harpoons are not Mk 41 VLS capable. Tomahawk Anti-ship Missiles (TASM) have been gone for years. Other than taking out radar and directors, 5" (127mm) shells would have virtually no effect on these heavily armored ships. As a surface guy, I fully recognize that a modern surface force would have no capability in a "gun fight" with even a few of those BBs/BCs. One thing I was waiting for, that didn't happen in the sim, was for CIWS to engage the incoming shells.

[@SilverHwk7]

I understand a modern Carrier to carry about 70 or so aircraft. 40 Strike Fighters (a mix of Super Hornets and F-35s) 5 Electronic Attack Craft (EA-18Gs) 4 Airborne Early Warning Craft (E-2Cs) 20 Helicopters (A mix of maritime strike and sea combat helicopters) 2 Logistics Transports (C-2As)

[@ShionWinkler]

"we are 90% certain Harpoons in real life wouldn't actually hurt these ships" The Harpoon II, which is a small anti-ship missile, is capable of penetrating over 60" of armor according to the US Navy. While heavy anti-ship missiles like the Soviet P-5 can penetrate almost 144 inches of armor. The reason modern ships don't have thick steel armor anymore is because anti ship missiles can penetrate it. If WW2 Battleships were immune to modern anti ship missiles, we would still be using WW2 style battleships, just with modern weapons onboard.

[@marshalljulie3676]

Expensive to build the only reason us would have to increase metal trading with Russia to build ship

[@ariq4209]

Source? Because it took about 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs to sink Musashi. The Mark 14 torpedo, which was the US’s standard torpedo during WW2, has roughly the same if not more TNT filler than Harpoon.

[@ShionWinkler]

@@ariq4209 Source is the data sheet from the US Navy, while the exact specs of the warhead are classified, they do say it has a yield of about 500 lbs of TNT and can pernitrate 60-70 inches of steel. The Musashi did take a beating to sink her, but the US navy's AP Mark 1 had poor penetration as stated by US navy ordnance manual from WW2, "AP Mark 1, which weighs 1600 lbs (726 kg) of which 240 lbs (109 kg) is high explosive. The Mark 1 can penetrate a 5" (13.7cm) deck from 7500' (2900m) or from 4500' (1370m) in a 300 knot 60 degree dive." Now, the Mark 14 Torpedo was a pile of crap, it had more issues to the point the US navy didn't want to uses them, but had no choice. As stated by Rear Admiral Charles A. Lockwood in his report to the CNO, Admiral Ernest J. King, after he performed various test in Frenchman Bay, Albany on 20 June 1942, "The Mark 14 torpedo has three major flaws. 1) It tended to run about 10 feet (3 m) deeper than set. 2) The magnetic exploder often caused premature firing. 3) The contact exploder often failed to fire the warhead on impact." While these issues were corrected it took 3 more years before the corrections happened, and by then well... 1942+3=1945.....

[@WaveForceful]

Harpoons can penetrate like 20+ fleet of reienforced constal defence concrete. They wouldnt have any issue getting through 12 inches of WWII steel. I dont understand why people over rate WWII ships and make them out to be invincible. They are massively out performed by a modern Destroyer that can outgun them and out range them.

[@ariq4209]

@@ShionWinkler that's interesting, any link please? I Googled and can't find it. I thought it's not gonna penetrate that much as it's subsonic and I don't see the point in using shaped charge as modern ships have no armor.

[@MikeAnderson2858]

So far everyone of these scenarios has had the airpower of the American fleet completely handedcaped. Totally unrealistic.

[@Cgrazi]

The subs also did not help at all.

[@PrepperStateofMind]

One fully loaded carrier would have sank everyone one of those ships

[@WigSplitters]

lmao why yall getting salty, its a video and it was very entertaining, frankly none of you know how this would have gone down you are all assuming.

[@Grim_Prospects]

They said it themselves that there were bugs in the mission, why are you guys complaining its unrealistic? No shit sherlock.

[@WigSplitters]

@@Grim_Prospects the whole fucking point of the video was about an unrealistic scenario, so I'm not sure why these guys care

[@kickofftheboot]

At the battle of Samar. A detachment of American destroyers and destroyer escorts took on a Japanese battle fleet including Yamato. The destroyers raked the superstructures with their five inch guns but five inch guns can’t do much to a battleship. Interesting fact, it’s believed the Japanese were using armor piercing shell which punched clean through the destroyers and that’s how the destroyers were able to take multiple hits by 18 inch guns.

[@FrederikVanlokeren]

Am I the only one who gets annoyed that they keep misidentifying the Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes?

[@Luke-em1ko]

Yes

[@ProjectLeviathan]

No, am I the only one who gets annoyed by the guns being aimed foward at the start, lol.

[@ProjectLeviathan]

I think you and I would get along great. XD

[@dubs4life08]

You're definitely not alone

[@greg.kasarik]

And fairly much everything else. I'm continually amazed by just how little the guy narrating actually knows. He sounds like he is at the football and he might as well be for the paucity of his understanding of naval combat. Would very much like to have seen how they'd have managed a Fleet Carrier group from the period.

[@jefferyrdavis]

Nuclear tomahawk cruse missile fired over the horizon guided by AWACS flying over the fleet. Enemy fleet? What enemy fleet!

[@saintmobius5348]

Here's another one for you Cap, imitate the movie Stealth. Hypersonic deep penetration bomb drop. Start at 100k feet or highest altitude possible in editor. Dive straight down full burner and release at fastest point of dive. Momentum should carry bomb supersonic to target with missiles having little time to adjust to rate of the bomb. If this works, replicate with 10 people and watch that carrier sink.

[@grimreapers]

Enjoy: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bmnTlpZ6qNGWoZY kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmjJpGttf5l-o7s

[@pogo1140]

@@grimreapers ahh stealth or as I remember it the airplane movie with Jessica Biel in a bikini at a waterfall.

[@Wayoutthere]

@@pogo1140 The only reason for watching that movie

[@hphp31416]

normal high altitude jdams are already supersonic

[@Stephengirty]

Set the 18s to work. You basically set this to "kill the Americans".

[@donalddemo]

I was really hoping this would be good but on a 1 to 10 rating I give it maybe a two. What is the point of the comparison if you’re going to negate or at least mitigate all of the technological advances in radar and weapons systems. Hornets don’t even have a guided bombs? No attack submarine screen? Oh you did mention them early on. And let’s just drive the nuclear class carrier right into the teeth of the enemy rather than use its speed to evade and re-launch? Aside from the attack submarines eviscerating this ancient World War II fleet, One Ticonderoga class cruiser would have taken out pretty much all of those ships with cruise missiles. Specials if needed. Or are we handicapping warheads also? The tactics employed would be better off if a 12 year old was the admiral of the modern fleet. Blame it on the AI I guess. This could have been a good watch. It would have been nice if you remembered the ships you were playing with and there armament. Seriously not knowing the Tirpitz is the sister ship of the Bismark disqualifies you as any sort of naval historian. . And for all of its 70,000+ tons the Yamamoto would lose against an Iowa class battleship probably 19 out of 20 times as the Americans would outmaneuver engaging only at night when the Japanese were virtually blind. Same for the Bismark class. None of the ships would have gotten within even 500 miles of this task force. Certainly not to this knife fighting range. The simulator needs to be programmed in a manner that is at least somewhat remotely plausible. Running them straight into each other rendered this a major disappointment.

[@johnnydiamondsmusic1673]

Imagine what kind of computer simulations military commanders must be training with.

[@rorkgoose1774]

Fake climate simulations and DEI?

[@meanstavrakas1044]

That's Prinz Eugen (an Admiral Hipper Class Cruiser) at 8:14 not Scharnhorst. All German Heavy cruisers here are Admiral Hipper Class Heavy Cruisers. Scharnhorst is shown at 16:28. At 18:15 is the German Armored Cruiser aka Pocket Battleship Graf Spee.

[@jemarcatubig3171]

For those asking why the US force stopped attacking and the planes refused to attack... Apparently, they got a call from UN to stop the attack to preserve the history of those vessels... The mission on stopping them will fall to the hands of their country of origins.

[@Rightin02]

A modern day Jutland. Despite the glitches this was an awesome video. Thanks for taking the time to create, edit and share. I was surprised by how many Harpoons the Axis fleet was able to down.

[@lohrtom]

I worked on Harpoons for 20 years. No way they penetrate a BBs armor. Also, the newer Harpoons have a smaller warhead but the same blast equivalent to the older larger warhead due to improved explosives. The extra room was used to enlarge the fuel tank increasing its range.

[@grimreapers]

agree

[@hamzajas1532]

Yeah, the Tirpitz had 320mm hardened steel belt and 220mm bulkhead armor. It was rated for many 18 inch gun hits, with AP rounds as heavy as 3200 pounds... There is jo fucking way that a 500 pound warhead traveling 0.71 mach would even scratch the belt of the Tirpitz

[@hamzajas1532]

@Emrys I just mentioned the belt because a harpoon would also be capable of targeting the belt. The superstructure, deck, turrets etc are also armored with more than 100-200mm of armor.

[@player55redcrafter8]

Unless your harpoon has armor piercing warhead just like fritz x and ww2 AP bombs, it can go through. Fritz X speed is like modern subsonic missiles. It just needs to have AP warhead. Fritz sank Battleship Roma.

[@lohrtom]

@@player55redcrafter8 harpoons have a semi-armor piercing warhead. It is a latter half 20th weapon. For harpoon that means a small steel lattice in the nose cone to allow it to penetrate modern warships hull, which are extremely thin. That and a several nano second warhead delay ensures it detonates inside the ship. It would never penetrate anything even moderately armored. It was not designed for that because it didn’t need to be, and still doesn’t. Best case scenario a harpoon damages some topside equipment and/or the unspent fuel starts a distracting topside fire.

[@Flyboy_Gospel]

I love the enthusiasm Cap. Keep it up! I really dig these naval battles.

[@daddski1]

the reason the hornets turned around is flack. You underestimate what this does. Flack from a single iowa class or any wwII battlewagon makes a literal solid wall of flying metal shards. Even Kamakazi planes normally could not penetrate that wall. The planes see a lot more from their view and that flack wall would have decimated most if not all of the planes. Glad you saw that just because a front series of big guns gets destroyed it does NOT mean a battle wagon is dead. It is literally 4 ships in one and as long as a turret is unharmed, that ship can fight when in position. The bombs from the planes would harmlessly bounce off most of the superstructure just as the missiles did. What a great battle and what a mistake for the navy to forget just how deadly battlewagons are... We should always have some ready to fight.... Sadly of course these days gender appreciation studies have destroyed the fighting forces of America.. While China prepares for war, Biden has ours pretending there are more than 2 genders and how to not offend anyone.. Well screw that... let them be hurt. Then boot them all out. Maybe send some to cuba since they want communism so badly... +

[@HM2SGT]

Why do people keep arguing this like it wasn’t solved and proven by Billy Mitchell, the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Force & The United States Naval Air Force? Don’t these ring any bells? Pearl Harbor? HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse? Yamato and Musashi? US S Bismarck Sea? The day of the battleship has been over for a century. Period. Dot. File it. Stick it in a box marked “done“.

[@drewd2]

I mean, if you take away basically every Hornet and don't allow any of the ships to shoot while having their backs up against the wall then yeah.

[@garymyers6638]

It strikes me that you have enough guys in GR that you could command all the boats with people and a good many aircraft. Also, on a similar vein, have you guys done the battle of midway or the battle of latee gulf or truk island or even Pearl Harbor?

[@senioravocado1864]

Just a correction, it's Leyte Gulf

[@joshelam8756]

8:05 before literally anything happens, viewing the battleship fleet from a birds eye/airplane view is so crazy, seeing what those pilots used to see is so amazing to me. i wish i could be in a cockpit and see it first hand

[@maianoguillaume]

Well, you're free to install the game and fly a plane. It is a plane simulator, first and foremost...

[@markstott6689]

I said to myself at the start that if the Yamato or Musashi got into gunnery range, then the carrier group was doomed. 130mm guns were not going to penetrate the Japanese gun turrets with something like 406mm face plates. 18.1 inch shells would be unstoppable. Most of the ship models were pretty good except for the Bismarck which was horrendous. It was HMS Duke of York which defeated the Scharnhorst at the Battle of North Cape. Graf Spee was the ship with two turrets, one fore and one after with 11 inch barrels. Sunk at the Battle of River Plate. The heavy Cruiser you forgot the name of after about a minute was the Prinz Eugen - sunk in real life during US atomic tests at Bikini Atoll. Regardless I really enjoyed seeing the Nimitz Class being burnt stem to stern. Thank you for 100 minutes that flew by.

[@Cash_McCoy]

Besides all the other inaccuracies that everyone else has mentioned, the carrier would have stayed back and continued to reload and launch aircraft. I think we all know that if the hornets would have been able to launch harpoons, you know, like they do IRL, or at least droop their bombs, this would have been a very different outcome. Those Hornets would have never turned away from a little flak. They can drop those bombs from much higher than the flak cold reach. I love how this simulator always puts the Americans at an extreme disadvantage. Wonder why that is?

[@danj4996]

Should have aborted the entire scenario when the Hornets started getting stupid. You complain about realism from the modern ships gunnery but fail to acknowledge the amazing close in weapons systems like accuracy against the 84s when the ships had a hard time hitting aircraft 3 to 4 times larger moving half the speed in their day.

[@immort4730]

I think you got the Bismarck and Sharnhorst mixed up. The Bismarck is the one with 4 dual 380 mm guns, the Sharnhorst is the one with 3 triple 283 mm guns.

[@lord00144]

and also the fact the sister ship for scharnhorst is the Gneisenau and Bismarck sister was the tirpitz XD

[@BattleshipSailorBB63]

I served on both an Iowa-class battleship and on a Nimitz-class carrier. Of the two, I greatly preferred the battleship! You really have to see the armor and the shells in real life for a sense of just how much punishment they can both give and take. The battleship is akin to a heavyweight boxer where the carrier is like a whip-wielding lion tamer. If the battleship gets close and the guns are accurate enough, you're done.

[@chandlerwhite8302]

Actually Sinking a Iowa with air launched conventional weapons would be close to impossible but a mission kill is a near certainty. Knock out the radars and range finders and the Iowa is no more then a floating steel barracks that would have to retreat for repairs. And sorry, but if just one modern submarine launched torpedo explodes underneath the keel of an Iowa, it’s endsville. Her torpedo defense never imagined a weapon like that.

[@BattleshipSailorBB63]

@@chandlerwhite8302 I do appreciate what you're saying.....but knocking out the radar isn't a death sentence. Even back in the Gulf War, we used drones as overhead spotters for our shells and adjusted from that. They even piped the Drone footage over the Berthing TVs so the crew could watch as our shells landed, it was pretty neat. Flight time was in the neighborhood of 50-60 seconds and you'd see a "poof" on the TV. I imagine the capabilities have greatly increased since then. And I further imagine backup antennas for the drones were stowed somewhere for emergencies, but just speculation. The targeting computers for the Main guns were 100% Analog. Gears and sprockets, a table-sized thing. Think giant Abacus with manual inputs, an old-timey cash register. Left there on purpose during the 80's Modernization so even an EMP wouldn't take the ship completely out. And of course well under the armor. Manual controls for nearly everything as a backup is standard fare. The entire Superstructure could be destroyed and she can still fight. Torpedo defense (specifically under-keel)......yeah, IMO no ship is built to withstand that super well, but given the Iowa-class and Nimitz-class I have experience with, the Battleships would fare far better overall. No doubt in my mind. Main defense a Carrier has from that is sheer size and volume, little to no armor. The USS New Jersey curator guy did a nice video about that some months ago on both the pros and cons.

[@davidohara7669]

Why would a carrier let a battleship get close?

[@jamesa.7604]

This was a hell of a fight! I think it would have worked out better for the US Fleet if those cowardly F/A 18's had actually engaged. Those Harpoon missiles really did the damage.

[@chuckhighlights5544]

Harpoons can change tactics for anti ship attacks up to 30 + feet penetrating different shape charges ++ or bunker attacks

[@mwtrolle]

3:45 huh? Tirpitz was a battleship, it was the second in the Bismark class!

[@phoenixrising4073]

Fun Fact about the Yamato: even though its guns are technically bigger by 2 inches, the Iowa class's 16 inch guns achieved better penetration. Murica.

[@Jadefox32]

Yet in face testing WW2 16inch shells wouldn't penetrate Yamato's turrets. As they get closer to each other Yamato's accuracy goes up and an Iowa's chance of surviving goes down. First hit would probably go to the Iowa with the better FCS, but it would not likely be a fatal hit and Yamato would keep slinging in return.

[@Chase-Man]

@@Jadefox32 idk anything anout naval but the HE shells alone on the yamato could render everything on the deck of the iowa useless i would have to guess

[@Jadefox32]

@@Chase-Man the secondaries and AAA yes

[@bjmccann1]

Insert requisite adolescent joke here about length versus girth.

[@joeyravage4798]

Why is this a question? Carrier interceptors sink battle ship group with smart misiles within an hour.

[@alinmeleandra3175]

The range of the WW2 BBs was about 35Kms (give or take) there is no way in hell they can fire over the horizon... also, radar guidance was primitive at best and targeting was generally done via optics with radar used for range estimation... Also no ships had 16inch guns only 18inch, 15inch, 11inch and 8 inch main guns

[@Nightwatch-et9hb]

Here's a challenge for you Cap. What about a super carrier fleet, including both American and American aircraft carriers attacking or defending against a modern 2027 American carrier fleet? Do you think you might be up for the challenge?

[@M4xPower]

This was the most interesting match up since HMS Thunderchild took on a squadron of 3 Martian fighting machines at the Battle of Blackwater in 1894.

[@penponds]

LOL!

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

Absurd. AAA of WW2 could not track hornets due to ECM. AAA of WW2 could not hit hornets at Mach 1.8 at 40,000 ft. Precision guided munitions dropped from Mach 1.8 at 40,000 ft. would rarely if ever miss targets on surface. It would be a ONE PASS attack, with entire Axis fleet sent right to the bottom.

[@montanabulldog9687]

This is a "Very Simple Argument" . . . the ONLY way a "Battleship Group" could HOPE, to win such an engagement, would be to be able to get into "Gun Range" . . . as THIS, would be "All that Matters" . . . this COULD be done, by simply "Charging," directly at the CARRIER BATTLE GROUP . . . as the Battleships would be able to "Absorb" any DAMAGE, to close to "Gun Range" . . . once DONE, then the "Battleship Group", WOULD be able to defeat the Carrier Group ! . . . as the "Missiles" carried by the Destroyers, would NOT do enough "Damage", to stop the Battleships.

[@tridder]

Interestingly the Roma was the first ship to be sunk by guided weapons. When the Germans realized the Italians wanted to turn on them the Luftwaffe got orders to sink the Roma. They just got a new weapon, the Fritz X (somehow I think they were joking about themselfs with that name) a few days earlier and used it to sink the Roma in 2 hits within 5 minutes. PS: Also fyi the visible distance over the horizon at sea is roughly 15nm at peak weather. I once spotted an oil rig's gas flare at 26nm. PPS: The Arleigh Burke and the Tica both use a 120mm turret with a range of about 13nm.

[@Bassjunkie_1]

I've never wanted a game based of just watching it do its thing. But this game I could watch all week!

[@Russet_Mantle]

GR pronouncing "Prinz Eugen" the correct way Me: happy noises

[@grimreapers]

Look at me learning a thing!

[@trazyntheinfinite9895]

GR not recognizing Bismarck and calling it scharnhorst. ME: Cursing noises

[@Acepilot235]

@@grimreapers you got that one right but not Gneisenau :P

[@diggersdingo4282]

@@trazyntheinfinite9895 not being able to tell the difference between tirpitz and bismarck

[@diggersdingo4282]

Tirpitz was the one he kept calling bismarck

[@MrLukasboys]

China, North Korea and Iran are furiously taking notes from this series on how to defeat a US carrier group. Turns out: Just build WW2 era battleships.

[@Bellthorian]

@Emrys Harpoons would be ineffective against a battleship. They are not armor piercing weapons.

[@benn454]

@@Bellthorian Superstructures are unarmored.

[@Bellthorian]

@@benn454 True but there are no vital systems there. The Harpoon could do a lot of superficial damage and even potentially mission kill the battleship by destroying the radar and fire control systems but sinking one, impossible.

[@benn454]

@@Bellthorian Mission kill is good enough. It's out of the fight. You can bomb it to hell later.

[@johnbreitmeier3268]

@@Bellthorian If it cannot shoot accurately the battleship, short of ramming, is just a nuisance not a real danger.

[@alinmeleandra3175]

31:40 ship appears to be Printz Eugen (Hipper class heavy cruiser). She was the companion of Bismarck during operation Rheinübung but she survived (including the war) and was actually sunk by nuclear bomb during the US Bikini Atoll nuclear tests (in the 50's)... Yes, and Harpoon missile would rip it to shreds...

[@lylemiller345]

The AI decided to have the Hornet evade, but let the carrier continue onward...

[@treybaker3634]

As much as i enjoy these videos, this was hard to watch. i wish you would do this again but get the f18 to work properly and also switch up the camera angles when the gun battle starts happening. watching the big guns firing for 5 mins without even focusing on the target was frustrating.

[@commiccannon592]

The harpoons have two terminal options skim (low level hit at the waterline) and pop-up (what you see in the video where it pops up to hit the deck and superstructure) Specifically because ships often have lots of armour along the waterline because of torpedoes

[@lohrtom]

That’s not what the pop up mode is for

[@commiccannon592]

@@lohrtom what is it for

[@lohrtom]

@@commiccannon592 some ships have close in defense optimized for sea skimming missiles, some for diving missiles. The choice of using the pop up mode for terminal guidance is chosen for ships that are best equipped to handle sea skimming missiles. In a perfect world, would plan an attack in which multiple harpoons arrived at the same time from different directions, with some of them using pop up mode and some not. The point would be to confuse the ships defenses and reach at least one blind spot.

[@commiccannon592]

@@lohrtom cool thanks for the info

[@ronaldpadavan4516]

Possible explanation for the mysterious water plumes at 20:21 could be the Hornets actually dropped their ordinance before turning away and retreating, but a graphics glitch still shows them carrying their bombs. Also a possible explanation for the battleships showing some damage without seeing any actual hits on them.

[@everettputerbaugh3996]

In WW-II only the U.S. had proximity fuses on AA munitions, and then only in the Pacific to keep the tech away from the enemies. That could explain the water plumes. Also, not the entire battleship was armored (too much weight), leaving the bow and stem sections unarmored. See videos: battleship New Jersey.

[@thegrizzlyoldtiger]

If you watch close you can see the water plums were from the rounds the battleships had fired into the air, the easiest part to see is when the recall tracers are used. Take care!

[@mrtraumaboyy4098]

The subs could take out the old battlewagons by themselves IMHO....either way AWESOME PRODUCTION!!

[@firefox5926]

40:32 well each one of the main turrets should have its own independent fire director and there should usually be a main centralized fire director and a secondary in addition to the armored cic

[@BOATS_22]

U.S. 5 inch 54 has a range of 13 KM where 15 and up guns fire at 23ish KM. the WW2 would be unable to track the harpoons.and all the US ships should have fired MK48s torps

[@hithere7382]

Hi Eric, USN only fires the MK48 ADCAP from submarines. From surface ships we shoot the MK46, it's smaller and is fired from a 323mm triple launcher installed on the surface warfare ships en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_32_Surface_Vessel_Torpedo_Tubes it's also dropped from helicopters and P-8's.

[@parrot849]

@@hithere7382 - - Nevertheless, they would’ve launched torpedoes way before hand, I think anyway. Plus where WERE the submarines…??

[@thomasgregory6975]

No nation has a missile that could sink a WWII battleship. The armor is too thick compared to modern ships of any nation today two inches is much thinner than one, two, and three feet of armor. They are designed to take a beating. Check the warhead size and the kinetic energy put out by ship killing missiles today and the warhead weight and kinetic energy put out from one round of a 14, 15, 16, or an 18 inch high caliber round.. It is said that if one round from a battleship hit another opposing battleship that you were in. You knew you got hit.

[@BOATS_22]

@@thomasgregory6975 I do agree on the WW2 BB's having thick belting but a well place harpoon Salvo could put one OOS or even sink her

[@hithere7382]

@@thomasgregory6975 yes we do it's called the Trident D5 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. 480 kilotons times 8 or more warheads on the Mk21 reentry vehicle will do the job just fine.

[@Nails077]

Seeing that cap have nothing to shoot at kind of makes me want to see a ww2 carrier group vs a modern one 😆

[@hurricaneace143]

Soo, Japanese Midway Fleet then? Well we did try the Pearl Harbor strike force already so fuck yeah, let's try it!! I'd love to see if we'd sink the Yamato before she got in range

[@jamesbridgeman7324]

According to the 2 minutes of research i did a harpoon or any other ASM should have no issue penetrating armor on a battleship.

[@steved1387]

That's incorrect. Harpoons have an impact-warhead, meaning they have no inherent capability to penetrate armor because the warhead will explode on contact, so damage is caused by the massive explosion, very effective against soft targets. You'd need a delayed-action fuse and a hardened tip to defeat armor, but then, how much armor are you talking about? Probably not a lot. It depends on the missile, and Western countries don't have a lot of such missiles because there has been little need to develop them. Your best bet to penetrate ***thick*** armor is a shaped-charge warhead, which are mostly deployed by the Russians, because they were designed to destroy aircraft carriers. The most powerful Russian missile is the Raduga Kh-22, a 7-ton missile with a 2,200-pound shaped-charge warhead that will strike the deck at a perpendicular angle. It will penetrate any thickness of deck armor and send a jet of superheated metal deep into the ship. There is no current Western equivalent. The Exocet does, however, have a shaped-charge warhead which the US Navy has said can defeat 10-inches of vertical armor. Oddly enough, one man with a Russian RPG-7 can penetrate 32 inches of Rolled Homogeneous Armor, much thicker than any battleship armor. These weapons were designed to defeat the protection of modern tanks. Bunker-buster bombs can penetrate the armor of a battleship's decks and turret roofs. A bunker-buster version of the Tomahawk has been developed as well, and is likely to be in service relatively soon.

[@surefresh8412]

So DCS is telling me that WWII Axis battleships with primitive radar which more than likely wouldn't even detect the harpoons up until impact are more effective at shooting them down with their visually-aimed AA than Phalanx CIWS (Axis naval radar and AA was far inferior to those of the Allies, to begin with)... ok

[@kujiko88]

I respectfully vote for a rematch with the serial AI actually set up properly. Otherwise, fun video. This series has been fun so far.

[@grimreapers]

will do!

[@ppgamer3992]

41:07 Bismarck is now a small cruiser.

[@duanesamuelson2256]

Way late but the Bismarck was never a battleship as such. It was a very heavily armed and armored commerce raider. Think of a class between battle cruiser and battleship.

[@roentgen571]

The Burkes and Ticos should have had dozens of Tomahawk missiles as well as the Harpoons, and the Aegis Standard SAMs can be used in surface-to-surface role, too.

[@TheElloatmatt]

tomahawk are not used for surface to surface contacts

[@jerryalbus1492]

@@TheElloatmatt what are you on about?

[@GageEakins]

@@TheElloatmatt What? That is exactly what they are for.

[@chrissegee]

@@TheElloatmatt that’s exactly what they are for long range precision strikes

[@XionToday]

@@TheElloatmatt This guy is smoking his socks. Thats literally what they're made for. Either he's trolling or he don't know what he's talking about

[@cowpercoles1194]

The WW2 ships would all be vulnerable to homing torpedoes from modern attack subs. They'd have little defense against them. Aerial bomb runs might also be effective against them, and AP bombs could be built with all the modern targeting tech, which would take them out.

[@TheBishopconrad]

That require the channel not being basically....guys who pull their nipples when they see Axis Naval tech....

[@jasonb8957]

ARA General Belgrano (C-4), was originally the USS Phoenix of the Navy, and saw action in the Pacific Theatre during WWII. She was then sold to Argentina and named after a man. The Belagrano was sunk by the Royal Navy Submarine Conqueror on May 2nd 1982. Because it was so easy, and because it showed PM Thatcher wasn't playing games. Some would argue that the sinking of the Belagrano put an end to the Falklands War. The Belgrano is the only ship ever sunk by a nuclear powered submarine. I think one Los Angeles Class Sub would make an entire WWII fleet disappear before anyone ever figured out what was happening.

[@johnbrobston1334]

There isn't anything magic about the destructive power of modern US torpedoes. Their magic is in the homing, not in the bang. And before you say "explode underneath and break its back", be aware that US torpedoes had that trick before WWII started. They couldn't use it in the Pacific because somebody screwed up the design, but it was there, was known, and the ships were designed to deal with it.

[@StewartWalker-hy1eo]

A Nuclear powered carrier would also be very vulnerable to Submarines and they also use human beings to operate the power station just so they don’t need to refuel but the aircraft need refuelling anyway

[@williammcbride5919]

Capital ships fired in front of the incoming low torpedo bombers to cause geysers to knock them out of the air. Yes they had high explosive fragmentation Warheads.

[@deputyvillageidiot]

It’s unlikely an 18” shell from Yamato could hit a harpoon missile. That’s like hitting a bullet with a bullet, but one has computer guided circuitry and the other is a dumb projectile. Probably the AAA might make trouble for the Harpoons though.

[@hav0cer]

Hmmm submarine probably would have destroyed most of the battleships easily, but fun video...

[@paullunan2261]

Justifies the Royal Navy sinking the Belgrano when they had the chance in the Falklands War, exocet would have been useless against her as the armour plate was situated where Exocet was designed to hit and she out gunned every ship in the Task Force.

[@fubarace1027]

I actually wonder about that. Would modern torpedoes be able to punch through the armored belt of a ship like the Yamato? I haven't finished the video yet, I'm having fun conjecturing how I think the fight should go. My guess is that the Subs can take the BCs, but not the BBs, unless they're willing to use a nuclear torpedo.

[@hav0cer]

@@fubarace1027 as far as I know and I am not an expert :-). Adcap torpedoes can specifically create an explosion below the ship creating a gasbubble , capable in breaking the keel of a warship. Essentially my expectation would be that a battleship would be destroyed by its own mass and rigidity. In regards to a direct impact I think an example is the Argentinian cruiser Belgrado (ex USS Phoenix) during the Falklands.

[@fubarace1027]

@@hav0cer I don't think either of the Submarines sounded off in this fight. It's really a shame the game doesn't like these mods. This is one of those fun scenarios you play once, see how it goes, then change it for another "what if". This could be a lot of fun if it all worked.

[@paullunan2261]

@@hav0cer the Royal Navy used a torpedo designed in the 1920s to sink the Belgrano because the captain of HMS Conqueror wasnt sure if a modern Tigerfish torpedo was reliable enough to do the job.

[@TheBiggDeal]

The Axis fleet would have lasted about 10 minutes past detection.

[@laurenfazenbaker9777]

If that

[@superzentredi]

Who's going to explain this to the US taxpayers?

[@ThunderForce222]

LMFAO!!! Let Biden do it... lololol he likes spending invisible money.

[@SCfanIam100]

This wasn't real - you do understand that don't you??

[@TerryTerius]

@@SCfanIam100 99.99% sure that was a joke my dude.

[@TerryTerius]

@@ThunderForce222 The general conversation around spending on the right and left seems to suffer from a combination of most people not having any idea how economics works at the national level, and taking their talking points from politicians or whoever lines up with their worldview. Which are some of the same issues we see around conversations dealing with science.

[@ThunderForce222]

@@SCfanIam100 It was more real than anything I've heard on CNN.....

[@SkyChady]

Their fates was decided once they've reach the gun range of the Battleships.

[@russellwilliams3209]

Love the details you provide! Thank you!

[@ZooKeePla]

Now imagine if those BB's have been equiped with modern sensors, air defense, etc.

[@chuckwilliams1058]

Or even just equipped with modern CIWS and auto-loading turrets.

[@warlordjohn8927]

I think the Iowa fire control system is good enough to hit fast jets, plus the proxy fuse

[@Maverick-gg2do]

@@warlordjohn8927 Nah, it may be radar directed but it's a mechanical fire control computer. It doesn't have capability to track a target beyond a certain speed. I believe the upgraded versions can just about deal with the early jets, but I don't think they'd be able to do much else. They'd probably be relegated to a standing barrage like we see the ships doing here.

[@ser43_OLDC]

@@warlordjohn8927 The BB used HE VT back in the ww2 expecially the japanese but alos de germans used He vt in their main guns

[@warlordjohn8927]

@@Maverick-gg2do hmm, make sense. But in the Vietnam war, do u know that most American jets were shot down by heavy machine guns and aa guns similar to ww2 aa gun.

[@eyes_on_iah]

I've been waiting for this one cap!

[@malusignatius]

Another point: Because of how height the optics on a ship like Yamato are, the horizon for them is a lot further away than a person at sea level. I can't recall the exact details but you're looking at visual detection ranges of 30-36km (18.7 to 22.5 miles) for a lot of WW2 battleships.

[@ngc-fo5te]

Stop it - you're assuming a globe Earth.

[@fadfauziug8146]

You mixed up the WW II ships a little ^^ the twin turret ships are Bismarck class Battleships (Bismarck and Tirpirz) Sharnhorst class Battleships are the ones with the 3 triple turrets

[@kenhelmers2603]

I am actually not surprised at the outcome, since the Hornets all QUIT! Thanks GR!

[@grimreapers]

We tried...

[@malusignatius]

It's worth noting that a modern frigate or destroyer is roughly the size of a WW2 cruiser.

[@fubarace1027]

I don't believe that's true. Maybe a CL but not a CA. Looking at displacement numbers as the basis for comparison. modern US ships: Perry class frigate 4200 tons Constellation class frigate 7300 tons Largest build of the Burke class Destroyers 9700 tons Ticonderoga class cruiser 9800 tons WWII US Cruisers: Des Moines class heavy cruiser 21,500 tons Cleveland class light cruiser 14,500 tons In terms of size, Ticonderoga is 200 feet shorter than Des Moines, Ticon is bigger than the other frigates and destroyers in terms of length. Our ships are smaller now because speed and endurance is more important to the Navy than how many hits the ship can take. Time will tell if that was a good decision or not.

[@malusignatius]

@@fubarace1027 Comparing using the Des Moines is a little unfair, as it's post WW2 and importantly for this discussion, post Washington Naval Treaty (where Cruisers light or heavy had a displacement cap of 10,000 tons). Clevelands are in the same boat (pardon the pun) regarding the treaty, but they did serve in WW2. As a side-note, the Ticos are built on a modified destroyer hull (the Spruance). The USS Atlanta is roughly the same displacement as the Constellation (7,200 tons loaded), and if you look at non-US cruisers you can get some down around 4,000 tons (the Japanese Tenryu class, though admittedly they were old ships in WW2).

[@fubarace1027]

@@malusignatius I'll give you the point on the Des Moines, I was surprised when I couldn't think of a WWII cruiser off the top of my head (I used to know quite a bit about WWII naval warfare, but it's been quite a while it seems) so I used the first one that google spat out, and it said 1957 on the picture. I assumed it was based on a WWII hull as ships tend to live long lives. Had to reference the Ticon as she's the largest of the surface escorts and she's smaller than both Des Moines and Cleveland in terms of length. Des Moines being 200' longer and Cleveland 100. Using the Atlanta as a counter argument is also a little unfair as of the 12 classes of Cruiser (CL and CA) we used in WWII, her class is the smallest.(correction, the Omaha is slightly smaller and quite old) Quickly thumbing through the cruisers they seem to range from the Alaska which is damned near a BB at 35k tons to the Atlanta at 7400.(Omaha was 7200) The mean seems to be around 10-11,000 tons for WWII cruisers. And really that makes sense. WWII ships were being built with more armor to take hits, current doctrine has moved away from that. What I find interesting from this reading is how after the Alaska, we didn't make any Cruisers larger than 14.5k in reaction to the Germans.

[@malusignatius]

@@fubarace1027 It's as much that's how much tonnage they needed to carry supplies and fuel. WW2 US cruisers (and most of the Japanese cruisers as well) were not that heavily armoured. Compared to current ships, yes they had more armour, but that's because modern ships have next to none at all. And if you look beyond the US ships, you get more variance in size as well (Japanese heavy cruisers got big once they dropped any pretence of following the treaty, but most of the Brit classes stuck to the treaty limits, etc). Point being, modern destroyers are very large compared to WW2 ships. A Fletcher class destroyer's only 2,500 tons loaded, not even a third of the displacement of the A-B and just over half the displacement of the OHP. Their weight's well within what would be 'treaty cruisers' in the 1930s/early 40s, even if the US and Japanese were pushing the upper limits of what you could get away with under the treaty.

[@Rekmeyata]

what carrier commander in their right mind would sail the carrier close to battleships? And what happened to all the long range standoff anti ship missiles? What happened to aircraft from the carrier?

[@johneid7291]

Tirpitz was a Bizmark-class battleship.

[@marmite8959]

Tirpitz was even some 2,000 tonnes heavier than Bismarck, definitely a battleship by all accounts

[@Exaldear]

Bismarck was also a dreadnought not a battleship.

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@nicbruv]

@Ross Anderson No, the Bismarck was a battleship. A dreadnought is an era/type of battleship that are consistently armored but slow. The Bismarck-class was a fast battleship, which sacrificed armor for more speed.

[@JacenHawk]

@@nicbruv That is not rally an accurate description of what a dreadnaught is. In fact most dreadnaughts had a stricter all-or-nothing armor scheme than the Bismarck did. Dreadnaughts are simply battleships the fist generation of battleships that focused on a unified caliber main battery(generally 10-12in guns). Fast battleships were simply an evolution of that which were able to achieve higher speeds due to advances in propulsion technology.

[@bencowles2105]

with a few updates the old battle ship fleet would crush a carrier group. not that taking out a carrier group is difficult. Five thousand small attack drones can wipe out a carrier group in less than an hour according to DOD simulations.

[@LootGoblin4118]

dont forget some of the axis heavy shells would be punching right through.. they more than likely not even arm ! as nothing hard to connect with... ;)

[@Doorsiess]

I am hopelessly addicted to this series.

[@mattnsac]

same, and to think this would be the carrier group at its absolutely most vulnerable.

[@michaelredford5389]

I do wish an rts existed that had the same level of detail as dcs. A battlestations game for example. That'd be awesome.

[@optony9606]

so the final countdown fleet was lucky the time portal came back when it did haha

[@Davivd2]

That movie was the first thing that I thought about when I saw this video.

[@AidanRitchie]

That battleship force should be able to do a consistent 25 knots. Fast battleships are made to keep up with carriers, even the Yamato could do just under 30 knots.

[@unarmored9973]

Would have been a lot more carnage if any of the airwing other than RC actually did its freaking job. Are they really just gonna return to the carrier to die below deck cause they were too scared to drop any ordnance? I wish DCS AI had a degree of awareness for the severity of critical mission objectives. I mean you don't drop those bombs and everyone on your side dies.

[@BCTTV_DTJ]

I think the U.S. destroyers and cruisers would've faired better after the harpoons were gone if they attacked as a group instead of 1 or 2 at a time facing that battleship cluster. Still would've lost to that armor but could've sunk a few more ships I think.

[@usmctien]

What DSC did not model is when a shell is a near miss in the direction of fire next the intended target the shell actually continues to travel and hit the hull of the target below the water line. So in actuality the armor plating below the water line was pretty thick for just that eventuality.

[@edwardchong7212]

The Flight 2A Arleigh Burke destroyers as shown in game can use SM-2 missiles as anti-ship missiles. Maybe you can try update next time.

[@everettputerbaugh3996]

The O. H. Perry Frigates have been out of service for years (decades, now) and have been given away or used for target practice.

[@clanc433]

Hey fellas, there's no crewed weapons that can track supersonic fighters. Also, why would you consider fighting fair, the modern fleet would be using its superior radar and night optics to absolutely shred the opposing fleet while they had nothing but blind fire to 4k feet with flak and AA guns.

[@rpcraighead]

Hard to watch! I spent years on the USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) when I was young... Glad we never got hit!