Sea Power | Four Kirov Battlecruisers vs Four Iowa Battleships (Naval Battle 141)

[@rubiconnn]

Anyone else realize that the Shipwreck missiles are essentially just Mig-21s without a cockpit lol.

[@Mobius118]

Lol

[@123asap6]

Well now that you mention it they do lol.

[@maksmaksov9231]

It's not. It's like cessna 182 looks like big version of 152.

[@TallShip286]

I cannot unsee it

[@andyf4292]

you know.. I always thought that

[@s4usea]

This was gamed at Newport irl in '88. There was a Russian SAG based around Kirov, and after a reset one based around the (then) Slava. The SAG was escorting an Amphib group moving down the coast of Norway, and was hit by an Amercan SAG based around an Iowa class. In both cases, while the NATO SAG's escorts were overwhelmed by the Russian SSMs, they could not penetrate the BB's armor belt.

[@johnpjones1775]

Gamed by who? In the end even if the missiles at the time weren’t capable of piercing the armor of the battleships modifying them with a proper shaped charge wouldn’t have been difficult. If an RPG can penetrate 30 inches of rolled homogeneous armor, it would be very easy to modify a missile to penetrate an Iowa’s belt.

[@s4usea]

@johnpjones1775 the US Navy's War College.

[@hummingbird9149]

Was about to comment wether it's realistic for the shipwrecks to be able to pierce the Iowas belt. AFAIK the shipwreck missiles weren't designed with a HC warhead, but relied on pure explosive effect to take out the largely unarmoured ships designed in the 60s and forward.

[@crayondevourer2267]

@@johnpjones1775 It wouldn't be hard to modify, but the point is that the P-700s have HE warheads not HEAT ones as standard, and the Iowa's belt armor is 307mm thick, which the 750kg HE warhead of the Granit would fail to penetrate.

[@kelariusable]

@@crayondevourer2267 Even though the ship might not sink a couple of granit hits would definitely mission kill an Iowa class battleship, it'd be on fire in multiple locations with much if not all of the superstructure being completely trashed. Also worth mentioning that the armored deck of the battleship is a combined 7" or so, I'm not sure if the granit can perform a pop-up attack like the harpoon but if it can the 750kg warhead would probably be a lot more effective there.

[@crlewis6360]

The Kirov class is a multiple mission monster. The Iowa class is a killer but was meant to work with Ticos and Arleigh Burkes plus other escorts to keep it alive. The vast majority of its Air defense is last second self defense. It needs a couple of anti-air escorts to protect it.

[@PyromaN93]

Kirovs meant to be task force leaders too, working with some Sovremenny/Udaloy or both types ships, Moskva heli carrier and probably accompanied by Slava.

[@TheEnergizingbunny]

@@PyromaN93 Indeed, when playing Cold Waters and getting the order the sink the Kirov, the ship is always accompanied by a Moskva in all possible fleet configurations.

[@trazyntheinfinite9895]

​@@TheEnergizingbunny its all sub food in the end

[@andyf4292]

and it should be quite short armed

[@HENRISTARKS]

You are a IGNORANT american TRASH MK41 VLS and Aegis can't RELOAD at SEA until USN finally gets Reliable RELOAD AT SEA Capability for MK41 VLS ships. Due to YOUR IGNORANCE. I will enlighten YOU. There were once 3 T's. MK 11 Tartar Short Range SAM, Mk10 Terrier Medium Range SAM Mk12 Talos Long Range SAM. All of these missiles could be RELOADED AT SEA CAPABILITY from AE 25 AE 35 class ammunition ships Witchita class AOR AOE CLASS VESSELS IE SACRAMENTO, they are one stop shop vessels for Direct Carrier Support. Iowabattleship61 and her sisters aren't vulnerable to Kirov P700 GRANIT cruise missiles. It is their 53cm Torpedoes which are the most Lethal weapon. Due to bracketing the Iowa class vessels ona defined course and speed. At flank speed Iowas slow to 25-28 knots using 20-25degrees rudder at 212 rpm per screw. Kirov using Rocket propelled TORPEDOES deny Iowa effective Maneuver and to make usage of thwir WAKEHOMING TORPEDOES with High Frequency upward looking sonar. SS-N-14 WITH APR2E Aerial Torpedoes can be fired ahead and on either side of the Iowas, better preparing them for a 315 or 045 Launch of a 5 torpedo spread when Iowas Maneuver to fire a FULL BROADSIDE. KIROV CLASS CRUISER bow and hull mounted medium Frequency sonars,, towed variable depth sonar allow it to Maneuver to fire its Torpedoes at Iowas maximum vulnerability. Even at Maximum EMCON. Iowa class as vulnerable to sonar sensors. As it has a very Distinct ACOUSTIC SIGNATURE!

[@omega_hannibal5766]

A carrier battle between the Russian Orel and a US Nimitz with full battle groups and submarines would be incredible. Love the work you do Cap

[@grimreapers]

Recorded. Didn't use subs as haven't worked out subs yet.

[@omega_hannibal5766]

@ Brilliant Cap, looking forward to it

[@henrymann8122]

I really enjoyed this one, Thanks!

[@grimreapers]

Thanks!

[@patton3rd1]

I wasn't expecting that result. The Kirov class was purpose built for Cold War era surface action while the Iowa (though an excellent battleship) was a relic re-activated for shore bombardment with anti-shipping bolted on top. I figured design, role, and tech would have favoured the Kirov. Really fun to watch it play out!

[@PyromaN93]

By strange coinsedence it was recomissioned after Kirovs became operational. From all surface ships, Iowas was best choice to counter Kirovs.

[@trazyntheinfinite9895]

​​@@PyromaN93untrue. A carrier is the correct answer, sending air refuled strikes from the other ocean .

[@c0ldyloxproductions324]

The iowas were reactivated in response to the Kirov class activation

[@patton3rd1]

@@c0ldyloxproductions324 From congress's perspective, sure. They didn't like someone else having the largest surface combatants in the world. But they were not intended to be employed to fight Kirov. The Navy always saw them primarily as a naval fires support ship. Submarines and the carrier air wings were still the Navy's primary anti-ship platforms.

[@c0ldyloxproductions324]

@ Russia also feared them tho, they even stated they weren’t sure their shipwrecks could even hurt the iowas, they were just as much a deterrent to the Kirovs as fire support, the iowas also had their own task force that were tasked with responding if a Kirov was deployed

[@djuice1701]

You should do the Falklands War setting with Sea Power, and see if a Argentinian Submarine could take out the British Flotilla before arrive at the Falklands.

[@benjaminloehner257]

Cool idea. Luckily the Argentinians had bad torpedos... A 209/1200 may not sound much, but there is a reason they're still built in updated versions. The Brits KNOW they were lucky in that regard.

[@jugganaut33]

@@benjaminloehner257sadly the lessons were not learned from the Falklands because they were lucky.

[@danielearley5062]

Royal Navy submarines were considerably better than Argentina ones, which consisted of old, primarily WW2 era diesel-electric boats. The RN had SSNs and anti-submarine ships. I doubt the Argentinian submarine would have even got close.

[@benjaminloehner257]

​@@danielearley5062 No, the ARA San Luis was a relatively new German type 209. And it fired several torpedos, which all missed or malfunctioned. Please read the Wiki article for further elaboration.

[@danielearley5062]

@@benjaminloehner257 I spent 22 years in the Royal Navy and served with many people who were in the Falklands conflict, including submariners. They have mentioned prosecuting attacks against the ARA San Luis but the overriding opinion was that she fired her torpedoes too deep, they had to use manual targeting and generally, weren't very good. No RN ship was hit, neither was the San Luis

[@azoriusmage]

Loving the Sea Power vids and I think them being 80's makes the battles more fun than just hanging all the missiles at each other

[@eaches]

Some of the maneuvering makes sense. Throw up a few SRBOC, then pont either at the enemy, or away, depending on the firing arc of your weapons/ CIWS. This will bring your defensive weapons to bear while also providing a smaller radar cross-section, which hopefully will allow you to decoy the vampires.

[@patricklopez1799]

This really IS Harpoon for 2024.

[@SmithandWesson22A]

Harpoon...I miss it.😢

[@patricklopez1799]

This game scratches the itch!

[@trevortrevortsr2]

It was the Duke of York a KG5 class battleship and it took the Scharnhorst down with its radar-guided 10x 14" guns during a snowstorm in the Battle of the North Cape - it hit with the first salvo at a range of over 6 miles - it never got in close

[@fredbawden1468]

They got in close after that though, and still needed multiple torpedo attacks to sink her

[@grimreapers]

That's the one!

[@niclasjohansson4333]

DoY was just one of 13 British ships that took part in the sinking of Scharnhorst ! And 5 of the British ships were hit during the action even thou Scharnhorsts forward (main) radar was knocked out early in the battle, that was fought in compleat darkness !

[@jacekschneider4686]

@@niclasjohansson4333 allied radars could spot flying shell at the end of ww2

[@danieljones7843]

DoY did let Scharnhorst get within a few miles a couple of times. Almost point blank for 14 inch guns and I’m pretty sure because Scharnhorst’s radar was out, DoY was able to catch Scharnhorst with her guns trained fore and aft, catching her with her pants down.

[@The_Real_Pimpaho]

I see Amazing things coming, Keep up the good work Cap.

[@chrisstopher2277]

Thanks for these videos Cap. You sound refreshed playing this game. Id love to see a night battle but I really wanted to see a WW2 battle at night. You can do whatever thank you.

[@MunjoMunjo-qi2tx]

Well,that surely was MAD. 😆 Love it. Great video.

[@adamtruong1759]

So damage control teams can be killed off, I feel like they should be further divided then since on US ships everyone knew damage control.

[@Nr15121]

Facts every sailor is damage controlman just like every marine is a rifleman

[@HENRISTARKS]

Not EVERYONE IS COMPETENT DAMAGE CONTROL TEAMS certified. Iowa 87-90 GM and FC trained Cold War veteran. I witnessed numerous crewmen who evaded donning a Firfighting Ensembles toting a Shoring Bag Donning a OBA changing out Green Canisters, using a Shoring Baton, blissfully IGNORANT of H I K TYPE SHORING they couldn't calculate RUN or RISE, nor rig P250 pump for Dewatering or providing casualty firefighting water, didn't KNOW how to operate or cycle valves to segregated FIREMAIN SYSTEM or utility 440 Volt Electrical Submersible Pumps or mount 8 inch NON Collapsible hose or use the discharge for S Type or Perijet Eductors?

[@adamtruong1759]

@@HENRISTARKS So from what I understand not everyone has a USS Samuel B Robert crew winning DC competitions.

[@Nr15121]

@ every single U.S. navy sailor is trained in damage control. Obviously not all to the same degree but enough to make a more than appreciable difference

[@Debbiebabe69]

I believe all those situations where 'all the damage control teams were dead', was actually because they were abandoning ship.

[@RedTSquared]

Can you imagine if they'd remove the rear turret and put in a VLS? Awesome fight, thanks Super Cap!

[@CharlesWarrington]

Drac was at the USS New Jersey and did talk about that unfortunately he thinks it would unbalance the ship. The VLSes would instead go between the funnels, and he'd add laser point defense

[@Spaatz77]

​That was a great segment with Drach and Ryan. A lot of fun, what-if.

[@atwarroyal8770]

Removing turret causes stability issues, as turrets weigh more that vls, making aft of ship angled above bow.

[@MandolinMagi]

@@Valorius RIM-116 is hardly AIm-9X, it's an anti-radiation missile with IR backup. Not actually that maneuverable because there's no need. Also, RAM didn't exist until 1992 and SeaRAM until the early 2000s

[@MrCantStopTheRobot]

Remove the #2 front turret, instead. For balanced buoyancy, as mentioned. Also the shell handling spaces would be more storage and armor layers for the VLS.

[@lukeh3506]

Saw someone else cover this game and i'm glad you guys are exploring it

[@eaches]

Someone has to say it.... "YOU SANK MY BATTLESHIP!"

[@aland7236]

12:12 I can't believe how much damage can happen from falling "debris"!

[@Whatsinanameanyway13]

To eliminate the bias of the AI vs player, you could play each scenario twice, once as each side to see how consistent the results are. I always find it interesting to see how a player can fair as the underdog in a closely matched battle.

[@filipearthur5379]

The game seems to be trying to be fair in your scenarios. Because the Iowa should have been one of the easiest targets for the SS-N-19s, no SM-1 or 2ER. Huge target profile for the missile head. And after watching others use a single salvo to destroy 3 to 4 ships, including Ticonderoga ones. (which, as of now, are the most powerful anti-ship/anti-air platform in the game).

[@zam023]

It does not help that he forced the Iowa to present a bigger profile by going 3/4 broadside. The AI wanted to narrow the ship's profile by going bow-on.

[@mandoreforger6999]

No, the exaggeration is that a 1600lb HE aluminum warhead with no penetrator is going to do shyte to an Iowa class warship. It is going to slap against the belt, the turret or the citadel. That is 12 inch armor, 20 inch armor or 8-12 inch armor. Also, where are these raging fires coming from? Iowa’s fuel, and magazines are at the bottom of the ship, way below the waterline. Only a torpedo is sinking this ship.

[@yvam1145]

@@mandoreforger6999 There is not a single piece of armor in the world cappable of stopping an Anti-ship missile because if what you're saying was true then Battleship wouldn't have gone extinct

[@yvam1145]

@@mandoreforger6999 Also how are all the magazines going to be stored at the bottom when all weapons are currently under use?

[@mandoreforger6999]

@ they have a conveyor/elevator that feeds ammunition up the turret tower. Go look at a cutaway of the ship. The biggest threat of an explosion topside is the powder bags in the turrets. Those are fed up as well, but they always have several and they can explode, but as we saw on the 1989 Iowa accident, the explosion did very little critical damage to the ship. No bulkheads buckled, no stress damage, no flooding, not even a real fire.

[@jamesedwards2483]

By Turning Towards The Threat, The Iowas Present A Smaller Target Profile!!

[@zam023]

True. Even in World of Warships that holds true. Showing your broadside to a battleship is a noob move >_

[@totalNERD-eo7wx]

Yes, but these are radar guided missiles that we're talking about, and this battleship is still massive even when facing forward. Ultimately the better coverage from the Phalanx matters more.

[@bjoernphotography]

Really mighty IOWA Class… - such a beautiful Battleship…

[@jukosdainamikos4050]

not in reallive xD

[@WendussyDynamics]

Definitely a fan of this new game on this channel.

[@simonhall8979]

Not sure if it is modelled, but you mention the Kirov going true (and not being told to) when the Harpoons came towards her, an old tactic (not sure where I was taught it, if it is modelled or even I remember correctly) but remember being told, to turn into the missile to minimise the radar cross section of the ship and give the missile less of a target, draw back being you are now playing chicken with a missile heading towards the bridge.

[@PyromaN93]

Problem is, Kirov have long range artillery on stern. AK-130 is potent at AA role, disabling them from countering Harpoons is not looking wize go me.

[@zam023]

I think it was modelled because the Iowa's first reaction when fired upon was to turn bow-on.

[@totalNERD-eo7wx]

@@PyromaN93 This version of the Kirov in Sea Power does not have the AK-130, that was only on the Pyotor Veliky

[@robandcheryls]

I need this game

[@mattybob12310]

That first hit on the Iowa looked like a Magazine hit, the downside to bringing 16" Guns is the massive amounts of Gunpowder you have in stores.

[@ThatZenoGuy]

@@Valorius Lmao no, a Shipwreck absolutely could do that.

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

@@ThatZenoGuy Shipwreck has a 750kg/1600lb conventional explosive warhead. A little less than a 2000lb general purpose bomb. While that's a lot of energy, it's unfocused and half of it will be exerted away from the ship. Unfocused explosive energy in and of itself is not going to penetrate the belt or deck armor. And how's a Shipwreck coming in at deck 2 height going to get to the magazines, which are three decks down and below the waterline?

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

Shipwreck would have to go thru a three layer torpedo defense and then the armored belt and then down three decks. Nope, no 16" magazine hit from a Shipwreck.

[@ThatZenoGuy]

@@SomeRandomHuman717 Dude it's moving at about mach 2 and has a SAP warhead. Look at the warhead design.

[@ThatZenoGuy]

@@Valorius They have penetrating warheads as they're designed to take out supercarriers. Read a book.

[@pierside478]

I believe the Harpoon and Tomahawks don't have to be pointing in the direction of the target, so the Iowa's should have been turned towards the Kirov's to close the distance and bring her Big Guns to bear on the battlecruisers or at least turn towards the enemy after the first salvo

[@kiliksmith4624]

NICE WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS SCENARIO

[@ilejovcevski79]

This is building up to be my game of the year!

[@turktownblue70]

Definitely looking forward to seeing Falklands battles

[@carlousmagus5387]

You're a gentleman and a scholar, my friend.

[@jeffdennis4185]

Thoroughly enjoyable - my "septic" bias acknowledged. HUZZAH~!

[@madeconomist458]

Jane's Fleet Command in 2024? Fuck Yeah, dude!

[@Joe-u7k8g]

Would love to see a couple of Yamatos vs Iowas

[@cyrusjalali1571]

Imagine if the US Navy kept at least one Iowa and modernized it by removing the stern gun battery and slapped on a 200+ cell Mark41 VLS and added SPY radar. Holly cow what a monster of a ship it would have been.

[@valrond]

@@Valorius Didn't they just made a video about this with the colab of Drachinifel?

[@MandolinMagi]

You'd have a much worse Burke with five times the crew for no real gain.

[@MandolinMagi]

@@Valorius The only people who care about 16" guns are marine generals pretending that amphibious landings are still totally a thing. Also, 99% sure battleships do not refuel other warships.

[@nigeldepledge3790]

Yeah, there's a video about this on the Battleship New Jersey channel, guest starring Drachinifel. Each turret is so heavy that removing the aftmost turret to make space for a VLS farm would render the ship very high at the stern and down at the bow. You'd have to nail a couple of thousand tons of ballast to the stern to make her run on an even keel. But the superfiring turret is very much closer to the ship's centre of mass . . .

[@totalNERD-eo7wx]

At that end, what's the point of reactivating the Iowa? We may as well design a new large surface combatant with the sole purpose of carrying VLS. In fact, you should look into the "Arsenal Ship" program, it is a pretty interesting design that may make the rounds again in the future...

[@connorparks1130]

I think a US Surface Action group with cruisers and destroyers for air defense screening against a Soviet surface group would be interesting to see

[@patturk7408]

I don't know. Iowas have about 12"/300+mm of armor at the hull's water line. It was designed to trade 16-18" shells with opposing ships. How much warhead do you need to punch through that?

[@ОлегКочережкин]

Missiles do not necessarily have to hit the main armor belt of the battleship: they can hit the superstructure or even the deck. The ship will remain afloat, but will no longer be able to continue the fight. We can recall the real story of the battleship "Orel" in Tsushima: it received 76 hits (of which 5 were 305-mm, 2 were 254-mm, 9 were 203-mm, 39 were 152-mm - all of them are much weaker than the warhead of an anti-ship missile), none of which could penetrate the main armor belt - but the ship completely lost its combat capability.

[@SeattleRex]

DCS, IL-2, Area 3, Wolfpack, Cold Waters, and now Sea Power (which I bought the first day it was released). I'm always such a gaming weirdo compared to the norms, and I've never seen another human being own all of the exact same games/sims that I have. I'm kind of old to be into gaming, and I don't know a single person in real life who plays anything that I do. I saw this video in the listing and had no idea it was GR until I heard that now-iconic voice announcing "Hello valued viewers!" and I was immediately happy, because I know that the game was a cool as I'd thought. Anyway, I hope this channel lasts forever. This guy is literally my only known peer in the world.

[@ryabow]

25:41 if you need to buy a battleship, the real reason to get an Iowa is that they're pretty much the only ones left, lol. which is a shame that we didn't keep a Nevada class around, since getting nuked twice didn't kill her.

[@williamwhitney7395]

I got out in 96. Served on the Nimitz as an ABH-AN. Based outa Puget Sound in WA. The Missouri BB was there, and I was shocked at how small those ships actually are. Though my comparison was mainly a CVN LOL. Used to love watching the subs come up around the ship for a peek before disappearing again. They told us the life expectancy of flight deck workers was 45 mins of a war starting. Because those Russian missiles were going so fast that even if the Sea Wizz gets them, the shrapnel will clear the deck.

[@vianniesasser3314]

That last Iowa can still use its guns. 15 miles in easily within its range.

[@strambino1]

Yes!!! More Iowa please!!!

[@rerd6614]

👌Nice! Would like to see an IOWA against Tirpitz!

[@mr.starks]

At 9:39 the sound of the phalanx sounded crazy with the bass on. Similar to the Gau-30 🤯🤯

[@rolandlee6898]

Logically the Kirovs should win. This forgets why the Granit is so big to begin with. It was intended to take out an entire carrier group at once as part of their asymmetric response strategy. How? Well, it was actually made to have a nuclear warhead and launch in a saturation attack. All that was needed was for one missile to get close enough. After the 90s that became less of an option, so they were supposed to be with newer missiles, like P-800, but seems like the ships are actually due for scrapping. Two remain, undergoing refits, but seems more like a temporary measure until they can be replaced by newer, smaller and more capable ships.

[@xpk0228]

Tbf there is also nuclear BGM-109s in service so basically they just nuke each other.

[@rolandlee6898]

@@xpk0228 Valid point, did that also apply to the anti-ship variant? The parent missile is the same, so I suppose it could be technically possible but I couldnt find any information of any anti-ship variants actively fielded with nuclear warheads. The anti-ship variants are not identical to the ground attack missiles, so if a nuclear warhead is used, it would have to be fitted to the anti-ship variant.

[@ricktoconnor]

@@rolandlee6898 TASM was conventional only, they came online at a time the USN was deemphasizing nukes for non-strategic/non-ASW tasks. But FWIW, the majority of P-700 would also be conventional; there's evidence the main role of nuke P-700 and other similar big missiles' nuke versions like the Kh-22 was to create temporary EM interference against CVBG sensors' to give the conventional warhead missiles a shot in taking out the HVT; they'd go in first a few seconds ahead of the the main wave and detonate close to the radar horizon of enemy ships to blind Aegis, NTU, etc for a precious few seconds. In any case, in a pure ship-to-ship matchup w/no nukes this video's result (pyrrhic victory for the Iowa-class as a group, MAD for single ship duels) is pretty believable, given what we know now of the difficulties of defending against a peer opponent' sea-skimming missile attack and the mixed effectiveness of even top-line Soviet-era missile defenses against such threats.

[@usmc1979034]

The only thing wrong with this scenario is that the the battlecruisers and battleships were sailing without escorts. I know for the US there would be at least one cruise and maybe two to four destroyers for the group.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

This is a Iowa vs Kirov. Adding escorts mean it's not Iowa vs Kirov but a BG vs BG

[@oldtruckoperator2106]

Which is more realistic

[@Coorong-r8g]

brilliant game :) great vid Cap, well done. 👍👍 (nov 12 can not come soon enough)

[@WWeronko]

The gun armament for three of the Kirov's is 1 × twin AK-130 130 mm/L70 dual-purpose gun. The Ushakov had 2 × AK-100 100 mm/L60 DP guns.

[@ramal5708]

At the minimum range of Kirov ASuW missiles, that one Iowa would win against two Kirovs, the only thing the Iowa has the edge on the Kirovs is the big guns at very close range.

[@martinkundih9782]

So damn cool and wonderful when they have polished this game it will be awesome.❤

[@xpk0228]

Got to say this new game looks lit! The way it model damage done to sensors and weapon systems is much better than DCS. I always think that hit by any missile would result in certain mission kill for the radar system. Those things looks really fragile

[@maxok1]

Don't know the game but the BBs needed to turn to port about 90 degrees after the first wave to expose the fully loaded CWIS on the starboard side.

[@kevinsasaki775]

Day 3 saying GR MUST CONTINUE!

[@TR4Ajim]

Is the damage model really that accurate for the Iowa? She was built to go toe-to-toe with the battleships of the day, plus her class had some of the best damage/fire control of the time. Battleships of that period we’re designed with being hit in mind. For example, Bismarck, which was much less resilient than Iowa, was battered for 4 hours - sustaining over 300 hits. And still didn’t sink until torpedoed! Yamato is another example of sustaining incredible damage before sinking. How many hits do you think Kirov could withstand?

[@Predator42ID]

@@Valorius Maybe but as we know from Ukraine Russian missiles on paper are good in real life are inaccurate and crappy. Also experts and Russian's agree that the best they might do is mission kill an Iowa. Even then the kirov is doomed since the Iowa can likely still move and hit back if it's own missiles don't kill it first.

[@MandolinMagi]

Iowa can't survive giant cruise missiles impacting her, imagine getting rammed by a Baltimore class CL at Mach 1.5

[@TR4Ajim]

@ The 16 inch armor piercing shells Rodney was firing at Bismarck, weighed 2000 pounds each and traveling at Mach 2 at impact.

[@voidtempering8700]

​@@TR4AjimThe Shipwreck is a 7 ton missiles travelling at over mach 2 with a 750kg explosive.

[@TR4Ajim]

@@voidtempering8700 understood, however - in the final battle, Bismarck was attacked by two RN Battleships (Rodney and KGV) and two heavy cruisers. Looking at only Rodney, she fired over 300 16 inch shells at Bismarck, (most at ranges under 3000 yards, and at very flat trajectories). Each of Rodney’s shells carried 50 pounds of explosives. So let’s say Rodney only scored a 50% hit rate (a ludicrously low rate for the RN at that range, but let’s just say). So that’s 150x50, for a total of 7,500 pounds of high explosives, being delivered by roughly mach 2 armor piercing shells. And that’s just Rodney. So while Bismarck was reduced to a burning wreck, that weight of fire didn’t sink her (and Bismarck had nowhere near Iowa’s damage control capabilities). If a scenario like that was run in a modern naval sym, and Bismarck continued to float (not knowing the historical outcome), the screams of “cheat” would be deafening.

[@Axgoodofdunemaul]

I seem to recall some British captain during the Falkland war being asked what he would do if his ship were hit by an Exocet; he replied he would send out the sweepers to sweep its fragments overboard.

[@derpderpson2188]

For reference: P-700 Granit (AKA the Shipwreck) - 750kg warhead Tomahawk - 450kg warhead Exocet - 165kg warhead Get a *real* ASM, France!

[@michaelmcmeel914]

You are referring to WWII when HMS Formidable was hit by kamikazes. It was a bit of bluster, of course, the armored deck was dented 5 inches by the blast and leaking fuel started a significant fire below decks, and Formidable was judged beyond economical repair after the war. In the Falklands, Exocets sank Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor.

[@mjg5883]

Do two Kirov’s with two Iowa’s against two other Kirovs and two Iowa’s

[@IetsgoBrandon]

24:20 Looks very funny when motion is speeded up because it reminds me of my toy RC ship in my childhood.

[@KH990j]

Just saw a mini doc on the 1961 Bay of Pigs and was wondering if that scenario could be reenactment but the Americans actually follow through on their support.

[@Watk72]

It’s it actually possible for modern missiles to penetrate the armor belt of an Iowa class BB from the side?

[@michaelmcmeel914]

Probably not. The Navy was betting they couldn't. Iowas were expected to stick within a task group defensive envelope and suck up any leakers. Since the turrets were as armored as the sides, they figured no matter what happened to the tech on top the guns would still work.

[@NikovK]

Fun fact; the Granit was fully nuclear capable, as were the 16 inch guns and probably the Tomahawk. I had an assistant scoutmaster who was on an Iowa class in the 80's as a weapons officer. When I asked him with schoolboy curiosity if they ever put nuclear weapons on a battleship, he grinned and told me he couldn't talk about it.

[@JoeyRay-fz1qe]

If you are talking about one on one then the Kirov. They come from different worlds. I served on the USS Iowa and the only anti-ship missiles are the Harpoon which can not match the range of the Kirov's Anti-Ship Missiles. The Tomahawks are for ground attack. I know now they configured it for Anti-Ship since the Harpoons are outdated!

[@piconano]

Drawbacks are no health status displays and no easy way to know how many stuff is being fired.

[@dimitriorelnov7851]

on a second thought, yeah, it's legit that a real battleship wins against a battle cruiser. the sheer amount of missiles she could have, even after excluding the weight taken by WWII armors and guns, is still overwhelming.

[@VicGordon-y3e]

25:44 if you want to have a 1980s capital ship, go with the Kirov - You can build 2 of them with almost the same ammount of steel as an Iowa-Class

[@rtyrsson]

Two thing here I rather found fascinating. I was not aware that the Iowa's 5-inch turrets were of use in an anti-air capacity. It makes sense, in retrospect, as the modern 5-inch can do so, and these had been extensively upgraded. Secondly, being able to see the undersea settling of the Kirov's certainly does put things in perspective. The sea is a terrible mistress and if there is no nearby rescue in short order, that is many thousands of men lost amongst all the vessels.

[@slugmaster64]

The 5” 38 was the main anti air battery, even over the 40mm Bofors. This was mainly thanks to the genius of the actress Hedy Lamar, who helped design the radio proximity fuse.

[@hashteraksgage3281]

In WW2 5in secondary guns were vastly used as AAA defense. When you see videos from kamikaze attacks, the massive clouds of black flak are caused by those same 5in guns.

[@danieljones7843]

24:39 close enough, it was HMS Duke of York, sister ship to Prince of wales and King George V

[@wrayday7149]

It would be interesting to see if the main guns on the Iowa's could fire to create water walls to destroy the missiles or not. But those shipwrecks have a 1700lb warhead zipping in.... I know modern ships don't bother with armor... but I think that would still overpower the Iowa's armor and or bend/pop plates all over the ship.

[@Unreasonable_Gaming]

I hate they don't really model the armor

[@jamesscott2894]

I wonder how different the scenario would be if you let the Iowa's charge in for gun range at the very beginning (i.e. launch their salvo, then maneuver to close, and do evasive maneuvers against the missiles instead of just sitting there until out of missiles...)

[@hashteraksgage3281]

They would take too long

[@jamesscott2894]

@hashteraksgage3281 no longer than those 2+ hour long Carrier battle videos

[@hashteraksgage3281]

@jamesscott2894 no, I'm saying that it would take the Iowa's too long to reach the Kirov, that being if the Kirov doesn't sail in the opposite direction in the first place

[@michaelmcmeel914]

@@hashteraksgage3281 I wonder how firing off-bore towards a stern target would affect Kirov's range and radar tracking. Simply deleting the air spotters from the scenario might do interesting things as well.

[@aluminumfalcon552]

One Arleigh Burke screening would make it a completely different battle.

[@michaelmcmeel914]

I'm no expert, but I think that a ship 900 feet long and 100 feet wide with 3 CIWS covering fore and aft would most definitely turn INTO an incoming missile attack. And I'm also pretty certain that "FIRE ALL THE THINGS" is the best chance you have to not have thousands of pounds of high explosives sitting around on the upper decks of the ship.

[@Slywyn]

You know I have to say that this was unexpected. The Iowas were a 1940s ship built for the combat of the 1930s and even though they were 'modernized', they couldn't escape their base design. Genuinely surprised that they were able to pull out a win, but it honestly could just be the fact of "4 capital killers vs 4 modern multi-role capitals" was always going to be a bit biased in one direction. Not entirely sure.

[@StevenKnott-f7y]

The tomahawks out range the shipwrecks who out range the harpoons ... would be really interesting to look at a set up where it was a real closing engagement rather than a surprise meeting ... also would be interested to see two doctrinal SAGs going at it with appropriate escorts ... and didn't the Iowa SAGs often have attack subs included???

[@ejhanley7362]

Imagine if they designed a refit for the Iowas that replaced the #2 turret with VLS cells and added one or two more phalanx and rim systems. I mean the cost at that point would probably be as much as if we just built something comparable with the Kirov in the first place but it would be a cool mod for the game

[@_tyrannus]

19:50 Did one of the anti-air missiles just decide to go underwater and play Shkval? Fascinating Soviet technology.

[@jamison884]

This was pretty awesome. I'd like to see what 4x Ticos. The problem with the Iowa is the fact it's really a 1940's ship with 1980's band aids, as the armor is just extra weight and the guns don't have enough range, and finally no SAMs are onboard. The Tico with it's multirole capability like the Kirov may work out. I wonder if they programmed in superior US submarines.

[@angelofwar_7711]

Yes US Submarines seems to be superior to soviets subs by a lot in Sea Power as they should be

[@MandolinMagi]

The Iowas are deff obsolete, but 48 anti-ship missiles per ship is nothing to sneeze at.

[@MandolinMagi]

@@Valorius I'd say the introduction of VLS was more important. 32 Tomahawks sounds great, until your regular DDs have 90 cells that can take anything and your CGs 122. The Iowas were too much ship and crew for not enough actual point.

[@johnhodgson4216]

Boom Boom makes a great video

[@armandorodrigues144]

I bet that eventually someone will make a mod of a hypothetical deeper modernization of the Iowas something with VLS's replacing one turret or placed somewhere else where there is room (internally) also with the older 5inch guns swapped for proper modern guns, either 5in, 76mm or combination of both 1 or 2 Sea Sparrow launchers would also be a thing it is a 1980's refit, maybe someone will even make the Iowa a AEGIS ship

[@Wolfen443]

WOW, incredible to see today, battleships an Cruisers firing modern V1 rockets other battleships and cruisers?. The question is what they do if missiles fail to do their job at long range?.

[@Shnazz999]

We know whats coming. 4 carriers vs 4 carriers. Carrier group vs carrier group. Submarine matches may be difficult since the US didnt operate in wolfpacks to my knowledge.

[@zam023]

I think the battleships are turning to axis was to present the smallest profile possible to the incoming missiles. Going 3/4 broadside just gives a bigger profile for the missiles to lock on to. You should have just let the AI do its thing. I recommend that you try War on the Sea, the WW2 Japanese campaign in the Pacific.

[@postie9434]

one thing i think people are forgetting is the iowas had very heavy armour where the modern ships did not . wonder if they modelled that accurately

[@marcppparis]

What kind of tomahawks are the Iowa carrying? 8 of them are special, nuclear tipped , 220 kt each

[@KrisTheLVN]

Valued viewer request. Battle of the Nile with modern ships.

[@TheWizardGamez]

And it’s started. PEAK has started

[@johnbamba3052]

Kirov have giant modern torpedoes it can use within gun range. And it has RBU - 1000

[@Doom61681]

Reminder these are capital ships and they should have a support fleet.

[@luciusvorenus9445]

As a former US Navy EW, this is interesting to me.

[@mgoblue2]

Iowas would D also use the 16 inch guns to shoot flack at the missiles

[@marcustrebonius3410]

At last! A proper, realistic naval simulation game. Very nice graphics too!

[@Mrdjs1133]

When I was in the Air Force, a friend of mine and I taught ourselves some of Janes, and ran a bunch of scenarios. We had no idea how to actually play (hell, I still dont really know), but it was a lot of fun to faf about with the Iowas 😂

[@HornetVF103]

If I am not mistaken both the Kirov and the Iowa's sailed in Battle Groups. You might want to try this again with opposing Battle Groups. I think the Iowa's would fair much better.

[@fanxia3100]

Combat is just a missile exchange, naturally, if you got range and you can destroy your target, that's the way to go.

[@connordalton4553]

I wonder if the kirovs would do better if they could be fitted with the kortik CIWS as opposed to the AK-630.

[@Croatoan140]

Bruh put an aging us battleship against a nuclear powered ship with missiles

[@turdferguson4124]

The Kirov is a floating ammunition ship. One hit and it would detonate.

[@nicolaspeigne1429]

when they modernized the Iowas, did they also modernize the fire control directors of the existing guns ?

[@joshuaanderson4090]

I wish youd not have cocked it up so bad. Chaff seemed to work the first salvo but then on the second you were so in love with watching the Kirov be sunk you didn’t come back in time to set the chaff off. By the time you did it was still hovering right over the ship.

[@IceMarsoc77]

is it possible to do that with an actual escort fleet...with destroyers, Aegis cruisers